Roosevelt and Wilson

This entire week we have watched videos on Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt had a very strong excitement for the reforms for the countries and the democratic views. He believed that the rich made too much, while the poor didn't make enough money which then resulted in a social revolution. He promoted others including Taft because he thought that Taft would be just like him and continue to be together. He called for new nationalism and was always ashamed of his emotions. Wilson is a progressive also and a professor that had no experience. He seemed to speak a lot about democracy though he took the side of a progressive with was very concerning to others.  He introduced the four major reform bills which are anti-corruption, election reform, regulate corporations and workmen's compensation and every single one of these bills were passed. We can definitely concluded that they both are progressive but Roosevelt is more of a progressive than Woodrow Wilson. Now even they were both progressive Wilson wanted to break them all up while Roosevelt wanted to keep them together but regulate them. 

Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson

This week in class, we have looked in depth at both Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson in their presidencies. All three were considered progressive, yet they all approached progressiveness differently. Out of all of the three, Theodore Roosevelt was the most progressive. He felt strongly that the trusts which caused harm to the people needed to be broken up, and he did not hesitate in doing so. He also enforced the power of the government over the businesses in order to stifle them. He came up with the "Square Deal," which meant that there would be equality for both the workers and the owners. Then, Taft became president through Roosevelt's support. Taft started out as a trust-buster, but then after passing a bill that raised tariffs, he began to lose his reputation as a progressive. In the next election, Wilson came out on top. He was well liked by the people because he was also a progressive. He introduced four major reform bills and was famous for his New Freedom ideas. Unlike Roosevelt, Wilson focused on individual people rather than the bigger picture in his reforms. He also created the income tax. He was more progressive than Taft, however, he was less progressive than Roosevelt. This is because Wilson supported segregation and therefore made less progress in this area. He also did not recognize the suffrage movement very much. Therefore, of these three progressive men, Roosevelt was the most, then Wilson, then Taft.

President Taft's Dedication to Upholding the Law

As we all know, President William Howard Taft was a pretty conservative reformist for such an avid supporter of President Roosevelt. Even though he had worked hard to preserve Roosevelt's progressive policies to an extent and showed agreement for them while he was the Secretary of War for Roosevelt, he ended up upholding his policies extremely differently than his predecessor. And this, I believe is a result of his connections to the Judicial System, which tie directly to his political career. According to the academic institution, the Miller Center for the University of Virginia, Taft grew up working towards getting an education in a law-related field as he was able to get graduate from Yale and then get a degree from the University of Cincinnati Law School. Additionally, he dedicated his early career towards working as a lawyer and then judge in Ohio, as he was extremely interested in the judicial system, and he wanted to eventually become a Supreme Court Justice. However, as well all know, he ended up becoming the Secretary for War for President Roosevelt due to the opportunity arising, which inevitably led his career towards the enforcement of the law, rather than its interpretations. Because of this, I think that when Taft was able to win the presidential election in 1908 with the support of Roosevelt, his judicial experiences and knowledge ended up interfering with his desire to be progressive, which inevitably made him a more conservative Republican. We can see this through his actions towards trying to strictly interpret trust laws, as according to another essay by the Miller Center for the University of Virginia, Taft ended up breaking up more than double the amount of trusts Roosevelt had tried to break because he was dedicated towards upholding this law. The way Taft saw it was that all large trusts needed to be seen as equal according to the law because that is the way he interpreted the loosely worded Sherman Antitrust Act, which caused him to destroy all of these large financial trusts even if they were considered beneficial to the people. Meanwhile, during Roosevelt's presidency, Roosevelt chose to only break up the trusts that he believed were negative and left those he believed were essential to the country's well-being, which really highlights the differences between the two politicians. Because Roosevelt had never been such an expert in law as he never pursued a career in the judicial system, he was much more focused on promoting his progressive ideals than interpreting the law, whereas Taft was strictly dedicated towards interpreting the Sherman Antitrust Act as well as many other laws in order to be able to carry them out fairly and constitutionally. Additionally, as the essay describes, his judicial background and influences ended up directly affecting his political decisions as a whole, as he was against any law weakening the power of the courts or judiciary. This is why when Arizona and New Mexico went through the process of becoming recognized states, he chose to veto this action, as both of these territories had constitutions promoting the recall of judges, making it clear that he mainly did this because of his biases towards the Judicial System. Also, it is clear that Taft's entire political career was influenced by his experiences in law-related fields, as immediately after his presidency ended, he began to pursue a career in becoming a law professor, which led him to eventually be appointed as a justice for the US Supreme Court. So in closure, President Taft's decisions were strongly influenced by his dedication towards the Judicial System rather than his desire to promote progressivism under Roosevelt's policies, which is why he ended up carrying out his laws through his very strict interpretations of them.

Theodore Roosevelt: Less Progressive Side

  In my previous post I talked about how Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive president, especially in comparison to his predecessors, but he also had many less progressive ways about him. Theodore Roosevelt was known to be a fighter. He was often described as a "happy warrior" and enjoyed a good debate or battle. He formed his own military unit before his presidency that were known as the roughriders and he was not concerned about death or injury. He was often excited by the idea of war and glory and at the end of his presidency he regretted that he didn't fight through a great war like his hero Abraham Lincoln had. Along with this natural thirst for battle and struggle, though Theodore did break up many trusts, be left many untouched as he was not against business and thought it was necessary for society to thrive. He thought that trusts and corporations should be regulated to benefit society and the people. He showed very little interest in economics however and this took part in the great panic witnessed in his time. On his hunting trip, when he was informed of the news, he was unconcerned and went about with his trip. In the end he reached out to JP Morgan and recieved help that saved the country's economics. He also thought that muckrakers (he came up with the term) were negative and evil. They were only unnecessary stirring up the American people and were foolish for doing so. Another one of his less progressive views was that he though only the educated, right people should be in power, people like him, much like the believes of Hamilton. Some people also thought he interfered with the economy too much and used the position of executive too liberally to fulfill his own goals, such as conservation. he often went against congress and did things on his own. he thought he was the measure of the law and in this way he loved power. Because of his nature by the end of his presidency congress had stopped listening to him and he became very powerless and unliked by the government.

Theodore Roosevelt: Progressive Side

Theodore Roosevelt was president from September 14, 1901-March 4,1909 and was considered one of the more progressive presidents to come from that century, even being compared to Abraham Lincoln himself. Like Abraham Lincoln, he was one for the common man and as a very sporty, active, and bold man. Many Americans related to these qualities and admired him.Theodore Roosevelt was the first president after a long line of political puppets for political parties to break apart from the typical mold. He was a generally progressive president and many would say he increased the power of the presidency and tested the limits of congress. The American people were glad to see such an active and charming man as president and for a large portion of his presidency he was quite popular.  Theodore started of as the governor of New York and he supported regulations on factories, work with with labor movements and pushed to preserve parks. This made him very unpopular with Republican conservatives and as a way to limit his power they placed him in the position of vice president. He was considered a reformer and this was what many disenfranchised people needed, but he was a man who couldn't be as easily controlled and the party feared this hence their plan to keep him a powerless vice president. Needless to say, the party's plan failed when  President William McKinley was assassinated in 1901. Theodore then became the president of the United States. As president he was against large companies and the money hungry business men of wall street. He broke up many of the major trusts and even had greedy businessmen prosecuted. One of the biggest trusts he broke up was JP Morgan's railroad trust. On the case of industrial workers such as coal minors he was the first president to use police force to threaten the businesses into allowing 8 hour work days and reasonable wages for the dangerous work minors. He saw this as simple justice, a square deal, as he would describe it. Along the lines of his progressivism he was an intellectual man and is one of the most educated presidents to date. Roosevelt created Federal maintenance inspections to protect consumers and created reforms for the purity and safety of drug, medicine, and food with the Pure Food and Drug Act. His greatest cause was conservation. He believed in the value of nature and resources and so he created national parks, national forests, and millions of acres of American land under protection. In his years as president he made many progressive moves, but he defiantly had sides of him that were less aligned to the values of progressivism. I'll leave that for the next post though. What other ways was Theodore Roosevelt a progressive president and do you think he was progressive enough?

A Few Positive Effects of the Boss System

As we all know, throughout the late 19th century and the early 20th century, corrupt political bosses emerged through pandering to poor, uneducated immigrants for votes through financial incentives. Over time, this centralization of power in the hands of the corrupt, Irish bosses ended up creating a racially-biased (the bosses gave most of their support to the Irish rather than other groups such as the Italians), unequal, and poor political system throughout many urban cities. This inevitably gave them more political and economical power, and as a result, less money and support went to solving social issues and promoting the general wellbeing, which caused public sanitation issues and poor living conditions. However, even though the Boss System was clearly an overall negative and corrupt political system for the United States, it is important to acknowledge that it did have some benefits, as described at the beginning of the Oxford Handbook, "Machine Bosses, Reformers, and the Politics of Ethnic and Minority Incorporation." As this essay explains, when Boss Tweed began to control areas of New York, "the city's electorate nearly doubled in size, from 71,000 to 135,000" and when his successor controlled the area, the city "continued to churn out now-eligible voters." (2) Because of this increase in citizenship, new immigrants were able to participate in the political process through voting, and could have all of the normal rights that go along with being a citizen of the United States. So through Tweed's agenda towards pandering to new immigrants from Europe, he was inevitably able to help them adapt to American life through gaining citizenship, which would indirectly benefit the nation's economy, as these new immigrants would be able to become "Americanized" and begin working faster. However, it's still important to recognize the fact that the main reason Tweed was doing this was to help his political machine gain power and that most of the immigrants he was directly supporting were from Ireland, which goes to show that this somewhat positive effect of his actions was mostly just a side-effect of corruption. Additionally, a second positive impact from the Boss System was that it helped curb discrimination to an extent. As the essay explains, because widely-hated ethnic groups such as the Jews in the Northeast of the United States (due to general prejudice) had a huge population, "Tammany diligently courted Jewish voters. Boss Murphy assiduously rooted out anti-Semitism within the party while Tammany-linked politicians in the state legislature provided strong symbolic support for the Jewish community through the introduction of legislation outlawing discrimination." (3,4) So clearly, even though the political bosses mostly wanted the support of minority groups in order to bolster their political power, their actions ended up directly giving ethnic communities such as the Jews equality to some extent. This is because as the essay describes, the political machines tried to "[outlaw] discrimination" and "[root] out anti-Semitism," which proves that their actions were beneficial to new, discriminated ethnic groups such as the Jews by socially supporting them. So overall, even though the Boss System's detriments to the communities of the United States ended up outweighing its positive aspects, it is still important to acknowledge that there were benefits to this system, since it helped minorities adapt to American culture to some extent, and promoted equality.

Leadup to the Trail of Tears: A closer look

Our textbook only has a very brief mention of the Trail of Tears, about 3 sentences to be exact. I wanted to know a little more, look into some primary sources and see exactly what it was all about. In our textbook, they tell us a year, 1838, and some numbers, 4,000 of 17,000 Cherokees died. This staggering number is described as "tragic" in our text but that means that a little under 1 in 4 died. This same number applies to Puerto Rico where 1 in 4 may have the Zika virus or about 1 in 4 Americans suffer from a diagnosable mental illness. Needless to say, 1 in 4 is no small number.

Leaving aside numbers for a second, because people often relate more to stories, we will start with General Winfield Scott's story. In his address to the Cherokee Nation, he is very clear that he is simply following orders by saying, "This is no sudden determination on the part of the President, whom you and I must now obey. By the treaty, the emigration was to have been completed on or before the 23rd of this month; and the President has constantly kept you warned, during the two years allowed, through all his officers and agents in this country, that the treaty would be enforced" (Scott). The treaty to which he refers is the Treaty of 1835 or the Treaty of New Echota. As we know later, many of the Cherokees starved or froze to death but at the end of his address he explicitly states, "You will find food for all and clothing for the destitute at either of those places, and thence at your ease and in comfort be transported to your new homes, according to the terms of the treaty" (Scott). The Cherokees after hearing or reading of this would have had a false idea of what their removal would be like. Throughout his address, he beseeches them to neither fight nor hide because he simply wants this to be as easy as possible. Although he seems to act like their friend, he is not in fact their friend.

Chief John Ross or the Cherokee nations is understandably furious. In a letter to the House of Representatives and the Senate, he says, "We are despoiled of our private possessions, the indefeasible property of individuals. We are stripped of every attribute of freedom and eligibility for legal self-defence. Our property may be plundered before our eyes; violence may be committed on our persons; even our lives may be taken away, and there is none to regard our complaints. We are denationalized; we are disfranchised. We are deprived of membership in the human family! We have neither land nor home, nor resting place that can be called our own" (Ross). Knowing what we have already learned, that the supreme court ruled that the government did not have the power to take away their land in Worcester v. Georgia. Andrew Jackson was going directly against court orders. Understandably, the chief turned to the Senate in the hope of repealing his decision to use military force. He argues that while they were once treated as a foreign nation that could negotiate reasonably with the US they are no longer listened to. All attempts they have, be it legal or whatever else, are ignored and they are left powerless in this situation.

But what does the main man himself have to say on it? Andrew Jackson was known for being racist and did not see the Natives as having any rights. In his message to Congress "On Indian Removal" he starts off by saying, "It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation" (Jackson). His obvious delight and the fact that it is coming to a "happy" end is a direct slap in the face to the Native nations. He even goes on to say that moving will benefit the Cherokees because they will be better off in their new place, "It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community" (Jackson). He assumes throughout all of this that their way of life that they are currently living is not as good as the one they will be receiving but as many of us know, this will not be the case at all. In fact, he even says that the Indians are lucky they are being removed and given land in the westward territories along with government support. Settlers, he says would gladly jump at this opportunity, "How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions! If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy" (Jackson). He describes his own policy as "generous" and that the government "kindly offers" their policy to be accepted. We know that it was not an offer but an order and that nothing the Cherokees did could have changed Jackson's mind.

And so, we can see in the lead up to the Trail of Tears the many perspectives on the issue. General Winfield Scott plays the helpless victim by saying he is just following the orders of Jackson. Chief John Ross pleads to Congress for help to save them from the taking of their land that was rightly ruled theirs by the Supreme Court. And Andrew Jackson remains fixed in his idea that he is actually helping out the Natives and severely twists his ideas to make them sound like a good thing when, in fact, it is most definitely not. Stay tuned to see what happened during the actual event. 

Works Cited

Jackson, Andrew. "Transcript of President Andrew Jackson's Message to Congress 'On Indian Removal' (1830)." Our Documents. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

Ross, John, Chief. "Cherokee Letter Protesting the Treaty of New Echota." Africans in America. PBS, n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

Scott, Winfield. "Gen. Winfield Scott's Address to the Cherokee Nation." Georgia Info. University of Georgia, n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

Industrial labor and Unions

When big businesses boomed and the second industrial revolution came about in the 19th century, industrial workers carried the burden for industry to be successful, but suffered exploitation, dangerous working conditions, long hours, and very low wages. While major factory and business owners would make millions a year, the average worker made $400-$500 a year, barely enough to survive. Workers knew that without uniting under one body they had no chance to stand up to the powerful and wealthy owners. This brought about the age of unionization.

One of the first major unions, Knights of Labor, wanted to unit both skilled and unskilled workers to maximize the manpower of strikes and the effectiveness of protests, but the major problem with that idea was that there were too many conflicting ideas between skilled and unskilled workers. Also,  many strikes were unsuccessful and ineffective because unskilled workers were easily replaced. The mass population of immigrants and lower class citizens who needed work made unskilled work very easy to fill.

The bosses and workers faced the struggle of who should control the workplace and hours. Owners wanted workers to work,long hard hours doing the same task to maximize effectiveness and the production of products. Company towns emerged out of the need owners had to control their workers. They were towns that surrounded factories so that the owner men could control everything (Pullman town:example).

The first unions were largely unpopular among the public because they challenged individuality and the  believe that hard work lead to success and poverty was due to lack thereof. The violent strikes did not look favorable for the workers either. Later unions, like the AFL, were less radical and did not challenge the ideas of capitalism, making them more appealing to the public. AFL wanted 8 hour work day, safety, and they focused on skilled workers who were valuable. They were one of the  most successful labour organization because their reach never exceed its grasp. AFL looked to gain achievable things people would support.

What do unions look like today? Are they similar in desires and are they more or less effective at achieving their goals?

"Like a Boss" Video

During the 19th century, the boss system grew, lead by Irish immigrants who spoke English and understood the economic system in the country. Many political bosses were able to prosper because of the Anti-immigrates perspective of a group that called themselves Nativists. In this time, to be an immigrant or be discriminated against it meant you didn't meet the WASP criteria: white, Anglo (English), Saxon (Germanic), and Protestant. Bosses took advantage of the immigrants and marginalized groups by offering to do them favors like getting them work or housing in trade for their votes. In this way, many bosses had large political influence and gained politicians favor by having control over large amounts of votes. Politicians would in turn do bosses favors by letting them know were new developments (railroads often) were being built. Bosses made money by buying land around these new developments and selling it for quadruple what they brought if for. To prevent the mayors of cities from protesting and closing their businesses they gave mayors a kickback. This system was built on corrupted politics and the need for stability from immigrant groups. It lasted as long as it did because the society allowed it. Many people felt like it benefitted them, but bosses only did favors that made them profit. Sanitation and other city needs were ignored and tax payer money went to waste. The young educated middle class were the opposers of this system as they were the ones paying taxes and were often not politicians. They protested and tried to end this system. Do you think the boss system exists in some ways today? Why could it or why could it not exist in today's politics?

'Big Businessed' Video

In class on Tuesday we watched a short video which Mr. Stewart called 'Big Businessed'. It basically talked about the economy in the late 18th century. We learned that people began to believe theories that God granted you the ability to make money and that he wanted you to make money. Because of this idea churches began to believe that if you were not wealthy you were committing a sin. Additionally, another idea that the United States believed was that if you worked hard you would become wealthy. This, however, is basically false because many people worked incredibly long hours, 11-12 hours a day, sacrificing time with their families and their own health to make money, yet they only made $500-$600 a year. So I came to the conclusion that America was basically unreasonable since they basically trapped people in their jobs because they worked all day and got barely paid, yet in the society they 'didn't work hard' because they were not rich.
Another idea that was discussed in the video was 'Social Darwinism' and survival of the fittest. The main people who were at the top made monopolies and had control of a lot of the industrial production. However, when they got to the top they didn't really want to continue to battle other countries so they didn't really follow social Darwinism completely.
Additionally, 1% of the American companies controlled 1/3 of the industrial production. Are there companies that are this powerful today? If so, how did they get this powerful? If not, why are there no companies this powerful today?

Economy Simulation

On Monday in class, we did a short simulation of what the economy looked like in the late 18th century during the "Gilded Age" when industry and manufacturing became the main economic focus. In this simulation, there were a few entrepreneurs, who each had lots of money. Then, there were consumers, who each had different amounts of resources to begin with, but no money. The three types of resources were natural resources, human resources, and capital goods. The goal of the consumers was to turn their resources into an Econos, which represented a product. The goal of the entrepreneurs was to make more money. However, the obstacle for the consumers was that they could not exchange their resources for Econos without the help of an entrepreneur, and the entrepreneurs could not make money without helping with the consumers because the consumers did not begin with money. So, the entrepreneurs would create Econos for the consumers, and would charge a tax of a certain amount of those Econos for their service. What we found out is that the most successful consumers seemed to just be those who started out with the most resources, because the consumers couldn't do much at all. In addition, the entrepreneurs who made the most were the ones who were able to have the lowest charge and get to the most people. There was nothing stopping any robberies or from the entrepreneurs to rip off the consumers.

This models what life was really like then because all of the consumers made up the working class, which was very poor and was pretty much stuck under the control of the entrepreneurs because they relied on them for jobs and the little income they made to survive. The entrepreneurs, while very limited in number, controlled 99% of the wealth and had immense power over the consumers. They could treat the consumers unfairly and have no repercussions because the consumers relied on them and were far too powerless to do anything. What other benefits and consequences came out of this period, the "Gilded Age?"

The Logic and Morality of Different Entrepreneurs During the Industrial Revolution

As extremely wealthy entrepreneurs amassed large sums of cash through their trusts and companies between the late 19th century and the early 20th century, a lot of corruption and unethical practices occurred throughout many industries. As we learned watching the documentaries in-class, corporation owners such as Andrew Carnegie would use insider-information about the future activities of different companies in order to create a successful monopoly in their industry, through learning about the future business decisions of companies before the general public. Meanwhile, other entrepreneurs like John Rockefeller would create large, overbearing monopolies through either buying out or crushing different businesses in order to control an entire industry. However, at the time, neither of these things were explicitly outlawed in the country, which made their actions completely justifiable from an economic standpoint. Yet, even though this was the case, were these unethical practices justifiable on a moral level? After all, these large, entrepreneurial giants were using the work of millions of Americans who had poor living and working conditions just to make their business profitable. Also, they took advantage of a poorly made system in order to boost their sales and aid their companies. Well, even though these unethical practices might not have been able to be justified morally correct at the time, in my opinion, there were some overall benefits from this corruption, as they inevitably created a government solution for the problem so that it could not arise again. After all, Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1890 in order to prevent trusts like Rockefeller's from developing again, and they began to take tighter control over different industries through enforcing this law (and many others) so that these unequal opportunities wouldn't become such a big issue again. Also, even though this extreme work was degrading for a good portion of Americans, it did speed up our nation's industrial revolution to the point where we could compete, and even dominate other modern nations economically. So, even though the actions of Rockefeller, Carnegie, and other large entrepreneurs could be considered immoral, they did make logical sense economically, and they inevitably boosted the nation's economy as well as its industries (through the developments of new products for consumers). However, a big underlying question exists with this topic, which is that just because these economic giants helped the country so much, were these contributions outweighed by the immorality of their actions? Or were the benefits of these corporations so great that they could void the entire issue of morals all together?

Last Stand at Little Bighorn - 9.6.16

Today during class we watched a VHS film about how western expansion affected the Indian Tribes already settled there.

To the Americans, the Indians were an obstacle to progress. Because of this, the Americans believed it to be in their best interests to get rid of the Indians completely to free up the much-needed land. Of course, this angered many of the Indian tribes. One Indian, Spotted Horse, had a vision that foresaw the coming of many white Americans to Indian lands. The settlers were described as ants; too many and never ending. Several white settlers attempted a peace treaty with the Lakota Tribe, known as the Laramie Treaty. In this treaty, the Lakota got a large territory near the Black Hills, which were very sacred to them, and the Americans would stay away. However, one American, General Sherman, warned the Lakota that this treaty was only temporary, and he urged them to adopt the white man's ways to avoid extermination.

This unfair treatment of Indians is one example of many throughout history that showcase the power of the majority. The white Americans believed in progress, so they used their overbearing resources to kick the Indians off their land. This pattern can be seen in several cases in history, which can make a person wonder what's next.

President Johnson vs. The Republicans: The Impacts of Checks and Balances on our Two-Party System

After President Lincoln was assassinated, his vice president, Andrew Johnson replaced him and became the new president. However, because Johnson was a democrat, his views were extremely different from Lincoln's which inevitably caused him to be one of the most hated American president's in history. Yet, even though he might have been unfavorable to the citizens of the United States due to his dedication towards preventing federal Reconstruction from giving rights to African Americans in the country, his actions symbolized a very important part of our Constitution, and that is its balance of powers. First of all, when Congress was trying to pass the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments in order to give African Americans civil rights and allow them to have power within the country, Johnson had vetoed each one believing that "White men alone must manage the South." However, because the vote was able to go back through each house of Congress and get a 2/3 majority vote, the legislature ended up overriding the veto and being able to amend the Constitution three times in a row. These amendments were extremely significant, not just because of their content, but also because they allowed both President Johnson as well as Congress to prevent each other from gaining too much political power. If Johnson had not been able to veto Congress' amendments in the first place, then democrats would have been enraged and claimed that the legislative branch had too much political power which could allow it to dictate them. Also, if Congress had not been able to override the vetoes with their 2/3 majorities, then republicans would have claimed that the president had too much power in government as he could have so much control over the policies being passed even though he represented the ideas of only one political party. So, through the political process of checks and balances, the legislative and executive branches of government were able to prevent each other from dictating government policies, which inevitably allowed democratic representation to prosper. Yet, even though the Constitution's checks and balances were beneficial in this situation in terms of preventing the minority (democrats) from controlling the majority (republicans), it seems like it wasn't intended to be that way, or that it would be so limiting on political progress. After all, when they were being written, politicians hadn't thought of the idea that it wouldn't be an individual controlling a government without these balances as opposed to an entire political group composed of millions of people. Does that mean that these checks and balances working in a system where different political parties controlled different branches of government was an unintended side effect? And does the fact that they work necessarily correlate to them being a good thing? After all, if Congress couldn't get the 2/3 majority on these amendments, African-Americans would be systematically oppressed to a much greater extent than they did during the South's periods of segregation all because of the way political parties affected government. That meant that if there slightly more democrats in Congress at the time, they would have been able to control the entire political process just by using their political party's power to their advantage. So, in conclusion, I leave off with these final questions based around this example of political parties affecting how checks and balances function within the United States: Is it "democratic" for political parties to have the power to abuse checks and balances in order to have their voices dominate the federal government? Or is this justified by the fact that a single political party can represent the ideas of millions of Americans, just not those part of the opposing party?

The Socioeconomic Effects of the Panic of 1873

As we all learned in class, when Andrew Jackson decided to take all of the money out of the nation's national bank in order to put it in state banks in an attempt to get rid of our federal bank, this caused a major economic depression in the United States as currency became worthless, people couldn't buy or sell property, and the prices of goods were astronomical which is why this event was known as the Panic of 1837. Now, one major panic that we haven't talked about was the Panic of 1873, an event that took place during President Grant's second term as a result of many wealthy private railroad corporations investing too much money into railroads (as described by this PBS article). The reason these corporations were trying so hard to build new railroad tracks throughout the nation was because it was an extremely profitable business at the time, yet while trying to develop a second transcontinental railroad, the country's biggest railroad construction firm, Jay Cooke's firm, ended up overextending its budget and having to declare bankruptcy. This ended up causing a massive chain reaction of banking firms and railroad industry companies having to declare bankruptcy because they relied heavily on the success of Jay Cooke's firm, which inevitably caused this nationwide industry to plummet. And because the railroad business had been such a big part of American industry at the time, 18,000 private corporations ended up failing and unemployment rose astronomically. As a result, thousands of workers who got laid off or had their wages cut protested to the government which had been primarily focused on other issues such as the Reconstruction of the South at the time, causing Congress to have to turn its attention primarily towards getting the country's economy in working order. Because of this, the South's Reconstruction period ended, and African-Americans living throughout these states were no longer being focused on by the government, which was a serious issue since the state governments and whites around these areas were against the idea of minorities having any kind of power. So, as southerners realized that the national government was no longer really paying attention to their actions, they decided to try and promote white supremacy through racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan, by denying African-Americans their ability to vote (which they did by creating high poll taxes and difficult literacy tests at the polling stations), and by passing a series of segregational laws known as the Jim Crow laws. In the end, millions of African-Americans were treated poorly in their communities by whites taking advantage of the fact that they were no longer being directly protected by the national government (who had pardoned Confederates, allowed them to begin controlling their own governments, and ended the Freedmen's Bureau at the end of the Reconstruction period -- all of which contributed to this issue) and social progress within the United States seemed to have taken a step backwards, all as the indirect result of the overspending of a railroad corporation. Does this mean that what the national government did was wrong because they turned a blind eye to people in need of equality and federal support? After all, if they had still kept some of their attention on the African Americans of the South, the issue wouldn't have escalated to such a great extent, yet nobody at the time seemed to put the government at fault for this -- only the political extremists. Why are these sociopolitical issues directly blamed on extremists, when really they were just taking the opportunity given to them to promote the ideals that they believed in (not that I'm justifying their actions whatsoever; they were clearly inhumane) rather than the corporations and federal government that had direct roles in creating this problems? And the fact that the companies had such a big role in creating this governmental shift of attention raises the question: Was it even constitutional of them to shift their attention from the people who needed it most to a poor economy that they had contributed to (through contracting companies to build railroads for them)?