Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...
Yes, Please make this my home page!
MUHWS - APUSH Thesis
Name
The First, the Last: John Quincy Adams and the Monroe Doctrine
Walter LaFeber
Date
In The First, the Last: John Quincy Adams and the Monroe Doctrine, LaFeber discusses the foreign policy Adams implemented in the United States. During the early eighteenth century, American expansion was at its peak. Americans burst westward, gaining the large lands of Texas, California and Oregon. The international trade, as well, spread drastically to the Pacific regions and even Asia. Ships now carried American exports instead of British of French ones. Trade extended even to Europe, where the market was dominated by cotton sales produced by the South, while the North possessed the nation’s capital, ships, and manufacturing. The American policy was based upon the belief that North America was created only for the Americans. Politically, however, America still faced problems and even though there was only one major party, the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans, factions still remained. John Quincy Adams, an extreme nationalist, believed that United States, “whether successful or otherwise [was] always right” (76). After studying diplomacy, Adams knew that the British presented the greatest threat to the US since they occupied Canada and controlled the seas. However, he believed that if British could be contained in Canada, the US “would occupy and control the rest of the continent” (76). Adams hated Great Britain but forged a peace with them because he realized that the British and US both wanted Spain out of the New World and Britain would be able to accomplish that. If America wanted to reap a part of the benefits, however, the two nations must be at peace. As a result, Adams established the Rush-Bagot pact of 1817 and the Convention of 1818. The Rush-Bagot pact created a demilitarized zone around the Great Lakes between the US and British Canada. The most important component of the Convention was an US-Canadian boundary along the 49th parallel, which ended British access to the Mississippi River. After the negotiations with the British ceased, Adams moved on the Spanish Empire. If Spain did not immediately give up Florida, America would take it using all means necessary. The Spanish minister to Washington then signed a deal with the US, saying that the US would get Florida and rights to the Pacific coast so long as the US dropped “certain monetary claims against Spain, recognized Spanish claims to Texas,” and did not recognize the Latin American nations (80). Adams had managed to gain all international lands he wanted but knew that slavery would be the death of the nation. Initially, he paid little attention to the issue, but saw that “slavery threatened the future of US foreign policy” (81). Not wanting any more debates over the issue, Adams agreed with Congress’s resolution to prohibit slavery in the northern territories and allow it in the southern ones. While Adams continued to bide by his deal with Spain and not recognize the Latin American nations, Monroe overruled him but Adams defined that “the United States recognized only governments that controlled their country and that promised to respect that country’s internationals obligations” (83). This idea, along with others, was put together to form the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. The Doctrine conveyed the message to Europe to stay out of American developments, which would allow for the US to be the strongest power in the Western Hemisphere. This was based on Adams’s belief that “the Americas were for the Americans” and “not subject for any European colonial establishments” (83-84). Britain, recognizing the similar interests that they shared with the US, invited the US to join against the Quadruple Alliance with Britain to announce that no colonial rule would be tolerated in Latin America. While Monroe, Jefferson, and Madison were eager to join this agreement, Adams stopped them, seeing as how it would stop the US from annexing Texas and Cuba and that the deal “was unnecessary because the British would keep out other Europeans anyway” (86). The Monroe Doctrine, written primarily by Adams, was based on three principles: the non-colonization principle, the two-spheres policy, and the hands-off policy. The non-colonization principle said that no European power was to colonize in the Western Hemisphere. The two-sphere policy separated the New and Old Worlds and told Europe to mind its own business. Lastly, the hands-off policy declared any European act in the Western Hemisphere to be infringing on the American peace and safety and also said the US would not interfere in European affairs. While Adams had much success as Secretary of State, he was a failure as President. Adams’s “great dream [was to] unite and develop the empire he had acquired” but was unable to unite the northern and southern areas of the country (89). His only significant achievement as President was the “join-occupation pledge with England in regard to Oregon territory” (90). After losing the election for his second term as President, Adams became a representative for the House for seventeen years, until when he died fighting for anti-slave groups.
Top
Name
Andrew Jackson and the Annexation of Texas
Robert V. Remini
Date
In Andrew Jackson and the Annexation of Texas, Remini portrays the fame that Jackson achieved after his infamous victory at New Orleans. Jackson believed that the United States had a right to Texas since had it bought as a part of the Louisiana Purchase. However, Adams had “recklessly thrown away” the territory when he negotiated the Florida treaty with Spain (197). In Jackson’s eyes, Adams’s actions were crippling to the West and even regarded as treasonous. As a result, Jackson sent diplomat Colonel Anthony Butler to Mexico to negotiate a deal. However, the price of over half a million dollars proved to be too high for Jackson but not Butler. Butler said that the price could be paid, whereas Jackson knew it could not. Butler was then called back and Jackson was left to try to convince the Mexicans to agree that the natural boundary of the Rio Grande would work in the best interests of both countries. However, the Mexicans were not one to listen, even though the Texans wished to be annexed by the United States. Jackson’s attempts to avoid strife and war with Mexico were foiled when Mexican General Antonio López de Santa Anna believed that the Americans had tried to instigate revolution and hence violated the neutrality laws. The Texans were soon left to take control of these issues due to “the failure of American diplomacy” and formed a war party (199). After declaring their independence in March 1836, Commander Sam Houston defeated General Santa Anna’s army a few months later. Consequently, the US-Mexico relationship deteriorated. Unfair treatment by the Mexican people to Texan Americans led for Jackson to furiously order a blockade of the harbor of Tampico and to “batter down and destroy their town and exterminate the inhabitants from the face of the earth!” (200) Although the people of Tampico were saved, the US-Mexico relationship was not. When asked about declaring a war on Mexico, Jackson felt he could not do so because not only would it be in “violation of the ‘law of nations,’ ” but also it would be betrayal to Mexico (200). Another issue Jackson had to concern himself with was slavery. The Texans, advocates of slavery, were unsatisfied with the Mexican decree abolishing slavery, which was a major reason for them to join the US. However, the admission of Texas to the nation posed a threat to the Union. Houston decided to have talks with the President and Santa Anna and Jackson agreed. Upon his arrival in Washington, Santa Anna was treated “not as an enemy but as a head of state” (201). Jackson and Santa Anna compromised that the new boundary of the US would include Texas and northern California up to the line of the Rio Grande and that Santa Anna would suspend all hostilities in return for $3.5 million. The United State’s objective, Jackson claimed, “was not territorial acquisition or the further embarrassment of the Mexican Republic, but rather to ‘secure peace and tranquility on our respective borders and lay the foundation of a permanent tranquility between the US and Mexico’ ” (202). Eventually, Jackson realized that the nation’s security rested in the annexation of Texas. By acquiring Texas, the British would not have a possible way to attack the United States. In several attempts to do so by the Secretary of State Calhoun, the Union was being torn apart over the issue of slavery. Additionally, Jackson realized that for the next upcoming election, it would be best to replace Martin Van Buren with James Polk, who believed in many of the same ideals as Jackson. Polk won and through Congress, Texas was reannexed. However, it is this annexation that led to the war with Mexico less than half a year later and the civil war a few decades later.
Top
Name
The South’s Inner Civil War
Eric Foner
Date
In The South’s Inner Civil War, Foner portrays how badly the South was divided by the conflict. The slaves were not the only ones against the confederacy. Many Southerners felt that they had “more to lose from a continuation of the war than from a Northern victory” (282). This led to a loss of will to fight in the South and to was an eventual cause of the South’s defeat. The division in the area was due to not only social views, but also economic and political ones. Southerners had managed to establish a self-sufficient environment, of which they were very proud but this led to many feelings of independence in the region. Consequently, most whites were committed to the “Confederate cause” but there were still some who chose to side with the Union (283). Western Virginia, the largest Southern dissenter, seceded and joined the Union. Tennessee wished to follow a similar example, since the Southern supporters were a mere minority in the state. More Tennessee troops joined the Union army than the Confederate army. Similarly, counties in Alabama, mostly in the mountainous regions wished to secede from the state, rather than the Union, claiming that if states could secede, “a county had the same right to secede from a state” (284). Georgia also felt in favor of the Union and even formed “Secret Union organizations” (284). Slaves also followed suit with the rebellious whites. Upon the presence of Union armies, they not only stopped obeying their masters but also hanging them. With the drain of white men into the military, slaves were controlled by the master’s wives, who could not enforce much authority over the slaves. As the war waged on, it became obvious that “slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy” (285). Planters were more devoted to slavery than actually winning the war. They refused to hand over slaves to the Southern army in fear of losing property. The upcountry was hit hard by the Confederate policies and suffered greatly economically and politically. The upcountry was hit hard with poverty and impressment. With the impressment of horses and oxen, it was near impossible to farm. As a result, starvation was also common throughout the upcountry. In the end, the South’s cession has become “a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight” (286). The rich were able to avoid the war by sending twenty slaves in their place, whereas the poor could not afford this. The farmers, however, had to desert the military in order to support their families since their family depended on their labor. The mountain districts, such as East Tennessee and parts of North Carolina, were rebellious against the Confederacy. The secret Heroes of America were formed in this region, with the primary purpose of forming an underground railroad, which helped Unionists escape federal lines. Within a few years, this organization become widespread, “engaging in espionage, promoting desertion, and helping escaped Federal prisoners” (287). The Heroes found the Southerners to think “that they are superior; and hate, deride and suspicion of the poor” (288). Neither the North nor the South was willing to show mercy. The Unionists saw their property be seized, and were jailed by Confederate authorities. The Confederates were “persecuted like wild beasts by rebel authorities,” shot, and robbed. But the South’s upcountry’s plunge into poverty greatly threatened their economy, and cotton soon spread even here. As a result, the upcountry was no longer as isolated from the rest of the South and more politically conscious. The civil war within the South weakened the Confederacy a great deal and eventually, these regions embraced the Republican Party. This inner war was, however, in no way a cry for many people of the South to see slavery abolished. It was, instead, a desperate attempt to see the Union preserved, even at the cost of slavery. This war is lost within the stories of the American Civil War and thus, remains unheard of to most Americans.
Top
Name
The New View of Reconstruction
Eric Foner
Date
In The New View of Reconstruction, Foner offers a clear picture of the view of Reconstruction that prevailed from the 1870s through the 1950s and explains why it is no longer convincing. No period of American history has been the subject of more reevaluation than the Reconstruction – the violent, dramatic, and still controversial era following the Civil War. “The martyred Lincoln, according to this view, had planned a quick and painless readmission of the Southern states as equal members of the national family. President Andrew Johnson, his successor, attempted to carry out Lincoln’s policies but was foiled by the Radical Republicans” (224). The traditional portrait of the Reconstruction enjoyed a remarkable staying power. The old portrait of the Reconstruction was easy to explain because it presented a set of easily identifiable heroes and villains. However, the demise of the traditional interpretation was inevitable because it ignored the testimony of the central participant in the drama of Reconstruction – the black freedman. It was determined that blacks were unfit to share in political power. The work of revising the history of the Reconstruction began with survivors of the era such as John R. Lynch, who had served as a black congressman from Mississippi after the Civil War. In 1935, the black historian and activist W. E. B. DuBois produced Black Reconstruction in America, a reevaluation that closed with an undeniable indictment of a historical profession that had sacrificed scholarly objectivity on the altar of racial bias. In the 1960s, a drastically different portrait emerged. “President Lincoln did not have a coherent “plan” for Reconstruction, but at the time of his assassination he had been cautiously contemplating black suffrage. Andrew Johnson was a stubborn racist politician who lacked the ability to compromise” (225). The Radical in Congress were acquitted of both vindictive motives and the charge of serving as the stalking-horses of Northern capitalism. They instead emerged as idealists in the best nineteenth-century reform tradition. Many of these radicals were thought to have been supporting black rights long before there was a chance of change for them. It is said that "their Reconstruction policies were based on principle, not petty political advantage" which was not common in the times of Reconstruction (226). Also in the revision of Reconstruction was the extreme activity of black freedmen in the south itself. Black initiative established as many schools as did the Northern religious societies and the Freedman's Bureau. Black suffrage was not just given to the blacks, they had been pushing for the right to vote the moment they were freed. Despite the fact that blacks held office in the south, black supremacy never emerged. During the time the carpetbaggers and scalawags sought financial fortune, the KKK epidemic erupted and began acts of violence against black and white republicans in order to violate the blacks and deprive them of their newly won rights. By the end of the 1960s, the view on the Reconstruction had been reversed. Recent historians have shifted their focus from the politics of Reconstruction to the social and economic aspects of the change from slaves to freemen. It was found that little had changed in the family structure and relationships between slaves. Most slaves lived in a nuclear family with the constant fear of separation. With the emancipation, blacks were now permitted to choose if women should work in cotton fields, and when a child was to become and apprentice. To many blacks in the south, land meant economic freedom. Many newly freed slaves refused to sign labor contracts in hope that the government would provide land for them, but in most cases this never occurred. Disturbing to many southern whites was the sight of seeing black men voting and holding office. Reconstruction was able to open both social and political doors to the freed slave that would never be truly closed. It also was able to transform the lives of slaves in a way that could never be reversed. Overall, Reconstruction failed. For its animating vision – a society in which social advancement would be open to all on the basis of individual merit, not inherited caste distinctions – is as old as America itself and remains relevant to a nation still grappling with the unresolved legacy of emancipation.
Top
Name
Did William M. Tweed Corrupt Post-Civil War New York?
Callow and Hershkowitz
Date
In Did William M. Tweed Corrupt Post-Civil War New York?, Callow and Hershkowitz present opposing sides to the question. Whereas Hershkowitz offers the viewpoint that Tweed was a “devoted public servant,” Callow argues that Tweed did indeed corrupt New York (94). The enormous population and economic boom of the 1920s brought domestic and governmental expansion as well. During this time period, corruption was boundless in these new governments. In fact, “political corruption is virtually synonymous with the post-Civil War era” (95). Tweed rose to power by serving as an alderman, congressman, and state senator. He “perfected the art of political corruption by controlling the three vital sources of graft: the city, the state, and the business community” (95). Tweed then went on to use that graft for his own personal gain. The “Ring” formed by Tweed was influential men who controlled party machines for personal profit and power and eventually became synonymous with “conspiracy, venality, and corruption” (96). Although no one is certain about the amount of money that the Tweed Ring stole, Callow estimates that the Tweed Ring stole anywhere from 60 to 200 million dollars from the people of New York. Tweed controlled every aspect of New York; every warrant, scheme for city improvement, financial affairs, charters and franchises for businesses, and even governors and mayors were under the influence of Tweed power. Within two years, the Ring received 65% on all warrants and bills. Members of the Tweed Ring included former convicts worth 2-3 million dollars and professional comptrollers who created bonds just for receiving grafts. The result was that the city debt increased by nearly $70 million in a period of only two years. All necessary offices were owned by the Ring, such as City Auditor, and the Ring went as far as having their own bank to “ensure the safe deposit of the booty” (99). The Ring “created companies which moved in to monopolize every phase of city printing as well as city advertising” (101). These companies grew quickly and in return, the Ring received about a quarter of the profits. For example, the production of Transcript, an originally insignificant newspaper bought by the Ring. By publishing a large portion of city advertising for which the city paid large amounts, such as a dollar per line for the mayor, the Ring was able to make 2.6 million dollars in three years, of which “nine-tenths was pure profit” (102). Through this graft, Tweed was able to finance his mansion in New York and palatial estate in Connecticut. However, Tweed had to worry about newspapers exposing the corruption and as a result, the Ring paid the corporations to keep silent. It is doubtful that any “political regime in the history of New York City had exerted so much influence on the press” as the Tweed Ring had (130). The Ring then turned to invest in real estate. Callow explains how after buying the land at a cheap rate, the Tweed Ring sold it at extreme prices. The voice of religious and philanthropic organizations was killed, “newspapers […] were softened, and the people were indifferent” (105). Hershkowitz, on the other hand, claims that Tweeds image was “fabricated by journalists” and Tweed did indeed represent the best interests of New York (95). Hershkowitz refers to Tweed as a “great myth of American history” and claims that the robberies committed by the Tweed ring are mere “fables” (106). Even the Tweed Courthouse is sacred and an example of fine Italian Renaissance design. Hershkowitz even goes as far as to outline what he calls the fable of Tweed, a native New Yorker, rose to power, pillaged the city treasury, bought immigrants’ votes, and stole millions of dollars at a time while the average man made barely three dollars a day. The Ring was then disgraced by George Jones and Thomas Nast of the Time and Harper’s Weekly, respectively. However, Hershkowitz asks that while “while it all sounds so plausible, does it help Tweed emerge from behind Thomas Nast’s leering cartoons?” (108). The Tweed story is merely a fable, with little substance. According to Hershkowitz, “never has so much nonsense been written about an individual” (108). It would have been impossible for only a few men to corrupt an entire town without organized resistance against them. The Ring was not as strong as perceived because no one stood for Tweed at the trial and therefore, the Ring, like Tweed’s misdeeds, was caricature. Tweed “provided the city [New York] with a voice and he was destroyed, but in such a way that the city too suffered in countless ways” (110). The Tammany Tiger can in no way be accredited to Tweed but instead to Nast, who created it through his caricatures. Whereas Nast portrays him as a greedy beast, Tweed was a “loyal, warmhearted, outgoing [man], given to aiding the underdog and the underprivileged” (110). As “an ambitious but not ruthless” man, Tweed was the perfect victim for Nast (111). Tweed established schools, hospitals, museums, and expanded the city of New York. Tweed was never found guilty for graft but convicted under improper judicial proceedings. Eventually, he died in jail. Tweed was a good man who helped the city of New York greatly. After reading both Callow and Hershkowitz’s perspectives, it can be determined that while the truth may never be known about the Tweed Ring, there is ample evidence convincing the reader that Tweed did indeed corrupt post-civil war New York.
Top
Name
John D. Rockefeller: America’s First Billionaire
Robert L. Heilbroner
Date
In John D. Rockefeller: America’s First Billionaire, Heilbroner speaks of John D. Rockefeller’s life. Often, Rockefeller’s contemporaries did not regard him as human. Some referred to him as the “greatest criminal of the age” and others believed to him to be a “medieval saint” (51). Rockefeller came from a unique family. His mother was of Scottish descent and taught Rockefeller that “willful waste makes woeful want” (51). She made Rockefeller and his brothers industrious. His father, who regularly beat Rockefeller and his brothers, disappeared and left the family polarized. From this emerged the “sober-sided” Rockefeller (51). Through his work experiences, Rockefeller learned early on that the “earning power of capital was much to be preferred to that of labor” (53). As a young boy, Rockefeller milked the cow and drove the horse and did the household chores that were expected of a boy in upstate New York, but after hours he indulged with his brothers in the usually boyhood adventures. There was always a stress on gainful work in the Rockefeller household. John was encouraged to raise turkeys, and he kept the money from the sales in a box until he had accumulated $50. A farmer borrowed the money at seven per cent for a year. “When the farmer repaid the load with $3.50 in interest, the lesson was not lost on John: the earning power of capital was much to be preferred to that of labor” (53). Work came naturally, even pleasurably to Rockefeller. Rockefeller after being denied a raise by Hewitt & Tuttle, decided to form a produce-shipping firm with Maurice Clark. Rockefeller and Clark combined their money, but were still $1,000 short. Rockefeller borrowed it from his father. The company opened its doors in 1859, and in the first year they made $4,400; in the second year $17,000; and when the Civil War began, profits soared. “Rockefeller became known as an up-and-coming young businessman, a man to be watched” (53). Soon, Rockefeller, Clark and fellow named Andrews started a new business in refineries. This investment in oil was to be a side venture, but this side venture prospered beyond all expectation. The demand for refined oil increased by leaps and bounds. Seeing that Andrews and he found themselves at odds with Clark, the decided to put the business up for auction. Rockefeller eventually outbid Clark who left. The new firm was called Rockefeller & Andrews, and it was a model of efficiency. Rockefeller had a meeting in 1866 with Henry M. Flagler, and soon induced him to join the fast-expanding business. By 1869, three years after Flagler had joined the company, it was worth about a million dollars, but it was far from being an industrial giant or a monopoly. The problem that plagued them was the extreme competition in the oil business. Rockefeller tried to eliminate competition in 1871 when the cutthroat competition was at its worst, but he did succeed. If he could not eliminate the competition, then perhaps he could eliminate his competitors by buying them up one by one – and that is what he set out to do. Rockefeller took an active part in the management of the new, bigger Standard Oil. But now a legal problem began to get in the way. The Standard Oil Company was legally chartered in Ohio; therefore it had no right to own plants in other states. The problem was solved by one of Rockefeller’s most astute lieutenants – Samuel Dodd. They setup a Trust and in fact, though not in law, one enormous interstate corporation had been created with its headquarters in New York. “By the 1880’s the Standard was not only widely known – it was notorious. In part its increasingly bad business reputation originated in the business community itself” (60). In the end, the more we look into John D. Rockefeller’s life, the more we look into the life of an incredibly successful – and withal, very unremarkable – man. John D. was neither a great man, nor a bad man, he was a businessman.
Top
Name
An Italian Is a Dago: Italian Immigrants in the United States
Humbert S. Nelli
Date
In An Italian Is a Dago: Italian Immigrants in the United States, Nelli describes the experience of Italians, most of whom hailed from impoverished southern portions of their native land. Italian immigrants were generally the objects of prejudice and dislike during the late 1800s, early 1900s. In the decades since, Italians have overcome the stereotype “of being ‘a Dago,’ ‘a Greaseball,’ an unskilled, unlettered, and poverty-stricken slum dweller” (92). By the 1990s, the majority of Italian Americans attained middle-class status. However, many of the stereotypes that came with them from the immigrant era still remain. Over five million Italians entered the United States after 1820, and the peak period was between 1880 and 1914 when nearly four million arrived. Eighty percent of the post-1880 immigrants came from the Mezzogiornoi, the provinces south of Rome and the island of Sicily. Economic causes were the main reason for emigration from Italy. “The emigrants were driven by a desire to escape abject and wretched poverty and a vicious system of taxation, the burden of which fell almost exclusively on peasants and especially those in Italy’s South” (93). Many Italians came during the summer (warm) season of the United States and then went back to Italy or to Latin America during the winter. Because of this, they became known as “birds of passage.” More than 95 percent of Italians coming to American landed in New York City. From there, they fanned out through the country, but remained close to major cities and lived in urbanized states such as: New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois, and Ohio. Nelli states, “padrones, or labor agents, generally recruited unskilled southern Italians for railroad or other construction or maintenance work. Although the padrone system played a key role in the early stages of the immigration, once the movement was firmly underway the services provided by labor agents were no longer necessary and the system declined” (94-95). Living conditions in urban immigrant neighborhoods were repulsive. The Italian colony in New York City’s Lower East Side was in 1893 described as “probably one of the most filthy localities in the city. Here, surrounded by tall brick tenements and frame rookeries, amid the sickening odors of decaying vegetable matter and filth, the streets crowded with swarthy men, women and children, dirty but picturesque withal – here can be found the home of the Italian” (96). Southern Italians recognized early that there were many benefits from involvement in politics. “Political machines” in major cities gave patronage jobs to Italians in exchange for support on Election Day. Italians benefited from patronage a great deal and with the turn of the century, Italians moved into this employment sector in ever-increasing numbers. In a survey of living and working conditions in Italian neighborhoods in the years 1893 and 1894, they found that common laborers put in a sixty-hour week for an average weekly wage of between six and nine dollars. The two major problems that faced the immigrant generation were child labor and the employment of women. By 14, children were removed from school and sent into the job market to help out the family income. Education was also not highly regarded by the Italians. Many parents forced work over school. Breaking European habits, women went out to work or brought piecework home. Nelli states, “whether at home or in a factory, Italian women worked long hours for low pay under sweatshop conditions” (99). In Italy, the social structure of the village was founded on the family, whose interests determined an individual’s attitudes toward church, state, and school. Each family member was expected to uphold family honor and to fulfill his or her particular duties and responsibilities. Parents expected respect and obedience from children. Families were large and the children represented economic advantages. When the immigrants came to America, they faced a dilemma. The parents wanted to conduct family life according to Old World patterns while children wanted to behave in what they considered to be “the American way”. Most of the southern Italian immigrants in the United States were between the age of eighteen and forty-five. Marriage mainly took place in the late teens or early twenties, and they generally married within the Italian group. World War I greatly affected immigration to the United States. Italian immigration greatly declined from 283,738 in 1914 to 49,689 in 1915 and 5,250 in 1918, the last year of the war. With the passage of federal legislation in 1917, 1921, and 1924, the United States reversed its traditional police of free immigration. As Nelli states, “under the provisions of the Johnson-Reed Act a maximum quota of 150,000 immigrants a year was admitted to the United States, based on country of origin. Italians were assigned a yearly quota of 3,854” (103). With this, the major era of Italian and European immigration to the United States and ended.
Top
Name
Theodore Roosevelt and the Stewardship of the American Presidency
Jean M. Yarbrough
Date
In Theodore Roosevelt and the Stewardship of the American Presidency, Jean M. Yarbrough talks of Theodore Roosevelt’s ideals which greatly impacted the nation. Due to his asthma, Roosevelt was educated at home and later went on to Harvard, where he intended on studying natural sciences until persuaded by Professor Laughlin “that his talents were more needed in politics than in science” (536). From his education, he learned only individual responsibility but knew that “a man’s duty [was] not merely to take care of himself but also ‘to join with others in trying to make things better for the many’ ” (537). Originally a Republican reformer, Roosevelt knew that the science that went into the Constitution was obsolete and the objective was now the a more larger national government. He looked down upon Jefferson and Madison and admired Washington and Adams but mostly revered Lincoln. Not only was Lincoln able to support a strong, central government, but he also befriended the common man. Roosevelt knew that “wealth alone could never lead to national greatness” and was therefore disappointed that it was the wealthy controlled the national policy. Whereas the wealthy never saw a real need to expand West, Roosevelt strongly advocated westward expansion. According to Roosevelt, “the West stood for the right mix of individualism and social cooperation” (538). Roosevelt also had viewpoints towards the African Americans and immigrants. He felt the number of immigrants entering the US needed to be restricted or else there would be mass chaos. Additionally, the blacks, although “intellectually and morally inferior to the white race,” they could be perhaps in the future generations (539). Roosevelt also believed in the concept of Social Darwinism, or the survival of the fittest. However, he felt that it was more important “how well the unfit can adapt and pass [it] on” (539). Roosevelt entertained Booker T. Washington as the first black man in the White House. He pushed for the North and South to recognize all men, blacks and whites alike. The only way “America was ‘ever to amount to anything’ [was if] every citizen was willing to stand up and fight for his rights,” Roosevelt claimed (540). Upon the assassination of McKinley, Roosevelt became president and saw himself as “the steward of the people” (541). He felt the President had the power to do as he wished for the people unless the Constitution specially forbade the action. During his presidency, Roosevelt did not want trusts to be broken up unless they were corrupt. He believed trusts were a large part of the economy and. Roosevelt also tried to establish “food and drug and meat inspection laws, government supervision of insurance companies, government investigation of child labor, and power to the ICC to regulate railroad shipping rates” (542). Additionally, he was keen on securing the rights of the worker as well as fine arts and nature through a national park system. His Roosevelt Corollary expanded upon the Monroe Doctrine in an attempt to bar Europe from meddling in the Western Hemisphere and to justify the US’s presence in Panama and Colombia. Whereas he originally found the courts to be inept, once they ruled in his favor, Roosevelt was keen on supporting them. Roosevelt, having “little appreciation of federalism,” split from the Republican Party and formed the Progressive, or Bull Moose, Party, which attempting to find a way to overcome Constitutional obstacles (543). After his Presidency, Roosevelt toured European capitals, preaching the necessity of racial blending and adaptation through generations. For America, Roosevelt envisioned “morality, ethical development, and a true feeling of brotherhood” (545). His Progressive Party looked to the future and “placed heavy emphasis on character-building” (545). Roosevelt’s presidency paved the way for the executive power to be placed in the people’s hands.
Top
Name
The Needless War with Spain
William E. Leuchtenburg
Date
In The Needless War with Spain, Leuchtenburg discusses how America’s image as a world power emerged from the war over Cuba. In the 1890s, Americans began to harbor aggressive feelings for foreign conquest. Like many citizens, Senator Culllom believed that by expanding the nation “lawmakers will rise above the grade of politicians and become true statesmen” (158). Even Roosevelt was cheering on for war, stating that “the clamor of the peace faction has convinced me that this country needs a war” (159). The Spaniards were suppressing the Cubans, making them pay “high taxes to support Spanish officialdom [that] crippled the island, arbitrary arrests and trials [that] made a mockery of justice and every attempt at public education was stifled” (159). Although the Cuban economy had not been stable for years, it was ruined when the US inflicted a sugar tariff on the island. Journalists such as William Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer emphasized the Spanish cruelty that met the Cuban’s efforts at liberty. Spain was labeled as the “force of tyranny,” while the people of American sympathized with Cuba, the “force of freedom” (159). In 1896, Spanish sent Generals Weyler and Nicolau to Cuba. Weyler saw the rebels put the sugar fields in the countryside on fire and a failing military unable to stop them. Consequently, Weyler declared martial law, an action that earned him the nickname “the Butcher” by American newspapers. He then issued a reconcentration order, which forbade exports from the towns to the countryside in an attempt to starve the rebellion. Weyler’s policy produced unbearable amounts of suffering and Cubans “died like flies” (160). Soon after, when William McKinley claimed the American Presidency, he had no desire to go to war. In fact, the whole country did not want a new crisis, and especially not businesses due to the industrial depression. However, McKinley was too responsive to public opinion and if the desire arose, he would yield and declare war. As the strife in Cuba intensified, McKinley looked for a way to both preserve peace and safe face for the Republican Party. However, Hearst and Pulitzer’s newspapers continued to stir anti-Spanish sentiments among the people by reporting accounts of famine and injustices to Cubans. McKinley appealed to the Spanish by asking autonomy for Cuba or else threatening that the US would interfere in affairs. Days later, the Spanish premier was assassinated and Sagasta was put in charge, who immediately removed Weyler. He also “promised to grant local autonomy to the Cubans” (163). However, less than two months later, a riot occurred where Spanish officers attacked newspaper offices. Having the riot as an excuse, McKinley sent the Maine to Havana to reassure trade would be still be okay. Weakening Spanish-American relations even further was Spanish Deputy De Lome, who wrote a private letter that “attacked the President [and] had gone on to suggest that negotiations were not being conducted in good faith” (164). The last straw, however, was the mysterious explosion of Maine. What ex-President Roosevelt stated, “we will have this war for the freedom of Cuba,” was what many Americans now felt towards the situation (165). McKinley attempted to gain from war without actually fighting and therefore demanded an armistice, removal of the reconcentration order, and relief aid to Cuba with the US’s help. Spain agreed and eventually surrendered. However, McKinley went on to officially declare war two days later. Congress was soon able to reach an agreement, in which Cuba was recognized independent of Spain by the US and an ultimatum of three days was issued to Spain to leave the island. Though McKinley had not intended on acquiring land, the US gained the Philippines as a result of the war. During the Spanish-American war, “Americans were not led into war; they got the war they wanted” (168). The prevention of this war was possible, but the situations and American spirit left the United States no other choice.
Top
Name
Henry Ford and the Jews
Leonard Dinnerstein
Date
In Henry Ford and the Jews, Leonard Dinnerstein explores the anti-Semitic views of Ford and their influences on society. Although Henry Ford did not make any technological contributions, he was the only one determined to build the car. After years of trying, Ford finally gained publicity when his racing car won several national races. He then proceeded to build the Ford Model T and not thirteen years after, Ford was producing more than 9000 cars per day. Magazines called him “the Colossus of Business, an almost divine Master-Mind” (181). In the 1920s, Ford was known as one of the greatest people, third only to Jesus and Napoleon Bonaparte. Ford also held many anti-Semitic views. In 1927, he wrote a letter asking forgiveness for expressions of anti-Semitic views that had been printed in his newspapers, claiming to have no knowledge of them. However, Ford knew what was being printed in his newspapers and as his secretary confirmed, “[Ford] authorized every statement occurring therein” the newspapers (183). Ford later closed down one of the newspapers, The International Jew but the impact of “a decade of virulent anti-Semitism by the most powerful American industrialist of the 20th century” had been drastic. Raised on a farm, Ford grew up with anti-Semitic feelings. He started to use the word “Jew” as if it were a derogatory term. Ford even “attributed the cause of WWI to international Jewish bankers” (184). Under the impression he could use his influence to end the war, Ford sent a Peace Ship to meet with pacifists from other nations. However, the idea failed and he blamed the Jews. Later, when Ford ran for the office of US Senator from Michigan, he lost and blamed his loss on Jews. Soon after, a forged document “alleged that Jews were engaged in a secret plot to overthrow Christian governments throughout the world” (186). The article later appeared in many newspapers internationally, especially in Ford’s The Dearborn Independent. However, Ford’s paper soon lost all impact and in order to spice it up, he targeted Jews more harshly. He blamed them for World War I, the failure of his Peace Ship, and his loss for the Senator’s office. The Independent Jew was started up again in 1920 and continued to target Jews. Ford accused Jews of the most absurd crimes. America had never seen “such a blatantly anti-Semitic series published over so long a period of time” (188). However, it was not long before non-Jewish opposition developed to Ford’s newspapers. The newspapers were declared “wholly incompatible with loyal and intelligent American citizenship” (189). The articles would later be used by Hitler in his writings. The American public no longer followed Ford’s newspapers blindly but many people had done so “simply because he made a car that pleased them” (190). In 1924, Ford targeted Aaron Sapiro, who had supported Jews. After Ford slandered Sapiro, Sapiro demanded an apology, which Ford refused. Sapiro then filed a case against Ford. After many performing elusive feats, Ford finally appeared for his trial. Although Ford won the trial, he “was made to look foolish” (191). In the end, Ford “retracted his assertions and publicly apologized to the Jewish people” (192). However, until the day he died, Ford held his anti-Semitic views.
Top
Name
The Big Picture of the Great Depression
John A. Garraty
Date
In The Big Picture of the Great Depression, John A. Garraty portrays the Great Depression’s impact on an international scale. The Great Depression was the most severe recession the United States had ever faced. For over a decade, more than ten percent of the nation was unemployed. Such terrible economic collapses were feared, largely because while economists knew the causes, they did not know what to do when it happened. In the years following World War I, most nations had recovered and started to prosper during the 1920s. However, at the end of the 1920s, the prosperity ended, and the economies regressed. No nation had anticipated the Great Depression, especially not Hoover and Coolidge. Most developed nations such as France and Germany felt they were in “firm and unshakable” condition and stressed the good times (225). Hoover refused to accept blame for the Great Depression and instead blamed World War I and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for “keeping American interest rates low to discourage foreign investors” (226). He also blamed the recession in Europe. Germany blamed the Treaty of Versailles’s harsh conditions, declaring depression to be of political origin. At first, France found the recession to be of little importance and even took credit for it. However, as the situation worsened, blame Great Britain’s decision to stop gold standard and US’s industrialization and mechanization for promoting unemployment. However, most nations were unable to take adequate measures to appease the discomfort. Hoover signed the Hawley-Snoot Tariff, which “caused a further shrinking of economic activity” (227). Most nations, even the US, blamed the Wall Street crash of October 1929. But before the causes were even fully understood, all countries insisted on pointing fingers. Nations then attempted to balance to budget as a means of mitigating the situation. Roosevelt called for a tax increase and Great Britain and Germany did the same. While France was better off in the beginning, their luck would not last long. Revenues were not up to expectation and before long, there was a deficit. As Premier Joseph Paul-Boncour of France said, “What good is it to talk, what good to draw up plans if one ends up with a budget deficit?” (228). Nations agreed and Canada then decided to make spending cuts and raise taxes. The ignorance of advisors of nations such as the Kitchen Cabinet and the Tennis Cabinet was made apparent through the depression. While Great Britian’s Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald used cabinets for everything during this period, France still refused to believe that they were being affected by the depression. Instead, they referred to it as a “financial difficulty” (230). Roosevelt eventually implemented public work programs, which other nations had done years before the war. Like Germany and Great Britain, he tried to get capital and labor to “join together to promote efficiency and harmony” (230). France, still in denial of the depression, refused to use such measures. One area that saw much growth was the agricultural industry in the United States. Through the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, farmers were paid to not grow crops. However, this idea was not as original as it has been claimed to be, since Brazil used it almost 30 years earlier. Before long, tactics which “reduced output and raised prices” were being used, especially by growers of staple crops (231). Countries started to implement similar strategies and cut imports, regulating domestic prices instead. By reducing suppliers, countries hoped to push up prices but did not realize that this would only reduce demand further. In 1936, it seemed that the depression was finally lifting from the United States. However, once Roosevelt cut the federal budget by more than one-twelfth, the economy again plummeted and fear and warnings of inflation were rampant. Despite all efforts to help the depression, it would take another world war to end it.
Top
Name
The Contemporary Debate over the Cold War
Multiple Authors
Date
In the Contemporary Debate over the Cold War, the tense and dynamic nature of the American-Soviet conflict in the late 1940s is portrayed. The Soviet Union’s goal was to convert the entire world to communism. They also gloated about their role in the Second World War. America on the other hand, wanted to protect the world from communism and establish democracy and capitalism. The international views of the two powers differed quite extensively. They both had different social philosophies, and wanted to attain different goals. The Soviet Union wanted to disassemble its ration system, thus lowering the prices of all goods and raising the living standard. The United States, as aforementioned, wanted to spread democracy throughout the world to prevent communism. However, both powers looked to expand their ideals globally as the best. In an effort to preserve the independence of Greece and Turkey, the United States implemented the Truman Doctrine. If in fact the Truman Doctrine was intended to dominate these countries, it would not call for action to assist the countries in their time of need. The document also calls upon the countries to be self-reliant and self-sufficient. It can be seen that the US does not dominate Greece or Turkey. In the Iraqi war, Turkey denied the US the use of their airspace and airbase. However, if the document was meant to dominate, and was still enforced today, this would not be the case. Thus, the doctrine was an effort to preserve Greece and Turkey’s independence. Additionally, the policy prescriptions in NSC-68 were valid under the circumstances facing the U.S. in 1950. The U.S. felt threatened by the Soviets who sought "to bring the free world under its dominion by the methods of the cold war” (125). The NSC-68, which mainly increased expenditure for the military and increased it's size and power, was a response to the threat the by the Soviet Union. However, by responding in such a manner, the US most likely added to the Cold War. The US felt in danger and its response would inevitably make the USSR feel threatened, causing a reciprocation effect between the two countries. Both sides were valid, as both sides felt threatened. The natural response to a threat for a country is to increase defense systems. However, neither country actually deployed weapons or troops.
Top
