USHistory LR

U.S.
History
OpenStax College
Rice University
6100 Main Street MS-375
Houston, Texas 77005
To learn more about OpenStax College, visit http://openstaxcollege.org.

Individual print copies and bulk orders can be purchased through our website.
© 2014 Rice University. Textbook content produced by OpenStax College is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. Under this license, any user of this textbook or the textbook contents herein must provide proper attribution as
follows:
- If you redistribute this textbook in a digital format (including but not limited to EPUB, PDF, and HTML), then you must retain on
every page the following attribution:
“Download for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11740/latest/.”
- If you redistribute this textbook in a print format, then you must include on every physical page the following attribution:
- If you redistribute part of this textbook, then you must retain in every digital format page view (including but not limited to
EPUB, PDF, and HTML) and on every physical printed page the following attribution:
- If you use this textbook as a bibliographic reference, then you should cite it as follows: OpenStax College, U.S. History.
OpenStax College. 23 December 2014. <http://cnx.org/content/col11740/latest/>.
For questions regarding this licensing, please contact partners@openstaxcollege.org.
Trademarks
The OpenStax College name, OpenStax College logo, OpenStax College book covers, OpenStax CNX name, OpenStax CNX logo,
Connexions name, and Connexions logo are not subject to the license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written
consent of Rice University.
ISBN-10 1938168364
ISBN-13 978-1-938168-36-9
Revision UH-1-000-AS
OpenStax College
OpenStax College is a non-profit organization committed to improving student access to quality learning materials. Our free textbooks
are developed and peer-reviewed by educators to ensure they are readable, accurate, and meet the scope and sequence requirements
of modern college courses. Through our partnerships with companies and foundations committed to reducing costs for students,
OpenStax College is working to improve access to higher education for all.
OpenStax CNX
The technology platform supporting OpenStax College is OpenStax CNX (http://cnx.org), one of the world’s first and largest open-
education projects. OpenStax CNX provides students with free online and low-cost print editions of the OpenStax College library and
provides instructors with tools to customize the content so that they can have the perfect book for their course.
Rice University
OpenStax College and OpenStax CNX are initiatives of Rice University. As a leading
research university with a distinctive commitment to undergraduate education, Rice
University aspires to path-breaking research, unsurpassed teaching, and contributions to the
betterment of our world. It seeks to fulfill this mission by cultivating a diverse community of
learning and discovery that produces leaders across the spectrum of human endeavor.
Foundation Support
OpenStax College is grateful for the tremendous support of our sponsors. Without their strong engagement, the goal of free access to
high-quality textbooks would remain just a dream.
Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF) actively seeks opportunities to invest in organizations
and thought leaders that have a sincere interest in implementing fundamental changes that not only
yield immediate gains, but also repair broken systems for future generations. LJAF currently focuses
its strategic investments on education, criminal justice, research integrity, and public accountability.
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation has been making grants since 1967 to help solve social
and environmental problems at home and around the world. The Foundation concentrates its
resources on activities in education, the environment, global development and population,
performing arts, and philanthropy, and makes grants to support disadvantaged communities in the
San Francisco Bay Area.
Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to
help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving
people’s health with vaccines and other life-saving tools and giving them the chance to lift
themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, it seeks to significantly improve
education so that all young people have the opportunity to reach their full potential. Based in Seattle,
Washington, the foundation is led by CEO Jeff Raikes and Co-chair William H. Gates Sr., under the
direction of Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett.
The Maxfield Foundation supports projects with potential for high impact in science, education,
sustainability, and other areas of social importance.
Our mission at the Twenty Million Minds Foundation is to grow access and success by eliminating
unnecessary hurdles to affordability. We support the creation, sharing, and proliferation of more
effective, more affordable educational content by leveraging disruptive technologies, open educational
resources, and new models for collaboration between for-profit, nonprofit, and public entities.
Table of Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter 1: The Americas, Europe, and Africa Before 1492 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.1 The Americas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2 Europe on the Brink of Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.3 West Africa and the Role of Slavery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Chapter 2: Early Globalization: The Atlantic World, 1492–1650 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.1 Portuguese Exploration and Spanish Conquest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.2 Religious Upheavals in the Developing Atlantic World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.3 Challenges to Spain’s Supremacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.4 New Worlds in the Americas: Labor, Commerce, and the Columbian Exchange . . . . 52
Chapter 3: Creating New Social Orders: Colonial Societies, 1500–1700 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.1 Spanish Exploration and Colonial Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.2 Colonial Rivalries: Dutch and French Colonial Ambitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.3 English Settlements in America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.4 The Impact of Colonization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Chapter 4: Rule Britannia! The English Empire, 1660–1763 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.1 Charles II and the Restoration Colonies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
4.2 The Glorious Revolution and the English Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.3 An Empire of Slavery and the Consumer Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.4 Great Awakening and Enlightenment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
4.5 Wars for Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Chapter 5: Imperial Reforms and Colonial Protests, 1763-1774 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
5.1 Confronting the National Debt: The Aftermath of the French and Indian War . . . . . . 126
5.2 The Stamp Act and the Sons and Daughters of Liberty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5.3 The Townshend Acts and Colonial Protest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.4 The Destruction of the Tea and the Coercive Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
5.5 Disaffection: The First Continental Congress and American Identity . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Chapter 6: America's War for Independence, 1775-1783 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
6.1 Britain’s Law-and-Order Strategy and Its Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
6.2 The Early Years of the Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
6.3 War in the South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
6.4 Identity during the American Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Chapter 7: Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
7.1 Common Sense: From Monarchy to an American Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
7.2 How Much Revolutionary Change? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
7.3 Debating Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
7.4 The Constitutional Convention and Federal Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Chapter 8: Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
8.1 Competing Visions: Federalists and Democratic-Republicans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
8.2 The New American Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
8.3 Partisan Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
8.4 The United States Goes Back to War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Chapter 9: Industrial Transformation in the North, 1800–1850 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
9.1 Early Industrialization in the Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
9.2 A Vibrant Capitalist Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
9.3 On the Move: The Transportation Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
9.4 A New Social Order: Class Divisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Chapter 10: Jacksonian Democracy, 1820–1840 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
10.1 A New Political Style: From John Quincy Adams to Andrew Jackson . . . . . . . . . 274
10.2 The Rise of American Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
10.3 The Nullification Crisis and the Bank War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
10.4 Indian Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
10.5 The Tyranny and Triumph of the Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
Chapter 11: A Nation on the Move: Westward Expansion, 1800–1860 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
11.1 Lewis and Clark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
11.2 The Missouri Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
11.3 Independence for Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
11.4 The Mexican-American War, 1846–1848 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
11.5 Free Soil or Slave? The Dilemma of the West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
Chapter 12: Cotton is King: The Antebellum South, 1800–1860 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
12.1 The Economics of Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
12.2 African Americans in the Antebellum United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
12.3 Wealth and Culture in the South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
12.4 The Filibuster and the Quest for New Slave States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
Chapter 13: Antebellum Idealism and Reform Impulses, 1820–1860 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
13.1 An Awakening of Religion and Individualism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
13.2 Antebellum Communal Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
13.3 Reforms to Human Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
13.4 Addressing Slavery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
13.5 Women’s Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384
Chapter 14: Troubled Times: the Tumultuous 1850s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
14.1 The Compromise of 1850 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
14.2 The Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Republican Party . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
14.3 The Dred Scott Decision and Sectional Strife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
14.4 John Brown and the Election of 1860 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
Chapter 15: The Civil War, 1860–1865 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
15.1 The Origins and Outbreak of the Civil War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
15.2 Early Mobilization and War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
15.3 1863: The Changing Nature of the War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433
15.4 The Union Triumphant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442
Chapter 16: The Era of Reconstruction, 1865–1877 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
16.1 Restoring the Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454
16.2 Congress and the Remaking of the South, 1865–1866 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
16.3 Radical Reconstruction, 1867–1872 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
16.4 The Collapse of Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470
Chapter 17: Go West Young Man! Westward Expansion, 1840-1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483
17.1 The Westward Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484
17.2 Homesteading: Dreams and Realities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490
17.3 Making a Living in Gold and Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
17.4 The Loss of American Indian Life and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500
17.5 The Impact of Expansion on Chinese Immigrants and Hispanic Citizens . . . . . . . . 506
Chapter 18: Industrialization and the Rise of Big Business, 1870-1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515
18.1 Inventors of the Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516
18.2 From Invention to Industrial Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521
18.3 Building Industrial America on the Backs of Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528
18.4 A New American Consumer Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
Chapter 19: The Growing Pains of Urbanization, 1870-1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545
19.1 Urbanization and Its Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546
19.2 The African American “Great Migration” and New European Immigration . . . . . . . 554
19.3 Relief from the Chaos of Urban Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559
19.4 Change Reflected in Thought and Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567
Chapter 20: Politics in the Gilded Age, 1870-1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579
This content is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3

20.1 Political Corruption in Postbellum America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580
20.2 The Key Political Issues: Patronage, Tariffs, and Gold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587
20.3 Farmers Revolt in the Populist Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594
20.4 Social and Labor Unrest in the 1890s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599
Chapter 21: Leading the Way: The Progressive Movement, 1890-1920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609
21.1 The Origins of the Progressive Spirit in America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610
21.2 Progressivism at the Grassroots Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612
21.3 New Voices for Women and African Americans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621
21.4 Progressivism in the White House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627
Chapter 22: Age of Empire: American Foreign Policy, 1890-1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641
22.1 Turner, Mahan, and the Roots of Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642
22.2 The Spanish-American War and Overseas Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648
22.3 Economic Imperialism in East Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655
22.4 Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” Foreign Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658
22.5 Taft’s “Dollar Diplomacy” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663
Chapter 23: Americans and the Great War, 1914-1919 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669
23.1 American Isolationism and the European Origins of War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 670
23.2 The United States Prepares for War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 676
23.3 A New Home Front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682
23.4 From War to Peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686
23.5 Demobilization and Its Difficult Aftermath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692
Chapter 24: The Jazz Age: Redefining the Nation, 1919-1929 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 701
24.1 Prosperity and the Production of Popular Entertainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702
24.2 Transformation and Backlash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 708
24.3 A New Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715
24.4 Republican Ascendancy: Politics in the 1920s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723
Chapter 25: Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? The Great Depression, 1929-1932 . . . . . . . . 731
25.1 The Stock Market Crash of 1929 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 732
25.2 President Hoover’s Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743
25.3 The Depths of the Great Depression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 748
25.4 Assessing the Hoover Years on the Eve of the New Deal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 756
Chapter 26: Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932-1941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765
26.1 The Rise of Franklin Roosevelt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 766
26.2 The First New Deal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770
26.3 The Second New Deal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779
Chapter 27: Fighting the Good Fight in World War II, 1941-1945 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 795
27.1 The Origins of War: Europe, Asia, and the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 796
27.2 The Home Front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 803
27.3 Victory in the European Theater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
27.4 The Pacific Theater and the Atomic Bomb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
Chapter 28: Post-War Prosperity and Cold War Fears, 1945-1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829
28.1 The Challenges of Peacetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830
28.2 The Cold War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833
28.3 The American Dream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
28.4 Popular Culture and Mass Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
28.5 The African American Struggle for Civil Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
Chapter 29: Contesting Futures: America in the 1960s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
29.1 The Kennedy Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
29.2 Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872
29.3 The Civil Rights Movement Marches On . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878
29.4 Challenging the Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887
Chapter 30: Political Storms at Home and Abroad, 1968-1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895
30.1 Identity Politics in a Fractured Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896
30.2 Coming Apart, Coming Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903
30.3 Vietnam: The Downward Spiral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
30.4 Watergate: Nixon’s Domestic Nightmare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 916
30.5 Jimmy Carter in the Aftermath of the Storm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921
Chapter 31: From Cold War to Culture Wars, 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
31.1 The Reagan Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932
31.2 Political and Cultural Fusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
31.3 A New World Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
31.4 Bill Clinton and the New Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 949
Chapter 32: The Challenges of the Twenty-First Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 963
32.1 The War on Terror . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 964
32.2 The Domestic Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971
32.3 New Century, Old Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978
32.4 Hope and Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983
A The Declaration of Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 995
B The Constitution of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 999
C Presidents of the United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1015
D U.S. Political Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1019
E U.S. Topographical Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021
F United States Population Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023
G Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049

Preface 1
Preface
Welcome to U.S. History, an OpenStax College resource. This textbook has been created with several goals
in mind: accessibility, customization, and student engagement—all while encouraging students toward
high levels of academic scholarship. Instructors and students alike will find that this textbook offers a
strong foundation in U.S. history in an accessible format.
About OpenStax College
OpenStax College is a non-profit organization committed to improving student access to quality learning
materials. Our free textbooks go through a rigorous editorial publishing process. Our texts are developed
and peer-reviewed by educators to ensure they are readable, accurate, and meet the scope and sequence
requirements of today’s college courses. Unlike traditional textbooks, OpenStax College resources live
online and are owned by the community of educators using them. Through our partnerships with
companies and foundations committed to reducing costs for students, OpenStax College is working to
improve access to higher education for all. OpenStax College is an initiative of Rice University and is made
possible through the generous support of several philanthropic foundations. Since our launch in 2012 our
texts have been used by millions of learners online and over 1,200 institutions worldwide.
About OpenStax College’s Resources
OpenStax College resources provide quality academic instruction. Three key features set our materials
apart from others: they can be customized by instructors for each class, they are a “living” resource that
grows online through contributions from educators, and they are available free or for minimal cost.
Customization
OpenStax College learning resources are designed to be customized for each course. Our textbooks are
developed to meet the scope and sequence of a typical course and; therefore, provide a solid foundation
on which instructors can build, and our resources are conceived and written with flexibility in mind.
Instructors can select the sections most relevant to their curricula and create a textbook that speaks directly
to the needs of their classes and student body. Teachers are encouraged to expand on existing examples by
adding unique context via geographically localized applications and topical connections.
U.S. History can be easily customized using our online platform (http://cnx.org/content/col11740/latest/).
Simply select the content most relevant to your current semester and create a textbook that speaks
directly to the needs of your class. U.S. History is organized as a collection of sections that can be
rearranged, modified, and enhanced through localized examples or to incorporate a specific theme of your
course. This customization feature will ensure that your textbook truly reflects the goals of your course.
Cost
Our textbooks are available for free online, and also in low-cost print and iBook textbook editions.
About U.S. History

U.S. History has been developed to meet the scope and sequence of most introductory U.S. History courses.
At the same time, the book includes a number of innovative features designed to enhance student learning.
Instructors can also customize the book, adapting it to the approach that works best in their classroom.
Coverage and Scope
To develop U.S. History, we solicited ideas from historians at all levels of higher education, from
community colleges to Ph.D.-granting universities. They told us about their courses, students, challenges,
resources, and how a textbook can best meet their and their students’ needs.
2 Preface
The result is a book that covers the breadth of the chronological history of the United States and also
provides the necessary depth to ensure the course is manageable for instructors and students alike. U.S.
History explores the key forces and major developments that together form the American experience, with
particular attention paid to considering issues of race, class, and gender.
The pedagogical choices, chapter arrangements, and learning objective fulfillment were developed and
vetted with feedback from educators dedicated to the project. They thoroughly read the material and
offered critical and detailed commentary. Reviewer feedback centered around achieving equilibrium
between the various political, social, and cultural dynamics that permeate history. The outcome is a
balanced approach to U.S. history, considering the people, events, and ideas that have shaped the United
States from both the top down (politics, economics, diplomacy) and bottom up (eyewitness accounts, lived
experience).
While the book is organized primarily chronologically, as needed, material treating different topics or
regions over the same time period is spread over multiple chapters. For example, chapters 9, 11, and 12
look at economic, political, social, and cultural developments during the first half of the eighteenth century
in the North, West, and South respectively, while chapters 18 to 20 closely examine industrialization,
urbanization, and politics in the period after Reconstruction.
Chapter 1: The Americas, Europe, and Africa before 1492
Chapter 2: Early Globalization: The Atlantic World, 1492–1650
Chapter 3: Creating New Social Orders: Colonial Societies, 1500–1700
Chapter 4: Rule Britannia! The English Empire, 1660–1763
Chapter 5: Imperial Reforms and Colonial Protests, 1763–1774
Chapter 6: America’s War for Independence, 1775–1783
Chapter 7: Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790
Chapter 8: Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1815
Chapter 9: Industrial Transformation in the North, 1800–1850
Chapter 10: Jacksonian Democracy, 1820–1840
Chapter 11: A Nation on the Move: Westward Expansion, 1800–1850
Chapter 12: Cotton is King: The Antebellum South, 1800–1860
Chapter 13: Antebellum Idealism and Reform Impulses, 1820–1860
Chapter 14: Troubled Times: The Tumultuous 1850s
Chapter 15: The Civil War, 1860–1865
Chapter 16: The Era of Reconstruction, 1865–1877
Chapter 17: Go West Young Man! Westward Expansion, 1840–1900
Chapter 18: Industrialization and the Rise of Big Business, 1870–1900
Chapter 19: The Growing Pains of Urbanization, 1870–1900
Chapter 20: Politics in the Gilded Age, 1870–1900
Chapter 21: Leading the Way: The Progressive Movement, 1890–1920
Chapter 22: Age of Empire: Modern American Foreign Policy, 1890–1914
Chapter 23: Americans and the Great War, 1914–1919
Chapter 24: The Jazz Age: Redefining the Nation, 1919–1929
Chapter 25: Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? The Great Depression, 1929–1932
Chapter 26: Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932–1941
Chapter 27: Fighting the Good Fight in World War II, 1941–1945
Chapter 28: Postwar Prosperity and Cold War Fears, 1945–1960
Chapter 29: Contesting Futures: America in the 1960s
Chapter 30: Political Storms at Home and Abroad, 1968–1980
Chapter 31: From Cold War to Culture Wars, 1980–2000
Chapter 32: The Challenges of the Twenty-First Century
Appendix A: The Declaration of Independence
Appendix B: The Constitution of the United States

Preface 3
Appendix C: Presidents of the United States

Appendix D: United States Political Map
Appendix E: United States Topographical Map
Appendix F: United States Population Chart
Appendix G: Suggested Reading
Pedagogical Foundation
Throughout the OpenStax version of U.S. History, you will find featured material that engage the students
in historical inquiry by taking selected topics a step further. Our features include:
Americana: This feature explores the significance of artifacts from American pop culture and
considers what values, views, and philosophies are reflected in these objects.
Defining “American”: This feature analyzes primary sources, including documents, speeches, and
other writings, to consider important issues of the day and present varying points of view on them,
while keeping a focus on the theme of what it means to be American.
My Story: This feature presents first-person accounts (diaries, interviews, letters) of significant or
exceptional events from the American experience.
Link It Up: This feature is a very brief introduction to a website with an interactive experience,
video, or primary sources that help improve student understanding of the material.
Questions for Each Level of Learning

The OpenStax version of U.S. History offers two types of end-of-module questions for students.
Review Questions are simple recall questions from each module in the chapter and are in either
multiple-choice or open-response format. The answers can be looked up in the text.
Critical Thinking Questions are higher-level, conceptual questions that ask students to demonstrate
their understanding by applying what they have learned in each module to the whole of the chapter.
They ask for outside-the-box thinking, for reasoning about the concepts. They push the student to
places they wouldn’t have thought of going themselves.
About Our Team

Our team is a diverse mix of historians representing various institutions across the nation. We’d like to
extend a special thanks to our senior contributors who worked tirelessly to ensure the coverage and level
is appropriate for students.
Senior Contributors
P. Scott Corbett, PhD—Ventura College
Dr. Corbett’s major fields of study are recent American history and American diplomatic history. He
teaches a variety of courses at Ventura College, and he serves as an instructor at California State
University’s Channel Islands campus. A passionate educator, Scott has also taught history to university
students in Singapore and China.
Volker Janssen, PhD—California State University–Fullerton
Born and raised in Germany, Dr. Janssen received his BA from the University of Hamburg and his MA and
PhD from the University of California, San Diego. He is a former Fulbright scholar and an active member
of Germany's advanced studies foundation "Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes." Volker currently
serves as Associate Professor at California State University’s Fullerton campus, where he specializes in the
social, economic, and institutional history of California, and more recently, the history of technology.
John M. Lund, PhD—Keene State College
4 Preface
Dr. Lund’s primary research focuses on early American history, with a special interest in oaths, Colonial
New England, and Atlantic legal cultures. John has over 20 years of teaching experience. In addition to
working with students at Keene State College, he lectures at Franklin Pierce University, and serves the
online learning community at Southern New Hampshire University.
Todd Pfannestiel, PhD—Clarion University
Dr. Pfannestiel is a Professor in the history department of Clarion University in Pennsylvania, where he
also holds the position of Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. Todd has a strong history of service to
his institution, its students, and the community that surrounds it.
Paul Vickery, PhD—Oral Roberts University
Educating others is one of Dr. Vickery’s delights, whether in the classroom, through authoring books and
articles, or via informal teaching during his travels. He is currently Professor of History at Oral Roberts
University, where his emphasis is on the history of ideas, ethics, and the role of the church and theology
in national development. Paul reads Portuguese, Italian, French, and Hebrew, and has taught on five
continents.
Sylvie Waskiewicz, PhD—Lead Editor
Dr. Waskiewicz received her BSBA from Georgetown University and her MA and PhD from the Institute
of French Studies at New York University. With over 10 years of teaching experience in English and French
history and language, Sylvie left academia to join the ranks of higher education publishing. She has spent
the last eight years editing college textbooks and academic journals.
Reviewers
Amy Bix Iowa State University
Edward Bond Alabama A&M University
Tammy Byron Dalton State College
Benjamin Carp Brooklyn College, CUNY
Sharon Deubreau Rhodes State College
Gene Fein Fordham University
Joel Franks San Jose State University
Raymond Frey Centenary College
Richard Gianni Indiana University Northwest
Larry Gragg Missouri University of Science and Technology
Laura Graves South Plains College
Elisa Guernsey Monroe Community College
Thomas Chase Hagood University of Georgia
Charlotte Haller Worcester State University
David Head Spring Hill College
Tamora Hoskisson Salt Lake Community College
Jean Keller Palomar College

Preface 5
Kathleen Kennedy Missouri State University
Mark Klobas Scottsdale Community College
Ann Kordas Johnson & Wales University
Stephanie Laffer Miami International University of Art and Design
Jennifer Lang Delgado Community College
Jennifer Lawrence Tarrant County College
Wendy Maier-Sarti Oakton Community College
Jim McIntyre Moraine Valley Community College
Marianne McKnight Salt Lake Community College
Brandon Morgan Central New Mexico Community College
Caryn Neumann Miami University of Ohio
Michelle Novak Houston Community College
Lisa Ossian Des Moines Area Community College
Paul Ringel High Point University
Jason Ripper Everett Community College
Silvana Siddali Saint Louis University
Brooks Simpson Arizona State University
Steven Smith California State University, Fullerton
David Trowbridge Marshall University
Eugene Van Sickle University of North Georgia
Hubert van Tuyll Augusta State University
Ancillaries
OpenStax projects offer an array of ancillaries for students and instructors. Please visit
http://openstaxcollege.org and view the learning resources for this title.
6 Preface

Chapter 1 The Americas, Europe, and Africa Before 1492 7
CHAPTER 1
The Americas, Europe, and Africa

Before 1492
Figure 1.1 In Europe supported by Africa and America (1796), artist William Blake, who was an abolitionist, depicts
the interdependence of the three continents in the Atlantic World; however, he places gold armbands on the Indian
and African women, symbolizing their subjugation. The strand binding the three women may represent tobacco.
Chapter Outline
1.1 The Americas
1.2 Europe on the Brink of Change
1.3 West Africa and the Role of Slavery
Introduction
Globalization, the ever-increasing interconnectedness of the world, is not a new phenomenon, but it
accelerated when western Europeans discovered the riches of the East. During the Crusades (1095–1291),
Europeans developed an appetite for spices, silk, porcelain, sugar, and other luxury items from the East,
for which they traded fur, timber, and Slavic people they captured and sold (hence the word slave). But
when the Silk Road, the long overland trading route from China to the Mediterranean, became costlier and
more dangerous to travel, Europeans searched for a more efficient and inexpensive trade route over water,
initiating the development of what we now call the Atlantic World.
In pursuit of commerce in Asia, fifteenth-century traders unexpectedly encountered a “New World”
populated by millions and home to sophisticated and numerous peoples. Mistakenly believing they had
reached the East Indies, these early explorers called its inhabitants Indians. West Africa, a diverse and
culturally rich area, soon entered the stage as other nations exploited its slave trade and brought its peoples
to the New World in chains. Although Europeans would come to dominate the New World, they could
not have done so without Africans and native peoples (Figure 1.1).
8 Chapter 1 The Americas, Europe, and Africa Before 1492
1.1 The Americas
By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Locate on a map the major American civilizations before the arrival of the Spanish
• Discuss the cultural achievements of these civilizations
• Discuss the differences and similarities between lifestyles, religious practices, and
customs among the native peoples
Between nine and fifteen thousand years ago, some scholars believe that a land bridge existed between
Asia and North America that we now call Beringia. The first inhabitants of what would be named the
Americas migrated across this bridge in search of food. When the glaciers melted, water engulfed Beringia,
and the Bering Strait was formed. Later settlers came by boat across the narrow strait. (The fact that
Asians and American Indians share genetic markers on a Y chromosome lends credibility to this migration
theory.) Continually moving southward, the settlers eventually populated both North and South America,
creating unique cultures that ranged from the highly complex and urban Aztec civilization in what is now
Mexico City to the woodland tribes of eastern North America. Recent research along the west coast of
South America suggests that migrant populations may have traveled down this coast by water as well as
by land.
Researchers believe that about ten thousand years ago, humans also began the domestication of plants
and animals, adding agriculture as a means of sustenance to hunting and gathering techniques. With this
agricultural revolution, and the more abundant and reliable food supplies it brought, populations grew
and people were able to develop a more settled way of life, building permanent settlements. Nowhere in
the Americas was this more obvious than in Mesoamerica (Figure 1.3).
Figure 1.2 (credit: modification of work by Architect of the Capitol)

Figure 1.3 This map shows the extent of the major civilizations of the Western Hemisphere. In South America, early
civilizations developed along the coast because the high Andes and the inhospitable Amazon Basin made the interior
of the continent less favorable for settlement.
THE FIRST AMERICANS: THE OLMEC

Mesoamerica is the geographic area stretching from north of Panama up to the desert of central Mexico.
Although marked by great topographic, linguistic, and cultural diversity, this region cradled a number
of civilizations with similar characteristics. Mesoamericans were polytheistic; their gods possessed both
male and female traits and demanded blood sacrifices of enemies taken in battle or ritual bloodletting.
Corn, or maize, domesticated by 5000 BCE, formed the basis of their diet. They developed a mathematical
system, built huge edifices, and devised a calendar that accurately predicted eclipses and solstices and that
priest-astronomers used to direct the planting and harvesting of crops. Most important for our knowledge
of these peoples, they created the only known written language in the Western Hemisphere; researchers
have made much progress in interpreting the inscriptions on their temples and pyramids. Though the area
had no overarching political structure, trade over long distances helped diffuse culture. Weapons made
of obsidian, jewelry crafted from jade, feathers woven into clothing and ornaments, and cacao beans that
were whipped into a chocolate drink formed the basis of commerce. The mother of Mesoamerican cultures
was the Olmec civilization.
Flourishing along the hot Gulf Coast of Mexico from about 1200 to about 400 BCE, the Olmec produced a
number of major works of art, architecture, pottery, and sculpture. Most recognizable are their giant head
sculptures (Figure 1.4) and the pyramid in La Venta. The Olmec built aqueducts to transport water into
their cities and irrigate their fields. They grew maize, squash, beans, and tomatoes. They also bred small
domesticated dogs which, along with fish, provided their protein. Although no one knows what happened
to the Olmec after about 400 BCE, in part because the jungle reclaimed many of their cities, their culture
was the base upon which the Maya and the Aztec built. It was the Olmec who worshipped a rain god, a
maize god, and the feathered serpent so important in the future pantheons of the Aztecs (who called him
Quetzalcoatl) and the Maya (to whom he was Kukulkan). The Olmec also developed a system of trade
throughout Mesoamerica, giving rise to an elite class.
Figure 1.4 The Olmec carved heads from giant boulders that ranged from four to eleven feet in height and could
weigh up to fifty tons. All these figures have flat noses, slightly crossed eyes, and large lips. These physical features
can be seen today in some of the peoples indigenous to the area.
THE MAYA
After the decline of the Olmec, a city rose in the fertile central highlands of Mesoamerica. One of the largest
population centers in pre-Columbian America and home to more than 100,000 people at its height in about
500 CE, Teotihuacan was located about thirty miles northeast of modern Mexico City. The ethnicity of this
settlement’s inhabitants is debated; some scholars believe it was a multiethnic city. Large-scale agriculture
and the resultant abundance of food allowed time for people to develop special trades and skills other
than farming. Builders constructed over twenty-two hundred apartment compounds for multiple families,
as well as more than a hundred temples. Among these were the Pyramid of the Sun (which is two
hundred feet high) and the Pyramid of the Moon (one hundred and fifty feet high). Near the Temple
of the Feathered Serpent, graves have been uncovered that suggest humans were sacrificed for religious
purposes. The city was also the center for trade, which extended to settlements on Mesoamerica’s Gulf
Coast.
The Maya were one Mesoamerican culture that had strong ties to Teotihuacan. The Maya’s architectural
and mathematical contributions were significant. Flourishing from roughly 2000 BCE to 900 CE in what
is now Mexico, Belize, Honduras, and Guatemala, the Maya perfected the calendar and written language
the Olmec had begun. They devised a written mathematical system to record crop yields and the size of
the population, and to assist in trade. Surrounded by farms relying on primitive agriculture, they built the
city-states of Copan, Tikal, and Chichen Itza along their major trade routes, as well as temples, statues of
gods, pyramids, and astronomical observatories (Figure 1.5). However, because of poor soil and a drought
that lasted nearly two centuries, their civilization declined by about 900 CE and they abandoned their large
population centers.

Figure 1.5 El Castillo, located at Chichen Itza in the eastern Yucatán peninsula, served as a temple for the god
Kukulkan. Each side contains ninety-one steps to the top. When counting the top platform, the total number of stairs
is three hundred and sixty-five, the number of days in a year. (credit: Ken Thomas)
The Spanish found little organized resistance among the weakened Maya upon their arrival in the 1520s.
However, they did find Mayan history, in the form of glyphs, or pictures representing words, recorded
in folding books called codices (the singular is codex). In 1562, Bishop Diego de Landa, who feared the
converted natives had reverted to their traditional religious practices, collected and burned every codex he
could find. Today only a few survive.
Click and Explore
Visit the University of Arizona Library Special Collections

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/mayancodex) to view facsimiles and descriptions of
two of the four surviving Mayan codices.
THE AZTEC
When the Spaniard Hernán Cortés arrived on the coast of Mexico in the sixteenth century, at the site of
present-day Veracruz, he soon heard of a great city ruled by an emperor named Moctezuma. This city
was tremendously wealthy—filled with gold—and took in tribute from surrounding tribes. The riches and
complexity Cortés found when he arrived at that city, known as Tenochtitlán, were far beyond anything
he or his men had ever seen.
According to legend, a warlike people called the Aztec (also known as the Mexica) had left a city called
Aztlán and traveled south to the site of present-day Mexico City. In 1325, they began construction of
Tenochtitlán on an island in Lake Texcoco. By 1519, when Cortés arrived, this settlement contained
upwards of 200,000 inhabitants and was certainly the largest city in the Western Hemisphere at that time
and probably larger than any European city (Figure 1.6). One of Cortés’s soldiers, Bernal Díaz del Castillo,
recorded his impressions upon first seeing it: “When we saw so many cities and villages built in the water
and other great towns on dry land we were amazed and said it was like the enchantments . . . on account of
the great towers and cues and buildings rising from the water, and all built of masonry. And some of our
soldiers even asked whether the things that we saw were not a dream? . . . I do not know how to describe
it, seeing things as we did that had never been heard of or seen before, not even dreamed about.”
Figure 1.6 This rendering of the Aztec island city of Tenochtitlán depicts the causeways that connected the central
city to the surrounding land. Envoys from surrounding tribes brought tribute to the Emperor.
Unlike the dirty, fetid cities of Europe at the time, Tenochtitlán was well planned, clean, and orderly.
The city had neighborhoods for specific occupations, a trash collection system, markets, two aqueducts
bringing in fresh water, and public buildings and temples. Unlike the Spanish, Aztecs bathed daily, and
wealthy homes might even contain a steam bath. A labor force of slaves from subjugated neighboring
tribes had built the fabulous city and the three causeways that connected it to the mainland. To farm, the
Aztec constructed barges made of reeds and filled them with fertile soil. Lake water constantly irrigated
these chinampas, or “floating gardens,” which are still in use and can be seen today in Xochimilco, a
district of Mexico City.
Each god in the Aztec pantheon represented and ruled an aspect of the natural world, such as the heavens,
farming, rain, fertility, sacrifice, and combat. A ruling class of warrior nobles and priests performed ritual
human sacrifice daily to sustain the sun on its long journey across the sky, to appease or feed the gods, and
to stimulate agricultural production. The sacrificial ceremony included cutting open the chest of a criminal
or captured warrior with an obsidian knife and removing the still-beating heart (Figure 1.7).

Figure 1.7 In this illustration, an Aztec priest cuts out the beating heart of a sacrificial victim before throwing the
body down from the temple. Aztec belief centered on supplying the gods with human blood—the ultimate
sacrifice—to keep them strong and well.
Click and Explore
Explore Aztec-History.com (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/azteccreation) to learn

more about the Aztec creation story.
MY STORY
The Aztec Predict the Coming of the Spanish
The following is an excerpt from the sixteenth-century Florentine Codex of the writings of Fray Bernardino
de Sahagun, a priest and early chronicler of Aztec history. When an old man from Xochimilco first saw
the Spanish in Veracruz, he recounted an earlier dream to Moctezuma, the ruler of the Aztecs.
Said Quzatli to the sovereign, “Oh mighty lord, if because I tell you the truth I am to die,
nevertheless I am here in your presence and you may do what you wish to me!” He narrated
that mounted men would come to this land in a great wooden house [ships] this structure was
to lodge many men, serving them as a home; within they would eat and sleep. On the surface
of this house they would cook their food, walk and play as if they were on firm land. They were
to be white, bearded men, dressed in different colors and on their heads they would wear
round coverings.
Ten years before the arrival of the Spanish, Moctezuma received several omens which at the time he
could not interpret. A fiery object appeared in the night sky, a spontaneous fire broke out in a religious
temple and could not be extinguished with water, a water spout appeared in Lake Texcoco, and a woman
could be heard wailing, “O my children we are about to go forever.” Moctezuma also had dreams and
premonitions of impending disaster. These foretellings were recorded after the Aztecs’ destruction. They
do, however, give us insight into the importance placed upon signs and omens in the pre-Columbian
world.
THE INCA
In South America, the most highly developed and complex society was that of the Inca, whose name means
“lord” or “ruler” in the Andean language called Quechua. At its height in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries, the Inca Empire, located on the Pacific coast and straddling the Andes Mountains, extended
some twenty-five hundred miles. It stretched from modern-day Colombia in the north to Chile in the south
and included cities built at an altitude of 14,000 feet above sea level. Its road system, kept free of debris and
repaired by workers stationed at varying intervals, rivaled that of the Romans and efficiently connected the
sprawling empire. The Inca, like all other pre-Columbian societies, did not use axle-mounted wheels for
transportation. They built stepped roads to ascend and descend the steep slopes of the Andes; these would
have been impractical for wheeled vehicles but worked well for pedestrians. These roads enabled the rapid
movement of the highly trained Incan army. Also like the Romans, the Inca were effective administrators.
Runners called chasquis traversed the roads in a continuous relay system, ensuring quick communication
over long distances. The Inca had no system of writing, however. They communicated and kept records
using a system of colored strings and knots called the quipu (Figure 1.8).
Figure 1.8 The Inca had no written language. Instead, they communicated and kept records by means of a system
of knots and colored strings called the quipu. Each of these knots and strings possessed a distinct meaning
intelligible to those educated in their significance.
The Inca people worshipped their lord who, as a member of an elite ruling class, had absolute authority
over every aspect of life. Much like feudal lords in Europe at the time, the ruling class lived off the labor
of the peasants, collecting vast wealth that accompanied them as they went, mummified, into the next life.
The Inca farmed corn, beans, squash, quinoa (a grain cultivated for its seeds), and the indigenous potato
on terraced land they hacked from the steep mountains. Peasants received only one-third of their crops for
themselves. The Inca ruler required a third, and a third was set aside in a kind of welfare system for those
unable to work. Huge storehouses were filled with food for times of need. Each peasant also worked for
the Inca ruler a number of days per month on public works projects, a requirement known as the mita. For
example, peasants constructed rope bridges made of grass to span the mountains above fast-flowing icy
rivers. In return, the lord provided laws, protection, and relief in times of famine.
The Inca worshipped the sun god Inti and called gold the “sweat” of the sun. Unlike the Maya and the
Aztecs, they rarely practiced human sacrifice and usually offered the gods food, clothing, and coca leaves.
In times of dire emergency, however, such as in the aftermath of earthquakes, volcanoes, or crop failure,
they resorted to sacrificing prisoners. The ultimate sacrifice was children, who were specially selected and
well fed. The Inca believed these children would immediately go to a much better afterlife.
In 1911, the American historian Hiram Bingham uncovered the lost Incan city of Machu Picchu (Figure
1.9). Located about fifty miles northwest of Cusco, Peru, at an altitude of about 8,000 feet, the city had

been built in 1450 and inexplicably abandoned roughly a hundred years later. Scholars believe the city
was used for religious ceremonial purposes and housed the priesthood. The architectural beauty of this
city is unrivaled. Using only the strength of human labor and no machines, the Inca constructed walls and
buildings of polished stones, some weighing over fifty tons, that were fitted together perfectly without the
use of mortar. In 1983, UNESCO designated the ruined city a World Heritage Site.
Figure 1.9 Located in today’s Peru at an altitude of nearly 8,000 feet, Machu Picchu was a ceremonial Incan city
built about 1450 CE.
Click and Explore
Browse the British Museum’s World Cultures collection

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/inca) to see more examples and descriptions of Incan
(as well as Aztec, Mayan, and North American Indian) art.
NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS

With few exceptions, the North American native cultures were much more widely dispersed than the
Mayan, Aztec, and Incan societies, and did not have their population size or organized social structures.
Although the cultivation of corn had made its way north, many Indians still practiced hunting and
gathering. Horses, first introduced by the Spanish, allowed the Plains Indians to more easily follow and
hunt the huge herds of bison. A few societies had evolved into relatively complex forms, but they were
already in decline at the time of Christopher Columbus’s arrival.
In the southwestern part of today’s United States dwelled several groups we collectively call the Pueblo.
The Spanish first gave them this name, which means “town” or “village,” because they lived in towns or
villages of permanent stone-and-mud buildings with thatched roofs. Like present-day apartment houses,
these buildings had multiple stories, each with multiple rooms. The three main groups of the Pueblo
people were the Mogollon, Hohokam, and Anasazi.
The Mogollon thrived in the Mimbres Valley (New Mexico) from about 150 BCE to 1450 CE. They
developed a distinctive artistic style for painting bowls with finely drawn geometric figures and wildlife,
especially birds, in black on a white background. Beginning about 600 CE, the Hohokam built an extensive
irrigation system of canals to irrigate the desert and grow fields of corn, beans, and squash. By 1300,
their crop yields were supporting the most highly populated settlements in the southwest. The Hohokam
decorated pottery with a red-on-buff design and made jewelry of turquoise. In the high desert of New
Mexico, the Anasazi, whose name means “ancient enemy” or “ancient ones,” carved homes from steep
cliffs accessed by ladders or ropes that could be pulled in at night or in case of enemy attack (Figure 1.10).
Figure 1.10 To access their homes, the cliff-dwelling Anasazi used ropes or ladders that could be pulled in at night
for safety. These pueblos may be viewed today in Canyon de Chelly National Monument (above) in Arizona and
Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado.
Roads extending some 180 miles connected the Pueblos’ smaller urban centers to each other and to
Chaco Canyon, which by 1050 CE had become the administrative, religious, and cultural center of their
civilization. A century later, however, probably because of drought, the Pueblo peoples abandoned their
cities. Their present-day descendants include the Hopi and Zuni tribes.
The Indian groups who lived in the present-day Ohio River Valley and achieved their cultural apex from
the first century CE to 400 CE are collectively known as the Hopewell culture. Their settlements, unlike
those of the southwest, were small hamlets. They lived in wattle-and-daub houses (made from woven
lattice branches “daubed” with wet mud, clay, or sand and straw) and practiced agriculture, which they
supplemented by hunting and fishing. Utilizing waterways, they developed trade routes stretching from
Canada to Louisiana, where they exchanged goods with other tribes and negotiated in many different
languages. From the coast they received shells; from Canada, copper; and from the Rocky Mountains,
obsidian. With these materials they created necklaces, woven mats, and exquisite carvings. What remains
of their culture today are huge burial mounds and earthworks. Many of the mounds that were opened by
archaeologists contained artworks and other goods that indicate their society was socially stratified.
Perhaps the largest indigenous cultural and population center in North America was located along the
Mississippi River near present-day St. Louis. At its height in about 1100 CE, this five-square-mile city,
now called Cahokia, was home to more than ten thousand residents; tens of thousands more lived on
farms surrounding the urban center. The city also contained one hundred and twenty earthen mounds or
pyramids, each dominating a particular neighborhood and on each of which lived a leader who exercised
authority over the surrounding area. The largest mound covered fifteen acres. Cahokia was the hub
of political and trading activities along the Mississippi River. After 1300 CE, however, this civilization
declined—possibly because the area became unable to support the large population.
INDIANS OF THE EASTERN WOODLAND

Encouraged by the wealth found by the Spanish in the settled civilizations to the south, fifteenth- and
sixteenth-century English, Dutch, and French explorers expected to discover the same in North America.
What they found instead were small, disparate communities, many already ravaged by European diseases

brought by the Spanish and transmitted among the natives. Rather than gold and silver, there was an
abundance of land, and the timber and fur that land could produce.
The Indians living east of the Mississippi did not construct the large and complex societies of those to
the west. Because they lived in small autonomous clans or tribal units, each group adapted to the specific
environment in which it lived (Figure 1.11). These groups were by no means unified, and warfare among
tribes was common as they sought to increase their hunting and fishing areas. Still, these tribes shared
some common traits. A chief or group of tribal elders made decisions, and although the chief was male,
usually the women selected and counseled him. Gender roles were not as fixed as they were in the
patriarchal societies of Europe, Mesoamerica, and South America.
Figure 1.11 This map indicates the locations of the three Pueblo cultures the major Eastern Woodland Indian tribes,
and the tribes of the Southeast, as well as the location of the ancient city of Cahokia.
Women typically cultivated corn, beans, and squash and harvested nuts and berries, while men hunted,
fished, and provided protection. But both took responsibility for raising children, and most major Indian
societies in the east were matriarchal. In tribes such as the Iroquois, Lenape, Muscogee, and Cherokee,
women had both power and influence. They counseled the chief and passed on the traditions of the tribe.
This matriarchy changed dramatically with the coming of the Europeans, who introduced, sometimes
forcibly, their own customs and traditions to the natives.
Clashing beliefs about land ownership and use of the environment would be the greatest area of conflict
with Europeans. Although tribes often claimed the right to certain hunting grounds—usually identified
by some geographical landmark—Indians did not practice, or in general even have the concept of, private
ownership of land. There were tribal hunting grounds, usually identified by some geographical landmark,
but there was no private ownership of land. A person’s possessions included only what he or she had
made, such as tools or weapons. The European Christian worldview, on the other hand, viewed land as
the source of wealth. According to the Christian Bible, God created humanity in his own image with the
command to use and subdue the rest of creation, which included not only land, but also all animal life.
Upon their arrival in North America, Europeans found no fences, no signs designating ownership. Land,
and the game that populated it, they believed, were there for the taking.

• Describe the European societies that engaged in conversion, conquest, and commerce
• Discuss the motives for and mechanisms of early European exploration
The fall of the Roman Empire (476 CE) and the beginning of the European Renaissance in the late
fourteenth century roughly bookend the period we call the Middle Ages. Without a dominant centralized
power or overarching cultural hub, Europe experienced political and military discord during this time. Its
inhabitants retreated into walled cities, fearing marauding pillagers including Vikings, Mongols, Arabs,
and Magyars. In return for protection, they submitted to powerful lords and their armies of knights. In
their brief, hard lives, few people traveled more than ten miles from the place they were born.
The Christian Church remained intact, however, and emerged from the period as a unified and powerful
institution. Priests, tucked away in monasteries, kept knowledge alive by collecting and copying religious
and secular manuscripts, often adding beautiful drawings or artwork. Social and economic devastation
arrived in 1340s, however, when Genoese merchants returning from the Black Sea unwittingly brought
with them a rat-borne and highly contagious disease, known as the bubonic plague. In a few short
years, it had killed many millions, about one-third of Europe’s population. A different strain, spread by
airborne germs, also killed many. Together these two are collectively called the Black Death (Figure 1.12).
Entire villages disappeared. A high birth rate, however, coupled with bountiful harvests, meant that the
population grew during the next century. By 1450, a newly rejuvenated European society was on the brink
of tremendous change.
Figure 1.12 This image depicts the bodily swellings, or buboes, characteristic of the Black Death.

Click and Explore
Visit EyeWitness to History (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/plague) to learn more

about the Black Death.
LIFE IN FEUDAL EUROPE

During the Middle Ages, most Europeans lived in small villages that consisted of a manorial house or
castle for the lord, a church, and simple homes for the peasants or serfs, who made up about 60 percent of
western Europe’s population. Hundreds of these castles and walled cities remain all over Europe (Figure
1.13).
Figure 1.13 One of the most beautifully preserved medieval walled cities is Carcassonne, France. Notice the use of
a double wall.
Europe’s feudal society was a mutually supportive system. The lords owned the land; knights gave
military service to a lord and carried out his justice; serfs worked the land in return for the protection
offered by the lord’s castle or the walls of his city, into which they fled in times of danger from invaders.
Much land was communally farmed at first, but as lords became more powerful they extended their
ownership and rented land to their subjects. Thus, although they were technically free, serfs were
effectively bound to the land they worked, which supported them and their families as well as the lord
and all who depended on him. The Catholic Church, the only church in Europe at the time, also owned
vast tracts of land and became very wealthy by collecting not only tithes (taxes consisting of 10 percent of
annual earnings) but also rents on its lands.
A serf’s life was difficult. Women often died in childbirth, and perhaps one-third of children died before
the age of five. Without sanitation or medicine, many people perished from diseases we consider
inconsequential today; few lived to be older than forty-five. Entire families, usually including
grandparents, lived in one- or two-room hovels that were cold, dark, and dirty. A fire was kept lit and
was always a danger to the thatched roofs, while its constant smoke affected the inhabitants’ health and
eyesight. Most individuals owned no more than two sets of clothing, consisting of a woolen jacket or tunic
and linen undergarments, and bathed only when the waters melted in spring.
In an agrarian society, the seasons dictate the rhythm of life. Everyone in Europe’s feudal society had a
job to do and worked hard. The father was the unquestioned head of the family. Idleness meant hunger.
When the land began to thaw in early spring, peasants started tilling the soil with primitive wooden plows
and crude rakes and hoes. Then they planted crops of wheat, rye, barley, and oats, reaping small yields
that barely sustained the population. Bad weather, crop disease, or insect infestation could cause an entire
village to starve or force the survivors to move to another location.
Early summer saw the first harvesting of hay, which was stored until needed to feed the animals in
winter. Men and boys sheared the sheep, now heavy with wool from the cold weather, while women and
children washed the wool and spun it into yarn. The coming of fall meant crops needed to be harvested
and prepared for winter. Livestock was butchered and the meat smoked or salted to preserve it. With the
harvest in and the provisions stored, fall was also the time for celebrating and giving thanks to God. Winter
brought the people indoors to weave yarn into fabric, sew clothing, thresh grain, and keep the fires going.
Everyone celebrated the birth of Christ in conjunction with the winter solstice.
THE CHURCH AND SOCIETY

After the fall of Rome, the Christian Church—united in dogma but unofficially divided into western and
eastern branches—was the only organized institution in medieval Europe. In 1054, the eastern branch of
Christianity, led by the Patriarch of Constantinople (a title that because roughly equivalent to the western
Church’s pope), established its center in Constantinople and adopted the Greek language for its services.
The western branch, under the pope, remained in Rome, becoming known as the Roman Catholic Church
and continuing to use Latin. Following this split, known as the Great Schism, each branch of Christianity
maintained a strict organizational hierarchy. The pope in Rome, for example, oversaw a huge bureaucracy
led by cardinals, known as “princes of the church,” who were followed by archbishops, bishops, and then
priests. During this period, the Roman Church became the most powerful international organization in
western Europe.
Just as agrarian life depended on the seasons, village and family life revolved around the Church. The
sacraments, or special ceremonies of the Church, marked every stage of life, from birth to maturation,
marriage, and burial, and brought people into the church on a regular basis. As Christianity spread
throughout Europe, it replaced pagan and animistic views, explaining supernatural events and forces of
nature in its own terms. A benevolent God in heaven, creator of the universe and beyond the realm of
nature and the known, controlled all events, warring against the force of darkness, known as the Devil or
Satan, here on earth. Although ultimately defeated, Satan still had the power to trick humans and cause
them to commit evil or sin.
All events had a spiritual connotation. Sickness, for example, might be a sign that a person had sinned,
while crop failure could result from the villagers’ not saying their prayers. Penitents confessed their sins
to the priest, who absolved them and assigned them penance to atone for their acts and save themselves
from eternal damnation. Thus the parish priest held enormous power over the lives of his parishioners.
Ultimately, the pope decided all matters of theology, interpreting the will of God to the people, but he also
had authority over temporal matters. Because the Church had the ability to excommunicate people, or send
a soul to hell forever, even monarchs feared to challenge its power. It was also the seat of all knowledge.
Latin, the language of the Church, served as a unifying factor for a continent of isolated regions, each with
its own dialect; in the early Middle Ages, nations as we know them today did not yet exist. The mostly
illiterate serfs were thus dependent on those literate priests to read and interpret the Bible, the word of
God, for them.

CHRISTIANITY ENCOUNTERS ISLAM

The year 622 brought a new challenge to Christendom. Near Mecca, Saudi Arabia, a prophet named
Muhammad received a revelation that became a cornerstone of the Islamic faith. The Koran, which
Muhammad wrote in Arabic, contained his message, affirming monotheism but identifying Christ not as
God but as a prophet like Moses, Abraham, David, and Muhammad. Following Muhammad’s death in
632, Islam spread by both conversion and military conquest across the Middle East and Asia Minor to India
and northern Africa, crossing the Straits of Gibraltar into Spain in the year 711 (Figure 1.14).
Figure 1.14 In the seventh and eighth centuries, Islam spread quickly across North Africa and into the Middle East.
The religion arrived in Europe via Spain in 711 and remained there until 1492, when Catholic monarchs reconquered
the last of Muslim-held territory after a long war.
The Islamic conquest of Europe continued until 732. Then, at the Battle of Tours (in modern France),
Charles Martel, nicknamed the Hammer, led a Christian force in defeating the army of Abdul Rahman
al-Ghafiqi. Muslims, however, retained control of much of Spain, where Córdoba, known for leather and
wool production, became a major center of learning and trade. By the eleventh century, a major Christian
holy war called the Reconquista, or reconquest, had begun to slowly push the Muslims from Spain.
This drive was actually an extension of the earlier military conflict between Christians and Muslims for
domination of the Holy Land (the Biblical region of Palestine), known as the Crusades.
Click and Explore
Visit EyeWitness to History (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/crusades) to read a

personal account of the Crusades.
JERUSALEM AND THE CRUSADES

The city of Jerusalem is a holy site for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. It was here King Solomon built
the Temple in the tenth century BCE. It was here the Romans crucified Jesus in 33 CE, and from here,
Christians maintain, he ascended into heaven, promising to return. From here, Muslims believe,
Muhammad traveled to heaven in 621 to receive instructions about prayer. Thus claims on the area go
deep, and emotions about it run high, among followers of all three faiths. Evidence exists that the three
religions lived in harmony for centuries. In 1095, however, European Christians decided not only to retake
the holy city from the Muslim rulers but also to conquer what they called the Holy Lands, an area that
extended from modern-day Turkey in the north along the Mediterranean coast to the Sinai Peninsula and
that was also held by Muslims. The Crusades had begun.
Religious zeal motivated the knights who participated in the four Crusades. Adventure, the chance to
win land and a title, and the Church’s promise of wholesale forgiveness of sins also motivated many.
The Crusaders, mostly French knights, retook Jerusalem in June 1099 amid horrific slaughter. A French
writer who accompanied them recorded this eyewitness account: “On the top of Solomon’s Temple, to
which they had climbed in fleeing, many were shot to death with arrows and cast down headlong from
the roof. Within this Temple, about ten thousand were beheaded. If you had been there, your feet would
have been stained up to the ankles with the blood of the slain. What more shall I tell? Not one of them was
allowed to live. They did not spare the women and children.” A Muslim eyewitness also described how
the conquerors stripped the temple of its wealth and looted private homes.
In 1187, under the legendary leader Saladin, Muslim forces took back the city. Reaction from Europe was
swift as King Richard I of England, the Lionheart, joined others to mount yet another action. The battle
for the Holy Lands did not conclude until the Crusaders lost their Mediterranean stronghold at Acre (in
present-day Israel) in 1291 and the last of the Christians left the area a few years later.
The Crusades had lasting effects, both positive and negative. On the negative side, the wide-scale
persecution of Jews began. Christians classed them with the infidel Muslims and labeled them “the killers
of Christ.” In the coming centuries, kings either expelled Jews from their kingdoms or forced them to pay
heavy tributes for the privilege of remaining. Muslim-Christian hatred also festered, and intolerance grew.
On the positive side, maritime trade between East and West expanded. As Crusaders experienced the feel
of silk, the taste of spices, and the utility of porcelain, desire for these products created new markets for
merchants. In particular, the Adriatic port city of Venice prospered enormously from trade with Islamic
merchants. Merchants’ ships brought Europeans valuable goods, traveling between the port cities of
western Europe and the East from the tenth century on, along routes collectively labeled the Silk Road.
From the days of the early adventurer Marco Polo, Venetian sailors had traveled to ports on the Black Sea
and established their own colonies along the Mediterranean Coast. However, transporting goods along the
old Silk Road was costly, slow, and unprofitable. Muslim middlemen collected taxes as the goods changed
hands. Robbers waited to ambush the treasure-laden caravans. A direct water route to the East, cutting out
the land portion of the trip, had to be found. As well as seeking a water passage to the wealthy cities in
the East, sailors wanted to find a route to the exotic and wealthy Spice Islands in modern-day Indonesia,
whose location was kept secret by Muslim rulers. Longtime rivals of Venice, the merchants of Genoa and
Florence also looked west.
THE IBERIAN PENINSULA

Although Norse explorers such as Leif Ericson, the son of Eric the Red who first settled Greenland, had
reached and established a colony in northern Canada roughly five hundred years prior to Christopher
Columbus’s voyage, it was explorers sailing for Portugal and Spain who traversed the Atlantic throughout
the fifteenth century and ushered in an unprecedented age of exploration and permanent contact with
North America.
Located on the extreme western edge of Europe, Portugal, with its port city of Lisbon, soon became the
center for merchants desiring to undercut the Venetians’ hold on trade. With a population of about one

million and supported by its ruler Prince Henry, whom historians call “the Navigator,” this independent
kingdom fostered exploration of and trade with western Africa. Skilled shipbuilders and navigators who
took advantage of maps from all over Europe, Portuguese sailors used triangular sails and built lighter
vessels called caravels that could sail down the African coast.
Just to the east of Portugal, King Ferdinand of Aragon married Queen Isabella of Castile in 1469, uniting
two of the most powerful independent kingdoms on the Iberian peninsula and laying the foundation for
the modern nation of Spain. Isabella, motivated by strong religious zeal, was instrumental in beginning
the Inquisition in 1480, a brutal campaign to root out Jews and Muslims who had seemingly converted to
Christianity but secretly continued to practice their faith, as well as other heretics. This powerful couple
ruled for the next twenty-five years, centralizing authority and funding exploration and trade with the
East. One of their daughters, Catherine of Aragon, became the first wife of King Henry VIII of England.
AMERICANA
Motives for European Exploration
Historians generally recognize three motives for European exploration—God, glory, and gold. Particularly
in the strongly Catholic nations of Spain and Portugal, religious zeal motivated the rulers to make
converts and retake land from the Muslims. Prince Henry the Navigator of Portugal described his “great
desire to make increase in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ and to bring him all the souls that should be
saved.”
Sailors’ tales about fabulous monsters and fantasy literature about exotic worlds filled with gold, silver,
and jewels captured the minds of men who desired to explore these lands and return with untold wealth
and the glory of adventure and discovery. They sparked the imagination of merchants like Marco Polo,
who made the long and dangerous trip to the realm of the great Mongol ruler Kublai Khan in 1271. The
story of his trip, printed in a book entitled Travels, inspired Columbus, who had a copy in his possession
during his voyage more than two hundred years later. Passages such as the following, which describes
China’s imperial palace, are typical of the Travels:
You must know that it is the greatest Palace that ever was. . . . The roof is very lofty, and
the walls of the Palace are all covered with gold and silver. They are also adorned with
representations of dragons [sculptured and gilt], beasts and birds, knights and idols, and
sundry other subjects. And on the ceiling too you see nothing but gold and silver and painting.
[On each of the four sides there is a great marble staircase leading to the top of the marble
wall, and forming the approach to the Palace.]
The hall of the Palace is so large that it could easily dine 6,000 people; and it is quite a marvel
to see how many rooms there are besides. The building is altogether so vast, so rich, and so
beautiful, that no man on earth could design anything superior to it. The outside of the roof
also is all colored with vermilion and yellow and green and blue and other hues, which are
fixed with a varnish so fine and exquisite that they shine like crystal, and lend a resplendent
lustre to the Palace as seen for a great way round. This roof is made too with such strength
and solidity that it is fit to last forever.
Why might a travel account like this one have influenced an explorer like Columbus? What does this tell
us about European explorers’ motivations and goals?
The year 1492 witnessed some of the most significant events of Ferdinand and Isabella’s reign. The couple
oversaw the final expulsion of North African Muslims (Moors) from the Kingdom of Granada, bringing
the nearly eight-hundred-year Reconquista to an end. In this same year, they also ordered all unconverted
Jews to leave Spain.
Also in 1492, after six years of lobbying, a Genoese sailor named Christopher Columbus persuaded the
monarchs to fund his expedition to the Far East. Columbus had already pitched his plan to the rulers of
Genoa and Venice without success, so the Spanish monarchy was his last hope. Christian zeal was the
prime motivating factor for Isabella, as she imagined her faith spreading to the East. Ferdinand, the more
practical of the two, hoped to acquire wealth from trade.
Most educated individuals at the time knew the earth was round, so Columbus’s plan to reach the
East by sailing west was plausible. Though the calculations of Earth’s circumference made by the Greek
geographer Eratosthenes in the second century BCE were known (and, as we now know, nearly accurate),
most scholars did not believe they were dependable. Thus Columbus would have no way of knowing
when he had traveled far enough around the Earth to reach his goal—and in fact, Columbus greatly
underestimated the Earth’s circumference.
In August 1492, Columbus set sail with his three small caravels (Figure 1.15). After a voyage of about
three thousand miles lasting six weeks, he landed on an island in the Bahamas named Guanahani by the
native Lucayans. He promptly christened it San Salvador, the name it bears today.
Figure 1.15 Columbus sailed in three caravels such as these. The Santa Maria, his largest, was only 58 feet long.
At the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Locate the major West African empires on a map
• Discuss the roles of Islam and Europe in the slave trade
It is difficult to generalize about West Africa, which was linked to the rise and diffusion of Islam. This
geographical unit, central to the rise of the Atlantic World, stretches from modern-day Mauritania to the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and encompasses lush rainforests along the equator, savannas on either
side of the forest, and much drier land to the north. Until about 600 CE, most Africans were hunter-
gatherers. Where water was too scarce for farming, herders maintained sheep, goats, cattle, or camels. In
the more heavily wooded area near the equator, farmers raised yams, palm products, or plantains. The
savanna areas yielded rice, millet, and sorghum. Sub-Saharan Africans had little experience in maritime
matters. Most of the population lived away from the coast, which is connected to the interior by five main
rivers—the Senegal, Gambia, Niger, Volta, and Congo.
Although there were large trading centers along these rivers, most West Africans lived in small villages
and identified with their extended family or their clan. Wives, children, and dependents (including slaves)
were a sign of wealth among men, and polygyny, the practice of having more than one wife at a time, was
widespread. In time of need, relatives, however far away, were counted upon to assist in supplying food

or security. Because of the clannish nature of African society, “we” was associated with the village and
family members, while “they” included everyone else. Hundreds of separate dialects emerged; in modern
Nigeria, nearly five hundred are still spoken.
Click and Explore
Read The Role of Islam in African Slavery (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

islamslavery) to learn more about the African slave trade.
THE MAJOR AFRICAN EMPIRES

Following the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632 CE, Islam continued to spread quickly across North
Africa, bringing not only a unifying faith but a political and legal structure as well. As lands fell under
the control of Muslim armies, they instituted Islamic rule and legal structures as local chieftains converted,
usually under penalty of death. Only those who had converted to Islam could rule or be engaged in
trade. The first major empire to emerge in West Africa was the Ghana Empire (Figure 1.16). By 750, the
Soninke farmers of the sub-Sahara had become wealthy by taxing the trade that passed through their area.
For instance, the Niger River basin supplied gold to the Berber and Arab traders from west of the Nile
Valley, who brought cloth, weapons, and manufactured goods into the interior. Huge Saharan salt mines
supplied the life-sustaining mineral to the Mediterranean coast of Africa and inland areas. By 900, the
monotheistic Muslims controlled most of this trade and had converted many of the African ruling elite.
The majority of the population, however, maintained their tribal animistic practices, which gave living
attributes to nonliving objects such as mountains, rivers, and wind. Because Ghana’s king controlled the
gold supply, he was able to maintain price controls and afford a strong military. Soon, however, a new
kingdom emerged.
Figure 1.16 This map shows the locations of the major West African empires before 1492. Along the Mediterranean
coast, Muslim states prevailed.
By 1200 CE, under the leadership of Sundiata Keita, Mali had replaced Ghana as the leading state in
West Africa. After Sundiata’s rule, the court converted to Islam, and Muslim scribes played a large part
in administration and government. Miners then discovered huge new deposits of gold east of the Niger
River. By the fourteenth century, the empire was so wealthy that while on a hajj, or pilgrimage to the holy
city of Mecca, Mali’s ruler Mansu Musa gave away enough gold to create serious price inflation in the cities
along his route. Timbuktu, the capital city, became a leading Islamic center for education, commerce and
the slave trade. Meanwhile, in the east, the city of Gao became increasingly strong under the leadership of
Sonni Ali and soon eclipsed Mali’s power. Timbuktu sought Ali’s assistance in repelling the Tuaregs from
the north. By 1500, however, the Tuareg empire of Songhay had eclipsed Mali, where weak and ineffective
leadership prevailed.
THE ROLE OF SLAVERY

The institution of slavery is not a recent phenomenon. Most civilizations have practiced some form of
human bondage and servitude, and African empires were no different (Figure 1.17). Famine or fear of
stronger enemies might force one tribe to ask another for help and give themselves in a type of bondage in
exchange. Similar to the European serf system, those seeking protection, or relief from starvation, would

become the servants of those who provided relief. Debt might also be worked off through a form of
servitude. Typically, these servants became a part of the extended tribal family. There is some evidence of
chattel slavery, in which people are treated as personal property to be bought and sold, in the Nile Valley.
It appears there was a slave-trade route through the Sahara that brought sub-Saharan Africans to Rome,
which had slaves from all over the world.
Figure 1.17 Traders with a group of slaves. Note how the slaves are connected at the neck. Muslim traders brought
slaves to the North African coast, where they might be sent to Europe or other parts of Africa.
Arab slave trading, which exchanged slaves for goods from the Mediterranean, existed long before Islam’s
spread across North Africa. Muslims later expanded this trade and enslaved not only Africans but also
Europeans, especially from Spain, Sicily, and Italy. Male captives were forced to build coastal fortifications
and serve as galley slaves. Women were added to the harem.
The major European slave trade began with Portugal’s exploration of the west coast of Africa in search of a
trade route to the East. By 1444, slaves were being brought from Africa to work on the sugar plantations of
the Madeira Islands, off the coast of modern Morocco. The slave trade then expanded greatly as European
colonies in the New World demanded an ever-increasing number of workers for the extensive plantations
growing tobacco, sugar, and eventually rice and cotton (Figure 1.18).
Figure 1.18 This map shows the routes that were used in the course of the slave trade and the number of enslaved
people who traveled each route. As the figures indicate, most African slaves were bound for Brazil and the
Caribbean. While West Africans made up the vast majority of the enslaved, the east coast of Africa, too, supplied
slaves for the trade.
In the New World, the institution of slavery assumed a new aspect when the mercantilist system
demanded a permanent, identifiable, and plentiful labor supply. African slaves were both easily identified
(by their skin color) and plentiful, because of the thriving slave trade. This led to a race-based slavery
system in the New World unlike any bondage system that had come before. Initially, the Spanish tried to
force Indians to farm their crops. Most Spanish and Portuguese settlers coming to the New World were
gentlemen and did not perform physical labor. They came to “serve God, but also to get rich,” as noted
by Bernal Díaz del Castillo. However, enslaved natives tended to sicken or die from disease or from the
overwork and cruel treatment they were subjected to, and so the indigenous peoples proved not to be a
dependable source of labor. Although he later repented of his ideas, the great defender of the Indians,
Bartolomé de Las Casas, seeing the near extinction of the native population, suggested the Spanish send
black (and white) laborers to the Indies. These workers proved hardier, and within fifty years, a change
took place: The profitability of the African slave trade, coupled with the seemingly limitless number of
potential slaves and the Catholic Church’s denunciation of the enslavement of Christians, led race to
become a dominant factor in the institution of slavery.
In the English colonies along the Atlantic coast, indentured servants initially filled the need for labor in the
North, where family farms were the norm. In the South, however, labor-intensive crops such as tobacco,
rice, and indigo prevailed, and eventually the supply of indentured servants was insufficient to meet

the demand. These workers served only for periods of three to seven years before being freed; a more
permanent labor supply was needed. Thus, whereas in Africa permanent, inherited slavery was unknown,
and children of those bound in slavery to the tribe usually were free and intermarried with their captors,
this changed in the Americas; slavery became permanent, and children born to slaves became slaves. This
development, along with slavery’s identification with race, forever changed the institution and shaped its
unique character in the New World.
AMERICANA
The Beginnings of Racial Slavery
Slavery has a long history. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle posited that some peoples were
homunculi, or humanlike but not really people—for instance, if they did not speak Greek. Both the
Bible and the Koran sanction slavery. Vikings who raided from Ireland to Russia brought back slaves
of all nationalities. During the Middle Ages, traders from the interior of Africa brought slaves along well-
established routes to sell them along the Mediterranean coast. Initially, slavers also brought European
slaves to the Caribbean. Many of these were orphaned or homeless children captured in the cities of
Ireland. The question is, when did slavery become based on race? This appears to have developed in
the New World, with the introduction of gruelingly labor-intensive crops such as sugar and coffee. Unable
to fill their growing need from the ranks of prisoners or indentured servants, the European colonists
turned to African laborers. The Portuguese, although seeking a trade route to India, also set up forts
along the West African coast for the purpose of exporting slaves to Europe. Historians believe that by
the year 1500, 10 percent of the population of Lisbon and Seville consisted of black slaves. Because of
the influence of the Catholic Church, which frowned on the enslavement of Christians, European slave
traders expanded their reach down the coast of Africa.
When Europeans settled Brazil, the Caribbean, and North America, they thus established a system of
racially based slavery. Here, the need for a massive labor force was greater than in western Europe. The
land was ripe for growing sugar, coffee, rice, and ultimately cotton. To fulfill the ever-growing demand
for these crops, large plantations were created. The success of these plantations depended upon the
availability of a permanent, plentiful, identifiable, and skilled labor supply. As Africans were already
familiar with animal husbandry as well as farming, had an identifying skin color, and could be readily
supplied by the existing African slave trade, they proved the answer to this need. This process set the
stage for the expansion of New World slavery into North America.
Key Terms
Beringia an ancient land bridge linking Asia and North America
Black Death two strains of the bubonic plague that simultaneously swept western Europe in the
fourteenth century, causing the death of nearly half the population
chasquis Incan relay runners used to send messages over great distances
chattel slavery a system of servitude in which people are treated as personal property to be bought and
sold
chinampas floating Aztec gardens consisting of a large barge woven from reeds, filled with dirt and
floating on the water, allowing for irrigation
Crusades a series of military expeditions made by Christian Europeans to recover the Holy Land from
the Muslims in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries
feudal society a social arrangement in which serfs and knights provided labor and military service to
noble lords, receiving protection and land use in return
Inquisition a campaign by the Catholic Church to root out heresy, especially among converted Jews and
Muslims
Koran the sacred book of Islam, written by the prophet Muhammad in the seventh century
matriarchy a society in which women have political power
mita the Incan labor tax, with each family donating time and work to communal projects
polygyny the practice of taking more than one wife
quipu an ancient Incan device for recording information, consisting of variously colored threads knotted
in different ways
Reconquista Spain’s nearly eight-hundred-year holy war against Islam, which ended in 1492
serf a peasant tied to the land and its lord
Summary
1.1 The Americas
Great civilizations had risen and fallen in the Americas before the arrival of the Europeans. In North
America, the complex Pueblo societies including the Mogollon, Hohokam, and Anasazi as well as the city
at Cahokia had peaked and were largely memories. The Eastern Woodland peoples were thriving, but they
were soon overwhelmed as the number of English, French, and Dutch settlers increased.
Mesoamerica and South America had also witnessed the rise and fall of cultures. The once-mighty
Mayan population centers were largely empty. In 1492, however, the Aztecs in Mexico City were at their
peak. Subjugating surrounding tribes and requiring tribute of both humans for sacrifice and goods for
consumption, the island city of Tenochtitlán was the hub of an ever-widening commercial center and the
equal of any large European city until Cortés destroyed it. Further south in Peru, the Inca linked one of
the largest empires in history through the use of roads and disciplined armies. Without the use of the
wheel, they cut and fashioned stone to build Machu Picchu high in the Andes before abandoning the city

for unknown reasons. Thus, depending on what part of the New World they explored, the Europeans
encountered peoples that diverged widely in their cultures, traditions, and numbers.

One effect of the Crusades was that a larger portion of western Europe became familiar with the goods
of the East. A lively trade subsequently developed along a variety of routes known collectively as the Silk
Road to supply the demand for these products. Brigands and greedy middlemen made the trip along this
route expensive and dangerous. By 1492, Europe—recovered from the Black Death and in search of new
products and new wealth—was anxious to improve trade and communications with the rest of the world.
Venice and Genoa led the way in trading with the East. The lure of profit pushed explorers to seek new
trade routes to the Spice Islands and eliminate Muslim middlemen.
Portugal, under the leadership of Prince Henry the Navigator, attempted to send ships around the
continent of Africa. Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile hired Columbus to find a route to the East
by going west. As strong supporters of the Catholic Church, they sought to bring Christianity to the East
and any newly found lands, as well as hoping to find sources of wealth.

Before 1492, Africa, like the Americas, had experienced the rise and fall of many cultures, but the continent
did not develop a centralized authority structure. African peoples practiced various forms of slavery, all of
which differed significantly from the racial slavery that ultimately developed in the New World. After the
arrival of Islam and before the Portuguese came to the coast of West Africa in 1444, Muslims controlled the
slave trade out of Africa, which expanded as European powers began to colonize the New World. Driven
by a demand for labor, slavery in the Americas developed a new form: It was based on race, and the status
of slave was both permanent and inherited.
Review Questions
1. Which of the following Indian peoples built 4. What were the major differences between the
homes in cliff dwellings that still exist? societies of the Aztec, Inca, and Maya and the
A. Anasazi Indians of North America?
B. Cherokee
C. Aztec 5. The series of attempts by Christian armies to
D. Inca retake the Holy Lands from Muslims was known
as ________.
2. Which culture developed the only writing A. the Crusades
system in the Western Hemisphere? B. the Reconquista
A. Inca C. the Black Death
B. Iroquois D. the Silk Road
C. Maya
D. Pueblo 6. ________ became wealthy trading with the
East.
3. Which culture developed a road system A. Carcassonne
rivaling that of the Romans? B. Jerusalem
A. Cherokee C. Rome
B. Inca D. Venice
C. Olmec
D. Anasazi 7. In 1492, the Spanish forced these two religious
groups to either convert or leave.
A. Jews and Muslims C. Morocco

B. Christians and Jews D. Mali
C. Protestants and Muslims
D. Catholics and Jews 11. Which of the following does not describe a
form of slavery traditionally practiced in Africa?
8. How did European feudal society operate? A. a system in which those in need of supplies
How was this a mutually supportive system? or protection give themselves in servitude
B. a system in which debtors repay those
9. Why did Columbus believe he could get to the whom they owe by giving themselves in
Far East by sailing west? What were the problems servitude
with this plan? C. a system in which people are treated as
chattel—that is, as personal property to be
10. The city of ________ became a leading center bought and sold
for Muslim scholarship and trade. D. a system in which people are enslaved
A. Cairo permanently on account of their race
B. Timbuktu
Critical Thinking Questions

12. The Inca were able to control an empire that stretched from modern Colombia to southern Chile.
Which of their various means for achieving such control do you think were most effective, and why?
13. How did the Olmec, Aztec, Inca, Maya, and North American Indians differ in their ways of life
and cultural achievements? How did their particular circumstances—geography, history, or the
accomplishments of the societies that had preceded them, for example—serve to shape their particular
traditions and cultures?
14. What were the lasting effects of the Crusades? In what ways did they provide opportunities—both
negative and positive—for cross-cultural encounters and exchanges?
15. Was race identified with slavery before the era of European exploration? Why or why not? How did
slavery’s association with race change the institution’s character?
16. What are the differences between the types of slavery traditionally practiced in Africa and the slavery
that developed in the New World? How did other types of servitude, such as European serfdom, compare
to slavery?

Chapter 2 Early Globalization: The Atlantic World, 1492–1650 33
CHAPTER 2
Early Globalization: The Atlantic

World, 1492–1650
Figure 2.1 After Christopher Columbus “discovered” the New World, he sent letters home to Spain describing the
wonders he beheld. These letters were quickly circulated throughout Europe and translated into Italian, German, and
Latin. This woodcut is from the first Italian verse translation of the letter Columbus sent to the Spanish court after his
first voyage, Lettera delle isole novamente trovata by Giuliano Dati.
Chapter Outline
2.1 Portuguese Exploration and Spanish Conquest
2.2 Religious Upheavals in the Developing Atlantic World
2.3 Challenges to Spain’s Supremacy
2.4 New Worlds in the Americas: Labor, Commerce, and the Columbian Exchange
Introduction
The story of the Atlantic World is the story of global migration, a migration driven in large part by the
actions and aspirations of the ruling heads of Europe. Columbus is hardly visible in this illustration of his
ships making landfall on the Caribbean island of Hispaniola (Figure 2.1). Instead, Ferdinand II of Spain (in
the foreground) sits on his throne and points toward Columbus’s landing. As the ships arrive, the Arawak
people tower over the Spanish, suggesting the native population density of the islands.
This historic moment in 1492 sparked new rivalries among European powers as they scrambled to create
New World colonies, fueled by the quest for wealth and power as well as by religious passions. Almost
continuous war resulted. Spain achieved early preeminence, creating a far-flung empire and growing
rich with treasures from the Americas. Native Americans who confronted the newcomers from Europe
suffered unprecedented losses of life, however, as previously unknown diseases sliced through their
populations. They also were victims of the arrogance of the Europeans, who viewed themselves as
uncontested masters of the New World, sent by God to bring Christianity to the “Indians.”
34 Chapter 2 Early Globalization: The Atlantic World, 1492–1650

• Describe Portuguese exploration of the Atlantic and Spanish exploration of the
Americas, and the importance of these voyages to the developing Atlantic World
• Explain the importance of Spanish exploration of the Americas in the expansion of
Spain’s empire and the development of Spanish Renaissance culture
Portuguese colonization of Atlantic islands in the 1400s inaugurated an era of aggressive European
expansion across the Atlantic. In the 1500s, Spain surpassed Portugal as the dominant European power.
This age of exploration and the subsequent creation of an Atlantic World marked the earliest phase of
globalization, in which previously isolated groups—Africans, Native Americans, and Europeans—first
came into contact with each other, sometimes with disastrous results.
PORTUGUESE EXPLORATION
Portugal’s Prince Henry the Navigator spearheaded his country’s exploration of Africa and the Atlantic
in the 1400s. With his support, Portuguese mariners successfully navigated an eastward route to Africa,
establishing a foothold there that became a foundation of their nation’s trade empire in the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries.
Portuguese mariners built an Atlantic empire by colonizing the Canary, Cape Verde, and Azores Islands,
as well as the island of Madeira. Merchants then used these Atlantic outposts as debarkation points for
subsequent journeys. From these strategic points, Portugal spread its empire down the western coast of
Africa to the Congo, along the western coast of India, and eventually to Brazil on the eastern coast of
Figure 2.2

South America. It also established trading posts in China and Japan. While the Portuguese didn’t rule over
an immense landmass, their strategic holdings of islands and coastal ports gave them almost unrivaled
control of nautical trade routes and a global empire of trading posts during the 1400s.
The travels of Portuguese traders to western Africa introduced them to the African slave trade, already
brisk among African states. Seeing the value of this source of labor in growing the profitable crop of
sugar on their Atlantic islands, the Portuguese soon began exporting African slaves along with African
ivory and gold. Sugar fueled the Atlantic slave trade, and the Portuguese islands quickly became home
to sugar plantations. The Portuguese also traded these slaves, introducing much-needed human capital to
other European nations. In the following years, as European exploration spread, slavery spread as well. In
time, much of the Atlantic World would become a gargantuan sugar-plantation complex in which Africans
labored to produce the highly profitable commodity for European consumers.
AMERICANA
Elmina Castle
In 1482, Portuguese traders built Elmina Castle (also called São Jorge da Mina, or Saint George’s of
the Mine) in present-day Ghana, on the west coast of Africa (Figure 2.3). A fortified trading post, it had
mounted cannons facing out to sea, not inland toward continental Africa; the Portuguese had greater
fear of a naval attack from other Europeans than of a land attack from Africans. Portuguese traders soon
began to settle around the fort and established the town of Elmina.
Figure 2.3 Elmina Castle on the west coast of Ghana was used as a holding pen for slaves before
they were brought across the Atlantic and sold. Originally built by the Portuguese in the fifteenth
century, it appears in this image as it was in the 1660s, after being seized by Dutch slave traders in
1637.
Although the Portuguese originally used the fort primarily for trading gold, by the sixteenth century they
had shifted their focus. The dungeon of the fort now served as a holding pen for African slaves from the
interior of the continent, while on the upper floors Portuguese traders ate, slept, and prayed in a chapel.
Slaves lived in the dungeon for weeks or months until ships arrived to transport them to Europe or the
Americas. For them, the dungeon of Elmina was their last sight of their home country.
SPANISH EXPLORATION AND CONQUEST

The Spanish established the first European settlements in the Americas, beginning in the Caribbean
and, by 1600, extending throughout Central and South America. Thousands of Spaniards flocked to the
Americas seeking wealth and status. The most famous of these Spanish adventurers are Christopher
Columbus (who, though Italian himself, explored on behalf of the Spanish monarchs), Hernán Cortés, and
Francisco Pizarro.
The history of Spanish exploration begins with the history of Spain itself. During the fifteenth century,
Spain hoped to gain advantage over its rival, Portugal. The marriage of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella
of Castile in 1469 unified Catholic Spain and began the process of building a nation that could compete
for worldwide power. Since the 700s, much of Spain had been under Islamic rule, and King Ferdinand II
and Queen Isabella I, arch-defenders of the Catholic Church against Islam, were determined to defeat the
Muslims in Granada, the last Islamic stronghold in Spain. In 1492, they completed the Reconquista: the
centuries-long Christian conquest of the Iberian Peninsula. The Reconquista marked another step forward
in the process of making Spain an imperial power, and Ferdinand and Isabella were now ready to look
further afield.
Their goals were to expand Catholicism and to gain a commercial advantage over Portugal. To those
ends, Ferdinand and Isabella sponsored extensive Atlantic exploration. Spain’s most famous explorer,
Christopher Columbus, was actually from Genoa, Italy. He believed that, using calculations based on
other mariners’ journeys, he could chart a westward route to India, which could be used to expand
European trade and spread Christianity. Starting in 1485, he approached Genoese, Venetian, Portuguese,
English, and Spanish monarchs, asking for ships and funding to explore this westward route. All those he
petitioned—including Ferdinand and Isabella at first—rebuffed him; their nautical experts all concurred
that Columbus’s estimates of the width of the Atlantic Ocean were far too low. However, after three years
of entreaties, and, more important, the completion of the Reconquista, Ferdinand and Isabella agreed
to finance Columbus’s expedition in 1492, supplying him with three ships: the Nina, the Pinta, and the
Santa Maria. The Spanish monarchs knew that Portuguese mariners had reached the southern tip of Africa
and sailed the Indian Ocean. They understood that the Portuguese would soon reach Asia and, in this
competitive race to reach the Far East, the Spanish rulers decided to act.
Columbus held erroneous views that shaped his thinking about what he would encounter as he sailed
west. He believed the earth to be much smaller than its actual size and, since he did not know of the
existence of the Americas, he fully expected to land in Asia. On October 12, 1492, however, he made
landfall on an island in the Bahamas. He then sailed to an island he named Hispaniola (present-day
Dominican Republic and Haiti) (Figure 2.4). Believing he had landed in the East Indies, Columbus called
the native Taínos he found there “Indios,” giving rise to the term “Indian” for any native people of the
New World. Upon Columbus’s return to Spain, the Spanish crown bestowed on him the title of Admiral of
the Ocean Sea and named him governor and viceroy of the lands he had discovered. As a devoted Catholic,
Columbus had agreed with Ferdinand and Isabella prior to sailing west that part of the expected wealth
from his voyage would be used to continue the fight against Islam.

Figure 2.4 This sixteenth-century map shows the island of Hispaniola (present-day Haiti and Dominican Republic).
Note the various fanciful elements, such as the large-scale ships and sea creatures, and consider what the creator of
this map hoped to convey. In addition to navigation, what purpose would such a map have served?
Columbus’s 1493 letter—or probanza de mérito (proof of merit)—describing his “discovery” of a New
World did much to inspire excitement in Europe. Probanzas de méritos were reports and letters written
by Spaniards in the New World to the Spanish crown, designed to win royal patronage. Today they
highlight the difficult task of historical work; while the letters are primary sources, historians need to
understand the context and the culture in which the conquistadors, as the Spanish adventurers came to be
called, wrote them and distinguish their bias and subjective nature. While they are filled with distortions
and fabrications, probanzas de méritos are still useful in illustrating the expectation of wealth among the
explorers as well as their view that native peoples would not pose a serious obstacle to colonization.
In 1493, Columbus sent two copies of a probanza de mérito to the Spanish king and queen and their minister
of finance, Luis de Santángel. Santángel had supported Columbus’s voyage, helping him to obtain funding
from Ferdinand and Isabella. Copies of the letter were soon circulating all over Europe, spreading news
of the wondrous new land that Columbus had “discovered.” Columbus would make three more voyages
over the next decade, establishing Spain’s first settlement in the New World on the island of Hispaniola.
Many other Europeans followed in Columbus’s footsteps, drawn by dreams of winning wealth by sailing
west. Another Italian, Amerigo Vespucci, sailing for the Portuguese crown, explored the South American
coastline between 1499 and 1502. Unlike Columbus, he realized that the Americas were not part of Asia but
lands unknown to Europeans. Vespucci’s widely published accounts of his voyages fueled speculation and
intense interest in the New World among Europeans. Among those who read Vespucci’s reports was the
German mapmaker Martin Waldseemuller. Using the explorer’s first name as a label for the new landmass,
Waldseemuller attached “America” to his map of the New World in 1507, and the name stuck.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Columbus’s Probanza de mérito of 1493
The exploits of the most famous Spanish explorers have provided Western civilization with a narrative of
European supremacy and Indian savagery. However, these stories are based on the self-aggrandizing
efforts of conquistadors to secure royal favor through the writing of probanzas de méritos (proofs of
merit). Below are excerpts from Columbus’s 1493 letter to Luis de Santángel, which illustrates how
fantastic reports from European explorers gave rise to many myths surrounding the Spanish conquest
and the New World.
This island, like all the others, is most extensive. It has many ports along the sea-coast
excelling any in Christendom—and many fine, large, flowing rivers. The land there is elevated,
with many mountains and peaks incomparably higher than in the centre isle. They are most
beautiful, of a thousand varied forms, accessible, and full of trees of endless varieties, so
high that they seem to touch the sky, and I have been told that they never lose their foliage.
. . . There is honey, and there are many kinds of birds, and a great variety of fruits. Inland
there are numerous mines of metals and innumerable people. Hispaniola is a marvel. Its
hills and mountains, fine plains and open country, are rich and fertile for planting and for
pasturage, and for building towns and villages. The seaports there are incredibly fine, as also
the magnificent rivers, most of which bear gold. The trees, fruits and grasses differ widely from
those in Juana. There are many spices and vast mines of gold and other metals in this island.
They have no iron, nor steel, nor weapons, nor are they fit for them, because although they
are well-made men of commanding stature, they appear extraordinarily timid. The only arms
they have are sticks of cane, cut when in seed, with a sharpened stick at the end, and they
are afraid to use these. Often I have sent two or three men ashore to some town to converse
with them, and the natives came out in great numbers, and as soon as they saw our men
arrive, fled without a moment’s delay although I protected them from all injury.
What does this letter show us about Spanish objectives in the New World? How do you think it might
have influenced Europeans reading about the New World for the first time?
The 1492 Columbus landfall accelerated the rivalry between Spain and Portugal, and the two powers vied
for domination through the acquisition of new lands. In the 1480s, Pope Sixtus IV had granted Portugal
the right to all land south of the Cape Verde islands, leading the Portuguese king to claim that the lands
discovered by Columbus belonged to Portugal, not Spain. Seeking to ensure that Columbus’s finds would
remain Spanish, Spain’s monarchs turned to the Spanish-born Pope Alexander VI, who issued two papal
decrees in 1493 that gave legitimacy to Spain’s Atlantic claims at the expense of Portugal. Hoping to
salvage Portugal’s Atlantic holdings, King João II began negotiations with Spain. The resulting Treaty of
Tordesillas in 1494 drew a north-to-south line through South America (Figure 2.5); Spain gained territory
west of the line, while Portugal retained the lands east of the line, including the east coast of Brazil.

Figure 2.5 This 1502 map, known as the Cantino World Map, depicts the cartographer’s interpretation of the world
in light of recent discoveries. The map shows areas of Portuguese and Spanish exploration, the two nations’ claims
under the Treaty of Tordesillas, and a variety of flora, fauna, figures, and structures. What does it reveal about the
state of geographical knowledge, as well as European perceptions of the New World, at the beginning of the
sixteenth century?
Columbus’s discovery opened a floodgate of Spanish exploration. Inspired by tales of rivers of gold and
timid, malleable natives, later Spanish explorers were relentless in their quest for land and gold. Hernán
Cortés hoped to gain hereditary privilege for his family, tribute payments and labor from natives, and an
annual pension for his service to the crown. Cortés arrived on Hispaniola in 1504 and took part in the
conquest of that island. In anticipation of winning his own honor and riches, Cortés later explored the
Yucatán Peninsula. In 1519, he entered Tenochtitlán, the capital of the Aztec (Mexica) Empire. He and his
men were astonished by the incredibly sophisticated causeways, gardens, and temples in the city, but they
were horrified by the practice of human sacrifice that was part of the Aztec religion. Above all else, the
Aztec wealth in gold fascinated the Spanish adventurers.
Hoping to gain power over the city, Cortés took Moctezuma, the Aztec ruler, hostage. The Spanish then
murdered hundreds of high-ranking Mexica during a festival to celebrate Huitzilopochtli, the god of war.
This angered the people of Tenochtitlán, who rose up against the interlopers in their city. Cortés and
his people fled for their lives, running down one of Tenochtitlán’s causeways to safety on the shore.
Smarting from their defeat at the hands of the Aztec, Cortés slowly created alliances with native peoples
who resented Aztec rule. It took nearly a year for the Spanish and the tens of thousands of native allies
who joined them to defeat the Mexica in Tenochtitlán, which they did by laying siege to the city. Only by
playing upon the disunity among the diverse groups in the Aztec Empire were the Spanish able to capture
the grand city of Tenochtitlán. In August 1521, having successfully fomented civil war as well as fended
off rival Spanish explorers, Cortés claimed Tenochtitlán for Spain and renamed it Mexico City.
The traditional European narrative of exploration presents the victory of the Spanish over the Aztec as
an example of the superiority of the Europeans over the savage Indians. However, the reality is far more
complex. When Cortés explored central Mexico, he encountered a region simmering with native conflict.
Far from being unified and content under Aztec rule, many peoples in Mexico resented it and were ready
to rebel. One group in particular, the Tlaxcalan, threw their lot in with the Spanish, providing as many as
200,000 fighters in the siege of Tenochtitlán. The Spanish also brought smallpox into the valley of Mexico.
The disease took a heavy toll on the people in Tenochtitlán, playing a much greater role in the city’s demise
than did Spanish force of arms.
Cortés was also aided by a Nahua woman called Malintzin (also known as La Malinche or Doña Marina,
her Spanish name), whom the natives of Tabasco gave him as tribute. Malintzin translated for Cortés in his
dealings with Moctezuma and, whether willingly or under pressure, entered into a physical relationship
with him. Their son, Martín, may have been the first mestizo (person of mixed indigenous American and
European descent). Malintzin remains a controversial figure in the history of the Atlantic World; some
people view her as a traitor because she helped Cortés conquer the Aztecs, while others see her as a victim
of European expansion. In either case, she demonstrates one way in which native peoples responded to
the arrival of the Spanish. Without her, Cortés would not have been able to communicate, and without the
language bridge, he surely would have been less successful in destabilizing the Aztec Empire. By this and
other means, native people helped shape the conquest of the Americas.
Spain’s acquisitiveness seemingly knew no bounds as groups of its explorers searched for the next trove of
instant riches. One such explorer, Francisco Pizarro, made his way to the Spanish Caribbean in 1509, drawn
by the promise of wealth and titles. He participated in successful expeditions in Panama before following
rumors of Inca wealth to the south. Although his first efforts against the Inca Empire in the 1520s failed,
Pizarro captured the Inca emperor Atahualpa in 1532 and executed him one year later. In 1533, Pizarro
founded Lima, Peru. Like Cortés, Pizarro had to combat not only the natives of the new worlds he was
conquering, but also competitors from his own country; a Spanish rival assassinated him in 1541.
Spain’s drive to enlarge its empire led other hopeful conquistadors to push further into the Americas,
hoping to replicate the success of Cortés and Pizarro. Hernando de Soto had participated in Pizarro’s
conquest of the Inca, and from 1539 to 1542 he led expeditions to what is today the southeastern United
States, looking for gold. He and his followers explored what is now Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas,
Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Texas. Everywhere they traveled,
they brought European diseases, which claimed thousands of native lives as well as the lives of the
explorers. In 1542, de Soto himself died during the expedition. The surviving Spaniards, numbering a little
over three hundred, returned to Mexico City without finding the much-anticipated mountains of gold and
silver.
Francisco Vásquez de Coronado was born into a noble family and went to Mexico, then called New Spain,
in 1535. He presided as governor over the province of Nueva Galicia, where he heard rumors of wealth
to the north: a golden city called Quivira. Between 1540 and 1542, Coronado led a large expedition of
Spaniards and native allies to the lands north of Mexico City, and for the next several years, they explored
the area that is now the southwestern United States (Figure 2.6). During the winter of 1540–41, the
explorers waged war against the Tiwa in present-day New Mexico. Rather than leading to the discovery
of gold and silver, however, the expedition simply left Coronado bankrupt.

Figure 2.6 This map traces Coronado’s path through the American Southwest and the Great Plains. The regions
through which he traveled were not empty areas waiting to be “discovered”: rather, they were populated and
controlled by the groups of native peoples indicated. (credit: modification of work by National Park Service)
THE SPANISH GOLDEN AGE

The exploits of European explorers had a profound impact both in the Americas and back in Europe. An
exchange of ideas, fueled and financed in part by New World commodities, began to connect European
nations and, in turn, to touch the parts of the world that Europeans conquered. In Spain, gold and
silver from the Americas helped to fuel a golden age, the Siglo de Oro, when Spanish art and literature
flourished. Riches poured in from the colonies, and new ideas poured in from other countries and new
lands. The Hapsburg dynasty, which ruled a collection of territories including Austria, the Netherlands,
Naples, Sicily, and Spain, encouraged and financed the work of painters, sculptors, musicians, architects,
and writers, resulting in a blooming of Spanish Renaissance culture. One of this period’s most famous
works is the novel The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha, by Miguel de Cervantes. This two-
volume book (1605 and 1618) told a colorful tale of an hidalgo (gentleman) who reads so many tales of
chivalry and knighthood that he becomes unable to tell reality from fiction. With his faithful sidekick
Sancho Panza, Don Quixote leaves reality behind and sets out to revive chivalry by doing battle with what
he perceives as the enemies of Spain.
Click and Explore
Explore the collection at The Cervantes Project (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

cervantes) for images, complete texts, and other resources relating to Cervantes’s
works.
Spain attracted innovative foreign painters such as El Greco, a Greek who had studied with Italian
Renaissance masters like Titian and Michelangelo before moving to Toledo. Native Spaniards created
equally enduring works. Las Meninas (The Maids of Honor), painted by Diego Velázquez in 1656, is one of
the best-known paintings in history. Velázquez painted himself into this imposingly large royal portrait
(he’s shown holding his brush and easel on the left) and boldly placed the viewer where the king and
queen would stand in the scene (Figure 2.7).
Figure 2.7 Las Meninas (The Maids of Honor), painted by Diego Velázquez in 1656, is unique for its time because it
places the viewer in the place of King Philip IV and his wife, Queen Mariana.

• Explain the changes brought by the Protestant Reformation and how it influenced the
development of the Atlantic World
• Describe Spain’s response to the Protestant Reformation
Until the 1500s, the Catholic Church provided a unifying religious structure for Christian Europe. The
Vatican in Rome exercised great power over the lives of Europeans; it controlled not only learning and
scholarship but also finances, because it levied taxes on the faithful. Spain, with its New World wealth,
was the bastion of the Catholic faith. Beginning with the reform efforts of Martin Luther in 1517 and John
Calvin in the 1530s, however, Catholic dominance came under attack as the Protestant Reformation, a split
or schism among European Christians, began.
During the sixteenth century, Protestantism spread through northern Europe, and Catholic countries
responded by attempting to extinguish what was seen as the Protestant menace. Religious turmoil between
Catholics and Protestants influenced the history of the Atlantic World as well, since different nation-states
competed not only for control of new territories but also for the preeminence of their religious beliefs

there. Just as the history of Spain’s rise to power is linked to the Reconquista, so too is the history of early
globalization connected to the history of competing Christian groups in the Atlantic World.
MARTIN LUTHER
Martin Luther (Figure 2.8) was a German Catholic monk who took issue with the Catholic Church’s
practice of selling indulgences, documents that absolved sinners of their errant behavior. He also objected
to the Catholic Church’s taxation of ordinary Germans and the delivery of Mass in Latin, arguing that it
failed to instruct German Catholics, who did not understand the language.
Figure 2.8 Martin Luther, a German Catholic monk and leader of the Protestant Reformation, was a close friend of
the German painter Lucas Cranach the Elder. Cranach painted this and several other portraits of Luther.
Many Europeans had called for reforms of the Catholic Church before Martin Luther did, but his protest
had the unintended consequence of splitting European Christianity. Luther compiled a list of what he
viewed as needed Church reforms, a document that came to be known as The Ninety-Five Theses, and
nailed it to the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany, in 1517. He called for the publication of the
Bible in everyday language, took issue with the Church’s policy of imposing tithes (a required payment
to the Church that appeared to enrich the clergy), and denounced the buying and selling of indulgences.
Although he had hoped to reform the Catholic Church while remaining a part of it, Luther’s action instead
triggered a movement called the Protestant Reformation that divided the Church in two. The Catholic
Church condemned him as a heretic, but a doctrine based on his reforms, called Lutheranism, spread
through northern Germany and Scandinavia.
Click and Explore
Visit Fordham University’s Internet Medieval Sourcebook

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/fordham) for access to many primary sources relating
to the Protestant Reformation.
JOHN CALVIN
Like Luther, the French lawyer John Calvin advocated making the Bible accessible to ordinary people; only
by reading scripture and reflecting daily about their spiritual condition, he argued, could believers begin
to understand the power of God. In 1535, Calvin fled Catholic France and led the Reformation movement
from Geneva, Switzerland.
Calvinism emphasized human powerlessness before an omniscient God and stressed the idea of
predestination, the belief that God selected a few chosen people for salvation while everyone else was
predestined to damnation. Calvinists believed that reading scripture prepared sinners, if they were among
the elect, to receive God’s grace. In Geneva, Calvin established a Bible commonwealth, a community of
believers whose sole source of authority was their interpretation of the Bible, not the authority of any
prince or monarch. Soon Calvin’s ideas spread to the Netherlands and Scotland.
PROTESTANTISM IN ENGLAND
Protestantism spread beyond the German states and Geneva to England, which had been a Catholic nation
for centuries. Luther’s idea that scripture should be available in the everyday language of worshippers
inspired English scholar William Tyndale to translate the Bible into English in 1526. The seismic break with
the Catholic Church in England occurred in the 1530s, when Henry VIII established a new, Protestant state
religion.
A devout Catholic, Henry had initially stood in opposition to the Reformation. Pope Leo X even awarded
him the title “Defender of the Faith.” The tides turned, however, when Henry desired a male heir to the
Tudor monarchy. When his Spanish Catholic wife, Catherine (the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella), did
not give birth to a boy, the king sought an annulment to their marriage. When the Pope refused his request,
Henry created a new national Protestant church, the Church of England, with himself at its head. This left
him free to annul his own marriage and marry Anne Boleyn.
Anne Boleyn also failed to produce a male heir, and when she was accused of adultery, Henry had her
executed. His third wife, Jane Seymour, at long last delivered a son, Edward, who ruled for only a short
time before dying in 1553 at the age of fifteen. Mary, the daughter of Henry VIII and his discarded first wife
Catherine, then came to the throne, committed to restoring Catholicism. She earned the nickname “Bloody
Mary” for the many executions of Protestants, often by burning alive, that she ordered during her reign.
Religious turbulence in England was finally quieted when Elizabeth, the Protestant daughter of Henry VIII
and Anne Boleyn, ascended the throne in 1558. Under Elizabeth, the Church of England again became the
state church, retaining the hierarchical structure and many of the rituals of the Catholic Church. However,
by the late 1500s, some English members of the Church began to agitate for more reform. Known as
Puritans, they worked to erase all vestiges of Catholicism from the Church of England. At the time, the
term “puritan” was a pejorative one; many people saw Puritans as holier-than-thou frauds who used
religion to swindle their neighbors. Worse still, many in power saw Puritans as a security threat because
of their opposition to the national church.
Under Elizabeth, whose long reign lasted from 1558 to 1603, Puritans grew steadily in number. After James
I died in 1625 and his son Charles I ascended the throne, Puritans became the target of increasing state
pressure to conform. Many crossed the Atlantic in the 1620s and 1630s instead to create a New England,
a haven for reformed Protestantism where Puritan was no longer a term of abuse. Thus, the religious
upheavals that affected England so much had equally momentous consequences for the Americas.
RELIGIOUS WAR
By the early 1500s, the Protestant Reformation threatened the massive Spanish Catholic empire. As the
preeminent Catholic power, Spain would not tolerate any challenge to the Holy Catholic Church. Over
the course of the 1500s, it devoted vast amounts of treasure and labor to leading an unsuccessful effort to
eradicate Protestantism in Europe.

Spain’s main enemies at this time were the runaway Spanish provinces of the North Netherlands. By
1581, these seven northern provinces had declared their independence from Spain and created the Dutch
Republic, also called Holland, where Protestantism was tolerated. Determined to deal a death blow to
Protestantism in England and Holland, King Philip of Spain assembled a massive force of over thirty
thousand men and 130 ships, and in 1588 he sent this navy, the Spanish Armada, north. But English sea
power combined with a maritime storm destroyed the fleet.
The defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 was but one part of a larger but undeclared war between
Protestant England and Catholic Spain. Between 1585 and 1604, the two rivals sparred repeatedly. England
launched its own armada in 1589 in an effort to cripple the Spanish fleet and capture Spanish treasure.
However, the foray ended in disaster for the English, with storms, disease, and the strength of the Spanish
Armada combining to bring about defeat.
The conflict between Spain and England dragged on into the early seventeenth century, and the newly
Protestant nations, especially England and the Dutch Republic, posed a significant challenge to Spain (and
also to Catholic France) as imperial rivalries played out in the Atlantic World. Spain retained its mighty
American empire, but by the early 1600s, the nation could no longer keep England and other European
rivals—the French and Dutch—from colonizing smaller islands in the Caribbean (Figure 2.9).
Figure 2.9 This portrait of Elizabeth I of England, painted by George Gower in about 1588, shows Elizabeth with her
hand on a globe, signifying her power over the world. The pictures in the background show the English defeat of the
Spanish Armada.
Religious intolerance characterized the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, an age of powerful state
religions with the authority to impose and enforce belief systems on the population. In this climate,
religious violence was common. One of the most striking examples is the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre
of 1572, in which French Catholic troops began to kill unarmed French Protestants (Figure 2.10). The
murders touched off mob violence that ultimately claimed nine thousand lives, a bloody episode that
highlights the degree of religious turmoil that gripped Europe in the aftermath of the Protestant
Reformation.
Figure 2.10 Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre (1772-84), by François Dubois, shows the horrific violence of the
St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. In this scene, French Catholic troops slaughter French Protestant Calvinists.

• Identify regions where the English, French, and Dutch explored and established
settlements
• Describe the differences among the early colonies
• Explain the role of the American colonies in European nations’ struggles for
domination
For Europeans, the discovery of an Atlantic World meant newfound wealth in the form of gold and silver
as well as valuable furs. The Americas also provided a new arena for intense imperial rivalry as different
European nations jockeyed for preeminence in the New World. The religious motives for colonization
spurred European expansion as well, and as the Protestant Reformation gained ground beginning in the
1520s, rivalries between Catholic and Protestant Christians spilled over into the Americas.
ENGLISH EXPLORATION
Disruptions during the Tudor monarchy—especially the creation of the Protestant Church of England
by Henry VIII in the 1530s, the return of the nation to Catholicism under Queen Mary in the 1550s,
and the restoration of Protestantism under Queen Elizabeth—left England with little energy for overseas
projects. More important, England lacked the financial resources for such endeavors. Nonetheless, English
monarchs carefully monitored developments in the new Atlantic World and took steps to assert England’s
claim to the Americas. As early as 1497, Henry VII of England had commissioned John Cabot, an Italian
mariner, to explore new lands. Cabot sailed from England that year and made landfall somewhere along
the North American coastline. For the next century, English fishermen routinely crossed the Atlantic to
fish the rich waters off the North American coast. However, English colonization efforts in the 1500s were
closer to home, as England devoted its energy to the colonization of Ireland.
Queen Elizabeth favored England’s advance into the Atlantic World, though her main concern was
blocking Spain’s effort to eliminate Protestantism. Indeed, England could not commit to large-scale
colonization in the Americas as long as Spain appeared ready to invade Ireland or Scotland. Nonetheless,

Elizabeth approved of English privateers, sea captains to whom the home government had given
permission to raid the enemy at will. These skilled mariners cruised the Caribbean, plundering Spanish
ships whenever they could. Each year the English took more than £100,000 from Spain in this way; English
privateer Francis Drake first made a name for himself when, in 1573, he looted silver, gold, and pearls
worth £40,000.
Elizabeth did sanction an early attempt at colonization in 1584, when Sir Walter Raleigh, a favorite of
the queen’s, attempted to establish a colony at Roanoke, an island off the coast of present-day North
Carolina. The colony was small, consisting of only 117 people, who suffered a poor relationship with the
local Indians, the Croatans, and struggled to survive in their new land (Figure 2.11). Their governor,
John White, returned to England in late 1587 to secure more people and supplies, but events conspired
to keep him away from Roanoke for three years. By the time he returned in 1590, the entire colony had
vanished. The only trace the colonists left behind was the word Croatoan carved into a fence surrounding
the village. Governor White never knew whether the colonists had decamped for nearby Croatoan Island
(now Hatteras) or whether some disaster had befallen them all. Roanoke is still called “the lost colony.”
Figure 2.11 In 1588, a promoter of English colonization named Thomas Hariot published A Briefe and True Report
of the New Found Land of Virginia, which contained many engravings of the native peoples who lived on the Carolina
coast in the 1580s. This print, “The brovvyllinge of their fishe ouer the flame” (1590) by Theodor de Bry, shows the
ingenuity and wisdom of the “savages” of the New World. (credit: UNC Chapel Hill)
English promoters of colonization pushed its commercial advantages and the religious justification that
English colonies would allow the establishment of Protestantism in the Americas. Both arguments struck a
chord. In the early 1600s, wealthy English merchants and the landed elite began to pool their resources to
form joint stock companies. In this novel business arrangement, which was in many ways the precursor
to the modern corporation, investors provided the capital for and assumed the risk of a venture in order
to reap significant returns. The companies gained the approval of the English crown to establish colonies,
and their investors dreamed of reaping great profits from the money they put into overseas colonization.
The first permanent English settlement was established by a joint stock company, the Virginia Company.
Named for Elizabeth, the “virgin queen,” the company gained royal approval to establish a colony on the
east coast of North America, and in 1606, it sent 144 men and boys to the New World. In early 1607, this
group sailed up Chesapeake Bay. Finding a river they called the James in honor of their new king, James
I, they established a ramshackle settlement and named it Jamestown. Despite serious struggles, the colony
survived.
Many of Jamestown’s settlers were desperate men; although they came from elite families, they were
younger sons who would not inherit their father’s estates. The Jamestown adventurers believed they
would find instant wealth in the New World and did not actually expect to have to perform work. Henry
Percy, the eighth son of the Earl of Northumberland, was among them. His account, excerpted below,
illustrates the hardships the English confronted in Virginia in 1607.
MY STORY
George Percy and the First Months at Jamestown
The 144 men and boys who started the Jamestown colony faced many hardships; by the end of the first
winter, only 38 had survived. Disease, hunger, and poor relationships with local natives all contributed
to the colony’s high death toll. George Percy, who served twice as governor of Jamestown, kept records
of the colonists’ first months in the colony. These records were later published in London in 1608. This
excerpt is from his account of August and September of 1607.
The fourth day of September died Thomas Jacob Sergeant. The fifth day, there died Benjamin
Beast. Our men were destroyed with cruel diseases, as Swellings, Fluxes, Burning Fevers,
and by wars, and some departed suddenly, but for the most part they died of mere famine.
There were never Englishmen left in a foreign Country in such misery as we were in this new
discovered Virginia. . . . Our food was but a small Can of Barley sod* in water, to five men a
day, our drink cold water taken out of the River, which was at a flood very salty, at a low tide
full of slime and filth, which was the destruction of many of our men. Thus we lived for the
space of five months in this miserable distress, not having five able men to man our Bulwarks
upon any occasion. If it had not pleased God to have put a terror in the Savages’ hearts, we
had all perished by those wild and cruel Pagans, being in that weak estate as we were; our
men night and day groaning in every corner of the Fort most pitiful to hear. If there were any
conscience in men, it would make their hearts to bleed to hear the pitiful murmurings and
outcries of our sick men without relief, every night and day, for the space of six weeks, some
departing out of the World, many times three or four in a night; in the morning, their bodies
trailed out of their Cabins like Dogs to be buried. In this sort did I see the mortality of diverse
of our people.
*soaked
According to George Percy’s account, what were the major problems the Jamestown settlers
encountered? What kept the colony from complete destruction?
By any measure, England came late to the race to colonize. As Jamestown limped along in the 1610s, the
Spanish Empire extended around the globe and grew rich from its global colonial project. Yet the English
persisted, and for this reason the Jamestown settlement has a special place in history as the first permanent
colony in what later became the United States.
After Jamestown’s founding, English colonization of the New World accelerated. In 1609, a ship bound
for Jamestown foundered in a storm and landed on Bermuda. (Some believe this incident helped inspire
Shakespeare’s 1611 play The Tempest.) The admiral of the ship, George Somers, claimed the island for the
English crown. The English also began to colonize small islands in the Caribbean, an incursion into the
Spanish American empire. They established themselves on small islands such as St. Christopher (1624),
Barbados (1627), Nevis (1628), Montserrat (1632), and Antigua (1632).
From the start, the English West Indies had a commercial orientation, for these islands produced cash
crops: first tobacco and then sugar. Very quickly, by the mid-1600s, Barbados had become one of the most
important English colonies because of the sugar produced there. Barbados was the first English colony
dependent on slaves, and it became a model for other English slave societies on the American mainland.
These differed radically from England itself, where slavery was not practiced.
English Puritans also began to colonize the Americas in the 1620s and 1630s. These intensely religious
migrants dreamed of creating communities of reformed Protestantism where the corruption of England
would be eliminated. One of the first groups of Puritans to remove to North America, known as Pilgrims
and led by William Bradford, had originally left England to live in the Netherlands. Fearing their children
were losing their English identity among the Dutch, however, they sailed for North America in 1620 to
settle at Plymouth, the first English settlement in New England. The Pilgrims differed from other Puritans

in their insistence on separating from what they saw as the corrupt Church of England. For this reason,
Pilgrims are known as Separatists.
Like Jamestown, Plymouth occupies an iconic place in American national memory. The tale of the 102
migrants who crossed the Atlantic aboard the Mayflower and their struggle for survival is a well-known
narrative of the founding of the country. Their story includes the signing of the Mayflower Compact, a
written agreement whereby the English voluntarily agreed to help each other. Some interpret this 1620
document as an expression of democratic spirit because of the cooperative and inclusive nature of the
agreement to live and work together. In 1630, a much larger contingent of Puritans left England to escape
conformity to the Church of England and founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In the following years,
thousands more arrived to create a new life in the rocky soils and cold climates of New England.
In comparison to Catholic Spain, however, Protestant England remained a very weak imperial player in
the early seventeenth century, with only a few infant colonies in the Americas in the early 1600s. The
English never found treasure equal to that of the Aztec city of Tenochtitlán, and England did not quickly
grow rich from its small American outposts. The English colonies also differed from each other; Barbados
and Virginia had a decidedly commercial orientation from the start, while the Puritan colonies of New
England were intensely religious at their inception. All English settlements in America, however, marked
the increasingly important role of England in the Atlantic World.
FRENCH EXPLORATION
Spanish exploits in the New World whetted the appetite of other would-be imperial powers, including
France. Like Spain, France was a Catholic nation and committed to expanding Catholicism around the
globe. In the early sixteenth century, it joined the race to explore the New World and exploit the resources
of the Western Hemisphere. Navigator Jacques Cartier claimed northern North America for France,
naming the area New France. From 1534 to 1541, he made three voyages of discovery on the Gulf of St.
Lawrence and the St. Lawrence River. Like other explorers, Cartier made exaggerated claims of mineral
wealth in America, but he was unable to send great riches back to France. Due to resistance from the
native peoples as well as his own lack of planning, he could not establish a permanent settlement in North
America.
Explorer Samuel de Champlain occupies a special place in the history of the Atlantic World for his role
in establishing the French presence in the New World. Champlain explored the Caribbean in 1601 and
then the coast of New England in 1603 before traveling farther north. In 1608 he founded Quebec, and he
made numerous Atlantic crossings as he worked tirelessly to promote New France. Unlike other imperial
powers, France—through Champlain’s efforts—fostered especially good relationships with native
peoples, paving the way for French exploration further into the continent: around the Great Lakes, around
Hudson Bay, and eventually to the Mississippi. Champlain made an alliance with the Huron confederacy
and the Algonquins and agreed to fight with them against their enemy, the Iroquois (Figure 2.12).
Figure 2.12 In this engraving, titled Defeat of the Iroquois and based on a drawing by explorer Samuel de
Champlain, Champlain is shown fighting on the side of the Huron and Algonquins against the Iroquois. He portrays
himself in the middle of the battle, firing a gun, while the native people around him shoot arrows at each other. What
does this engraving suggest about the impact of European exploration and settlement on the Americas?
The French were primarily interested in establishing commercially viable colonial outposts, and to that
end, they created extensive trading networks in New France. These networks relied on native hunters to
harvest furs, especially beaver pelts, and to exchange these items for French glass beads and other trade
goods. (French fashion at the time favored broad-brimmed hats trimmed in beaver fur, so French traders
had a ready market for their North American goods.) The French also dreamed of replicating the wealth of
Spain by colonizing the tropical zones. After Spanish control of the Caribbean began to weaken, the French
turned their attention to small islands in the West Indies, and by 1635 they had colonized two, Guadeloupe
and Martinique. Though it lagged far behind Spain, France now boasted its own West Indian colonies.
Both islands became lucrative sugar plantation sites that turned a profit for French planters by relying on
African slave labor.
Click and Explore
To see how cartographers throughout history documented the exploration of the

Atlantic World, browse the hundreds of digitized historical maps that make up the
collection American Shores: Maps of the Middle Atlantic Region to 1850
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/nypl) at the New York Public Library.
DUTCH COLONIZATION
Dutch entrance into the Atlantic World is part of the larger story of religious and imperial conflict in the
early modern era. In the 1500s, Calvinism, one of the major Protestant reform movements, had found
adherents in the northern provinces of the Spanish Netherlands. During the sixteenth century, these
provinces began a long struggle to achieve independence from Catholic Spain. Established in 1581 but
not recognized as independent by Spain until 1648, the Dutch Republic, or Holland, quickly made itself
a powerful force in the race for Atlantic colonies and wealth. The Dutch distinguished themselves as

commercial leaders in the seventeenth century (Figure 2.13), and their mode of colonization relied on
powerful corporations: the Dutch East India Company, chartered in 1602 to trade in Asia, and the Dutch
West India Company, established in 1621 to colonize and trade in the Americas.
Figure 2.13 Amsterdam was the richest city in the world in the 1600s. In Courtyard of the Exchange in Amsterdam,
a 1653 painting by Emanuel de Witt, merchants involved in the global trade eagerly attend to news of shipping and
the prices of commodities.
While employed by the Dutch East India Company in 1609, the English sea captain Henry Hudson
explored New York Harbor and the river that now bears his name. Like many explorers of the time,
Hudson was actually seeking a northwest passage to Asia and its wealth, but the ample furs harvested
from the region he explored, especially the coveted beaver pelts, provided a reason to claim it for the
Netherlands. The Dutch named their colony New Netherlands, and it served as a fur-trading outpost
for the expanding and powerful Dutch West India Company. With headquarters in New Amsterdam
on the island of Manhattan, the Dutch set up several regional trading posts, including one at Fort
Orange—named for the royal Dutch House of Orange-Nassau—in present-day Albany. (The color orange
remains significant to the Dutch, having become particularly associated with William of Orange,
Protestantism, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688.) A brisk trade in furs with local Algonquian and
Iroquois peoples brought the Dutch and native peoples together in a commercial network that extended
throughout the Hudson River Valley and beyond.
The Dutch West India Company in turn established colonies on Aruba, Bonaire, and Curaçao, St. Martin,
St. Eustatius, and Saba. With their outposts in New Netherlands and the Caribbean, the Dutch had
established themselves in the seventeenth century as a commercially powerful rival to Spain. Amsterdam
became a trade hub for all the Atlantic World.
2.4 New Worlds in the Americas: Labor, Commerce, and the

Columbian Exchange

• Describe how Europeans solved their labor problems
• Describe the theory of mercantilism and the process of commodification
• Analyze the effects of the Columbian Exchange
European promoters of colonization claimed the Americas overflowed with a wealth of treasures.
Burnishing national glory and honor became entwined with carving out colonies, and no nation wanted
to be left behind. However, the realities of life in the Americas—violence, exploitation, and particularly
the need for workers—were soon driving the practice of slavery and forced labor. Everywhere in America
a stark contrast existed between freedom and slavery. The Columbian Exchange, in which Europeans
transported plants, animals, and diseases across the Atlantic in both directions, also left a lasting
impression on the Americas.
LABOR SYSTEMS
Physical power—to work the fields, build villages, process raw materials—is a necessity for maintaining a
society. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, humans could derive power only from the wind,
water, animals, or other humans. Everywhere in the Americas, a crushing demand for labor bedeviled
Europeans because there were not enough colonists to perform the work necessary to keep the colonies
going. Spain granted encomiendas—legal rights to native labor—to conquistadors who could prove their
service to the crown. This system reflected the Spanish view of colonization: the king rewarded successful
conquistadors who expanded the empire. Some native peoples who had sided with the conquistadors, like
the Tlaxcalan, also gained encomiendas; Malintzin, the Nahua woman who helped Cortés defeat the Mexica,
was granted one.
The Spanish believed native peoples would work for them by right of conquest, and, in return, the
Spanish would bring them Catholicism. In theory the relationship consisted of reciprocal obligations, but
in practice the Spaniards ruthlessly exploited it, seeing native people as little more than beasts of burden.
Convinced of their right to the land and its peoples, they sought both to control native labor and to impose
what they viewed as correct religious beliefs upon the land’s inhabitants. Native peoples everywhere
resisted both the labor obligations and the effort to change their ancient belief systems. Indeed, many
retained their religion or incorporated only the parts of Catholicism that made sense to them.
The system of encomiendas was accompanied by a great deal of violence (Figure 2.14). One Spaniard,
Bartolomé de Las Casas , denounced the brutality of Spanish rule. A Dominican friar, Las Casas had
been one of the earliest Spanish settlers in the Spanish West Indies. In his early life in the Americas, he
owned Indian slaves and was the recipient of an encomienda. However, after witnessing the savagery with
which encomenderos (recipients of encomiendas) treated the native people, he reversed his views. In 1515, Las
Casas released his native slaves, gave up his encomienda, and began to advocate for humane treatment of
native peoples. He lobbied for new legislation, eventually known as the New Laws, which would eliminate
slavery and the encomienda system.

Figure 2.14 In this startling image from the Kingsborough Codex (a book written and drawn by native
Mesoamericans), a well-dressed Spaniard is shown pulling the hair of a bleeding, severely injured native. The
drawing was part of a complaint about Spanish abuses of their encomiendas.
Las Casas’s writing about the Spaniards’ horrific treatment of Indians helped inspire the so-called Black
Legend, the idea that the Spanish were bloodthirsty conquerors with no regard for human life. Perhaps
not surprisingly, those who held this view of the Spanish were Spain’s imperial rivals. English writers and
others seized on the idea of Spain’s ruthlessness to support their own colonization projects. By demonizing
the Spanish, they justified their own efforts as more humane. All European colonizers, however, shared a
disregard for Indians.
MY STORY
Bartolomé de Las Casas on the Mistreatment of Indians
Bartolomé de Las Casas’s A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, written in 1542 and published
ten years later, detailed for Prince Philip II of Spain how Spanish colonists had been mistreating natives.
Into and among these gentle sheep, endowed by their Maker and Creator with all the qualities
aforesaid, did creep the Spaniards, who no sooner had knowledge of these people than they
became like fierce wolves and tigers and lions who have gone many days without food or
nourishment. And no other thing have they done for forty years until this day, and still today
see fit to do, but dismember, slay, perturb, afflict, torment, and destroy the Indians by all
manner of cruelty—new and divers and most singular manners such as never before seen or
read or heard of—some few of which shall be recounted below, and they do this to such a
degree that on the Island of Hispaniola, of the above three millions souls that we once saw,
today there be no more than two hundred of those native people remaining. . . .
Two principal and general customs have been employed by those, calling themselves
Christians, who have passed this way, in extirpating and striking from the face of the earth
those suffering nations. The first being unjust, cruel, bloody, and tyrannical warfare. The
other—after having slain all those who might yearn toward or suspire after or think of freedom,
or consider escaping from the torments that they are made to suffer, by which I mean all the
native-born lords and adult males, for it is the Spaniards’ custom in their wars to allow only
young boys and females to live—being to oppress them with the hardest, harshest, and most
heinous bondage to which men or beasts might ever be bound into.
How might these writings have been used to promote the “black legend” against Spain as well as
subsequent English exploration and colonization?
Indians were not the only source of cheap labor in the Americas; by the middle of the sixteenth century,
Africans formed an important element of the labor landscape, producing the cash crops of sugar and
tobacco for European markets. Europeans viewed Africans as non-Christians, which they used as a
justification for enslavement. Denied control over their lives, slaves endured horrendous conditions.
At every opportunity, they resisted enslavement, and their resistance was met with violence. Indeed,
physical, mental, and sexual violence formed a key strategy among European slaveholders in their effort to
assert mastery and impose their will. The Portuguese led the way in the evolving transport of slaves across
the Atlantic; slave “factories” on the west coast of Africa, like Elmina Castle in Ghana, served as holding
pens for slaves brought from Africa’s interior. In time, other European imperial powers would follow in
the footsteps of the Portuguese by constructing similar outposts on the coast of West Africa.
The Portuguese traded or sold slaves to Spanish, Dutch, and English colonists in the Americas, particularly
in South America and the Caribbean, where sugar was a primary export. Thousands of African slaves
found themselves growing, harvesting, and processing sugarcane in an arduous routine of physical labor.
Slaves had to cut the long cane stalks by hand and then bring them to a mill, where the cane juice was
extracted. They boiled the extracted cane juice down to a brown, crystalline sugar, which then had to be
cured in special curing houses to have the molasses drained from it. The result was refined sugar, while
the leftover molasses could be distilled into rum. Every step was labor-intensive and often dangerous.
Las Casas estimated that by 1550, there were fifty thousand slaves on Hispaniola. However, it is a mistake
to assume that during the very early years of European exploration all Africans came to America as slaves;
some were free men who took part in expeditions, for example, serving as conquistadors alongside Cortés
in his assault on Tenochtitlán. Nonetheless, African slavery was one of the most tragic outcomes in the
emerging Atlantic World.

Click and Explore
Browse the PBS collection Africans in America: Part 1 (http://openstaxcollege.org/

l/afinam) to see information and primary sources for the period 1450 through 1750.
COMMERCE IN THE NEW WORLD

The economic philosophy of mercantilism shaped European perceptions of wealth from the 1500s to
the late 1700s. Mercantilism held that only a limited amount of wealth, as measured in gold and silver
bullion, existed in the world. In order to gain power, nations had to amass wealth by mining these
precious raw materials from their colonial possessions. During the age of European exploration, nations
employed conquest, colonization, and trade as ways to increase their share of the bounty of the New
World. Mercantilists did not believe in free trade, arguing instead that the nation should control trade
to create wealth. In this view, colonies existed to strengthen the colonizing nation. Mercantilists argued
against allowing their nations to trade freely with other nations.
Spain’s mercantilist ideas guided its economic policy. Every year, slaves or native workers loaded
shipments of gold and silver aboard Spanish treasure fleets that sailed from Cuba for Spain. These ships
groaned under the sheer weight of bullion, for the Spanish had found huge caches of silver and gold in the
New World. In South America, for example, Spaniards discovered rich veins of silver ore in the mountain
called Potosí and founded a settlement of the same name there. Throughout the sixteenth century, Potosí
was a boom town, attracting settlers from many nations as well as native people from many different
cultures.
Colonial mercantilism, which was basically a set of protectionist policies designed to benefit the nation,
relied on several factors: colonies rich in raw materials, cheap labor, colonial loyalty to the home
government, and control of the shipping trade. Under this system, the colonies sent their raw materials,
harvested by slaves or native workers, back to their mother country. The mother country sent back finished
materials of all sorts: textiles, tools, clothing. The colonists could purchase these goods only from their
mother country; trade with other countries was forbidden.
The 1500s and early 1600s also introduced the process of commodification to the New World. American
silver, tobacco, and other items, which were used by native peoples for ritual purposes, became European
commodities with a monetary value that could be bought and sold. Before the arrival of the Spanish, for
example, the Inca people of the Andes consumed chicha, a corn beer, for ritual purposes only. When the
Spanish discovered chicha, they bought and traded for it, turning it into a commodity instead of a ritual
substance. Commodification thus recast native economies and spurred the process of early commercial
capitalism. New World resources, from plants to animal pelts, held the promise of wealth for European
imperial powers.
THE COLUMBIAN EXCHANGE

As Europeans traversed the Atlantic, they brought with them plants, animals, and diseases that changed
lives and landscapes on both sides of the ocean. These two-way exchanges between the Americas and
Europe/Africa are known collectively as the Columbian Exchange (Figure 2.15).
Figure 2.15 With European exploration and settlement of the New World, goods and diseases began crossing the
Atlantic Ocean in both directions. This “Columbian Exchange” soon had global implications.
Of all the commodities in the Atlantic World, sugar proved to be the most important. Indeed, sugar carried
the same economic importance as oil does today. European rivals raced to create sugar plantations in the
Americas and fought wars for control of some of the best sugar production areas. Although refined sugar
was available in the Old World, Europe’s harsher climate made sugarcane difficult to grow, and it was not
plentiful. Columbus brought sugar to Hispaniola in 1493, and the new crop was growing there by the end
of the 1490s. By the first decades of the 1500s, the Spanish were building sugar mills on the island. Over
the next century of colonization, Caribbean islands and most other tropical areas became centers of sugar
production.
Though of secondary importance to sugar, tobacco achieved great value for Europeans as a cash crop as
well. Native peoples had been growing it for medicinal and ritual purposes for centuries before European
contact, smoking it in pipes or powdering it to use as snuff. They believed tobacco could improve
concentration and enhance wisdom. To some, its use meant achieving an entranced, altered, or divine
state; entering a spiritual place.
Tobacco was unknown in Europe before 1492, and it carried a negative stigma at first. The early Spanish
explorers considered natives’ use of tobacco to be proof of their savagery and, because of the fire and
smoke produced in the consumption of tobacco, evidence of the Devil’s sway in the New World.
Gradually, however, European colonists became accustomed to and even took up the habit of smoking,
and they brought it across the Atlantic. As did the Indians, Europeans ascribed medicinal properties to

tobacco, claiming that it could cure headaches and skin irritations. Even so, Europeans did not import
tobacco in great quantities until the 1590s. At that time, it became the first truly global commodity; English,
French, Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese colonists all grew it for the world market.
Native peoples also introduced Europeans to chocolate, made from cacao seeds and used by the Aztec in
Mesoamerica as currency. Mesoamerican Indians consumed unsweetened chocolate in a drink with chili
peppers, vanilla, and a spice called achiote. This chocolate drink—xocolatl—was part of ritual ceremonies
like marriage and an everyday item for those who could afford it. Chocolate contains theobromine, a
stimulant, which may be why native people believed it brought them closer to the sacred world.
Spaniards in the New World considered drinking chocolate a vile practice; one called chocolate “the
Devil’s vomit.” In time, however, they introduced the beverage to Spain. At first, chocolate was available
only in the Spanish court, where the elite mixed it with sugar and other spices. Later, as its availability
spread, chocolate gained a reputation as a love potion.
Click and Explore
Visit Nature Transformed (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/naturetrans) for a collection

of scholarly essays on the environment in American history.
The crossing of the Atlantic by plants like cacao and tobacco illustrates the ways in which the discovery
of the New World changed the habits and behaviors of Europeans. Europeans changed the New World
in turn, not least by bringing Old World animals to the Americas. On his second voyage, Christopher
Columbus brought pigs, horses, cows, and chickens to the islands of the Caribbean. Later explorers
followed suit, introducing new animals or reintroducing ones that had died out (like horses). With less
vulnerability to disease, these animals often fared better than humans in their new home, thriving both in
the wild and in domestication.
Europeans encountered New World animals as well. Because European Christians understood the world
as a place of warfare between God and Satan, many believed the Americas, which lacked Christianity,
were home to the Devil and his minions. The exotic, sometimes bizarre, appearances and habits of
animals in the Americas that were previously unknown to Europeans, such as manatees, sloths, and
poisonous snakes, confirmed this association. Over time, however, they began to rely more on observation
of the natural world than solely on scripture. This shift—from seeing the Bible as the source of all
received wisdom to trusting observation or empiricism—is one of the major outcomes of the era of early
globalization.
Travelers between the Americas, Africa, and Europe also included microbes: silent, invisible life forms that
had profound and devastating consequences. Native peoples had no immunity to diseases from across
the Atlantic, to which they had never been exposed. European explorers unwittingly brought with them
chickenpox, measles, mumps, and smallpox, which ravaged native peoples despite their attempts to treat
the diseases, decimating some populations and wholly destroying others (Figure 2.16).
Figure 2.16 This sixteenth-century Aztec drawing shows the suffering of a typical victim of smallpox. Smallpox and
other contagious diseases brought by European explorers decimated Indian populations in the Americas.
In eastern North America, some native peoples interpreted death from disease as a hostile act. Some
groups, including the Iroquois, engaged in raids or “mourning wars,” taking enemy prisoners in order
to assuage their grief and replace the departed. In a special ritual, the prisoners were
“requickened”—assigned the identity of a dead person—and adopted by the bereaved family to take the
place of their dead. As the toll from disease rose, mourning wars intensified and expanded.

Key Terms
Black Legend Spain’s reputation as bloodthirsty conquistadors
Calvinism a branch of Protestantism started by John Calvin, emphasizing human powerlessness before
an omniscient God and stressing the idea of predestination
Columbian Exchange the movement of plants, animals, and diseases across the Atlantic due to
European exploration of the Americas
commodification the transformation of something—for example, an item of ritual significance—into a

commodity with monetary value
encomienda legal rights to native labor as granted by the Spanish crown
Hispaniola the island in the Caribbean, present-day Haiti and Dominican Republic, where Columbus
first landed and established a Spanish colony
indulgences documents for purchase that absolved sinners of their errant behavior
joint stock company a business entity in which investors provide the capital and assume the risk in
order to reap significant returns
mercantilism the protectionist economic principle that nations should control trade with their colonies to
ensure a favorable balance of trade
mourning wars raids or wars that tribes waged in eastern North America in order to replace members
lost to smallpox and other diseases
Pilgrims Separatists, led by William Bradford, who established the first English settlement in New
England
privateers sea captains to whom the British government had given permission to raid Spanish ships at
will
probanza de mérito proof of merit: a letter written by a Spanish explorer to the crown to gain royal
patronage
Protestant Reformation the schism in Catholicism that began with Martin Luther and John Calvin in the
early sixteenth century
Puritans a group of religious reformers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries who wanted to
“purify” the Church of England by ridding it of practices associated with the Catholic Church and
advocating greater purity of doctrine and worship
Roanoke the first English colony in Virginia, which mysteriously disappeared sometime between 1587
and 1590
Separatists a faction of Puritans who advocated complete separation from the Church of England
smallpox a disease that Europeans accidentally brought to the New World, killing millions of Indians,
who had no immunity to the disease
sugarcane one of the primary crops of the Americas, which required a tremendous amount of labor to
cultivate
Summary
Although Portugal opened the door to exploration of the Atlantic World, Spanish explorers quickly
made inroads into the Americas. Spurred by Christopher Columbus’s glowing reports of the riches to be
found in the New World, throngs of Spanish conquistadors set off to find and conquer new lands. They
accomplished this through a combination of military strength and strategic alliances with native peoples.
Spanish rulers Ferdinand and Isabella promoted the acquisition of these new lands in order to strengthen
and glorify their own empire. As Spain’s empire expanded and riches flowed in from the Americas, the
Spanish experienced a golden age of art and literature.

The sixteenth century witnessed a new challenge to the powerful Catholic Church. The reformist doctrines
of Martin Luther and John Calvin attracted many people dissatisfied with Catholicism, and Protestantism
spread across northern Europe, spawning many subgroups with conflicting beliefs. Spain led the charge
against Protestantism, leading to decades of undeclared religious wars between Spain and England, and
religious intolerance and violence characterized much of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Despite
the efforts of the Catholic Church and Catholic nations, however, Protestantism had taken hold by 1600.

By the beginning of the seventeenth century, Spain’s rivals—England, France, and the Dutch
Republic—had each established an Atlantic presence, with greater or lesser success, in the race for imperial
power. None of the new colonies, all in the eastern part of North America, could match the Spanish
possessions for gold and silver resources. Nonetheless, their presence in the New World helped these
nations establish claims that they hoped could halt the runaway growth of Spain’s Catholic empire.
English colonists in Virginia suffered greatly, expecting riches to fall into their hands and finding reality a
harsh blow. However, the colony at Jamestown survived, and the output of England’s islands in the West
Indies soon grew to be an important source of income for the country. New France and New Netherlands
were modest colonial holdings in the northeast of the continent, but these colonies’ thriving fur trade with
native peoples, and their alliances with those peoples, helped to create the foundation for later shifts in the
global balance of power.
2.4 New Worlds in the Americas: Labor, Commerce, and the Columbian Exchange
In the minds of European rulers, colonies existed to create wealth for imperial powers. Guided by
mercantilist ideas, European rulers and investors hoped to enrich their own nations and themselves, in
order to gain the greatest share of what was believed to be a limited amount of wealth. In their own
individual quest for riches and preeminence, European colonizers who traveled to the Americas blazed
new and disturbing paths, such as the encomienda system of forced labor and the use of tens of thousands
of Africans as slaves.
All native inhabitants of the Americas who came into contact with Europeans found their worlds turned
upside down as the new arrivals introduced their religions and ideas about property and goods.
Europeans gained new foods, plants, and animals in the Columbian Exchange, turning whatever they
could into a commodity to be bought and sold, and Indians were introduced to diseases that nearly
destroyed them. At every turn, however, Indians placed limits on European colonization and resisted the
newcomers’ ways.
Review Questions

1. Which country initiated the era of Atlantic A. English attention was turned to internal
exploration? struggles and the encroaching Catholic
A. France menace to Scotland and Ireland.
B. Spain B. The English monarchy did not want to
C. England declare direct war on Spain by attempting
D. Portugal to colonize the Americas.
C. The English military was occupied in
2. Which country established the first colonies in battling for control of New Netherlands.
the Americas? D. The English crown refused to fund colonial
A. England expeditions.
B. Portugal
C. Spain 9. What was the main goal of the French in
D. the Netherlands colonizing the Americas?
A. establishing a colony with French subjects
3. Where did Christopher Columbus first land? B. trading, especially for furs
A. Hispaniola C. gaining control of shipping lanes
B. the Bahamas D. spreading Catholicism among native
C. Jamestown peoples
D. Mexico
10. What were some of the main differences
4. Why did the authors of probanzas de méritos among the non-Spanish colonies?
choose to write in the way that they did? What
should we consider when we interpret these 11. How could Spaniards obtain encomiendas?
documents today? A. by serving the Spanish crown
B. by buying them from other Spaniards
5. Where did the Protestant Reformation begin? C. by buying them from native chiefs
A. Northern Europe D. by inheriting them
B. Spain
C. England 12. Which of the following best describes the
D. the American colonies Columbian Exchange?
A. the letters Columbus and other
6. What was the chief goal of the Puritans? conquistadors exchanged with the Spanish
A. to achieve a lasting peace with the Catholic crown
nations of Spain and France B. an exchange of plants, animals, and
B. to eliminate any traces of Catholicism from diseases between Europe and the Americas
the Church of England C. a form of trade between the Spanish and
C. to assist Henry VIII in his quest for an natives
annulment to his marriage D. the way in which explorers exchanged
D. to create a hierarchy within the Church of information about new lands to conquer
England modeled on that of the Catholic
Church 13. Why did diseases like smallpox affect Indians
so badly?
7. What reforms to the Catholic Church did A. Indians were less robust than Europeans.
Martin Luther and John Calvin call for? B. Europeans deliberately infected Indians.
C. Indians had no immunity to European
8. Why didn’t England make stronger attempts to diseases.
colonize the New World before the late sixteenth D. Conditions in the Americas were so harsh
to early seventeenth century? that Indians and Europeans alike were
devastated by disease.

14. What were the consequences of the religious upheavals of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries?
15. What types of labor systems were used in the Americas? Did systems of unfree labor serve more than
an economic function?
16. What is meant by the Columbian Exchange? Who was affected the most by the exchange?
17. What were the various goals of the colonial European powers in the expansion of their empires? To
what extent were they able to achieve these goals? Where did they fail?
18. On the whole, what was the impact of early European explorations on the New World? What was the
impact of the New World on Europeans?

Chapter 3 Creating New Social Orders: Colonial Societies, 1500–1700 63
CHAPTER 3
Creating New Social Orders:

Colonial Societies, 1500–1700
Figure 3.1 John Smith’s famous map of Virginia (1622) illustrates many geopolitical features of early colonization. In
the upper left, Powhatan, who governed a powerful local confederation of Algonquian communities, sits above other
local chiefs, denoting his authority. Another native figure, Susquehannock, who appears in the upper right, visually
reinforces the message that the English did not control the land beyond a few outposts along the Chesapeake.
Chapter Outline
3.1 Spanish Exploration and Colonial Society
3.2 Colonial Rivalries: Dutch and French Colonial Ambitions
3.3 English Settlements in America
3.4 The Impact of Colonization
Introduction
By the mid-seventeenth century, the geopolitical map of North America had become a patchwork of
imperial designs and ambitions as the Spanish, Dutch, French, and English reinforced their claims to
parts of the land. Uneasiness, punctuated by violent clashes, prevailed in the border zones between the
Europeans’ territorial claims. Meanwhile, still-powerful native peoples waged war to drive the invaders
from the continent. In the Chesapeake Bay and New England colonies, conflicts erupted as the English
pushed against their native neighbors (Figure 3.1).
The rise of colonial societies in the Americas brought Native Americans, Africans, and Europeans together
for the first time, highlighting the radical social, cultural, and religious differences that hampered their
ability to understand each other. European settlement affected every aspect of the land and its people,
bringing goods, ideas, and diseases that transformed the Americas. Reciprocally, Native American
practices, such as the use of tobacco, profoundly altered European habits and tastes.
64 Chapter 3 Creating New Social Orders: Colonial Societies, 1500–1700

• Identify the main Spanish American colonial settlements of the 1500s and 1600s
• Discuss economic, political, and demographic similarities and differences between the
Spanish colonies
During the 1500s, Spain expanded its colonial empire to the Philippines in the Far East and to areas in
the Americas that later became the United States. The Spanish dreamed of mountains of gold and silver
and imagined converting thousands of eager Indians to Catholicism. In their vision of colonial society,
everyone would know his or her place. Patriarchy (the rule of men over family, society, and government)
shaped the Spanish colonial world. Women occupied a lower status. In all matters, the Spanish held
themselves to be atop the social pyramid, with native peoples and Africans beneath them. Both Africans
and native peoples, however, contested Spanish claims to dominance. Everywhere the Spanish settled,
they brought devastating diseases, such as smallpox, that led to a horrific loss of life among native peoples.
European diseases killed far more native inhabitants than did Spanish swords.
The world native peoples had known before the coming of the Spanish was further upset by Spanish
colonial practices. The Spanish imposed the encomienda system in the areas they controlled. Under this
system, authorities assigned Indian workers to mine and plantation owners with the understanding that
the recipients would defend the colony and teach the workers the tenets of Christianity. In reality, the
encomienda system exploited native workers. It was eventually replaced by another colonial labor system,
the repartimiento, which required Indian towns to supply a pool of labor for Spanish overlords.
ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA

Spain gained a foothold in present-day Florida, viewing that area and the lands to the north as a logical
extension of their Caribbean empire. In 1513, Juan Ponce de León had claimed the area around today’s
St. Augustine for the Spanish crown, naming the land Pascua Florida (Feast of Flowers, or Easter) for the
nearest feast day. Ponce de León was unable to establish a permanent settlement there, but by 1565, Spain
Figure 3.2

was in need of an outpost to confront the French and English privateers using Florida as a base from which
to attack treasure-laden Spanish ships heading from Cuba to Spain. The threat to Spanish interests took
a new turn in 1562 when a group of French Protestants (Huguenots) established a small settlement they
called Fort Caroline, north of St. Augustine. With the authorization of King Philip II, Spanish nobleman
Pedro Menéndez led an attack on Fort Caroline, killing most of the colonists and destroying the fort.
Eliminating Fort Caroline served dual purposes for the Spanish—it helped reduce the danger from French
privateers and eradicated the French threat to Spain’s claim to the area. The contest over Florida illustrates
how European rivalries spilled over into the Americas, especially religious conflict between Catholics and
Protestants.
In 1565, the victorious Menéndez founded St. Augustine, now the oldest European settlement in the
Americas. In the process, the Spanish displaced the local Timucua Indians from their ancient town of
Seloy, which had stood for thousands of years (Figure 3.3). The Timucua suffered greatly from diseases
introduced by the Spanish, shrinking from a population of around 200,000 pre-contact to fifty thousand
in 1590. By 1700, only one thousand Timucua remained. As in other areas of Spanish conquest, Catholic
priests worked to bring about a spiritual conquest by forcing the surviving Timucua, demoralized and
reeling from catastrophic losses of family and community, to convert to Catholicism.
Figure 3.3 In this drawing by French artist Jacques le Moyne de Morgues, Timucua flee the Spanish settlers, who
arrive by ship. Le Moyne lived at Fort Caroline, the French outpost, before the Spanish destroyed the colony in 1562.
Spanish Florida made an inviting target for Spain’s imperial rivals, especially the English, who wanted to
gain access to the Caribbean. In 1586, Spanish settlers in St. Augustine discovered their vulnerability to
attack when the English pirate Sir Francis Drake destroyed the town with a fleet of twenty ships and one
hundred men. Over the next several decades, the Spanish built more wooden forts, all of which were burnt
by raiding European rivals. Between 1672 and 1695, the Spanish constructed a stone fort, Castillo de San
Marcos (Figure 3.4), to better defend St. Augustine against challengers.
Figure 3.4 The Spanish fort of Castillo de San Marcos helped Spanish colonists in St. Augustine fend off marauding
privateers from rival European countries.
Click and Explore
Browse the National Park Service’s multimedia resources on Castillo de San

Marcos (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/castillo) to see how the fort and gates have
looked throughout history.
SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO

Further west, the Spanish in Mexico, intent on expanding their empire, looked north to the land of the
Pueblo Indians. Under orders from King Philip II, Juan de Oñate explored the American southwest for
Spain in the late 1590s. The Spanish hoped that what we know as New Mexico would yield gold and silver,
but the land produced little of value to them. In 1610, Spanish settlers established themselves at Santa
Fe—originally named La Villa Real de la Santa Fe de San Francisco de Asís, or “Royal City of the Holy
Faith of St. Francis of Assisi”—where many Pueblo villages were located. Santa Fe became the capital of
the Kingdom of New Mexico, an outpost of the larger Spanish Viceroyalty of New Spain, which had its
headquarters in Mexico City.
As they had in other Spanish colonies, Franciscan missionaries labored to bring about a spiritual conquest
by converting the Pueblo to Catholicism. At first, the Pueblo adopted the parts of Catholicism that
dovetailed with their own long-standing view of the world. However, Spanish priests insisted that natives
discard their old ways entirely and angered the Pueblo by focusing on the young, drawing them away
from their parents. This deep insult, combined with an extended period of drought and increased attacks
by local Apache and Navajo in the 1670s—troubles that the Pueblo came to believe were linked to the
Spanish presence—moved the Pueblo to push the Spanish and their religion from the area. Pueblo leader
Popé demanded a return to native ways so the hardships his people faced would end. To him and
to thousands of others, it seemed obvious that “when Jesus came, the Corn Mothers went away.” The
expulsion of the Spanish would bring a return to prosperity and a pure, native way of life.
In 1680, the Pueblo launched a coordinated rebellion against the Spanish. The Pueblo Revolt killed over
four hundred Spaniards and drove the rest of the settlers, perhaps as many as two thousand, south toward
Mexico. However, as droughts and attacks by rival tribes continued, the Spanish sensed an opportunity to
regain their foothold. In 1692, they returned and reasserted their control of the area. Some of the Spanish

explained the Pueblo success in 1680 as the work of the Devil. Satan, they believed, had stirred up the
Pueblo to take arms against God’s chosen people—the Spanish—but the Spanish, and their God, had
prevailed in the end.

• Compare and contrast the development and character of the French and Dutch colonies
in North America
• Discuss the economies of the French and Dutch colonies in North America
Seventeenth-century French and Dutch colonies in North America were modest in comparison to Spain’s
colossal global empire. New France and New Netherland remained small commercial operations focused
on the fur trade and did not attract an influx of migrants. The Dutch in New Netherland confined their
operations to Manhattan Island, Long Island, the Hudson River Valley, and what later became New Jersey.
Dutch trade goods circulated widely among the native peoples in these areas and also traveled well into
the interior of the continent along preexisting native trade routes. French habitants, or farmer-settlers, eked
out an existence along the St. Lawrence River. French fur traders and missionaries, however, ranged far
into the interior of North America, exploring the Great Lakes region and the Mississippi River. These
pioneers gave France somewhat inflated imperial claims to lands that nonetheless remained firmly under
the dominion of native peoples.
FUR TRADING IN NEW NETHERLAND

The Dutch Republic emerged as a major commercial center in the 1600s. Its fleets plied the waters of the
Atlantic, while other Dutch ships sailed to the Far East, returning with prized spices like pepper to be
sold in the bustling ports at home, especially Amsterdam. In North America, Dutch traders established
themselves first on Manhattan Island.
One of the Dutch directors-general of the North American settlement, Peter Stuyvesant, served from 1647
to 1664 and expanded the fledgling outpost of New Netherland east to present-day Long Island and for
many miles north along the Hudson River. The resulting elongated colony served primarily as a fur-
trading post, with the powerful Dutch West India Company controlling all commerce. Fort Amsterdam, on
the southern tip of Manhattan Island, defended the growing city of New Amsterdam. In 1655, Stuyvesant
took over the small outpost of New Sweden along the banks of the Delaware River in present-day New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. He also defended New Amsterdam from Indian attacks by ordering
African slaves to build a protective wall on the city’s northeastern border, giving present-day Wall Street
its name (Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5 The Castello Plan is the only extant map of 1660 New Amsterdam (present-day New York City). The line
with spikes on the right side of the colony is the northeastern wall for which Wall Street was named.
New Netherland failed to attract many Dutch colonists; by 1664, only nine thousand people were living
there. Conflict with native peoples, as well as dissatisfaction with the Dutch West India Company’s
trading practices, made the Dutch outpost an undesirable place for many migrants. The small size of
the population meant a severe labor shortage, and to complete the arduous tasks of early settlement, the
Dutch West India Company imported some 450 African slaves between 1626 and 1664. (The company
had involved itself heavily in the slave trade and in 1637 captured Elmina, the slave-trading post on
the west coast of Africa, from the Portuguese.) The shortage of labor also meant that New Netherland
welcomed non-Dutch immigrants, including Protestants from Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and England,
and embraced a degree of religious tolerance, allowing Jewish immigrants to become residents beginning
in the 1650s. Thus, a wide variety of people lived in New Netherland from the start. Indeed, one observer
claimed eighteen different languages could be heard on the streets of New Amsterdam. As new settlers
arrived, the colony of New Netherland stretched farther to the north and the west (Figure 3.6).

Figure 3.6 This 1684 map of New Netherland shows the extent of Dutch settlement.
The Dutch West India Company found the business of colonization in New Netherland to be expensive. To
share some of the costs, it granted Dutch merchants who invested heavily in it patroonships, or large tracts
of land and the right to govern the tenants there. In return, the shareholder who gained the patroonship
promised to pay for the passage of at least thirty Dutch farmers to populate the colony. One of the
largest patroonships was granted to Kiliaen van Rensselaer, one of the directors of the Dutch West India
Company; it covered most of present-day Albany and Rensselaer Counties. This pattern of settlement
created a yawning gap in wealth and status between the tenants, who paid rent, and the wealthy patroons.
During the summer trading season, Indians gathered at trading posts such as the Dutch site at Beverwijck
(present-day Albany), where they exchanged furs for guns, blankets, and alcohol. The furs, especially
beaver pelts destined for the lucrative European millinery market, would be sent down the Hudson River
to New Amsterdam. There, slaves or workers would load them aboard ships bound for Amsterdam.
Click and Explore
Explore an interactive map of New Amsterdam in 1660

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/WNET) that shows the city plan and the locations of
various structures, including houses, businesses, and public buildings. Rolling over the
map reveals relevant historical details, such as street names, the identities of certain
buildings and businesses, and the names of residents of the houses (when known).
COMMERCE AND CONVERSION IN NEW FRANCE

After Jacques Cartier’s voyages of discovery in the 1530s, France showed little interest in creating
permanent colonies in North America until the early 1600s, when Samuel de Champlain established
Quebec as a French fur-trading outpost. Although the fur trade was lucrative, the French saw Canada
as an inhospitable frozen wasteland, and by 1640, fewer than four hundred settlers had made their
home there. The sparse French presence meant that colonists depended on the local native Algonquian
people; without them, the French would have perished. French fishermen, explorers, and fur traders made
extensive contact with the Algonquian. The Algonquian, in turn, tolerated the French because the colonists
supplied them with firearms for their ongoing war with the Iroquois. Thus, the French found themselves
escalating native wars and supporting the Algonquian against the Iroquois, who received weapons from
their Dutch trading partners. These seventeenth-century conflicts centered on the lucrative trade in beaver
pelts, earning them the name of the Beaver Wars. In these wars, fighting between rival native peoples
spread throughout the Great Lakes region.
A handful of French Jesuit priests also made their way to Canada, intent on converting the native
inhabitants to Catholicism. The Jesuits were members of the Society of Jesus, an elite religious order
founded in the 1540s to spread Catholicism and combat the spread of Protestantism. The first Jesuits
arrived in Quebec in the 1620s, and for the next century, their numbers did not exceed forty priests. Like
the Spanish Franciscan missionaries, the Jesuits in the colony called New France labored to convert the
native peoples to Catholicism. They wrote detailed annual reports about their progress in bringing the
faith to the Algonquian and, beginning in the 1660s, to the Iroquois. These documents are known as the
Jesuit Relations (Figure 3.7), and they provide a rich source for understanding both the Jesuit view of the
Indians and the Indian response to the colonizers.
One native convert to Catholicism, a Mohawk woman named Katherine Tekakwitha, so impressed the
priests with her piety that a Jesuit named Claude Chauchetière attempted to make her a saint in the
Church. However, the effort to canonize Tekakwitha faltered when leaders of the Church balked at
elevating a “savage” to such a high status; she was eventually canonized in 2012. French colonizers
pressured the native inhabitants of New France to convert, but they virtually never saw native peoples as
their equals.

DEFINING "AMERICAN"
A Jesuit Priest on Indian Healing Traditions
The Jesuit Relations (Figure 3.7) provide incredible detail about Indian life. For example, the 1636
edition, written by the Catholic priest Jean de Brébeuf, addresses the devastating effects of disease on
native peoples and the efforts made to combat it.
Figure 3.7 French Jesuit missionaries to New France kept detailed records of their interactions
with—and observations of—the Algonquian and Iroquois that they converted to Catholicism. (credit:
Project Gutenberg).
Let us return to the feasts. The Aoutaerohi is a remedy which is only for one particular kind
of disease, which they call also Aoutaerohi, from the name of a little Demon as large as the
fist, which they say is in the body of the sick man, especially in the part which pains him. They
find out that they are sick of this disease, by means of a dream, or by the intervention of some
Sorcerer. . . .
Of three kinds of games especially in use among these Peoples,—namely, the games of
crosse [lacrosse], dish, and straw,—the first two are, they say, most healing. Is not this worthy
of compassion? There is a poor sick man, fevered of body and almost dying, and a miserable
Sorcerer will order for him, as a cooling remedy, a game of crosse. Or the sick man himself,
sometimes, will have dreamed that he must die unless the whole country shall play crosse for
his health; and, no matter how little may be his credit, you will see then in a beautiful field,
Village contending against Village, as to who will play crosse the better, and betting against
one another Beaver robes and Porcelain collars, so as to excite greater interest.
According to this account, how did Indians attempt to cure disease? Why did they prescribe a game of
lacrosse? What benefits might these games have for the sick?

• Identify the first English settlements in America
• Describe the differences between the Chesapeake Bay colonies and the New England
colonies
• Compare and contrast the wars between native inhabitants and English colonists in
both the Chesapeake Bay and New England colonies
• Explain the role of Bacon’s Rebellion in the rise of chattel slavery in Virginia
At the start of the seventeenth century, the English had not established a permanent settlement in the
Americas. Over the next century, however, they outpaced their rivals. The English encouraged emigration
far more than the Spanish, French, or Dutch. They established nearly a dozen colonies, sending swarms of
immigrants to populate the land. England had experienced a dramatic rise in population in the sixteenth
century, and the colonies appeared a welcoming place for those who faced overcrowding and grinding
poverty at home. Thousands of English migrants arrived in the Chesapeake Bay colonies of Virginia and
Maryland to work in the tobacco fields. Another stream, this one of pious Puritan families, sought to
live as they believed scripture demanded and established the Plymouth, Massachusetts Bay, New Haven,
Connecticut, and Rhode Island colonies of New England (Figure 3.8).

Figure 3.8 In the early seventeenth century, thousands of English settlers came to what are now Virginia, Maryland,
and the New England states in search of opportunity and a better life.
THE DIVERGING CULTURES OF THE NEW ENGLAND AND CHESAPEAKE COLONIES

Promoters of English colonization in North America, many of whom never ventured across the Atlantic,
wrote about the bounty the English would find there. These boosters of colonization hoped to turn a
profit—whether by importing raw resources or providing new markets for English goods—and spread
Protestantism. The English migrants who actually made the journey, however, had different goals. In
Chesapeake Bay, English migrants established Virginia and Maryland with a decidedly commercial
orientation. Though the early Virginians at Jamestown hoped to find gold, they and the settlers in
Maryland quickly discovered that growing tobacco was the only sure means of making money. Thousands
of unmarried, unemployed, and impatient young Englishmen, along with a few Englishwomen, pinned
their hopes for a better life on the tobacco fields of these two colonies.
A very different group of English men and women flocked to the cold climate and rocky soil of New
England, spurred by religious motives. Many of the Puritans crossing the Atlantic were people who
brought families and children. Often they were following their ministers in a migration “beyond the
seas,” envisioning a new English Israel where reformed Protestantism would grow and thrive, providing a
model for the rest of the Christian world and a counter to what they saw as the Catholic menace. While the
English in Virginia and Maryland worked on expanding their profitable tobacco fields, the English in New
England built towns focused on the church, where each congregation decided what was best for itself. The
Congregational Church is the result of the Puritan enterprise in America. Many historians believe the fault
lines separating what later became the North and South in the United States originated in the profound
differences between the Chesapeake and New England colonies.
The source of those differences lay in England’s domestic problems. Increasingly in the early 1600s,
the English state church—the Church of England, established in the 1530s—demanded conformity, or
compliance with its practices, but Puritans pushed for greater reforms. By the 1620s, the Church of England
began to see leading Puritan ministers and their followers as outlaws, a national security threat because of
their opposition to its power. As the noose of conformity tightened around them, many Puritans decided
to remove to New England. By 1640, New England had a population of twenty-five thousand. Meanwhile,
many loyal members of the Church of England, who ridiculed and mocked Puritans both at home and in
New England, flocked to Virginia for economic opportunity.
The troubles in England escalated in the 1640s when civil war broke out, pitting Royalist supporters
of King Charles I and the Church of England against Parliamentarians, the Puritan reformers and their
supporters in Parliament. In 1649, the Parliamentarians gained the upper hand and, in an unprecedented
move, executed Charles I. In the 1650s, therefore, England became a republic, a state without a king.
English colonists in America closely followed these events. Indeed, many Puritans left New England and
returned home to take part in the struggle against the king and the national church. Other English men
and women in the Chesapeake colonies and elsewhere in the English Atlantic World looked on in horror
at the mayhem the Parliamentarians, led by the Puritan insurgents, appeared to unleash in England. The
turmoil in England made the administration and imperial oversight of the Chesapeake and New England
colonies difficult, and the two regions developed divergent cultures.
THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES: VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND

The Chesapeake colonies of Virginia and Maryland served a vital purpose in the developing seventeenth-
century English empire by providing tobacco, a cash crop. However, the early history of Jamestown did
not suggest the English outpost would survive. From the outset, its settlers struggled both with each
other and with the native inhabitants, the powerful Powhatan, who controlled the area. Jealousies and
infighting among the English destabilized the colony. One member, John Smith, whose famous map
begins this chapter, took control and exercised near-dictatorial powers, which furthered aggravated the
squabbling. The settlers’ inability to grow their own food compounded this unstable situation. They were
essentially employees of the Virginia Company of London, an English joint-stock company, in which
investors provided the capital and assumed the risk in order to reap the profit, and they had to make a
profit for their shareholders as well as for themselves. Most initially devoted themselves to finding gold
and silver instead of finding ways to grow their own food.
Early Struggles and the Development of the Tobacco Economy

Poor health, lack of food, and fighting with native peoples took the lives of many of the original Jamestown
settlers. The winter of 1609–1610, which became known as “the starving time,” came close to annihilating
the colony. By June 1610, the few remaining settlers had decided to abandon the area; only the last-
minute arrival of a supply ship from England prevented another failed colonization effort. The supply ship
brought new settlers, but only twelve hundred of the seventy-five hundred who came to Virginia between
1607 and 1624 survived.

MY STORY
George Percy on “The Starving Time”
George Percy, the youngest son of an English nobleman, was in the first group of settlers at the
Jamestown Colony. He kept a journal describing their experiences; in the excerpt below, he reports on
the privations of the colonists’ third winter.
Now all of us at James Town, beginning to feel that sharp prick of hunger which no man truly
describe but he which has tasted the bitterness thereof, a world of miseries ensued as the
sequel will express unto you, in so much that some to satisfy their hunger have robbed the
store for the which I caused them to be executed. Then having fed upon horses and other
beasts as long as they lasted, we were glad to make shift with vermin as dogs, cats, rats, and
mice. All was fish that came to net to satisfy cruel hunger as to eat boots, shoes, or any other
leather some could come by, and, those being spent and devoured, some were enforced to
search the woods and to feed upon serpents and snakes and to dig the earth for wild and
unknown roots, where many of our men were cut off of and slain by the savages. And now
famine beginning to look ghastly and pale in every face that nothing was spared to maintain
life and to do those things which seem incredible as to dig up dead corpses out of graves and
to eat them, and some have licked up the blood which has fallen from their weak fellows.
—George Percy, “A True Relation of the Proceedings and Occurances of Moment which have
happened in Virginia from the Time Sir Thomas Gates shipwrecked upon the Bermudes anno
1609 until my departure out of the Country which was in anno Domini 1612,” London 1624
What is your reaction to George Percy’s story? How do you think Jamestown managed to survive after
such an experience? What do you think the Jamestown colonists learned?
By the 1620s, Virginia had weathered the worst and gained a degree of permanence. Political stability came
slowly, but by 1619, the fledgling colony was operating under the leadership of a governor, a council,
and a House of Burgesses. Economic stability came from the lucrative cultivation of tobacco. Smoking
tobacco was a long-standing practice among native peoples, and English and other European consumers
soon adopted it. In 1614, the Virginia colony began exporting tobacco back to England, which earned it a
sizable profit and saved the colony from ruin. A second tobacco colony, Maryland, was formed in 1634,
when King Charles I granted its charter to the Calvert family for their loyal service to England. Cecilius
Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, conceived of Maryland as a refuge for English Catholics.
Growing tobacco proved very labor-intensive (Figure 3.9), and the Chesapeake colonists needed a steady
workforce to do the hard work of clearing the land and caring for the tender young plants. The mature leaf
of the plant then had to be cured (dried), which necessitated the construction of drying barns. Once cured,
the tobacco had to be packaged in hogsheads (large wooden barrels) and loaded aboard ship, which also
required considerable labor.
Figure 3.9 In this 1670 painting by an unknown artist, slaves work in tobacco-drying sheds.
To meet these labor demands, early Virginians relied on indentured servants. An indenture is a labor
contract that young, impoverished, and often illiterate Englishmen and occasionally Englishwomen signed
in England, pledging to work for a number of years (usually between five and seven) growing tobacco
in the Chesapeake colonies. In return, indentured servants received paid passage to America and food,
clothing, and lodging. At the end of their indenture servants received “freedom dues,” usually food and
other provisions, including, in some cases, land provided by the colony. The promise of a new life in
America was a strong attraction for members of England’s underclass, who had few if any options at home.
In the 1600s, some 100,000 indentured servants traveled to the Chesapeake Bay. Most were poor young
men in their early twenties.
Life in the colonies proved harsh, however. Indentured servants could not marry, and they were subject to
the will of the tobacco planters who bought their labor contracts. If they committed a crime or disobeyed
their masters, they found their terms of service lengthened, often by several years. Female indentured
servants faced special dangers in what was essentially a bachelor colony. Many were exploited by
unscrupulous tobacco planters who seduced them with promises of marriage. These planters would then
sell their pregnant servants to other tobacco planters to avoid the costs of raising a child.
Nonetheless, those indentured servants who completed their term of service often began new lives
as tobacco planters. To entice even more migrants to the New World, the Virginia Company also
implemented the headright system, in which those who paid their own passage to Virginia received fifty
acres plus an additional fifty for each servant or family member they brought with them. The headright
system and the promise of a new life for servants acted as powerful incentives for English migrants to
hazard the journey to the New World.
Click and Explore
Visit Virtual Jamestown (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/jamestown1) to access a

database of contracts of indentured servants. Search it by name to find an ancestor or
browse by occupation, destination, or county of origin.

The Anglo-Powhatan Wars

By choosing to settle along the rivers on the banks of the Chesapeake, the English unknowingly placed
themselves at the center of the Powhatan Empire, a powerful Algonquian confederacy of thirty native
groups with perhaps as many as twenty-two thousand people. The territory of the equally impressive
Susquehannock people also bordered English settlements at the north end of the Chesapeake Bay.
Tensions ran high between the English and the Powhatan, and near-constant war prevailed. The First
Anglo-Powhatan War (1609–1614) resulted not only from the English colonists’ intrusion onto Powhatan
land, but also from their refusal to follow native protocol by giving gifts. English actions infuriated and
insulted the Powhatan. In 1613, the settlers captured Pocahontas (also called Matoaka), the daughter of a
Powhatan headman named Wahunsonacook, and gave her in marriage to Englishman John Rolfe. Their
union, and her choice to remain with the English, helped quell the war in 1614. Pocahontas converted to
Christianity, changing her name to Rebecca, and sailed with her husband and several other Powhatan to
England where she was introduced to King James I (Figure 3.10). Promoters of colonization publicized
Pocahontas as an example of the good work of converting the Powhatan to Christianity.
Figure 3.10 This 1616 engraving by Simon van de Passe, completed when Pocahontas and John Rolfe were
presented at court in England, is the only known contemporary image of Pocahontas. Note her European garb and
pose. What message did the painter likely intend to convey with this portrait of Pocahontas, the daughter of a
powerful Indian chief?
Click and Explore
Explore the interactive exhibit Changing Images of Pocahontas

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/pocahontas) on PBS’s website to see the many ways
artists have portrayed Pocahontas over the centuries.
Peace in Virginia did not last long. The Second Anglo-Powhatan War (1620s) broke out because of
the expansion of the English settlement nearly one hundred miles into the interior, and because of the
continued insults and friction caused by English activities. The Powhatan attacked in 1622 and succeeded
in killing almost 350 English, about a third of the settlers. The English responded by annihilating every
Powhatan village around Jamestown and from then on became even more intolerant. The Third Anglo-
Powhatan War (1644–1646) began with a surprise attack in which the Powhatan killed around five
hundred English colonists. However, their ultimate defeat in this conflict forced the Powhatan to
acknowledge King Charles I as their sovereign. The Anglo-Powhatan Wars, spanning nearly forty years,
illustrate the degree of native resistance that resulted from English intrusion into the Powhatan
confederacy.
The Rise of Slavery in the Chesapeake Bay Colonies

The transition from indentured servitude to slavery as the main labor source for some English colonies
happened first in the West Indies. On the small island of Barbados, colonized in the 1620s, English planters
first grew tobacco as their main export crop, but in the 1640s, they converted to sugarcane and began
increasingly to rely on African slaves. In 1655, England wrestled control of Jamaica from the Spanish
and quickly turned it into a lucrative sugar island, run on slave labor, for its expanding empire. While
slavery was slower to take hold in the Chesapeake colonies, by the end of the seventeenth century, both
Virginia and Maryland had also adopted chattel slavery—which legally defined Africans as property and
not people—as the dominant form of labor to grow tobacco. Chesapeake colonists also enslaved native
people.
When the first Africans arrived in Virginia in 1619, slavery—which did not exist in England—had not
yet become an institution in colonial America. Many Africans worked as servants and, like their white
counterparts, could acquire land of their own. Some Africans who converted to Christianity became free
landowners with white servants. The change in the status of Africans in the Chesapeake to that of slaves
occurred in the last decades of the seventeenth century.
Bacon’s Rebellion, an uprising of both whites and blacks who believed that the Virginia government was
impeding their access to land and wealth and seemed to do little to clear the land of Indians, hastened
the transition to African slavery in the Chesapeake colonies. The rebellion takes its name from Nathaniel
Bacon, a wealthy young Englishman who arrived in Virginia in 1674. Despite an early friendship with
Virginia’s royal governor, William Berkeley, Bacon found himself excluded from the governor’s circle
of influential friends and councilors. He wanted land on the Virginia frontier, but the governor, fearing
war with neighboring Indian tribes, forbade further expansion. Bacon marshaled others, especially former
indentured servants who believed the governor was limiting their economic opportunities and denying
them the right to own tobacco farms. Bacon’s followers believed Berkeley’s frontier policy didn’t protect
English settlers enough. Worse still in their eyes, Governor Berkeley tried to keep peace in Virginia by
signing treaties with various local native peoples. Bacon and his followers, who saw all Indians as an
obstacle to their access to land, pursued a policy of extermination.
Tensions between the English and the native peoples in the Chesapeake colonies led to open conflict.
In 1675, war broke out when Susquehannock warriors attacked settlements on Virginia’s frontier, killing
English planters and destroying English plantations, including one owned by Bacon. In 1676, Bacon and
other Virginians attacked the Susquehannock without the governor’s approval. When Berkeley ordered
Bacon’s arrest, Bacon led his followers to Jamestown, forced the governor to flee to the safety of Virginia’s
eastern shore, and then burned the city. The civil war known as Bacon’s Rebellion, a vicious struggle
between supporters of the governor and those who supported Bacon, ensued. Reports of the rebellion
traveled back to England, leading Charles II to dispatch both royal troops and English commissioners
to restore order in the tobacco colonies. By the end of 1676, Virginians loyal to the governor gained
the upper hand, executing several leaders of the rebellion. Bacon escaped the hangman’s noose, instead
dying of dysentery. The rebellion fizzled in 1676, but Virginians remained divided as supporters of Bacon
continued to harbor grievances over access to Indian land.

Bacon’s Rebellion helped to catalyze the creation of a system of racial slavery in the Chesapeake colonies.
At the time of the rebellion, indentured servants made up the majority of laborers in the region. Wealthy
whites worried over the presence of this large class of laborers and the relative freedom they enjoyed,
as well as the alliance that black and white servants had forged in the course of the rebellion. Replacing
indentured servitude with black slavery diminished these risks, alleviating the reliance on white
indentured servants, who were often dissatisfied and troublesome, and creating a caste of racially defined
laborers whose movements were strictly controlled. It also lessened the possibility of further alliances
between black and white workers. Racial slavery even served to heal some of the divisions between
wealthy and poor whites, who could now unite as members of a “superior” racial group.
While colonial laws in the tobacco colonies had made slavery a legal institution before Bacon’s Rebellion,
new laws passed in the wake of the rebellion severely curtailed black freedom and laid the foundation for
racial slavery. Virginia passed a law in 1680 prohibiting free blacks and slaves from bearing arms, banning
blacks from congregating in large numbers, and establishing harsh punishments for slaves who assaulted
Christians or attempted escape. Two years later, another Virginia law stipulated that all Africans brought
to the colony would be slaves for life. Thus, the increasing reliance on slaves in the tobacco colonies—and
the draconian laws instituted to control them—not only helped planters meet labor demands, but also
served to assuage English fears of further uprisings and alleviate class tensions between rich and poor
whites.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Robert Beverley on Servants and Slaves
Robert Beverley was a wealthy Jamestown planter and slaveholder. This excerpt from his History and
Present State of Virginia, published in 1705, clearly illustrates the contrast between white servants and
black slaves.
Their Servants, they distinguish by the Names of Slaves for Life, and Servants for a time.
Slaves are the Negroes, and their Posterity, following the condition of the Mother, according
to the Maxim, partus sequitur ventrem [status follows the womb]. They are call’d Slaves, in
respect of the time of their Servitude, because it is for Life.
Servants, are those which serve only for a few years, according to the time of their Indenture,
or the Custom of the Country. The Custom of the Country takes place upon such as have no
Indentures. The Law in this case is, that if such Servants be under Nineteen years of Age,
they must be brought into Court, to have their Age adjudged; and from the Age they are judg’d
to be of, they must serve until they reach four and twenty: But if they be adjudged upwards of
Nineteen, they are then only to be Servants for the term of five Years.
The Male-Servants, and Slaves of both Sexes, are employed together in Tilling and Manuring
the Ground, in Sowing and Planting Tobacco, Corn, &c. Some Distinction indeed is made
between them in their Cloaths, and Food; but the Work of both, is no other than what the
Overseers, the Freemen, and the Planters themselves do.
Sufficient Distinction is also made between the Female-Servants, and Slaves; for a White
Woman is rarely or never put to work in the Ground, if she be good for any thing else: And
to Discourage all Planters from using any Women so, their Law imposes the heaviest Taxes
upon Female Servants working in the Ground, while it suffers all other white Women to be
absolutely exempted: Whereas on the other hand, it is a common thing to work a Woman
Slave out of Doors; nor does the Law make any Distinction in her Taxes, whether her Work
be Abroad, or at Home.
According to Robert Beverley, what are the differences between servants and slaves? What protections
did servants have that slaves did not?
PURITAN NEW ENGLAND

The second major area to be colonized by the English in the first half of the seventeenth century, New
England, differed markedly in its founding principles from the commercially oriented Chesapeake tobacco
colonies. Settled largely by waves of Puritan families in the 1630s, New England had a religious orientation
from the start. In England, reform-minded men and women had been calling for greater changes to the
English national church since the 1580s. These reformers, who followed the teachings of John Calvin and
other Protestant reformers, were called Puritans because of their insistence on “purifying” the Church
of England of what they believed to be un-scriptural, especially Catholic elements that lingered in its
institutions and practices.
Many who provided leadership in early New England were learned ministers who had studied at
Cambridge or Oxford but who, because they had questioned the practices of the Church of England, had
been deprived of careers by the king and his officials in an effort to silence all dissenting voices. Other
Puritan leaders, such as the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Winthrop, came from the
privileged class of English gentry. These well-to-do Puritans and many thousands more left their English
homes not to establish a land of religious freedom, but to practice their own religion without persecution.
Puritan New England offered them the opportunity to live as they believed the Bible demanded. In their
“New” England, they set out to create a model of reformed Protestantism, a new English Israel.
The conflict generated by Puritanism had divided English society, because the Puritans demanded reforms
that undermined the traditional festive culture. For example, they denounced popular pastimes like bear-
baiting—letting dogs attack a chained bear—which were often conducted on Sundays when people had
a few leisure hours. In the culture where William Shakespeare had produced his masterpieces, Puritans
called for an end to the theater, censuring playhouses as places of decadence. Indeed, the Bible itself
became part of the struggle between Puritans and James I, who headed the Church of England. Soon after
ascending the throne, James commissioned a new version of the Bible in an effort to stifle Puritan reliance
on the Geneva Bible, which followed the teachings of John Calvin and placed God’s authority above the
monarch’s. The King James Version, published in 1611, instead emphasized the majesty of kings.
During the 1620s and 1630s, the conflict escalated to the point where the state church prohibited Puritan
ministers from preaching. In the Church’s view, Puritans represented a national security threat, because
their demands for cultural, social, and religious reforms undermined the king’s authority. Unwilling
to conform to the Church of England, many Puritans found refuge in the New World. Yet those who
emigrated to the Americas were not united. Some called for a complete break with the Church of England,
while others remained committed to reforming the national church.
Plymouth: The First Puritan Colony

The first group of Puritans to make their way across the Atlantic was a small contingent known as the
Pilgrims. Unlike other Puritans, they insisted on a complete separation from the Church of England and
had first migrated to the Dutch Republic seeking religious freedom. Although they found they could
worship without hindrance there, they grew concerned that they were losing their Englishness as they saw
their children begin to learn the Dutch language and adopt Dutch ways. In addition, the English Pilgrims
(and others in Europe) feared another attack on the Dutch Republic by Catholic Spain. Therefore, in 1620,
they moved on to found the Plymouth Colony in present-day Massachusetts. The governor of Plymouth,
William Bradford, was a Separatist, a proponent of complete separation from the English state church.
Bradford and the other Pilgrim Separatists represented a major challenge to the prevailing vision of a
unified English national church and empire. On board the Mayflower, which was bound for Virginia but
landed on the tip of Cape Cod, Bradford and forty other adult men signed the Mayflower Compact (Figure
3.11), which presented a religious (rather than an economic) rationale for colonization. The compact
expressed a community ideal of working together. When a larger exodus of Puritans established the
Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1630s, the Pilgrims at Plymouth welcomed them and the two colonies
cooperated with each other.

AMERICANA
The Mayflower Compact and Its Religious Rationale
The Mayflower Compact, which forty-one Pilgrim men signed on board the Mayflower in Plymouth
Harbor, has been called the first American governing document, predating the U.S. Constitution by over
150 years. But was the Mayflower Compact a constitution? How much authority did it convey, and to
whom?
Figure 3.11 The original Mayflower Compact is no longer extant; only copies, such as this ca.1645
transcription by William Bradford, remain.
In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our
dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland,
King, defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor
of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia,
do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another,
covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and
preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute,
and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to
time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto
which we promise all due submission and obedience.
In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of
November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France,
and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620
Different labor systems also distinguished early Puritan New England from the Chesapeake colonies.
Puritans expected young people to work diligently at their calling, and all members of their large families,
including children, did the bulk of the work necessary to run homes, farms, and businesses. Very few
migrants came to New England as laborers; in fact, New England towns protected their disciplined
homegrown workforce by refusing to allow outsiders in, assuring their sons and daughters of steady
employment. New England’s labor system produced remarkable results, notably a powerful maritime-
based economy with scores of oceangoing ships and the crews necessary to sail them. New England
mariners sailing New England–made ships transported Virginian tobacco and West Indian sugar
throughout the Atlantic World.
“A City upon a Hill”

A much larger group of English Puritans left England in the 1630s, establishing the Massachusetts Bay
Colony, the New Haven Colony, the Connecticut Colony, and Rhode Island. Unlike the exodus of young
males to the Chesapeake colonies, these migrants were families with young children and their university-
trained ministers. Their aim, according to John Winthrop (Figure 3.12), the first governor of Massachusetts
Bay, was to create a model of reformed Protestantism—a “city upon a hill,” a new English Israel. The
idea of a “city upon a hill” made clear the religious orientation of the New England settlement, and the
charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony stated as a goal that the colony’s people “may be soe religiously,
peaceablie, and civilly governed, as their good Life and orderlie Conversacon, maie wynn and incite the
Natives of Country, to the Knowledg and Obedience of the onlie true God and Saulor of Mankinde, and
the Christian Fayth.” To illustrate this, the seal of the Massachusetts Bay Company (Figure 3.12) shows a
half-naked Indian who entreats more of the English to “come over and help us.”
Figure 3.12 In the 1629 seal of the Massachusetts Bay Colony (a), an Indian is shown asking colonists to “Come
over and help us.” This seal indicates the religious ambitions of John Winthrop (b), the colony’s first governor, for his
“city upon a hill.”
Puritan New England differed in many ways from both England and the rest of Europe. Protestants
emphasized literacy so that everyone could read the Bible. This attitude was in stark contrast to that
of Catholics, who refused to tolerate private ownership of Bibles in the vernacular. The Puritans, for
their part, placed a special emphasis on reading scripture, and their commitment to literacy led to the
establishment of the first printing press in English America in 1636. Four years later, in 1640, they
published the first book in North America, the Bay Psalm Book. As Calvinists, Puritans adhered to the
doctrine of predestination, whereby a few “elect” would be saved and all others damned. No one could be
sure whether they were predestined for salvation, but through introspection, guided by scripture, Puritans
hoped to find a glimmer of redemptive grace. Church membership was restricted to those Puritans who

were willing to provide a conversion narrative telling how they came to understand their spiritual estate
by hearing sermons and studying the Bible.
Although many people assume Puritans escaped England to establish religious freedom, they proved
to be just as intolerant as the English state church. When dissenters, including Puritan minister Roger
Williams and Anne Hutchinson, challenged Governor Winthrop in Massachusetts Bay in the 1630s, they
were banished. Roger Williams questioned the Puritans’ taking of Indian land. Williams also argued for
a complete separation from the Church of England, a position other Puritans in Massachusetts rejected,
as well as the idea that the state could not punish individuals for their beliefs. Although he did accept
that nonbelievers were destined for eternal damnation, Williams did not think the state could compel
true orthodoxy. Puritan authorities found him guilty of spreading dangerous ideas, but he went on to
found Rhode Island as a colony that sheltered dissenting Puritans from their brethren in Massachusetts. In
Rhode Island, Williams wrote favorably about native peoples, contrasting their virtues with Puritan New
England’s intolerance.
Anne Hutchinson also ran afoul of Puritan authorities for her criticism of the evolving religious practices
in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In particular, she held that Puritan ministers in New England taught
a shallow version of Protestantism emphasizing hierarchy and actions—a “covenant of works” rather
than a “covenant of grace.” Literate Puritan women like Hutchinson presented a challenge to the male
ministers’ authority. Indeed, her major offense was her claim of direct religious revelation, a type of
spiritual experience that negated the role of ministers. Because of Hutchinson’s beliefs and her defiance
of authority in the colony, especially that of Governor Winthrop, Puritan authorities tried and convicted
her of holding false beliefs. In 1638, she was excommunicated and banished from the colony. She went to
Rhode Island and later, in 1642, sought safety among the Dutch in New Netherland. The following year,
Algonquian warriors killed Hutchinson and her family. In Massachusetts, Governor Winthrop noted her
death as the righteous judgment of God against a heretic.
Like many other Europeans, the Puritans believed in the supernatural. Every event appeared to be a
sign of God’s mercy or judgment, and people believed that witches allied themselves with the Devil to
carry out evil deeds and deliberate harm such as the sickness or death of children, the loss of cattle, and
other catastrophes. Hundreds were accused of witchcraft in Puritan New England, including townspeople
whose habits or appearance bothered their neighbors or who appeared threatening for any reason.
Women, seen as more susceptible to the Devil because of their supposedly weaker constitutions, made up
the vast majority of suspects and those who were executed. The most notorious cases occurred in Salem
Village in 1692. Many of the accusers who prosecuted the suspected witches had been traumatized by the
Indian wars on the frontier and by unprecedented political and cultural changes in New England. Relying
on their belief in witchcraft to help make sense of their changing world, Puritan authorities executed
nineteen people and caused the deaths of several others.
Click and Explore
Explore the Salem Witchcraft Trials (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/salemwitch) to

learn more about the prosecution of witchcraft in seventeenth-century New England.
Puritan Relationships with Native Peoples

Like their Spanish and French Catholic rivals, English Puritans in America took steps to convert native
peoples to their version of Christianity. John Eliot, the leading Puritan missionary in New England, urged
natives in Massachusetts to live in “praying towns” established by English authorities for converted
Indians, and to adopt the Puritan emphasis on the centrality of the Bible. In keeping with the Protestant
emphasis on reading scripture, he translated the Bible into the local Algonquian language and published
his work in 1663. Eliot hoped that as a result of his efforts, some of New England’s native inhabitants
would become preachers.
Tensions had existed from the beginning between the Puritans and the native people who controlled
southern New England (Figure 3.13). Relationships deteriorated as the Puritans continued to expand their
settlements aggressively and as European ways increasingly disrupted native life. These strains led to King
Philip’s War (1675–1676), a massive regional conflict that was nearly successful in pushing the English out
of New England.
Figure 3.13 This map indicates the domains of New England’s native inhabitants in 1670, a few years before King
Philip’s War.
When the Puritans began to arrive in the 1620s and 1630s, local Algonquian peoples had viewed them as
potential allies in the conflicts already simmering between rival native groups. In 1621, the Wampanoag,
led by Massasoit, concluded a peace treaty with the Pilgrims at Plymouth. In the 1630s, the Puritans in
Massachusetts and Plymouth allied themselves with the Narragansett and Mohegan people against the
Pequot, who had recently expanded their claims into southern New England. In May 1637, the Puritans
attacked a large group of several hundred Pequot along the Mystic River in Connecticut. To the horror of
their native allies, the Puritans massacred all but a handful of the men, women, and children they found.
By the mid-seventeenth century, the Puritans had pushed their way further into the interior of New
England, establishing outposts along the Connecticut River Valley. There seemed no end to their
expansion. Wampanoag leader Metacom or Metacomet, also known as King Philip among the English,
was determined to stop the encroachment. The Wampanoag, along with the Nipmuck, Pocumtuck, and
Narragansett, took up the hatchet to drive the English from the land. In the ensuing conflict, called King
Philip’s War, native forces succeeded in destroying half of the frontier Puritan towns; however, in the end,
the English (aided by Mohegans and Christian Indians) prevailed and sold many captives into slavery

in the West Indies. (The severed head of King Philip was publicly displayed in Plymouth.) The war also
forever changed the English perception of native peoples; from then on, Puritan writers took great pains to
vilify the natives as bloodthirsty savages. A new type of racial hatred became a defining feature of Indian-
English relationships in the Northeast.
MY STORY
Mary Rowlandson’s Captivity Narrative
Mary Rowlandson was a Puritan woman whom Indian tribes captured and imprisoned for several weeks
during King Philip’s War. After her release, she wrote The Narrative of the Captivity and the Restoration
of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson, which was published in 1682 (Figure 3.14). The book was an immediate
sensation that was reissued in multiple editions for over a century.
Figure 3.14 Puritan woman Mary Rowlandson wrote her captivity narrative, the front cover of which is
shown here (a), after her imprisonment during King Philip’s War. In her narrative, she tells of her
treatment by the Indians holding her as well as of her meetings with the Wampanoag leader Metacom
(b), shown in a contemporary portrait.
But now, the next morning, I must turn my back upon the town, and travel with them into the
vast and desolate wilderness, I knew not whither. It is not my tongue, or pen, can express
the sorrows of my heart, and bitterness of my spirit that I had at this departure: but God was
with me in a wonderful manner, carrying me along, and bearing up my spirit, that it did not
quite fail. One of the Indians carried my poor wounded babe upon a horse; it went moaning
all along, “I shall die, I shall die.” I went on foot after it, with sorrow that cannot be expressed.
At length I took it off the horse, and carried it in my arms till my strength failed, and I fell down
with it. Then they set me upon a horse with my wounded child in my lap, and there being
no furniture upon the horse’s back, as we were going down a steep hill we both fell over the
horse’s head, at which they, like inhumane creatures, laughed, and rejoiced to see it, though
I thought we should there have ended our days, as overcome with so many difficulties. But
the Lord renewed my strength still, and carried me along, that I might see more of His power;
yea, so much that I could never have thought of, had I not experienced it.
What sustains Rowlandson her during her ordeal? How does she characterize her captors? What do you
think made her narrative so compelling to readers?
Click and Explore
Access the entire text of Mary Rowlandson’s captivity narrative

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/captivenarr) at the Gutenberg Project.

• Explain the reasons for the rise of slavery in the American colonies
• Describe changes to Indian life, including warfare and hunting
• Contrast European and Indian views on property
• Assess the impact of European settlement on the environment
As Europeans moved beyond exploration and into colonization of the Americas, they brought changes to
virtually every aspect of the land and its people, from trade and hunting to warfare and personal property.
European goods, ideas, and diseases shaped the changing continent.
As Europeans established their colonies, their societies also became segmented and divided along religious
and racial lines. Most people in these societies were not free; they labored as servants or slaves, doing the
work required to produce wealth for others. By 1700, the American continent had become a place of stark
contrasts between slavery and freedom, between the haves and the have-nots.
THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY

Everywhere in the American colonies, a crushing demand for labor existed to grow New World cash
crops, especially sugar and tobacco. This need led Europeans to rely increasingly on Africans, and after
1600, the movement of Africans across the Atlantic accelerated. The English crown chartered the Royal
African Company in 1672, giving the company a monopoly over the transport of African slaves to the
English colonies. Over the next four decades, the company transported around 350,000 Africans from their
homelands. By 1700, the tiny English sugar island of Barbados had a population of fifty thousand slaves,
and the English had encoded the institution of chattel slavery into colonial law.
This new system of African slavery came slowly to the English colonists, who did not have slavery at
home and preferred to use servant labor. Nevertheless, by the end of the seventeenth century, the English
everywhere in America—and particularly in the Chesapeake Bay colonies—had come to rely on African
slaves. While Africans had long practiced slavery among their own people, it had not been based on race.
Africans enslaved other Africans as war captives, for crimes, and to settle debts; they generally used their
slaves for domestic and small-scale agricultural work, not for growing cash crops on large plantations.
Additionally, African slavery was often a temporary condition rather than a lifelong sentence, and, unlike
New World slavery, it was typically not heritable (passed from a slave mother to her children).
The growing slave trade with Europeans had a profound impact on the people of West Africa, giving
prominence to local chieftains and merchants who traded slaves for European textiles, alcohol, guns,
tobacco, and food. Africans also charged Europeans for the right to trade in slaves and imposed taxes on

slave purchases. Different African groups and kingdoms even staged large-scale raids on each other to
meet the demand for slaves.
Once sold to traders, all slaves sent to America endured the hellish Middle Passage, the transatlantic
crossing, which took one to two months. By 1625, more than 325,800 Africans had been shipped to the
New World, though many thousands perished during the voyage. An astonishing number, some four
million, were transported to the Caribbean between 1501 and 1830. When they reached their destination
in America, Africans found themselves trapped in shockingly brutal slave societies. In the Chesapeake
colonies, they faced a lifetime of harvesting and processing tobacco.
Everywhere, Africans resisted slavery, and running away was common. In Jamaica and elsewhere,
runaway slaves created maroon communities, groups that resisted recapture and eked a living from the
land, rebuilding their communities as best they could. When possible, they adhered to traditional ways,
following spiritual leaders such as Vodun priests.
CHANGES TO INDIAN LIFE

While the Americas remained firmly under the control of native peoples in the first decades of European
settlement, conflict increased as colonization spread and Europeans placed greater demands upon the
native populations, including expecting them to convert to Christianity (either Catholicism or
Protestantism). Throughout the seventeenth century, the still-powerful native peoples and confederacies
that retained control of the land waged war against the invading Europeans, achieving a degree of success
in their effort to drive the newcomers from the continent.
At the same time, European goods had begun to change Indian life radically. In the 1500s, some of the
earliest objects Europeans introduced to Indians were glass beads, copper kettles, and metal utensils.
Native people often adapted these items for their own use. For example, some cut up copper kettles and
refashioned the metal for other uses, including jewelry that conferred status on the wearer, who was seen
as connected to the new European source of raw materials.
As European settlements grew throughout the 1600s, European goods flooded native communities. Soon
native people were using these items for the same purposes as the Europeans. For example, many native
inhabitants abandoned their animal-skin clothing in favor of European textiles. Similarly, clay cookware
gave way to metal cooking implements, and Indians found that European flint and steel made starting
fires much easier (Figure 3.15).
Figure 3.15 In this 1681 portrait, the Niantic-Narragansett chief Ninigret wears a combination of European and
Indian goods. Which elements of each culture are evident in this portrait?
The abundance of European goods gave rise to new artistic objects. For example, iron awls made the
creation of shell beads among the native people of the Eastern Woodlands much easier, and the result
was an astonishing increase in the production of wampum, shell beads used in ceremonies and as jewelry
and currency. Native peoples had always placed goods in the graves of their departed, and this practice
escalated with the arrival of European goods. Archaeologists have found enormous caches of European
trade goods in the graves of Indians on the East Coast.
Native weapons changed dramatically as well, creating an arms race among the peoples living in
European colonization zones. Indians refashioned European brassware into arrow points and turned axes
used for chopping wood into weapons. The most prized piece of European weaponry to obtain was a
musket, or light, long-barreled European gun. In order to trade with Europeans for these, native peoples
intensified their harvesting of beaver, commercializing their traditional practice.
The influx of European materials made warfare more lethal and changed traditional patterns of authority
among tribes. Formerly weaker groups, if they had access to European metal and weapons, suddenly
gained the upper hand against once-dominant groups. The Algonquian, for instance, traded with the
French for muskets and gained power against their enemies, the Iroquois. Eventually, native peoples also
used their new weapons against the European colonizers who had provided them.
Click and Explore
Explore the complexity of Indian-European relationships

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/NHC) in the series of primary source documents on the
National Humanities Center site.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The European presence in America spurred countless changes in the environment, setting into motion
chains of events that affected native animals as well as people. The popularity of beaver-trimmed hats
in Europe, coupled with Indians’ desire for European weapons, led to the overhunting of beaver in the
Northeast. Soon, beavers were extinct in New England, New York, and other areas. With their loss came
the loss of beaver ponds, which had served as habitats for fish as well as water sources for deer, moose, and
other animals. Furthermore, Europeans introduced pigs, which they allowed to forage in forests and other
wildlands. Pigs consumed the foods on which deer and other indigenous species depended, resulting in
scarcity of the game native peoples had traditionally hunted.
European ideas about owning land as private property clashed with natives’ understanding of land use.
Native peoples did not believe in private ownership of land; instead, they viewed land as a resource to be
held in common for the benefit of the group. The European idea of usufruct—the right to common land use
and enjoyment—comes close to the native understanding, but colonists did not practice usufruct widely in
America. Colonizers established fields, fences, and other means of demarcating private property. Native
peoples who moved seasonally to take advantage of natural resources now found areas off limits, claimed
by colonizers because of their insistence on private-property rights.

The Introduction of Disease

Perhaps European colonization’s single greatest impact on the North American environment was the
introduction of disease. Microbes to which native inhabitants had no immunity led to death everywhere
Europeans settled. Along the New England coast between 1616 and 1618, epidemics claimed the lives of
75 percent of the native people. In the 1630s, half the Huron and Iroquois around the Great Lakes died
of smallpox. As is often the case with disease, the very young and the very old were the most vulnerable
and had the highest mortality rates. The loss of the older generation meant the loss of knowledge and
tradition, while the death of children only compounded the trauma, creating devastating implications for
future generations.
Some native peoples perceived disease as a weapon used by hostile spiritual forces, and they went to war
to exorcise the disease from their midst. These “mourning wars” in eastern North America were designed
to gain captives who would either be adopted (“requickened” as a replacement for a deceased loved one)
or ritually tortured and executed to assuage the anger and grief caused by loss.
The Cultivation of Plants

European expansion in the Americas led to an unprecedented movement of plants across the Atlantic. A
prime example is tobacco, which became a valuable export as the habit of smoking, previously unknown in
Europe, took hold (Figure 3.16). Another example is sugar. Columbus brought sugarcane to the Caribbean
on his second voyage in 1494, and thereafter a wide variety of other herbs, flowers, seeds, and roots made
the transatlantic voyage.
Figure 3.16 Adriaen van Ostade, a Dutch artist, painted An Apothecary Smoking in an Interior in 1646. The large
European market for American tobacco strongly influenced the development of some of the American colonies.
Just as pharmaceutical companies today scour the natural world for new drugs, Europeans traveled to
America to discover new medicines. The task of cataloging the new plants found there helped give birth
to the science of botany. Early botanists included the English naturalist Sir Hans Sloane, who traveled to
Jamaica in 1687 and there recorded hundreds of new plants (Figure 3.17). Sloane also helped popularize
the drinking of chocolate, made from the cacao bean, in England.
Figure 3.17 English naturalist Sir Hans Sloane traveled to Jamaica and other Caribbean islands to catalog the flora
of the new world.
Indians, who possessed a vast understanding of local New World plants and their properties, would have
been a rich source of information for those European botanists seeking to find and catalog potentially
useful plants. Enslaved Africans, who had a tradition of the use of medicinal plants in their native land,
adapted to their new surroundings by learning the use of New World plants through experimentation
or from the native inhabitants. Native peoples and Africans employed their knowledge effectively within
their own communities. One notable example was the use of the peacock flower to induce abortions:
Indian and enslaved African women living in oppressive colonial regimes are said to have used this herb
to prevent the birth of children into slavery. Europeans distrusted medical knowledge that came from
African or native sources, however, and thus lost the benefit of this source of information.

Key Terms
headright system a system in which parcels of land were granted to settlers who could pay their own
way to Virginia
indenture a labor contract that promised young men, and sometimes women, money and land after they
worked for a set period of years
Jesuits members of the Society of Jesus, an elite Catholic religious order founded in the 1540s to spread
Catholicism and to combat the spread of Protestantism
maroon communities groups of runaway slaves who resisted recapture and eked a living from the land
Middle Passage the perilous, often deadly transatlantic crossing of slave ships from the African coast to
the New World
musket a light, long-barreled European gun
patroonships large tracts of land and governing rights granted to merchants by the Dutch West India
Company in order to encourage colonization
repartimiento a Spanish colonial system requiring Indian towns to supply workers for the colonizers
Timucua the native people of Florida, whom the Spanish displaced with the founding of St. Augustine,
the first Spanish settlement in North America
wampum shell beads used in ceremonies and as jewelry and currency
Summary
In their outposts at St. Augustine and Santa Fe, the Spanish never found the fabled mountains of gold they
sought. They did find many native people to convert to Catholicism, but their zeal nearly cost them the
colony of Santa Fe, which they lost for twelve years after the Pueblo Revolt. In truth, the grand dreams of
wealth, conversion, and a social order based on Spanish control never came to pass as Spain envisioned
them.

The French and Dutch established colonies in the northeastern part of North America: the Dutch in
present-day New York, and the French in present-day Canada. Both colonies were primarily trading posts
for furs. While they failed to attract many colonists from their respective home countries, these outposts
nonetheless intensified imperial rivalries in North America. Both the Dutch and the French relied on native
peoples to harvest the pelts that proved profitable in Europe.

The English came late to colonization of the Americas, establishing stable settlements in the 1600s after
several unsuccessful attempts in the 1500s. After Roanoke Colony failed in 1587, the English found more
success with the founding of Jamestown in 1607 and Plymouth in 1620. The two colonies were very
different in origin. The Virginia Company of London founded Jamestown with the express purpose
of making money for its investors, while Puritans founded Plymouth to practice their own brand of
Protestantism without interference.
Both colonies battled difficult circumstances, including poor relationships with neighboring Indian tribes.
Conflicts flared repeatedly in the Chesapeake Bay tobacco colonies and in New England, where a massive
uprising against the English in 1675 to 1676—King Philip’s War—nearly succeeded in driving the intruders
back to the sea.

The development of the Atlantic slave trade forever changed the course of European settlement in the
Americas. Other transatlantic travelers, including diseases, goods, plants, animals, and even ideas like the
concept of private land ownership, further influenced life in America during the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries. The exchange of pelts for European goods including copper kettles, knives, and guns played a
significant role in changing the material cultures of native peoples. During the seventeenth century, native
peoples grew increasingly dependent on European trade items. At the same time, many native inhabitants
died of European diseases, while survivors adopted new ways of living with their new neighbors.
Review Questions
1. Which of the following was a goal of the 5. Which religious order joined the French
Spanish in their destruction of Fort Caroline? settlement in Canada and tried to convert the
A. establishing a foothold from which to battle natives to Christianity?
the Timucua A. Franciscans
B. claiming a safe place to house the New B. Calvinists
World treasures that would be shipped C. Anglicans
back to Spain D. Jesuits
C. reducing the threat of French privateers
D. locating a site for the establishment of Santa 6. How did the French and Dutch colonists differ
Fe in their religious expectations? How did both
compare to Spanish colonists?
2. Why did the Spanish build Castillo de San
Marcos? 7. What was the most lucrative product of the
A. to protect the local Timucua Chesapeake colonies?
B. to defend against imperial challengers A. corn
C. as a seat for visiting Spanish royalty B. tobacco
D. to house visiting delegates from rival C. gold and silver
imperial powers D. slaves
3. How did the Pueblo attempt to maintain their 8. What was the primary cause of Bacon’s
autonomy in the face of Spanish settlement? Rebellion?
A. former indentured servants wanted more
4. What was patroonship? opportunities to expand their territory
A. a Dutch ship used for transporting beaver B. African slaves wanted better treatment
furs C. Susquahannock Indians wanted the
B. a Dutch system of patronage that Jamestown settlers to pay a fair price for
encouraged the arts their land
C. a Dutch system of granting tracts of land in D. Jamestown politicians were jockeying for
New Netherland to encourage colonization power
D. a Dutch style of hat trimmed with beaver
fur from New Netherland 9. The founders of the Plymouth colony were:
A. Puritans
B. Catholics

C. Anglicans C. the transatlantic journey that African slaves

D. Jesuits made to America
D. the line between the northern and southern
10. Which of the following is not true of the colonies
Puritan religion?
A. It required close reading of scripture. 13. Which of the following is not an item
B. Church membership required a conversion Europeans introduced to Indians?
narrative. A. wampum
C. Literacy was crucial. B. glass beads
D. Only men could participate. C. copper kettles
D. metal tools
11. How did the Chesapeake colonists solve their
labor problems? 14. How did European muskets change life for
native peoples in the Americas?
12. What was the Middle Passage?
A. the fabled sea route from Europe to the Far 15. Compare and contrast European and Indian
East views on property.
B. the land route from Europe to Africa

16. Compare and contrast life in the Spanish, French, Dutch, and English colonies, differentiating between
the Chesapeake Bay and New England colonies. Who were the colonizers? What were their purposes in
being there? How did they interact with their environments and the native inhabitants of the lands on
which they settled?
17. Describe the attempts of the various European colonists to convert native peoples to their belief
systems. How did these attempts compare to one another? What were the results of each effort?
18. How did chattel slavery differ from indentured servitude? How did the former system come to replace
the latter? What were the results of this shift?
19. What impact did Europeans have on their New World environments—native peoples and their
communities as well as land, plants, and animals? Conversely, what impact did the New World’s native
inhabitants, land, plants, and animals have on Europeans? How did the interaction of European and
Indian societies, together, shape a world that was truly “new”?

Chapter 4 Rule Britannia! The English Empire, 1660–1763 95
CHAPTER 4
Rule Britannia! The English Empire,

1660–1763
Figure 4.1 Isaac Royall and his family, seen here in a 1741 portrait by Robert Feke, moved to Medford,
Massachusetts, from the West Indian island of Antigua, bringing their slaves with them. They were an affluent British
colonial family, proud of their success and the success of the British Empire.
Chapter Outline
4.1 Charles II and the Restoration Colonies
4.2 The Glorious Revolution and the English Empire
4.3 An Empire of Slavery and the Consumer Revolution
4.4 Great Awakening and Enlightenment
4.5 Wars for Empire
Introduction
The eighteenth century witnessed the birth of Great Britain (after the union of England and Scotland
in 1707) and the expansion of the British Empire. By the mid-1700s, Great Britain had developed into
a commercial and military powerhouse; its economic sway ranged from India, where the British East
India Company had gained control over both trade and territory, to the West African coast, where British
slave traders predominated, and to the British West Indies, whose lucrative sugar plantations, especially
in Barbados and Jamaica, provided windfall profits for British planters. Meanwhile, the population rose
dramatically in Britain’s North American colonies. In the early 1700s the population in the colonies had
reached 250,000. By 1750, however, over a million British migrants and African slaves had established a
near-continuous zone of settlement on the Atlantic coast from Maine to Georgia.
During this period, the ties between Great Britain and the American colonies only grew stronger. Anglo-
American colonists considered themselves part of the British Empire in all ways: politically, militarily,
religiously (as Protestants), intellectually, and racially. The portrait of the Royall family (Figure 4.1)
exemplifies the colonial American gentry of the eighteenth century. Successful and well-to-do, they
display fashions, hairstyles, and furnishings that all speak to their identity as proud and loyal British
subjects.
96 Chapter 4 Rule Britannia! The English Empire, 1660–1763

• Analyze the causes and consequences of the Restoration
• Identify the Restoration colonies and their role in the expansion of the Empire
When Charles II ascended the throne in 1660, English subjects on both sides of the Atlantic celebrated
the restoration of the English monarchy after a decade of living without a king as a result of the English
Civil Wars. Charles II lost little time in strengthening England’s global power. From the 1660s to the 1680s,
Charles II added more possessions to England’s North American holdings by establishing the Restoration
colonies of New York and New Jersey (taking these areas from the Dutch) as well as Pennsylvania and
the Carolinas. In order to reap the greatest economic benefit from England’s overseas possessions, Charles
II enacted the mercantilist Navigation Acts, although many colonial merchants ignored them because
enforcement remained lax.
CHARLES II
The chronicle of Charles II begins with his father, Charles I. Charles I ascended the English throne in
1625 and soon married a French Catholic princess, Henrietta Maria, who was not well liked by English
Protestants because she openly practiced Catholicism during her husband’s reign. The most outspoken
Protestants, the Puritans, had a strong voice in Parliament in the 1620s, and they strongly opposed the
king’s marriage and his ties to Catholicism. When Parliament tried to contest his edicts, including the
king’s efforts to impose taxes without Parliament’s consent, Charles I suspended Parliament in 1629 and
ruled without one for the next eleven years.
The ensuing struggle between the king and Parliament led to the outbreak of war. The English Civil War
lasted from 1642 to 1649 and pitted the king and his Royalist supporters against Oliver Cromwell and
his Parliamentary forces. After years of fighting, the Parliamentary forces gained the upper hand, and in
Figure 4.2

1649, they charged Charles I with treason and beheaded him. The monarchy was dissolved, and England
became a republic: a state without a king. Oliver Cromwell headed the new English Commonwealth, and
the period known as the English interregnum, or the time between kings, began.
Though Cromwell enjoyed widespread popularity at first, over time he appeared to many in England to
be taking on the powers of a military dictator. Dissatisfaction with Cromwell grew. When he died in 1658
and control passed to his son Richard, who lacked the political skills of his father, a majority of the English
people feared an alternate hereditary monarchy in the making. They had had enough and asked Charles II
to be king. In 1660, they welcomed the son of the executed king Charles I back to the throne to resume the
English monarchy and bring the interregnum to an end (Figure 4.3). The return of Charles II is known as
the Restoration.
Figure 4.3 The monarchy and Parliament fought for control of England during the seventeenth century. Though
Oliver Cromwell (a), shown here in a 1656 portrait by Samuel Cooper, appeared to offer England a better mode of
government, he assumed broad powers for himself and disregarded cherished English liberties established under
Magna Carta in 1215. As a result, the English people welcomed Charles II (b) back to the throne in 1660. This portrait
by John Michael Wright was painted ca. 1660–1665, soon after the new king gained the throne.
Charles II was committed to expanding England’s overseas possessions. His policies in the 1660s through
the 1680s established and supported the Restoration colonies: the Carolinas, New Jersey, New York, and
Pennsylvania. All the Restoration colonies started as proprietary colonies, that is, the king gave each
colony to a trusted individual, family, or group.
THE CAROLINAS
Charles II hoped to establish English control of the area between Virginia and Spanish Florida. To that end,
he issued a royal charter in 1663 to eight trusted and loyal supporters, each of whom was to be a feudal-
style proprietor of a region of the province of Carolina.
These proprietors did not relocate to the colonies, however. Instead, English plantation owners from the
tiny Caribbean island of Barbados, already a well-established English sugar colony fueled by slave labor,
migrated to the southern part of Carolina to settle there. In 1670, they established Charles Town (later
Charleston), named in honor of Charles II, at the junction of the Ashley and Cooper Rivers (Figure 4.4).
As the settlement around Charles Town grew, it began to produce livestock for export to the West Indies.
In the northern part of Carolina, settlers turned sap from pine trees into turpentine used to waterproof
wooden ships. Political disagreements between settlers in the northern and southern parts of Carolina
escalated in the 1710s through the 1720s and led to the creation, in 1729, of two colonies, North and South
Carolina. The southern part of Carolina had been producing rice and indigo (a plant that yields a dark blue
dye used by English royalty) since the 1700s, and South Carolina continued to depend on these main crops.
North Carolina continued to produce items for ships, especially turpentine and tar, and its population
increased as Virginians moved there to expand their tobacco holdings. Tobacco was the primary export of
both Virginia and North Carolina, which also traded in deerskins and slaves from Africa.
Figure 4.4 The port of colonial Charles Towne, depicted here on a 1733 map of North America, was the largest in
the South and played a significant role in the Atlantic slave trade.
Slavery developed quickly in the Carolinas, largely because so many of the early migrants came from
Barbados, where slavery was well established. By the end of the 1600s, a very wealthy class of rice planters
who relied on slaves had attained dominance in the southern part of the Carolinas, especially around
Charles Town. By 1715, South Carolina had a black majority because of the number of slaves in the colony.
The legal basis for slavery was established in the early 1700s as the Carolinas began to pass slave laws
based on the Barbados slave codes of the late 1600s. These laws reduced Africans to the status of property
to be bought and sold as other commodities.
Click and Explore
Visit the Charleston Museum’s interactive exhibit The Walled City

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/charleston) to learn more about the history of
Charleston.
As in other areas of English settlement, native peoples in the Carolinas suffered tremendously from
the introduction of European diseases. Despite the effects of disease, Indians in the area endured and,
following the pattern elsewhere in the colonies, grew dependent on European goods. Local Yamasee and
Creek tribes built up a trade deficit with the English, trading deerskins and captive slaves for European
guns. English settlers exacerbated tensions with local Indian tribes, especially the Yamasee, by expanding
their rice and tobacco fields into Indian lands. Worse still, English traders took native women captive as
payment for debts.

The outrages committed by traders, combined with the seemingly unstoppable expansion of English
settlement onto native land, led to the outbreak of the Yamasee War (1715–1718), an effort by a coalition of
local tribes to drive away the European invaders. This native effort to force the newcomers back across the
Atlantic nearly succeeded in annihilating the Carolina colonies. Only when the Cherokee allied themselves
with the English did the coalition’s goal of eliminating the English from the region falter. The Yamasee
War demonstrates the key role native peoples played in shaping the outcome of colonial struggles and,
perhaps most important, the disunity that existed between different native groups.
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY

Charles II also set his sights on the Dutch colony of New Netherland. The English takeover of New
Netherland originated in the imperial rivalry between the Dutch and the English. During the Anglo-Dutch
wars of the 1650s and 1660s, the two powers attempted to gain commercial advantages in the Atlantic
World. During the Second Anglo-Dutch War (1664–1667), English forces gained control of the Dutch fur
trading colony of New Netherland, and in 1664, Charles II gave this colony (including present-day New
Jersey) to his brother James, Duke of York (later James II). The colony and city were renamed New York
in his honor. The Dutch in New York chafed under English rule. In 1673, during the Third Anglo-Dutch
War (1672–1674), the Dutch recaptured the colony. However, at the end of the conflict, the English had
regained control (Figure 4.5).
Figure 4.5 “View of New Amsterdam” (ca. 1665), a watercolor by Johannes Vingboons, was painted during the
Anglo-Dutch wars of the 1660s and 1670s. New Amsterdam was officially reincorporated as New York City in 1664,
but alternated under Dutch and English rule until 1674.
The Duke of York had no desire to govern locally or listen to the wishes of local colonists. It wasn’t
until 1683, therefore, almost 20 years after the English took control of the colony, that colonists were able
to convene a local representative legislature. The assembly’s 1683 Charter of Liberties and Privileges set
out the traditional rights of Englishmen, like the right to trial by jury and the right to representative
government.
The English continued the Dutch patroonship system, granting large estates to a favored few families.
The largest of these estates, at 160,000 acres, was given to Robert Livingston in 1686. The Livingstons
and the other manorial families who controlled the Hudson River Valley formed a formidable political
and economic force. Eighteenth-century New York City, meanwhile, contained a variety of people and
religions—as well as Dutch and English people, it held French Protestants (Huguenots), Jews, Puritans,
Quakers, Anglicans, and a large population of slaves. As they did in other zones of colonization, native
peoples played a key role in shaping the history of colonial New York. After decades of war in the 1600s,
the powerful Five Nations of the Iroquois, composed of the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and
Seneca, successfully pursued a policy of neutrality with both the English and, to the north, the French in
Canada during the first half of the 1700s. This native policy meant that the Iroquois continued to live in
their own villages under their own government while enjoying the benefits of trade with both the French
and the English.
PENNSYLVANIA
The Restoration colonies also included Pennsylvania, which became the geographic center of British
colonial America. Pennsylvania (which means “Penn’s Woods” in Latin) was created in 1681, when
Charles II bestowed the largest proprietary colony in the Americas on William Penn (Figure 4.6) to settle
the large debt he owed the Penn family. William Penn’s father, Admiral William Penn, had served the
English crown by helping take Jamaica from the Spanish in 1655. The king personally owed the Admiral
money as well.
Figure 4.6 Charles II granted William Penn the land that eventually became the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in
order to settle a debt the English crown owed to Penn’s father.
Like early settlers of the New England colonies, Pennsylvania’s first colonists migrated mostly for religious
reasons. William Penn himself was a Quaker, a member of a new Protestant denomination called the
Society of Friends. George Fox had founded the Society of Friends in England in the late 1640s, having
grown dissatisfied with Puritanism and the idea of predestination. Rather, Fox and his followers stressed
that everyone had an “inner light” inside him or her, a spark of divinity. They gained the name Quakers
because they were said to quake when the inner light moved them. Quakers rejected the idea of worldly
rank, believing instead in a new and radical form of social equality. Their speech reflected this belief in
that they addressed all others as equals, using “thee” and “thou” rather than terms like “your lordship” or
“my lady” that were customary for privileged individuals of the hereditary elite.
The English crown persecuted Quakers in England, and colonial governments were equally harsh;
Massachusetts even executed several early Quakers who had gone to proselytize there. To avoid such
persecution, Quakers and their families at first created a community on the sugar island of Barbados.
Soon after its founding, however, Pennsylvania became the destination of choice. Quakers flocked to
Pennsylvania as well as New Jersey, where they could preach and practice their religion in peace. Unlike
New England, whose official religion was Puritanism, Pennsylvania did not establish an official church.
Indeed, the colony allowed a degree of religious tolerance found nowhere else in English America. To help
encourage immigration to his colony, Penn promised fifty acres of land to people who agreed to come to
Pennsylvania and completed their term of service. Not surprisingly, those seeking a better life came in
large numbers, so much so that Pennsylvania relied on indentured servants more than any other colony.

One of the primary tenets of Quakerism is pacifism, leading William Penn to establish friendly
relationships with local native peoples. He formed a covenant of friendship with the Lenni Lenape
(Delaware) tribe, buying their land for a fair price instead of taking it by force. In 1701, he also signed a
treaty with the Susquehannocks to avoid war. Unlike other colonies, Pennsylvania did not experience war
on the frontier with native peoples during its early history.
As an important port city, Philadelphia grew rapidly. Quaker merchants there established contacts
throughout the Atlantic world and participated in the thriving African slave trade. Some Quakers, who
were deeply troubled by the contradiction between their belief in the “inner light” and the practice of
slavery, rejected the practice and engaged in efforts to abolish it altogether. Philadelphia also acted as a
magnet for immigrants, who came not only from England, but from all over Europe by the hundreds of
thousands. The city, and indeed all of Pennsylvania, appeared to be the best country for poor men and
women, many of whom arrived as servants and dreamed of owning land. A very few, like the fortunate
Benjamin Franklin, a runaway from Puritan Boston, did extraordinarily well. Other immigrant groups in
the colony, most notably Germans and Scotch-Irish (families from Scotland and England who had first
lived in Ireland before moving to British America), greatly improved their lot in Pennsylvania. Of course,
Africans imported into the colony to labor for white masters fared far worse.
AMERICANA
John Wilson Offers Reward for Escaped Prisoners
The American Weekly Mercury, published by William Bradford, was Philadelphia’s first newspaper. This
advertisement from “John Wilson, Goaler” (jailer) offers a reward for anyone capturing several men who
escaped from the jail.
BROKE out of the Common Goal of Philadelphia, the 15th of this Instant February, 1721, the
following Persons:
John Palmer, also Plumly, alias Paine, Servant to Joseph Jones, run away and was lately
taken up at New-York. He is fully described in the American Mercury, Novem. 23, 1721. He
has a Cinnamon coloured Coat on, a middle sized fresh coloured Man. His Master will give a
Pistole Reward to any who Shall Secure him, besides what is here offered.
Daniel Oughtopay, A Dutchman, aged about 24 Years, Servant to Dr. Johnston in Amboy. He
is a thin Spare man, grey Drugget Waistcoat and Breeches and a light-coloured Coat on.
Ebenezor Mallary, a New-England, aged about 24 Years, is a middle-sized thin Man, having
on a Snuff colour’d Coat, and ordinary Ticking Waistcoat and Breeches. He has dark brown
strait Hair.
Matthew Dulany, an Irish Man, down-look’d Swarthy Complexion, and has on an Olive-
coloured Cloth Coat and Waistcoat with Cloth Buttons.
John Flemming, an Irish Lad, aged about 18, belonging to Mr. Miranda, Merchant in this City.
He has no Coat, a grey Drugget Waistcoat, and a narrow brim’d Hat on.
John Corbet, a Shropshire Man, a Runaway Servant from Alexander Faulkner of Maryland,
broke out on the 12th Instant. He has got a double-breasted Sailor’s Jacket on lined with red
Bays, pretends to be a Sailor, and once taught School at Josephs Collings’s in the Jerseys.
Whoever takes up and secures all, or any One of these Felons, shall have a Pistole Reward
for each of them and reasonable Charges, paid them by John Wilson, Goaler
—Advertisement from the American Weekly Mercury, 1722
What do the descriptions of the men tell you about life in colonial Philadelphia?
Click and Explore
Browse a number of issues of the American Weekly Mercury

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/philly1) that were digitized by New Jersey’s Stockton
University. Read through several to get a remarkable flavor of life in early eighteenth-
century Philadelphia.
THE NAVIGATION ACTS

Creating wealth for the Empire remained a primary goal, and in the second half of the seventeenth century,
especially during the Restoration, England attempted to gain better control of trade with the American
colonies. The mercantilist policies by which it tried to achieve this control are known as the Navigation
Acts.
The 1651 Navigation Ordnance, a product of Cromwell’s England, required that only English ships carry
goods between England and the colonies, and that the captain and three-fourths of the crew had to be
English. The ordnance further listed “enumerated articles” that could be transported only to England or
to English colonies, including the most lucrative commodities like sugar and tobacco as well as indigo,
rice, molasses, and naval stores such as turpentine. All were valuable goods not produced in England or
in demand by the British navy. After ascending the throne, Charles II approved the 1660 Navigation Act,
which restated the 1651 act to ensure a monopoly on imports from the colonies.
Other Navigation Acts included the 1663 Staple Act and the 1673 Plantation Duties Act. The Staple Act
barred colonists from importing goods that had not been made in England, creating a profitable monopoly
for English exporters and manufacturers. The Plantation Duties Act taxed enumerated articles exported
from one colony to another, a measure aimed principally at New Englanders, who transported great
quantities of molasses from the West Indies, including smuggled molasses from French-held islands, to
make into rum.
In 1675, Charles II organized the Lords of Trade and Plantation, commonly known as the Lords of Trade,
an administrative body intended to create stronger ties between the colonial governments and the crown.
However, the 1696 Navigation Act created the Board of Trade, replacing the Lords of Trade. This act,
meant to strengthen enforcement of customs laws, also established vice-admiralty courts where the crown
could prosecute customs violators without a jury. Under this act, customs officials were empowered with
warrants known as “writs of assistance” to board and search vessels suspected of containing smuggled
goods.
Despite the Navigation Acts, however, Great Britain exercised lax control over the English colonies during
most of the eighteenth century because of the policies of Prime Minister Robert Walpole. During his long
term (1721–1742), Walpole governed according to his belief that commerce flourished best when it was not
encumbered with restrictions. Historians have described this lack of strict enforcement of the Navigation
Acts as salutary neglect. In addition, nothing prevented colonists from building their own fleet of ships
to engage in trade. New England especially benefited from both salutary neglect and a vibrant maritime
culture made possible by the scores of trading vessels built in the northern colonies. The case of the 1733
Molasses Act illustrates the weaknesses of British mercantilist policy. The 1733 act placed a sixpence-per-
gallon duty on raw sugar, rum, and molasses from Britain’s competitors, the French and the Dutch, in
order to give an advantage to British West Indian producers. Because the British did not enforce the 1733
law, however, New England mariners routinely smuggled these items from the French and Dutch West
Indies more cheaply than they could buy them on English islands.


• Identify the causes of the Glorious Revolution
• Explain the outcomes of the Glorious Revolution
During the brief rule of King James II, many in England feared the imposition of a Catholic absolute
monarchy by the man who modeled his rule on that of his French Catholic cousin, Louis XIV. Opposition
to James II, spearheaded by the English Whig party, overthrew the king in the Glorious Revolution of
1688–1689. This paved the way for the Protestant reign of William of Orange and his wife Mary (James’s
Protestant daughter).
JAMES II AND THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION

King James II (Figure 4.7), the second son of Charles I, ascended the English throne in 1685 on the death of
his brother, Charles II. James then worked to model his rule on the reign of the French Catholic King Louis
XIV, his cousin. This meant centralizing English political strength around the throne, giving the monarchy
absolute power. Also like Louis XIV, James II practiced a strict and intolerant form of Roman Catholicism
after he converted from Protestantism in the late 1660s. He had a Catholic wife, and when they had a son,
the potential for a Catholic heir to the English throne became a threat to English Protestants. James also
worked to modernize the English army and navy. The fact that the king kept a standing army in times of
peace greatly alarmed the English, who believed that such a force would be used to crush their liberty. As
James’s strength grew, his opponents feared their king would turn England into a Catholic monarchy with
absolute power over her people.
Figure 4.7 James II (shown here in a painting ca. 1690) worked to centralize the English government. The Catholic
king of France, Louis XIV, provided a template for James’s policies.
In 1686, James II applied his concept of a centralized state to the colonies by creating an enormous
colony called the Dominion of New England. The Dominion included all the New England colonies
(Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Plymouth, Connecticut, New Haven, and Rhode Island) and in 1688 was
enlarged by the addition of New York and New Jersey. James placed in charge Sir Edmund Andros, a
former colonial governor of New York. Loyal to James II and his family, Andros had little sympathy for
New Englanders. His regime caused great uneasiness among New England Puritans when it called into
question the many land titles that did not acknowledge the king and imposed fees for their reconfirmation.
Andros also committed himself to enforcing the Navigation Acts, a move that threatened to disrupt the
region’s trade, which was based largely on smuggling.
In England, opponents of James II’s efforts to create a centralized Catholic state were known as Whigs. The
Whigs worked to depose James, and in late 1688 they succeeded, an event they celebrated as the Glorious
Revolution while James fled to the court of Louis XIV in France. William III (William of Orange) and his
wife Mary II ascended the throne in 1689.
The Glorious Revolution spilled over into the colonies. In 1689, Bostonians overthrew the government
of the Dominion of New England and jailed Sir Edmund Andros as well as other leaders of the regime
(Figure 4.8). The removal of Andros from power illustrates New England’s animosity toward the English
overlord who had, during his tenure, established Church of England worship in Puritan Boston and
vigorously enforced the Navigation Acts, to the chagrin of those in port towns. In New York, the same year
that Andros fell from power, Jacob Leisler led a group of Protestant New Yorkers against the dominion
government. Acting on his own authority, Leisler assumed the role of King William’s governor and
organized intercolonial military action independent of British authority. Leisler’s actions usurped the
crown’s prerogative and, as a result, he was tried for treason and executed. In 1691, England restored
control over the Province of New York.
Figure 4.8 This broadside, signed by several citizens, demands the surrender of Sir Edmund (spelled here
“Edmond”) Andros, James II’s hand-picked leader of the Dominion of New England.
The Glorious Revolution provided a shared experience for those who lived through the tumult of 1688
and 1689. Subsequent generations kept the memory of the Glorious Revolution alive as a heroic defense of
English liberty against a would-be tyrant.
ENGLISH LIBERTY
The Glorious Revolution led to the establishment of an English nation that limited the power of the king
and provided protections for English subjects. In October 1689, the same year that William and Mary
took the throne, the 1689 Bill of Rights established a constitutional monarchy. It stipulated Parliament’s
independence from the monarchy and protected certain of Parliament’s rights, such as the right to freedom

of speech, the right to regular elections, and the right to petition the king. The 1689 Bill of Rights also
guaranteed certain rights to all English subjects, including trial by jury and habeas corpus (the requirement
that authorities bring an imprisoned person before a court to demonstrate the cause of the imprisonment).
John Locke (1632–1704), a doctor and educator who had lived in exile in Holland during the reign of James
II and returned to England after the Glorious Revolution, published his Two Treatises of Government in 1690.
In it, he argued that government was a form of contract between the leaders and the people, and that
representative government existed to protect “life, liberty and property.” Locke rejected the divine right of
kings and instead advocated for the central role of Parliament with a limited monarchy. Locke’s political
philosophy had an enormous impact on future generations of colonists and established the paramount
importance of representation in government.
Click and Explore
Visit the Digital Locke Project (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/jlocke) to read more of

John Locke’s writings. This digital collection contains over thirty of his philosophical
texts.
The Glorious Revolution also led to the English Toleration Act of 1689, a law passed by Parliament that
allowed for greater religious diversity in the Empire. This act granted religious tolerance to nonconformist
Trinitarian Protestants (those who believed in the Holy Trinity of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost),
such as Baptists (those who advocated adult baptism) and Congregationalists (those who followed the
Puritans’ lead in creating independent churches). While the Church of England remained the official
state religious establishment, the Toleration Act gave much greater religious freedom to nonconformists.
However, this tolerance did not extend to Catholics, who were routinely excluded from political power.
The 1689 Toleration Act extended to the British colonies, where several colonies—Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Delaware, and New Jersey—refused to allow the creation of an established colonial church, a major
step toward greater religious diversity.

• Analyze the role slavery played in the history and economy of the British Empire
• Explain the effects of the 1739 Stono Rebellion and the 1741 New York Conspiracy
Trials
• Describe the consumer revolution and its effect on the life of the colonial gentry and
other settlers
Slavery formed a cornerstone of the British Empire in the eighteenth century. Every colony had slaves,
from the southern rice plantations in Charles Town, South Carolina, to the northern wharves of Boston.
Slavery was more than a labor system; it also influenced every aspect of colonial thought and culture. The
uneven relationship it engendered gave white colonists an exaggerated sense of their own status. English
liberty gained greater meaning and coherence for whites when they contrasted their status to that of the
unfree class of black slaves in British America. African slavery provided whites in the colonies with a
shared racial bond and identity.
SLAVERY AND THE STONO REBELLION

The transport of slaves to the American colonies accelerated in the second half of the seventeenth century.
In 1660, Charles II created the Royal African Company (Figure 4.9) to trade in slaves and African goods.
His brother, James II, led the company before ascending the throne. Under both these kings, the Royal
African Company enjoyed a monopoly to transport slaves to the English colonies. Between 1672 and 1713,
the company bought 125,000 captives on the African coast, losing 20 percent of them to death on the
Middle Passage, the journey from the African coast to the Americas.
Figure 4.9 The 1686 English guinea shows the logo of the Royal African Company, an elephant and castle, beneath
a bust of King James II. The coins were commonly called guineas because most British gold came from Guinea in
West Africa.
The Royal African Company’s monopoly ended in 1689 as a result of the Glorious Revolution. After that
date, many more English merchants engaged in the slave trade, greatly increasing the number of slaves
being transported. Africans who survived the brutal Middle Passage usually arrived in the West Indies,
often in Barbados. From there, they were transported to the mainland English colonies on company ships.
While merchants in London, Bristol, and Liverpool lined their pockets, Africans trafficked by the company
endured a nightmare of misery, privation, and dislocation.
Slaves strove to adapt to their new lives by forming new communities among themselves, often adhering
to traditional African customs and healing techniques. Indeed, the development of families and
communities formed the most important response to the trauma of being enslaved. Other slaves dealt
with the trauma of their situation by actively resisting their condition, whether by defying their masters or
running away. Runaway slaves formed what were called “maroon” communities, groups that successfully
resisted recapture and formed their own autonomous groups. The most prominent of these communities
lived in the interior of Jamaica, controlling the area and keeping the British away.
Slaves everywhere resisted their exploitation and attempted to gain freedom. They fully understood that
rebellions would bring about massive retaliation from whites and therefore had little chance of success.
Even so, rebellions occurred frequently. One notable uprising that became known as the Stono Rebellion
took place in South Carolina in September 1739. A literate slave named Jemmy led a large group of slaves
in an armed insurrection against white colonists, killing several before militia stopped them. The militia
suppressed the rebellion after a battle in which both slaves and militiamen were killed, and the remaining
slaves were executed or sold to the West Indies.
Jemmy is believed to have been taken from the Kingdom of Kongo, an area where the Portuguese had
introduced Catholicism. Other slaves in South Carolina may have had a similar background: Africa-
born and familiar with whites. If so, this common background may have made it easier for Jemmy to
communicate with the other slaves, enabling them to work together to resist their enslavement even
though slaveholders labored to keep slaves from forging such communities.

In the wake of the Stono Rebellion, South Carolina passed a new slave code in 1740 called An Act for the
Better Ordering and Governing of Negroes and Other Slaves in the Province, also known as the Negro Act
of 1740. This law imposed new limits on slaves’ behavior, prohibiting slaves from assembling, growing
their own food, learning to write, and traveling freely.
THE NEW YORK CONSPIRACY TRIALS OF 1741

Eighteenth-century New York City contained many different ethnic groups, and conflicts among them
created strain. In addition, one in five New Yorkers was a slave, and tensions ran high between slaves and
the free population, especially in the aftermath of the Stono Rebellion. These tensions burst forth in 1741.
That year, thirteen fires broke out in the city, one of which reduced the colony’s Fort George to ashes.
Ever fearful of an uprising among enslaved New Yorkers, the city’s whites spread rumors that the fires
were part of a massive slave revolt in which slaves would murder whites, burn the city, and take over the
colony. The Stono Rebellion was only a few years in the past, and throughout British America, fears of
similar incidents were still fresh. Searching for solutions, and convinced slaves were the principal danger,
nervous British authorities interrogated almost two hundred slaves and accused them of conspiracy.
Rumors that Roman Catholics had joined the suspected conspiracy and planned to murder Protestant
inhabitants of the city only added to the general hysteria. Very quickly, two hundred people were arrested,
including a large number of the city’s slave population.
After a quick series of trials at City Hall, known as the New York Conspiracy Trials of 1741, the
government executed seventeen New Yorkers. Thirteen black men were publicly burned at the stake, while
the others (including four whites) were hanged (Figure 4.10). Seventy slaves were sold to the West Indies.
Little evidence exists to prove that an elaborate conspiracy, like the one white New Yorkers imagined,
actually existed.
Figure 4.10 In the wake of a series of fires throughout New York City, rumors of a slave revolt led authorities to
convict and execute thirty people, including thirteen black men who were publicly burned at the stake.
The events of 1741 in New York City illustrate the racial divide in British America, where panic among
whites spurred great violence against and repression of the feared slave population. In the end, the
Conspiracy Trials furthered white dominance and power over enslaved New Yorkers.
Click and Explore
View the map of New York in the 1740s (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/NY1700s) at

the New York Public Library’s digital gallery, which allows you to zoom in and see
specific events. Look closely at numbers 55 and 56 just north of the city limits to see
illustrations depicting the executions.
COLONIAL GENTRY AND THE CONSUMER REVOLUTION

British Americans’ reliance on indentured servitude and slavery to meet the demand for colonial labor
helped give rise to a wealthy colonial class—the gentry—in the Chesapeake tobacco colonies and
elsewhere. To be “genteel,” that is, a member of the gentry, meant to be refined, free of all rudeness.
The British American gentry modeled themselves on the English aristocracy, who embodied the ideal of
refinement and gentility. They built elaborate mansions to advertise their status and power. William Byrd
II of Westover, Virginia, exemplifies the colonial gentry; a wealthy planter and slaveholder, he is known
for founding Richmond and for his diaries documenting the life of a gentleman planter (Figure 4.11).
Figure 4.11 This painting by Hans Hysing, ca. 1724, depicts William Byrd II. Byrd was a wealthy gentleman planter
in Virginia and a member of the colonial gentry.

MY STORY
William Byrd’s Secret Diary
The diary of William Byrd, a Virginia planter, provides a unique way to better understand colonial life on a
plantation (Figure 4.12). What does it show about daily life for a gentleman planter? What does it show
about slavery?
August 27, 1709
I rose at 5 o’clock and read two chapters in Hebrew and some Greek in Josephus. I said my
prayers and ate milk for breakfast. I danced my dance. I had like to have whipped my maid
Anaka for her laziness but I forgave her. I read a little geometry. I denied my man G-r-l to
go to a horse race because there was nothing but swearing and drinking there. I ate roast
mutton for dinner. In the afternoon I played at piquet with my own wife and made her out of
humor by cheating her. I read some Greek in Homer. Then I walked about the plantation. I
lent John H-ch £7 [7 English pounds] in his distress. I said my prayers and had good health,
good thoughts, and good humor, thanks be to God Almighty.
September 6, 1709
About one o’clock this morning my wife was happily delivered of a son, thanks be to God
Almighty. I was awake in a blink and rose and my cousin Harrison met me on the stairs and
told me it was a boy. We drank some French wine and went to bed again and rose at 7 o’clock.
I read a chapter in Hebrew and then drank chocolate with the women for breakfast. I returned
God humble thanks for so great a blessing and recommended my young son to His divine
protection. . . .
September 15, 1710
I rose at 5 o’clock and read two chapters in Hebrew and some Greek in Thucydides. I said my
prayers and ate milk and pears for breakfast. About 7 o’clock the negro boy [or Betty] that ran
away was brought home. My wife against my will caused little Jenny to be burned with a hot
iron, for which I quarreled with her. . . .
Figure 4.12 This photograph shows the view down the stairway from the third floor of Westover
Plantation, home of William Byrd II. What does this image suggest about the lifestyle of the
inhabitants—masters and servants—of this house?
One of the ways in which the gentry set themselves apart from others was through their purchase,
consumption, and display of goods. An increased supply of consumer goods from England that became
available in the eighteenth century led to a phenomenon called the consumer revolution. These products
linked the colonies to Great Britain in real and tangible ways. Indeed, along with the colonial gentry,
ordinary settlers in the colonies also participated in the frenzy of consumer spending on goods from Great
Britain. Tea, for example, came to be regarded as the drink of the Empire, with or without fashionable tea
sets.
The consumer revolution also made printed materials more widely available. Before 1680, for instance, no
newspapers had been printed in colonial America. In the eighteenth century, however, a flood of journals,
books, pamphlets, and other publications became available to readers on both sides of the Atlantic. This
shared trove of printed matter linked members of the Empire by creating a community of shared tastes
and ideas.
Cato’s Letters, by Englishmen John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, was one popular series of 144
pamphlets. These Whig circulars were published between 1720 and 1723 and emphasized the glory of
England, especially its commitment to liberty. However, the pamphlets cautioned readers to be ever
vigilant and on the lookout for attacks upon that liberty. Indeed, Cato’s Letters suggested that there were
constant efforts to undermine and destroy it.
Another very popular publication was the English gentlemen’s magazine the Spectator, published between
1711 and 1714. In each issue, “Mr. Spectator” observed and commented on the world around him. What
made the Spectator so wildly popular was its style; the essays were meant to persuade, and to cultivate
among readers a refined set of behaviors, rejecting deceit and intolerance and focusing instead on the
polishing of genteel taste and manners.
Novels, a new type of literature, made their first appearance in the eighteenth century and proved very
popular in the British Atlantic. Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe and Samuel Richardson’s Pamela: Or, Virtue
Rewarded found large and receptive audiences. Reading also allowed female readers the opportunity to
interpret what they read without depending on a male authority to tell them what to think. Few women
beyond the colonial gentry, however, had access to novels.

• Explain the significance of the Great Awakening
• Describe the genesis, central ideas, and effects of the Enlightenment in British North
America
Two major cultural movements further strengthened Anglo-American colonists’ connection to Great
Britain: the Great Awakening and the Enlightenment. Both movements began in Europe, but they
advocated very different ideas: the Great Awakening promoted a fervent, emotional religiosity, while the
Enlightenment encouraged the pursuit of reason in all things. On both sides of the Atlantic, British subjects
grappled with these new ideas.
THE FIRST GREAT AWAKENING

During the eighteenth century, the British Atlantic experienced an outburst of Protestant revivalism
known as the First Great Awakening. (A Second Great Awakening would take place in the 1800s.)
During the First Great Awakening, evangelists came from the ranks of several Protestant denominations:
Congregationalists, Anglicans (members of the Church of England), and Presbyterians. They rejected what
appeared to be sterile, formal modes of worship in favor of a vigorous emotional religiosity. Whereas
Martin Luther and John Calvin had preached a doctrine of predestination and close reading of scripture,
new evangelical ministers spread a message of personal and experiential faith that rose above mere book
learning. Individuals could bring about their own salvation by accepting Christ, an especially welcome
message for those who had felt excluded by traditional Protestantism: women, the young, and people at
the lower end of the social spectrum.
The Great Awakening caused a split between those who followed the evangelical message (the “New
Lights”) and those who rejected it (the “Old Lights”). The elite ministers in British America were firmly

Old Lights, and they censured the new revivalism as chaos. Indeed, the revivals did sometimes lead to
excess. In one notorious incident in 1743, an influential New Light minister named James Davenport urged
his listeners to burn books. The next day, he told them to burn their clothes as a sign of their casting off the
sinful trappings of the world. He then took off his own pants and threw them into the fire, but a woman
saved them and tossed them back to Davenport, telling him he had gone too far.
Another outburst of Protestant revivalism began in New Jersey, led by a minister of the Dutch Reformed
Church named Theodorus Frelinghuysen. Frelinghuysen’s example inspired other ministers, including
Gilbert Tennent, a Presbyterian. Tennant helped to spark a Presbyterian revival in the Middle Colonies
(Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey), in part by founding a seminary to train other evangelical
clergyman. New Lights also founded colleges in Rhode Island and New Hampshire that would later
become Brown University and Dartmouth College.
In Northampton, Massachusetts, Jonathan Edwards led still another explosion of evangelical fervor.
Edwards’s best-known sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” used powerful word imagery
to describe the terrors of hell and the possibilities of avoiding damnation by personal conversion (Figure
4.13). One passage reads: “The wrath of God burns against them [sinners], their damnation don’t slumber,
the pit is prepared, the fire is made ready, the furnace is now hot, ready to receive them, the flames do
now rage and glow. The glittering sword is whet, and held over them, and the pit hath opened her mouth
under them.” Edwards’s revival spread along the Connecticut River Valley, and news of the event spread
rapidly through the frequent reprinting of his famous sermon.
Figure 4.13 This image shows the frontispiece of Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, A Sermon Preached at
Enfield, July 8, 1741 by Jonathan Edwards. Edwards was an evangelical preacher who led a Protestant revival in
New England. This was his most famous sermon, the text of which was reprinted often and distributed widely.
The foremost evangelical of the Great Awakening was an Anglican minister named George Whitefield.
Like many evangelical ministers, Whitefield was itinerant, traveling the countryside instead of having his
own church and congregation. Between 1739 and 1740, he electrified colonial listeners with his brilliant
oratory.
AMERICANA
Two Opposing Views of George Whitefield
Not everyone embraced George Whitefield and other New Lights. Many established Old Lights decried
the way the new evangelical religions appealed to people’s passions, rather than to traditional religious
values. The two illustrations below present two very different visions of George Whitefield (Figure 4.14).
Figure 4.14 In the 1774 portrait of George Whitefield by engraver Elisha Gallaudet (a), Whitefield
appears with a gentle expression on his face. Although his hands are raised in exultation or entreaty, he
does not look particularly roused or rousing. In the 1763 British political cartoon to the right, “Dr.
Squintum’s Exaltation or the Reformation” (b), Whitefield’s hands are raised in a similar position, but
there the similarities end.
Compare the two images above. On the left is an illustration for Whitefield’s memoirs, while on the right
is a cartoon satirizing the circus-like atmosphere that his preaching seemed to attract (Dr. Squintum was
a nickname for Whitefield, who was cross-eyed). How do these two artists portray the same man? What
emotions are the illustration for his memoirs intended to evoke? What details can you find in the cartoon
that indicate the artist’s distaste for the preacher?
The Great Awakening saw the rise of several Protestant denominations, including Methodists,
Presbyterians, and Baptists (who emphasized adult baptism of converted Christians rather than infant
baptism). These new churches gained converts and competed with older Protestant groups like Anglicans
(members of the Church of England), Congregationalists (the heirs of Puritanism in America), and
Quakers. The influence of these older Protestant groups, such as the New England Congregationalists,
declined because of the Great Awakening. Nonetheless, the Great Awakening touched the lives of
thousands on both sides of the Atlantic and provided a shared experience in the eighteenth-century British
Empire.
THE ENLIGHTENMENT
The Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason, was an intellectual and cultural movement in the eighteenth
century that emphasized reason over superstition and science over blind faith. Using the power of
the press, Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, Isaac Newton, and Voltaire questioned accepted
knowledge and spread new ideas about openness, investigation, and religious tolerance throughout

Europe and the Americas. Many consider the Enlightenment a major turning point in Western civilization,
an age of light replacing an age of darkness.
Several ideas dominated Enlightenment thought, including rationalism, empiricism, progressivism, and
cosmopolitanism. Rationalism is the idea that humans are capable of using their faculty of reason to
gain knowledge. This was a sharp turn away from the prevailing idea that people needed to rely on
scripture or church authorities for knowledge. Empiricism promotes the idea that knowledge comes from
experience and observation of the world. Progressivism is the belief that through their powers of reason
and observation, humans could make unlimited, linear progress over time; this belief was especially
important as a response to the carnage and upheaval of the English Civil Wars in the seventeenth century.
Finally, cosmopolitanism reflected Enlightenment thinkers’ view of themselves as citizens of the world
and actively engaged in it, as opposed to being provincial and close-minded. In all, Enlightenment thinkers
endeavored to be ruled by reason, not prejudice.
The Freemasons were a fraternal society that advocated Enlightenment principles of inquiry and tolerance.
Freemasonry originated in London coffeehouses in the early eighteenth century, and Masonic lodges (local
units) soon spread throughout Europe and the British colonies. One prominent Freemason, Benjamin
Franklin, stands as the embodiment of the Enlightenment in British America (Figure 4.15). Born in
Boston in 1706 to a large Puritan family, Franklin loved to read, although he found little beyond religious
publications in his father’s house. In 1718 he was apprenticed to his brother to work in a print shop, where
he learned how to be a good writer by copying the style he found in the Spectator, which his brother
printed. At the age of seventeen, the independent-minded Franklin ran away, eventually ending up in
Quaker Philadelphia. There he began publishing the Pennsylvania Gazette in the late 1720s, and in 1732 he
started his annual publication Poor Richard: An Almanack, in which he gave readers much practical advice,
such as “Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.”
Figure 4.15 In this 1748 portrait by Robert Feke, a forty-year-old Franklin wears a stylish British wig, as befitted a
proud and loyal member of the British Empire.
Franklin subscribed to deism, an Enlightenment-era belief in a God who created, but has no continuing
involvement in, the world and the events within it. Deists also advanced the belief that personal
morality—an individual’s moral compass, leading to good works and actions—is more important than
strict church doctrines. Franklin’s deism guided his many philanthropic projects. In 1731, he established
a reading library that became the Library Company of Philadelphia. In 1743, he founded the American
Philosophical Society to encourage the spirit of inquiry. In 1749, he provided the foundation for the
University of Pennsylvania, and in 1751, he helped found Pennsylvania Hospital.
His career as a printer made Franklin wealthy and well-respected. When he retired in 1748, he devoted
himself to politics and scientific experiments. His most famous work, on electricity, exemplified
Enlightenment principles. Franklin observed that lightning strikes tended to hit metal objects and reasoned
that he could therefore direct lightning through the placement of metal objects during an electrical storm.
He used this knowledge to advocate the use of lightning rods: metal poles connected to wires directing
lightning’s electrical charge into the ground and saving wooden homes in cities like Philadelphia from
catastrophic fires. He published his findings in 1751, in Experiments and Observations on Electricity.
Franklin also wrote of his “rags to riches” tale, his Memoir, in the 1770s and 1780s. This story laid the
foundation for the American Dream of upward social mobility.
Click and Explore
Visit the Worldly Ways section (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/bfranklin1) of PBS’s

Benjamin Franklin site to see an interactive map showing Franklin’s overseas travels
and his influence around the world. His diplomatic, political, scientific, and business
achievements had great effects in many countries.
THE FOUNDING OF GEORGIA

The reach of Enlightenment thought was both broad and deep. In the 1730s, it even prompted the founding
of a new colony. Having witnessed the terrible conditions of debtors’ prison, as well as the results of
releasing penniless debtors onto the streets of London, James Oglethorpe, a member of Parliament and
advocate of social reform, petitioned King George II for a charter to start a new colony. George II,
understanding the strategic advantage of a British colony standing as a buffer between South Carolina
and Spanish Florida, granted the charter to Oglethorpe and twenty like-minded proprietors in 1732.
Oglethorpe led the settlement of the colony, which was called Georgia in honor of the king. In 1733, he
and 113 immigrants arrived on the ship Anne. Over the next decade, Parliament funded the migration of
twenty-five hundred settlers, making Georgia the only government-funded colonial project.
Oglethorpe’s vision for Georgia followed the ideals of the Age of Reason, seeing it as a place for England’s
“worthy poor” to start anew. To encourage industry, he gave each male immigrant fifty acres of land,
tools, and a year’s worth of supplies. In Savannah, the Oglethorpe Plan provided for a utopia: “an agrarian
model of sustenance while sustaining egalitarian values holding all men as equal.”
Oglethorpe’s vision called for alcohol and slavery to be banned. However, colonists who relocated from
other colonies, especially South Carolina, disregarded these prohibitions. Despite its proprietors’ early
vision of a colony guided by Enlightenment ideals and free of slavery, by the 1750s, Georgia was
producing quantities of rice grown and harvested by slaves.
4.5 Wars for Empire

• Describe the wars for empire
• Analyze the significance of these conflicts

Wars for empire composed a final link connecting the Atlantic sides of the British Empire. Great Britain
fought four separate wars against Catholic France from the late 1600s to the mid-1700s. Another war,
the War of Jenkins’ Ear, pitted Britain against Spain. These conflicts for control of North America also
helped colonists forge important alliances with native peoples, as different tribes aligned themselves with
different European powers.
GENERATIONS OF WARFARE
Generations of British colonists grew up during a time when much of North America, especially the
Northeast, engaged in war. Colonists knew war firsthand. In the eighteenth century, fighting was seasonal.
Armies mobilized in the spring, fought in the summer, and retired to winter quarters in the fall. The British
army imposed harsh discipline on its soldiers, who were drawn from the poorer classes, to ensure they
did not step out of line during engagements. If they did, their officers would kill them. On the battlefield,
armies dressed in bright uniforms to advertise their bravery and lack of fear. They stood in tight formation
and exchanged volleys with the enemy. They often feared their officers more than the enemy.
Click and Explore
Read the diary of a provincial soldier who fought in the French and Indian War on the
Captain David Perry Web Site (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/DPerry) hosted by
Rootsweb. David Perry’s journal, which includes a description of the 1758 campaign,
provides a glimpse of warfare in the eighteenth century.
Most imperial conflicts had both American and European fronts, leaving us with two names for each war.
For instance, King William’s War (1688–1697) is also known as the War of the League of Augsburg. In
America, the bulk of the fighting in this conflict took place between New England and New France. The
war proved inconclusive, with no clear victor (Figure 4.16).
Figure 4.16 This map shows the French and British armies’ movements during King William’s War, in which there
was no clear victor.
Queen Anne’s War (1702–1713) is also known as the War of Spanish Succession. England fought against
both Spain and France over who would ascend the Spanish throne after the last of the Hapsburg rulers
died. In North America, fighting took place in Florida, New England, and New France. In Canada, the
French prevailed but lost Acadia and Newfoundland; however, the victory was again not decisive because
the English failed to take Quebec, which would have given them control of Canada.
This conflict is best remembered in the United States for the French and Indian raid against Deerfield,
Massachusetts, in 1704. A small French force, combined with a native group made up of Catholic Mohawks
and Abenaki (Pocumtucs), attacked the frontier outpost of Deerfield, killing scores and taking 112
prisoners. Among the captives was the seven-year-old daughter of Deerfield’s minister John Williams,
named Eunice. She was held by the Mohawks for years as her family tried to get her back, and became
assimilated into the tribe. To the horror of the Puritan leaders, when she grew up Eunice married a
Mohawk and refused to return to New England.
In North America, possession of Georgia and trade with the interior was the focus of the War of Jenkins’
Ear (1739–1742), a conflict between Britain and Spain over contested claims to the land occupied by the
fledgling colony between South Carolina and Florida. The war got its name from an incident in 1731 in
which a Spanish Coast Guard captain severed the ear of British captain Robert Jenkins as punishment for
raiding Spanish ships in Panama. Jenkins fueled the growing animosity between England and Spain by
presenting his ear to Parliament and stirring up British public outrage. More than anything else, the War
of Jenkins’ Ear disrupted the Atlantic trade, a situation that hurt both Spain and Britain and was a major
reason the war came to a close in 1742. Georgia, founded six years earlier, remained British and a buffer
against Spanish Florida.
King George’s War (1744–1748), known in Europe as the War of Austrian Succession (1740–1748), was
fought in the northern colonies and New France. In 1745, the British took the massive French fortress at
Louisbourg on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia (Figure 4.17). However, three years later, under the terms
of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, Britain relinquished control of the fortress to the French. Once again, war
resulted in an incomplete victory for both Britain and France.

Figure 4.17 In this 1747 painting by J. Stevens, View of the landing of the New England forces in ye expedition
against Cape Breton, British forces land on the island of Cape Breton to capture Fort Louisbourg.
THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR

The final imperial war, the French and Indian War (1754–1763), known as the Seven Years’ War in Europe,
proved to be the decisive contest between Britain and France in America. It began over rival claims along
the frontier in present-day western Pennsylvania. Well-connected planters from Virginia faced stagnant
tobacco prices and hoped expanding into these western lands would stabilize their wealth and status.
Some of them established the Ohio Company of Virginia in 1748, and the British crown granted the
company half a million acres in 1749. However, the French also claimed the lands of the Ohio Company,
and to protect the region they established Fort Duquesne in 1754, where the Ohio, Monongahela, and
Allegheny Rivers met.
The war began in May 1754 because of these competing claims between Britain and France. Twenty-two-
year-old Virginian George Washington, a surveyor whose family helped to found the Ohio Company, gave
the command to fire on French soldiers near present-day Uniontown, Pennsylvania. This incident on the
Pennsylvania frontier proved to be a decisive event that led to imperial war. For the next decade, fighting
took place along the frontier of New France and British America from Virginia to Maine. The war also
spread to Europe as France and Britain looked to gain supremacy in the Atlantic World.
The British fared poorly in the first years of the war. In 1754, the French and their native allies forced
Washington to surrender at Fort Necessity, a hastily built fort constructed after his attack on the French.
In 1755, Britain dispatched General Edward Braddock to the colonies to take Fort Duquesne. The French,
aided by the Potawotomis, Ottawas, Shawnees, and Delawares, ambushed the fifteen hundred British
soldiers and Virginia militia who marched to the fort. The attack sent panic through the British force,
and hundreds of British soldiers and militiamen died, including General Braddock. The campaign of 1755
proved to be a disaster for the British. In fact, the only British victory that year was the capture of Nova
Scotia. In 1756 and 1757, Britain suffered further defeats with the fall of Fort Oswego and Fort William
Henry (Figure 4.18).
Figure 4.18 This schematic map depicts the events of the French and Indian War. Note the scarcity of British
victories.
The war began to turn in favor of the British in 1758, due in large part to the efforts of William Pitt,
a very popular member of Parliament. Pitt pledged huge sums of money and resources to defeating
the hated Catholic French, and Great Britain spent part of the money on bounties paid to new young
recruits in the colonies, helping invigorate the British forces. In 1758, the Iroquois, Delaware, and Shawnee
signed the Treaty of Easton, aligning themselves with the British in return for some contested land around
Pennsylvania and Virginia. In 1759, the British took Quebec, and in 1760, Montreal. The French empire in
North America had crumbled.
The war continued until 1763, when the French signed the Treaty of Paris. This treaty signaled a dramatic
reversal of fortune for France. Indeed, New France, which had been founded in the early 1600s, ceased
to exist. The British Empire had now gained mastery over North America. The Empire not only gained
New France under the treaty; it also acquired French sugar islands in the West Indies, French trading
posts in India, and French-held posts on the west coast of Africa. Great Britain’s victory in the French and
Indian War meant that it had become a truly global empire. British colonists joyously celebrated, singing
the refrain of “Rule, Britannia! / Britannia, rule the waves! / Britons never, never, never shall be slaves!”
In the American colonies, ties with Great Britain were closer than ever. Professional British soldiers had
fought alongside Anglo-American militiamen, forging a greater sense of shared identity. With Great
Britain’s victory, colonial pride ran high as colonists celebrated their identity as British subjects.

This last of the wars for empire, however, also sowed the seeds of trouble. The war led Great Britain deeply
into debt, and in the 1760s and 1770s, efforts to deal with the debt through imperial reforms would have
the unintended consequence of causing stress and strain that threatened to tear the Empire apart.
Key Terms
deism an Enlightenment-era belief in the existence of a supreme being—specifically, a creator who does
not intervene in the universe—representing a rejection of the belief in a supernatural deity who interacts
with humankind
Dominion of New England James II’s consolidated New England colony, made up of all the colonies
from New Haven to Massachusetts and later New York and New Jersey
English interregnum the period from 1649 to 1660 when England had no king
Enlightenment an eighteenth-century intellectual and cultural movement that emphasized reason and
science over superstition, religion, and tradition
First Great Awakening an eighteenth-century Protestant revival that emphasized individual,

experiential faith over church doctrine and the close study of scripture
Freemasons a fraternal society founded in the early eighteenth century that advocated Enlightenment
principles of inquiry and tolerance
French and Indian War the last eighteenth-century imperial struggle between Great Britain and France,
leading to a decisive British victory; this war lasted from 1754 to 1763 and was also called the Seven
Years’ War
Glorious Revolution the overthrow of James II in 1688
Navigation Acts a series of English mercantilist laws enacted between 1651 and 1696 in order to control
trade with the colonies
nonconformists Protestants who did not conform to the doctrines or practices of the Church of England
proprietary colonies colonies granted by the king to a trusted individual, family, or group
Restoration colonies the colonies King Charles II established or supported during the Restoration (the
Carolinas, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania)
salutary neglect the laxness with which the English crown enforced the Navigation Acts in the
eighteenth century
Summary
After the English Civil War and interregnum, England began to fashion a stronger and larger empire in
North America. In addition to wresting control of New York and New Jersey from the Dutch, Charles
II established the Carolinas and Pennsylvania as proprietary colonies. Each of these colonies added
immensely to the Empire, supplying goods not produced in England, such as rice and indigo. The
Restoration colonies also contributed to the rise in population in English America as many thousands
of Europeans made their way to the colonies. Their numbers were further augmented by the forced
migration of African slaves. Starting in 1651, England pursued mercantilist policies through a series of
Navigation Acts designed to make the most of England’s overseas possessions. Nonetheless, without
proper enforcement of Parliament’s acts and with nothing to prevent colonial traders from commanding
their own fleets of ships, the Navigation Acts did not control trade as intended.


The threat of a Catholic absolute monarchy prompted not only the overthrow of James II but also the
adoption of laws and policies that changed English government. The Glorious Revolution restored a
Protestant monarchy and at the same time limited its power by means of the 1689 Bill of Rights. Those
who lived through the events preserved the memory of the Glorious Revolution and the defense of liberty
that it represented. Meanwhile, thinkers such as John Locke provided new models and inspirations for the
evolving concept of government.

The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw the expansion of slavery in the American colonies from
South Carolina to Boston. The institution of slavery created a false sense of superiority in whites, while
simultaneously fueling fears of slave revolt. White response to such revolts, or even the threat of them,
led to gross overreactions and further constraints on slaves’ activities. The development of the Atlantic
economy also allowed colonists access to more British goods than ever before. The buying habits of both
commoners and the rising colonial gentry fueled the consumer revolution, creating even stronger ties with
Great Britain by means of a shared community of taste and ideas.

The eighteenth century saw a host of social, religious, and intellectual changes across the British Empire.
While the Great Awakening emphasized vigorously emotional religiosity, the Enlightenment promoted
the power of reason and scientific observation. Both movements had lasting impacts on the colonies. The
beliefs of the New Lights of the First Great Awakening competed with the religions of the first colonists,
and the religious fervor in Great Britain and her North American colonies bound the eighteenth-century
British Atlantic together in a shared, common experience. The British colonist Benjamin Franklin gained
fame on both sides of the Atlantic as a printer, publisher, and scientist. He embodied Enlightenment
ideals in the British Atlantic with his scientific experiments and philanthropic endeavors. Enlightenment
principles even guided the founding of the colony of Georgia, although those principles could not stand
up to the realities of colonial life, and slavery soon took hold in the colony.
4.5 Wars for Empire

From 1688 to 1763, Great Britain engaged in almost continuous power struggles with France and Spain.
Most of these conflicts originated in Europe, but their engagements spilled over into the colonies. For
almost eighty years, Great Britain and France fought for control of eastern North America. During most of
that time, neither force was able to win a decisive victory, though each side saw occasional successes with
the crucial help of native peoples. It was not until halfway through the French and Indian War (1754–1763),
when Great Britain swelled its troops with more volunteers and native allies, that the balance of power
shifted toward the British. With the 1763 Treaty of Paris, New France was eliminated, and Great Britain
gained control of all the lands north of Florida and east of the Mississippi. British subjects on both sides of
the Atlantic rejoiced.
Review Questions
1. To what does the term “Restoration” refer? C. the restoration of Charles II to the English
A. the restoration of New York to English throne
power D. the restoration of Parliamentary power in
B. the restoration of Catholicism as the official England
religion of England
2. What was the predominant religion in A. American patriots conspiring to overthrow

Pennsylvania? the royal government
A. Quakerism B. indentured servants conspiring to
B. Puritanism overthrow their masters
C. Catholicism C. slaves conspiring to burn down the city and
D. Protestantism take control
D. Protestants conspiring to murder Catholics
3. What sorts of labor systems were used in the
Restoration colonies? 9. What was the First Great Awakening?
A. a cultural and intellectual movement that
4. Which of the following represents a concern emphasized reason and science over
that those in England and her colonies maintained superstition and religion
about James II? B. a Protestant revival that emphasized
A. that he would promote the spread of emotional, experiential faith over book
Protestantism learning
B. that he would reduce the size of the British C. a cultural shift that promoted Christianity
army and navy, leaving England and her among slave communities
colonies vulnerable to attack D. the birth of an American identity, promoted
C. that he would advocate for Parliament’s by Benjamin Franklin
independence from the monarchy
D. that he would institute a Catholic absolute 10. Which of the following is not a tenet of the
monarchy Enlightenment?
A. atheism
5. What was the Dominion of New England? B. empiricism
A. James II’s overthrow of the New England C. progressivism
colonial governments D. rationalism
B. the consolidated New England colony
James II created 11. Who were the Freemasons, and why were
C. Governor Edmund Andros’s colonial they significant?
government in New York
D. the excise taxes New England colonists had 12. What was the primary goal of Britain’s wars
to pay to James II for empire from 1688 to 1763?
A. control of North America
6. What was the outcome of the Glorious B. control of American Indians
Revolution? C. greater power in Europe and the world
D. defeat of Catholicism
7. The Negro Act of 1740 was a reaction to
________. 13. Who were the main combatants in the French
A. fears of a slave conspiracy in the setting of and Indian War?
thirteen fires in New York City A. France against Indians
B. the Stono Rebellion B. Great Britain against Indians
C. the Royal African Company’s monopoly C. Great Britain against France
D. the growing power of maroon communities D. Great Britain against the French and their
Indian allies
8. What was the “conspiracy” of the New York
Conspiracy Trials of 1741? 14. What prompted the French and Indian War?

15. How did Pennsylvania’s Quaker beginnings distinguish it from other colonies in British America?

16. What were the effects of the consumer revolution on the colonies?
17. How did the ideas of the Enlightenment and the Great Awakening offer opposing outlooks to British
Americans? What similarities were there between the two schools of thought?
18. What was the impact of the wars for empire in North America, Europe, and the world?
19. What role did Indians play in the wars for empire?
20. What shared experiences, intellectual currents, and cultural elements drew together British subjects
on both sides of the Atlantic during this period? How did these experiences, ideas, and goods serve to
strengthen those bonds?

Chapter 5 Imperial Reforms and Colonial Protests, 1763-1774 125
CHAPTER 5
Imperial Reforms and Colonial

Protests, 1763-1774
Figure 5.1 The Bostonians Paying the Excise-man, or Tarring and Feathering (1774), attributed to Philip Dawe,
depicts the most publicized tarring and feathering incident of the American Revolution. The victim is John Malcolm, a
customs official loyal to the British crown.
Chapter Outline
5.1 Confronting the National Debt: The Aftermath of the French and Indian War
5.2 The Stamp Act and the Sons and Daughters of Liberty
5.3 The Townshend Acts and Colonial Protest
5.4 The Destruction of the Tea and the Coercive Acts
5.5 Disaffection: The First Continental Congress and American Identity
Introduction
The Bostonians Paying the Excise-man, or Tarring and Feathering (Figure 5.1), shows five Patriots tarring and
feathering the Commissioner of Customs, John Malcolm, a sea captain, army officer, and staunch Loyalist.
The print shows the Boston Tea Party, a protest against the Tea Act of 1773, and the Liberty Tree, an elm
tree near Boston Common that became a rallying point against the Stamp Act of 1765. When the crowd
threatened to hang Malcolm if he did not renounce his position as a royal customs officer, he reluctantly
agreed and the protestors allowed him to go home. The scene represents the animosity toward those who
supported royal authority and illustrates the high tide of unrest in the colonies after the British government
imposed a series of imperial reform measures during the years 1763–1774.
The government’s formerly lax oversight of the colonies ended as the architects of the British Empire put
these new reforms in place. The British hoped to gain greater control over colonial trade and frontier
settlement as well as to reduce the administrative cost of the colonies and the enormous debt left by the
French and Indian War. Each step the British took, however, generated a backlash. Over time, imperial
reforms pushed many colonists toward separation from the British Empire.
126 Chapter 5 Imperial Reforms and Colonial Protests, 1763-1774
5.1 Confronting the National Debt: The Aftermath of the French and
Indian War

• Discuss the status of Great Britain’s North American colonies in the years directly
following the French and Indian War
• Describe the size and scope of the British debt at the end of the French and Indian War
• Explain how the British Parliament responded to the debt crisis
• Outline the purpose of the Proclamation Line, the Sugar Act, and the Currency Act
Great Britain had much to celebrate in 1763. The long and costly war with France had finally ended, and
Great Britain had emerged victorious. British subjects on both sides of the Atlantic celebrated the strength
of the British Empire. Colonial pride ran high; to live under the British Constitution and to have defeated
the hated French Catholic menace brought great joy to British Protestants everywhere in the Empire. From
Maine to Georgia, British colonists joyously celebrated the victory and sang the refrain of “Rule, Britannia!
Britannia, rule the waves! Britons never, never, never shall be slaves!”
Despite the celebratory mood, the victory over France also produced major problems within the British
Empire, problems that would have serious consequences for British colonists in the Americas. During the
war, many Indian tribes had sided with the French, who supplied them with guns. After the 1763 Treaty
of Paris that ended the French and Indian War (or the Seven Years’ War), British colonists had to defend
the frontier, where French colonists and their tribal allies remained a powerful force. The most organized
resistance, Pontiac’s Rebellion, highlighted tensions the settlers increasingly interpreted in racial terms.
The massive debt the war generated at home, however, proved to be the most serious issue facing Great
Britain. The frontier had to be secure in order to prevent another costly war. Greater enforcement of
imperial trade laws had to be put into place. Parliament had to find ways to raise revenue to pay off the
crippling debt from the war. Everyone would have to contribute their expected share, including the British
subjects across the Atlantic.
Figure 5.2 (credit “1765”: modification of work by the United Kingdom Government)

PROBLEMS ON THE AMERICAN FRONTIER

With the end of the French and Indian War, Great Britain claimed a vast new expanse of territory, at least
on paper. Under the terms of the Treaty of Paris, the French territory known as New France had ceased to
exist. British territorial holdings now extended from Canada to Florida, and British military focus shifted to
maintaining peace in the king’s newly enlarged lands. However, much of the land in the American British
Empire remained under the control of powerful native confederacies, which made any claims of British
mastery beyond the Atlantic coastal settlements hollow. Great Britain maintained ten thousand troops in
North America after the war ended in 1763 to defend the borders and repel any attack by their imperial
rivals.
British colonists, eager for fresh land, poured over the Appalachian Mountains to stake claims. The
western frontier had long been a “middle ground” where different imperial powers (British, French,
Spanish) had interacted and compromised with native peoples. That era of accommodation in the “middle
ground” came to an end after the French and Indian War. Virginians (including George Washington) and
other land-hungry colonists had already raised tensions in the 1740s with their quest for land. Virginia
landowners in particular eagerly looked to diversify their holdings beyond tobacco, which had stagnated
in price and exhausted the fertility of the lands along the Chesapeake Bay. They invested heavily in the
newly available land. This westward movement brought the settlers into conflict as never before with
Indian tribes, such as the Shawnee, Seneca-Cayuga, Wyandot, and Delaware, who increasingly held their
ground against any further intrusion by white settlers.
The treaty that ended the war between France and Great Britain proved to be a significant blow to native
peoples, who had viewed the conflict as an opportunity to gain additional trade goods from both sides.
With the French defeat, many Indians who had sided with France lost a valued trading partner as well
as bargaining power over the British. Settlers’ encroachment on their land, as well as the increased British
military presence, changed the situation on the frontier dramatically. After the war, British troops took
over the former French forts but failed to court favor with the local tribes by distributing ample gifts, as the
French had done. They also significantly reduced the amount of gunpowder and ammunition they sold to
the Indians, worsening relationships further.
Indians’ resistance to colonists drew upon the teachings of Delaware (Lenni Lenape) prophet Neolin and
the leadership of Ottawa war chief Pontiac. Neolin was a spiritual leader who preached a doctrine of
shunning European culture and expelling Europeans from native lands. Neolin’s beliefs united Indians
from many villages. In a broad-based alliance that came to be known as Pontiac’s Rebellion, Pontiac led a
loose coalition of these native tribes against the colonists and the British army.
Pontiac started bringing his coalition together as early as 1761, urging Indians to “drive [the Europeans]
out and make war upon them.” The conflict began in earnest in 1763, when Pontiac and several hundred
Ojibwas, Potawatomis, and Hurons laid siege to Fort Detroit. At the same time, Senecas, Shawnees, and
Delawares laid siege to Fort Pitt. Over the next year, the war spread along the backcountry from Virginia to
Pennsylvania. Pontiac’s Rebellion (also known as Pontiac’s War) triggered horrific violence on both sides.
Firsthand reports of Indian attacks tell of murder, scalping, dismemberment, and burning at the stake.
These stories incited a deep racial hatred among colonists against all Indians.
The actions of a group of Scots-Irish settlers from Paxton (or Paxtang), Pennsylvania, in December 1763,
illustrates the deadly situation on the frontier. Forming a mob known as the Paxton Boys, these
frontiersmen attacked a nearby group of Conestoga of the Susquehannock tribe. The Conestoga had
lived peacefully with local settlers, but the Paxton Boys viewed all Indians as savages and they brutally
murdered the six Conestoga they found at home and burned their houses. When Governor John Penn put
the remaining fourteen Conestoga in protective custody in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, the Paxton Boys broke
into the building and killed and scalped the Conestoga they found there (Figure 5.3). Although Governor
Penn offered a reward for the capture of any Paxton Boys involved in the murders, no one ever identified
the attackers. Some colonists reacted to the incident with outrage. Benjamin Franklin described the Paxton
Boys as “the barbarous Men who committed the atrocious act, in Defiance of Government, of all Laws
human and divine, and to the eternal Disgrace of their Country and Colour,” stating that “the Wickedness
cannot be covered, the Guilt will lie on the whole Land, till Justice is done on the Murderers. The blood
of the innocent will cry to heaven for vengeance.” Yet, as the inability to bring the perpetrators to justice
clearly indicates, the Paxton Boys had many more supporters than critics.
Figure 5.3 This nineteenth-century lithograph depicts the massacre of Conestoga in 1763 at Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, where they had been placed in protective custody. None of the attackers, members of the Paxton
Boys, were ever identified.
Click and Explore
Visit Explore PAhistory.com (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/paxton) to read the full

text of Benjamin Franklin’s “Benjamin Franklin, An Account of the Paxton Boys’ Murder
of the Conestoga Indians, 1764.”
Pontiac’s Rebellion and the Paxton Boys’ actions were examples of early American race wars, in which
both sides saw themselves as inherently different from the other and believed the other needed to be
eradicated. The prophet Neolin’s message, which he said he received in a vision from the Master of Life,
was: “Wherefore do you suffer the whites to dwell upon your lands? Drive them away; wage war against
them.” Pontiac echoed this idea in a meeting, exhorting tribes to join together against the British: “It is
important for us, my brothers, that we exterminate from our lands this nation which seeks only to destroy
us.” In his letter suggesting “gifts” to the natives of smallpox-infected blankets, Field Marshal Jeffrey
Amherst said, “You will do well to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets, as well as every other
method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race.” Pontiac’s Rebellion came to an end in 1766, when it
became clear that the French, whom Pontiac had hoped would side with his forces, would not be returning.
The repercussions, however, would last much longer. Race relations between Indians and whites remained
poisoned on the frontier.
Well aware of the problems on the frontier, the British government took steps to try to prevent bloodshed
and another costly war. At the beginning of Pontiac’s uprising, the British issued the Proclamation of 1763,
which forbade white settlement west of the Proclamation Line, a borderline running along the spine of
the Appalachian Mountains (Figure 5.4). The Proclamation Line aimed to forestall further conflict on the
frontier, the clear flashpoint of tension in British North America. British colonists who had hoped to move

west after the war chafed at this restriction, believing the war had been fought and won to ensure the right
to settle west. The Proclamation Line therefore came as a setback to their vision of westward expansion.
Figure 5.4 This map shows the status of the American colonies in 1763, after the end of the French and Indian War.
Although Great Britain won control of the territory east of the Mississippi, the Proclamation Line of 1763 prohibited
British colonists from settling west of the Appalachian Mountains. (credit: modification of work by the National Atlas of
the United States)
THE BRITISH NATIONAL DEBT

Great Britain’s newly enlarged empire meant a greater financial burden, and the mushrooming debt from
the war was a major cause of concern. The war nearly doubled the British national debt, from £75 million
in 1756 to £133 million in 1763. Interest payments alone consumed over half the national budget, and the
continuing military presence in North America was a constant drain. The Empire needed more revenue to
replenish its dwindling coffers. Those in Great Britain believed that British subjects in North America, as
the major beneficiaries of Great Britain’s war for global supremacy, should certainly shoulder their share
of the financial burden.
The British government began increasing revenues by raising taxes at home, even as various interest
groups lobbied to keep their taxes low. Powerful members of the aristocracy, well represented in
Parliament, successfully convinced Prime Minister John Stuart, third earl of Bute, to refrain from raising
taxes on land. The greater tax burden, therefore, fell on the lower classes in the form of increased import
duties, which raised the prices of imported goods such as sugar and tobacco. George Grenville succeeded
Bute as prime minister in 1763. Grenville determined to curtail government spending and make sure that,
as subjects of the British Empire, the American colonists did their part to pay down the massive debt.
IMPERIAL REFORMS
The new era of greater British interest in the American colonies through imperial reforms picked up in
pace in the mid-1760s. In 1764, Prime Minister Grenville introduced the Currency Act of 1764, prohibiting
the colonies from printing additional paper money and requiring colonists to pay British merchants in
gold and silver instead of the colonial paper money already in circulation. The Currency Act aimed to
standardize the currency used in Atlantic trade, a logical reform designed to help stabilize the Empire’s
economy. This rule brought American economic activity under greater British control. Colonists relied on
their own paper currency to conduct trade and, with gold and silver in short supply, they found their
finances tight. Not surprisingly, they grumbled about the new imperial currency regulations.
Grenville also pushed Parliament to pass the Sugar Act of 1764, which actually lowered duties on British
molasses by half, from six pence per gallon to three. Grenville designed this measure to address the
problem of rampant colonial smuggling with the French sugar islands in the West Indies. The act
attempted to make it easier for colonial traders, especially New England mariners who routinely engaged
in illegal trade, to comply with the imperial law.
To give teeth to the 1764 Sugar Act, the law intensified enforcement provisions. Prior to the 1764 act,
colonial violations of the Navigation Acts had been tried in local courts, where sympathetic colonial juries
refused to convict merchants on trial. However, the Sugar Act required violators to be tried in vice-
admiralty courts. These crown-sanctioned tribunals, which settled disputes that occurred at sea, operated
without juries. Some colonists saw this feature of the 1764 act as dangerous. They argued that trial by
jury had long been honored as a basic right of Englishmen under the British Constitution. To deprive
defendants of a jury, they contended, meant reducing liberty-loving British subjects to political slavery. In
the British Atlantic world, some colonists perceived this loss of liberty as parallel to the enslavement of
Africans.
As loyal British subjects, colonists in America cherished their Constitution, an unwritten system of
government that they celebrated as the best political system in the world. The British Constitution
prescribed the roles of the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. Each entity provided a
check and balance against the worst tendencies of the others. If the King had too much power, the result
would be tyranny. If the Lords had too much power, the result would be oligarchy. If the Commons
had the balance of power, democracy or mob rule would prevail. The British Constitution promised
representation of the will of British subjects, and without such representation, even the indirect tax of the
Sugar Act was considered a threat to the settlers’ rights as British subjects. Furthermore, some American
colonists felt the colonies were on equal political footing with Great Britain. The Sugar Act meant they
were secondary, mere adjuncts to the Empire. All subjects of the British crown knew they had liberties
under the constitution. The Sugar Act suggested that some in Parliament labored to deprive them of what
made them uniquely British.

• Explain the purpose of the 1765 Stamp Act
• Describe the colonial responses to the Stamp Act
In 1765, the British Parliament moved beyond the efforts during the previous two years to better regulate
westward expansion and trade by putting in place the Stamp Act. As a direct tax on the colonists, the
Stamp Act imposed an internal tax on almost every type of printed paper colonists used, including
newspapers, legal documents, and playing cards. While the architects of the Stamp Act saw the measure
as a way to defray the costs of the British Empire, it nonetheless gave rise to the first major colonial protest
against British imperial control as expressed in the famous slogan “no taxation without representation.”
The Stamp Act reinforced the sense among some colonists that Parliament was not treating them as equals
of their peers across the Atlantic.

THE STAMP ACT AND THE QUARTERING ACT

Prime Minister Grenville, author of the Sugar Act of 1764, introduced the Stamp Act in the early spring
of 1765. Under this act, anyone who used or purchased anything printed on paper had to buy a revenue
stamp (Figure 5.5) for it. In the same year, 1765, Parliament also passed the Quartering Act, a law that
attempted to solve the problems of stationing troops in North America. The Parliament understood the
Stamp Act and the Quartering Act as an assertion of their power to control colonial policy.
Figure 5.5 Under the Stamp Act, anyone who used or purchased anything printed on paper had to buy a revenue
stamp for it. Image (a) shows a partial proof sheet of one-penny stamps. Image (b) provides a close-up of a one-
penny stamp. (credit a: modification of work by the United Kingdom Government; credit b: modification of work by the
United Kingdom Government)
The Stamp Act signaled a shift in British policy after the French and Indian War. Before the Stamp Act,
the colonists had paid taxes to their colonial governments or indirectly through higher prices, not directly
to the Crown’s appointed governors. This was a time-honored liberty of representative legislatures of the
colonial governments. The passage of the Stamp Act meant that starting on November 1, 1765, the colonists
would contribute £60,000 per year—17 percent of the total cost—to the upkeep of the ten thousand British
soldiers in North America (Figure 5.6). Because the Stamp Act raised constitutional issues, it triggered the
first serious protest against British imperial policy.
Figure 5.6 The announcement of the Stamp Act, seen in this newspaper publication (a), raised numerous concerns
among colonists in America. Protests against British imperial policy took many forms, such as this mock stamp (b)
whose text reads “An Emblem of the Effects of the STAMP. O! the Fatal STAMP.”
Parliament also asserted its prerogative in 1765 with the Quartering Act. The Quartering Act of 1765
addressed the problem of housing British soldiers stationed in the American colonies. It required that they
be provided with barracks or places to stay in public houses, and that if extra housing were necessary,
then troops could be stationed in barns and other uninhabited private buildings. In addition, the costs
of the troops’ food and lodging fell to the colonists. Since the time of James II, who ruled from 1685 to
1688, many British subjects had mistrusted the presence of a standing army during peacetime, and having
to pay for the soldiers’ lodging and food was especially burdensome. Widespread evasion and disregard
for the law occurred in almost all the colonies, but the issue was especially contentious in New York, the
headquarters of British forces. When fifteen hundred troops arrived in New York in 1766, the New York
Assembly refused to follow the Quartering Act.
COLONIAL PROTEST: GENTRY, MERCHANTS, AND THE STAMP ACT CONGRESS

For many British colonists living in America, the Stamp Act raised many concerns. As a direct tax, it
appeared to be an unconstitutional measure, one that deprived freeborn British subjects of their liberty,
a concept they defined broadly to include various rights and privileges they enjoyed as British subjects,
including the right to representation. According to the unwritten British Constitution, only representatives
for whom British subjects voted could tax them. Parliament was in charge of taxation, and although it was
a representative body, the colonies did not have “actual” (or direct) representation in it. Parliamentary
members who supported the Stamp Act argued that the colonists had virtual representation, because
the architects of the British Empire knew best how to maximize returns from its possessions overseas.
However, this argument did not satisfy the protesters, who viewed themselves as having the same right
as all British subjects to avoid taxation without their consent. With no representation in the House of
Commons, where bills of taxation originated, they felt themselves deprived of this inherent right.

The British government knew the colonists might object to the Stamp Act’s expansion of parliamentary
power, but Parliament believed the relationship of the colonies to the Empire was one of dependence,
not equality. However, the Stamp Act had the unintended and ironic consequence of drawing colonists
from very different areas and viewpoints together in protest. In Massachusetts, for instance, James Otis,
a lawyer and defender of British liberty, became the leading voice for the idea that “Taxation without
representation is tyranny.” In the Virginia House of Burgesses, firebrand and slaveholder Patrick Henry
introduced the Virginia Stamp Act Resolutions, which denounced the Stamp Act and the British crown in
language so strong that some conservative Virginians accused him of treason (Figure 5.7). Henry replied
that Virginians were subject only to taxes that they themselves—or their representatives—imposed. In
short, there could be no taxation without representation.
Figure 5.7 Patrick Henry Before the Virginia House of Burgesses (1851), painted by Peter F. Rothermel, offers a
romanticized depiction of Henry’s speech denouncing the Stamp Act of 1765. Supporters and opponents alike
debated the stark language of the speech, which quickly became legendary.
The colonists had never before formed a unified political front, so Grenville and Parliament did not
fear true revolt. However, this was to change in 1765. In response to the Stamp Act, the Massachusetts
Assembly sent letters to the other colonies, asking them to attend a meeting, or congress, to discuss how
to respond to the act. Many American colonists from very different colonies found common cause in their
opposition to the Stamp Act. Representatives from nine colonial legislatures met in New York in the fall
of 1765 to reach a consensus. Could Parliament impose taxation without representation? The members of
this first congress, known as the Stamp Act Congress, said no. These nine representatives had a vested
interest in repealing the tax. Not only did it weaken their businesses and the colonial economy, but it also
threatened their liberty under the British Constitution. They drafted a rebuttal to the Stamp Act, making
clear that they desired only to protect their liberty as loyal subjects of the Crown. The document, called the
Declaration of Rights and Grievances, outlined the unconstitutionality of taxation without representation
and trials without juries. Meanwhile, popular protest was also gaining force.
Click and Explore
Browse the collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/masshist1) to examine digitized primary sources of the
documents that paved the way to the fight for liberty.
MOBILIZATION: POPULAR PROTEST AGAINST THE STAMP ACT

The Stamp Act Congress was a gathering of landowning, educated white men who represented the
political elite of the colonies and was the colonial equivalent of the British landed aristocracy. While
these gentry were drafting their grievances during the Stamp Act Congress, other colonists showed their
distaste for the new act by boycotting British goods and protesting in the streets. Two groups, the Sons of
Liberty and the Daughters of Liberty, led the popular resistance to the Stamp Act. Both groups considered
themselves British patriots defending their liberty, just as their forebears had done in the time of James II.
Forming in Boston in the summer of 1765, the Sons of Liberty were artisans, shopkeepers, and small-
time merchants willing to adopt extralegal means of protest. Before the act had even gone into effect, the
Sons of Liberty began protesting. On August 14, they took aim at Andrew Oliver, who had been named
the Massachusetts Distributor of Stamps. After hanging Oliver in effigy—that is, using a crudely made
figure as a representation of Oliver—the unruly crowd stoned and ransacked his house, finally beheading
the effigy and burning the remains. Such a brutal response shocked the royal governmental officials,
who hid until the violence had spent itself. Andrew Oliver resigned the next day. By that time, the mob
had moved on to the home of Lieutenant Governor Thomas Hutchinson who, because of his support
of Parliament’s actions, was considered an enemy of English liberty. The Sons of Liberty barricaded
Hutchinson in his home and demanded that he renounce the Stamp Act; he refused, and the protesters
looted and burned his house. Furthermore, the Sons (also called “True Sons” or “True-born Sons” to make
clear their commitment to liberty and distinguish them from the likes of Hutchinson) continued to lead
violent protests with the goal of securing the resignation of all appointed stamp collectors (Figure 5.8).
Figure 5.8 With this broadside of December 17, 1765, the Sons of Liberty call for the resignation of Andrew Oliver,
the Massachusetts Distributor of Stamps.
Starting in early 1766, the Daughters of Liberty protested the Stamp Act by refusing to buy British goods
and encouraging others to do the same. They avoided British tea, opting to make their own teas with local

herbs and berries. They built a community—and a movement—around creating homespun cloth instead
of buying British linen. Well-born women held “spinning bees,” at which they competed to see who could
spin the most and the finest linen. An entry in The Boston Chronicle of April 7, 1766, states that on March
12, in Providence, Rhode Island, “18 Daughters of Liberty, young ladies of good reputation, assembled at
the house of Doctor Ephraim Bowen, in this town. . . . There they exhibited a fine example of industry, by
spinning from sunrise until dark, and displayed a spirit for saving their sinking country rarely to be found
among persons of more age and experience.” At dinner, they “cheerfully agreed to omit tea, to render
their conduct consistent. Besides this instance of their patriotism, before they separated, they unanimously
resolved that the Stamp Act was unconstitutional, that they would purchase no more British manufactures
unless it be repealed, and that they would not even admit the addresses of any gentlemen should they
have the opportunity, without they determined to oppose its execution to the last extremity, if the occasion
required.”
The Daughters’ non-importation movement broadened the protest against the Stamp Act, giving women
a new and active role in the political dissent of the time. Women were responsible for purchasing goods for
the home, so by exercising the power of the purse, they could wield more power than they had in the past.
Although they could not vote, they could mobilize others and make a difference in the political landscape.
From a local movement, the protests of the Sons and Daughters of Liberty soon spread until there was a
chapter in every colony. The Daughters of Liberty promoted the boycott on British goods while the Sons
enforced it, threatening retaliation against anyone who bought imported goods or used stamped paper. In
the protest against the Stamp Act, wealthy, lettered political figures like John Adams supported the goals
of the Sons and Daughters of Liberty, even if they did not engage in the Sons’ violent actions. These men,
who were lawyers, printers, and merchants, ran a propaganda campaign parallel to the Sons’ campaign
of violence. In newspapers and pamphlets throughout the colonies, they published article after article
outlining the reasons the Stamp Act was unconstitutional and urging peaceful protest. They officially
condemned violent actions but did not have the protesters arrested; a degree of cooperation prevailed,
despite the groups’ different economic backgrounds. Certainly, all the protesters saw themselves as acting
in the best British tradition, standing up against the corruption (especially the extinguishing of their right
to representation) that threatened their liberty (Figure 5.9).
Figure 5.9 This 1766 illustration shows a funeral procession for the Stamp Act. Reverend William Scott leads the
procession of politicians who had supported the act, while a dog urinates on his leg. George Grenville, pictured fourth
in line, carries a small coffin. What point do you think this cartoon is trying to make?
THE DECLARATORY ACT

Back in Great Britain, news of the colonists’ reactions worsened an already volatile political situation.
Grenville’s imperial reforms had brought about increased domestic taxes and his unpopularity led to his
dismissal by King George III. While many in Parliament still wanted such reforms, British merchants
argued strongly for their repeal. These merchants had no interest in the philosophy behind the colonists’
desire for liberty; rather, their motive was that the non-importation of British goods by North American
colonists was hurting their business. Many of the British at home were also appalled by the colonists’
violent reaction to the Stamp Act. Other Britons cheered what they saw as the manly defense of liberty by
their counterparts in the colonies.
In March 1766, the new prime minister, Lord Rockingham, compelled Parliament to repeal the Stamp Act.
Colonists celebrated what they saw as a victory for their British liberty; in Boston, merchant John Hancock
treated the entire town to drinks. However, to appease opponents of the repeal, who feared that it would
weaken parliamentary power over the American colonists, Rockingham also proposed the Declaratory
Act. This stated in no uncertain terms that Parliament’s power was supreme and that any laws the colonies
may have passed to govern and tax themselves were null and void if they ran counter to parliamentary
law.

Click and Explore
Visit USHistory.org (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/decact) to read the full text of the

Declaratory Act, in which Parliament asserted the supremacy of parliamentary power.

• Describe the purpose of the 1767 Townshend Acts
• Explain why many colonists protested the 1767 Townshend Acts and the consequences
of their actions
Colonists’ joy over the repeal of the Stamp Act and what they saw as their defense of liberty did not last
long. The Declaratory Act of 1766 had articulated Great Britain’s supreme authority over the colonies, and
Parliament soon began exercising that authority. In 1767, with the passage of the Townshend Acts, a tax
on consumer goods in British North America, colonists believed their liberty as loyal British subjects had
come under assault for a second time.
THE TOWNSHEND ACTS

Lord Rockingham’s tenure as prime minister was not long (1765–1766). Rich landowners feared that if he
were not taxing the colonies, Parliament would raise their taxes instead, sacrificing them to the interests
of merchants and colonists. George III duly dismissed Rockingham. William Pitt, also sympathetic to the
colonists, succeeded him. However, Pitt was old and ill with gout. His chancellor of the exchequer, Charles
Townshend (Figure 5.10), whose job was to manage the Empire’s finances, took on many of his duties.
Primary among these was raising the needed revenue from the colonies.
Figure 5.10 Charles Townshend, chancellor of the exchequer, shown here in a 1765 painting by Joshua Reynolds,
instituted the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767 in order to raise money to support the British military presence in the
colonies.
Townshend’s first act was to deal with the unruly New York Assembly, which had voted not to pay for
supplies for the garrison of British soldiers that the Quartering Act required. In response, Townshend
proposed the Restraining Act of 1767, which disbanded the New York Assembly until it agreed to pay for
the garrison’s supplies, which it eventually agreed to do.
The Townshend Revenue Act of 1767 placed duties on various consumer items like paper, paint, lead,
tea, and glass. These British goods had to be imported, since the colonies did not have the manufacturing
base to produce them. Townshend hoped the new duties would not anger the colonists because they were
external taxes, not internal ones like the Stamp Act. In 1766, in arguing before Parliament for the repeal of
the Stamp Act, Benjamin Franklin had stated, “I never heard any objection to the right of laying duties to
regulate commerce; but a right to lay internal taxes was never supposed to be in parliament, as we are not
represented there.”
The Indemnity Act of 1767 exempted tea produced by the British East India Company from taxation
when it was imported into Great Britain. When the tea was re-exported to the colonies, however, the
colonists had to pay taxes on it because of the Revenue Act. Some critics of Parliament on both sides of
the Atlantic saw this tax policy as an example of corrupt politicians giving preferable treatment to specific
corporate interests, creating a monopoly. The sense that corruption had become entrenched in Parliament
only increased colonists’ alarm.
In fact, the revenue collected from these duties was only nominally intended to support the British army
in America. It actually paid the salaries of some royally appointed judges, governors, and other officials
whom the colonial assemblies had traditionally paid. Thanks to the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767,
however, these officials no longer relied on colonial leadership for payment. This change gave them a
measure of independence from the assemblies, so they could implement parliamentary acts without fear
that their pay would be withheld in retaliation. The Revenue Act thus appeared to sever the relationship

between governors and assemblies, drawing royal officials closer to the British government and further
away from the colonial legislatures.
The Revenue Act also gave the customs board greater powers to counteract smuggling. It granted “writs
of assistance”—basically, search warrants—to customs commissioners who suspected the presence of
contraband goods, which also opened the door to a new level of bribery and trickery on the waterfronts
of colonial America. Furthermore, to ensure compliance, Townshend introduced the Commissioners of
Customs Act of 1767, which created an American Board of Customs to enforce trade laws. Customs
enforcement had been based in Great Britain, but rules were difficult to implement at such a distance,
and smuggling was rampant. The new customs board was based in Boston and would severely curtail
smuggling in this large colonial seaport.
Townshend also orchestrated the Vice-Admiralty Court Act, which established three more vice-admiralty
courts, in Boston, Philadelphia, and Charleston, to try violators of customs regulations without a jury.
Before this, the only colonial vice-admiralty court had been in far-off Halifax, Nova Scotia, but with
three local courts, smugglers could be tried more efficiently. Since the judges of these courts were paid
a percentage of the worth of the goods they recovered, leniency was rare. All told, the Townshend Acts
resulted in higher taxes and stronger British power to enforce them. Four years after the end of the French
and Indian War, the Empire continued to search for solutions to its debt problem and the growing sense
that the colonies needed to be brought under control.
REACTIONS: THE NON-IMPORTATION MOVEMENT

Like the Stamp Act, the Townshend Acts produced controversy and protest in the American colonies. For
a second time, many colonists resented what they perceived as an effort to tax them without representation
and thus to deprive them of their liberty. The fact that the revenue the Townshend Acts raised would pay
royal governors only made the situation worse, because it took control away from colonial legislatures that
otherwise had the power to set and withhold a royal governor’s salary. The Restraining Act, which had
been intended to isolate New York without angering the other colonies, had the opposite effect, showing
the rest of the colonies how far beyond the British Constitution some members of Parliament were willing
to go.
The Townshend Acts generated a number of protest writings, including “Letters from a Pennsylvania
Farmer” by John Dickinson. In this influential pamphlet, which circulated widely in the colonies,
Dickinson conceded that the Empire could regulate trade but argued that Parliament could not impose
either internal taxes, like stamps, on goods or external taxes, like customs duties, on imports.
AMERICANA
“Address to the Ladies” Verse from The Boston Post-Boy and
Advertiser
This verse, which ran in a Boston newspaper in November 1767, highlights how women were
encouraged to take political action by boycotting British goods. Notice that the writer especially
encourages women to avoid British tea (Bohea and Green Hyson) and linen, and to manufacture their
own homespun cloth. Building on the protest of the 1765 Stamp Act by the Daughters of Liberty, the non-
importation movement of 1767–1768 mobilized women as political actors.
Young ladies in town, and those that live round,
Let a friend at this season advise you:
Since money’s so scarce, and times growing worse
Strange things may soon hap and surprize you:
First then, throw aside your high top knots of pride
Wear none but your own country linnen;
of economy boast, let your pride be the most
What, if homespun they say is not quite so gay
As brocades, yet be not in a passion,
For when once it is known this is much wore in town,
One and all will cry out, ’tis the fashion!
And as one, all agree that you’ll not married be
To such as will wear London Fact’ry:
But at first sight refuse, tell’em such you do chuse
As encourage our own Manufact’ry.
No more Ribbons wear, nor in rich dress appear,
Love your country much better than fine things,
Begin without passion, ’twill soon be the fashion
To grace your smooth locks with a twine string.
Throw aside your Bohea, and your Green Hyson Tea,
And all things with a new fashion duty;
Procure a good store of the choice Labradore,
For there’ll soon be enough here to suit ye;
These do without fear and to all you’ll appear
Fair, charming, true, lovely, and cleaver;
Tho’ the times remain darkish, young men may be sparkish.
And love you much stronger than ever. !O!
In Massachusetts in 1768, Samuel Adams wrote a letter that became known as the Massachusetts Circular.
Sent by the Massachusetts House of Representatives to the other colonial legislatures, the letter laid out
the unconstitutionality of taxation without representation and encouraged the other colonies to again
protest the taxes by boycotting British goods. Adams wrote, “It is, moreover, [the Massachusetts House
of Representatives] humble opinion, which they express with the greatest deference to the wisdom of the
Parliament, that the acts made there, imposing duties on the people of this province, with the sole and
express purpose of raising a revenue, are infringements of their natural and constitutional rights; because,
as they are not represented in the Parliament, his Majesty’s Commons in Britain, by those acts, grant their
property without their consent.” Note that even in this letter of protest, the humble and submissive tone
shows the Massachusetts Assembly’s continued deference to parliamentary authority. Even in that hotbed
of political protest, it is a clear expression of allegiance and the hope for a restoration of “natural and
constitutional rights.”
Great Britain’s response to this threat of disobedience served only to unite the colonies further. The
colonies’ initial response to the Massachusetts Circular was lukewarm at best. However, back in Great

Britain, the secretary of state for the colonies—Lord Hillsborough—demanded that Massachusetts retract
the letter, promising that any colonial assemblies that endorsed it would be dissolved. This threat had
the effect of pushing the other colonies to Massachusetts’s side. Even the city of Philadelphia, which had
originally opposed the Circular, came around.
The Daughters of Liberty once again supported and promoted the boycott of British goods. Women
resumed spinning bees and again found substitutes for British tea and other goods. Many colonial
merchants signed non-importation agreements, and the Daughters of Liberty urged colonial women to
shop only with those merchants. The Sons of Liberty used newspapers and circulars to call out by name
those merchants who refused to sign such agreements; sometimes they were threatened by violence. For
instance, a broadside from 1769–1770 reads:
WILLIAM JACKSON,
an IMPORTER;
at the BRAZEN HEAD,
North Side of the TOWN-HOUSE,
and Opposite the Town-Pump, [in]
Corn-hill, BOSTON
It is desired that the SONS
and DAUGHTERS of LIBERTY,
would not buy any one thing of
him, for in so doing they will bring
disgrace upon themselves, and their
Posterity, for ever and ever, AMEN.
The boycott in 1768–1769 turned the purchase of consumer goods into a political gesture. It mattered what
you consumed. Indeed, the very clothes you wore indicated whether you were a defender of liberty in
homespun or a protector of parliamentary rights in superfine British attire.
Click and Explore
For examples of the types of luxury items that many American colonists favored, visit
the National Humanities Center (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/britlux) to see
pictures and documents relating to home interiors of the wealthy.
TROUBLE IN BOSTON
The Massachusetts Circular got Parliament’s attention, and in 1768, Lord Hillsborough sent four thousand
British troops to Boston to deal with the unrest and put down any potential rebellion there. The troops
were a constant reminder of the assertion of British power over the colonies, an illustration of an unequal
relationship between members of the same empire. As an added aggravation, British soldiers moonlighted
as dockworkers, creating competition for employment. Boston’s labor system had traditionally been
closed, privileging native-born laborers over outsiders, and jobs were scarce. Many Bostonians, led by the
Sons of Liberty, mounted a campaign of harassment against British troops. The Sons of Liberty also helped
protect the smuggling actions of the merchants; smuggling was crucial for the colonists’ ability to maintain
their boycott of British goods.
John Hancock was one of Boston’s most successful merchants and prominent citizens. While he
maintained too high a profile to work actively with the Sons of Liberty, he was known to support their
aims, if not their means of achieving them. He was also one of the many prominent merchants who had
made their fortunes by smuggling, which was rampant in the colonial seaports. In 1768, customs officials
seized the Liberty, one of his ships, and violence erupted. Led by the Sons of Liberty, Bostonians rioted
against customs officials, attacking the customs house and chasing out the officers, who ran to safety at
Castle William, a British fort on a Boston harbor island. British soldiers crushed the riots, but over the next
few years, clashes between British officials and Bostonians became common.
Conflict turned deadly on March 5, 1770, in a confrontation that came to be known as the Boston Massacre.
On that night, a crowd of Bostonians from many walks of life started throwing snowballs, rocks, and
sticks at the British soldiers guarding the customs house. In the resulting scuffle, some soldiers, goaded by
the mob who hectored the soldiers as “lobster backs” (the reference to lobster equated the soldiers with
bottom feeders, i.e., aquatic animals that feed on the lowest organisms in the food chain), fired into the
crowd, killing five people. Crispus Attucks, the first man killed—and, though no one could have known it
then, the first official casualty in the war for independence—was of Wampanoag and African descent. The
bloodshed illustrated the level of hostility that had developed as a result of Boston’s occupation by British
troops, the competition for scarce jobs between Bostonians and the British soldiers stationed in the city,
and the larger question of Parliament’s efforts to tax the colonies.
The Sons of Liberty immediately seized on the event, characterizing the British soldiers as murderers
and their victims as martyrs. Paul Revere, a silversmith and member of the Sons of Liberty, circulated
an engraving that showed a line of grim redcoats firing ruthlessly into a crowd of unarmed, fleeing
civilians. Among colonists who resisted British power, this view of the “massacre” confirmed their fears
of a tyrannous government using its armies to curb the freedom of British subjects. But to others, the
attacking mob was equally to blame for pelting the British with rocks and insulting them.
It was not only British Loyalists who condemned the unruly mob. John Adams, one of the city’s strongest
supporters of peaceful protest against Parliament, represented the British soldiers at their murder trial.
Adams argued that the mob’s lawlessness required the soldiers’ response, and that without law and order,
a society was nothing. He argued further that the soldiers were the tools of a much broader program,
which transformed a street brawl into the injustice of imperial policy. Of the eight soldiers on trial, the jury
acquitted six, convicting the other two of the reduced charge of manslaughter.
Adams argued: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the
dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than
the fact; if an assault was made to endanger their lives, the law is clear, they had a right to kill in their
own defense; if it was not so severe as to endanger their lives, yet if they were assaulted at all, struck and
abused by blows of any sort, by snow-balls, oyster-shells, cinders, clubs, or sticks of any kind; this was
a provocation, for which the law reduces the offence of killing, down to manslaughter, in consideration
of those passions in our nature, which cannot be eradicated. To your candour and justice I submit the
prisoners and their cause.”

AMERICANA
Propaganda and the Sons of Liberty
Long after the British soldiers had been tried and punished, the Sons of Liberty maintained a relentless
propaganda campaign against British oppression. Many of them were printers or engravers, and they
were able to use public media to sway others to their cause. Shortly after the incident outside the
customs house, Paul Revere created “The bloody massacre perpetrated in King Street Boston on March
5th 1770 by a party of the 29th Regt.” (Figure 5.11), based on an image by engraver Henry Pelham.
The picture—which represents only the protesters’ point of view—shows the ruthlessness of the British
soldiers and the helplessness of the crowd of civilians. Notice the subtle details Revere uses to help
convince the viewer of the civilians’ innocence and the soldiers’ cruelty. Although eyewitnesses said the
crowd started the fight by throwing snowballs and rocks, in the engraving they are innocently standing
by. Revere also depicts the crowd as well dressed and well-to-do, when in fact they were laborers and
probably looked quite a bit rougher.
Figure 5.11 The Sons of Liberty circulated this sensationalized version of the events of March 5, 1770,
in order to promote the rightness of their cause. The verses below the image begin as follows:
“Unhappy Boston! see thy Sons deplore, Thy hallowed Walks besmeared with guiltless Gore.”
Newspaper articles and pamphlets that the Sons of Liberty circulated implied that the “massacre” was a
planned murder. In the Boston Gazette on March 12, 1770, an article describes the soldiers as striking
first. It goes on to discuss this version of the events: “On hearing the noise, one Samuel Atwood came up
to see what was the matter; and entering the alley from dock square, heard the latter part of the combat;
and when the boys had dispersed he met the ten or twelve soldiers aforesaid rushing down the alley
towards the square and asked them if they intended to murder people? They answered Yes, by God, root
and branch! With that one of them struck Mr. Atwood with a club which was repeated by another; and
being unarmed, he turned to go off and received a wound on the left shoulder which reached the bone
and gave him much pain.”
What do you think most people in the United States think of when they consider the Boston Massacre?
How does the propaganda of the Sons of Liberty still affect the way we think of this event?
PARTIAL REPEAL
As it turned out, the Boston Massacre occurred after Parliament had partially repealed the Townshend
Acts. By the late 1760s, the American boycott of British goods had drastically reduced British trade. Once
again, merchants who lost money because of the boycott strongly pressured Parliament to loosen its
restrictions on the colonies and break the non-importation movement. Charles Townshend died suddenly
in 1767 and was replaced by Lord North, who was inclined to look for a more workable solution with
the colonists. North convinced Parliament to drop all the Townshend duties except the tax on tea. The
administrative and enforcement provisions under the Townshend Acts—the American Board of Customs
Commissioners and the vice-admiralty courts—remained in place.
To those who had protested the Townshend Acts for several years, the partial repeal appeared to be a
major victory. For a second time, colonists had rescued liberty from an unconstitutional parliamentary
measure. The hated British troops in Boston departed. The consumption of British goods skyrocketed after
the partial repeal, an indication of the American colonists’ desire for the items linking them to the Empire.

• Describe the socio-political environment in the colonies in the early 1770s
• Explain the purpose of the Tea Act of 1773 and discuss colonial reactions to it
• Identify and describe the Coercive Acts
The Tea Act of 1773 triggered a reaction with far more significant consequences than either the 1765 Stamp
Act or the 1767 Townshend Acts. Colonists who had joined in protest against those earlier acts renewed
their efforts in 1773. They understood that Parliament had again asserted its right to impose taxes without
representation, and they feared the Tea Act was designed to seduce them into conceding this important
principle by lowering the price of tea to the point that colonists might abandon their scruples. They also
deeply resented the East India Company’s monopoly on the sale of tea in the American colonies; this
resentment sprang from the knowledge that some members of Parliament had invested heavily in the
company.
SMOLDERING RESENTMENT
Even after the partial repeal of the Townshend duties, however, suspicion of Parliament’s intentions
remained high. This was especially true in port cities like Boston and New York, where British customs
agents were a daily irritant and reminder of British power. In public houses and squares, people met
and discussed politics. Philosopher John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, published almost a century
earlier, influenced political thought about the role of government to protect life, liberty, and property. The
Sons of Liberty issued propaganda ensuring that colonists remained aware when Parliament overreached
itself.
Violence continued to break out on occasion, as in 1772, when Rhode Island colonists boarded and burned
the British revenue ship Gaspée in Narragansett Bay (Figure 5.12). Colonists had attacked or burned
British customs ships in the past, but after the Gaspée Affair, the British government convened a Royal
Commission of Inquiry. This Commission had the authority to remove the colonists, who were charged
with treason, to Great Britain for trial. Some colonial protestors saw this new ability as another example of
the overreach of British power.

Figure 5.12 This 1883 engraving, which appeared in Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, depicts the burning of the
Gaspée. This attack provoked the British government to convene a Royal Commission of Inquiry; some regarded the
Commission as an example of excessive British power and control over the colonies.
Samuel Adams, along with Joseph Warren and James Otis, re-formed the Boston Committee of
Correspondence, which functioned as a form of shadow government, to address the fear of British
overreach. Soon towns all over Massachusetts had formed their own committees, and many other colonies
followed suit. These committees, which had between seven and eight thousand members in all, identified
enemies of the movement and communicated the news of the day. Sometimes they provided a version
of events that differed from royal interpretations, and slowly, the committees began to supplant royal
governments as sources of information. They later formed the backbone of communication among the
colonies in the rebellion against the Tea Act, and eventually in the revolt against the British crown.
THE TEA ACT OF 1773

Parliament did not enact the Tea Act of 1773 in order to punish the colonists, assert parliamentary power,
or even raise revenues. Rather, the act was a straightforward order of economic protectionism for a British
tea firm, the East India Company, that was on the verge of bankruptcy. In the colonies, tea was the one
remaining consumer good subject to the hated Townshend duties. Protest leaders and their followers still
avoided British tea, drinking smuggled Dutch tea as a sign of patriotism.
The Tea Act of 1773 gave the British East India Company the ability to export its tea directly to the
colonies without paying import or export duties and without using middlemen in either Great Britain or
the colonies. Even with the Townshend tax, the act would allow the East India Company to sell its tea at
lower prices than the smuggled Dutch tea, thus undercutting the smuggling trade.
This act was unwelcome to those in British North America who had grown displeased with the pattern of
imperial measures. By granting a monopoly to the East India Company, the act not only cut out colonial
merchants who would otherwise sell the tea themselves; it also reduced their profits from smuggled
foreign tea. These merchants were among the most powerful and influential people in the colonies, so
their dissatisfaction carried some weight. Moreover, because the tea tax that the Townshend Acts imposed
remained in place, tea had intense power to symbolize the idea of “no taxation without representation.”
COLONIAL PROTEST: THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEA

The 1773 act reignited the worst fears among the colonists. To the Sons and Daughters of Liberty and those
who followed them, the act appeared to be proof positive that a handful of corrupt members of Parliament
were violating the British Constitution. Veterans of the protest movement had grown accustomed to
interpreting British actions in the worst possible light, so the 1773 act appeared to be part of a large
conspiracy against liberty.
As they had done to protest earlier acts and taxes, colonists responded to the Tea Act with a boycott. The
Committees of Correspondence helped to coordinate resistance in all of the colonial port cities, so up and
down the East Coast, British tea-carrying ships were unable to come to shore and unload their wares. In
Charlestown, Boston, Philadelphia, and New York, the equivalent of millions of dollars’ worth of tea was
held hostage, either locked in storage warehouses or rotting in the holds of ships as they were forced to
sail back to Great Britain.
In Boston, Thomas Hutchinson, now the royal governor of Massachusetts, vowed that radicals like Samuel
Adams would not keep the ships from unloading their cargo. He urged the merchants who would have
accepted the tea from the ships to stand their ground and receive the tea once it had been unloaded. When
the Dartmouth sailed into Boston Harbor in November 1773, it had twenty days to unload its cargo of tea
and pay the duty before it had to return to Great Britain. Two more ships, the Eleanor and the Beaver,
followed soon after. Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty tried to keep the captains of the ships from
paying the duties and posted groups around the ships to make sure the tea would not be unloaded.
On December 16, just as the Dartmouth’s deadline approached, townspeople gathered at the Old South
Meeting House determined to take action. From this gathering, a group of Sons of Liberty and their
followers approached the three ships. Some were disguised as Mohawks. Protected by a crowd of
spectators, they systematically dumped all the tea into the harbor, destroying goods worth almost $1
million in today’s dollars, a very significant loss. This act soon inspired further acts of resistance up and
down the East Coast. However, not all colonists, and not even all Patriots, supported the dumping of the
tea. The wholesale destruction of property shocked people on both sides of the Atlantic.
Click and Explore
To learn more about the Boston Tea Party, explore the extensive resources in the
Boston Tea Party Ships and Museum collection (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/
teapartyship) of articles, photos, and video. At the museum itself, you can board
replicas of the Eleanor and the Beaver and experience a recreation of the dumping of
the tea.
PARLIAMENT RESPONDS: THE COERCIVE ACTS

In London, response to the destruction of the tea was swift and strong. The violent destruction of property
infuriated King George III and the prime minister, Lord North (Figure 5.13), who insisted the loss be
repaid. Though some American merchants put forward a proposal for restitution, the Massachusetts
Assembly refused to make payments. Massachusetts’s resistance to British authority united different
factions in Great Britain against the colonies. North had lost patience with the unruly British subjects in
Boston. He declared: “The Americans have tarred and feathered your subjects, plundered your merchants,
burnt your ships, denied all obedience to your laws and authority; yet so clement and so long forbearing
has our conduct been that it is incumbent on us now to take a different course. Whatever may be the

consequences, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over.” Both Parliament and the king agreed that
Massachusetts should be forced to both pay for the tea and yield to British authority.
Figure 5.13 Lord North, seen here in Portrait of Frederick North, Lord North (1773–1774), painted by Nathaniel
Dance, was prime minister at the time of the destruction of the tea and insisted that Massachusetts make good on the
loss.
In early 1774, leaders in Parliament responded with a set of four measures designed to punish
Massachusetts, commonly known at the Coercive Acts. The Boston Port Bill shut down Boston Harbor
until the East India Company was repaid. The Massachusetts Government Act placed the colonial
government under the direct control of crown officials and made traditional town meetings subject to the
governor’s approval. The Administration of Justice Act allowed the royal governor to unilaterally move
any trial of a crown officer out of Massachusetts, a change designed to prevent hostile Massachusetts juries
from deciding these cases. This act was especially infuriating to John Adams and others who emphasized
the time-honored rule of law. They saw this part of the Coercive Acts as striking at the heart of fair and
equitable justice. Finally, the Quartering Act encompassed all the colonies and allowed British troops to be
housed in occupied buildings.
At the same time, Parliament also passed the Quebec Act, which expanded the boundaries of Quebec
westward and extended religious tolerance to Roman Catholics in the province. For many Protestant
colonists, especially Congregationalists in New England, this forced tolerance of Catholicism was the most
objectionable provision of the act. Additionally, expanding the boundaries of Quebec raised troubling
questions for many colonists who eyed the West, hoping to expand the boundaries of their provinces. The
Quebec Act appeared gratuitous, a slap in the face to colonists already angered by the Coercive Acts.
American Patriots renamed the Coercive and Quebec measures the Intolerable Acts. Some in London
also thought the acts went too far; see the cartoon “The Able Doctor, or America Swallowing the Bitter
Draught” (Figure 5.14) for one British view of what Parliament was doing to the colonies. Meanwhile,
punishments designed to hurt only one colony (Massachusetts, in this case) had the effect of mobilizing
all the colonies to its side. The Committees of Correspondence had already been active in coordinating an
approach to the Tea Act. Now the talk would turn to these new, intolerable assaults on the colonists’ rights
as British subjects.
Figure 5.14 The artist of “The Able Doctor, or America Swallowing the Bitter Draught” (London Magazine, May 1,
1774) targets select members of Parliament as the perpetrators of a devilish scheme to overturn the constitution; this
is why Mother Britannia weeps. Note that this cartoon came from a British publication; Great Britain was not united in
support of Parliament’s policies toward the American colonies.
5.5 Disaffection: The First Continental Congress and American

Identity

• Describe the state of affairs between the colonies and the home government in 1774
• Explain the purpose and results of the First Continental Congress
Disaffection—the loss of affection toward the home government—had reached new levels by 1774. Many
colonists viewed the Intolerable Acts as a turning point; they now felt they had to take action. The result
was the First Continental Congress, a direct challenge to Lord North and British authority in the colonies.
Still, it would be a mistake to assume there was a groundswell of support for separating from the British
Empire and creating a new, independent nation. Strong ties still bound the Empire together, and colonists
did not agree about the proper response. Loyalists tended to be property holders, established residents
who feared the loss of their property. To them the protests seemed to promise nothing but mob rule, and
the violence and disorder they provoked were shocking. On both sides of the Atlantic, opinions varied.
After the passage of the Intolerable Acts in 1774, the Committees of Correspondence and the Sons of
Liberty went straight to work, spreading warnings about how the acts would affect the liberty of all
colonists, not just urban merchants and laborers. The Massachusetts Government Act had shut down the
colonial government there, but resistance-minded colonists began meeting in extralegal assemblies. One of
these assemblies, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, passed the Suffolk Resolves in September 1774,
which laid out a plan of resistance to the Intolerable Acts. Meanwhile, the First Continental Congress was
convening to discuss how to respond to the acts themselves.
The First Continental Congress was made up of elected representatives of twelve of the thirteen American
colonies. (Georgia’s royal governor blocked the move to send representatives from that colony, an
indication of the continued strength of the royal government despite the crisis.) The representatives met
in Philadelphia from September 5 through October 26, 1774, and at first they did not agree at all about the
appropriate response to the Intolerable Acts. Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania argued for a conciliatory
approach; he proposed that an elected Grand Council in America, like the Parliament in Great Britain,

should be paired with a royally appointed President General, who would represent the authority of the
Crown. More radical factions argued for a move toward separation from the Crown.
In the end, Paul Revere rode from Massachusetts to Philadelphia with the Suffolk Resolves, which became
the basis of the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress. In the Declaration and
Resolves, adopted on October 14, the colonists demanded the repeal of all repressive acts passed since 1773
and agreed to a non-importation, non-exportation, and non-consumption pact against all British goods
until the acts were repealed. In the “Petition of Congress to the King” on October 24, the delegates adopted
a further recommendation of the Suffolk Resolves and proposed that the colonies raise and regulate their
own militias.
The representatives at the First Continental Congress created a Continental Association to ensure that the
full boycott was enforced across all the colonies. The Continental Association served as an umbrella group
for colonial and local committees of observation and inspection. By taking these steps, the First Continental
Congress established a governing network in opposition to royal authority.
Click and Explore
Visit the Massachusetts Historical Society (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

firstcongress) to see a digitized copy and read the transcript of the First Continental
Congress’s petition to King George.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
The First List of Un-American Activities
In her book Toward A More Perfect Union: Virtue and the Formation of American Republics, historian
Ann Fairfax Withington explores actions the delegates to the First Continental Congress took during the
weeks they were together. Along with their efforts to bring about the repeal of the Intolerable Acts, the
delegates also banned certain activities they believed would undermine their fight against what they saw
as British corruption.
In particular, the delegates prohibited horse races, cockfights, the theater, and elaborate funerals. The
reasons for these prohibitions provide insight into the state of affairs in 1774. Both horse races and
cockfights encouraged gambling and, for the delegates, gambling threatened to prevent the unity of
action and purpose they desired. In addition, cockfighting appeared immoral and corrupt because the
roosters were fitted with razors and fought to the death (Figure 5.15).
Figure 5.15 Cockfights, as depicted in The Cockpit (1759) by British artist and engraver William
Hogarth, were among the entertainments the First Continental Congress sought to outlaw, considering
them un-American.
The ban on the theater aimed to do away with another corrupt British practice. Critics had long believed
that theatrical performances drained money from working people. Moreover, they argued, theatergoers
learned to lie and deceive from what they saw on stage. The delegates felt banning the theater would
demonstrate their resolve to act honestly and without pretence in their fight against corruption.
Finally, eighteenth-century mourning practices often required lavish spending on luxury items and even
the employment of professional mourners who, for a price, would shed tears at the grave. Prohibiting
these practices reflected the idea that luxury bred corruption, and the First Continental Congress wanted
to demonstrate that the colonists would do without British vices. Congress emphasized the need to be
frugal and self-sufficient when confronted with corruption.
The First Continental Congress banned all four activities—horse races, cockfights, the theater, and
elaborate funerals—and entrusted the Continental Association with enforcement. Rejecting what they
saw as corruption coming from Great Britain, the delegates were also identifying themselves as standing
apart from their British relatives. They cast themselves as virtuous defenders of liberty against a corrupt
Parliament.
In the Declaration and Resolves and the Petition of Congress to the King, the delegates to the First
Continental Congress refer to George III as “Most Gracious Sovereign” and to themselves as “inhabitants

of the English colonies in North America” or “inhabitants of British America,” indicating that they still
considered themselves British subjects of the king, not American citizens. At the same time, however, they
were slowly moving away from British authority, creating their own de facto government in the First
Continental Congress. One of the provisions of the Congress was that it meet again in one year to mark its
progress; the Congress was becoming an elected government.
Key Terms
Boston Massacre a confrontation between a crowd of Bostonians and British soldiers on March 5, 1770,
which resulted in the deaths of five people, including Crispus Attucks, the first official casualty in the war
for independence
Coercive Acts four acts (Administration of Justice Act, Massachusetts Government Act, Port Bill,
Quartering Act) that Lord North passed to punish Massachusetts for destroying the tea and refusing to
pay for the damage
Committees of Correspondence colonial extralegal shadow governments that convened to coordinate

plans of resistance against the British
Daughters of Liberty well-born British colonial women who led a non-importation movement against
British goods
direct tax a tax that consumers pay directly, rather than through merchants’ higher prices
indirect tax a tax imposed on businesses, rather than directly on consumers
Intolerable Acts the name American Patriots gave to the Coercive Acts and the Quebec Act
Loyalists colonists in America who were loyal to Great Britain
Massachusetts Circular a letter penned by Son of Liberty Samuel Adams that laid out the
unconstitutionality of taxation without representation and encouraged the other colonies to boycott
British goods
no taxation without representation the principle, first articulated in the Virginia Stamp Act Resolutions,
that the colonists needed to be represented in Parliament if they were to be taxed
non-importation movement a widespread colonial boycott of British goods
Proclamation Line a line along the Appalachian Mountains, imposed by the Proclamation of 1763, west
of which British colonists could not settle
Sons of Liberty artisans, shopkeepers, and small-time merchants who opposed the Stamp Act and
considered themselves British patriots
Suffolk Resolves a Massachusetts plan of resistance to the Intolerable Acts that formed the basis of the
eventual plan adopted by the First Continental Congress for resisting the British, including the arming of
militias and the adoption of a widespread non-importation, non-exportation, and non-consumption
agreement
vice-admiralty courts British royal courts without juries that settled disputes occurring at sea
Summary
5.1 Confronting the National Debt: The Aftermath of the French and Indian War
The British Empire had gained supremacy in North America with its victory over the French in 1763.
Almost all of the North American territory east of the Mississippi fell under Great Britain’s control, and
British leaders took this opportunity to try to create a more coherent and unified empire after decades of
lax oversight. Victory over the French had proved very costly, and the British government attempted to
better regulate their expanded empire in North America. The initial steps the British took in 1763 and 1764

raised suspicions among some colonists about the intent of the home government. These suspicions would
grow and swell over the coming years.
Though Parliament designed the 1765 Stamp Act to deal with the financial crisis in the Empire, it had
unintended consequences. Outrage over the act created a degree of unity among otherwise unconnected
American colonists, giving them a chance to act together both politically and socially. The crisis of the
Stamp Act allowed colonists to loudly proclaim their identity as defenders of British liberty. With the
repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766, liberty-loving subjects of the king celebrated what they viewed as a
victory.

Like the Stamp Act in 1765, the Townshend Acts led many colonists to work together against what
they perceived to be an unconstitutional measure, generating the second major crisis in British Colonial
America. The experience of resisting the Townshend Acts provided another shared experience among
colonists from diverse regions and backgrounds, while the partial repeal convinced many that liberty had
once again been defended. Nonetheless, Great Britain’s debt crisis still had not been solved.

The colonial rejection of the Tea Act, especially the destruction of the tea in Boston Harbor, recast the
decade-long argument between British colonists and the home government as an intolerable conspiracy
against liberty and an excessive overreach of parliamentary power. The Coercive Acts were punitive in
nature, awakening the worst fears of otherwise loyal members of the British Empire in America.
5.5 Disaffection: The First Continental Congress and American Identity

The First Continental Congress, which comprised elected representatives from twelve of the thirteen
American colonies, represented a direct challenge to British authority. In its Declaration and Resolves,
colonists demanded the repeal of all repressive acts passed since 1773. The delegates also recommended
that the colonies raise militias, lest the British respond to the Congress’s proposed boycott of British goods
with force. While the colonists still considered themselves British subjects, they were slowly retreating
from British authority, creating their own de facto government via the First Continental Congress.
Review Questions
1. Which of the following was a cause of the C. It strengthened enforcement of molasses
British National Debt in 1763? smuggling laws.
A. drought in Great Britain D. It required colonists to purchase only sugar
B. the French and Indian War distilled in Great Britain.
C. the continued British military presence in
the American colonies 3. What did British colonists find so onerous
D. both B and C about the acts that Prime Minister Grenville
passed?
2. What was the main purpose of the Sugar Act of
1764? 4. Which of the following was not a goal of the
A. It raised taxes on sugar. Stamp Act?
B. It raised taxes on molasses. A. to gain control over the colonists
B. to raise revenue for British troops stationed A. Colonists believed that the British response
in the colonies represented an overreach of power.
C. to raise revenue to pay off British debt from B. It was the first time colonists attacked a
the French and Indian War revenue ship.
D. to declare null and void any laws the C. It was the occasion of the first official death
colonies had passed to govern and tax in the war for independence.
themselves D. The ship’s owner, John Hancock, was a
respectable Boston merchant.
5. For which of the following activities were the
Sons of Liberty responsible? 10. What was the purpose of the Tea Act of 1773?
A. the Stamp Act Congress A. to punish the colonists for their boycotting
B. the hanging and beheading of a stamp of British tea
commissioner in effigy B. to raise revenue to offset the British
C. the massacre of Conestoga in Pennsylvania national debt
D. the introduction of the Virginia Stamp Act C. to help revive the struggling East India
Resolutions Company
D. to pay the salaries of royal appointees
6. Which of the following was not one of the goals
of the Townshend Acts? 11. What was the significance of the Committees
A. higher taxes of Correspondence?
B. greater colonial unity
C. greater British control over the colonies 12. Which of the following was decided at the
D. reduced power of the colonial governments First Continental Congress?
A. to declare war on Great Britain
7. Which event was most responsible for the B. to boycott all British goods and prepare for
colonies’ endorsement of Samuel Adams’s possible military action
Massachusetts Circular? C. to offer a conciliatory treaty to Great Britain
A. the Townshend Duties D. to pay for the tea that was dumped in
B. the Indemnity Act Boston Harbor
C. the Boston Massacre
D. Lord Hillsborough’s threat to dissolve the 13. Which colony provided the basis for the
colonial assemblies that endorsed the letter Declarations and Resolves?
A. Massachusetts
8. What factors contributed to the Boston B. Philadelphia
Massacre? C. Rhode Island
D. New York
9. Which of the following is true of the Gaspée
affair?

14. Was reconciliation between the American colonies and Great Britain possible in 1774? Why or why
not?
15. Look again at the painting that opened this chapter: The Bostonians Paying the Excise-man, or Tarring
and Feathering (Figure 5.1). How does this painting represent the relationship between Great Britain and
the American colonies in the years from 1763 to 1774?
16. Why did the colonists react so much more strongly to the Stamp Act than to the Sugar Act? How did
the principles that the Stamp Act raised continue to provide points of contention between colonists and
the British government?

17. History is filled with unintended consequences. How do the British government’s attempts to control
and regulate the colonies during this tumultuous era provide a case in point? How did the aims of the
British measure up against the results of their actions?
18. What evidence indicates that colonists continued to think of themselves as British subjects throughout
this era? What evidence suggests that colonists were beginning to forge a separate, collective “American”
identity? How would you explain this shift?

Chapter 6 America's War for Independence, 1775-1783 157
CHAPTER 6
America's War for Independence,

1775-1783
Figure 6.1 This famous 1819 painting by John Trumbull shows members of the committee entrusted with drafting
the Declaration of Independence presenting their work to the Continental Congress in 1776. Note the British flags on
the wall. Separating from the British Empire proved to be very difficult as the colonies and the Empire were linked
with strong cultural, historical, and economic bonds forged over several generations.
Chapter Outline
6.1 Britain’s Law-and-Order Strategy and Its Consequences
6.2 The Early Years of the Revolution
6.3 War in the South
6.4 Identity during the American Revolution
Introduction
By the 1770s, Great Britain ruled a vast empire, with its American colonies producing useful raw materials
and profitably consuming British goods. From Britain’s perspective, it was inconceivable that the colonies
would wage a successful war for independence; in 1776, they appeared weak and disorganized, no match
for the Empire. Yet, although the Revolutionary War did indeed drag on for eight years, in 1783, the
thirteen colonies, now the United States, ultimately prevailed against the British.
The Revolution succeeded because colonists from diverse economic and social backgrounds united in their
opposition to Great Britain. Although thousands of colonists remained loyal to the crown and many others
preferred to remain neutral, a sense of community against a common enemy prevailed among Patriots.
The signing of the Declaration of Independence (Figure 6.1) exemplifies the spirit of that common cause.
Representatives asserted: “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent
States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, . . . And for the support of this
Declaration, . . . we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
158 Chapter 6 America's War for Independence, 1775-1783

• Explain how Great Britain’s response to the destruction of a British shipment of tea in
Boston Harbor in 1773 set the stage for the Revolution
• Describe the beginnings of the American Revolution
Great Britain pursued a policy of law and order when dealing with the crises in the colonies in the late
1760s and 1770s. Relations between the British and many American Patriots worsened over the decade,
culminating in an unruly mob destroying a fortune in tea by dumping it into Boston Harbor in December
1773 as a protest against British tax laws. The harsh British response to this act in 1774, which included
sending British troops to Boston and closing Boston Harbor, caused tensions and resentments to escalate
further. The British tried to disarm the insurgents in Massachusetts by confiscating their weapons and
ammunition and arresting the leaders of the patriotic movement. However, this effort faltered on April 19,
when Massachusetts militias and British troops fired on each other as British troops marched to Lexington
and Concord, an event immortalized by poet Ralph Waldo Emerson as the “shot heard round the world.”
The American Revolution had begun.
ON THE EVE OF REVOLUTION

The decade from 1763 to 1774 was a difficult one for the British Empire. Although Great Britain had
defeated the French in the French and Indian War, the debt from that conflict remained a stubborn and
seemingly unsolvable problem for both Great Britain and the colonies. Great Britain tried various methods
of raising revenue on both sides of the Atlantic to manage the enormous debt, including instituting a tax
on tea and other goods sold to the colonies by British companies, but many subjects resisted these taxes. In
the colonies, Patriot groups like the Sons of Liberty led boycotts of British goods and took violent measures
that stymied British officials.
Boston proved to be the epicenter of protest. In December 1773, a group of Patriots protested the Tea Act
passed that year—which, among other provisions, gave the East India Company a monopoly on tea—by
Figure 6.2

boarding British tea ships docked in Boston Harbor and dumping tea worth over $1 million (in current
prices) into the water. The destruction of the tea radically escalated the crisis between Great Britain and
the American colonies. When the Massachusetts Assembly refused to pay for the tea, Parliament enacted
a series of laws called the Coercive Acts, which some colonists called the Intolerable Acts. Parliament
designed these laws, which closed the port of Boston, limited the meetings of the colonial assembly, and
disbanded all town meetings, to punish Massachusetts and bring the colony into line. However, many
British Americans in other colonies were troubled and angered by Parliament’s response to Massachusetts.
In September and October 1774, all the colonies except Georgia participated in the First Continental
Congress in Philadelphia. The Congress advocated a boycott of all British goods and established the
Continental Association to enforce local adherence to the boycott. The Association supplanted royal
control and shaped resistance to Great Britain.
AMERICANA
Joining the Boycott
Many British colonists in Virginia, as in the other colonies, disapproved of the destruction of the tea
in Boston Harbor. However, after the passage of the Coercive Acts, the Virginia House of Burgesses
declared its solidarity with Massachusetts by encouraging Virginians to observe a day of fasting and
prayer on May 24 in sympathy with the people of Boston. Almost immediately thereafter, Virginia’s
colonial governor dissolved the House of Burgesses, but many of its members met again in secret on
May 30 and adopted a resolution stating that “the Colony of Virginia will concur with the other Colonies in
such Measures as shall be judged most effectual for the preservation of the Common Rights and Liberty
of British America.”
After the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, Virginia’s Committee of Safety ensured that all
merchants signed the non-importation agreements that the Congress had proposed. This British cartoon
(Figure 6.3) shows a Virginian signing the Continental Association boycott agreement.
Figure 6.3 In “The Alternative of Williams-Burg” (1775), a merchant has to sign a non-importation
agreement or risk being covered with the tar and feathers suspended behind him.
Note the tar and feathers hanging from the gallows in the background of this image and the demeanor of
the people surrounding the signer. What is the message of this engraving? Where are the sympathies of
the artist? What is the meaning of the title “The Alternative of Williams-Burg?”
In an effort to restore law and order in Boston, the British dispatched General Thomas Gage to the
New England seaport. He arrived in Boston in May 1774 as the new royal governor of the Province of
Massachusetts, accompanied by several regiments of British troops. As in 1768, the British again occupied
the town. Massachusetts delegates met in a Provincial Congress and published the Suffolk Resolves, which
officially rejected the Coercive Acts and called for the raising of colonial militias to take military action if
needed. The Suffolk Resolves signaled the overthrow of the royal government in Massachusetts.
Both the British and the rebels in New England began to prepare for conflict by turning their attention to
supplies of weapons and gunpowder. General Gage stationed thirty-five hundred troops in Boston, and
from there he ordered periodic raids on towns where guns and gunpowder were stockpiled, hoping to
impose law and order by seizing them. As Boston became the headquarters of British military operations,
many residents fled the city.
Gage’s actions led to the formation of local rebel militias that were able to mobilize in a minute’s time.
These minutemen, many of whom were veterans of the French and Indian War, played an important
role in the war for independence. In one instance, General Gage seized munitions in Cambridge and
Charlestown, but when he arrived to do the same in Salem, his troops were met by a large crowd of
minutemen and had to leave empty-handed. In New Hampshire, minutemen took over Fort William and
Mary and confiscated weapons and cannons there. New England readied for war.
THE OUTBREAK OF FIGHTING

Throughout late 1774 and into 1775, tensions in New England continued to mount. General Gage knew
that a powder magazine was stored in Concord, Massachusetts, and on April 19, 1775, he ordered troops
to seize these munitions. Instructions from London called for the arrest of rebel leaders Samuel Adams and
John Hancock. Hoping for secrecy, his troops left Boston under cover of darkness, but riders from Boston
let the militias know of the British plans. (Paul Revere was one of these riders, but the British captured
him and he never finished his ride. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow memorialized Revere in his 1860 poem,
“Paul Revere’s Ride,” incorrectly implying that he made it all the way to Concord.) Minutemen met the
British troops and skirmished with them, first at Lexington and then at Concord (Figure 6.4). The British
retreated to Boston, enduring ambushes from several other militias along the way. Over four thousand
militiamen took part in these skirmishes with British soldiers. Seventy-three British soldiers and forty-
nine Patriots died during the British retreat to Boston. The famous confrontation is the basis for Emerson’s
“Concord Hymn” (1836), which begins with the description of the “shot heard round the world.” Although
propagandists on both sides pointed fingers, it remains unclear who fired that shot.
Figure 6.4 Amos Doolittle was an American printmaker who volunteered to fight against the British. His engravings
of the battles of Lexington and Concord—such as this detail from The Battle of Lexington, April 19th 1775—are the
only contemporary American visual records of the events there.

After the battles of Lexington and Concord, New England fully mobilized for war. Thousands of militias
from towns throughout New England marched to Boston, and soon the city was besieged by a sea of rebel
forces (Figure 6.5). In May 1775, Ethan Allen and Colonel Benedict Arnold led a group of rebels against
Fort Ticonderoga in New York. They succeeded in capturing the fort, and cannons from Ticonderoga were
brought to Massachusetts and used to bolster the Siege of Boston.
Figure 6.5 This 1779 map shows details of the British and Patriot troops in and around Boston, Massachusetts, at
the beginning of the war.
In June, General Gage resolved to take Breed’s Hill and Bunker Hill, the high ground across the Charles
River from Boston, a strategic site that gave the rebel militias an advantage since they could train their
cannons on the British. In the Battle of Bunker Hill (Figure 6.6), on June 17, the British launched three
assaults on the hills, gaining control only after the rebels ran out of ammunition. British losses were very
high—over two hundred were killed and eight hundred wounded—and, despite his victory, General Gage
was unable to break the colonial forces’ siege of the city. In August, King George III declared the colonies
to be in a state of rebellion. Parliament and many in Great Britain agreed with their king. Meanwhile, the
British forces in Boston found themselves in a terrible predicament, isolated in the city and with no control
over the countryside.
Figure 6.6 The British cartoon “Bunkers Hill or America’s Head Dress” (a) depicts the initial rebellion as an elaborate
colonial coiffure. The illustration pokes fun at both the colonial rebellion and the overdone hairstyles for women that
had made their way from France and Britain to the American colonies. Despite gaining control of the high ground
after the colonial militias ran out of ammunition, General Thomas Gage (b), shown here in a painting made in
1768–1769 by John Singleton Copley, was unable to break the siege of the city.
In the end, General George Washington, commander in chief of the Continental Army since June 15, 1775,
used the Fort Ticonderoga cannons to force the evacuation of the British from Boston. Washington had
positioned these cannons on the hills overlooking both the fortified positions of the British and Boston
Harbor, where the British supply ships were anchored. The British could not return fire on the colonial
positions because they could not elevate their cannons. They soon realized that they were in an untenable
position and had to withdraw from Boston. On March 17, 1776, the British evacuated their troops to
Halifax, Nova Scotia, ending the nearly year-long siege.
By the time the British withdrew from Boston, fighting had broken out in other colonies as well. In May
1775, Mecklenburg County in North Carolina issued the Mecklenburg Resolves, stating that a rebellion
against Great Britain had begun, that colonists did not owe any further allegiance to Great Britain, and
that governing authority had now passed to the Continental Congress. The resolves also called upon the
formation of militias to be under the control of the Continental Congress. Loyalists and Patriots clashed in
North Carolina in February 1776 at the Battle of Moore’s Creek Bridge.
In Virginia, the royal governor, Lord Dunmore, raised Loyalist forces to combat the rebel colonists and also
tried to use the large slave population to put down the rebellion. In November 1775, he issued a decree,
known as Dunmore’s Proclamation, promising freedom to slaves and indentured servants of rebels who
remained loyal to the king and who pledged to fight with the Loyalists against the insurgents. Dunmore’s
Proclamation exposed serious problems for both the Patriot cause and for the British. In order for the
British to put down the rebellion, they needed the support of Virginia’s landowners, many of whom
owned slaves. (While Patriot slaveholders in Virginia and elsewhere proclaimed they acted in defense of
liberty, they kept thousands in bondage, a fact the British decided to exploit.) Although a number of slaves
did join Dunmore’s side, the proclamation had the unintended effect of galvanizing Patriot resistance to
Britain. From the rebels’ point of view, the British looked to deprive them of their slave property and incite
a race war. Slaveholders feared a slave uprising and increased their commitment to the cause against Great
Britain, calling for independence. Dunmore fled Virginia in 1776.

COMMON SENSE
With the events of 1775 fresh in their minds, many colonists reached the conclusion in 1776 that the
time had come to secede from the Empire and declare independence. Over the past ten years, these
colonists had argued that they deserved the same rights as Englishmen enjoyed in Great Britain, only to
find themselves relegated to an intolerable subservient status in the Empire. The groundswell of support
for their cause of independence in 1776 also owed much to the appearance of an anonymous pamphlet,
first published in January 1776, entitled Common Sense. Thomas Paine, who had emigrated from England
to Philadelphia in 1774, was the author. Arguably the most radical pamphlet of the revolutionary era,
Common Sense made a powerful argument for independence.
Paine’s pamphlet rejected the monarchy, calling King George III a “royal brute” and questioning the right
of an island (England) to rule over America. In this way, Paine helped to channel colonial discontent
toward the king himself and not, as had been the case, toward the British Parliament—a bold move
that signaled the desire to create a new political order disavowing monarchy entirely. He argued for the
creation of an American republic, a state without a king, and extolled the blessings of republicanism,
a political philosophy that held that elected representatives, not a hereditary monarch, should govern
states. The vision of an American republic put forward by Paine included the idea of popular sovereignty:
citizens in the republic would determine who would represent them, and decide other issues, on the basis
of majority rule. Republicanism also served as a social philosophy guiding the conduct of the Patriots in
their struggle against the British Empire. It demanded adherence to a code of virtue, placing the public
good and community above narrow self-interest.
Paine wrote Common Sense (Figure 6.7) in simple, direct language aimed at ordinary people, not just the
learned elite. The pamphlet proved immensely popular and was soon available in all thirteen colonies,
where it helped convince many to reject monarchy and the British Empire in favor of independence and a
republican form of government.
Figure 6.7 Thomas Paine’s Common Sense (a) helped convince many colonists of the need for independence from
Great Britain. Paine, shown here in a portrait by Laurent Dabos (b), was a political activist and revolutionary best
known for his writings on both the American and French Revolutions.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

In the summer of 1776, the Continental Congress met in Philadelphia and agreed to sever ties with Great
Britain. Virginian Thomas Jefferson and John Adams of Massachusetts, with the support of the Congress,
articulated the justification for liberty in the Declaration of Independence (Figure 6.8). The Declaration,
written primarily by Jefferson, included a long list of grievances against King George III and laid out
the foundation of American government as a republic in which the consent of the governed would be of
paramount importance.
Figure 6.8 The Dunlap Broadsides, one of which is shown here, are considered the first published copies of the
Declaration of Independence. This one was printed on July 4, 1776.
The preamble to the Declaration began with a statement of Enlightenment principles about universal
human rights and values: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and
the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.” In addition to this statement of
principles, the document served another purpose: Patriot leaders sent copies to France and Spain in hopes
of winning their support and aid in the contest against Great Britain. They understood how important
foreign recognition and aid would be to the creation of a new and independent nation.
The Declaration of Independence has since had a global impact, serving as the basis for many subsequent
movements to gain independence from other colonial powers. It is part of America’s civil religion, and
thousands of people each year make pilgrimages to see the original document in Washington, DC.
The Declaration also reveals a fundamental contradiction of the American Revolution: the conflict between
the existence of slavery and the idea that “all men are created equal.” One-fifth of the population in 1776
was enslaved, and at the time he drafted the Declaration, Jefferson himself owned more than one hundred
slaves. Further, the Declaration framed equality as existing only among white men; women and nonwhites
were entirely left out of a document that referred to native peoples as “merciless Indian savages” who
indiscriminately killed men, women, and children. Nonetheless, the promise of equality for all planted the
seeds for future struggles waged by slaves, women, and many others to bring about its full realization.
Much of American history is the story of the slow realization of the promise of equality expressed in the
Declaration of Independence.

Click and Explore
Visit Digital History (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/fcombatants) to view “The

Female Combatants.” In this 1776 engraving by an anonymous artist, Great Britain is
depicted on the left as a staid, stern matron, while America, on the right, is shown as a
half-dressed American Indian. Why do you think the artist depicted the two opposing
sides this way?

• Explain the British and American strategies of 1776 through 1778
• Identify the key battles of the early years of the Revolution
After the British quit Boston, they slowly adopted a strategy to isolate New England from the rest of
the colonies and force the insurgents in that region into submission, believing that doing so would end
the conflict. At first, British forces focused on taking the principal colonial centers. They began by easily
capturing New York City in 1776. The following year, they took over the American capital of Philadelphia.
The larger British effort to isolate New England was implemented in 1777. That effort ultimately failed
when the British surrendered a force of over five thousand to the Americans in the fall of 1777 at the Battle
of Saratoga.
The major campaigns over the next several years took place in the middle colonies of New York, New
Jersey, and Pennsylvania, whose populations were sharply divided between Loyalists and Patriots.
Revolutionaries faced many hardships as British superiority on the battlefield became evident and the
difficulty of funding the war caused strains.
THE BRITISH STRATEGY IN THE MIDDLE COLONIES

After evacuating Boston in March 1776, British forces sailed to Nova Scotia to regroup. They devised a
strategy, successfully implemented in 1776, to take New York City. The following year, they planned to
end the rebellion by cutting New England off from the rest of the colonies and starving it into submission.
Three British armies were to move simultaneously from New York City, Montreal, and Fort Oswego to
converge along the Hudson River; British control of that natural boundary would isolate New England.
General William Howe (Figure 6.9), commander in chief of the British forces in America, amassed
thirty-two thousand troops on Staten Island in June and July 1776. His brother, Admiral Richard Howe,
controlled New York Harbor. Command of New York City and the Hudson River was their goal. In
August 1776, General Howe landed his forces on Long Island and easily routed the American Continental
Army there in the Battle of Long Island (August 27). The Americans were outnumbered and lacked
both military experience and discipline. Sensing victory, General and Admiral Howe arranged a peace
conference in September 1776, where Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and South Carolinian John Rutledge
represented the Continental Congress. Despite the Howes’ hopes, however, the Americans demanded
recognition of their independence, which the Howes were not authorized to grant, and the conference
disbanded.
Figure 6.9 General William Howe, shown here in a 1777 portrait by Richard Purcell, led British forces in America in
the first years of the war.
On September 16, 1776, George Washington’s forces held up against the British at the Battle of Harlem
Heights. This important American military achievement, a key reversal after the disaster on Long Island,
occurred as most of Washington’s forces retreated to New Jersey. A few weeks later, on October 28,
General Howe’s forces defeated Washington’s at the Battle of White Plains and New York City fell to
the British. For the next seven years, the British made the city the headquarters for their military efforts
to defeat the rebellion, which included raids on surrounding areas. In 1777, the British burned Danbury,
Connecticut, and in July 1779, they set fire to homes in Fairfield and Norwalk. They held American
prisoners aboard ships in the waters around New York City; the death toll was shocking, with thousands
perishing in the holds. Meanwhile, New York City served as a haven for Loyalists who disagreed with the
effort to break away from the Empire and establish an American republic.
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND THE CONTINENTAL ARMY

When the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia in May 1775, members approved the creation
of a professional Continental Army with Washington as commander in chief (Figure 6.10). Although
sixteen thousand volunteers enlisted, it took several years for the Continental Army to become a truly
professional force. In 1775 and 1776, militias still composed the bulk of the Patriots’ armed forces, and
these soldiers returned home after the summer fighting season, drastically reducing the army’s strength.

Figure 6.10 This 1775 etching shows George Washington taking command of the Continental Army at Cambridge,
Massachusetts, just two weeks after his appointment by the Continental Congress.
That changed in late 1776 and early 1777, when Washington broke with conventional eighteenth-century
military tactics that called for fighting in the summer months only. Intent on raising revolutionary morale
after the British captured New York City, he launched surprise strikes against British forces in their
winter quarters. In Trenton, New Jersey, he led his soldiers across the Delaware River and surprised
an encampment of Hessians, German mercenaries hired by Great Britain to put down the American
rebellion. Beginning the night of December 25, 1776, and continuing into the early hours of December
26, Washington moved on Trenton where the Hessians were encamped. Maintaining the element of
surprise by attacking at Christmastime, he defeated them, taking over nine hundred captive. On January
3, 1777, Washington achieved another much-needed victory at the Battle of Princeton. He again broke with
eighteenth-century military protocol by attacking unexpectedly after the fighting season had ended.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Thomas Paine on “The American Crisis”
During the American Revolution, following the publication of Common Sense in January 1776, Thomas
Paine began a series of sixteen pamphlets known collectively as The American Crisis (Figure 6.11). He
wrote the first volume in 1776, describing the dire situation facing the revolutionaries at the end of that
hard year.
Figure 6.11 Thomas Paine wrote the pamphlet The American Crisis, the first page of which is shown
here, in 1776.
These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will,
in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the
love and thanks of man and woman. . . . Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has
declared that she has a right (not only to tax) but “to bind us in all cases whatsoever,” and
if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon
earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God. . . .
I shall conclude this paper with some miscellaneous remarks on the state of our affairs; and
shall begin with asking the following question, Why is it that the enemy have left the New
England provinces, and made these middle ones the seat of war? The answer is easy: New
England is not infested with Tories, and we are. I have been tender in raising the cry against
these men, and used numberless arguments to show them their danger, but it will not do to
sacrifice a world either to their folly or their baseness. The period is now arrived, in which
either they or we must change our sentiments, or one or both must fall. . . .
By perseverance and fortitude we have the prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice
and submission, the sad choice of a variety of evils—a ravaged country—a depopulated
city—habitations without safety, and slavery without hope—our homes turned into barracks
and bawdy-houses for Hessians, and a future race to provide for, whose fathers we shall
doubt of. Look on this picture and weep over it! and if there yet remains one thoughtless
wretch who believes it not, let him suffer it unlamented.
—Thomas Paine, “The American Crisis,” December 23, 1776

What topics does Paine address in this pamphlet? What was his purpose in writing? What does he write
about Tories (Loyalists), and why does he consider them a problem?
Click and Explore
Visit Wikisource (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/amcrisis) to read the rest of Thomas

Paine’s first American Crisis pamphlet, as well as the other fifteen in the series.
PHILADELPHIA AND SARATOGA: BRITISH AND AMERICAN VICTORIES

In August 1777, General Howe brought fifteen thousand British troops to Chesapeake Bay as part of
his plan to take Philadelphia, where the Continental Congress met. That fall, the British defeated
Washington’s soldiers in the Battle of Brandywine Creek and took control of Philadelphia, forcing the
Continental Congress to flee. During the winter of 1777–1778, the British occupied the city, and
Washington’s army camped at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania.
Washington’s winter at Valley Forge was a low point for the American forces. A lack of supplies weakened
the men, and disease took a heavy toll. Amid the cold, hunger, and sickness, soldiers deserted in droves.
On February 16, Washington wrote to George Clinton, governor of New York: “For some days past, there
has been little less than a famine in camp. A part of the army has been a week without any kind of flesh
& the rest three or four days. Naked and starving as they are, we cannot enough admire the incomparable
patience and fidelity of the soldiery, that they have not been ere [before] this excited by their sufferings
to a general mutiny and dispersion.” Of eleven thousand soldiers encamped at Valley Forge, twenty-
five hundred died of starvation, malnutrition, and disease. As Washington feared, nearly one hundred
soldiers deserted every week. (Desertions continued, and by 1780, Washington was executing recaptured
deserters every Saturday.) The low morale extended all the way to Congress, where some wanted to
replace Washington with a more seasoned leader.
Assistance came to Washington and his soldiers in February 1778 in the form of the Prussian soldier
Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben (Figure 6.12). Baron von Steuben was an experienced military man, and
he implemented a thorough training course for Washington’s ragtag troops. By drilling a small corps
of soldiers and then having them train others, he finally transformed the Continental Army into a force
capable of standing up to the professional British and Hessian soldiers. His drill manual—Regulations for
the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States—informed military practices in the United States
for the next several decades.
Figure 6.12 Prussian soldier Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, shown here in a 1786 portrait by Ralph Earl, was
instrumental in transforming Washington’s Continental Army into a professional armed force.
Click and Explore
Explore Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben’s Revolutionary War Drill Manual

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/steuben) to understand how von Steuben was able to
transform the Continental Army into a professional fighting force. Note the tremendous
amount of precision and detail in von Steuben’s descriptions.
Meanwhile, the campaign to sever New England from the rest of the colonies had taken an unexpected
turn during the fall of 1777. The British had attempted to implement the plan, drawn up by Lord George
Germain and Prime Minister Lord North, to isolate New England with the combined forces of three armies.
One army, led by General John Burgoyne, would march south from Montreal. A second force, led by
Colonel Barry St. Leger and made up of British troops and Iroquois, would march east from Fort Oswego
on the banks of Lake Ontario. A third force, led by General Sir Henry Clinton, would march north from
New York City. The armies would converge at Albany and effectively cut the rebellion in two by isolating
New England. This northern campaign fell victim to competing strategies, however, as General Howe had
meanwhile decided to take Philadelphia. His decision to capture that city siphoned off troops that would
have been vital to the overall success of the campaign in 1777.
The British plan to isolate New England ended in disaster. St. Leger’s efforts to bring his force of British
regulars, Loyalist fighters, and Iroquois allies east to link up with General Burgoyne failed, and he
retreated to Quebec. Burgoyne’s forces encountered ever-stiffer resistance as he made his way south from
Montreal, down Lake Champlain and the upper Hudson River corridor. Although they did capture Fort
Ticonderoga when American forces retreated, Burgoyne’s army found themselves surrounded by a sea
of colonial militias in Saratoga, New York. In the meantime, the small British force under Clinton that
left New York City to aid Burgoyne advanced slowly up the Hudson River, failing to provide the much-
needed support for the troops at Saratoga. On October 17, 1777, Burgoyne surrendered his five thousand
soldiers to the Continental Army (Figure 6.13).

Figure 6.13 This German engraving, created by Daniel Chodowiecki in 1784, shows British soldiers laying down
their arms before the American forces.
The American victory at the Battle of Saratoga was the major turning point in the war. This victory
convinced the French to recognize American independence and form a military alliance with the new
nation, which changed the course of the war by opening the door to badly needed military support from
France. Still smarting from their defeat by Britain in the Seven Years’ War, the French supplied the United
States with gunpowder and money, as well as soldiers and naval forces that proved decisive in the defeat
of Great Britain. The French also contributed military leaders, including the Marquis de Lafayette, who
arrived in America in 1777 as a volunteer and served as Washington’s aide-de-camp.
The war quickly became more difficult for the British, who had to fight the rebels in North America as well
as the French in the Caribbean. Following France’s lead, Spain joined the war against Great Britain in 1779,
though it did not recognize American independence until 1783. The Dutch Republic also began to support
the American revolutionaries and signed a treaty of commerce with the United States in 1782.
Great Britain’s effort to isolate New England in 1777 failed. In June 1778, the occupying British force in
Philadelphia evacuated and returned to New York City in order to better defend that city, and the British
then turned their attention to the southern colonies.

• Outline the British southern strategy and its results
• Describe key American victories and the end of the war
• Identify the main terms of the Treaty of Paris (1783)
By 1778, the war had turned into a stalemate. Although some in Britain, including Prime Minister Lord
North, wanted peace, King George III demanded that the colonies be brought to obedience. To break
the deadlock, the British revised their strategy and turned their attention to the southern colonies, where
they could expect more support from Loyalists. The southern colonies soon became the center of the
fighting. The southern strategy brought the British success at first, but thanks to the leadership of George
Washington and General Nathanael Greene and the crucial assistance of French forces, the Continental
Army defeated the British at Yorktown, effectively ending further large-scale operations during the war.
GEORGIA AND SOUTH CAROLINA

The British architect of the war strategy, Lord George Germain, believed Britain would gain the upper
hand with the support of Loyalists, slaves, and Indian allies in the South, and indeed, this southern
strategy initially achieved great success. The British began their southern campaign by capturing
Savannah, the capital of Georgia, in December 1778. In Georgia, they found support from thousands of
slaves who ran to the British side to escape their bondage. As the British regained political control in
Georgia, they forced the inhabitants to swear allegiance to the king and formed twenty Loyalist regiments.
The Continental Congress had suggested that slaves be given freedom if they joined the Patriot army
against the British, but revolutionaries in Georgia and South Carolina refused to consider this proposal.
Once again, the Revolution served to further divisions over race and slavery.
After taking Georgia, the British turned their attention to South Carolina. Before the Revolution, South
Carolina had been starkly divided between the backcountry, which harbored revolutionary partisans, and
the coastal regions, where Loyalists remained a powerful force. Waves of violence rocked the backcountry
from the late 1770s into the early 1780s. The Revolution provided an opportunity for residents to fight
over their local resentments and antagonisms with murderous consequences. Revenge killings and the
destruction of property became mainstays in the savage civil war that gripped the South.
In April 1780, a British force of eight thousand soldiers besieged American forces in Charleston (Figure
6.14). After six weeks of the Siege of Charleston, the British triumphed. General Benjamin Lincoln, who
led the effort for the revolutionaries, had to surrender his entire force, the largest American loss during
the entire war. Many of the defeated Americans were placed in jails or in British prison ships anchored
in Charleston Harbor. The British established a military government in Charleston under the command of
General Sir Henry Clinton. From this base, Clinton ordered General Charles Cornwallis to subdue the rest
of South Carolina.
Figure 6.14 This 1780 map of Charleston (a), which shows details of the Continental defenses, was probably drawn
by British engineers in anticipation of the attack on the city. The Siege of Charleston was one of a series of defeats
for the Continental forces in the South, which led the Continental Congress to place General Nathanael Greene (b),
shown here in a 1783 portrait by Charles Wilson Peale, in command in late 1780. Greene led his troops to two crucial
victories.

The disaster at Charleston led the Continental Congress to change leadership by placing General Horatio
Gates in charge of American forces in the South. However, General Gates fared no better than General
Lincoln; at the Battle of Camden, South Carolina, in August 1780, Cornwallis forced General Gates to
retreat into North Carolina. Camden was one of the worst disasters suffered by American armies during
the entire Revolutionary War. Congress again changed military leadership, this time by placing General
Nathanael Greene (Figure 6.14) in command in December 1780.
As the British had hoped, large numbers of Loyalists helped ensure the success of the southern strategy,
and thousands of slaves seeking freedom arrived to aid Cornwallis’s army. However, the war turned in the
Americans’ favor in 1781. General Greene realized that to defeat Cornwallis, he did not have to win a single
battle. So long as he remained in the field, he could continue to destroy isolated British forces. Greene
therefore made a strategic decision to divide his own troops to wage war—and the strategy worked.
American forces under General Daniel Morgan decisively beat the British at the Battle of Cowpens in South
Carolina. General Cornwallis now abandoned his strategy of defeating the backcountry rebels in South
Carolina. Determined to destroy Greene’s army, he gave chase as Greene strategically retreated north into
North Carolina. At the Battle of Guilford Courthouse in March 1781, the British prevailed on the battlefield
but suffered extensive losses, an outcome that paralleled the Battle of Bunker Hill nearly six years earlier
in June 1775.
YORKTOWN
In the summer of 1781, Cornwallis moved his army to Yorktown, Virginia. He expected the Royal Navy
to transport his army to New York, where he thought he would join General Sir Henry Clinton. Yorktown
was a tobacco port on a peninsula, and Cornwallis believed the British navy would be able to keep the
coast clear of rebel ships. Sensing an opportunity, a combined French and American force of sixteen
thousand men swarmed the peninsula in September 1781. Washington raced south with his forces, now a
disciplined army, as did the Marquis de Lafayette and the Comte de Rochambeau with their French troops.
The French Admiral de Grasse sailed his naval force into Chesapeake Bay, preventing Lord Cornwallis
from taking a seaward escape route.
In October 1781, the American forces began the battle for Yorktown, and after a siege that lasted eight
days, Lord Cornwallis capitulated on October 19 (Figure 6.15). Tradition says that during the surrender
of his troops, the British band played “The World Turned Upside Down,” a song that befitted the Empire’s
unexpected reversal of fortune.
Figure 6.15 The 1820 painting above, by John Trumbull, is titled Surrender of Lord Cornwallis, but Cornwallis
actually sent his general, Charles O’Hara, to perform the ceremonial surrendering of the sword. The painting depicts
General Benjamin Lincoln holding out his hand to receive the sword. General George Washington is in the
background on the brown horse, since he refused to accept the sword from anyone but Cornwallis himself.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
“The World Turned Upside Down”
“The World Turned Upside Down,” reputedly played during the surrender of the British at Yorktown, was
a traditional English ballad from the seventeenth century. It was also the theme of a popular British print
that circulated in the 1790s (Figure 6.16).
Figure 6.16 In many of the images in this popular print, entitled “The World Turned Upside Down or
the Folly of Man,” animals and humans have switched places. In one, children take care of their parents,
while in another, the sun, moon, and stars appear below the earth.
Why do you think these images were popular in Great Britain in the decade following the Revolutionary
War? What would these images imply to Americans?
Click and Explore
Visit the Public Domain Review (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/worldupside) to

explore the images in an eighteenth-century British chapbook (a pamphlet for tracts or
ballads) titled “The World Turned Upside Down.” The chapbook is illustrated with
woodcuts similar to those in the popular print mentioned above.
THE TREATY OF PARIS

The British defeat at Yorktown made the outcome of the war all but certain. In light of the American
victory, the Parliament of Great Britain voted to end further military operations against the rebels and to
begin peace negotiations. Support for the war effort had come to an end, and British military forces began
to evacuate the former American colonies in 1782. When hostilities had ended, Washington resigned as
commander in chief and returned to his Virginia home.
In April 1782, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and John Jay had begun informal peace negotiations in
Paris. Officials from Great Britain and the United States finalized the treaty in 1783, signing the Treaty

of Paris (Figure 6.17) in September of that year. The treaty recognized the independence of the United
States; placed the western, eastern, northern, and southern boundaries of the nation at the Mississippi
River, the Atlantic Ocean, Canada, and Florida, respectively; and gave New Englanders fishing rights in
the waters off Newfoundland. Under the terms of the treaty, individual states were encouraged to refrain
from persecuting Loyalists and to return their confiscated property.
Figure 6.17 The last page of the Treaty of Paris, signed on September 3, 1783, contained the signatures and seals
of representatives for both the British and the Americans. From right to left, the seals pictured belong to David
Hartley, who represented Great Britain, and John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay for the Americans.

• Explain Loyalist and Patriot sentiments
• Identify different groups that participated in the Revolutionary War
The American Revolution in effect created multiple civil wars. Many of the resentments and antagonisms
that fed these conflicts predated the Revolution, and the outbreak of war acted as the catalyst they needed
to burst forth. In particular, the middle colonies of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania had deeply
divided populations. Loyalty to Great Britain came in many forms, from wealthy elites who enjoyed the
prewar status quo to runaway slaves who desired the freedom that the British offered.
LOYALISTS
Historians disagree on what percentage of colonists were Loyalists; estimates range from 20 percent to
over 30 percent. In general, however, of British America’s population of 2.5 million, roughly one-third
remained loyal to Great Britain, while another third committed themselves to the cause of independence.
The remaining third remained apathetic, content to continue with their daily lives as best they could and
preferring not to engage in the struggle.
Many Loyalists were royal officials and merchants with extensive business ties to Great Britain, who
viewed themselves as the rightful and just defenders of the British constitution. Others simply resented
local business and political rivals who supported the Revolution, viewing the rebels as hypocrites and
schemers who selfishly used the break with the Empire to increase their fortunes. In New York’s Hudson
Valley, animosity among the tenants of estates owned by Revolutionary leaders turned them to the cause
of King and Empire.
During the war, all the states passed confiscation acts, which gave the new revolutionary governments
in the former colonies the right to seize Loyalist land and property. To ferret out Loyalists, revolutionary
governments also passed laws requiring the male population to take oaths of allegiance to the new states.
Those who refused lost their property and were often imprisoned or made to work for the new local
revolutionary order.
William Franklin, Benjamin Franklin’s only surviving son, remained loyal to Crown and Empire and
served as royal governor of New Jersey, a post he secured with his father’s help. During the war,
revolutionaries imprisoned William in Connecticut; however, he remained steadfast in his allegiance to
Great Britain and moved to England after the Revolution. He and his father never reconciled.
As many as nineteen thousand colonists served the British in the effort to put down the rebellion, and
after the Revolution, as many as 100,000 colonists left, moving to England or north to Canada rather than
staying in the new United States (Figure 6.18). Eight thousand whites and five thousand free blacks went
to Britain. Over thirty thousand went to Canada, transforming that nation from predominately French to
predominantly British. Another sizable group of Loyalists went to the British West Indies, taking their
slaves with them.
Figure 6.18 The Coming of the Loyalists, a ca. 1880 work that artist Henry Sandham created at least a century after
the Revolution, shows Anglo-American colonists arriving by ship in New Brunswick, Canada.

MY STORY
Hannah Ingraham on Removing to Nova Scotia
Hannah Ingraham was eleven years old in 1783, when her Loyalist family removed from New York to Ste.
Anne’s Point in the colony of Nova Scotia. Later in life, she compiled her memories of that time.
[Father] said we were to go to Nova Scotia, that a ship was ready to take us there, so we
made all haste to get ready. . . . Then on Tuesday, suddenly the house was surrounded by
rebels and father was taken prisoner and carried away. . . . When morning came, they said
he was free to go.
We had five wagon loads carried down the Hudson in a sloop and then we went on board the
transport that was to bring us to Saint John. I was just eleven years old when we left our farm
to come here. It was the last transport of the season and had on board all those who could not
come sooner. The first transports had come in May so the people had all the summer before
them to get settled. . . .
We lived in a tent at St. Anne’s until father got a house ready. . . . There was no floor laid,
no windows, no chimney, no door, but we had a roof at least. A good fire was blazing and
mother had a big loaf of bread and she boiled a kettle of water and put a good piece of butter
in a pewter bowl. We toasted the bread and all sat around the bowl and ate our breakfast that
morning and mother said: “Thank God we are no longer in dread of having shots fired through
our house. This is the sweetest meal I ever tasted for many a day.”
What do these excerpts tell you about life as a Loyalist in New York or as a transplant to Canada?
SLAVES AND INDIANS

While some slaves who fought for the Patriot cause received their freedom, revolutionary leaders—unlike
the British—did not grant such slaves their freedom as a matter of course. Washington, the owner of more
than two hundred slaves during the Revolution, refused to let slaves serve in the army, although he did
allow free blacks. (In his will, Washington did free his slaves.) In the new United States, the Revolution
largely reinforced a racial identity based on skin color. Whiteness, now a national identity, denoted
freedom and stood as the key to power. Blackness, more than ever before, denoted servile status. Indeed,
despite their class and ethnic differences, white revolutionaries stood mostly united in their hostility to
both blacks and Indians.
MY STORY
Boyrereau Brinch and Boston King on the Revolutionary War
In the Revolutionary War, some blacks, both free and enslaved, chose to fight for the Americans (Figure
6.19). Others chose to fight for the British, who offered them freedom for joining their cause. Read the
excerpts below for the perspective of a black veteran from each side of the conflict.
Figure 6.19 Jean-Baptiste-Antoine de Verger created this 1781 watercolor, which depicts American
soldiers at the Siege of Yorktown. Verger was an officer in Rochambeau’s army, and his diary holds
firsthand accounts of his experiences in the campaigns of 1780 and 1781. This image contains one of
the earliest known representations of a black Continental soldier.
Boyrereau Brinch was captured in Africa at age sixteen and brought to America as a slave. He joined
the Patriot forces and was honorably discharged and emancipated after the war. He told his story to
Benjamin Prentiss, who published it as The Blind African Slave in 1810.
Finally, I was in the battles at Cambridge, White Plains, Monmouth, Princeton, Newark,
Frog’s Point, Horseneck where I had a ball pass through my knapsack. All which battels
[sic] the reader can obtain a more perfect account of in history, than I can give. At last we
returned to West Point and were discharged [1783], as the war was over. Thus was I, a slave
for five years fighting for liberty. After we were disbanded, I returned to my old master at
Woodbury [Connecticut], with whom I lived one year, my services in the American war, having
emancipated me from further slavery, and from being bartered or sold. . . . Here I enjoyed the
pleasures of a freeman; my food was sweet, my labor pleasure: and one bright gleam of life
seemed to shine upon me.
Boston King was a Charleston-born slave who escaped his master and joined the Loyalists. He made his
way to Nova Scotia and later Sierra Leone, where he published his memoirs in 1792. The excerpt below
describes his experience in New York after the war.
When I arrived at New-York, my friends rejoiced to see me once more restored to liberty,
and joined me in praising the Lord for his mercy and goodness. . . . [In 1783] the horrors
and devastation of war happily terminated, and peace was restored between America and
Great Britain, which diffused universal joy among all parties, except us, who had escaped
from slavery and taken refuge in the English army; for a report prevailed at New-York, that
all the slaves, in number 2000, were to be delivered up to their masters, altho’ some of
them had been three or four years among the English. This dreadful rumour filled us all
with inexpressible anguish and terror, especially when we saw our old masters coming from
Virginia, North-Carolina, and other parts, and seizing upon their slaves in the streets of New-
York, or even dragging them out of their beds. Many of the slaves had very cruel masters, so
that the thoughts of returning home with them embittered life to us. For some days we lost
our appetite for food, and sleep departed from our eyes. The English had compassion upon
us in the day of distress, and issued out a Proclamation, importing, That all slaves should

be free, who had taken refuge in the British lines, and claimed the sanction and privileges of
the Proclamations respecting the security and protection of Negroes. In consequence of this,
each of us received a certificate from the commanding officer at New-York, which dispelled all
our fears, and filled us with joy and gratitude.
What do these two narratives have in common, and how are they different? How do the two men describe
freedom?
For slaves willing to run away and join the British, the American Revolution offered a unique occasion
to escape bondage. Of the half a million slaves in the American colonies during the Revolution, twenty
thousand joined the British cause. At Yorktown, for instance, thousands of black troops fought with
Lord Cornwallis. Slaves belonging to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and other
revolutionaries seized the opportunity for freedom and fled to the British side. Between ten and twenty
thousand slaves gained their freedom because of the Revolution; arguably, the Revolution created the
largest slave uprising and the greatest emancipation until the Civil War. After the Revolution, some of
these African Loyalists emigrated to Sierra Leone on the west coast of Africa. Others removed to Canada
and England. It is also true that people of color made heroic contributions to the cause of American
independence. However, while the British offered slaves freedom, most American revolutionaries clung to
notions of black inferiority.
Powerful Indian peoples who had allied themselves with the British, including the Mohawk and the
Creek, also remained loyal to the Empire. A Mohawk named Joseph Brant, whose given name was
Thayendanegea (Figure 6.20), rose to prominence while fighting for the British during the Revolution. He
joined forces with Colonel Barry St. Leger during the 1777 campaign, which ended with the surrender of
General Burgoyne at Saratoga. After the war, Brant moved to the Six Nations reserve in Canada. From
his home on the shores of Lake Ontario, he remained active in efforts to restrict white encroachment onto
Indian lands. After their defeat, the British did not keep promises they’d made to help their Indian allies
keep their territory; in fact, the Treaty of Paris granted the United States huge amounts of supposedly
British-owned regions that were actually Indian lands.
Figure 6.20 What similarities can you see in these two portraits of Joseph Brant, one by Gilbert Stuart in 1786 (a)
and one by Charles Wilson Peale in 1797 (b)? What are the differences? Why do you think the artists made the
specific choices they did?
PATRIOTS
The American revolutionaries (also called Patriots or Whigs) came from many different backgrounds and
included merchants, shoemakers, farmers, and sailors. What is extraordinary is the way in which the
struggle for independence brought a vast cross-section of society together, animated by a common cause.
During the war, the revolutionaries faced great difficulties, including massive supply problems; clothing,
ammunition, tents, and equipment were all hard to come by. After an initial burst of enthusiasm in 1775
and 1776, the shortage of supplies became acute in 1777 through 1779, as Washington’s difficult winter at
Valley Forge demonstrates.
Funding the war effort also proved very difficult. Whereas the British could pay in gold and silver,
the American forces relied on paper money, backed by loans obtained in Europe. This first American
money was called Continental currency; unfortunately, it quickly fell in value. “Not worth a Continental”
soon became a shorthand term for something of no value. The new revolutionary government printed a
great amount of this paper money, resulting in runaway inflation. By 1781, inflation was such that 146
Continental dollars were worth only one dollar in gold. The problem grew worse as each former colony,
now a revolutionary state, printed its own currency.
WOMEN
In colonial America, women shouldered enormous domestic and child-rearing responsibilities. The war
for independence only increased their workload and, in some ways, solidified their roles. Rebel leaders
required women to produce articles for war—everything from clothing to foodstuffs—while also keeping
their homesteads going. This was not an easy task when their husbands and sons were away fighting.
Women were also expected to provide food and lodging for armies and to nurse wounded soldiers.
The Revolution opened some new doors for women, however, as they took on public roles usually
reserved for men. The Daughters of Liberty, an informal organization formed in the mid-1760s to oppose
British revenue-raising measures, worked tirelessly to support the war effort. Esther DeBerdt Reed of
Philadelphia, wife of Governor Joseph Reed, formed the Ladies Association of Philadelphia and led a
fundraising drive to provide sorely needed supplies to the Continental Army. In “The Sentiments of an
American Woman” (1780), she wrote to other women, “The time is arrived to display the same sentiments
which animated us at the beginning of the Revolution, when we renounced the use of teas, however
agreeable to our taste, rather than receive them from our persecutors; when we made it appear to them
that we placed former necessaries in the rank of superfluities, when our liberty was interested; when our
republican and laborious hands spun the flax, prepared the linen intended for the use of our soldiers; when
exiles and fugitives we supported with courage all the evils which are the concomitants of war.” Reed and
other elite women in Philadelphia raised almost $300,000 in Continental money for the war.
Click and Explore
Read the entire text of Esther Reed’s “The Sentiments of an American Woman”
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/estherreed) on a page hosted by the University of
Michigan-Dearborn.
Women who did not share Reed’s elite status nevertheless played key economic roles by producing
homespun cloth and food. During shortages, some women formed mobs and wrested supplies from those

who hoarded them. Crowds of women beset merchants and demanded fair prices for goods; if a merchant
refused, a riot would ensue. Still other women accompanied the army as “camp followers,” serving as
cooks, washerwomen, and nurses. A few also took part in combat and proved their equality with men
through violence against the hated British.
Key Terms
confiscation acts state-wide acts that made it legal for state governments to seize Loyalists’ property
Continental currency the paper currency that the Continental government printed to fund the
Revolution
Dunmore’s Proclamation the decree signed by Lord Dunmore, the royal governor of Virginia, which
proclaimed that any slaves or indentured servants who fought on the side of the British would be
rewarded with their freedom
Hessians German mercenaries hired by Great Britain to put down the American rebellion
Mecklenburg Resolves North Carolina’s declaration of rebellion against Great Britain
minutemen colonial militias prepared to mobilize and fight the British with a minute’s notice
popular sovereignty the practice of allowing the citizens of a state or territory to decide issues based on
the principle of majority rule
republicanism a political philosophy that holds that states should be governed by representatives, not a
monarch; as a social philosophy, republicanism required civic virtue of its citizens
thirteen colonies the British colonies in North America that declared independence from Great Britain in
1776, which included Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, the province of Massachusetts Bay,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations, South Carolina, and Virginia
Yorktown the Virginia port where British General Cornwallis surrendered to American forces
Summary
Until Parliament passed the Coercive Acts in 1774, most colonists still thought of themselves as proud
subjects of the strong British Empire. However, the Coercive (or Intolerable) Acts, which Parliament
enacted to punish Massachusetts for failing to pay for the destruction of the tea, convinced many colonists
that Great Britain was indeed threatening to stifle their liberty. In Massachusetts and other New England
colonies, militias like the minutemen prepared for war by stockpiling weapons and ammunition. After the
first loss of life at the battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775, skirmishes continued throughout
the colonies. When Congress met in Philadelphia in July 1776, its members signed the Declaration of
Independence, officially breaking ties with Great Britain and declaring their intention to be self-governing.

The British successfully implemented the first part of their strategy to isolate New England when they
took New York City in the fall of 1776. For the next seven years, they used New York as a base of
operations, expanding their control to Philadelphia in the winter of 1777. After suffering through a terrible
winter in 1777–1778 in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, American forces were revived with help from Baron
von Steuben, a Prussian military officer who helped transform the Continental Army into a professional
fighting force. The effort to cut off New England from the rest of the colonies failed with the General
Burgoyne’s surrender at Saratoga in October 1777. After Saratoga, the struggle for independence gained a
powerful ally when France agreed to recognize the United States as a new nation and began to send much-

needed military support. The entrance of France—Britain’s archrival in the contest of global empire—into
the American fight helped to turn the tide of the war in favor of the revolutionaries.

The British gained momentum in the war when they turned their military efforts against the southern
colonies. They scored repeated victories in the coastal towns, where they found legions of supporters,
including slaves escaping bondage. As in other colonies, however, control of major seaports did not mean
the British could control the interior. Fighting in the southern colonies devolved into a merciless civil war
as the Revolution opened the floodgates of pent-up anger and resentment between frontier residents and
those along the coastal regions. The southern campaign came to an end at Yorktown when Cornwallis
surrendered to American forces.

The American Revolution divided the colonists as much as it united them, with Loyalists (or Tories)
joining the British forces against the Patriots (or revolutionaries). Both sides included a broad cross-section
of the population. However, Great Britain was able to convince many slaves to join its forces by promising
them freedom, something the southern revolutionaries would not agree to do. The war provided new
opportunities, as well as new challenges, for slaves, free blacks, women, and Indians. After the war, many
Loyalists fled the American colonies, heading across the Atlantic to England, north to Canada, or south to
the West Indies.
Review Questions
1. How did British General Thomas Gage attempt A. A republic has no hereditary ruling class.
to deal with the uprising in Massachusetts in B. A republic relies on the principle of popular
1774? sovereignty.
A. He offered the rebels land on the Maine C. Representatives chosen by the people lead
frontier in return for loyalty to England. the republic.
B. He allowed for town meetings in an D. A republic is governed by a monarch and
attempt to appease the rebels. the royal officials he or she appoints.
C. He attempted to seize arms and munitions
from the colonial insurgents. 4. What are the main arguments that Thomas
D. He ordered his troops to burn Boston to the Paine makes in his pamphlet Common Sense? Why
ground to show the determination of was this pamphlet so popular?
Britain.
5. Which city served as the base for British
2. Which of the following was not a result of operations for most of the war?
Dunmore’s Proclamation? A. Boston
A. Slaves joined Dunmore to fight for the B. New York
British. C. Philadelphia
B. A majority of slaves in the colonies won D. Saratoga
their freedom.
C. Patriot forces increased their commitment 6. What battle turned the tide of war in favor of
to independence. the Americans?
D. Both slaveholding and non-slaveholding A. the Battle of Saratoga
whites feared a slave rebellion. B. the Battle of Brandywine Creek
C. the Battle of White Plains
3. Which of the following is not true of a D. the Battle of Valley Forge
republic?
7. Which term describes German soldiers hired 12. Which of the following statements best
by Great Britain to put down the American represents the division between Patriots and
rebellion? Loyalists?
A. Patriots A. Most American colonists were Patriots,
B. Royalists with only a few traditionalists remaining
C. Hessians loyal to the King and Empire.
D. Loyalists B. Most American colonists were Loyalists,
with only a few firebrand revolutionaries
8. Describe the British strategy in the early years leading the charge for independence.
of the war and explain whether or not it C. American colonists were divided among
succeeded. those who wanted independence, those
who wanted to remain part of the British
9. How did George Washington’s military tactics Empire, and those who were neutral.
help him to achieve success? D. The vast majority of American colonists
were neutral and didn’t take a side between
Loyalists and Patriots.
10. Which American general is responsible for
improving the American military position in the
South? 13. Which of the following is not one of the tasks
A. John Burgoyne women performed during the Revolution?
B. Nathanael Greene A. holding government offices
C. Wilhelm Frederick von Steuben B. maintaining their homesteads
D. Charles Cornwallis C. feeding, quartering, and nursing soldiers
D. raising funds for the war effort
11. Describe the British southern strategy and its
results.

14. How did the colonists manage to triumph in their battle for independence despite Great Britain’s
military might? If any of these factors had been different, how might it have affected the outcome of the
war?
15. How did the condition of certain groups, such as women, blacks, and Indians, reveal a contradiction
in the Declaration of Independence?
16. What was the effect and importance of Great Britain’s promise of freedom to slaves who joined the
British side?
17. How did the Revolutionary War provide both new opportunities and new challenges for slaves and
free blacks in America?
18. Describe the ideology of republicanism. As a political philosophy, how did republicanism compare to
the system that prevailed in Great Britain?
19. Describe the backgrounds and philosophies of Patriots and Loyalists. Why did colonists with such
diverse individual interests unite in support of their respective causes? What might different groups of
Patriots and Loyalists, depending upon their circumstances, have hoped to achieve by winning the war?

Chapter 7 Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790 185
CHAPTER 7
Creating Republican Governments,

1776–1790
Figure 7.1 John Trumbull, Washington’s aide-de-camp, painted this wartime image of Washington on a promontory
above the Hudson River. Just behind Washington, his slave William “Billy” Lee has his eyes firmly fixed on his master.
In the far background, British warships fire on an American fort.
Chapter Outline
7.1 Common Sense: From Monarchy to an American Republic
7.2 How Much Revolutionary Change?
7.3 Debating Democracy
7.4 The Constitutional Convention and Federal Constitution
Introduction
After the Revolutionary War, the ideology that “all men are created equal” failed to match up with
reality, as the revolutionary generation could not solve the contradictions of freedom and slavery in the
new United States. Trumbull’s 1780 painting of George Washington (Figure 7.1) hints at some of these
contradictions. What attitude do you think Trumbull was trying to convey? Why did Trumbull include
Washington’s slave Billy Lee, and what does Lee represent in this painting?
During the 1770s and 1780s, Americans took bold steps to define American equality. Each state held
constitutional conventions and crafted state constitutions that defined how government would operate
and who could participate in political life. Many elite revolutionaries recoiled in horror from the idea of
majority rule—the basic principle of democracy—fearing that it would effectively create a “mob rule” that
would bring about the ruin of the hard-fought struggle for independence. Statesmen everywhere believed
that a republic should replace the British monarchy: a government where the important affairs would be
entrusted only to representative men of learning and refinement.
186 Chapter 7 Creating Republican Governments, 1776–1790

• Compare and contrast monarchy and republican government
• Describe the tenets of republicanism
While monarchies dominated eighteenth-century Europe, American revolutionaries were determined to

find an alternative to this method of government. Radical pamphleteer Thomas Paine, whose enormously
popular essay Common Sense was first published in January 1776, advocated a republic: a state without a
king. Six months later, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence affirmed the break with England but did
not suggest what form of government should replace monarchy, the only system most English colonists
had ever known. In the late eighteenth century, republics were few and far between. Genoa, Venice, and
the Dutch Republic provided examples of states without monarchs, but many European Enlightenment
thinkers questioned the stability of a republic. Nonetheless, after their break from Great Britain, Americans
turned to republicanism for their new government.
REPUBLICANISM AS A POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Monarchy rests on the practice of dynastic succession, in which the monarch’s child or other relative
inherits the throne. Contested dynastic succession produced chronic conflict and warfare in Europe. In
the eighteenth century, well-established monarchs ruled most of Europe and, according to tradition,
were obligated to protect and guide their subjects. However, by the mid-1770s, many American colonists
believed that George III, the king of Great Britain, had failed to do so. Patriots believed the British
monarchy under George III had been corrupted and the king turned into a tyrant who cared nothing
for the traditional liberties afforded to members of the British Empire. The disaffection from monarchy
explains why a republic appeared a better alternative to the revolutionaries.
Figure 7.2

American revolutionaries looked to the past for inspiration for their break with the British monarchy and
their adoption of a republican form of government. The Roman Republic provided guidance. Much like
the Americans in their struggle against Britain, Romans had thrown off monarchy and created a republic
in which Roman citizens would appoint or select the leaders who would represent them.
Click and Explore
Visit the Metropolitan Museum of Art (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/ceracchi) to see

a Roman-style bust of George Washington, complete with toga. In 1791, Italian
sculptor Giuseppe Ceracchi visited Philadelphia, hoping the government might
commission a monument of his creation. He did not succeed, but the bust of
Washington, one of the ones he produced to demonstrate his skill, illustrates the
connection between the American and Roman republics that revolutionaries made.
While republicanism offered an alternative to monarchy, it was also an alternative to democracy, a system
of government characterized by majority rule, where the majority of citizens have the power to make
decisions binding upon the whole. To many revolutionaries, especially wealthy landowners, merchants,
and planters, democracy did not offer a good replacement for monarchy. Indeed, conservative Whigs
defined themselves in opposition to democracy, which they equated with anarchy. In the tenth in a series
of essays later known as The Federalist Papers, Virginian James Madison wrote: “Democracies have ever
been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security
or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their
deaths.” Many shared this perspective and worked hard to keep democratic tendencies in check. It is easy
to understand why democracy seemed threatening: majority rule can easily overpower minority rights,
and the wealthy few had reason to fear that a hostile and envious majority could seize and redistribute
their wealth.
While many now assume the United States was founded as a democracy, history, as always, is more
complicated. Conservative Whigs believed in government by a patrician class, a ruling group composed
of a small number of privileged families. Radical Whigs favored broadening the popular participation in
political life and pushed for democracy. The great debate after independence was secured centered on this
question: Who should rule in the new American republic?
REPUBLICANISM AS A SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY

According to political theory, a republic requires its citizens to cultivate virtuous behavior; if the people
are virtuous, the republic will survive. If the people become corrupt, the republic will fall. Whether
republicanism succeeded or failed in the United States would depend on civic virtue and an educated
citizenry. Revolutionary leaders agreed that the ownership of property provided one way to measure an
individual’s virtue, arguing that property holders had the greatest stake in society and therefore could
be trusted to make decisions for it. By the same token, non-property holders, they believed, should have
very little to do with government. In other words, unlike a democracy, in which the mass of non-property
holders could exercise the political right to vote, a republic would limit political rights to property holders.
In this way, republicanism exhibited a bias toward the elite, a preference that is understandable given
the colonial legacy. During colonial times, wealthy planters and merchants in the American colonies had
looked to the British ruling class, whose social order demanded deference from those of lower rank, as a
model of behavior. Old habits died hard.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Benjamin Franklin’s Thirteen Virtues for Character
Development
In the 1780s, Benjamin Franklin carefully defined thirteen virtues to help guide his countrymen in
maintaining a virtuous republic. His choice of thirteen is telling since he wrote for the citizens of the
thirteen new American republics. These virtues were:
1. Temperance. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.
2. Silence. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.
3. Order. Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.
4. Resolution. Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.
5. Frugality. Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing.
6. Industry. Lose no time; be always employ’d in something useful; cut off all unnecessary
actions.
7. Sincerity. Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak
accordingly.
8. Justice. Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty.
9. Moderation. Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
10. Cleanliness. Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloaths, or habitation.
11. Tranquillity. Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.
12. Chastity. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the
injury of your own or another’s peace or reputation.
13. Humility. Imitate Jesus and Socrates.
Franklin’s thirteen virtues suggest that hard work and good behavior will bring success. What factors
does Franklin ignore? How would he likely address a situation in which children inherit great wealth rather
than working for it? How do Franklin’s values help to define the notion of republican virtue?
Click and Explore
Check how well you are demonstrating all thirteen of Franklin’s virtues
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/13virtues) on thirteenvirtues.com, where you can
register to track your progress.
George Washington served as a role model par excellence for the new republic, embodying the exceptional
talent and public virtue prized under the political and social philosophy of republicanism. He did not seek
to become the new king of America; instead he retired as commander in chief of the Continental Army and
returned to his Virginia estate at Mount Vernon to resume his life among the planter elite. Washington
modeled his behavior on that of the Roman aristocrat Cincinnatus, a representative of the patrician or
ruling class, who had also retired from public service in the Roman Republic and returned to his estate to
pursue agricultural life.
The aristocratic side of republicanism—and the belief that the true custodians of public virtue were those
who had served in the military—found expression in the Society of the Cincinnati, of which Washington
was the first president general (Figure 7.3). Founded in 1783, the society admitted only officers of the
Continental Army and the French forces, not militia members or minutemen. Following the rule of

primogeniture, the eldest sons of members inherited their fathers’ memberships. The society still exists
today and retains the motto Omnia relinquit servare rempublicam (“He relinquished everything to save the
Republic”).
Figure 7.3 This membership certificate for the Society of the Cincinnati commemorates “the great Event which gave
Independence to North America.”

• Describe the status of women in the new republic
• Describe the status of nonwhites in the new republic
Elite republican revolutionaries did not envision a completely new society; traditional ideas and categories
of race and gender, order and decorum remained firmly entrenched among members of their privileged
class. Many Americans rejected the elitist and aristocratic republican order, however, and advocated
radical changes. Their efforts represented a groundswell of sentiment for greater equality, a part of the
democratic impulse unleashed by the Revolution.
THE STATUS OF WOMEN

In eighteenth-century America, as in Great Britain, the legal status of married women was defined as
coverture, meaning a married woman (or feme covert) had no legal or economic status independent of her
husband. She could not conduct business or buy and sell property. Her husband controlled any property
she brought to the marriage, although he could not sell it without her agreement. Married women’s status
as femes covert did not change as a result of the Revolution, and wives remained economically dependent
on their husbands. The women of the newly independent nation did not call for the right to vote, but some,
especially the wives of elite republican statesmen, began to agitate for equality under the law between
husbands and wives, and for the same educational opportunities as men.
Some women hoped to overturn coverture. From her home in Braintree, Massachusetts, Abigail Adams
(Figure 7.4) wrote to her husband, Whig leader John Adams, in 1776, “In the new code of laws which
I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more
generous and favorable to them than your ancestor. Do not put such unlimited power in the husbands.
Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could.” Abigail Adams ran the family homestead during the
Revolution, but she did not have the ability to conduct business without her husband’s consent. Elsewhere
in the famous 1776 letter quoted above, she speaks of the difficulties of running the homestead when her
husband is away. Her frustration grew when her husband responded in an April 1776 letter: “As to your
extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh. We have been told that our Struggle has loosened the
bands of Government every where. That Children and Apprentices were disobedient—that schools and
Colledges were grown turbulent—that Indians slighted their Guardians and Negroes grew insolent to
their Masters. But your Letter was the first Intimation that another Tribe more numerous and powerfull
than all the rest were grown discontented. . . . Depend on it, We know better than to repeal our Masculine
systems.”
Figure 7.4 Abigail Adams (a), shown here in a 1766 portrait by Benjamin Blythe, is best remembered for her
eloquent letters to her husband, John Adams (b), who would later become the second president of the United States.
Another privileged member of the revolutionary generation, Mercy Otis Warren, also challenged gender
assumptions and traditions during the revolutionary era (Figure 7.5). Born in Massachusetts, Warren
actively opposed British reform measures before the outbreak of fighting in 1775 by publishing anti-British
works. In 1812, she published a three-volume history of the Revolution, a project she had started in the
late 1770s. By publishing her work, Warren stepped out of the female sphere and into the otherwise male-
dominated sphere of public life.
Inspired by the Revolution, Judith Sargent Murray of Massachusetts advocated women’s economic
independence and equal educational opportunities for men and women (Figure 7.5). Murray, who came
from a well-to-do family in Gloucester, questioned why boys were given access to education as a birthright
while girls had very limited educational opportunities. She began to publish her ideas about educational
equality beginning in the 1780s, arguing that God had made the minds of women and men equal.

Figure 7.5 John Singleton Copley’s 1772 portrait of Judith Sargent Murray (a) and 1763 portrait of Mercy Otis
Warren (b) show two of America’s earliest advocates for women’s rights. Notice how their fine silk dresses telegraph
their privileged social status.
Murray’s more radical ideas championed woman’s economic independence. She argued that a woman’s
education should be extensive enough to allow her to maintain herself—and her family—if there was no
male breadwinner. Indeed, Murray was able to make money of her own from her publications. Her ideas
were both radical and traditional, however: Murray also believed that women were much better at raising
children and maintaining the morality and virtue of the family than men.
Adams, Murray, and Warren all came from privileged backgrounds. All three were fully literate, while
many women in the American republic were not. Their literacy and station allowed them to push for
new roles for women in the atmosphere of unique possibility created by the Revolution and its promise
of change. Female authors who published their work provide evidence of how women in the era of the
American Revolution challenged traditional gender roles.
Overall, the Revolution reconfigured women’s roles by undermining the traditional expectations of wives
and mothers, including subservience. In the home, the separate domestic sphere assigned to women,
women were expected to practice republican virtues, especially frugality and simplicity. Republican
motherhood meant that women, more than men, were responsible for raising good children, instilling
in them all the virtue necessary to ensure the survival of the republic. The Revolution also opened new
doors to educational opportunities for women. Men understood that the republic needed women to play a
substantial role in upholding republicanism and ensuring the survival of the new nation. Benjamin Rush, a
Whig educator and physician from Philadelphia, strongly advocated for the education of girls and young
women as part of the larger effort to ensure that republican virtue and republican motherhood would
endure.
THE MEANING OF RACE

By the time of the Revolution, slavery had been firmly in place in America for over one hundred years. In
many ways, the Revolution served to reinforce the assumptions about race among white Americans. They
viewed the new nation as a white republic; blacks were slaves, and Indians had no place. Racial hatred
of blacks increased during the Revolution because many slaves fled their white masters for the freedom
offered by the British. The same was true for Indians who allied themselves with the British; Jefferson
wrote in the Declaration of Independence that separation from the Empire was necessary because George
III had incited “the merciless Indian savages” to destroy the white inhabitants on the frontier. Similarly,
Thomas Paine argued in Common Sense that Great Britain was guilty of inciting “the Indians and Negroes
to destroy us.” For his part, Benjamin Franklin wrote in the 1780s that, in time, alcoholism would wipe out
the Indians, leaving the land free for white settlers.
MY STORY
Phillis Wheatley: “On Being Brought from Africa to America”
Phillis Wheatley (Figure 7.6) was born in Africa in 1753 and sold as a slave to the Wheatley family of
Boston; her African name is lost to posterity. Although most slaves in the eighteenth century had no
opportunities to learn to read and write, Wheatley achieved full literacy and went on to become one of the
best-known poets of the time, although many doubted her authorship of her poems because of her race.
Figure 7.6 This portrait of Phillis Wheatley from the frontispiece of Poems on various subjects,
religious and moral shows the writer at work. Despite her status as a slave, her poems won great
renown in America and in Europe.
Wheatley’s poems reflected her deep Christian beliefs. In the poem below, how do her views on
Christianity affect her views on slavery?
Twas mercy brought me from my Pagan land,
Taught my benighted soul to understand
That there’s a God, that there’s a Saviour too:
Once I redemption neither sought nor knew.
Some view our sable race with scornful eye,
“Their colour is a diabolic dye.”
Remember, Christians, Negroes, black as Cain,
May be refin’d, and join th’ angelic train.
—Phillis Wheatley, “On Being Brought from Africa to America”
Slavery
Slavery offered the most glaring contradiction between the idea of equality stated in the Declaration of
Independence (“all men are created equal”) and the reality of race relations in the late eighteenth century.

Racism shaped white views of blacks. Although he penned the Declaration of Independence, Thomas
Jefferson owned more than one hundred slaves, of whom he freed only a few either during his lifetime or
in his will (Figure 7.7). He thought blacks were inferior to whites, dismissing Phillis Wheatley by arguing,
“Religion indeed has produced a Phillis Wheatley; but it could not produce a poet.” White slaveholders
took their female slaves as mistresses, as most historians agree that Jefferson did with one of his slaves,
Sally Hemings. Together, they had several children.
Figure 7.7 This page, taken from one of Thomas Jefferson’s record books from 1795, lists his slaves.
Click and Explore
Browse the Thomas Jefferson Papers (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/TJefferson) at

the Massachusetts Historical Society to examine Jefferson’s “farm books,” in which he
kept records of his land holdings, animal husbandry, and slaves, including specific
references to Sally Hemings.
Jefferson understood the contradiction fully, and his writings reveal hard-edged racist assumptions. In his
Notes on the State of Virginia in the 1780s, Jefferson urged the end of slavery in Virginia and the removal
of blacks from that state. He wrote: “It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks
into the state, and thus save the expense of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they
will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of
the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many
other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end
but in the extermination of the one or the other race. —To these objections, which are political, may be
added others, which are physical and moral.” Jefferson envisioned an “empire of liberty” for white farmers
and relied on the argument of sending blacks out of the United States, even if doing so would completely
destroy the slaveholders’ wealth in their human property.
Southern planters strongly objected to Jefferson’s views on abolishing slavery and removing blacks from
America. When Jefferson was a candidate for president in 1796, an anonymous “Southern Planter” wrote,
“If this wild project succeeds, under the auspices of Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States, and
three hundred thousand slaves are set free in Virginia, farewell to the safety, prosperity, the importance,
perhaps the very existence of the Southern States” (Figure 7.8). Slaveholders and many other Americans
protected and defended the institution.
Figure 7.8 This 1796 broadside to “the Citizens of the Southern States” by “a Southern Planter” argued that Thomas
Jefferson’s advocacy of the emancipation of slaves in his Notes on the State of Virginia posed a threat to the safety,
the prosperity, and even the existence of the southern states.
Freedom
While racial thinking permeated the new country, and slavery existed in all the new states, the ideals of
the Revolution generated a movement toward the abolition of slavery. Private manumissions, by which
slaveholders freed their slaves, provided one pathway from bondage. Slaveholders in Virginia freed some
ten thousand slaves. In Massachusetts, the Wheatley family manumitted Phillis in 1773 when she was
twenty-one. Other revolutionaries formed societies dedicated to abolishing slavery. One of the earliest
efforts began in 1775 in Philadelphia, where Dr. Benjamin Rush and other Philadelphia Quakers formed
what became the Pennsylvania Abolition Society. Similarly, wealthy New Yorkers formed the New York
Manumission Society in 1785. This society worked to educate black children and devoted funds to protect
free blacks from kidnapping.
Slavery persisted in the North, however, and the example of Massachusetts highlights the complexity
of the situation. The 1780 Massachusetts constitution technically freed all slaves. Nonetheless, several
hundred individuals remained enslaved in the state. In the 1780s, a series of court decisions undermined
slavery in Massachusetts when several slaves, citing assault by their masters, successfully sought their
freedom in court. These individuals refused to be treated as slaves in the wake of the American Revolution.
Despite these legal victories, about eleven hundred slaves continued to be held in the New England states
in 1800. The contradictions illustrate the difference between the letter and the spirit of the laws abolishing
slavery in Massachusetts. In all, over thirty-six thousand slaves remained in the North, with the highest
concentrations in New Jersey and New York. New York only gradually phased out slavery, with the last
slaves emancipated in the late 1820s.

Indians
The 1783 Treaty of Paris, which ended the war for independence, did not address Indians at all. All lands
held by the British east of the Mississippi and south of the Great Lakes (except Spanish Florida) now
belonged to the new American republic (Figure 7.9). Though the treaty remained silent on the issue,
much of the territory now included in the boundaries of the United States remained under the control of
native peoples. Earlier in the eighteenth century, a “middle ground” had existed between powerful native
groups in the West and British and French imperial zones, a place where the various groups interacted and
accommodated each other. As had happened in the French and Indian War and Pontiac’s Rebellion, the
Revolutionary War turned the middle ground into a battle zone that no one group controlled.
Figure 7.9 The 1783 Treaty of Paris divided North America into territories belonging to the United States and
several European countries, but it failed to address Indian lands at all.
During the Revolution, a complex situation existed among Indians. Many villages remained neutral.
Some native groups, such as the Delaware, split into factions, with some supporting the British while
other Delaware maintained their neutrality. The Iroquois Confederacy, a longstanding alliance of tribes,
also split up: the Mohawk, Cayuga, Onondaga, and Seneca fought on the British side, while the Oneida
and Tuscarora supported the revolutionaries. Ohio River Valley tribes such as the Shawnee, Miami, and
Mungo had been fighting for years against colonial expansion west; these groups supported the British.
Some native peoples who had previously allied with the French hoped the conflict between the colonies
and Great Britain might lead to French intervention and the return of French rule. Few Indians sided with
the American revolutionaries, because almost all revolutionaries in the middle ground viewed them as
an enemy to be destroyed. This racial hatred toward native peoples found expression in the American
massacre of ninety-six Christian Delawares in 1782. Most of the dead were women and children.
After the war, the victorious Americans turned a deaf ear to Indian claims to what the revolutionaries
saw as their hard-won land, and they moved aggressively to assert control over western New York
and Pennsylvania. In response, Mohawk leader Joseph Brant helped to form the Western Confederacy,
an alliance of native peoples who pledged to resist American intrusion into what was then called the
Northwest. The Northwest Indian War (1785–1795) ended with the defeat of the Indians and their claims.
Under the Treaty of Greenville (1795), the United States gained dominion over land in Ohio.
RELIGION AND THE STATE

Prior to the Revolution, several colonies had official, tax-supported churches. After the Revolution, some
questioned the validity of state-authorized churches; the limitation of public office-holding to those of a
particular faith; and the payment of taxes to support churches. In other states, especially in New England
where the older Puritan heritage cast a long shadow, religion and state remained intertwined.
During the colonial era in Virginia, the established church had been the Church of England, which did
not tolerate Catholics, Baptists, or followers or other religions. In 1786, as a revolutionary response against
the privileged status of the Church of England, Virginia’s lawmakers approved the Virginia Statute for
Religious Freedom, which ended the Church of England’s hold and allowed religious liberty. Under the
statute, no one could be forced to attend or support a specific church or be prosecuted for his or her beliefs.
Pennsylvania’s original constitution limited officeholders in the state legislature to those who professed
a belief in both the Old and the New Testaments. This religious test prohibited Jews from holding that
office, as the New Testament is not part of Jewish belief. In 1790, however, Pennsylvania removed this
qualification from its constitution.
The New England states were slower to embrace freedom of religion. In the former Puritan colonies,
the Congregational Church (established by seventeenth-century Puritans) remained the church of most
inhabitants. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire all required the public support of Christian
churches. Article III of the Massachusetts constitution blended the goal of republicanism with the goal of
promoting Protestant Christianity. It reads:
As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government,
essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused
through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of GOD, and of public
instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure
the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have
a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature
shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and
other bodies-politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for
the institution of the public worship of GOD, and for the support and maintenance of public
protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be
made voluntarily. . . .
And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects
of the Commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: And no subordination
of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.

Click and Explore
Read more about religion and state governments at the Religion and the Founding
of the American Republic (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/farmbook1) exhibition page
on the Library of Congress site. What was the meaning of the term “nursing fathers” of
the church?

• Explain the development of state constitutions
• Describe the features of the Articles of Confederation
• Analyze the causes and consequences of Shays’ Rebellion
The task of creating republican governments in each of the former colonies, now independent states,
presented a new opportunity for American revolutionaries to define themselves anew after casting off
British control. On the state and national levels, citizens of the new United States debated who would hold
the keys to political power. The states proved to be a laboratory for how much democracy, or majority rule,
would be tolerated.
THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS

In 1776, John Adams urged the thirteen independent colonies—soon to be states—to write their own state
constitutions. Enlightenment political thought profoundly influenced Adams and other revolutionary
leaders seeking to create viable republican governments. The ideas of the French philosopher
Montesquieu, who had advocated the separation of powers in government, guided Adams’s thinking.
Responding to a request for advice on proper government from North Carolina, Adams wrote Thoughts
on Government, which influenced many state legislatures. Adams did not advocate democracy; rather, he
wrote, “there is no good government but what is republican.” Fearing the potential for tyranny with only
one group in power, he suggested a system of checks and balances in which three separate branches of
government—executive, legislative, and judicial—would maintain a balance of power. He also proposed
that each state remain sovereign, as its own republic. The state constitutions of the new United States
illustrate different approaches to addressing the question of how much democracy would prevail in the
thirteen republics. Some states embraced democratic practices, while others adopted far more aristocratic
and republican ones.
Click and Explore
Visit the Avalon Project (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/statecons) to read the

constitutions of the seven states (Virginia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Maryland,
Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Delaware) that had written constitutions by the end of
1776.
The 1776 Pennsylvania constitution and the 1784 New Hampshire constitution both provide examples of
democratic tendencies. In Pennsylvania, the requirement to own property in order to vote was eliminated,
and if a man was twenty-one or older, had paid taxes, and had lived in the same location for one year, he
could vote (Figure 7.10). This opened voting to most free white male citizens of Pennsylvania. The 1784
New Hampshire constitution allowed every small town and village to send representatives to the state
government, making the lower house of the legislature a model of democratic government.
Figure 7.10 The 1776 Pennsylvania constitution, the first page of which is shown here, adhered to more democratic
principles than some other states’ constitutions did initially.
Conservative Whigs, who distrusted the idea of majority rule, recoiled from the abolition of property
qualifications for voting and office holding in Pennsylvania. Conservative Whig John Adams reacted with
horror to the 1776 Pennsylvania constitution, declaring that it was “so democratical that it must produce
confusion and every evil work.” In his mind and those of other conservative Whigs, this constitution
simply put too much power in the hands of men who had no business exercising the right to vote.
Pennsylvania’s constitution also eliminated the executive branch (there was no governor) and the upper
house. Instead, Pennsylvania had a one-house—a unicameral—legislature.
The Maryland and South Carolina constitutions provide examples of efforts to limit the power of a
democratic majority. Maryland’s, written in 1776, restricted office holding to the wealthy planter class. A
man had to own at least £5,000 worth of personal property to be the governor of Maryland, and possess
an estate worth £1,000 to be a state senator. This latter qualification excluded over 90 percent of the white
males in Maryland from political office. The 1778 South Carolina constitution also sought to protect the
interests of the wealthy. Governors and lieutenant governors of the state had to have “a settled plantation

or freehold in their and each of their own right of the value of at least ten thousand pounds currency,
clear of debt.” This provision limited high office in the state to its wealthiest inhabitants. Similarly, South
Carolina state senators had to own estates valued at £2,000.
John Adams wrote much of the 1780 Massachusetts constitution, which reflected his fear of too much
democracy. It therefore created two legislative chambers, an upper and lower house, and a strong
governor with broad veto powers. Like South Carolina, Massachusetts put in place office-holding
requirements: To be governor under the new constitution, a candidate had to own an estate worth at least
£1,000. To serve in the state senate, a man had to own an estate worth at least £300 and have at least £600 in
total wealth. To vote, he had to be worth at least sixty pounds. To further keep democracy in check, judges
were appointed, not elected. One final limit was the establishment of the state capitol in the commercial
center of Boston, which made it difficult for farmers from the western part of the state to attend legislative
sessions.
THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION

Most revolutionaries pledged their greatest loyalty to their individual states. Recalling the experience
of British reform efforts imposed in the 1760s and 1770s, they feared a strong national government
and took some time to adopt the Articles of Confederation, the first national constitution. In June 1776,
the Continental Congress prepared to announce independence and began to think about the creation
of a new government to replace royal authority. Reaching agreement on the Articles of Confederation
proved difficult as members of the Continental Congress argued over western land claims. Connecticut,
for example, used its colonial charter to assert its claim to western lands in Pennsylvania and the Ohio
Territory (Figure 7.11).
Figure 7.11 Connecticut, like many other states, used its state constitution to stake claims to uncharted western
lands.
Members of the Continental Congress also debated what type of representation would be best and tried to
figure out how to pay the expenses of the new government. In lieu of creating a new federal government,
the Articles of Confederation created a “league of friendship” between the states. Congress readied the
Articles in 1777 but did not officially approve them until 1781 (Figure 7.12). The delay of four years
illustrates the difficulty of getting the thirteen states to agree on a plan of national government. Citizens
viewed their respective states as sovereign republics and guarded their prerogatives against other states.
Figure 7.12 The first page of the 1777 Articles of Confederation, printed by Alexander Purdie, emphasized the
“perpetual union” between the states.
The Articles of Confederation authorized a unicameral legislature, a continuation of the earlier Continental
Congress. The people could not vote directly for members of the national Congress; rather, state
legislatures decided who would represent the state. In practice, the national Congress was composed
of state delegations. There was no president or executive office of any kind, and there was no national
judiciary (or Supreme Court) for the United States.
Passage of any law under the Articles of Confederation proved difficult. It took the consensus of nine states
for any measure to pass, and amending the Articles required the consent of all the states, also extremely
difficult to achieve. Further, any acts put forward by the Congress were non-binding; states had the option
to enforce them or not. This meant that while the Congress had power over Indian affairs and foreign
policy, individual states could choose whether or not to comply.
The Congress did not have the power to tax citizens of the United States, a fact that would soon have
serious consequences for the republic. During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress had sent
requisitions for funds to the individual former colonies (now revolutionary states). These states already
had an enormous financial burden because they had to pay for militias as well as supply them. In the end,
the states failed to provide even half the funding requested by the Congress during the war, which led to
a national debt in the tens of millions by 1784.
By the 1780s, some members of the Congress were greatly concerned about the financial health of the
republic, and they argued that the national government needed greater power, especially the power to tax.
This required amending the Articles of Confederation with the consent of all the states. Those who called
for a stronger federal government were known as nationalists. The nationalist group that pushed for the
power to tax included Washington’s chief of staff, Alexander Hamilton; Virginia planter James Madison;
Pennsylvania’s wealthy merchant Robert Morris (who served under the Confederation government as
superintendent of finance in the early 1780s); and Pennsylvania lawyer James Wilson. Two New Yorkers,
Gouverneur Morris and James Duane, also joined the effort to address the debt and the weakness of the
Confederation government.
These men proposed a 5 percent tax on imports coming into the United States, a measure that would have
yielded enough revenue to clear the debt. However, their proposal failed to achieve unanimous support
from the states when Rhode Island rejected it. Plans for a national bank also failed to win unanimous
support. The lack of support illustrates the Americans’ deep suspicion of a powerful national government,

a suspicion that originated from the unilateral and heavy-handed reform efforts that the British Parliament
imposed on the colonies in the 1760s and 1770s. Without revenue, the Congress could not pay back
American creditors who had lent it money. However, it did manage to make interest payments to foreign
creditors in France and the Dutch Republic, fearful that defaulting on those payments would destroy the
republic’s credit and leave it unable to secure loans.
One soldier in the Continental Army, Joseph Plumb Martin, recounted how he received no pay in paper
money after 1777 and only one month’s payment in specie, or hard currency, in 1781. Like thousands
of other soldiers, Martin had fought valiantly against the British and helped secure independence, but
had not been paid for his service. In the 1780s and beyond, men like Martin would soon express their
profound dissatisfaction with their treatment. Their anger found expression in armed uprisings and
political divisions.
Establishing workable foreign and commercial policies under the Articles of Confederation also proved
difficult. Each state could decide for itself whether to comply with treaties between the Congress and
foreign countries, and there were no means of enforcement. Both Great Britain and Spain understood
the weakness of the Confederation Congress, and they refused to make commercial agreements with
the United States because they doubted they would be enforced. Without stable commercial policies,
American exporters found it difficult to do business, and British goods flooded U.S. markets in the 1780s,
in a repetition of the economic imbalance that existed before the Revolutionary War.
The Confederation Congress under the Articles did achieve success through a series of directives called
land ordinances, which established rules for the settlement of western lands in the public domain and
the admission of new states to the republic. The ordinances were designed to prepare the land for sale
to citizens and raise revenue to boost the failing economy of the republic. In the land ordinances, the
Confederation Congress created the Mississippi and Southwest Territories and stipulated that slavery
would be permitted there. The system of dividing the vast domains of the United States stands as a
towering achievement of the era, a blueprint for American western expansion.
The Ordinance of 1784, written by Thomas Jefferson and the first of what were later called the Northwest
Ordinances, directed that new states would be formed from a huge area of land below the Great Lakes, and
these new states would have equal standing with the original states. The Ordinance of 1785 called for the
division of this land into rectangular plots in order to prepare for the government sale of land. Surveyors
would divide the land into townships of six square miles, and the townships would be subdivided into
thirty-six plots of 640 acres each, which could be further subdivided. The price of an acre of land was
set at a minimum of one dollar, and the land was to be sold at public auction under the direction of the
Confederation.
The Ordinance of 1787 officially turned the land into an incorporated territory called the Northwest
Territory and prohibited slavery north of the Ohio River (Figure 7.13). The map of the 1787 Northwest
Territory shows how the public domain was to be divided by the national government for sale. Townships
of thirty-six square miles were to be surveyed. Each had land set aside for schools and other civic purposes.
Smaller parcels could then be made: a 640-acre section could be divided into quarter-sections of 160 acres,
and then again into sixteen sections of 40 acres. The geometric grid pattern established by the ordinance is
still evident today on the American landscape. Indeed, much of the western United States, when viewed
from an airplane, is composed of an orderly grid system.
Figure 7.13 The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 created territories and an orderly method for the admission of new
states.
Click and Explore
Visit Window Seat (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/thescream) to explore aerial views

of the grid system established by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which is still
evident in much of the Midwest.
The land ordinances proved to be the great triumph of the Confederation Congress. The Congress would
appoint a governor for the territories, and when the population in the territory reached five thousand free
adult settlers, those citizens could create their own legislature and begin the process of moving toward
statehood. When the population reached sixty thousand, the territory could become a new state.
SHAYS’ REBELLION
Despite Congress’s victory in creating an orderly process for organizing new states and territories, land
sales failed to produce the revenue necessary to deal with the dire economic problems facing the new
country in the 1780s. Each state had issued large amounts of paper money and, in the aftermath of the
Revolution, widespread internal devaluation of that currency occurred as many lost confidence in the
value of state paper money and the Continental dollar. A period of extreme inflation set in. Added to
this dilemma was American citizens’ lack of specie (gold and silver currency) to conduct routine business.
Meanwhile, demobilized soldiers, many of whom had spent their formative years fighting rather than
learning a peacetime trade, searched desperately for work.
The economic crisis came to a head in 1786 and 1787 in western Massachusetts, where farmers were in
a difficult position: they faced high taxes and debts, which they found nearly impossible to pay with the
worthless state and Continental paper money. For several years after the peace in 1783, these indebted
citizens had petitioned the state legislature for redress. Many were veterans of the Revolutionary War who
had returned to their farms and families after the fighting ended and now faced losing their homes.

Their petitions to the state legislature raised economic and political issues for citizens of the new state.
How could people pay their debts and state taxes when paper money proved unstable? Why was the
state government located in Boston, the center of the merchant elite? Why did the 1780 Massachusetts
constitution cater to the interests of the wealthy? To the indebted farmers, the situation in the 1780s seemed
hauntingly familiar; the revolutionaries had routed the British, but a new form of seemingly corrupt and
self-serving government had replaced them.
In 1786, when the state legislature again refused to address the petitioners’ requests, Massachusetts citizens
took up arms and closed courthouses across the state to prevent foreclosure (seizure of land in lieu of
overdue loan payments) on farms in debt. The farmers wanted their debts forgiven, and they demanded
that the 1780 constitution be revised to address citizens beyond the wealthy elite who could serve in the
legislature.
Many of the rebels were veterans of the war for independence, including Captain Daniel Shays from
Pelham (Figure 7.14). Although Shays was only one of many former officers in the Continental Army
who took part in the revolt, authorities in Boston singled him out as a ringleader, and the uprising became
known as Shays’ Rebellion. The Massachusetts legislature responded to the closing of the courthouses
with a flurry of legislation, much of it designed to punish the rebels. The government offered the rebels
clemency if they took an oath of allegiance. Otherwise, local officials were empowered to use deadly force
against them without fear of prosecution. Rebels would lose their property, and if any militiamen refused
to defend the state, they would be executed.
Figure 7.14 This woodcut, from Bickerstaff’s Boston Almanack of 1787, depicts Daniel Shays and Job Shattuck.
Shays and Shattuck were two of the leaders of the rebels who rose up against the Massachusetts government in
1786 to 1787. As Revolutionary War veterans, both men wear the uniform of officers of the Continental Army.
Despite these measures, the rebellion continued. To address the uprising, Governor James Bowdoin raised
a private army of forty-four hundred men, funded by wealthy Boston merchants, without the approval of
the legislature. The climax of Shays’ Rebellion came in January 1787, when the rebels attempted to seize
the federal armory in Springfield, Massachusetts. A force loyal to the state defeated them there, although
the rebellion continued into February.
Shays’ Rebellion resulted in eighteen deaths overall, but the uprising had lasting effects. To men of
property, mostly conservative Whigs, Shays’ Rebellion strongly suggested the republic was falling into
anarchy and chaos. The other twelve states had faced similar economic and political difficulties, and
continuing problems seemed to indicate that on a national level, a democratic impulse was driving
the population. Shays’ Rebellion convinced George Washington to come out of retirement and lead the
convention called for by Alexander Hamilton to amend the Articles of Confederation in order to deal with
insurgencies like the one in Massachusetts and provide greater stability in the United States.

• Identify the central issues of the 1787 Constitutional Convention and their solutions
• Describe the conflicts over the ratification of the federal constitution
The economic problems that plagued the thirteen states of the Confederation set the stage for the creation
of a strong central government under a federal constitution. Although the original purpose of the
convention was to amend the Articles of Confederation, some—though not all—delegates moved quickly
to create a new framework for a more powerful national government. This proved extremely controversial.
Those who attended the convention split over the issue of robust, centralized government and questions
of how Americans would be represented in the federal government. Those who opposed the proposal for
a stronger federal government argued that such a plan betrayed the Revolution by limiting the voice of the
American people.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

There had been earlier efforts to address the Confederation’s perilous state. In early 1786, Virginia’s
James Madison advocated a meeting of states to address the widespread economic problems that plagued
the new nation. Heeding Madison’s call, the legislature in Virginia invited all thirteen states to meet in
Annapolis, Maryland, to work on solutions to the issue of commerce between the states. Eight states
responded to the invitation. But the resulting 1786 Annapolis Convention failed to provide any solutions
because only five states sent delegates. These delegates did, however, agree to a plan put forward by
Alexander Hamilton for a second convention to meet in May 1787 in Philadelphia. Shays’ Rebellion gave
greater urgency to the planned convention. In February 1787, in the wake of the uprising in western
Massachusetts, the Confederation Congress authorized the Philadelphia convention. This time, all the
states except Rhode Island sent delegates to Philadelphia to confront the problems of the day.
The stated purpose of the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 was to amend the Articles of Confederation.
Very quickly, however, the attendees decided to create a new framework for a national government. That
framework became the United States Constitution, and the Philadelphia convention became known as
the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Fifty-five men met in Philadelphia in secret; historians know of
the proceedings only because James Madison kept careful notes of what transpired. The delegates knew
that what they were doing would be controversial; Rhode Island refused to send delegates, and New
Hampshire’s delegates arrived late. Two delegates from New York, Robert Yates and John Lansing, left
the convention when it became clear that the Articles were being put aside and a new plan of national
government was being drafted. They did not believe the delegates had the authority to create a strong
national government.
Click and Explore
Read “Reasons for Dissent from the Proposed Constitution”

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/YatesLansing) in order to understand why Robert
Yates and John Lansing, New York’s delegates to the 1787 Philadelphia Convention,
didn’t believe the convention should draft a new plan of national government.

THE QUESTION OF REPRESENTATION

One issue that the delegates in Philadelphia addressed was the way in which representatives to the new
national government would be chosen. Would individual citizens be able to elect representatives? Would
representatives be chosen by state legislatures? How much representation was appropriate for each state?
James Madison put forward a proposition known as the Virginia Plan, which called for a strong national
government that could overturn state laws (Figure 7.15). The plan featured a bicameral or two-house
legislature, with an upper and a lower house. The people of the states would elect the members of the
lower house, whose numbers would be determined by the population of the state. State legislatures would
send delegates to the upper house. The number of representatives in the upper chamber would also be
based on the state’s population. This proportional representation gave the more populous states, like
Virginia, more political power. The Virginia Plan also called for an executive branch and a judicial branch,
both of which were absent under the Articles of Confederation. The lower and upper house together were
to appoint members to the executive and judicial branches. Under this plan, Virginia, the most populous
state, would dominate national political power and ensure its interests, including slavery, would be safe.
Figure 7.15 James Madison’s Virginia Plan, shown here, proposed a strong national government with proportional
state representation.
The Virginia Plan’s call for proportional representation alarmed the representatives of the smaller states.
William Paterson introduced a New Jersey Plan to counter Madison’s scheme, proposing that all states
have equal votes in a unicameral national legislature. He also addressed the economic problems of the
day by calling for the Congress to have the power to regulate commerce, to raise revenue though taxes on
imports and through postage, and to enforce Congressional requisitions from the states.
Roger Sherman from Connecticut offered a compromise to break the deadlock over the thorny question of
representation. His Connecticut Compromise, also known as the Great Compromise, outlined a different
bicameral legislature in which the upper house, the Senate, would have equal representation for all states;
each state would be represented by two senators chosen by the state legislatures. Only the lower house,
the House of Representatives, would have proportional representation.
THE QUESTION OF SLAVERY

The question of slavery stood as a major issue at the Constitutional Convention because slaveholders
wanted slaves to be counted along with whites, termed “free inhabitants,” when determining a state’s
total population. This, in turn, would augment the number of representatives accorded to those states
in the lower house. Some northerners, however, such as New York’s Gouverneur Morris, hated slavery
and did not even want the term included in the new national plan of government. Slaveholders argued
that slavery imposed great burdens upon them and that, because they carried this liability, they deserved
special consideration; slaves needed to be counted for purposes of representation.
The issue of counting or not counting slaves for purposes of representation connected directly to the
question of taxation. Beginning in 1775, the Second Continental Congress asked states to pay for war
by collecting taxes and sending the tax money to the Congress. The amount each state had to deliver in
tax revenue was determined by a state’s total population, including both free and enslaved individuals.
States routinely fell far short of delivering the money requested by Congress under the plan. In April 1783,
the Confederation Congress amended the earlier system of requisition by having slaves count as three-
fifths of the white population. In this way, slaveholders gained a significant tax break. The delegates in
Philadelphia adopted this same three-fifths formula in the summer of 1787.
Under the three-fifths compromise in the 1787 Constitution, each slave would be counted as three-fifths of
a white person. Article 1, Section 2 stipulated that “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned
among the several states . . . according to their respective Number, which shall be determined by adding to
the whole number of free Persons, including those bound for service for a Term of Years [white servants],
and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.” Since representation in the House of
Representatives was based on the population of a state, the three-fifths compromise gave extra political
power to slave states, although not as much as if the total population, both free and slave, had been used.
Significantly, no direct federal income tax was immediately imposed. (The Sixteenth Amendment, ratified
in 1913, put in place a federal income tax.) Northerners agreed to the three-fifths compromise because the
Northwest Ordinance of 1787, passed by the Confederation Congress, banned slavery in the future states
of the northwest. Northern delegates felt this ban balanced political power between states with slaves and
those without. The three-fifths compromise gave an advantage to slaveholders; they added three-fifths of
their human property to their state’s population, allowing them to send representatives based in part on
the number of slaves they held.
THE QUESTION OF DEMOCRACY

Many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had serious reservations about democracy, which
they believed promoted anarchy. To allay these fears, the Constitution blunted democratic tendencies
that appeared to undermine the republic. Thus, to avoid giving the people too much direct power, the
delegates made certain that senators were chosen by the state legislatures, not elected directly by the
people (direct elections of senators came with the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in
1913). As an additional safeguard, the delegates created the Electoral College, the mechanism for choosing
the president. Under this plan, each state has a certain number of electors, which is its number of senators
(two) plus its number of representatives in the House of Representatives. Critics, then as now, argue that
this process prevents the direct election of the president.
THE FIGHT OVER RATIFICATION

The draft constitution was finished in September 1787. The delegates decided that in order for the new
national government to be implemented, each state must first hold a special ratifying convention. When
nine of the thirteen had approved the plan, the constitution would go into effect.
When the American public learned of the new constitution, opinions were deeply divided, but most people
were opposed. To salvage their work in Philadelphia, the architects of the new national government began
a campaign to sway public opinion in favor of their blueprint for a strong central government. In the

fierce debate that erupted, the two sides articulated contrasting visions of the American republic and of
democracy. Supporters of the 1787 Constitution, known as Federalists, made the case that a centralized
republic provided the best solution for the future. Those who opposed it, known as Anti-Federalists,
argued that the Constitution would consolidate all power in a national government, robbing the states
of the power to make their own decisions. To them, the Constitution appeared to mimic the old corrupt
and centralized British regime, under which a far-off government made the laws. Anti-Federalists argued
that wealthy aristocrats would run the new national government, and that the elite would not represent
ordinary citizens; the rich would monopolize power and use the new government to formulate policies
that benefited their class—a development that would also undermine local state elites. They also argued
that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights.
New York’s ratifying convention illustrates the divide between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. When
one Anti-Federalist delegate named Melancton Smith took issue with the scheme of representation as
being too limited and not reflective of the people, Alexander Hamilton responded:
It has been observed by an honorable gentleman [Smith], that a pure democracy, if it were
practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proven, that no position
in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves
deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny;
their figure deformity: When they assembled, the field of debate presented an ungovernable
mob, not only incapable of deliberation, but prepared for every enormity. In these assemblies,
the enemies of the people brought forward their plans of ambition systematically. They were
opposed by their enemies of another party; and it became a matter of contingency, whether the
people subjected themselves to be led blindly by one tyrant or by another.
The Federalists, particularly John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, put their case to the public
in a famous series of essays known as The Federalist Papers. These were first published in New York and
subsequently republished elsewhere in the United States.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
James Madison on the Benefits of Republicanism
The tenth essay in The Federalist Papers, often called Federalist No. 10, is one of the most famous.
Written by James Madison (Figure 7.16), it addresses the problems of political parties (“factions”).
Madison argued that there were two approaches to solving the problem of political parties: a republican
government and a democracy. He argued that a large republic provided the best defense against what
he viewed as the tumult of direct democracy. Compromises would be reached in a large republic and
citizens would be represented by representatives of their own choosing.
Figure 7.16 John Vanderlyn’s 1816 portrait depicts James Madison, one of the leading Federalists
who supported the 1787 Constitution.
From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I
mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the
Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion
or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication
and concert result from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the
inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such
Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found
incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as
short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who
have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing
mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly
equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A Republic, by which I mean a Government in which the scheme of representation takes
place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us
examine the points in which it varies from pure Democracy, and we shall comprehend both
the nature of the cure, and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference, between a Democracy and a Republic, are, first, the
delegation of the Government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest:
Secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter
may be extended.
Does Madison recommend republicanism or democracy as the best form of government? What
arguments does he use to prove his point?

Click and Explore
Read the full text of Federalist No. 10 (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/federalist10) on

Wikisource. What do you think are Madison’s most and least compelling arguments?
How would different members of the new United States view his arguments?
Including all the state ratifying conventions around the country, a total of fewer than two thousand men
voted on whether to adopt the new plan of government. In the end, the Constitution only narrowly
won approval (Figure 7.17). In New York, the vote was thirty in favor to twenty-seven opposed. In
Massachusetts, the vote to approve was 187 to 168, and some claim supporters of the Constitution resorted
to bribes in order to ensure approval. Virginia ratified by a vote of eighty-nine to seventy-nine, and
Rhode Island by thirty-four to thirty-two. The opposition to the Constitution reflected the fears that a new
national government, much like the British monarchy, created too much centralized power and, as a result,
deprived citizens in the various states of the ability to make their own decisions.
Figure 7.17 The first page of the 1787 United States Constitution, shown here, begins: “We the People of the United
States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain
and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Key Terms
Anti-Federalists those who opposed the 1787 Constitution and favored stronger individual states
bicameral having two legislative houses, an upper and a lower house
checks and balances the system that ensures a balance of power among the branches of government
Connecticut Compromise also known as the Great Compromise, Roger Sherman’s proposal at the
Constitutional Convention for a bicameral legislature, with the upper house having equal representation
for all states and the lower house having proportional representation
conservative Whigs the politically and economically elite revolutionary class that wanted to limit
political participation to a few powerful families
coverture the legal status of married women in the United States, which included complete legal and
economic dependence on husbands
democracy a system of government in which the majority rules
Electoral College the mechanism by which electors, based on the number of representatives from each
state, choose the president
Federalists those who supported the 1787 Constitution and a strong central government; these advocates
of the new national government formed the ruling political party in the 1790s
majority rule a fundamental principle of democracy, providing that the majority should have the power
to make decisions binding upon the whole
manumission the freeing of a slave by his or her owner
monarchy a form of government with a monarch at its head
proportional representation representation that gives more populous states greater political power by
allowing them more representatives
radical Whigs revolutionaries who favored broadening participation in the political process
three-fifths compromise the agreement at the Constitutional Convention that each slave would count as
three-fifths of a white person for purposes of representation
unicameral having a single house (of legislative government)
Summary
The guiding principle of republicanism was that the people themselves would appoint or select the
leaders who would represent them. The debate over how much democracy (majority rule) to incorporate
in the governing of the new United States raised questions about who was best qualified to participate
in government and have the right to vote. Revolutionary leaders argued that property holders had the
greatest stake in society and favored a republic that would limit political rights to property holders. In
this way, republicanism exhibited a bias toward the elite. George Washington served as a role model for
the new republic, embodying the exceptional talent and public virtue prized in its political and social
philosophy.


After the Revolution, the balance of power between women and men and between whites, blacks, and
Indians remained largely unchanged. Yet revolutionary principles, including the call for universal equality
in the Declaration of Independence, inspired and emboldened many. Abigail Adams and others pressed
for greater rights for women, while the Pennsylvania Abolition Society and New York Manumission
Society worked toward the abolition of slavery. Nonetheless, for blacks, women, and native peoples, the
revolutionary ideals of equality fell far short of reality. In the new republic, full citizenship—including the
right to vote—did not extend to nonwhites or to women.

The late 1770s and 1780s witnessed one of the most creative political eras as each state drafted its
own constitution. The Articles of Confederation, a weak national league among the states, reflected the
dominant view that power should be located in the states and not in a national government. However,
neither the state governments nor the Confederation government could solve the enormous economic
problems resulting from the long and costly Revolutionary War. The economic crisis led to Shays’
Rebellion by residents of western Massachusetts, and to the decision to revise the Confederation
government.

The economic crisis of the 1780s, shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation, and outbreak of Shays’
Rebellion spurred delegates from twelve of the thirteen states to gather for the Constitutional Convention
of 1787. Although the stated purpose of the convention was to modify the Articles of Confederation, their
mission shifted to the building of a new, strong federal government. Federalists like James Madison and
Alexander Hamilton led the charge for a new United States Constitution, the document that endures as
the oldest written constitution in the world, a testament to the work done in 1787 by the delegates in
Philadelphia.
Review Questions
1. To what form of government did the American 4. Which of the following figures did not actively
revolutionaries turn after the war for challenge the status of women in the early
independence? American republic?
A. republicanism A. Abigail Adams
B. monarchy B. Phillis Wheatley
C. democracy C. Mercy Otis Warren
D. oligarchy D. Judith Sargent Murray
2. Which of the following was not one of 5. Which state had the clearest separation of
Franklin’s thirteen virtues? church and state?
A. sincerity A. New Hampshire
B. temperance B. Pennsylvania
C. mercy C. Virginia
D. tranquility D. New York
3. What defined republicanism as a social 6. How would you characterize Thomas

philosophy? Jefferson’s ideas on race and slavery?
7. Which of the following states had the most 10. Which plan resolved the issue of
democratic constitution in the 1780s? representation for the U.S. Constitution?
A. Pennsylvania A. the Rhode Island Agreement
B. Massachusetts B. the New Jersey Plan
C. South Carolina C. the Connecticut Compromise
D. Maryland D. the Virginia Plan
8. Under the Articles of Confederation, what 11. How was the U.S. Constitution ratified?
power did the national Confederation Congress A. by each state at special ratifying
have? conventions
A. the power to tax B. at the Constitutional Convention of 1787
B. the power to enforce foreign treaties C. at the Confederation Convention
C. the power to enforce commercial trade D. by popular referendum in each state
agreements
D. the power to create land ordinances 12. Explain the argument that led to the three-
fifths rule and the consequences of that rule.
9. What were the primary causes of Shays’
Rebellion?

13. Describe the state constitutions that were more democratic and those that were less so. What effect
would these different constitutions have upon those states? Who could participate in government, whether
by voting or by holding public office? Whose interests were represented, and whose were compromised?
14. In what ways does the United States Constitution manifest the principles of both republican and
democratic forms of government? In what ways does it deviate from those principles?
15. In this chapter’s discussion of New York’s ratifying convention, Alexander Hamilton takes issue with
Anti-Federalist delegate Melancton Smith’s assertion that (as Hamilton says) “a pure democracy, if it were
practicable, would be the most perfect government.” What did Smith—and Hamilton—mean by “a pure
democracy”? How does this compare to the type of democracy that represents the modern United States?
16. Describe popular attitudes toward African Americans, women, and Indians in the wake of the
Revolution. In what ways did the established social and political order depend upon keeping members of
these groups in their circumscribed roles? If those roles were to change, how would American society and
politics have had to adjust?
17. How did the process of creating and ratifying the Constitution, and the language of the Constitution
itself, confirm the positions of African Americans, women, and Indians in the new republic? How did these
roles compare to the stated goals of the republic?
18. What were the circumstances that led to Shays’ Rebellion? What was the government’s response?
Would this response have confirmed or negated the grievances of the participants in the uprising? Why?

Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820 213
CHAPTER 8
Growing Pains: The New Republic,

1790–1820
Figure 8.1 “The happy Effects of the Grand Systom [sic] of shutting Ports against the English!!” appeared in 1808.
Less than a year earlier, Thomas Jefferson had recommended (and Congress had passed) the Embargo Act of 1807,
which barred American ships from leaving their ports.
Chapter Outline
8.1 Competing Visions: Federalists and Democratic-Republicans
8.2 The New American Republic
8.3 Partisan Politics
8.4 The United States Goes Back to War
Introduction
The partisan political cartoon above (Figure 8.1) lampoons Thomas Jefferson’s 1807 Embargo Act, a
move that had a devastating effect on American commerce. American farmers and merchants complain to
President Jefferson, while the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte whispers to him, “You shall be King
hereafter.” This image illustrates one of many political struggles in the years after the fight for ratification
of the Constitution. In the nation’s first few years, no organized political parties existed. This began to
change as U.S. citizens argued bitterly about the proper size and scope of the new national government.
As a result, the 1790s witnessed the rise of opposing political parties: the Federalists and the Democratic-
Republicans. Federalists saw unchecked democracy as a dire threat to the republic, and they pointed to
the excesses of the French Revolution as proof of what awaited. Democratic-Republicans opposed the
Federalists’ notion that only the wellborn and well educated were able to oversee the republic; they saw it
as a pathway to oppression by an aristocracy.
214 Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820

• Describe the competing visions of the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans
• Identify the protections granted to citizens under the Bill of Rights
• Explain Alexander Hamilton’s financial programs as secretary of the treasury
In June 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the federal Constitution, and the new plan
for a strong central government went into effect. Elections for the first U.S. Congress were held in 1788
and 1789, and members took their seats in March 1789. In a reflection of the trust placed in him as the
personification of republican virtue, George Washington became the first president in April 1789. John
Adams served as his vice president; the pairing of a representative from Virginia (Washington) with one
from Massachusetts (Adams) symbolized national unity. Nonetheless, political divisions quickly became
apparent. Washington and Adams represented the Federalist Party, which generated a backlash among
those who resisted the new government’s assertions of federal power.
FEDERALISTS IN POWER
Though the Revolution had overthrown British rule in the United States, supporters of the 1787 federal
constitution, known as Federalists, adhered to a decidedly British notion of social hierarchy. The
Federalists did not, at first, compose a political party. Instead, Federalists held certain shared assumptions.
For them, political participation continued to be linked to property rights, which barred many citizens
from voting or holding office. Federalists did not believe the Revolution had changed the traditional social
roles between women and men, or between whites and other races. They did believe in clear distinctions
in rank and intelligence. To these supporters of the Constitution, the idea that all were equal appeared
ludicrous. Women, blacks, and native peoples, they argued, had to know their place as secondary to white
male citizens. Attempts to impose equality, they feared, would destroy the republic. The United States was
not created to be a democracy.
Figure 8.2

The architects of the Constitution committed themselves to leading the new republic, and they held a
majority among the members of the new national government. Indeed, as expected, many assumed the
new executive posts the first Congress created. Washington appointed Alexander Hamilton, a leading
Federalist, as secretary of the treasury. For secretary of state, he chose Thomas Jefferson. For secretary
of war, he appointed Henry Knox, who had served with him during the Revolutionary War. Edmond
Randolph, a Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention, was named attorney general. In July 1789,
Congress also passed the Judiciary Act, creating a Supreme Court of six justices headed by those who were
committed to the new national government.
Congress passed its first major piece of legislation by placing a duty on imports under the 1789 Tariff
Act. Intended to raise revenue to address the country’s economic problems, the act was a victory for
nationalists, who favored a robust, powerful federal government and had worked unsuccessfully for
similar measures during the Confederation Congress in the 1780s. Congress also placed a fifty-cent-per-
ton duty (based on materials transported, not the weight of a ship) on foreign ships coming into American
ports, a move designed to give the commercial advantage to American ships and goods.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Many Americans opposed the 1787 Constitution because it seemed a dangerous concentration of
centralized power that threatened the rights and liberties of ordinary U.S. citizens. These opponents,
known collectively as Anti-Federalists, did not constitute a political party, but they united in demanding
protection for individual rights, and several states made the passing of a bill of rights a condition of their
acceptance of the Constitution. Rhode Island and North Carolina rejected the Constitution because it did
not already have this specific bill of rights.
Federalists followed through on their promise to add such a bill in 1789, when Virginia Representative
James Madison introduced and Congress approved the Bill of Rights (Table 8.1). Adopted in 1791, the bill
consisted of the first ten amendments to the Constitution and outlined many of the personal rights state
constitutions already guaranteed.
Table 8.1 Rights Protected by the First Ten Amendments
Amendment 1 Right to freedoms of religion and speech; right to assemble and to petition the
government for redress of grievances
Amendment 2 Right to keep and bear arms to maintain a well-regulated militia
Amendment 3 Right not to house soldiers during time of war
Amendment 4 Right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure
Amendment 5 Rights in criminal cases, including to due process and indictment by grand jury for
capital crimes, as well as the right not to testify against oneself
Amendment 6 Right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury
Amendment 7 Right to a jury trial in civil cases
Amendment 8 Right not to face excessive bail or fines, or cruel and unusual punishment
Amendment 9 Rights retained by the people, even if they are not specifically enumerated by the
Constitution
Amendment 10 States’ rights to powers not specifically delegated to the federal government
The adoption of the Bill of Rights softened the Anti-Federalists’ opposition to the Constitution and gave
the new federal government greater legitimacy among those who otherwise distrusted the new centralized
power created by men of property during the secret 1787 Philadelphia Constitutional Convention.
Click and Explore
Visit the National Archives (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/BillRights) to consider the

first ten amendments to the Constitution as an expression of the fears many citizens
harbored about the powers of the new federal government. What were these fears?
How did the Bill of Rights calm them?
ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S PROGRAM

Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s secretary of the treasury, was an ardent nationalist who believed a
strong federal government could solve many of the new country’s financial ills. Born in the West Indies,
Hamilton had worked on a St. Croix plantation as a teenager and was in charge of the accounts at a young
age. He knew the Atlantic trade very well and used that knowledge in setting policy for the United States.
In the early 1790s, he created the foundation for the U.S. financial system. He understood that a robust
federal government would provide a solid financial foundation for the country.
The United States began mired in debt. In 1789, when Hamilton took up his post, the federal debt was
over $53 million. The states had a combined debt of around $25 million, and the United States had been
unable to pay its debts in the 1780s and was therefore considered a credit risk by European countries.
Hamilton wrote three reports offering solutions to the economic crisis brought on by these problems. The
first addressed public credit, the second addressed banking, and the third addressed raising revenue.
The Report on Public Credit

For the national government to be effective, Hamilton deemed it essential to have the support of those to
whom it owed money: the wealthy, domestic creditor class as well as foreign creditors. In January 1790, he
delivered his “Report on Public Credit“ (Figure 8.3), addressing the pressing need of the new republic to
become creditworthy. He recommended that the new federal government honor all its debts, including all
paper money issued by the Confederation and the states during the war, at face value. Hamilton especially
wanted wealthy American creditors who held large amounts of paper money to be invested, literally, in
the future and welfare of the new national government. He also understood the importance of making the
new United States financially stable for creditors abroad. To pay these debts, Hamilton proposed that the
federal government sell bonds—federal interest-bearing notes—to the public. These bonds would have the
backing of the government and yield interest payments. Creditors could exchange their old notes for the
new government bonds. Hamilton wanted to give the paper money that states had issued during the war
the same status as government bonds; these federal notes would begin to yield interest payments in 1792.

Figure 8.3 As the first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton (a), shown here in a 1792 portrait by John
Trumbull, released the “Report on Public Credit” (b) in January 1790.
Hamilton designed his “Report on Public Credit” (later called “First Report on Public Credit”) to ensure
the survival of the new and shaky American republic. He knew the importance of making the United States
financially reliable, secure, and strong, and his plan provided a blueprint to achieve that goal. He argued
that his plan would satisfy creditors, citing the goal of “doing justice to the creditors of the nation.” At
the same time, the plan would work “to promote the increasing respectability of the American name; to
answer the calls for justice; to restore landed property to its due value; to furnish new resources both to
agriculture and commerce; to cement more closely the union of the states; to add to their security against
foreign attack; to establish public order on the basis of upright and liberal policy.”
Hamilton’s program ignited a heated debate in Congress. A great many of both Confederation and state
notes had found their way into the hands of speculators, who had bought them from hard-pressed
veterans in the 1780s and paid a fraction of their face value in anticipation of redeeming them at full value
at a later date. Because these speculators held so many notes, many in Congress objected that Hamilton’s
plan would benefit them at the expense of the original note-holders. One of those who opposed Hamilton’s
1790 report was James Madison, who questioned the fairness of a plan that seemed to cheat poor soldiers.
Not surprisingly, states with a large debt, like South Carolina, supported Hamilton’s plan, while states
with less debt, like North Carolina, did not. To gain acceptance of his plan, Hamilton worked out a
compromise with Virginians Madison and Jefferson, whereby in return for their support he would give up
New York City as the nation’s capital and agree on a more southern location, which they preferred. In July
1790, a site along the Potomac River was selected as the new “federal city,” which became the District of
Columbia.
Hamilton’s plan to convert notes to bonds worked extremely well to restore European confidence in the
U.S. economy. It also proved a windfall for creditors, especially those who had bought up state and
Confederation notes at far less than face value. But it immediately generated controversy about the size
and scope of the government. Some saw the plan as an unjust use of federal power, while Hamilton argued
that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution granted the government “implied powers” that gave the green
light to his program.
The Report on a National Bank

As secretary of the treasury, Hamilton hoped to stabilize the American economy further by establishing a
national bank. The United States operated with a flurry of different notes from multiple state banks and
no coherent regulation. By proposing that the new national bank buy up large volumes of state bank notes
and demanding their conversion into gold, Hamilton especially wanted to discipline those state banks that
issued paper money irresponsibly. To that end, he delivered his “Report on a National Bank” in December
1790, proposing a Bank of the United States, an institution modeled on the Bank of England. The bank
would issue loans to American merchants and bills of credit (federal bank notes that would circulate as
money) while serving as a repository of government revenue from the sale of land. Stockholders would
own the bank, along with the federal government.
Like the recommendations in his “Report on Public Credit,” Hamilton’s bank proposal generated
opposition. Jefferson, in particular, argued that the Constitution did not permit the creation of a national
bank. In response, Hamilton again invoked the Constitution’s implied powers. President Washington
backed Hamilton’s position and signed legislation creating the bank in 1791.
The Report on Manufactures

The third report Hamilton delivered to Congress, known as the “Report on Manufactures,” addressed
the need to raise revenue to pay the interest on the national debt. Using the power to tax as provided
under the Constitution, Hamilton put forth a proposal to tax American-made whiskey. He also knew the
importance of promoting domestic manufacturing so the new United States would no longer have to rely
on imported manufactured goods. To break from the old colonial system, Hamilton therefore advocated
tariffs on all foreign imports to stimulate the production of American-made goods. To promote domestic
industry further, he proposed federal subsidies to American industries. Like all of Hamilton’s programs,
the idea of government involvement in the development of American industries was new.
With the support of Washington, the entire Hamiltonian economic program received the necessary
support in Congress to be implemented. In the long run, Hamilton’s financial program helped to rescue the
United States from its state of near-bankruptcy in the late 1780s. His initiatives marked the beginning of an
American capitalism, making the republic creditworthy, promoting commerce, and setting for the nation
a solid financial foundation. His policies also facilitated the growth of the stock market, as U.S. citizens
bought and sold the federal government’s interest-bearing certificates.
THE DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE FIRST PARTY SYSTEM

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson felt the federal government had overstepped its authority by
adopting the treasury secretary’s plan. Madison found Hamilton’s scheme immoral and offensive. He
argued that it turned the reins of government over to the class of speculators who profited at the expense
of hardworking citizens.
Jefferson, who had returned to the United States in 1790 after serving as a diplomat in France, tried
unsuccessfully to convince Washington to block the creation of a national bank. He also took issue with
what he perceived as favoritism given to commercial classes in the principal American cities. He thought
urban life widened the gap between the wealthy few and an underclass of landless poor workers who,
because of their oppressed condition, could never be good republican property owners. Rural areas, in
contrast, offered far more opportunities for property ownership and virtue. In 1783 Jefferson wrote, “Those
who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people.” Jefferson believed
that self-sufficient, property-owning republican citizens or yeoman farmers held the key to the success and
longevity of the American republic. (As a creature of his times, he did not envision a similar role for either
women or nonwhite men.) To him, Hamilton’s program seemed to encourage economic inequalities and
work against the ordinary American yeoman.

Opposition to Hamilton, who had significant power in the new federal government, including the ear of
President Washington, began in earnest in the early 1790s. Jefferson turned to his friend Philip Freneau to
help organize the effort through the publication of the National Gazette as a counter to the Federalist press,
especially the Gazette of the United States (Figure 8.4). From 1791 until 1793, when it ceased publication,
Freneau’s partisan paper attacked Hamilton’s program and Washington’s administration. “Rules for
Changing a Republic into a Monarchy,” written by Freneau, is an example of the type of attack aimed at the
national government, and especially at the elitism of the Federalist Party. Newspapers in the 1790s became
enormously important in American culture as partisans like Freneau attempted to sway public opinion.
These newspapers did not aim to be objective; instead, they served to broadcast the views of a particular
party.
Figure 8.4 Here, the front page of the Federalist Gazette of the United States from September 9, 1789 (a), is shown
beside that of the oppositional National Gazette from November 14, 1791 (b). The Gazette of the United States
featured articles, sometimes written pseudonymously or anonymously, from leading Federalists like Alexander
Hamilton and John Adams. The National Gazette was founded two years later to counter their political influence.
Click and Explore
Visit Lexrex.com (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/NatGazette) to read Philip Freneau’s

essay and others from the National Gazette. Can you identify three instances of
persuasive writing against the Federalist Party or the government?
Opposition to the Federalists led to the formation of Democratic-Republican societies, composed of men
who felt the domestic policies of the Washington administration were designed to enrich the few while
ignoring everyone else. Democratic-Republicans championed limited government. Their fear of
centralized power originated in the experience of the 1760s and 1770s when the distant, overbearing,
and seemingly corrupt British Parliament attempted to impose its will on the colonies. The 1787 federal
constitution, written in secret by fifty-five wealthy men of property and standing, ignited fears of a similar
menacing plot. To opponents, the Federalists promoted aristocracy and a monarchical government—a
betrayal of what many believed to be the goal of the American Revolution.
While wealthy merchants and planters formed the core of the Federalist leadership, members of the
Democratic-Republican societies in cities like Philadelphia and New York came from the ranks of artisans.
These citizens saw themselves as acting in the spirit of 1776, this time not against the haughty British but
by what they believed to have replaced them—a commercial class with no interest in the public good.
Their political efforts against the Federalists were a battle to preserve republicanism, to promote the public
good against private self-interest. They published their views, held meetings to voice their opposition,
and sponsored festivals and parades. In their strident newspapers attacks, they also worked to undermine
the traditional forms of deference and subordination to aristocrats, in this case the Federalist elites. Some
members of northern Democratic-Republican clubs denounced slavery as well.
DEFINING CITIZENSHIP
While questions regarding the proper size and scope of the new national government created a divide
among Americans and gave rise to political parties, a consensus existed among men on the issue of who
qualified and who did not qualify as a citizen. The 1790 Naturalization Act defined citizenship in stark
racial terms. To be a citizen of the American republic, an immigrant had to be a “free white person” of
“good character.” By excluding slaves, free blacks, Indians, and Asians from citizenship, the act laid the
foundation for the United States as a republic of white men.
Full citizenship that included the right to vote was restricted as well. Many state constitutions directed
that only male property owners or taxpayers could vote. For women, the right to vote remained out of
reach except in the state of New Jersey. In 1776, the fervor of the Revolution led New Jersey revolutionaries
to write a constitution extending the right to vote to unmarried women who owned property worth
£50. Federalists and Democratic-Republicans competed for the votes of New Jersey women who met the
requirements to cast ballots. This radical innovation continued until 1807, when New Jersey restricted
voting to free white males.

• Identify the major foreign and domestic uprisings of the early 1790s
• Explain the effect of these uprisings on the political system of the United States
The colonies’ alliance with France, secured after the victory at Saratoga in 1777, proved crucial in their
victory against the British, and during the 1780s France and the new United States enjoyed a special
relationship. Together they had defeated their common enemy, Great Britain. But despite this shared
experience, American opinions regarding France diverged sharply in the 1790s when France underwent its
own revolution. Democratic-Republicans seized on the French revolutionaries’ struggle against monarchy
as the welcome harbinger of a larger republican movement around the world. To the Federalists, however,
the French Revolution represented pure anarchy, especially after the execution of the French king in 1793.
Along with other foreign and domestic uprisings, the French Revolution helped harden the political divide
in the United States in the early 1790s.

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

The French Revolution, which began in 1789, further split American thinkers into different ideological
camps, deepening the political divide between Federalists and their Democratic-Republican foes. At first,
in 1789 and 1790, the revolution in France appeared to most in the United States as part of a new chapter
in the rejection of corrupt monarchy, a trend inspired by the American Revolution. A constitutional
monarchy replaced the absolute monarchy of Louis XVI in 1791, and in 1792, France was declared a
republic. Republican liberty, the creed of the United States, seemed to be ushering in a new era in France.
Indeed, the American Revolution served as an inspiration for French revolutionaries.
The events of 1793 and 1794 challenged the simple interpretation of the French Revolution as a happy
chapter in the unfolding triumph of republican government over monarchy. The French king was executed
in January 1793 (Figure 8.5), and the next two years became known as the Terror, a period of extreme
violence against perceived enemies of the revolutionary government. Revolutionaries advocated direct
representative democracy, dismantled Catholicism, replaced that religion with a new philosophy known
as the Cult of the Supreme Being, renamed the months of the year, and relentlessly employed the guillotine
against their enemies. Federalists viewed these excesses with growing alarm, fearing that the radicalism
of the French Revolution might infect the minds of citizens at home. Democratic-Republicans interpreted
the same events with greater optimism, seeing them as a necessary evil of eliminating the monarchy and
aristocratic culture that supported the privileges of a hereditary class of rulers.
Figure 8.5 An image from a 1791 Hungarian journal depicts the beheading of Louis XVI during the French
Revolution. The violence of the revolutionary French horrified many in the United States—especially Federalists, who
saw it as an example of what could happen when the mob gained political control and instituted direct democracy.
The controversy in the United States intensified when France declared war on Great Britain and Holland
in February 1793. France requested that the United States make a large repayment of the money it had
borrowed from France to fund the Revolutionary War. However, Great Britain would judge any aid
given to France as a hostile act. Washington declared the United States neutral in 1793, but Democratic-
Republican groups denounced neutrality and declared their support of the French republicans. The
Federalists used the violence of the French revolutionaries as a reason to attack Democratic-Republicanism
in the United States, arguing that Jefferson and Madison would lead the country down a similarly
disastrous path.
Click and Explore
Visit Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/revolution) for

images, texts, and songs relating to the French Revolution. This momentous event’s
impact extended far beyond Europe, influencing politics in the United States and
elsewhere in the Atlantic World.
THE CITIZEN GENÊT AFFAIR AND JAY’S TREATY

In 1793, the revolutionary French government sent Edmond-Charles Genêt to the United States to
negotiate an alliance with the U.S. government. France empowered Genêt to issue letters of
marque—documents authorizing ships and their crews to engage in piracy—to allow him to arm captured
British ships in American ports with U.S. soldiers. Genêt arrived in Charleston, South Carolina, amid
great Democratic-Republican fanfare. He immediately began commissioning American privateer ships
and organizing volunteer American militias to attack Spanish holdings in the Americas, then traveled to
Philadelphia, gathering support for the French cause along the way. President Washington and Hamilton
denounced Genêt, knowing his actions threatened to pull the United States into a war with Great Britain.
The Citizen Genêt affair, as it became known, spurred Great Britain to instruct its naval commanders in
the West Indies to seize all ships trading with the French. The British captured hundreds of American ships
and their cargoes, increasing the possibility of war between the two countries.
In this tense situation, Great Britain worked to prevent a wider conflict by ending its seizure of American
ships and offered to pay for captured cargoes. Hamilton saw an opportunity and recommended to
Washington that the United States negotiate. Supreme Court Justice John Jay was sent to Britain, instructed
by Hamilton to secure compensation for captured American ships; ensure the British leave the Northwest
outposts they still occupied despite the 1783 Treaty of Paris; and gain an agreement for American trade
in the West Indies. Even though Jay personally disliked slavery, his mission also required him to seek
compensation from the British for slaves who left with the British at the end of the Revolutionary War.
The resulting 1794 agreement, known as Jay’s Treaty, fulfilled most of his original goals. The British would
turn over the frontier posts in the Northwest, American ships would be allowed to trade freely in the
West Indies, and the United States agreed to assemble a commission charged with settling colonial debts
U.S. citizens owed British merchants. The treaty did not address the important issue of impressment,
however—the British navy’s practice of forcing or “impressing” American sailors to work and fight on
British warships. Jay’s Treaty led the Spanish, who worried that it signaled an alliance between the United
States and Great Britain, to negotiate a treaty of their own—Pinckney’s Treaty—that allowed American
commerce to flow through the Spanish port of New Orleans. Pinckney’s Treaty allowed American farmers,
who were moving in greater numbers to the Ohio River Valley, to ship their products down the Ohio and
Mississippi Rivers to New Orleans, where they could be transported to East Coast markets.
Jay’s Treaty confirmed the fears of Democratic-Republicans, who saw it as a betrayal of republican France,
cementing the idea that the Federalists favored aristocracy and monarchy. Partisan American newspapers
tried to sway public opinion, while the skillful writing of Hamilton, who published a number of essays on
the subject, explained the benefits of commerce with Great Britain.
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION’S CARIBBEAN LEGACY

Unlike the American Revolution, which ultimately strengthened the institution of slavery and the powers
of American slaveholders, the French Revolution inspired slave rebellions in the Caribbean, including

a 1791 slave uprising in the French colony of Saint-Domingue (modern-day Haiti). Thousands of slaves
joined together to overthrow the brutal system of slavery. They took control of a large section of the island,
burning sugar plantations and killing the white planters who had forced them to labor under the lash.
In 1794, French revolutionaries abolished slavery in the French empire, and both Spain and England
attacked Saint-Domingue, hoping to add the colony to their own empires. Toussaint L’Ouverture, a former
domestic slave, emerged as the leader in the fight against Spain and England to secure a Haiti free of
slavery and further European colonialism. Because revolutionary France had abolished slavery, Toussaint
aligned himself with France, hoping to keep Spain and England at bay (Figure 8.6).
Figure 8.6 An 1802 portrait shows Toussaint L’Ouverture, “Chef des Noirs Insurgés de Saint Domingue” (“Leader of
the Black Insurgents of Saint Domingue”), mounted and armed in an elaborate uniform.
Events in Haiti further complicated the partisan wrangling in the United States. White refugee planters
from Haiti and other French West Indian islands, along with slaves and free people of color, left the
Caribbean for the United States and for Louisiana, which at the time was held by Spain. The presence
of these French migrants raised fears, especially among Federalists, that they would bring the contagion
of French radicalism to the United States. In addition, the idea that the French Revolution could inspire
a successful slave uprising just off the American coastline filled southern whites and slaveholders with
horror.
THE WHISKEY REBELLION

While the wars in France and the Caribbean divided American citizens, a major domestic test of the new
national government came in 1794 over the issue of a tax on whiskey, an important part of Hamilton’s
financial program. In 1791, Congress had authorized a tax of 7.5 cents per gallon of whiskey and rum.
Although most citizens paid without incident, trouble erupted in four western Pennsylvania counties in
an uprising known as the Whiskey Rebellion.
Farmers in the western counties of Pennsylvania produced whiskey from their grain for economic reasons.
Without adequate roads or other means to transport a bulky grain harvest, these farmers distilled their
grains into gin and whiskey, which were more cost-effective to transport. Since these farmers depended on
the sale of whiskey, some citizens in western Pennsylvania (and elsewhere) viewed the new tax as further
proof that the new national government favored the commercial classes on the eastern seaboard at the
expense of farmers in the West. On the other hand, supporters of the tax argued that it helped stabilize
the economy and its cost could easily be passed on to the consumer, not the farmer-distiller. However,
in the spring and summer months of 1794, angry citizens rebelled against the federal officials in charge
of enforcing the federal excise law. Like the Sons of Liberty before the American Revolution, the whiskey
rebels used violence and intimidation to protest policies they saw as unfair. They tarred and feathered
federal officials, intercepted the federal mail, and intimidated wealthy citizens (Figure 8.7). The extent
of their discontent found expression in their plan to form an independent western commonwealth, and
they even began negotiations with British and Spanish representatives, hoping to secure their support for
independence from the United States. The rebels also contacted their backcountry neighbors in Kentucky
and South Carolina, circulating the idea of secession.
Figure 8.7 This painting, attributed to Frederick Kemmelmeyer ca. 1795, depicts the massive force George
Washington led to put down the Whiskey Rebellion of the previous year. Federalists made clear they would not
tolerate mob action.
With their emphasis on personal freedoms, the whiskey rebels aligned themselves with the Democratic-
Republican Party. They saw the tax as part of a larger Federalist plot to destroy their republican liberty
and, in its most extreme interpretation, turn the United States into a monarchy. The federal government
lowered the tax, but when federal officials tried to subpoena those distillers who remained intractable,
trouble escalated. Washington responded by creating a thirteen-thousand-man militia, drawn from several
states, to put down the rebellion. This force made it known, both domestically and to the European powers
that looked on in anticipation of the new republic’s collapse, that the national government would do
everything in its power to ensure the survival of the United States.

DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Alexander Hamilton: “Shall the majority govern or be
governed?”
Alexander Hamilton frequently wrote persuasive essays under pseudonyms, like “Tully,” as he does here.
In this 1794 essay, Hamilton denounces the whiskey rebels and majority rule.
It has been observed that the means most likely to be employed to turn the insurrection in the
western country to the detriment of the government, would be artfully calculated among other
things ‘to divert your attention from the true question to be decided.’
Let us see then what is this question. It is plainly this—shall the majority govern or be
governed? shall the nation rule, or be ruled? shall the general will prevail, or the will of a
faction? shall there be government, or no government? . . .
The Constitution you have ordained for yourselves and your posterity contains this express
clause, ‘The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and Excises,
to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United
States.’ You have then, by a solemn and deliberate act, the most important and sacred that
a nation can perform, pronounced and decreed, that your Representatives in Congress shall
have power to lay Excises. You have done nothing since to reverse or impair that decree. . . .
But the four western counties of Pennsylvania, undertake to rejudge and reverse your
decrees, you have said, ‘The Congress shall have power to lay Excises.’ They say, ‘The
Congress shall not have this power.’ . . .
There is no road to despotism more sure or more to be dreaded than that which begins at
anarchy.”
—Alexander Hamilton’s “Tully No. II” for the American Daily Advertiser, Philadelphia, August
26, 1794
What are the major arguments put forward by Hamilton in this document? Who do you think his audience
is?
WASHINGTON’S INDIAN POLICY

Relationships with Indians were a significant problem for Washington’s administration, but one on which
white citizens agreed: Indians stood in the way of white settlement and, as the 1790 Naturalization Act
made clear, were not citizens. After the War of Independence, white settlers poured into lands west of the
Appalachian Mountains. As a result, from 1785 to 1795, a state of war existed on the frontier between these
settlers and the Indians who lived in the Ohio territory. In both 1790 and 1791, the Shawnee and Miami
had defended their lands against the whites who arrived in greater and greater numbers from the East.
In response, Washington appointed General Anthony Wayne to bring the Western Confederacy—a loose
alliance of tribes—to heel. In 1794, at the Battle of Fallen Timbers, Wayne was victorious. With the 1795
Treaty of Greenville (Figure 8.8), the Western Confederacy gave up their claims to Ohio.
Figure 8.8 Notice the contrasts between the depictions of federal and native representatives in this painting of the
signing of the Treaty of Greenville in 1795. What message or messages did the artist intend to convey?

• Identify key examples of partisan wrangling between the Federalists and Democratic-
Republicans
• Describe how foreign relations affected American politics
• Assess the importance of the Louisiana Purchase
George Washington, who had been reelected in 1792 by an overwhelming majority, refused to run for
a third term, thus setting a precedent for future presidents. In the presidential election of 1796, the
two parties—Federalist and Democratic-Republican—competed for the first time. Partisan rancor over
the French Revolution and the Whiskey Rebellion fueled the divide between them, and Federalist John
Adams defeated his Democratic-Republican rival Thomas Jefferson by a narrow margin of only three
electoral votes. In 1800, another close election swung the other way, and Jefferson began a long period of
Democratic-Republican government.
THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN ADAMS

The war between Great Britain and France in the 1790s shaped U.S. foreign policy. As a new and, in
comparison to the European powers, extremely weak nation, the American republic had no control over
European events, and no real leverage to obtain its goals of trading freely in the Atlantic. To Federalist
president John Adams, relations with France posed the biggest problem. After the Terror, the French
Directory ruled France from 1795 to 1799. During this time, Napoleon rose to power.

AMERICANA
The Art of Ralph Earl
Ralph Earl was an eighteenth-century American artist, born in Massachusetts, who remained loyal to the
British during the Revolutionary War. He fled to England in 1778, but he returned to New England in the
mid-1780s and began painting portraits of leading Federalists.
His portrait of Connecticut Federalist Oliver Ellsworth and his wife Abigail conveys the world as
Federalists liked to view it: an orderly landscape administered by men of property and learning. His
portrait of dry goods merchant Elijah Boardman shows Boardman as well-to-do and highly cultivated; his
books include the works of Shakespeare and Milton (Figure 8.9).
Figure 8.9 Ralph Earl’s portraits are known for placing their subjects in an orderly world, as seen here
in the 1801 portrait of Oliver and Abigail Wolcott Ellsworth (a) and the 1789 portrait of Elijah Boardman
(b).
What similarities do you see in the two portraits by Ralph Earl? What do the details of each portrait reveal
about the sitters? About the artist and the 1790s?
Because France and Great Britain were at war, the French Directory issued decrees stating that any ship
carrying British goods could be seized on the high seas. In practice, this meant the French would target
American ships, especially those in the West Indies, where the United States conducted a brisk trade with
the British. France declared its 1778 treaty with the United States null and void, and as a result, France and
the United States waged an undeclared war—or what historians refer to as the Quasi-War—from 1796 to
1800. Between 1797 and 1799, the French seized 834 American ships, and Adams urged the buildup of the
U.S. Navy, which consisted of only a single vessel at the time of his election in 1796 (Figure 8.10).
Figure 8.10 This 1799 print, entitled “Preparation for WAR to defend Commerce,” shows the construction of a naval
ship, part of the effort to ensure the United States had access to free trade in the Atlantic world.
In 1797, Adams sought a diplomatic solution to the conflict with France and dispatched envoys to
negotiate terms. The French foreign minister, Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand, sent emissaries who told the
American envoys that the United States must repay all outstanding debts owed to France, lend France 32
million guilders (Dutch currency), and pay a £50,000 bribe before any negotiations could take place. News
of the attempt to extract a bribe, known as the XYZ affair because the French emissaries were referred to as
X, Y, and Z in letters that President Adams released to Congress, outraged the American public and turned
public opinion decidedly against France (Figure 8.11). In the court of public opinion, Federalists appeared
to have been correct in their interpretation of France, while the pro-French Democratic-Republicans had
been misled.
Figure 8.11 This anonymous 1798 cartoon, Property Protected à la Françoise, satirizes the XYZ affair. Five
Frenchmen are shown plundering the treasures of a woman representing the United States. One man holds a sword
labeled “French Argument” and a sack of gold and riches labeled “National Sack and Diplomatic Perquisites,” while
the others collect her valuables. A group of other Europeans look on and commiserate that France treated them the
same way.

Click and Explore
Read the “transcript” of the above cartoon in the America in Caricature, 1765–1865
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/cartoon) collection at Indiana University’s Lilly Library.
The complicated situation in Haiti, which remained a French colony in the late 1790s, also came to the
attention of President Adams. The president, with the support of Congress, had created a U.S. Navy that
now included scores of vessels. Most of the American ships cruised the Caribbean, giving the United States
the edge over France in the region. In Haiti, the rebellion leader Toussaint, who had to contend with
various domestic rivals seeking to displace him, looked to end an U.S. embargo on France and its colonies,
put in place in 1798, so that his forces would receive help to deal with the civil unrest. In early 1799, in
order to capitalize upon trade in the lucrative West Indies and undermine France’s hold on the island,
Congress ended the ban on trade with Haiti—a move that acknowledged Toussaint’s leadership, to the
horror of American slaveholders. Toussaint was able to secure an independent black republic in Haiti by
1804.
THE ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS

The surge of animosity against France during the Quasi-War led Congress to pass several measures that
in time undermined Federalist power. These 1798 war measures, known as the Alien and Sedition Acts,
aimed to increase national security against what most had come to regard as the French menace. The Alien
Act and the Alien Enemies Act took particular aim at French immigrants fleeing the West Indies by giving
the president the power to deport new arrivals who appeared to be a threat to national security. The act
expired in 1800 with no immigrants having been deported. The Sedition Act imposed harsh penalties—up
to five years’ imprisonment and a massive fine of $5,000 in 1790 dollars—on those convicted of speaking
or writing “in a scandalous or malicious” manner against the government of the United States. Twenty-
five men, all Democratic-Republicans, were indicted under the act, and ten were convicted. One of these
was Congressman Matthew Lyon (Figure 8.12), representative from Vermont, who had launched his own
newspaper, The Scourge Of Aristocracy and Repository of Important Political Truth.
Figure 8.12 This 1798 cartoon, “Congressional Pugilists,” shows partisan chaos in the U.S. House of
Representatives as Matthew Lyon, a Democratic-Republican from Vermont, holds forth against his opponent,
Federalist Roger Griswold.
The Alien and Sedition Acts raised constitutional questions about the freedom of the press provided under
the First Amendment. Democratic-Republicans argued that the acts were evidence of the Federalists’ intent
to squash individual liberties and, by enlarging the powers of the national government, crush states’
rights. Jefferson and Madison mobilized the response to the acts in the form of statements known as the
Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which argued that the acts were illegal and unconstitutional. The
resolutions introduced the idea of nullification, the right of states to nullify acts of Congress, and advanced
the argument of states’ rights. The resolutions failed to rally support in other states, however. Indeed, most
other states rejected them, citing the necessity of a strong national government.
The Quasi-War with France came to an end in 1800, when President Adams was able to secure the Treaty
of Mortefontaine. His willingness to open talks with France divided the Federalist Party, but the treaty
reopened trade between the two countries and ended the French practice of taking American ships on the
high seas.
THE REVOLUTION OF 1800 AND THE PRESIDENCY OF THOMAS JEFFERSON

The Revolution of 1800 refers to the first transfer of power from one party to another in American
history, when the presidency passed to Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson (Figure 8.13) in the
1800 election. The peaceful transition calmed contemporary fears about possible violent reactions to a new
party’s taking the reins of government. The passing of political power from one political party to another
without bloodshed also set an important precedent.

Figure 8.13 Thomas Jefferson’s victory in 1800 signaled the ascendency of the Democratic-Republicans and the
decline of Federalist power.
The election did prove even more divisive than the 1796 election, however, as both the Federalist and
Democratic-Republican Parties waged a mudslinging campaign unlike any seen before. Because the
Federalists were badly divided, the Democratic-Republicans gained political ground. Alexander Hamilton,
who disagreed with President Adams’s approach to France, wrote a lengthy letter, meant for people within
his party, attacking his fellow Federalist’s character and judgment and ridiculing his handling of foreign
affairs. Democratic-Republicans got hold of and happily reprinted the letter.
Jefferson viewed participatory democracy as a positive force for the republic, a direct departure from
Federalist views. His version of participatory democracy only extended, however, to the white yeoman
farmers in whom Jefferson placed great trust. While Federalist statesmen, like the architects of the 1787
federal constitution, feared a pure democracy, Jefferson was far more optimistic that the common
American farmer could be trusted to make good decisions. He believed in majority rule, that is, that
the majority of yeoman should have the power to make decisions binding upon the whole. Jefferson
had cheered the French Revolution, even when the French republic instituted the Terror to ensure the
monarchy would not return. By 1799, however, he had rejected the cause of France because of his
opposition to Napoleon’s seizure of power and creation of a dictatorship.
Over the course of his two terms as president—he was reelected in 1804—Jefferson reversed the policies
of the Federalist Party by turning away from urban commercial development. Instead, he promoted
agriculture through the sale of western public lands in small and affordable lots. Perhaps Jefferson’s most
lasting legacy is his vision of an “empire of liberty.” He distrusted cities and instead envisioned a rural
republic of land-owning white men, or yeoman republican farmers. He wanted the United States to be the
breadbasket of the world, exporting its agricultural commodities without suffering the ills of urbanization
and industrialization. Since American yeomen would own their own land, they could stand up against
those who might try to buy their votes with promises of property. Jefferson championed the rights of states
and insisted on limited federal government as well as limited taxes. This stood in stark contrast to the
Federalists’ insistence on a strong, active federal government. Jefferson also believed in fiscal austerity. He
pushed for—and Congress approved—the end of all internal taxes, such as those on whiskey and rum.
The most significant trimming of the federal budget came at the expense of the military; Jefferson did not
believe in maintaining a costly military, and he slashed the size of the navy Adams had worked to build
up. Nonetheless, Jefferson responded to the capture of American ships and sailors by pirates off the coast
of North Africa by leading the United States into war against the Muslim Barbary States in 1801, the first
conflict fought by Americans overseas.
The slow decline of the Federalists, which began under Jefferson, led to a period of one-party rule in
national politics. Historians call the years between 1815 and 1828 the “Era of Good Feelings” and highlight
the “Virginia dynasty” of the time, since the two presidents who followed Jefferson—James Madison
and James Monroe—both hailed from his home state. Like him, they owned slaves and represented
the Democratic-Republican Party. Though Federalists continued to enjoy popularity, especially in the
Northeast, their days of prominence in setting foreign and domestic policy had ended.
PARTISAN ACRIMONY
The earliest years of the nineteenth century were hardly free of problems between the two political parties.
Early in Jefferson’s term, controversy swirled over President Adams’s judicial appointments of many
Federalists during his final days in office. When Jefferson took the oath of office, he refused to have the
commissions for these Federalist justices delivered to the appointed officials.
One of Adams’s appointees, William Marbury, had been selected to be a justice of the peace in the District
of Columbia, and when his commission did not arrive, he petitioned the Supreme Court for an explanation
from Jefferson’s secretary of state, James Madison. In deciding the case, Marbury v. Madison, in 1803, Chief
Justice John Marshall agreed that Marbury had the right to a legal remedy, establishing that individuals
had rights even the president of the United States could not abridge. However, Marshall also found that
Congress’s Judicial Act of 1789, which would have given the Supreme Court the power to grant Marbury
remedy, was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not allow for cases like Marbury’s to come
directly before the Supreme Court. Thus, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, which
strengthened the court by asserting its power to review (and possibly nullify) the actions of Congress and
the president. Jefferson was not pleased, but neither did Marbury get his commission.
The animosity between the political parties exploded into open violence in 1804, when Aaron Burr,
Jefferson’s first vice president, and Alexander Hamilton engaged in a duel. When Democratic-Republican
Burr lost his bid for the office of governor of New York, he was quick to blame Hamilton, who had long
hated him and had done everything in his power to discredit him. On July 11, the two antagonists met
in Weehawken, New Jersey, to exchange bullets in a duel in which Burr shot and mortally wounded
Hamilton.
THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE

Jefferson, who wanted to expand the United States to bring about his “empire of liberty,” realized his
greatest triumph in 1803 when the United States bought the Louisiana territory from France. For $15
million—a bargain price, considering the amount of land involved—the United States doubled in size.
Perhaps the greatest real estate deal in American history, the Louisiana Purchase greatly enhanced the
Jeffersonian vision of the United States as an agrarian republic in which yeomen farmers worked the land.
Jefferson also wanted to bolster trade in the West, seeing the port of New Orleans and the Mississippi
River (then the western boundary of the United States) as crucial to American agricultural commerce. In
his mind, farmers would send their produce down the Mississippi River to New Orleans, where it would
be sold to European traders.
The purchase of Louisiana came about largely because of circumstances beyond Jefferson’s control, though
he certainly recognized the implications of the transaction. Until 1801, Spain had controlled New Orleans
and had given the United States the right to traffic goods in the port without paying customs duties. That
year, however, the Spanish had ceded Louisiana (and New Orleans) to France. In 1802, the United States
lost its right to deposit goods free in the port, causing outrage among many, some of whom called for war
with France.
Jefferson instructed Robert Livingston, the American envoy to France, to secure access to New Orleans,
sending James Monroe to France to add additional pressure. The timing proved advantageous. Because
black slaves in the French colony of Haiti had successfully overthrown the brutal plantation regime,
Napoleon could no longer hope to restore the empire lost with France’s defeat in the French and Indian

War (1754–1763). His vision of Louisiana and the Mississippi Valley as the source for food for Haiti, the
most profitable sugar island in the world, had failed. The emperor therefore agreed to the sale in early
1803.
Click and Explore
Explore the collected maps and documents relating to the Louisiana Purchase and its
history at the Library of Congress (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/LaPurchase) site.
The true extent of the United States’ new territory remained unknown (Figure 8.14). Would it provide the
long-sought quick access to Asian markets? Geographical knowledge was limited; indeed, no one knew
precisely what lay to the west or how long it took to travel from the Mississippi to the Pacific. Jefferson
selected two fellow Virginians, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, to lead an expedition to the new
western lands. Their purpose was to discover the commercial possibilities of the new land and, most
importantly, potential trade routes. From 1804 to 1806, Lewis and Clark traversed the West.
Figure 8.14 This 1804 map (a) shows the territory added to the United States in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.
Compare this depiction to the contemporary map (b). How does the 1804 version differ from what you know of the
geography of the United States?
The Louisiana Purchase helped Jefferson win reelection in 1804 by a landslide. Of 176 electoral votes
cast, all but 14 were in his favor. The great expansion of the United States did have its critics, however,
especially northerners who feared the addition of more slave states and a corresponding lack of
representation of their interests in the North. And under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, it
remained unclear whether the president had the power to add territory in this fashion. But the vast
majority of citizens cheered the increase in the size of the republic. For slaveholders, new western lands
would be a boon; for slaves, the Louisiana Purchase threatened to entrench their suffering further.

• Describe the causes and consequences of the War of 1812
• Identify the important events of the War of 1812 and explain their significance
The origins of the War of 1812, often called the Second War of American Independence, are found in the
unresolved issues between the United States and Great Britain. One major cause was the British practice
of impressment, whereby American sailors were taken at sea and forced to fight on British warships; this
issue was left unresolved by Jay’s Treaty in 1794. In addition, the British in Canada supported Indians
in their fight against further U.S. expansion in the Great Lakes region. Though Jefferson wanted to avoid
what he called “entangling alliances,” staying neutral proved impossible.
THE EMBARGO OF 1807

France and England, engaged in the Napoleonic Wars, which raged between 1803 and 1815, both declared
open season on American ships, which they seized on the high seas. England was the major offender, since
the Royal Navy, following a time-honored practice, “impressed” American sailors by forcing them into its
service. The issue came to a head in 1807 when the HMS Leopard, a British warship, fired on a U.S. naval
ship, the Chesapeake, off the coast of Norfolk, Virginia. The British then boarded the ship and took four
sailors. Jefferson chose what he thought was the best of his limited options and responded to the crisis
through the economic means of a sweeping ban on trade, the Embargo Act of 1807. This law prohibited
American ships from leaving their ports until Britain and France stopped seizing them on the high seas.
As a result of the embargo, American commerce came to a near-total halt.
The logic behind the embargo was that cutting off all trade would so severely hurt Britain and France that
the seizures at sea would end. However, while the embargo did have some effect on the British economy,
it was American commerce that actually felt the brunt of the impact (Figure 8.15). The embargo hurt
American farmers, who could no longer sell their goods overseas, and seaport cities experienced a huge
increase in unemployment and an uptick in bankruptcies. All told, American business activity declined by
75 percent from 1808 to 1809.

Figure 8.15 In this political cartoon from 1807, a snapping turtle (holding a shipping license) grabs a smuggler in the
act of sneaking a barrel of sugar to a British ship. The smuggler cries, “Oh, this cursed Ograbme!” (“Ograbme” is
“embargo” spelled backwards.)
Enforcement of the embargo proved very difficult, especially in the states bordering British Canada.
Smuggling was widespread; Smugglers’ Notch in Vermont, for example, earned its name from illegal trade
with British Canada. Jefferson attributed the problems with the embargo to lax enforcement.
At the very end of his second term, Jefferson signed the Non-Intercourse Act of 1808, lifting the unpopular
embargoes on trade except with Britain and France. In the election of 1808, American voters elected
another Democratic-Republican, James Madison. Madison inherited Jefferson’s foreign policy issues
involving Britain and France. Most people in the United States, especially those in the West, saw Great
Britain as the major problem.
TECUMSEH AND THE WESTERN CONFEDERACY

Another underlying cause of the War of 1812 was British support for native resistance to U.S. western
expansion. For many years, white settlers in the American western territories had besieged the Indians
living there. Under Jefferson, two Indian policies existed: forcing Indians to adopt American ways of
agricultural life, or aggressively driving Indians into debt in order to force them to sell their lands.
In 1809, Tecumseh, a Shawnee war chief, rejuvenated the Western Confederacy. His brother,
Tenskwatawa, was a prophet among the Shawnee who urged a revival of native ways and rejection of
Anglo-American culture, including alcohol. In 1811, William Henry Harrison, the governor of the Indiana
Territory, attempted to eliminate the native presence by attacking Prophetstown, a Shawnee settlement
named in honor of Tenskwatawa. In the ensuing Battle of Tippecanoe, U.S. forces led by Harrison
destroyed the settlement (Figure 8.16). They also found ample evidence that the British had supplied the
Western Confederacy with weapons, despite the stipulations of earlier treaties.
Figure 8.16 Portrait (a), painted by Charles Bird King in 1820, is a depiction of Shawnee prophet Tenskwatawa.
Portrait (b) is Rembrandt Peele’s 1813 depiction of William Henry Harrison. What are the significant similarities and
differences between the portraits? What was each artist trying to convey?
THE WAR OF 1812

The seizure of American ships and sailors, combined with the British support of Indian resistance, led
to strident calls for war against Great Britain. The loudest came from the “war hawks,” led by Henry
Clay from Kentucky and John C. Calhoun from South Carolina, who would not tolerate British insults
to American honor. Opposition to the war came from Federalists, especially those in the Northeast,
who knew war would disrupt the maritime trade on which they depended. In a narrow vote, Congress
authorized the president to declare war against Britain in June 1812.
The war went very badly for the United States at first. In August 1812, the United States lost Detroit to
the British and their Indian allies, including a force of one thousand men led by Tecumseh. By the end of
the year, the British controlled half the Northwest. The following year, however, U.S. forces scored several
victories. Captain Oliver Hazard Perry and his naval force defeated the British on Lake Erie. At the Battle
of the Thames in Ontario, the United States defeated the British and their native allies, and Tecumseh was
counted among the dead. Indian resistance began to ebb, opening the Indiana and Michigan territories for
white settlement.
These victories could not turn the tide of the war, however. With the British gaining the upper hand during
the Napoleonic Wars and Napoleon’s French army on the run, Great Britain now could divert skilled
combat troops from Europe to fight in the United States. In July 1814, forty-five hundred hardened British
soldiers sailed up the Chesapeake Bay and burned Washington, DC, to the ground, forcing President
Madison and his wife to run for their lives (Figure 8.17). According to one report, they left behind a dinner
the British officers ate. That summer, the British shelled Baltimore, hoping for another victory. However,
they failed to dislodge the U.S. forces, whose survival of the bombardment inspired Francis Scott Key to
write “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

Figure 8.17 George Munger painted The President’s House shortly after the War of 1812, ca. 1814–1815. The
painting shows the result of the British burning of Washington, DC.
AMERICANA
Francis Scott Key’s “In Defense of Fort McHenry”
After the British bombed Baltimore’s Fort McHenry in 1814 but failed to overcome the U.S. forces there,
Francis Scott Key was inspired by the sight of the American flag, which remained hanging proudly in
the aftermath. He wrote the poem “In Defense of Fort McHenry,” which was later set to the tune of a
British song called “The Anacreontic Song” and eventually became the U.S. national anthem, “The Star-
Spangled Banner.”
Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thru the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,

Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore

That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,

Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
—Francis Scott Key, “In Defense of Fort McHenry,” 1814
What images does Key use to describe the American spirit? Most people are familiar with only the first
verse of the song; what do you think the last three verses add?

Click and Explore
Visit the Smithsonian Institute (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/flag) to explore an

interactive feature on the flag that inspired “The Star-Spangled Banner,” where
clickable “hot spots” on the flag reveal elements of its history.
With the end of the war in Europe, Britain was eager to end the conflict in the Americas as well. In 1814,
British and U.S. diplomats met in Flanders, in northern Belgium, to negotiate the Treaty of Ghent, signed
in December. The boundaries between the United States and British Canada remained as they were before
the war, an outcome welcome to those in the United States who feared a rupture in the country’s otherwise
steady expansion into the West.
The War of 1812 was very unpopular in New England because it inflicted further economic harm on a
region dependent on maritime commerce. This unpopularity caused a resurgence of the Federalist Party
in New England. Many Federalists deeply resented the power of the slaveholding Virginians (Jefferson
and then Madison), who appeared indifferent to their region. The depth of the Federalists’ discontent
is illustrated by the proceedings of the December 1814 Hartford Convention, a meeting of twenty-six
Federalists in Connecticut, where some attendees issued calls for New England to secede from the United
States. These arguments for disunion during wartime, combined with the convention’s condemnation of
the government, made Federalists appear unpatriotic. The convention forever discredited the Federalist
Party and led to its downfall.
EPILOGUE: THE BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS

Due to slow communication, the last battle in the War of 1812 happened after the Treaty of Ghent had
been signed ending the war. Andrew Jackson had distinguished himself in the war by defeating the Creek
Indians in March 1814 before invading Florida in May of that year. After taking Pensacola, he moved his
force of Tennessee fighters to New Orleans to defend the strategic port against British attack.
On January 8, 1815 (despite the official end of the war), a force of battle-tested British veterans of the
Napoleonic Wars attempted to take the port. Jackson’s forces devastated the British, killing over two
thousand. New Orleans and the vast Mississippi River Valley had been successfully defended, ensuring
the future of American settlement and commerce. The Battle of New Orleans immediately catapulted
Jackson to national prominence as a war hero, and in the 1820s, he emerged as the head of the new
Democratic Party.
Key Terms
Bill of Rights the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, which guarantee individual
rights
Citizen Genêt affair the controversy over the French representative who tried to involve the United
States in France’s war against Great Britain
Democratic-Republicans advocates of limited government who were troubled by the expansive

domestic policies of Washington’s administration and opposed the Federalists
impressment the practice of capturing sailors and forcing them into military service
letters of marque French warrants allowing ships and their crews to engage in piracy
Louisiana Purchase the U.S. purchase of the large territory of Louisiana from France in 1803
Marbury v. Madison the landmark 1803 case establishing the Supreme Court’s powers of judicial review,
specifically the power to review and possibly nullify actions of Congress and the president
Revolution of 1800 the peaceful transfer of power from the Federalists to the Democratic-Republicans
with the election of 1800
the Terror a period during the French Revolution characterized by extreme violence and the execution of
numerous enemies of the revolutionary government, from 1793 through 1794
XYZ affair the French attempt to extract a bribe from the United States during the Quasi-War of
1798–1800
Summary
While they did not yet constitute distinct political parties, Federalists and Anti-Federalists, shortly after
the Revolution, found themselves at odds over the Constitution and the power that it concentrated in the
federal government. While many of the Anti-Federalists’ fears were assuaged by the adoption of the Bill of
Rights in 1791, the early 1790s nevertheless witnessed the rise of two political parties: the Federalists and
the Democratic-Republicans. These rival political factions began by defining themselves in relationship
to Hamilton’s financial program, a debate that exposed contrasting views of the proper role of the
federal government. By championing Hamilton’s bold financial program, Federalists, including President
Washington, made clear their intent to use the federal government to stabilize the national economy
and overcome the financial problems that had plagued it since the 1780s. Members of the Democratic-
Republican opposition, however, deplored the expanded role of the new national government. They
argued that the Constitution did not permit the treasury secretary’s expansive program and worried that
the new national government had assumed powers it did not rightfully possess. Only on the question of
citizenship was there broad agreement: only free, white males who met taxpayer or property qualifications
could cast ballots as full citizens of the republic.

Federalists and Democratic-Republicans interpreted the execution of the French monarch and the violent
establishment of a French republic in very different ways. Revolutionaries’ excesses in France and the
slaves’ revolt in the French colony of Haiti raised fears among Federalists of similar radicalism and slave
uprisings on American shores. They looked to better relationships with Great Britain through Jay’s Treaty.

Pinckney’s Treaty, which came about as a result of Jay’s Treaty, improved U.S. relations with the Spanish
and opened the Spanish port of New Orleans to American commerce. Democratic-Republicans took a
more positive view of the French Revolution and grew suspicious of the Federalists when they brokered
Jay’s Treaty. Domestically, the partisan divide came to a dramatic head in western Pennsylvania when
distillers of whiskey, many aligned with the Democratic-Republicans, took action against the federal tax
on their product. Washington led a massive force to put down the uprising, demonstrating Federalist
intolerance of mob action. Though divided on many issues, the majority of white citizens agreed on the
necessity of eradicating the Indian presence on the frontier.

Partisan politics dominated the American political scene at the close of the eighteenth century. The
Federalists’ and Democratic-Republicans’ views of the role of government were in direct opposition to
each other, and the close elections of 1796 and 1801 show how the nation grappled with these opposing
visions. The high tide of the Federalist Party came after the election of 1796, when the United States
engaged in the Quasi-War with France. The issues arising from the Quasi-War gave Adams and the
Federalists license to expand the powers of the federal government. However, the tide turned with the
close election of 1800, when Jefferson began an administration based on Democratic-Republican ideals. A
major success of Jefferson’s administration was the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, which helped to fulfill his
vision of the United States as an agrarian republic.

The United States was drawn into its “Second War of Independence” against Great Britain when the
British, engaged in the Napoleonic Wars against France, took liberties with the fledgling nation by
impressing (capturing) its sailors on the high seas and arming its Indian enemies. The War of 1812 ended
with the boundaries of the United Stated remaining as they were before the war. The Indians in the
Western Confederacy suffered a significant defeat, losing both their leader Tecumseh and their fight for
contested land in the Northwest. The War of 1812 proved to be of great importance because it generated a
surge of national pride, with expressions of American identity such as the poem by Francis Scott Key. The
United States was unequivocally separate from Britain and could now turn as never before to expansion
in the West.
Review Questions
1. Which of the following is not one of the rights 3. What were the fundamental differences
the Bill of Rights guarantees? between the Federalist and Democratic-
A. the right to freedom of speech Republican visions?
B. the right to an education
C. the right to bear arms 4. Which of the following was not true of Jay’s
D. the right to a trial by jury Treaty of 1794?
A. It gave the United States land rights in the
2. Which of Alexander Hamilton’s financial West Indies.
policies and programs seemed to benefit B. It gave American ships the right to trade in
speculators at the expense of poor soldiers? the West Indies.
A. the creation of a national bank C. It hardened differences between the
B. the public credit plan political parties of the United States.
C. the tax on whiskey D. It stipulated that U.S. citizens would repay
D. the “Report on Manufactures” their debts from the Revolutionary War.
5. What was the primary complaint of the rebels C. It gave the United States political leverage
in the Whiskey Rebellion? against the Spanish.
A. the ban on alcohol D. It provided Napoleon with an impetus to
B. the lack of political representation for restore France’s empire.
farmers
C. the need to fight Indians for more land 10. How did U.S. relations with France influence
D. the tax on whiskey and rum events at the end of the eighteenth century?
6. How did the French Revolution in the early 11. Why do historians refer to the election of
1790s influence the evolution of the American Thomas Jefferson as the Revolution of 1800?
political system?
12. What prompted the Embargo of 1807?
7. What was the primary issue of Adams’s A. British soldiers burned the U.S. capitol.
presidency? B. The British supplied arms to Indian
A. war with Spain insurgents.
B. relations with the native population C. The British navy captured American ships
C. infighting within the Federalist Party on the high seas and impressed their sailors
D. relations with France into service for the British.
D. The British hadn’t abandoned their posts in
8. Which of the following events is not an the Northwest Territory as required by
example of partisan acrimony? Jay’s Treaty.
A. the jailing of Matthew Lyon
B. the XYZ affair 13. What event inspired “The Star-Spangled
C. the Marbury v. Madison case Banner”?
D. the Hamilton-Burr duel A. Betsy Ross sewing the first American flag
raised during a time of war
9. What was the importance of the Louisiana B. the British bombardment of Baltimore
Purchase? C. the British burning of Washington, DC
A. It gave the United States control of the port D. the naval battle between the Leopard and the
of New Orleans for trade. Chesapeake
B. It opened up the possibility of quick trade
routes to Asia.

14. Describe Alexander Hamilton’s plans to address the nation’s financial woes. Which aspects proved
most controversial, and why? What elements of the foundation Hamilton laid can still be found in the
system today?
15. Describe the growth of the first party system in the United States. How did these parties come to
develop? How did they define themselves, both independently and in opposition to one another? Where
did they find themselves in agreement?
16. What led to the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts? What made them so controversial?
17. What was the most significant impact of the War of 1812?
18. In what ways did the events of this era pose challenges to the U.S. Constitution? What constitutional
issues were raised, and how were they addressed?

Chapter 9 Industrial Transformation in the North, 1800–1850 243
CHAPTER 9
Industrial Transformation in the

North, 1800–1850
Figure 9.1 Five Points (1827), by George Catlin, depicts the infamous Five Points neighborhood of New York City,
so called because it was centered at the intersection of five streets. Five Points was home to a polyglot mix of recent
immigrants, freed slaves, and other members of the working class.
Chapter Outline
9.1 Early Industrialization in the Northeast
9.2 A Vibrant Capitalist Republic
9.3 On the Move: The Transportation Revolution
9.4 A New Social Order: Class Divisions
Introduction
By the 1830s, the United States had developed a thriving industrial and commercial sector in the Northeast.
Farmers embraced regional and distant markets as the primary destination for their products. Artisans
witnessed the methodical division of the labor process in factories. Wage labor became an increasingly
common experience. These industrial and market revolutions, combined with advances in transportation,
transformed the economic and social landscape. Americans could now quickly produce larger amounts of
goods for a nationwide, and sometimes an international, market and rely less on foreign imports than in
colonial times.
As American economic life shifted rapidly and modes of production changed, new class divisions emerged
and solidified, resulting in previously unknown economic and social inequalities. This image of the Five
Points district in New York City captures the turbulence of the time (Figure 9.1). Five Points began as a
settlement for freed slaves, but it soon became a crowded urban world of American day laborers and low-
wage workers who lived a precarious existence that the economic benefits of the new economy largely
bypassed. An influx of immigrant workers swelled and diversified an already crowded urban population.
By the 1830s, the area had become a slum, home to widespread poverty, crime, and disease. Advances in
industrialization and the market revolution came at a human price.
244 Chapter 9 Industrial Transformation in the North, 1800–1850

• Explain the role of the putting-out system in the rise of industrialization
• Understand industrialization’s impact on the nature of production and work
• Describe the effect of industrialization on consumption
• Identify the goals of workers’ organizations like the Working Men’s Party
Northern industrialization expanded rapidly following the War of 1812. Industrialized manufacturing
began in New England, where wealthy merchants built water-powered textile mills (and mill towns
to support them) along the rivers of the Northeast. These mills introduced new modes of production
centralized within the confines of the mill itself. As never before, production relied on mechanized sources
with water power, and later steam, to provide the force necessary to drive machines. In addition to
the mechanization and centralization of work in the mills, specialized, repetitive tasks assigned to wage
laborers replaced earlier modes of handicraft production done by artisans at home. The operations of
these mills irrevocably changed the nature of work by deskilling tasks, breaking down the process of
production to its most basic, elemental parts. In return for their labor, the workers, who at first were
young women from rural New England farming families, received wages. From its origin in New England,
manufacturing soon spread to other regions of the United States.
FROM ARTISANS TO WAGE WORKERS

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, artisans—skilled, experienced craft workers—produced
goods by hand. The production of shoes provides a good example. In colonial times, people bought their
shoes from master shoemakers, who achieved their status by living and working as apprentices under the
rule of an older master artisan. An apprenticeship would be followed by work as a journeyman (a skilled
worker without his own shop). After sufficient time as a journeyman, a shoemaker could at last set up his
own shop as a master artisan. People came to the shop, usually attached to the back of the master artisan’s
house, and there the shoemaker measured their feet in order to cut and stitch together an individualized
product for each customer.
Figure 9.2 (credit “1807 photo”: Project Gutenberg Archives)

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, merchants in the Northeast and elsewhere turned
their attention as never before to the benefits of using unskilled wage labor to make a greater profit by
reducing labor costs. They used the putting-out system, which the British had employed at the beginning
of their own Industrial Revolution, whereby they hired farming families to perform specific tasks in the
production process for a set wage. In the case of shoes, for instance, American merchants hired one group
of workers to cut soles into standardized sizes. A different group of families cut pieces of leather for the
uppers, while still another was employed to stitch the standardized parts together.
This process proved attractive because it whittled production costs. The families who participated in
the putting-out system were not skilled artisans. They had not spent years learning and perfecting their
craft and did not have ambitious journeymen to pay. Therefore, they could not demand—and did not
receive—high wages. Most of the year they tended fields and orchards, ate the food that they produced,
and sold the surplus. Putting-out work proved a welcome source of extra income for New England farm
families who saw their profits dwindle from new competition from midwestern farms with higher-yield
lands.
Much of this part-time production was done under contract to merchants. Some farming families engaged
in shoemaking (or shoe assemblage), as noted above. Many made brooms, plaited hats from straw or palm
leaves (which merchants imported from Cuba and the West Indies), crafted furniture, made pottery, or
wove baskets. Some, especially those who lived in Connecticut, made parts for clocks. The most common
part-time occupation, however, was the manufacture of textiles. Farm women spun woolen thread and
wove fabric. They also wove blankets, made rugs, and knit stockings. All this manufacturing took place
on the farm, giving farmers and their wives control over the timing and pace of their labor. Their domestic
productivity increased the quantity of goods available for sale in country towns and nearby cities.
THE RISE OF MANUFACTURING

In the late 1790s and early 1800s, Great Britain boasted the most advanced textile mills and machines in
the world, and the United States continued to rely on Great Britain for finished goods. Great Britain hoped
to maintain its economic advantage over its former colonies in North America. So, in an effort to prevent
the knowledge of advanced manufacturing from leaving the Empire, the British banned the emigration of
mechanics, skilled workers who knew how to build and repair the latest textile machines.
Some skilled British mechanics, including Samuel Slater, managed to travel to the United States in the
hopes of profiting from their knowledge and experience with advanced textile manufacturing. Slater
(Figure 9.3) understood the workings of the latest water-powered textile mills, which British industrialist
Richard Arkwright had pioneered. In the 1790s in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, Slater convinced several
American merchants, including the wealthy Providence industrialist Moses Brown, to finance and build
a water-powered cotton mill based on the British models. Slater’s knowledge of both technology and mill
organization made him the founder of the first truly successful cotton mill in the United States.
Figure 9.3 Samuel Slater (a) was a British migrant who brought plans for English textile mills to the United States
and built the nation’s first successful water-powered mill in Pawtucket, Massachusetts (b).
The success of Slater and his partners Smith Brown and William Almy, relatives of Moses Brown, inspired
others to build additional mills in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. By 1807, thirteen more mills had been
established. President Jefferson’s embargo on British manufactured goods from late 1807 to early 1809
(discussed in a previous chapter) spurred more New England merchants to invest in industrial enterprises.
By 1812, seventy-eight new textile mills had been built in rural New England towns. More than half turned
out woolen goods, while the rest produced cotton cloth.
Slater’s mills and those built in imitation of his were fairly small, employing only seventy people on
average. Workers were organized the way that they had been in English factories, in family units. Under
the “Rhode Island system,” families were hired. The father was placed in charge of the family unit, and
he directed the labor of his wife and children. Instead of being paid in cash, the father was given “credit”
equal to the extent of his family’s labor that could be redeemed in the form of rent (of company-owned
housing) or goods from the company-owned store.
The Embargo of 1807 and the War of 1812 played a pivotal role in spurring industrial development in the
United States. Jefferson’s embargo prevented American merchants from engaging in the Atlantic trade,
severely cutting into their profits. The War of 1812 further compounded the financial woes of American
merchants. The acute economic problems led some New England merchants, including Francis Cabot
Lowell, to cast their gaze on manufacturing. Lowell had toured English mills during a stay in Great Britain.
He returned to Massachusetts having memorized the designs for the advanced textile machines he had
seen in his travels, especially the power loom, which replaced individual hand weavers. Lowell convinced
other wealthy merchant families to invest in the creation of new mill towns. In 1813, Lowell and these
wealthy investors, known as the Boston Associates, created the Boston Manufacturing Company. Together
they raised $400,000 and, in 1814, established a textile mill in Waltham and a second one in the same town
shortly thereafter (Figure 9.4).

Figure 9.4 The Boston Manufacturing Company, shown in this engraving made in 1813–1816, was headquartered
in Waltham, Massachusetts. The company started the northeastern textile industry by building water-powered textile
mills along suitable rivers and developing mill towns around them.
At Waltham, cotton was carded and drawn into coarse strands of cotton fibers called rovings. The rovings
were then spun into yarn, and the yarn woven into cotton cloth. Yarn no longer had to be put out to farm
families for further processing. All the work was now performed at a central location—the factory.
The work in Lowell’s mills was both mechanized and specialized. Specialization meant the work was
broken down into specific tasks, and workers repeatedly did the one task assigned to them in the course
of a day. As machines took over labor from humans and people increasingly found themselves confined to
the same repetitive step, the process of deskilling began.
The Boston Associates’ mills, which each employed hundreds of workers, were located in company towns,
where the factories and worker housing were owned by a single company. This gave the owners and their
agents control over their workers. The most famous of these company towns was Lowell, Massachusetts.
The new town was built on land the Boston Associates purchased in 1821 from the village of East
Chelmsford at the falls of the Merrimack River, north of Boston. The mill buildings themselves were
constructed of red brick with large windows to let in light. Company-owned boarding houses to shelter
employees were constructed near the mills. The mill owners planted flowers and trees to maintain the
appearance of a rural New England town and to forestall arguments, made by many, that factory work
was unnatural and unwholesome.
In contrast to many smaller mills, the Boston Associates’ enterprises avoided the Rhode Island system,
preferring individual workers to families. These employees were not difficult to find. The competition
New England farmers faced from farmers now settling in the West, and the growing scarcity of land in
population-dense New England, had important implications for farmers’ children. Realizing their chances
of inheriting a large farm or receiving a substantial dowry were remote, these teenagers sought other
employment opportunities, often at the urging of their parents. While young men could work at a variety
of occupations, young women had more limited options. The textile mills provided suitable employment
for the daughters of Yankee farm families.
Needing to reassure anxious parents that their daughters’ virtue would be protected and hoping to avoid
what they viewed as the problems of industrialization—filth and vice—the Boston Associates established
strict rules governing the lives of these young workers. The women lived in company-owned boarding
houses to which they paid a portion of their wages. They woke early at the sound of a bell and worked
a twelve-hour day during which talking was forbidden. They could not swear or drink alcohol, and they
were required to attend church on Sunday. Overseers at the mills and boarding-house keepers kept a close
eye on the young women’s behavior; workers who associated with people of questionable reputation or
acted in ways that called their virtue into question lost their jobs and were evicted.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Michel Chevalier on Mill Worker Rules and Wages
In the 1830s, the French government sent engineer and economist Michel Chevalier to study industrial
and financial affairs in Mexico and the United States. In 1839, he published Society, Manners, and Politics
in the United States, in which he recorded his impressions of the Lowell textile mills. In the excerpt below,
Chevalier describes the rules and wages of the Lawrence Company in 1833.
All persons employed by the Company must devote themselves assiduously to their duty
during working-hours. They must be capable of doing the work which they undertake, or
use all their efforts to this effect. They must on all occasions, both in their words and in
their actions, show that they are penetrated by a laudable love of temperance and virtue,
and animated by a sense of their moral and social obligations. The Agent of the Company
shall endeavour to set to all a good example in this respect. Every individual who shall be
notoriously dissolute, idle, dishonest, or intemperate, who shall be in the practice of absenting
himself from divine service, or shall violate the Sabbath, or shall be addicted to gaming, shall
be dismissed from the service of the Company. . . . All ardent spirits are banished from the
Company’s grounds, except when prescribed by a physician. All games of hazard and cards
are prohibited within their limits and in the boarding-houses.
Weekly wages were as follows:
For picking and carding, $2.78 to $3.10
For spinning, $3.00
For weaving, $3.10 to $3.12
For warping and sizing, $3.45 to $4.00
For measuring and folding, $3.12
What kind of world were the factory owners trying to create with these rules? How do you think those
who believed all white people were born free and equal would react to them?
Click and Explore
Visit the Textile Industry History (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15textHistory) site to

explore the mills of New England through its collection of history, images, and
ephemera.
The mechanization of formerly handcrafted goods, and the removal of production from the home to the
factory, dramatically increased output of goods. For example, in one nine-month period, the numerous
Rhode Island women who spun yarn into cloth on hand looms in their homes produced a total of thirty-
four thousand yards of fabrics of different types. In 1855, the women working in just one of Lowell’s
mechanized mills produced more than forty-three thousand yards.
The Boston Associates’ cotton mills quickly gained a competitive edge over the smaller mills established by
Samuel Slater and those who had imitated him. Their success prompted the Boston Associates to expand.
In Massachusetts, in addition to Lowell, they built new mill towns in Chicopee, Lawrence, and Holyoke.

In New Hampshire, they built them in Manchester, Dover, and Nashua. And in Maine, they built a large
mill in Saco on the Saco River. Other entrepreneurs copied them. By the time of the Civil War, 878 textile
factories had been built in New England. All together, these factories employed more than 100,000 people
and produced more than 940 million yards of cloth.
Success in New England was repeated elsewhere. Small mills, more like those in Rhode Island than
those in northern Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine, were built in New York, Delaware, and
Pennsylvania. By midcentury, three hundred textile mills were located in and near Philadelphia. Many
produced specialty goods, such as silks and printed fabrics, and employed skilled workers, including
people working in their own homes. Even in the South, the region that otherwise relied on slave labor to
produce the very cotton that fed the northern factory movement, more than two hundred textile mills were
built. Most textiles, however, continued to be produced in New England before the Civil War.
Alongside the production of cotton and woolen cloth, which formed the backbone of the Industrial
Revolution in the United States as in Britain, other crafts increasingly became mechanized and centralized
in factories in the first half of the nineteenth century. Shoe making, leather tanning, papermaking, hat
making, clock making, and gun making had all become mechanized to one degree or another by the time
of the Civil War. Flour milling, because of the inventions of Oliver Evans (Figure 9.5), had become almost
completely automated and centralized by the early decades of the nineteenth century. So efficient were
Evans-style mills that two employees were able to do work that had originally required five, and mills
using Evans’s system spread throughout the mid-Atlantic states.
Figure 9.5 Oliver Evans was an American engineer and inventor, best known for developing ways to automate the
flour milling process, which is illustrated here in a drawing from a 1785 instructional book called The Young Mill-
Wright & Miller’s Guide.
THE RISE OF CONSUMERISM

At the end of the eighteenth century, most American families lived in candlelit homes with bare floors and
unadorned walls, cooked and warmed themselves over fireplaces, and owned few changes of clothing. All
manufactured goods were made by hand and, as a result, were usually scarce and fairly expensive.
The automation of the manufacturing process changed that, making consumer goods that had once been
thought of as luxury items widely available for the first time. Now all but the very poor could afford the
necessities and some of the small luxuries of life. Rooms were lit by oil lamps, which gave brighter light
than candles. Homes were heated by parlor stoves, which allowed for more privacy; people no longer
needed to huddle together around the hearth. Iron cookstoves with multiple burners made it possible for
housewives to prepare more elaborate meals. Many people could afford carpets and upholstered furniture,
and even farmers could decorate their homes with curtains and wallpaper. Clocks, which had once been
quite expensive, were now within the reach of most ordinary people.
THE WORK EXPERIENCE TRANSFORMED

As production became mechanized and relocated to factories, the experience of workers underwent
significant changes. Farmers and artisans had controlled the pace of their labor and the order in which
things were done. If an artisan wanted to take the afternoon off, he could. If a farmer wished to rebuild
his fence on Thursday instead of on Wednesday, he could. They conversed and often drank during the
workday. Indeed, journeymen were often promised alcohol as part of their wages. One member of the
group might be asked to read a book or a newspaper aloud to the others. In the warm weather, doors and
windows might be opened to the outside, and work stopped when it was too dark to see.
Work in factories proved to be quite different. Employees were expected to report at a certain time, usually
early in the morning, and to work all day. They could not leave when they were tired or take breaks other
than at designated times. Those who arrived late found their pay docked; five minutes’ tardiness could
result in several hours’ worth of lost pay, and repeated tardiness could result in dismissal. The monotony
of repetitive tasks made days particularly long. Hours varied according to the factory, but most factory
employees toiled ten to twelve hours a day, six days a week. In the winter, when the sun set early, oil lamps
were used to light the factory floor, and employees strained their eyes to see their work and coughed as
the rooms filled with smoke from the lamps. In the spring, as the days began to grow longer, factories held
“blowing-out” celebrations to mark the extinguishing of the oil lamps. These “blow-outs” often featured
processions and dancing.
Freedom within factories was limited. Drinking was prohibited. Some factories did not allow employees to
sit down. Doors and windows were kept closed, especially in textile factories where fibers could be easily
disturbed by incoming breezes, and mills were often unbearably hot and humid in the summer. In the
winter, workers often shivered in the cold. In such environments, workers’ health suffered.
The workplace posed other dangers as well. The presence of cotton bales alongside the oil used to lubricate
machines made fire a common problem in textile factories. Workplace injuries were also common.
Workers’ hands and fingers were maimed or severed when they were caught in machines; in some cases,
their limbs or entire bodies were crushed. Workers who didn’t die from such injuries almost certainly lost
their jobs, and with them, their income. Corporal punishment of both children and adults was common
in factories; where abuse was most extreme, children sometimes died as a result of injuries suffered at the
hands of an overseer.
As the decades passed, working conditions deteriorated in many mills. Workers were assigned more
machines to tend, and the owners increased the speed at which the machines operated. Wages were cut in
many factories, and employees who had once labored for an hourly wage now found themselves reduced
to piecework, paid for the amount they produced and not for the hours they toiled. Owners also reduced
compensation for piecework. Low wages combined with regular periods of unemployment to make the
lives of workers difficult, especially for those with families to support. In New York City in 1850, for
example, the average male worker earned $300 a year; it cost approximately $600 a year to support a family
of five.
WORKERS AND THE LABOR MOVEMENT

Many workers undoubtedly enjoyed some of the new wage opportunities factory work presented. For
many of the young New England women who ran the machines in Waltham, Lowell, and elsewhere, the
experience of being away from the family was exhilarating and provided a sense of solidarity among them.
Though most sent a large portion of their wages home, having even a small amount of money of their
own was a liberating experience, and many used their earnings to purchase clothes, ribbons, and other
consumer goods for themselves.

The long hours, strict discipline, and low wages, however, soon led workers to organize to protest their
working conditions and pay. In 1821, the young women employed by the Boston Manufacturing Company
in Waltham went on strike for two days when their wages were cut. In 1824, workers in Pawtucket struck
to protest reduced pay rates and longer hours, the latter of which had been achieved by cutting back the
amount of time allowed for meals. Similar strikes occurred at Lowell and in other mill towns like Dover,
New Hampshire, where the women employed by the Cocheco Manufacturing Company ceased working
in December 1828 after their wages were reduced. In the 1830s, female mill operatives in Lowell formed
the Lowell Factory Girls Association to organize strike activities in the face of wage cuts (Figure 9.6)
and, later, established the Lowell Female Labor Reform Association to protest the twelve-hour workday.
Even though strikes were rarely successful and workers usually were forced to accept reduced wages
and increased hours, work stoppages as a form of labor protest represented the beginnings of the labor
movement in the United States.
Figure 9.6 New England mill workers were often young women, as seen in this early tintype made ca. 1870 (a).
When management proposed rent increases for those living in company boarding houses, female textile workers in
Lowell responded by forming the Lowell Factory Girls Association—its constitution is shown in image (b)—in 1836
and organizing a “turn-out” or strike.
Critics of industrialization blamed it for the increased concentration of wealth in the hands of the few: the
factory owners made vast profits while the workers received only a small fraction of the revenue from
what they produced. Under the labor theory of value, said critics, the value of a product should accurately
reflect the labor needed to produce it. Profits from the sale of goods produced by workers should be
distributed so laborers recovered in the form of wages the value their effort had added to the finished
product. While factory owners, who contributed the workspace, the machinery, and the raw materials
needed to create a product, should receive a share of the profits, their share should not be greater than
the value of their contribution. Workers should thus receive a much larger portion of the profits than they
currently did, and factory owners should receive less.
In Philadelphia, New York, and Boston—all cities that experienced dizzying industrial growth during
the nineteenth century—workers united to form political parties. Thomas Skidmore, from Connecticut,
was the outspoken organizer of the Working Men’s Party, which lodged a radical protest against the
exploitation of workers that accompanied industrialization. Skidmore took his cue from Thomas Paine and
the American Revolution to challenge the growing inequity in the United States. He argued that inequality
originated in the unequal distribution of property through inheritance laws. In his 1829 treatise, The Rights
of Man to Property, Skidmore called for the abolition of inheritance and the redistribution of property. The
Working Men’s Party also advocated the end of imprisonment for debt, a common practice whereby the
debtor who could not pay was put in jail and his tools and property, if any, were confiscated. Skidmore’s
vision of radical equality extended to all; women and men, no matter their race, should be allowed to vote
and receive property, he believed. Skidmore died in 1832 when a cholera epidemic swept New York City,
but the state of New York did away with imprisonment for debt in the same year.
Worker activism became less common in the late 1840s and 1850s. As German and Irish immigrants
poured into the United States in the decades preceding the Civil War, native-born laborers found
themselves competing for jobs with new arrivals who were willing to work longer hours for less pay.
In Lowell, Massachusetts, for example, the daughters of New England farmers encountered competition
from the daughters of Irish farmers suffering the effects of the potato famine; these immigrant women
were willing to work for far less and endure worse conditions than native-born women. Many of these
native-born “daughters of freemen,” as they referred to themselves, left the factories and returned to their
families. Not all wage workers had this luxury, however. Widows with children to support and girls from
destitute families had no choice but to stay and accept the faster pace and lower pay. Male German and
Irish immigrants competed with native-born men. Germans, many of whom were skilled workers, took
jobs in furniture making. The Irish provided a ready source of unskilled labor needed to lay railroad track
and dig canals. American men with families to support grudgingly accepted low wages in order to keep
their jobs. As work became increasingly deskilled, no worker was irreplaceable, and no one’s job was safe.

• Explain the process of selling western land
• Discuss the causes of the Panic of 1819
• Identify key American innovators and inventors
By the 1840s, the United States economy bore little resemblance to the import-and-export economy of
colonial days. It was now a market economy, one in which the production of goods, and their prices, were
unregulated by the government. Commercial centers, to which job seekers flocked, mushroomed. New
York City’s population skyrocketed. In 1790, it was 33,000; by 1820, it had reached 200,000; and by 1825, it
had swelled to 270,000. New opportunities for wealth appeared to be available to anyone.
However, the expansion of the American economy made it prone to the boom-and-bust cycle. Market
economies involve fluctuating prices for labor, raw materials, and consumer goods and depend on credit
and financial instruments—any one of which can be the source of an imbalance and an economic
downturn in which businesses and farmers default, wage workers lose their employment, and investors
lose their assets. This happened for the first time in the United States in 1819, when waves of enthusiastic
speculation (expectations of rapidly rising prices) in land and commodities gave way to drops in prices.
THE LAND OFFICE BUSINESS

In the early nineteenth century, people poured into the territories west of the long-settled eastern seaboard.
Among them were speculators seeking to buy cheap parcels from the federal government in anticipation
of a rise in prices. The Ohio Country in the Northwest Territory appeared to offer the best prospects for

many in the East, especially New Englanders. The result was “Ohio fever,” as thousands traveled there to
reap the benefits of settling in this newly available territory (Figure 9.7).
Figure 9.7 Cartographer John Cary drew this map “exhibiting The Western Territory, Kentucky, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia &c” for his 1808 atlas; it depicted the huge western territory that fascinated settlers in the early
nineteenth century.
The federal government oversaw the orderly transfer of public land to citizens at public auctions. The
Land Law of 1796 applied to the territory of Ohio after it had been wrested from Indians. Under this
law, the United States would sell a minimum parcel of 640 acres for $2 an acre. The Land Law of
1800 further encouraged land sales in the Northwest Territory by reducing the minimum parcel size
by half and enabling sales on credit, with the goal of stimulating settlement by ordinary farmers. The
government created land offices to handle these sales and established them in the West within easy reach
of prospective landowners. They could thus purchase land directly from the government, at the price the
government had set. Buyers were given low interest rates, with payments that could be spread over four
years. Surveyors marked off the parcels in straight lines, creating a landscape of checkerboard squares.
The future looked bright for those who turned their gaze on the land in the West. Surveying, settling,
and farming, turning the wilderness into a profitable commodity, gave purchasers a sense of progress. A
uniquely American story of settling the land developed: hardy individuals wielding an axe cleared it, built
a log cabin, and turned the frontier into a farm that paved the way for mills and towns (Figure 9.8).
Figure 9.8 Thomas Cole, who painted Home in the Woods in 1847, was an American artist. Cole founded the
Hudson River School, a style renowned for portrayals of landscapes and wilderness influenced by the emotional
aesthetic known as romanticism. In what ways is this image realistic, and how is it idealized or romanticized?

MY STORY
A New Englander Heads West
A native of Vermont, Gershom Flagg was one of thousands of New Englanders who caught “Ohio fever.”
In this letter to his brother, Azariah Flagg, dated August 3, 1817, he describes the hustle and bustle of
the emerging commercial town of Cincinnati.
DEAR BROTHER,
Cincinnati is an incorporated City. It contained in 1815, 1,100 buildings of different
descriptions among which are above 20 of Stone 250 of brick & 800 of Wood. The population
in 1815 was 6,500. There are about 60 Mercantile stores several of which are wholesale.
Here are a great share of Mechanics of all kinds.
Here is one Woolen Factory four Cotton factories but not now in operation. A most
stupendously large building of Stone is likewise erected immediately on the bank of the River
for a steam Mill. It is nine stories high at the Waters edge & is 87 by 62 feet. It drives four pair
of Stones besides various other Machinery as Wool carding &c &c. There is also a valuable
Steam Saw Mill driving four saws also an inclined Wheel ox Saw Mill with two saws, one
Glass Factory. The town is Rapidly increasing in Wealth & population. Here is a Branch of the
United States Bank and three other banks & two Printing offices. The country around is rich. .
..
That you may all be prospered in the world is the anxious wish of your affectionate Brother
GERSHOM FLAGG
What caught Flagg’s attention? From your reading of this letter and study of the engraving below (Figure
9.9), what impression can you take away of Cincinnati in 1817?
Figure 9.9 This engraving from A Topographical Description of the State of Ohio, Indiana Territory, and
Louisiana (1812), by Jervis Cutler, presents a view of Cincinnati as it may have looked to Gershom
Flagg.
Click and Explore
Learn more about settlement of and immigration to the Northwest Territory by exploring
the National Park Service’s Historic Resource Study (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/
15LincMemorial) related to the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial. According to the
guide’s maps, what lands were available for purchase?
THE PANIC OF 1819

The first major economic crisis in the United States after the War of 1812 was due, in large measure, to
factors in the larger Atlantic economy. It was made worse, however, by land speculation and poor banking
practices at home. British textile mills voraciously consumed American cotton, and the devastation of the
Napoleonic Wars made Europe reliant on other American agricultural commodities such as wheat. This
drove up both the price of American agricultural products and the value of the land on which staples such
as cotton, wheat, corn, and tobacco were grown.
Many Americans were struck with “land fever.” Farmers strove to expand their acreage, and those who
lived in areas where unoccupied land was scarce sought holdings in the West. They needed money to
purchase this land, however. Small merchants and factory owners, hoping to take advantage of this boom
time, also sought to borrow money to expand their businesses. When existing banks refused to lend money
to small farmers and others without a credit history, state legislatures chartered new banks to meet the
demand. In one legislative session, Kentucky chartered forty-six. As loans increased, paper money from
new state banks flooded the country, creating inflation that drove the price of land and goods still higher.
This, in turn, encouraged even more people to borrow money with which to purchase land or to expand
or start their own businesses. Speculators took advantage of this boom in the sale of land by purchasing
property not to live on, but to buy cheaply and resell at exorbitant prices.
During the War of 1812, the Bank of the United States had suspended payments in specie, “hard money”
usually in the form of gold and silver coins. When the war ended, the bank continued to issue only paper
banknotes and to redeem notes issued by state banks with paper only. The newly chartered banks also
adopted this practice, issuing banknotes in excess of the amount of specie in their vaults. This shaky
economic scheme worked only so long as people were content to conduct business with paper money
and refrain from demanding that banks instead give them the gold and silver that was supposed to back
it. If large numbers of people, or banks that had loaned money to other banks, began to demand specie
payments, the banking system would collapse, because there was no longer enough specie to support the
amount of paper money the banks had put into circulation. So terrified were bankers that customers would
demand gold and silver that an irate bank employee in Ohio stabbed a customer who had the audacity to
ask for specie in exchange for the banknotes he held.
In an effort to bring stability to the nation’s banking system, Congress chartered the Second Bank of the
United States (a revival of Alexander Hamilton’s national bank) in 1816. But this new institution only
compounded the problem by making risky loans, opening branches in the South and West where land
fever was highest, and issuing a steady stream of Bank of the United States notes, a move that increased
inflation and speculation.
The inflated economic bubble burst in 1819, resulting in a prolonged economic depression or severe
downturn in the economy called the Panic of 1819. It was the first economic depression experienced by
the American public, who panicked as they saw the prices of agricultural products fall and businesses
fail. Prices had already begun falling in 1815, at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, when Britain began to

“dump” its surplus manufactured goods, the result of wartime overproduction, in American ports, where
they were sold for low prices and competed with American-manufactured goods. In 1818, to make the
economic situation worse, prices for American agricultural products began to fall both in the United States
and in Europe; the overproduction of staples such as wheat and cotton coincided with the recovery of
European agriculture, which reduced demand for American crops. Crop prices tumbled by as much 75
percent.
This dramatic decrease in the value of agricultural goods left farmers unable to pay their debts. As they
defaulted on their loans, banks seized their property. However, because the drastic fall in agricultural
prices had greatly reduced the value of land, the banks were left with farms they were unable to sell. Land
speculators lost the value of their investments. As the countryside suffered, hard-hit farmers ceased to
purchase manufactured goods. Factories responded by cutting wages or firing employees.
In 1818, the Second Bank of the United States needed specie to pay foreign investors who had loaned
money to the United States to enable the country to purchase Louisiana. The bank began to call in the loans
it had made and required that state banks pay their debts in gold and silver. State banks that could not
collect loan payments from hard-pressed farmers could not, in turn, meet their obligations to the Second
Bank of the United States. Severe consequences followed as banks closed their doors and businesses
failed. Three-quarters of the work force in Philadelphia was unemployed, and charities were swamped by
thousands of newly destitute people needing assistance. In states with imprisonment for debt, the prison
population swelled. As a result, many states drafted laws to provide relief for debtors. Even those at the
top of the social ladder were affected by the Panic of 1819. Thomas Jefferson, who had cosigned a loan for a
friend, nearly lost Monticello when his acquaintance defaulted, leaving Jefferson responsible for the debt.
In an effort to stimulate the economy in the midst of the economic depression, Congress passed several acts
modifying land sales. The Land Law of 1820 lowered the price of land to $1.25 per acre and allowed small
parcels of eighty acres to be sold. The Relief Act of 1821 allowed Ohioans to return land to the government
if they could not afford to keep it. The money they received in return was credited toward their debt. The
act also extended the credit period to eight years. States, too, attempted to aid those faced with economic
hard times by passing laws to prevent mortgage foreclosures so buyers could keep their homes. Americans
made the best of the opportunities presented in business, in farming, or on the frontier, and by 1823 the
Panic of 1819 had ended. The recovery provided ample evidence of the vibrant and resilient nature of the
American people.
ENTREPRENEURS AND INVENTORS

The volatility of the U.S. economy did nothing to dampen the creative energies of its citizens in the years
before the Civil War. In the 1800s, a frenzy of entrepreneurship and invention yielded many new products
and machines. The republic seemed to be a laboratory of innovation, and technological advances appeared
unlimited.
One of the most influential advancements of the early nineteenth century was the cotton engine or gin,
invented by Eli Whitney and patented in 1794. Whitney, who was born in Massachusetts, had spent time
in the South and knew that a device to speed up the production of cotton was desperately needed so cotton
farmers could meet the growing demand for their crop. He hoped the cotton gin would render slavery
obsolete. Whitney’s seemingly simple invention cleaned the seeds from the raw cotton far more quickly
and efficiently than could slaves working by hand (Figure 9.10). The raw cotton with seeds was placed in
the cotton gin, and with the use of a hand crank, the seeds were extracted through a carding device that
aligned the cotton fibers in strands for spinning.
Figure 9.10 The First Cotton-Gin, an 1869 drawing by William L. Sheppard, shows the first use of a cotton gin “at
the close of the last century.” African American slaves handle the gin while white men conduct business in the
background. What do you think the artist was trying to convey with this image? (credit: Library of Congress)
Whitney also worked on machine tools, devices that cut and shaped metal to make standardized,
interchangeable parts for other mechanical devices like clocks and guns. Whitney’s machine tools to
manufacture parts for muskets enabled guns to be manufactured and repaired by people other than skilled
gunsmiths. His creative genius served as a source of inspiration for many other American inventors.
Another influential new technology of the early 1800s was the steamship engine, invented by Robert
Fulton in 1807. Fulton’s first steamship, the Clermont, used paddle wheels to travel the 150 miles from New
York City to Albany in a record time of only thirty-two hours (Figure 9.11). Soon, a fleet of steamboats was
traversing the Hudson River and New York Harbor, later expanding to travel every major American river
including the mighty Mississippi. By the 1830s there were over one thousand of these vessels, radically
changing water transportation by ending its dependence on the wind. Steamboats could travel faster and
more cheaply than sailing vessels or keelboats, which floated downriver and had to be poled or towed
upriver on the return voyage. Steamboats also arrived with much greater dependability. The steamboat
facilitated the rapid economic development of the massive Mississippi River Valley and the settlement of
the West.

Figure 9.11 Fulton’s steamboat the Clermont transformed the speed, cost, and dependability of water transportation
in the United States. (credit: Project Gutenberg Archives)
Virginia-born Cyrus McCormick wanted to replace the laborious process of using a scythe to cut and
gather wheat for harvest. In 1831, he and the slaves on his family’s plantation tested a horse-drawn
mechanical reaper, and over the next several decades, he made constant improvements to it (Figure 9.12).
More farmers began using it in the 1840s, and greater demand for the McCormick reaper led McCormick
and his brother to establish the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company in Chicago, where labor was
more readily available. By the 1850s, McCormick’s mechanical reaper had enabled farmers to vastly
increase their output. McCormick—and also John Deere, who improved on the design of plows—opened
the prairies to agriculture. McCormick’s bigger machine could harvest grain faster, and Deere’s plow could
cut through the thick prairie sod. Agriculture north of the Ohio River became the pantry that would lower
food prices and feed the major cities in the East. In short order, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois all become major
agricultural states.
Figure 9.12 This sketch is from the 1845 patent for an improved grain reaper invented by Cyrus Hall McCormick.
The reaper mechanized the labor-intensive use of scythes to harvest wheat.
Samuel Morse added the telegraph to the list of American innovations introduced in the years before
the Civil War. Born in Massachusetts in 1791, Morse first gained renown as a painter before turning his
attention to the development of a method of rapid communication in the 1830s. In 1838, he gave the first
public demonstration of his method of conveying electric pulses over a wire, using the basis of what
became known as Morse code. In 1843, Congress agreed to help fund the new technology by allocating
$30,000 for a telegraph line to connect Washington, DC, and Baltimore along the route of the Baltimore and
Ohio Railroad. In 1844, Morse sent the first telegraph message on the new link. Improved communication
systems fostered the development of business, economics, and politics by allowing for dissemination of
news at a speed previously unknown.

• Describe the development of improved methods of nineteenth-century domestic
transportation
• Identify the ways in which roads, canals, and railroads impacted Americans’ lives in
the nineteenth century
Americans in the early 1800s were a people on the move, as thousands left the eastern coastal states
for opportunities in the West. Unlike their predecessors, who traveled by foot or wagon train, these
settlers had new transport options. Their trek was made possible by the construction of roads, canals, and
railroads, projects that required the funding of the federal government and the states.
New technologies, like the steamship and railroad lines, had brought about what historians call the
transportation revolution. States competed for the honor of having the most advanced transport systems.
People celebrated the transformation of the wilderness into an orderly world of improvement
demonstrating the steady march of progress and the greatness of the republic. In 1817, John C. Calhoun of
South Carolina looked to a future of rapid internal improvements, declaring, “Let us . . . bind the Republic
together with a perfect system of roads and canals.” Americans agreed that internal transportation routes
would promote progress. By the eve of the Civil War, the United States had moved beyond roads and
canals to a well-established and extensive system of railroads.
ROADS AND CANALS

One key part of the transportation revolution was the widespread building of roads and turnpikes. In
1811, construction began on the Cumberland Road, a national highway that provided thousands with
a route from Maryland to Illinois. The federal government funded this important artery to the West,
beginning the creation of a transportation infrastructure for the benefit of settlers and farmers. Other
entities built turnpikes, which (as today) charged fees for use. New York State, for instance, chartered
turnpike companies that dramatically increased the miles of state roads from one thousand in 1810 to four
thousand by 1820. New York led the way in building turnpikes.
Canal mania swept the United States in the first half of the nineteenth century. Promoters knew these
artificial rivers could save travelers immense amounts of time and money. Even short waterways, such
as the two-and-a-half-mile canal going around the rapids of the Ohio River near Louisville, Kentucky,
proved a huge leap forward, in this case by opening a water route from Pittsburgh to New Orleans. The
preeminent example was the Erie Canal (Figure 9.13), which linked the Hudson River, and thus New
York City and the Atlantic seaboard, to the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Valley.
With its central location, large harbor, and access to the hinterland via the Hudson River, New York
City already commanded the lion’s share of commerce. Still, the city’s merchants worried about losing
ground to their competitors in Philadelphia and Baltimore. Their search for commercial advantage led to
the dream of creating a water highway connecting the city’s Hudson River to Lake Erie and markets in

the West. The result was the Erie Canal. Chartered in 1817 by the state of New York, the canal took seven
years to complete. When it opened in 1825, it dramatically decreased the cost of shipping while reducing
the time to travel to the West. Soon $15 million worth of goods (more than $200 million in today’s money)
was being transported on the 363-mile waterway every year.
Figure 9.13 Although the Erie Canal was primarily used for commerce and trade, in Pittsford on the Erie Canal
(1837), George Harvey portrays it in a pastoral, natural setting. Why do you think the painter chose to portray the
canal this way?
Click and Explore
Explore the Erie Canal on ErieCanal.org (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15ErieCanal)

via an interactive map. Click throughout the map for images of and artifacts from this
historic waterway.
The success of the Erie Canal led to other, similar projects. The Wabash and Erie Canal, which opened
in the early 1840s, stretched over 450 miles, making it the longest canal in North America (Figure 9.14).
Canals added immensely to the country’s sense of progress. Indeed, they appeared to be the logical next
step in the process of transforming wilderness into civilization.
Figure 9.14 This map (a) shows the route taken by the Wabash and Erie Canal through the state of Indiana. The
canal began operation in 1843 and boats operated on it until the 1870s. Sections have since been restored, as shown
in this 2007 photo (b) from Delphi, Indiana.
Click and Explore
Visit Southern Indiana Trails (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15WabashEire) to see

historic photographs of the Wabash and Erie Canal:
As with highway projects such as the Cumberland Road, many canals were federally sponsored, especially
during the presidency of John Quincy Adams in the late 1820s. Adams, along with Secretary of State
Henry Clay, championed what was known as the American System, part of which included plans for a
broad range of internal transportation improvements. Adams endorsed the creation of roads and canals to
facilitate commerce and develop markets for agriculture as well as to advance settlement in the West.
RAILROADS
Starting in the late 1820s, steam locomotives began to compete with horse-drawn locomotives. The
railroads with steam locomotives offered a new mode of transportation that fascinated citizens, buoying
their optimistic view of the possibilities of technological progress. The Mohawk and Hudson Railroad
was the first to begin service with a steam locomotive. Its inaugural train ran in 1831 on a track outside
Albany and covered twelve miles in twenty-five minutes. Soon it was traveling regularly between Albany
and Schenectady.
Toward the middle of the century, railroad construction kicked into high gear, and eager investors
quickly formed a number of railroad companies. As a railroad grid began to take shape, it stimulated a
greater demand for coal, iron, and steel. Soon, both railroads and canals crisscrossed the states (Figure

9.15), providing a transportation infrastructure that fueled the growth of American commerce. Indeed,
the transportation revolution led to development in the coal, iron, and steel industries, providing many
Americans with new job opportunities.
Figure 9.15 This 1853 map of the “Empire State” shows the extent of New York’s canal and railroad networks. The
entire country’s transportation infrastructure grew dramatically during the first half of the nineteenth century.
AMERICANS ON THE MOVE

The expansion of roads, canals, and railroads changed people’s lives. In 1786, it had taken a minimum of
four days to travel from Boston, Massachusetts, to Providence, Rhode Island. By 1840, the trip took half
a day on a train. In the twenty-first century, this may seem intolerably slow, but people at the time were
amazed by the railroad’s speed. Its average of twenty miles per hour was twice as fast as other available
modes of transportation.
By 1840, more than three thousand miles of canals had been dug in the United States, and thirty thousand
miles of railroad track had been laid by the beginning of the Civil War. Together with the hundreds of
steamboats that plied American rivers, these advances in transportation made it easier and less expensive
to ship agricultural products from the West to feed people in eastern cities, and to send manufactured
goods from the East to people in the West. Without this ability to transport goods, the market revolution
would not have been possible. Rural families also became less isolated as a result of the transportation
revolution. Traveling circuses, menageries, peddlers, and itinerant painters could now more easily make
their way into rural districts, and people in search of work found cities and mill towns within their reach.

• Identify the shared perceptions and ideals of each social class
• Assess different social classes’ views of slavery
The profound economic changes sweeping the United States led to equally important social and cultural
transformations. The formation of distinct classes, especially in the rapidly industrializing North, was
one of the most striking developments. The unequal distribution of newly created wealth spurred new
divisions along class lines. Each class had its own specific culture and views on the issue of slavery.
THE ECONOMIC ELITE

Economic elites gained further social and political ascendance in the United States due to a fast-growing
economy that enhanced their wealth and allowed distinctive social and cultural characteristics to develop
among different economic groups. In the major northern cities of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia,
leading merchants formed an industrial capitalist elite. Many came from families that had been deeply
engaged in colonial trade in tea, sugar, pepper, slaves, and other commodities and that were familiar with
trade networks connecting the United States with Europe, the West Indies, and the Far East. These colonial
merchants had passed their wealth to their children.
After the War of 1812, the new generation of merchants expanded their economic activities. They began
to specialize in specific types of industry, spearheading the development of industrial capitalism based on
factories they owned and on specific commercial services such as banking, insurance, and shipping. Junius
Spencer Morgan (Figure 9.16), for example, rose to prominence as a banker. His success began in Boston,
where he worked in the import business in the 1830s. He then formed a partnership with a London banker,
George Peabody, and created Peabody, Morgan & Co. In 1864, he renamed the enterprise J. S. Morgan &
Co. His son, J. P. Morgan, became a noted financier in the later nineteenth and early twentieth century.
Figure 9.16 Junius Spencer Morgan of Boston was one of the fathers of the American private banking system.
(credit: Project Gutenberg Archives)
Click and Explore
Visit the Internet Archive (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Hunts) to see scanned

pages from Hunt’s Merchant’s Magazine and Commercial Review. This monthly
business review provided the business elite with important information about issues
pertaining to trade and finance: commodity prices, new laws affecting business,
statistics regarding imports and exports, and similar content. Choose three articles and
decide how they might have been important to the northern business elite.

Members of the northern business elite forged close ties with each other to protect and expand their
economic interests. Marriages between leading families formed a crucial strategy to advance economic
advantage, and the homes of the northern elite became important venues for solidifying social bonds.
Exclusive neighborhoods started to develop as the wealthy distanced themselves from the poorer urban
residents, and cities soon became segregated by class.
Industrial elites created chambers of commerce to advance their interests; by 1858 there were ten in the
United States. These networking organizations allowed top bankers and merchants to stay current on
the economic activities of their peers and further strengthen the bonds among themselves. The elite also
established social clubs to forge and maintain ties. The first of these, the Philadelphia Club, came into being
in 1834. Similar clubs soon formed in other cities and hosted a range of social activities designed to further
bind together the leading economic families. Many northern elites worked hard to ensure the transmission
of their inherited wealth from one generation to the next. Politically, they exercised considerable power in
local and state elections. Most also had ties to the cotton trade, so they were strong supporters of slavery.
The Industrial Revolution led some former artisans to reinvent themselves as manufacturers. These
enterprising leaders of manufacturing differed from the established commercial elite in the North and
South because they did not inherit wealth. Instead, many came from very humble working-class origins
and embodied the dream of achieving upward social mobility through hard work and discipline. As
the beneficiaries of the economic transformations sweeping the republic, these newly established
manufacturers formed a new economic elite that thrived in the cities and cultivated its own distinct
sensibilities. They created a culture that celebrated hard work, a position that put them at odds with
southern planter elites who prized leisure and with other elite northerners who had largely inherited their
wealth and status.
Peter Cooper provides one example of the new northern manufacturing class. Ever inventive, Cooper
dabbled in many different moneymaking enterprises before gaining success in the glue business. He
opened his Manhattan glue factory in the 1820s and was soon using his profits to expand into a host of
other activities, including iron production. One of his innovations was the steam locomotive, which he
invented in 1827 (Figure 9.17). Despite becoming one of the wealthiest men in New York City, Cooper
lived simply. Rather than buying an ornate bed, for example, he built his own. He believed respectability
came through hard work, not family pedigree.
Figure 9.17 Peter Cooper, who would go on to found the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art in
New York City, designed and built the Tom Thumb, the first American-built steam locomotive, a replica of which is
shown here.
Those who had inherited their wealth derided self-made men like Cooper, and he and others like him
were excluded from the social clubs established by the merchant and financial elite of New York City. Self-
made northern manufacturers, however, created their own organizations that aimed to promote upward
mobility. The Providence Association of Mechanics and Manufacturers was formed in 1789 and promoted
both industrial arts and education as a pathway to economic success. In 1859, Peter Cooper established the
Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, a school in New York City dedicated to providing
education in technology. Merit, not wealth, mattered most according to Cooper, and admission to the
school was based solely on ability; race, sex, and family connections had no place. The best and brightest
could attend Cooper Union tuition-free, a policy that remained in place until 2014.
THE MIDDLE CLASS

Not all enterprising artisans were so successful that they could rise to the level of the elite. However,
many artisans and small merchants, who owned small factories and stores, did manage to achieve and
maintain respectability in an emerging middle class. Lacking the protection of great wealth, members of
the middle class agonized over the fear that they might slip into the ranks of wage laborers; thus they
strove to maintain or improve their middle-class status and that of their children.
To this end, the middle class valued cleanliness, discipline, morality, hard work, education, and good
manners. Hard work and education enabled them to rise in life. Middle-class children, therefore, did
not work in factories. Instead they attended school and in their free time engaged in “self-improving”
activities, such as reading or playing the piano, or they played with toys and games that would teach them
the skills and values they needed to succeed in life. In the early nineteenth century, members of the middle
class began to limit the number of children they had. Children no longer contributed economically to the
household, and raising them “correctly” required money and attention. It therefore made sense to have
fewer of them.
Middle-class women did not work for wages. Their job was to care for the children and to keep the house
in a state of order and cleanliness, often with the help of a servant. They also performed the important
tasks of cultivating good manners among their children and their husbands and of purchasing consumer
goods; both activities proclaimed to neighbors and prospective business partners that their families were
educated, cultured, and financially successful.
Northern business elites, many of whom owned or had invested in businesses like cotton mills that
profited from slave labor, often viewed the institution of slavery with ambivalence. Most members of the
middle class took a dim view of it, however, since it promoted a culture of leisure. Slavery stood as the
antithesis of the middle-class view that dignity and respectability were achieved through work, and many
members of this class became active in efforts to end it.
This class of upwardly mobile citizens promoted temperance, or abstinence from alcohol. They also
gave their support to Protestant ministers like George Grandison Finney, who preached that all people
possessed free moral agency, meaning they could change their lives and bring about their own salvation, a
message that resonated with members of the middle class, who already believed their worldly efforts had
led to their economic success.
THE WORKING CLASS

The Industrial Revolution in the United States created a new class of wage workers, and this working class
also developed its own culture. They formed their own neighborhoods, living away from the oversight
of bosses and managers. While industrialization and the market revolution brought some improvements
to the lives of the working class, these sweeping changes did not benefit laborers as much as they did
the middle class and the elites. The working class continued to live an often precarious existence. They
suffered greatly during economic slumps, such as the Panic of 1819.

Although most working-class men sought to emulate the middle class by keeping their wives and children
out of the work force, their economic situation often necessitated that others besides the male head of the
family contribute to its support. Thus, working-class children might attend school for a few years or learn
to read and write at Sunday school, but education was sacrificed when income was needed, and many
working-class children went to work in factories. While the wives of wage laborers usually did not work
for wages outside the home, many took in laundry or did piecework at home to supplement the family’s
income.
Although the urban working class could not afford the consumer goods that the middle class could, its
members did exercise a great deal of influence over popular culture. Theirs was a festive public culture of
release and escape from the drudgery of factory work, catered to by the likes of Phineas Taylor Barnum,
the celebrated circus promoter and showman. Taverns also served an important function as places to
forget the long hours and uncertain wages of the factories. Alcohol consumption was high among the
working class, although many workers did take part in the temperance movement. It is little wonder that
middle-class manufacturers attempted to abolish alcohol.
AMERICANA
P. T. Barnum and the Feejee Mermaid
The Connecticut native P. T. Barnum catered to the demand for escape and cheap amusements among
the working class. His American Museum in New York City opened in 1841 and achieved great success.
Millions flocked to see Barnum’s exhibits, which included a number of fantastic human and animal
oddities, almost all of which were hoaxes. One exhibit in the 1840s featured the “Feejee Mermaid,” which
Barnum presented as proof of the existence of the mythical mermaids of the deep (Figure 9.18). In truth,
the mermaid was a half-monkey, half-fish stitched together.
Figure 9.18 Spurious though they were, attractions such as the Feejee mermaid (a) from P. T.
Barnum’s American Museum in New York City (b) drew throngs of working-class wage earners in the
middle of the nineteenth century.
Click and Explore
Visit The Lost Museum (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15LostMuseum) to take a

virtual tour of P. T. Barnum’s incredible museum.
Wage workers in the North were largely hostile to the abolition of slavery, fearing it would unleash more
competition for jobs from free blacks. Many were also hostile to immigration. The pace of immigration
to the United States accelerated in the 1840s and 1850s as Europeans were drawn to the promise of
employment and land in the United States. Many new members of the working class came from the ranks
of these immigrants, who brought new foods, customs, and religions. The Roman Catholic population
of the United States, fairly small before this period, began to swell with the arrival of the Irish and the
Germans.

Key Terms
artisan skilled, experienced worker who produces specialized goods by hand
Cumberland Road a national highway that provided thousands with a route from Maryland to Illinois
deskilling breaking an artisanal production process into smaller steps that unskilled workers can
perform
Erie Canal a canal that connected the Hudson River to Lake Erie and markets in the West
free moral agency the freedom to change one’s own life and bring about one’s own salvation
labor theory of value an economic theory holding that profits from the sale of the goods produced by
workers should be equitably distributed to those workers
land offices sites where prospective landowners could buy public land from the government
machine tools machines that cut and shape metal to produce standardized, interchangeable parts for
mechanical devices such as clocks or guns
Mohawk and Hudson Railroad the first steam-powered locomotive railroad in the United States
putting-out system a labor system whereby a merchant hired different families to perform specific tasks
in a production process
specie “hard” money, usually in the form of gold and silver coins
Working Men’s Party a political group that radically opposed what they viewed as the exploitation of
workers
Summary
Industrialization led to radical changes in American life. New industrial towns, like Waltham, Lowell,
and countless others, dotted the landscape of the Northeast. The mills provided many young women
an opportunity to experience a new and liberating life, and these workers relished their new freedom.
Workers also gained a greater appreciation of the value of their work and, in some instances, began
to question the basic fairness of the new industrial order. The world of work had been fundamentally
reorganized.

The selling of the public domain was one of the key features of the early nineteenth century in the
United States. Thousands rushed west to take part in the bounty. In the wild frenzy of land purchases
and speculation in land, state banks advanced risky loans and created unstable paper money not backed
by gold or silver, ultimately leading to the Panic of 1819. The ensuing economic depression was the
first in U.S. history. Recovery came in the 1820s, followed by a period of robust growth. In this age
of entrepreneurship, in which those who invested their money wisely in land, business ventures, or
technological improvements reaped vast profits, inventors produced new wonders that transformed
American life.

A transportation infrastructure rapidly took shape in the 1800s as American investors and the government
began building roads, turnpikes, canals, and railroads. The time required to travel shrank vastly, and
people marveled at their ability to conquer great distances, enhancing their sense of the steady advance
of progress. The transportation revolution also made it possible to ship agricultural and manufactured
goods throughout the country and enabled rural people to travel to towns and cities for employment
opportunities.

The creation of distinctive classes in the North drove striking new cultural developments. Even among the
wealthy elites, northern business families, who had mainly inherited their money, distanced themselves
from the newly wealthy manufacturing leaders. Regardless of how they had earned their money, however,
the elite lived and socialized apart from members of the growing middle class. The middle class valued
work, consumption, and education and dedicated their energies to maintaining or advancing their social
status. Wage workers formed their own society in industrial cities and mill villages, though lack of money
and long working hours effectively prevented the working class from consuming the fruits of their labor,
educating their children, or advancing up the economic ladder.
Review Questions
1. How were the New England textile mills 4. Most people who migrated within the United
planned and built? States in the early nineteenth century went
A. Experienced British builders traveled to the ________.
United States to advise American A. north toward Canada
merchants. B. west toward Ohio
B. New England merchants paid French and C. south toward Georgia
German mechanics to design factories for D. east across the Mississippi River
them.
C. New England merchants and British 5. Which of the following was not a cause of the
migrants memorized plans from British Panic of 1819?
mills. A. The Second Bank of the United States made
D. Textile mills were a purely American risky loans.
creation, invented by Francis Cabot Lowell B. States chartered too many banks.
in 1813. C. Prices for American commodities dropped.
D. Banks hoarded gold and silver.
2. Which is the best characterization of textile mill
workers in the early nineteenth century? 6. Robert Fulton is known for inventing ________.
A. male and female indentured servants from
Great Britain who worked hard to win their A. the cotton gin
freedom B. the mechanical reaper
B. young men who found freedom in the C. the steamship engine
rowdy lifestyle of mill work D. machine tools
C. experienced artisans who shared their
knowledge in exchange for part ownership 7. What did federal and state governments do to
in the company help people who were hurt in the Panic of 1819?
D. young farm women whose behavior was
closely monitored
8. Which of the following was not a factor in the
transportation revolution?
3. What effect did industrialization have on A. the steam-powered locomotive
consumers?

B. the canal system 11. Which of the following groups supported the
C. the combustion engine abolition of slavery?
D. the government-funded road system A. northern business elites
B. southern planter elites
9. What was the significance of the Cumberland C. wage workers
Road? D. middle-class northerners
A. It gave settlers a quicker way to move west.
B. It reduced the time it took to move goods 12. Which social class was most drawn to
from New York Harbor to Lake Erie. amusements like P. T. Barnum’s museum?
C. It improved trade from the Port of New A. wage workers
Orleans. B. middle-class northerners
D. It was the first paved road. C. southern planter elites
D. northern business elites
10. What were the benefits of the transportation
revolution? 13. What did Peter Cooper envision for the
United States, and how did he work to bring his
vision to life?

14. Industrialization in the Northeast produced great benefits and also major problems. What were they?
Who benefited and who suffered? Did the benefits outweigh the problems, or vice versa?
15. What factors led to the Panic of 1819? What government regulations might have prevented it?
16. Would the Industrial Revolution have been possible without the use of slave labor? Why or why not?
17. What might have been the advantages and disadvantages of railroads for the people who lived along
the routes or near the stations?
18. What were the values of the middle class? How did they differ from the values of those above and
below them on the socioeconomic ladder? In what ways are these values similar to or different from those
held by the middle class today?

Chapter 10 Jacksonian Democracy, 1820–1840 273
CHAPTER 10
Jacksonian Democracy, 1820–1840
Figure 10.1 In President’s Levee, or all Creation going to the White House, Washington (1841), by Robert
Cruikshank, the artist depicts Andrew Jackson’s inauguration in 1829, with crowds surging into the White House to
join the celebrations. Rowdy revelers destroyed many White House furnishings in their merriment. A new political era
of democracy had begun, one characterized by the rule of the majority.
Chapter Outline
10.1 A New Political Style: From John Quincy Adams to Andrew Jackson
10.2 The Rise of American Democracy
10.3 The Nullification Crisis and the Bank War
10.4 Indian Removal
10.5 The Tyranny and Triumph of the Majority
Introduction
The most extraordinary political development in the years before the Civil War was the rise of American
democracy. Whereas the founders envisioned the United States as a republic, not a democracy, and had
placed safeguards such as the Electoral College in the 1787 Constitution to prevent simple majority rule,
the early 1820s saw many Americans embracing majority rule and rejecting old forms of deference that
were based on elite ideas of virtue, learning, and family lineage.
A new breed of politicians learned to harness the magic of the many by appealing to the resentments, fears,
and passions of ordinary citizens to win elections. The charismatic Andrew Jackson gained a reputation
as a fighter and defender of American expansion, emerging as the quintessential figure leading the rise of
American democracy. In the image above (Figure 10.1), crowds flock to the White House to celebrate his
inauguration as president. While earlier inaugurations had been reserved for Washington’s political elite,
Jackson’s was an event for the people, so much so that the pushing throngs caused thousands of dollars of
damage to White House property. Characteristics of modern American democracy, including the turbulent
nature of majority rule, first appeared during the Age of Jackson.
274 Chapter 10 Jacksonian Democracy, 1820–1840
10.1 A New Political Style: From John Quincy Adams to Andrew

Jackson

• Explain and illustrate the new style of American politics in the 1820s
• Describe the policies of John Quincy Adams’s presidency and explain the political
divisions that resulted
In the 1820s, American political culture gave way to the democratic urges of the citizenry. Political leaders
and parties rose to popularity by championing the will of the people, pushing the country toward a future
in which a wider swath of citizens gained a political voice. However, this expansion of political power was
limited to white men; women, free blacks, and Indians remained—or grew increasingly—disenfranchised
by the American political system.
THE DECLINE OF FEDERALISM

The first party system in the United States shaped the political contest between the Federalists and
the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists, led by Washington, Hamilton, and Adams, dominated
American politics in the 1790s. After the election of Thomas Jefferson—the Revolution of 1800—the
Democratic-Republicans gained ascendance. The gradual decline of the Federalist Party is evident in its
losses in the presidential contests that occurred between 1800 and 1820. After 1816, in which Democratic-
Republican James Monroe defeated his Federalist rival Rufus King, the Federalists never ran another
presidential candidate.
Before the 1820s, a code of deference had underwritten the republic’s political order. Deference was
the practice of showing respect for individuals who had distinguished themselves through military
Figure 10.2

accomplishments, educational attainment, business success, or family pedigree. Such individuals were
members of what many Americans in the early republic agreed was a natural aristocracy. Deference shown
to them dovetailed with republicanism and its emphasis on virtue, the ideal of placing the common good
above narrow self-interest. Republican statesmen in the 1780s and 1790s expected and routinely received
deferential treatment from others, and ordinary Americans deferred to their “social betters” as a matter of
course.
For the generation who lived through the American Revolution, for instance, George Washington
epitomized republican virtue, entitling him to great deference from his countrymen. His judgment and
decisions were considered beyond reproach. An Anglican minister named Mason Locke Weems wrote the
classic tale of Washington’s unimpeachable virtue in his 1800 book, The Life of Washington. Generations of
nineteenth-century American children read its fictional story of a youthful Washington chopping down
one of his father’s cherry trees and, when confronted by his father, confessing: “I cannot tell a lie”
(Figure 10.3). The story spoke to Washington’s unflinching honesty and integrity, encouraging readers to
remember the deference owed to such towering national figures.
Figure 10.3 “Father, I Can Not Tell a Lie: I Cut the Tree” (1867) by John McRae, after a painting by George Gorgas
White, illustrates Mason Locke Weems’s tale of Washington’s honesty and integrity as revealed in the incident of the
cherry tree. Although it was fiction, this story about Washington taught generations of children about the importance
of virtue.
Washington and those who celebrated his role as president established a standard for elite, virtuous
leadership that cast a long shadow over subsequent presidential administrations. The presidents who
followed Washington shared the first president’s pedigree. With the exception of John Adams, who
was from Massachusetts, all the early presidents—Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James
Monroe—were members of Virginia’s elite slaveholder aristocracy.
DEMOCRATIC REFORMS
In the early 1820s, deference to pedigree began to wane in American society. A new type of deference—to
the will of the majority and not to a ruling class—took hold. The spirit of democratic reform became most
evident in the widespread belief that all white men, regardless of whether they owned property, had the
right to participate in elections.
Before the 1820s, many state constitutions had imposed property qualifications for voting as a means to
keep democratic tendencies in check. However, as Federalist ideals fell out of favor, ordinary men from
the middle and lower classes increasingly questioned the idea that property ownership was an indication
of virtue. They argued for universal manhood suffrage, or voting rights for all white male adults.
New states adopted constitutions that did not contain property qualifications for voting, a move designed
to stimulate migration across their borders. Vermont and Kentucky, admitted to the Union in 1791 and
1792 respectively, granted the right to vote to all white men regardless of whether they owned property
or paid taxes. Ohio’s state constitution placed a minor taxpaying requirement on voters but otherwise
allowed for expansive white male suffrage. Alabama, admitted to the Union in 1819, eliminated property
qualifications for voting in its state constitution. Two other new states, Indiana (1816) and Illinois (1818),
also extended the right to vote to white men regardless of property. Initially, the new state of Mississippi
(1817) restricted voting to white male property holders, but in 1832 it eliminated this provision.
In Connecticut, Federalist power largely collapsed in 1818 when the state held a constitutional convention.
The new constitution granted the right to vote to all white men who paid taxes or served in the militia.
Similarly, New York amended its state constitution in 1821–1822 and removed the property qualifications
for voting.
Expanded voting rights did not extend to women, Indians, or free blacks in the North. Indeed, race
replaced property qualifications as the criterion for voting rights. American democracy had a decidedly
racist orientation; a white majority limited the rights of black minorities. New Jersey explicitly restricted
the right to vote to white men only. Connecticut passed a law in 1814 taking the right to vote away from
free black men and restricting suffrage to white men only. By the 1820s, 80 percent of the white male
population could vote in New York State elections. No other state had expanded suffrage so dramatically.
At the same time, however, New York effectively disenfranchised free black men in 1822 (black men had
had the right to vote under the 1777 constitution) by requiring that “men of color” must possess property
over the value of $250.
PARTY POLITICS AND THE ELECTION OF 1824

In addition to expanding white men’s right to vote, democratic currents also led to a new style of political
party organization, most evident in New York State in the years after the War of 1812. Under the leadership
of Martin Van Buren, New York’s “Bucktail” Republican faction (so named because members wore a deer’s
tail on their hats, a symbol of membership in the Tammany Society) gained political power by cultivating
loyalty to the will of the majority, not to an elite family or renowned figure. The Bucktails emphasized a
pragmatic approach. For example, at first they opposed the Erie Canal project, but when the popularity of
the massive transportation venture became clear, they supported it.
One of the Bucktails’ greatest achievements in New York came in the form of revisions to the state
constitution in the 1820s. Under the original constitution, a Council of Appointments selected local officials
such as sheriffs and county clerks. The Bucktails replaced this process with a system of direct elections,
which meant thousands of jobs immediately became available to candidates who had the support of the
majority. In practice, Van Buren’s party could nominate and support their own candidates based on their
loyalty to the party. In this way, Van Buren helped create a political machine of disciplined party members
who prized loyalty above all else, a harbinger of future patronage politics in the United States. This system
of rewarding party loyalists is known as the spoils system (from the expression, “To the victor belong the
spoils”). Van Buren’s political machine helped radically transform New York politics.
Party politics also transformed the national political landscape, and the election of 1824 proved a turning
point in American politics. With tens of thousands of new voters, the older system of having members of
Congress form congressional caucuses to determine who would run no longer worked. The new voters
had regional interests and voted on them. For the first time, the popular vote mattered in a presidential
election. Electors were chosen by popular vote in eighteen states, while the six remaining states used the
older system in which state legislatures chose electors.
With the caucus system defunct, the presidential election of 1824 featured five candidates, all of whom ran
as Democratic-Republicans (the Federalists having ceased to be a national political force). The crowded
field included John Quincy Adams, the son of the second president, John Adams. Candidate Adams had
broken with the Federalists in the early 1800s and served on various diplomatic missions, including the

mission to secure peace with Great Britain in 1814. He represented New England. A second candidate,
John C. Calhoun from South Carolina, had served as secretary of war and represented the slaveholding
South. He dropped out of the presidential race to run for vice president. A third candidate, Henry Clay,
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, hailed from Kentucky and represented the western states. He
favored an active federal government committed to internal improvements, such as roads and canals, to
bolster national economic development and settlement of the West. William H. Crawford, a slaveholder
from Georgia, suffered a stroke in 1823 that left him largely incapacitated, but he ran nonetheless and
had the backing of the New York machine headed by Van Buren. Andrew Jackson, the famed “hero of
New Orleans,” rounded out the field. Jackson had very little formal education, but he was popular for his
military victories in the War of 1812 and in wars against the Creek and the Seminole. He had been elected
to the Senate in 1823, and his popularity soared as pro-Jackson newspapers sang the praises of the courage
and daring of the Tennessee slaveholder (Figure 10.4).
Figure 10.4 The two most popular presidential candidates in the election of 1824 were Andrew Jackson (a), who
won the popular vote but failed to secure the requisite number of votes in the Electoral College, and John Quincy
Adams (b), who emerged victorious after a contentious vote in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Results from the eighteen states where the popular vote determined the electoral vote gave Jackson
the election, with 152,901 votes to Adams’s 114,023, Clay’s 47,217, and Crawford’s 46,979. The Electoral
College, however, was another matter. Of the 261 electoral votes, Jackson needed 131 or better to win but
secured only 99. Adams won 84, Crawford 41, and Clay 37. Because Jackson did not receive a majority
vote from the Electoral College, the election was decided following the terms of the Twelfth Amendment,
which stipulated that when a candidate did not receive a majority of electoral votes, the election went to
the House of Representatives, where each state would provide one vote. House Speaker Clay did not want
to see his rival, Jackson, become president and therefore worked within the House to secure the presidency
for Adams, convincing many to cast their vote for the New Englander. Clay’s efforts paid off; despite not
having won the popular vote, John Quincy Adams was certified by the House as the next president. Once
in office, he elevated Henry Clay to the post of secretary of state.
Jackson and his supporters cried foul. To them, the election of Adams reeked of anti-democratic
corruption. So too did the appointment of Clay as secretary of state. John C. Calhoun labeled the whole
affair a “corrupt bargain” (Figure 10.5). Everywhere, Jackson supporters vowed revenge against the anti-
majoritarian result of 1824.
Figure 10.5 John C. Calhoun (a) believed that the assistance Henry Clay (b) gave to John Quincy Adams in the
U.S. House of Representatives’ vote to decide the presidential election of 1824 indicated that a “corrupt bargain” had
been made.
THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN QUINCY ADAMS

Secretary of State Clay championed what was known as the American System of high tariffs, a national
bank, and federally sponsored internal improvements of canals and roads. Once in office, President Adams
embraced Clay’s American System and proposed a national university and naval academy to train future
leaders of the republic. The president’s opponents smelled elitism in these proposals and pounced on what
they viewed as the administration’s catering to a small privileged class at the expense of ordinary citizens.
Clay also envisioned a broad range of internal transportation improvements. Using the proceeds from
land sales in the West, Adams endorsed the creation of roads and canals to facilitate commerce and the
advance of settlement in the West. Many in Congress vigorously opposed federal funding of internal
improvements, citing among other reasons that the Constitution did not give the federal government the
power to fund these projects. However, in the end, Adams succeeded in extending the Cumberland Road
into Ohio (a federal highway project). He also broke ground for the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal on July 4,
1828.
Click and Explore
Visit the Cumberland Road Project (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15cumberland)

and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historic Park
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15OandCcanal) to learn more about transportation
developments in the first half of the nineteenth century. How were these two projects
important for westward expansion?
Tariffs, which both Clay and Adams promoted, were not a novel idea; since the birth of the republic they
had been seen as a way to advance domestic manufacturing by making imports more expensive. Congress
had approved a tariff in 1789, for instance, and Alexander Hamilton had proposed a protective tariff in

1790. Congress also passed tariffs in 1816 and 1824. Clay spearheaded the drive for the federal government
to impose high tariffs to help bolster domestic manufacturing. If imported goods were more expensive
than domestic goods, then people would buy American-made goods.
President Adams wished to promote manufacturing, especially in his home region of New England. To
that end, in 1828 he proposed a high tariff on imported goods, amounting to 50 percent of their value. The
tariff raised questions about how power should be distributed, causing a fiery debate between those who
supported states’ rights and those who supported the expanded power of the federal government (Figure
10.6). Those who championed states’ rights denounced the 1828 measure as the Tariff of Abominations,
clear evidence that the federal government favored one region, in this case the North, over another, the
South. They made their case by pointing out that the North had an expanding manufacturing base while
the South did not. Therefore, the South imported far more manufactured goods than the North, causing
the tariff to fall most heavily on the southern states.
Figure 10.6 The Monkey System or ‘Every one for himself at the expense of his neighbor!!!!!!!!’ (1831) critiqued
Henry Clay’s proposed tariff and system of internal improvements. In this political cartoon by Edward Williams Clay,
four caged monkeys labeled “Home,” “Consumption,” “Internal,” and “Improv” (improvements)—different parts of the
nation’s economy—steal each other’s food while Henry Clay, in the foreground, extols the virtues of his “grand
original American System.” (credit: Project Gutenberg Archives)
The 1828 tariff generated additional fears among southerners. In particular, it suggested to them that the
federal government would unilaterally take steps that hurt the South. This line of reasoning led some
southerners to fear that the very foundation of the South—slavery—could come under attack from a
hostile northern majority in Congress. The spokesman for this southern view was President Adams’s vice
president, John C. Calhoun.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
John C. Calhoun on the Tariff of 1828
Vice President John C. Calhoun, angry about the passage of the Tariff of 1828, anonymously wrote a
report titled “South Carolina Exposition and Protest” (later known as “Calhoun’s Exposition”) for the South
Carolina legislature. As a native of South Carolina, Calhoun articulated the fear among many southerners
that the federal government could exercise undue power over the states.
If it be conceded, as it must be by every one who is the least conversant with our institutions,
that the sovereign powers delegated are divided between the General and State
Governments, and that the latter hold their portion by the same tenure as the former, it would
seem impossible to deny to the States the right of deciding on the infractions of their powers,
and the proper remedy to be applied for their correction. The right of judging, in such cases,
is an essential attribute of sovereignty, of which the States cannot be divested without losing
their sovereignty itself, and being reduced to a subordinate corporate condition. In fact, to
divide power, and to give to one of the parties the exclusive right of judging of the portion
allotted to each, is, in reality, not to divide it at all; and to reserve such exclusive right to the
General Government (it matters not by what department) to be exercised, is to convert it, in
fact, into a great consolidated government, with unlimited powers, and to divest the States, in
reality, of all their rights, It is impossible to understand the force of terms, and to deny so plain
a conclusion.
—John C. Calhoun, “South Carolina Exposition and Protest,” 1828
What is Calhoun’s main point of protest? What does he say about the sovereignty of the states?

• Describe the key points of the election of 1828
• Explain the scandals of Andrew Jackson’s first term in office
A turning point in American political history occurred in 1828, which witnessed the election of Andrew
Jackson over the incumbent John Quincy Adams. While democratic practices had been in ascendance since
1800, the year also saw the further unfolding of a democratic spirit in the United States. Supporters of
Jackson called themselves Democrats or the Democracy, giving birth to the Democratic Party. Political
authority appeared to rest with the majority as never before.
THE CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION OF 1828

During the 1800s, democratic reforms made steady progress with the abolition of property qualifications
for voting and the birth of new forms of political party organization. The 1828 campaign pushed new
democratic practices even further and highlighted the difference between the Jacksonian expanded
electorate and the older, exclusive Adams style. A slogan of the day, “Adams who can write/Jackson who
can fight,” captured the contrast between Adams the aristocrat and Jackson the frontiersman.
The 1828 campaign differed significantly from earlier presidential contests because of the party
organization that promoted Andrew Jackson. Jackson and his supporters reminded voters of the “corrupt
bargain” of 1824. They framed it as the work of a small group of political elites deciding who would
lead the nation, acting in a self-serving manner and ignoring the will of the majority (Figure 10.7). From
Nashville, Tennessee, the Jackson campaign organized supporters around the nation through editorials in
partisan newspapers and other publications. Pro-Jackson newspapers heralded the “hero of New Orleans”

while denouncing Adams. Though he did not wage an election campaign filled with public appearances,
Jackson did give one major campaign speech in New Orleans on January 8, the anniversary of the defeat
of the British in 1815. He also engaged in rounds of discussion with politicians who came to his home, the
Hermitage, in Nashville.
Figure 10.7 The bitter rivalry between Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay was exacerbated by the “corrupt bargain” of
1824, which Jackson made much of during his successful presidential campaign in 1828. This drawing, published in
the 1830s during the debates over the future of the Second Bank of the United States, shows Clay sewing up
Jackson’s mouth while the “cure for calumny [slander]” protrudes from his pocket.
At the local level, Jackson’s supporters worked to bring in as many new voters as possible. Rallies, parades,
and other rituals further broadcast the message that Jackson stood for the common man against the corrupt
elite backing Adams and Clay. Democratic organizations called Hickory Clubs, a tribute to Jackson’s
nickname, Old Hickory, also worked tirelessly to ensure his election.
In November 1828, Jackson won an overwhelming victory over Adams, capturing 56 percent of the
popular vote and 68 percent of the electoral vote. As in 1800, when Jefferson had won over the Federalist
incumbent John Adams, the presidency passed to a new political party, the Democrats. The election was
the climax of several decades of expanding democracy in the United States and the end of the older politics
of deference.
Click and Explore
Visit The Hermitage (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Hermitage) to explore a

timeline of Andrew Jackson’s life and career. How do you think the events of his
younger life affected the trajectory of his political career?
SCANDAL IN THE PRESIDENCY

Amid revelations of widespread fraud, including the disclosure that some $300,000 was missing from the
Treasury Department, Jackson removed almost 50 percent of appointed civil officers, which allowed him
to handpick their replacements. This replacement of appointed federal officials is called rotation in office.
Lucrative posts, such as postmaster and deputy postmaster, went to party loyalists, especially in places
where Jackson’s support had been weakest, such as New England. Some Democratic newspaper editors
who had supported Jackson during the campaign also gained public jobs.
Jackson’s opponents were angered and took to calling the practice the spoils system, after the policies of
Van Buren’s Bucktail Republican Party. The rewarding of party loyalists with government jobs resulted
in spectacular instances of corruption. Perhaps the most notorious occurred in New York City, where a
Jackson appointee made off with over $1 million. Such examples seemed proof positive that the Democrats
were disregarding merit, education, and respectability in decisions about the governing of the nation.
In addition to dealing with rancor over rotation in office, the Jackson administration became embroiled
in a personal scandal known as the Petticoat affair. This incident exacerbated the division between the
president’s team and the insider class in the nation’s capital, who found the new arrivals from Tennessee
lacking in decorum and propriety. At the center of the storm was Margaret (“Peggy”) O’Neal, a well-
known socialite in Washington, DC (Figure 10.8). O’Neal cut a striking figure and had connections to the
republic’s most powerful men. She married John Timberlake, a naval officer, and they had three children.
Rumors abounded, however, about her involvement with John Eaton, a U.S. senator from Tennessee who
had come to Washington in 1818.
Figure 10.8 Peggy O’Neal was so well known that advertisers used her image to sell products to the public. In this
anonymous nineteenth-century cigar-box lid, her portrait is flanked by vignettes showing her scandalous past. On the
left, President Andrew Jackson presents her with flowers. On the right, two men fight a duel for her.
Timberlake committed suicide in 1828, setting off a flurry of rumors that he had been distraught over
his wife’s reputed infidelities. Eaton and Mrs. Timberlake married soon after, with the full approval of
President Jackson. The so-called Petticoat affair divided Washington society. Many Washington socialites
snubbed the new Mrs. Eaton as a woman of low moral character. Among those who would have nothing
to do with her was Vice President John C. Calhoun’s wife, Floride. Calhoun fell out of favor with President
Jackson, who defended Peggy Eaton and derided those who would not socialize with her, declaring she
was “as chaste as a virgin.” (Jackson had personal reasons for defending Eaton: he drew a parallel between
Eaton’s treatment and that of his late wife, Rachel, who had been subjected to attacks on her reputation
related to her first marriage, which had ended in divorce.) Martin Van Buren, who defended the Eatons
and organized social gatherings with them, became close to Jackson, who came to rely on a group of
informal advisers that included Van Buren and was dubbed the Kitchen Cabinet. This select group of
presidential supporters highlights the importance of party loyalty to Jackson and the Democratic Party.


• Explain the factors that contributed to the Nullification Crisis
• Discuss the origins and creation of the Whig Party
The crisis over the Tariff of 1828 continued into the 1830s and highlighted one of the currents of democracy
in the Age of Jackson: namely, that many southerners believed a democratic majority could be harmful
to their interests. These southerners saw themselves as an embattled minority and claimed the right of
states to nullify federal laws that appeared to threaten state sovereignty. Another undercurrent was the
resentment and anger of the majority against symbols of elite privilege, especially powerful financial
institutions like the Second Bank of the United States.
THE NULLIFICATION CRISIS

The Tariff of 1828 had driven Vice President Calhoun to pen his “South Carolina Exposition and Protest,”
in which he argued that if a national majority acted against the interest of a regional minority, then
individual states could void—or nullify—federal law. By the early 1830s, the battle over the tariff took on
new urgency as the price of cotton continued to fall. In 1818, cotton had been thirty-one cents per pound.
By 1831, it had sunk to eight cents per pound. While production of cotton had soared during this time
and this increase contributed to the decline in prices, many southerners blamed their economic problems
squarely on the tariff for raising the prices they had to pay for imported goods while their own income
shrank.
Resentment of the tariff was linked directly to the issue of slavery, because the tariff demonstrated
the use of federal power. Some southerners feared the federal government would next take additional
action against the South, including the abolition of slavery. The theory of nullification, or the voiding
of unwelcome federal laws, provided wealthy slaveholders, who were a minority in the United States,
with an argument for resisting the national government if it acted contrary to their interests. James
Hamilton, who served as governor of South Carolina in the early 1830s, denounced the “despotic majority
that oppresses us.” Nullification also raised the specter of secession; aggrieved states at the mercy of an
aggressive majority would be forced to leave the Union.
On the issue of nullification, South Carolina stood alone. Other southern states backed away from what
they saw as the extremism behind the idea. President Jackson did not make the repeal of the 1828 tariff a
priority and denied the nullifiers’ arguments. He and others, including former President Madison, argued
that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gave Congress the power to “lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts, and excises.” Jackson pledged to protect the Union against those who would try to tear it apart
over the tariff issue. “The union shall be preserved,” he declared in 1830.
To deal with the crisis, Jackson advocated a reduction in tariff rates. The Tariff of 1832, passed in the
summer, lowered the rates on imported goods, a move designed to calm southerners. It did not have
the desired effect, however, and Calhoun’s nullifiers still claimed their right to override federal law. In
November, South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification, declaring the 1828 and 1832 tariffs
null and void in the Palmetto State. Jackson responded, however, by declaring in the December 1832
Nullification Proclamation that a state did not have the power to void a federal law.
With the states and the federal government at an impasse, civil war seemed a real possibility. The next
governor of South Carolina, Robert Hayne, called for a force of ten thousand volunteers (Figure 10.9) to
defend the state against any federal action. At the same time, South Carolinians who opposed the nullifiers
told Jackson that eight thousand men stood ready to defend the Union. Congress passed the Force Bill
of 1833, which gave the federal government the right to use federal troops to ensure compliance with
federal law. The crisis—or at least the prospect of armed conflict in South Carolina—was defused by the
Compromise Tariff of 1833, which reduced tariff rates considerably. Nullifiers in South Carolina accepted
it, but in a move that demonstrated their inflexibility, they nullified the Force Bill.
Figure 10.9 The governor of South Carolina, Robert Hayne, elected in 1832, was a strong proponent of states’
rights and the theory of nullification.
The Nullification Crisis illustrated the growing tensions in American democracy: an aggrieved minority of
elite, wealthy slaveholders taking a stand against the will of a democratic majority; an emerging sectional
divide between South and North over slavery; and a clash between those who believed in free trade and
those who believed in protective tariffs to encourage the nation’s economic growth. These tensions would
color the next three decades of politics in the United States.
THE BANK WAR

Congress established the Bank of the United States in 1791 as a key pillar of Alexander Hamilton’s financial
program, but its twenty-year charter expired in 1811. Congress, swayed by the majority’s hostility to the
bank as an institution catering to the wealthy elite, did not renew the charter at that time. In its place,
Congress approved a new national bank—the Second Bank of the United States—in 1816. It too had a
twenty-year charter, set to expire in 1836.
The Second Bank of the United States was created to stabilize the banking system. More than two hundred
banks existed in the United States in 1816, and almost all of them issued paper money. In other words,
citizens faced a bewildering welter of paper money with no standard value. In fact, the problem of paper
money had contributed significantly to the Panic of 1819.
In the 1820s, the national bank moved into a magnificent new building in Philadelphia. However, despite
Congress’s approval of the Second Bank of the United States, a great many people continued to view it as
tool of the wealthy, an anti-democratic force. President Jackson was among them; he had faced economic
crises of his own during his days speculating in land, an experience that had made him uneasy about paper
money. To Jackson, hard currency—that is, gold or silver—was the far better alternative. The president
also personally disliked the bank’s director, Nicholas Biddle.
A large part of the allure of mass democracy for politicians was the opportunity to capture the anger and
resentment of ordinary Americans against what they saw as the privileges of a few. One of the leading
opponents of the bank was Thomas Hart Benton, a senator from Missouri, who declared that the bank

served “to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.” The self-important statements of Biddle, who
claimed to have more power that President Jackson, helped fuel sentiments like Benton’s.
In the reelection campaign of 1832, Jackson’s opponents in Congress, including Henry Clay, hoped to use
their support of the bank to their advantage. In January 1832, they pushed for legislation that would re-
charter it, even though its charter was not scheduled to expire until 1836. When the bill for re-chartering
passed and came to President Jackson, he used his executive authority to veto the measure.
The defeat of the Second Bank of the United States demonstrates Jackson’s ability to focus on the specific
issues that aroused the democratic majority. Jackson understood people’s anger and distrust toward
the bank, which stood as an emblem of special privilege and big government. He skillfully used that
perception to his advantage, presenting the bank issue as a struggle of ordinary people against a rapacious
elite class who cared nothing for the public and pursued only their own selfish ends. As Jackson portrayed
it, his was a battle for small government and ordinary Americans. His stand against what bank opponents
called the “monster bank” proved very popular, and the Democratic press lionized him for it (Figure
10.10). In the election of 1832, Jackson received nearly 53 percent of the popular vote against his opponent
Henry Clay.
Figure 10.10 In General Jackson Slaying the Many Headed Monster (1836), the artist, Henry R. Robinson, depicts
President Jackson using a cane marked “Veto” to battle a many-headed snake representing state banks, which
supported the national bank. Battling alongside Martin Van Buren and Jack Downing, Jackson addresses the largest
head, that of Nicholas Biddle, the director of the national bank: “Biddle thou Monster Avaunt [go away]!! . . .”
Jackson’s veto was only one part of the war on the “monster bank.” In 1833, the president removed the
deposits from the national bank and placed them in state banks. Biddle, the bank’s director, retaliated by
restricting loans to the state banks, resulting in a reduction of the money supply. The financial turmoil
only increased when Jackson issued an executive order known as the Specie Circular, which required that
western land sales be conducted using gold or silver only. Unfortunately, this policy proved a disaster
when the Bank of England, the source of much of the hard currency borrowed by American businesses,
dramatically cut back on loans to the United States. Without the flow of hard currency from England,
American depositors drained the gold and silver from their own domestic banks, making hard currency
scarce. Adding to the economic distress of the late 1830s, cotton prices plummeted, contributing to a
financial crisis called the Panic of 1837. This economic panic would prove politically useful for Jackson’s
opponents in the coming years and Van Buren, elected president in 1836, would pay the price for Jackson’s
hard-currency preferences.
WHIGS
Jackson’s veto of the bank and his Specie Circular helped galvanize opposition forces into a new political
party, the Whigs, a faction that began to form in 1834. The name was significant; opponents of Jackson
saw him as exercising tyrannical power, so they chose the name Whig after the eighteenth-century political
party that resisted the monarchical power of King George III. One political cartoon dubbed the president
“King Andrew the First” and displayed Jackson standing on the Constitution, which has been ripped to
shreds (Figure 10.11).
Figure 10.11 This anonymous 1833 political caricature (a) represents President Andrew Jackson as a despotic ruler,
holding a scepter in one hand and a veto in the other. Contrast the image of “King Andrew” with a political cartoon
from 1831 (b) of Jackson overseeing a scene of uncontrollable chaos as he falls from a hickory chair “coming to
pieces at last.”
Whigs championed an active federal government committed to internal improvements, including a

national bank. They made their first national appearance in the presidential election of 1836, a contest
that pitted Jackson’s handpicked successor, Martin Van Buren, against a field of several Whig candidates.
Indeed, the large field of Whig candidates indicated the new party’s lack of organization compared to the
Democrats. This helped Van Buren, who carried the day in the Electoral College. As the effects of the Panic
of 1837 continued to be felt for years afterward, the Whig press pinned the blame for the economic crisis
on Van Buren and the Democrats.
Click and Explore
Explore a Library of Congress (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15PolPrints) collection

of 1830s political cartoons from the pages of Harper’s Weekly to learn more about how
Andrew Jackson was viewed by the public in that era.

10.4 Indian Removal

• Explain the legal wrangling that surrounded the Indian Removal Act
• Describe how depictions of Indians in popular culture helped lead to Indian removal
Pro-Jackson newspapers touted the president as a champion of opening land for white settlement and
moving native inhabitants beyond the boundaries of “American civilization.” In this effort, Jackson
reflected majority opinion: most Americans believed Indians had no place in the white republic. Jackson’s
animosity toward Indians ran deep. He had fought against the Creek in 1813 and against the Seminole
in 1817, and his reputation and popularity rested in large measure on his firm commitment to remove
Indians from states in the South. The 1830 Indian Removal Act and subsequent displacement of the Creek,
Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, and Cherokee tribes of the Southeast fulfilled the vision of a white nation
and became one of the identifying characteristics of the Age of Jackson.
INDIANS IN POPULAR CULTURE

Popular culture in the first half of the nineteenth century reflected the aversion to Indians that was
pervasive during the Age of Jackson. Jackson skillfully played upon this racial hatred to engage the United
States in a policy of ethnic cleansing, eradicating the Indian presence from the land to make way for white
civilization.
In an age of mass democracy, powerful anti-Indian sentiments found expression in mass culture, shaping
popular perceptions. James Fenimore Cooper’s very popular historical novel, The Last of the Mohicans,
published in 1826 as part of his Leatherstocking series, told the tale of Nathaniel “Natty” Bumppo (aka
Hawkeye), who lived among Indians but had been born to white parents. Cooper provides a romantic
version of the French and Indian War in which Natty helps the British against the French and the feral,
bloodthirsty Huron. Natty endures even as his Indian friends die, including the noble Uncas, the last
Mohican, in a narrative that dovetailed with most people’s approval of Indian removal.
Indians also made frequent appearances in art. George Catlin produced many paintings of native peoples,
which he offered as true representations despite routinely emphasizing their supposed savage nature. The
Cutting Scene, Mandan O-kee-pa Ceremony (Figure 10.12) is one example. Scholars have long questioned
the accuracy of this portrayal of a rite of passage among the Mandan people. Accuracy aside, the painting
captured the imaginations of white viewers, reinforcing their disgust at the savagery of Indians.
Figure 10.12 The Cutting Scene, Mandan O-kee-pa Ceremony, an 1832 painting by George Catlin, depicts a rite-of-
passage ceremony that Catlin said he witnessed. It featured wooden splints inserted into the chest and back muscles
of young men. Such paintings increased Indians’ reputation as savages.

AMERICANA
The Paintings of George Catlin
George Catlin seized upon the public fascination with the supposedly exotic and savage Indian, seeing
an opportunity to make money by painting them in a way that conformed to popular white stereotypes
(Figure 10.13). In the late 1830s, he toured major cities with his Indian Gallery, a collection of paintings of
native peoples. Though he hoped his exhibition would be profitable, it did not bring him financial security.
Figure 10.13 In Attacking the Grizzly Bear (a), painted in 1844, Catlin focused on the Indians’ own
vanishing culture, while in Wi-jún-jon, Pigeon’s Egg Head (The Light) Going To and Returning From
Washington (b), painted in 1837–1839, he contrasted their ways with those of whites by showing an
Assiniboine chief transformed by a visit to Washington, DC.
Catlin routinely painted Indians in a supposedly aboriginal state. In Attacking the Grizzly Bear, the hunters
do not have rifles and instead rely on spears. Such a portrayal stretches credibility as native peoples had
long been exposed to and adopted European weapons. Indeed, the painting’s depiction of Indians riding
horses, which were introduced by the Spanish, makes clear that, as much as Catlin and white viewers
wanted to believe in the primitive and savage native, the reality was otherwise.
In Wi-jún-jon, Pigeon's Egg Head (The Light) Going To and Returning From Washington, the viewer is
shown a before and after portrait of Wi-jún-jon, who tried to emulate white dress and manners after going
to Washington, DC. What differences do you see between these two representations of Wi-jún-jon? Do
you think his attempt to imitate whites was successful? Why or why not? What do you think Catlin was
trying to convey with this depiction of Wi-jún-jon’s assimilation?
THE INDIAN REMOVAL ACT

In his first message to Congress, Jackson had proclaimed that Indian groups living independently within
states, as sovereign entities, presented a major problem for state sovereignty. This message referred
directly to the situation in Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama, where the Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw,
Seminole, and Cherokee peoples stood as obstacles to white settlement. These groups were known as the
Five Civilized Tribes, because they had largely adopted Anglo-American culture, speaking English and
practicing Christianity. Some held slaves like their white counterparts.
Whites especially resented the Cherokee in Georgia, coveting the tribe’s rich agricultural lands in the
northern part of the state. The impulse to remove the Cherokee only increased when gold was discovered
on their lands. Ironically, while whites insisted the Cherokee and other native peoples could never be good
citizens because of their savage ways, the Cherokee had arguably gone farther than any other indigenous
group in adopting white culture. The Cherokee Phoenix, the newspaper of the Cherokee, began publication
in 1828 (Figure 10.14) in English and the Cherokee language. Although the Cherokee followed the lead
of their white neighbors by farming and owning property, as well as embracing Christianity and owning
their own slaves, this proved of little consequence in an era when whites perceived all Indians as incapable
of becoming full citizens of the republic.
Figure 10.14 This image depicts the front page of the Cherokee Phoenix newspaper from May 21, 1828. The paper
was published in both English and the Cherokee language.
Jackson’s anti-Indian stance struck a chord with a majority of white citizens, many of whom shared a
hatred of nonwhites that spurred Congress to pass the 1830 Indian Removal Act. The act called for the
removal of the Five Civilized Tribes from their home in the southeastern United States to land in the
West, in present-day Oklahoma. Jackson declared in December 1830, “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. Two
important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it
is believed that their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.”
The Cherokee decided to fight the federal law, however, and took their case to the Supreme Court.
Their legal fight had the support of anti-Jackson members of Congress, including Henry Clay and Daniel
Webster, and they retained the legal services of former attorney general William Wirt. In Cherokee Nation v.
Georgia, Wirt argued that the Cherokee constituted an independent foreign nation, and that an injunction
(a stop) should be placed on Georgia laws aimed at eradicating them. In 1831, the Supreme Court found
the Cherokee did not meet the criteria for being a foreign nation.
Another case involving the Cherokee also found its way to the highest court in the land. This legal
struggle—Worcester v. Georgia—asserted the rights of non-natives to live on Indian lands. Samuel
Worcester was a Christian missionary and federal postmaster of New Echota, the capital of the Cherokee
nation. A Congregationalist, he had gone to live among the Cherokee in Georgia to further the spread of
Christianity, and he strongly opposed Indian removal.
By living among the Cherokee, Worcester had violated a Georgia law forbidding whites, unless they
were agents of the federal government, to live in Indian territory. Worcester was arrested, but because
his federal job as postmaster gave him the right to live there, he was released. Jackson supporters then
succeeded in taking away Worcester’s job, and he was re-arrested. This time, a court sentenced him and
nine others for violating the Georgia state law banning whites from living on Indian land. Worcester was

sentenced to four years of hard labor. When the case of Worcester v. Georgia came before the Supreme Court
in 1832, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in favor of Worcester, finding that the Cherokee constituted
“distinct political communities” with sovereign rights to their own territory.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Chief Justice John Marshall’s Ruling in Worcester v. Georgia
In 1832, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall ruled in favor of Samuel Worcester in
Worcester v. Georgia. In doing so, he established the principle of tribal sovereignty. Although this
judgment contradicted Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, it failed to halt the Indian Removal Act. In his opinion,
Marshall wrote the following:
From the commencement of our government Congress has passed acts to regulate trade and
intercourse with the Indians; which treat them as nations, respect their rights, and manifest
a firm purpose to afford that protection which treaties stipulate. All these acts, and especially
that of 1802, which is still in force, manifestly consider the several Indian nations as distinct
political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive,
and having a right to all the lands within those boundaries, which is not only acknowledged,
but guaranteed by the United States. . . .
The Cherokee Nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with
boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which
the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves
or in conformity with treaties and with the acts of Congress. The whole intercourse between
the United States and this nation is, by our Constitution and laws, vested in the government
of the United States.
The act of the State of Georgia under which the plaintiff in error was prosecuted is
consequently void, and the judgment a nullity. . . . The Acts of Georgia are repugnant to the
Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.
How does this opinion differ from the outcome of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia just one year earlier? Why
do you think the two outcomes were different?
The Supreme Court did not have the power to enforce its ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, however, and
it became clear that the Cherokee would be compelled to move. Those who understood that the only
option was removal traveled west, but the majority stayed on their land. In order to remove them, the
president relied on the U.S. military. In a series of forced marches, some fifteen thousand Cherokee were
finally relocated to Oklahoma. This forced migration, known as the Trail of Tears, caused the deaths of as
many as four thousand Cherokee (Figure 10.15). The Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole peoples
were also compelled to go. The removal of the Five Civilized Tribes provides an example of the power of
majority opinion in a democracy.
Figure 10.15 After the passage of the Indian Removal Act, the U.S. military forced the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw,
Chickasaw, and Seminole to relocate from the Southeast to an area in the western territory (now Oklahoma),
marching them along the routes shown here.
Click and Explore
Explore the interactive Trail of Tears map (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

15NativeAm) at PBS.org to see the routes the Five Civilized Tribes traveled when they
were expelled from their lands. Then listen to a collection of Cherokee oral histories
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15NativeAm2) including verses of a Cherokee-
language song about the Trail of Tears. What do you think is the importance of oral
history in documenting the Cherokee experience?
BLACK HAWK’S WAR

The policy of removal led some Indians to actively resist. In 1832, the Fox and the Sauk, led by Sauk chief
Black Hawk (Makataimeshekiakiah), moved back across the Mississippi River to reclaim their ancestral
home in northern Illinois. A brief war in 1832, Black Hawk’s War, ensued. White settlers panicked at the
return of the native peoples, and militias and federal troops quickly mobilized. At the Battle of Bad Axe
(also known as the Bad Axe Massacre), they killed over two hundred men, women, and children. Some
seventy white settlers and soldiers also lost their lives in the conflict (Figure 10.16). The war, which lasted
only a matter of weeks, illustrates how much whites on the frontier hated and feared Indians during the
Age of Jackson.

Figure 10.16 Charles Bird King’s 1837 portrait Sauk Chief Makataimeshekiakiah, or Black Hawk (a), depicts the
Sauk chief who led the Fox and Sauk peoples in an ill-fated effort to return to their native lands in northern Illinois.
This engraving depicting the Battle of Bad Axe (b) shows U.S. soldiers on a steamer firing on Indians aboard a raft.
(credit b: modification of work by Library of Congress)

• Explain Alexis de Tocqueville’s analysis of American democracy
• Describe the election of 1840 and its outcome
To some observers, the rise of democracy in the United States raised troubling questions about the
new power of the majority to silence minority opinion. As the will of the majority became the rule of
the day, everyone outside of mainstream, white American opinion, especially Indians and blacks, were
vulnerable to the wrath of the majority. Some worried that the rights of those who opposed the will of
the majority would never be safe. Mass democracy also shaped political campaigns as never before. The
1840 presidential election marked a significant turning point in the evolving style of American democratic
politics.
ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE
Perhaps the most insightful commentator on American democracy was the young French aristocrat Alexis
de Tocqueville, whom the French government sent to the United States to report on American prison
reforms (Figure 10.17). Tocqueville marveled at the spirit of democracy that pervaded American life.
Given his place in French society, however, much of what he saw of American democracy caused him
concern.
Figure 10.17 Alexis de Tocqueville is best known for his insightful commentary on American democracy found in De
la démocratie en Amérique. The first volume of Tocqueville’s two-volume work was immediately popular throughout
Europe. The first English translation, by Henry Reeve and titled Democracy in America (a), was published in New
York in 1838. Théodore Chassériau painted this portrait of Alexis de Tocqueville in 1850 (b).
Tocqueville’s experience led him to believe that democracy was an unstoppable force that would one day
overthrow monarchy around the world. He wrote and published his findings in 1835 and 1840 in a two-
part work entitled Democracy in America. In analyzing the democratic revolution in the United States, he
wrote that the major benefit of democracy came in the form of equality before the law. A great deal of the
social revolution of democracy, however, carried negative consequences. Indeed, Tocqueville described a
new type of tyranny, the tyranny of the majority, which overpowers the will of minorities and individuals
and was, in his view, unleashed by democracy in the United States.
In this excerpt from Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville warns of the dangers of democracy when
the majority will can turn to tyranny:
When an individual or a party is wronged in the United States, to whom can he apply for
redress? If to public opinion, public opinion constitutes the majority; if to the legislature, it
represents the majority, and implicitly obeys its injunctions; if to the executive power, it is
appointed by the majority, and remains a passive tool in its hands; the public troops consist of
the majority under arms; the jury is the majority invested with the right of hearing judicial cases;
and in certain States even the judges are elected by the majority. However iniquitous or absurd
the evil of which you complain may be, you must submit to it as well as you can.
The authority of a king is purely physical, and it controls the actions of the subject without
subduing his private will; but the majority possesses a power which is physical and moral at the
same time; it acts upon the will as well as upon the actions of men, and it represses not only all
contest, but all controversy. I know no country in which there is so little true independence of
mind and freedom of discussion as in America.

Click and Explore
Take the Alexis de Tocqueville Tour (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Tocqueville)

to experience nineteenth-century America as Tocqueville did, by reading his journal
entries about the states and territories he visited with fellow countryman Gustave de
Beaumont. What regional differences can you draw from his descriptions?
THE 1840 ELECTION

The presidential election contest of 1840 marked the culmination of the democratic revolution that swept
the United States. By this time, the second party system had taken hold, a system whereby the older
Federalist and Democratic-Republican Parties had been replaced by the new Democratic and Whig Parties.
Both Whigs and Democrats jockeyed for election victories and commanded the steady loyalty of political
partisans. Large-scale presidential campaign rallies and emotional propaganda became the order of the
day. Voter turnout increased dramatically under the second party system. Roughly 25 percent of eligible
voters had cast ballots in 1828. In 1840, voter participation surged to nearly 80 percent.
The differences between the parties were largely about economic policies. Whigs advocated accelerated
economic growth, often endorsing federal government projects to achieve that goal. Democrats did not
view the federal government as an engine promoting economic growth and advocated a smaller role for
the national government. The membership of the parties also differed: Whigs tended to be wealthier; they
were prominent planters in the South and wealthy urban northerners—in other words, the beneficiaries
of the market revolution. Democrats presented themselves as defenders of the common people against the
elite.
In the 1840 presidential campaign, taking their cue from the Democrats who had lionized Jackson’s
military accomplishments, the Whigs promoted William Henry Harrison as a war hero based on his 1811
military service against the Shawnee chief Tecumseh at the Battle of Tippecanoe. John Tyler of Virginia
ran as the vice presidential candidate, leading the Whigs to trumpet, “Tippecanoe and Tyler too!” as a
campaign slogan.
The campaign thrust Harrison into the national spotlight. Democrats tried to discredit him by declaring,
“Give him a barrel of hard [alcoholic] cider and settle a pension of two thousand a year on him, and take
my word for it, he will sit the remainder of his days in his log cabin.” The Whigs turned the slur to their
advantage by presenting Harrison as a man of the people who had been born in a log cabin (in fact, he
came from a privileged background in Virginia), and the contest became known as the log cabin campaign
(Figure 10.18). At Whig political rallies, the faithful were treated to whiskey made by the E. C. Booz
Company, leading to the introduction of the word “booze” into the American lexicon. Tippecanoe Clubs,
where booze flowed freely, helped in the marketing of the Whig candidate.
Figure 10.18 The Whig campaign song “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too!” (a) and the anti-Whig flyers (b) that were
circulated in response to the “log cabin campaign” illustrate the partisan fervor of the 1840 election.
The Whigs’ efforts, combined with their strategy of blaming Democrats for the lingering economic collapse
that began with the hard-currency Panic of 1837, succeeded in carrying the day. A mass campaign with
political rallies and party mobilization had molded a candidate to fit an ideal palatable to a majority of
American voters, and in 1840 Harrison won what many consider the first modern election.

Key Terms
American System the program of federally sponsored roads and canals, protective tariffs, and a national
bank advocated by Henry Clay and enacted by President Adams
code of deference the practice of showing respect for individuals who had distinguished themselves
through accomplishments or birth
corrupt bargain the term that Andrew Jackson’s supporters applied to John Quincy Adams’s 1824
election, which had occurred through the machinations of Henry Clay in the U.S. House of
Representatives
Five Civilized Tribes the five tribes—Cherokee, Seminole, Creek, Choctaw, and Chickasaw—who had
most thoroughly adopted Anglo-American culture; they also happened to be the tribes that were believed
to stand in the way of western settlement in the South
Kitchen Cabinet a nickname for Andrew Jackson’s informal group of loyal advisers
log cabin campaign the 1840 election, in which the Whigs painted William Henry Harrison as a man of
the people
monster bank the term Democratic opponents used to denounce the Second Bank of the United States as
an emblem of special privilege and big government
nullification the theory, advocated in response to the Tariff of 1828, that states could void federal law at
their discretion
rotation in office originally, simply the system of having term limits on political appointments; in the
Jackson era, this came to mean the replacement of officials with party loyalists
second party system the system in which the Democratic and Whig Parties were the two main political
parties after the decline of the Federalist and Democratic-Republican Parties
spoils system the political system of rewarding friends and supporters with political appointments
Tariff of Abominations a federal tariff introduced in 1828 that placed a high duty on imported goods in
order to help American manufacturers, which southerners viewed as unfair and harmful to their region
Trail of Tears the route of the forced removal of the Cherokee and other tribes from the southeastern
United States to the territory that is now Oklahoma
tyranny of the majority Alexis de Tocqueville’s phrase warning of the dangers of American democracy
universal manhood suffrage voting rights for all male adults
Whigs a political party that emerged in the early 1830s to oppose what members saw as President
Andrew Jackson’s abuses of power
Summary
10.1 A New Political Style: From John Quincy Adams to Andrew Jackson
The early 1800s saw an age of deference give way to universal manhood suffrage and a new type of
political organization based on loyalty to the party. The election of 1824 was a fight among Democratic-
Republicans that ended up pitting southerner Andrew Jackson against northerner John Quincy Adams.
When Adams won through political negotiations in the House of Representatives, Jackson’s supporters
derided the election as a “corrupt bargain.” The Tariff of 1828 further stirred southern sentiment, this
time against a perceived bias in the federal government toward northeastern manufacturers. At the same
time, the tariff stirred deeper fears that the federal government might take steps that could undermine the
system of slavery.

The Democratic-Republicans’ “corrupt bargain” that brought John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay to
office in 1824 also helped to push them out of office in 1828. Jackson used it to highlight the cronyism of
Washington politics. Supporters presented him as a true man of the people fighting against the elitism
of Clay and Adams. Jackson rode a wave of populist fervor all the way to the White House, ushering in
the ascendency of a new political party: the Democrats. Although Jackson ran on a platform of clearing
the corruption out of Washington, he rewarded his own loyal followers with plum government jobs, thus
continuing and intensifying the cycle of favoritism and corruption.

Andrew Jackson’s election in 1832 signaled the rise of the Democratic Party and a new style of American
politics. Jackson understood the views of the majority, and he skillfully used the popular will to his
advantage. He adroitly navigated through the Nullification Crisis and made headlines with what his
supporters viewed as his righteous war against the bastion of money, power, and entrenched insider
interests, the Second Bank of the United States. His actions, however, stimulated opponents to fashion an
opposition party, the Whigs.
10.4 Indian Removal

Popular culture in the Age of Jackson emphasized the savagery of the native peoples and shaped domestic
policy. Popular animosity found expression in the Indian Removal Act. Even the U.S. Supreme Court’s
ruling in favor of the Cherokee in Georgia offered no protection against the forced removal of the Five
Civilized Tribes from the Southeast, mandated by the 1830 Indian Removal Act and carried out by the U.S.
military.

American culture of the 1830s reflected the rise of democracy. The majority exercised a new type of
power that went well beyond politics, leading Alexis de Tocqueville to write about the “tyranny of the
majority.” Very quickly, politicians among the Whigs and Democrats learned to master the magic of the
many by presenting candidates and policies that catered to the will of the majority. In the 1840 “log cabin
campaign,” both sides engaged in the new democratic electioneering. The uninhibited expression during
the campaign inaugurated a new political style.
Review Questions
1. Which group saw an expansion of their voting 2. What was the lasting impact of the Bucktail
rights in the early nineteenth century? Republican Party in New York?
A. free blacks A. They implemented universal suffrage.
B. non-property-owning men B. They pushed for the expansion of the canal
C. women system.
D. Indians C. They elevated Martin Van Buren to the
national political stage.

D. They changed state election laws from an 11. How did President Jackson respond to
appointee system to a system of open Congress’s re-chartering of the Second Bank of the
elections. United States?
A. He vetoed it.
3. Who won the popular vote in the election of B. He gave states the right to implement it or
1824? not.
A. Andrew Jackson C. He signed it into law.
B. Martin Van Buren D. He wrote a counterproposal.
C. Henry Clay
D. John Quincy Adams 12. Why did the Second Bank of the United States
make such an inviting target for President
4. Why did Andrew Jackson and his supporters Jackson?
consider the election of John Quincy Adams to be
a “corrupt bargain”? 13. What were the philosophies and policies of
the new Whig Party?
5. Who stood to gain from the Tariff of
Abominations, and who expected to lose by it? 14. How did most whites in the United States
view Indians in the 1820s?
6. What was the actual result of Jackson’s policy A. as savages
of “rotation in office”? B. as being in touch with nature
A. an end to corruption in Washington C. as slaves
B. a replacement of Adams’s political loyalists D. as shamans
with Jackson’s political loyalists
C. the filling of government posts with 15. The 1830 Indian Removal Act is best
officials the people chose themselves understood as ________.
D. the creation of the Kitchen Cabinet A. an example of President Jackson forcing
Congress to pursue an unpopular policy
7. The election of 1828 brought in the first B. an illustration of the widespread hatred of
presidency of which political party? Indians during the Age of Jackson
A. the Democrats C. an example of laws designed to integrate
B. the Democratic-Republicans Indians into American life
C. the Republicans D. an effort to deprive the Cherokee of their
D. the Bucktails slave property
8. What were the planks of Andrew Jackson’s 16. What was the Trail of Tears?
campaign platform in 1828?
17. The winner of the 1840 election was ________.
9. What was the significance of the Petticoat
affair? A. a Democrat
B. a Democratic-Republican
10. South Carolina threatened to nullify which C. an Anti-Federalist
federal act? D. a Whig
A. the abolition of slavery
B. the expansion of the transportation 18. Which of the following did not characterize
infrastructure political changes in the 1830s?
C. the protective tariff on imported goods A. higher voter participation
D. the rotation in office that expelled several B. increasing political power of free black
federal officers voters
C. stronger partisan ties
D. political battles between Whigs and 19. How did Alexis de Tocqueville react to his
Democrats visit to the United States? What impressed and
what worried him?

20. What were some of the social and cultural beliefs that became widespread during the Age of Jackson?
What lay behind these beliefs, and do you observe any of them in American culture today?
21. Were the political changes of the early nineteenth century positive or negative? Explain your opinion.
22. If you were defending the Cherokee and other native nations before the U.S. Supreme Court in the
1830s, what arguments would you make? If you were supporting Indian removal, what arguments would
you make?
23. How did depictions of Indians in popular culture help to sway popular opinion? Does modern
popular culture continue to wield this kind of power over us? Why or why not?
24. Does Alexis de Tocqueville’s argument about the tyranny of the majority reflect American democracy
today? Provide examples to support your answer.

Chapter 11 A Nation on the Move: Westward Expansion, 1800–1860 301
CHAPTER 11
A Nation on the Move: Westward

Expansion, 1800–1860
Figure 11.1 In the first half of the nineteenth century, settlers began to move west of the Mississippi River in large
numbers. In John Gast’s American Progress (ca. 1872), the figure of Columbia, representing the United States and
the spirit of democracy, makes her way westward, literally bringing light to the darkness as she advances.
Chapter Outline
11.1 Lewis and Clark
11.2 The Missouri Crisis
11.3 Independence for Texas
11.4 The Mexican-American War, 1846–1848
11.5 Free Soil or Slave? The Dilemma of the West
Introduction
After 1800, the United States militantly expanded westward across North America, confident of its right
and duty to gain control of the continent and spread the benefits of its “superior” culture. In John Gast’s
American Progress (Figure 11.1), the white, blonde figure of Columbia—a historical personification of the
United States—strides triumphantly westward with the Star of Empire on her head. She brings education,
symbolized by the schoolbook, and modern technology, represented by the telegraph wire. White settlers
follow her lead, driving the helpless natives away and bringing successive waves of technological progress
in their wake. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the quest for control of the West led to the
Louisiana Purchase, the annexation of Texas, and the Mexican-American War. Efforts to seize western
territories from native peoples and expand the republic by warring with Mexico succeeded beyond
expectations. Few nations ever expanded so quickly. Yet, this expansion led to debates about the fate
of slavery in the West, creating tensions between North and South that ultimately led to the collapse of
American democracy and a brutal civil war.
302 Chapter 11 A Nation on the Move: Westward Expansion, 1800–1860

• Explain the significance of the Louisiana Purchase
• Describe the terms of the Adams-Onís Treaty
• Describe the role played by the filibuster in American expansion
For centuries Europeans had mistakenly believed an all-water route across the North American continent
existed. This “Northwest Passage” would afford the country that controlled it not only access to the
interior of North America but also—more importantly—a relatively quick route to the Pacific Ocean and
to trade with Asia. The Spanish, French, and British searched for years before American explorers took
up the challenge of finding it. Indeed, shortly before Lewis and Clark set out on their expedition for the
U.S. government, Alexander Mackenzie, an officer of the British North West Company, a fur trading outfit,
had attempted to discover the route. Mackenzie made it to the Pacific and even believed (erroneously) he
had discovered the headwaters of the Columbia River, but he could not find an easy water route with a
minimum of difficult portages, that is, spots where boats must be carried overland.
Many Americans also dreamed of finding a Northwest Passage and opening the Pacific to American
commerce and influence, including President Thomas Jefferson. In April 1803, Jefferson achieved his goal
of purchasing the Louisiana Territory from France, effectively doubling the size of the United States.
The purchase was made possible due to events outside the nation’s control. With the success of the
Haitian Revolution, an uprising of slaves against the French, France’s Napoleon abandoned his quest to
re-establish an extensive French Empire in America. As a result, he was amenable to selling off the vast
Louisiana territory. President Jefferson quickly set out to learn precisely what he had bought and to assess
its potential for commercial exploitation. Above all else, Jefferson wanted to exert U.S. control over the
territory, an area already well known to French and British explorers. It was therefore vital for the United
States to explore and map the land to pave the way for future white settlement.
Figure 11.2

JEFFERSON’S CORPS OF DISCOVERY HEADS WEST

To head the expedition into the Louisiana territory, Jefferson appointed his friend and personal secretary,
twenty-nine-year-old army captain Meriwether Lewis, who was instructed to form a Corps of Discovery.
Lewis in turn selected William Clark, who had once been his commanding officer, to help him lead the
group (Figure 11.3).
Figure 11.3 Charles Willson Peale, celebrated portraitist of the American Revolution, painted both William Clark (a)
and Meriwether Lewis (b) in 1810 and 1807, respectively, after they returned from their expedition west.
Jefferson wanted to improve the ability of American merchants to access the ports of China. Establishing a
river route from St. Louis to the Pacific Ocean was crucial to capturing a portion of the fur trade that had
proven so profitable to Great Britain. He also wanted to legitimize American claims to the land against
rivals, such as Great Britain and Spain. Lewis and Clark were thus instructed to map the territory through
which they would pass and to explore all tributaries of the Missouri River. This part of the expedition
struck fear into Spanish officials, who believed that Lewis and Clark would encroach on New Mexico, the
northern part of New Spain. Spain dispatched four unsuccessful expeditions from Santa Fe to intercept the
explorers. Lewis and Clark also had directives to establish friendly relationships with the western tribes,
introducing them to American trade goods and encouraging warring groups to make peace. Establishing
an overland route to the Pacific would bolster U.S. claims to the Pacific Northwest, first established in 1792
when Captain Robert Gray sailed his ship Columbia into the mouth of the river that now bears his vessel’s
name and forms the present-day border between Oregon and Washington. Finally, Jefferson, who had a
keen interest in science and nature, ordered Lewis and Clark to take extensive notes on the geography,
plant life, animals, and natural resources of the region into which they would journey.
After spending the winter of 1803–1804 encamped at the mouth of the Missouri River while the men
prepared for their expedition, the corps set off in May 1804. Although the thirty-three frontiersmen,
boatmen, and hunters took with them Alexander Mackenzie’s account of his explorations and the best
maps they could find, they did not have any real understanding of the difficulties they would face. Fierce
storms left them drenched and freezing. Enormous clouds of gnats and mosquitos swarmed about their
heads as they made their way up the Missouri River. Along the way they encountered (and killed) a variety
of animals including elk, buffalo, and grizzly bears. One member of the expedition survived a rattlesnake
bite. As the men collected minerals and specimens of plants and animals, the overly curious Lewis sampled
minerals by tasting them and became seriously ill at one point. What they did not collect, they sketched
and documented in the journals they kept. They also noted the customs of the Indian tribes who controlled
the land and attempted to establish peaceful relationships with them in order to ensure that future white
settlement would not be impeded.
Click and Explore
Read the journals of Lewis and Clark on the University of Virginia

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15LandClark) website or on the University of
Nebraska–Lincoln (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15LandClark1) website, which also
has footnotes, maps, and commentary. According to their writings, what challenges did
the explorers confront?
The corps spent their first winter in the wilderness, 1804–1805, in a Mandan village in what is now
North Dakota. There they encountered a reminder of France’s former vast North American empire when
they met a French fur trapper named Toussaint Charbonneau. When the corps left in the spring of
1805, Charbonneau accompanied them as a guide and interpreter, bringing his teenage Shoshone wife
Sacagawea and their newborn son. Charbonneau knew the land better than the Americans, and Sacagawea
proved invaluable in many ways, not least of which was that the presence of a young woman and her
infant convinced many groups that the men were not a war party and meant no harm (Figure 11.4).
Figure 11.4 In this idealized image, Sacagawea leads Lewis and Clark through the Montana wilderness. In reality,
she was still a teenager at the time and served as interpreter; she did not actually guide the party, although legend
says she did. Kidnapped as a child, she would not likely have retained detailed memories about the place where she
grew up.
The corps set about making friends with native tribes while simultaneously attempting to assert American
power over the territory. Hoping to overawe the people of the land, Lewis would let out a blast of his
air rifle, a relatively new piece of technology the Indians had never seen. The corps also followed native
custom by distributing gifts, including shirts, ribbons, and kettles, as a sign of goodwill. The explorers
presented native leaders with medallions, many of which bore Jefferson’s image, and invited them to visit
their new “ruler” in the East. These medallions or peace medals were meant to allow future explorers to
identify friendly native groups. Not all efforts to assert U.S. control went peacefully; some Indians rejected

the explorers’ intrusion onto their land. An encounter with the Blackfoot turned hostile, for example, and
members of the corps killed two Blackfoot men.
After spending eighteen long months on the trail and nearly starving to death in the Bitterroot Mountains
of Montana, the Corps of Discovery finally reached the Pacific Ocean in 1805 and spent the winter of
1805–1806 in Oregon. They returned to St. Louis later in 1806 having lost only one man, who had died
of appendicitis. Upon their return, Meriwether Lewis was named governor of the Louisiana Territory.
Unfortunately, he died only three years later in circumstances that are still disputed, before he could write
a complete account of what the expedition had discovered.
Although the Corps of Discovery failed to find an all-water route to the Pacific Ocean (for none existed),
it nevertheless accomplished many of the goals Jefferson had set. The men traveled across the North
American continent and established relationships with many Indian tribes, paving the way for fur traders
like John Jacob Astor who later established trading posts solidifying U.S. claims to Oregon. Delegates of
several tribes did go to Washington to meet the president. Hundreds of plant and animal specimens were
collected, several of which were named for Lewis and Clark in recognition of their efforts. And the territory
was now more accurately mapped and legally claimed by the United States. Nonetheless, most of the vast
territory, home to a variety of native peoples, remained unknown to Americans (Figure 11.5).
Figure 11.5 This 1814 map of Lewis and Clark’s path across North America from the Missouri River to the Pacific
Ocean was based on maps and notes made by William Clark. Although most of the West still remained unknown, the
expedition added greatly to knowledge of what lay west of the Mississippi. Most important, it allowed the United
States to solidify its claim to the immense territory.
AMERICANA
A Selection of Hats for the Fashionable Gentleman
Beaver hats (Figure 11.6) were popular apparel in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in both
Europe and the United States because they were naturally waterproof and bore a glossy sheen. Demand
for beaver pelts (and for the pelts of sea otters, foxes, and martens) by hat makers, dressmakers, and
tailors led many fur trappers into the wilderness in pursuit of riches. Beaver hats fell out of fashion in the
1850s when silk hats became the rage and beaver became harder to find. In some parts of the West, the
animals had been hunted nearly to extinction.
Figure 11.6 This illustration from Castrologia, Or, The History and Traditions of the Canadian Beaver
shows a variety of beaver hat styles. Beaver pelts were also used to trim women’s bonnets.
Are there any contemporary fashions or fads that likewise promise to alter the natural world?
SPANISH FLORIDA AND THE ADAMS-ONÍS TREATY

Despite the Lewis and Clark expedition, the boundaries of the Louisiana Purchase remained contested.
Expansionists chose to believe the purchase included vast stretches of land, including all of Spanish Texas.
The Spanish government disagreed, however. The first attempt to resolve this issue took place in February
1819 with the signing of the Adams-Onís Treaty, which was actually intended to settle the problem of
Florida.
Spanish Florida had presented difficulties for its neighbors since the settlement of the original North
American colonies, first for England and then for the United States. By 1819, American settlers no longer
feared attack by Spanish troops garrisoned in Florida, but hostile tribes like the Creek and Seminole raided
Georgia and then retreated to the relative safety of the Florida wilderness. These tribes also sheltered
runaway slaves, often intermarrying with them and making them members of their tribes. Sparsely
populated by Spanish colonists and far from both Mexico City and Madrid, the frontier in Florida proved
next to impossible for the Spanish government to control.
In March 1818, General Andrew Jackson, frustrated by his inability to punish Creek and Seminole raiders,
pursued them across the international border into Spanish Florida. Under Jackson’s command, U.S. troops

defeated the Creek and Seminole, occupied several Florida settlements, and executed two British citizens
accused of acting against the United States. Outraged by the U.S. invasion of its territory, the Spanish
government demanded that Jackson and his troops withdraw. In agreeing to the withdrawal, however,
U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams also offered to purchase the colony. Realizing that conflict
between the United States and the Creeks and Seminoles would continue, Spain opted to cede the Spanish
colony to its northern neighbor. The Adams-Onís Treaty, named for Adams and the Spanish ambassador,
Luís de Onís, made the cession of Florida official while also setting the boundary between the United States
and Mexico at the Sabine River (Figure 11.7). In exchange, Adams gave up U.S. claims to lands west of the
Sabine and forgave Spain’s $5 million debt to the United States.
Figure 11.7 The red line indicates the border between U.S. and Spanish territory established by the Adams-Onís
Treaty of 1819.
The Adams-Onís Treaty upset many American expansionists, who criticized Adams for not laying claim
to all of Texas, which they believed had been included in the Louisiana Purchase. In the summer of 1819,
James Long, a planter from Natchez, Mississippi, became a filibuster, or a private, unauthorized military
adventurer, when he led three hundred men on an expedition across the Sabine River to take control
of Texas. Long’s men succeeded in capturing Nacogdoches, writing a Declaration of Independence (see
below), and setting up a republican government. Spanish troops drove them out a month later. Returning
in 1820 with a much smaller force, Long was arrested by the Spanish authorities, imprisoned, and killed.
Long was but one of many nineteenth-century American filibusters who aimed at seizing territory in the
Caribbean and Central America.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
The Long Expedition’s Declaration of Independence
The Long Expedition’s short-lived Republic of Texas was announced with the drafting of a Declaration of
Independence in 1819. The declaration named settlers’ grievances against the limits put on expansion
by the Adams-Onís treaty and expressed their fears of Spain:
The citizens of Texas have long indulged the hope, that in the adjustment of the boundaries
of the Spanish possessions in America, and of the territories of the United States, that they
should be included within the limits of the latter. The claims of the United States, long and
strenuously urged, encouraged the hope. The recent [Adams-Onís] treaty between Spain and
the United States of America has dissipated an illusion too long fondly cherished, and has
roused the citizens of Texas . . . They have seen themselves . . . literally abandoned to the
dominion of the crown of Spain and left a prey . . . to all those exactions which Spanish
rapacity is fertile in devising. The citizens of Texas would have proved themselves unworthy
of the age . . . unworthy of their ancestry, of the kindred of the republics of the American
continent, could they have hesitated in this emergency . . . Spurning the fetters of colonial
vassalage, disdaining to submit to the most atrocious despotism that ever disgraced the
annals of Europe, they have resolved under the blessing of God to be free.
How did the filibusters view Spain? What do their actions say about the nature of American society and
of U.S. expansion?

• Explain why the North and South differed over the admission of Missouri as a state
• Explain how the admission of new states to the Union threatened to upset the balance
between free and slave states in Congress
Another stage of U.S. expansion took place when inhabitants of Missouri began petitioning for statehood
beginning in 1817. The Missouri territory had been part of the Louisiana Purchase and was the first part of
that vast acquisition to apply for statehood. By 1818, tens of thousands of settlers had flocked to Missouri,
including slaveholders who brought with them some ten thousand slaves. When the status of the Missouri
territory was taken up in earnest in the U.S. House of Representatives in early 1819, its admission to the
Union proved to be no easy matter, since it brought to the surface a violent debate over whether slavery
would be allowed in the new state.
Politicians had sought to avoid the issue of slavery ever since the 1787 Constitutional Convention arrived
at an uneasy compromise in the form of the “three-fifths clause.” This provision stated that the entirety
of a state’s free population and 60 percent of its enslaved population would be counted in establishing
the number of that state’s members in the House of Representatives and the size of its federal tax bill.
Although slavery existed in several northern states at the time, the compromise had angered many
northern politicians because, they argued, the “extra” population of slaves would give southern states
more votes than they deserved in both the House and the Electoral College. Admitting Missouri as a slave
state also threatened the tenuous balance between free and slave states in the Senate by giving slave states
a two-vote advantage.
The debate about representation shifted to the morality of slavery itself when New York representative
James Tallmadge, an opponent of slavery, attempted to amend the statehood bill in the House of
Representatives. Tallmadge proposed that Missouri be admitted as a free state, that no more slaves be

allowed to enter Missouri after it achieved statehood, and that all enslaved children born there after its
admission be freed at age twenty-five. The amendment shifted the terms of debate by presenting slavery
as an evil to be stopped.
Northern representatives supported the Tallmadge Amendment, denouncing slavery as immoral and
opposed to the nation’s founding principles of equality and liberty. Southerners in Congress rejected
the amendment as an attempt to gradually abolish slavery—not just in Missouri but throughout the
Union—by violating the property rights of slaveholders and their freedom to take their property wherever
they wished. Slavery’s apologists, who had long argued that slavery was a necessary evil, now began to
perpetuate the idea that slavery was a positive good for the United States. They asserted that it generated
wealth and left white men free to exercise their true talents instead of toiling in the soil, as the descendants
of Africans were better suited to do. Slaves were cared for, supporters argued, and were better off exposed
to the teachings of Christianity as slaves than living as free heathens in uncivilized Africa. Above all, the
United States had a destiny, they argued, to create an empire of slavery throughout the Americas. These
proslavery arguments were to be made repeatedly and forcefully as expansion to the West proceeded.
Most disturbing for the unity of the young nation, however, was that debaters divided along sectional
lines, not party lines. With only a few exceptions, northerners supported the Tallmadge Amendment
regardless of party affiliation, and southerners opposed it despite having party differences on other
matters. It did not pass, and the crisis over Missouri led to strident calls of disunion and threats of civil
war.
Congress finally came to an agreement, called the Missouri Compromise, in 1820. Missouri and Maine
(which had been part of Massachusetts) would enter the Union at the same time, Maine as a free state,
Missouri as a slave state. The Tallmadge Amendment was narrowly rejected, the balance between free and
slave states was maintained in the Senate, and southerners did not have to fear that Missouri slaveholders
would be deprived of their human property. To prevent similar conflicts each time a territory applied for
statehood, a line coinciding with the southern border of Missouri (at latitude 36° 30') was drawn across the
remainder of the Louisiana Territory (Figure 11.8). Slavery could exist south of this line but was forbidden
north of it, with the obvious exception of Missouri.
Figure 11.8 The Missouri Compromise resulted in the District of Maine, which had originally been settled in 1607 by
the Plymouth Company and was a part of Massachusetts, being admitted to the Union as a free state and Missouri
being admitted as a slave state.
MY STORY
Thomas Jefferson on the Missouri Crisis
On April 22, 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Holmes to express his reaction to the Missouri Crisis,
especially the open threat of disunion and war:
I thank you, Dear Sir, for the copy you have been so kind as to send me of the letter to your
constituents on the Missouri question. it is a perfect justification to them. I had for a long time
ceased to read the newspapers or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were in
good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the shore from which I am not
distant. but this momentous question [over slavery in Missouri], like a fire bell in the night,
awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. it is
hushed indeed for the moment. but this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. a geographical
line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once concieved [sic] and held up
to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it
deeper and deeper. I can say with conscious truth that there is not a man on earth who would
sacrifice more than I would, to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way. . .
.
I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves, by the
generation of 76. to acquire self government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown
away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is
to be that I live not to weep over it. if they would but dispassionately weigh the blessings
they will throw away against an abstract principle more likely to be effected by union than by
scission, they would pause before they would perpetuate this act of suicide themselves and
of treason against the hopes of the world. to yourself as the faithful advocate of union I tender
the offering of my high esteem and respect.
Th. Jefferson
How would you characterize the former president’s reaction? What do you think he means by writing that
the Missouri Compromise line “is a reprieve only, not a final sentence”?
Click and Explore
Access a collection of primary documents relating to the Missouri Compromise,

including Missouri’s application for admission into the Union and Jefferson’s
correspondence on the Missouri question, at the Library of Congress
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15MOComp) website.

• Explain why American settlers in Texas sought independence from Mexico
• Discuss early attempts to make Texas independent of Mexico
• Describe the relationship between Anglo-Americans and Tejanos in Texas before and
after independence

As the incursions of the earlier filibusters into Texas demonstrated, American expansionists had desired
this area of Spain’s empire in America for many years. After the 1819 Adams-Onís treaty established the
boundary between Mexico and the United States, more American expansionists began to move into the
northern portion of Mexico’s province of Coahuila y Texas. Following Mexico’s independence from Spain
in 1821, American settlers immigrated to Texas in even larger numbers, intent on taking the land from the
new and vulnerable Mexican nation in order to create a new American slave state.
AMERICAN SETTLERS MOVE TO TEXAS

After the 1819 Adams-Onís Treaty defined the U.S.-Mexico boundary, Spain began actively encouraging
Americans to settle their northern province. Texas was sparsely settled, and the few Mexican farmers
and ranchers who lived there were under constant threat of attack by hostile Indian tribes, especially the
Comanche, who supplemented their hunting with raids in pursuit of horses and cattle.
To increase the non-Indian population in Texas and provide a buffer zone between its hostile tribes and the
rest of Mexico, Spain began to recruit empresarios. An empresario was someone who brought settlers to the
region in exchange for generous grants of land. Moses Austin, a once-prosperous entrepreneur reduced
to poverty by the Panic of 1819, requested permission to settle three hundred English-speaking American
residents in Texas. Spain agreed on the condition that the resettled people convert to Roman Catholicism.
On his deathbed in 1821, Austin asked his son Stephen to carry out his plans, and Mexico, which had won
independence from Spain the same year, allowed Stephen to take control of his father’s grant. Like Spain,
Mexico also wished to encourage settlement in the state of Coahuila y Texas and passed colonization laws
to encourage immigration. Thousands of Americans, primarily from slave states, flocked to Texas and
quickly came to outnumber the Tejanos, the Mexican residents of the region. The soil and climate offered
good opportunities to expand slavery and the cotton kingdom. Land was plentiful and offered at generous
terms. Unlike the U.S. government, Mexico allowed buyers to pay for their land in installments and did not
require a minimum purchase. Furthermore, to many whites, it seemed not only their God-given right but
also their patriotic duty to populate the lands beyond the Mississippi River, bringing with them American
slavery, culture, laws, and political traditions (Figure 11.9).
Figure 11.9 By the early 1830s, all the lands east of the Mississippi River had been settled and admitted to the
Union as states. The land west of the river, though in this contemporary map united with the settled areas in the body
of an eagle symbolizing the territorial ambitions of the United States, remained largely unsettled by white Americans.
Texas (just southwest of the bird’s tail feathers) remained outside the U.S. border.
THE TEXAS WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE

Many Americans who migrated to Texas at the invitation of the Mexican government did not completely
shed their identity or loyalty to the United States. They brought American traditions and expectations with
them (including, for many, the right to own slaves). For instance, the majority of these new settlers were
Protestant, and though they were not required to attend the Catholic mass, Mexico’s prohibition on the
public practice of other religions upset them and they routinely ignored it.
Accustomed to representative democracy, jury trials, and the defendant’s right to appear before a judge,
the Anglo-American settlers in Texas also disliked the Mexican legal system, which provided for an
initial hearing by an alcalde, an administrator who often combined the duties of mayor, judge, and law
enforcement officer. The alcalde sent a written record of the proceeding to a judge in Saltillo, the state
capital, who decided the outcome. Settlers also resented that at most two Texas representatives were
allowed in the state legislature.
Their greatest source of discontent, though, was the Mexican government’s 1829 abolition of slavery. Most
American settlers were from southern states, and many had brought slaves with them. Mexico tried to
accommodate them by maintaining the fiction that the slaves were indentured servants. But American
slaveholders in Texas distrusted the Mexican government and wanted Texas to be a new U.S. slave state.
The dislike of most for Roman Catholicism (the prevailing religion of Mexico) and a widely held belief in
American racial superiority led them generally to regard Mexicans as dishonest, ignorant, and backward.
Belief in their own superiority inspired some Texans to try to undermine the power of the Mexican
government. When empresario Haden Edwards attempted to evict people who had settled his land grant
before he gained title to it, the Mexican government nullified its agreement with him. Outraged, Edwards
and a small party of men took prisoner the alcalde of Nacogdoches. The Mexican army marched to the
town, and Edwards and his troop then declared the formation of the Republic of Fredonia between the
Sabine and Rio Grande Rivers. To demonstrate loyalty to their adopted country, a force led by Stephen
Austin hastened to Nacogdoches to support the Mexican army. Edwards’s revolt collapsed, and the
revolutionaries fled Texas.
The growing presence of American settlers in Texas, their reluctance to abide by Mexican law, and their
desire for independence caused the Mexican government to grow wary. In 1830, it forbade future U.S.
immigration and increased its military presence in Texas. Settlers continued to stream illegally across the
long border; by 1835, after immigration resumed, there were twenty thousand Anglo-Americans in Texas
(Figure 11.10).
Figure 11.10 This 1833 map shows the extent of land grants made by Mexico to American settlers in Texas. Nearly
all are in the eastern portion of the state, one factor that led to war with Mexico in 1846.

Fifty-five delegates from the Anglo-American settlements gathered in 1831 to demand the suspension
of customs duties, the resumption of immigration from the United States, better protection from Indian
tribes, the granting of promised land titles, and the creation of an independent state of Texas separate from
Coahuila. Ordered to disband, the delegates reconvened in early April 1833 to write a constitution for an
independent Texas. Surprisingly, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, Mexico’s new president, agreed
to all demands, except the call for statehood (Figure 11.11). Coahuila y Texas made provisions for jury
trials, increased Texas’s representation in the state legislature, and removed restrictions on commerce.
Figure 11.11 This portrait of General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna depicts the Mexican president and general in full
military regalia.
Texans’ hopes for independence were quashed in 1834, however, when Santa Anna dismissed the Mexican
Congress and abolished all state governments, including that of Coahuila y Texas. In January 1835,
reneging on earlier promises, he dispatched troops to the town of Anahuac to collect customs duties.
Lawyer and soldier William B. Travis and a small force marched on Anahuac in June, and the fort
surrendered. On October 2, Anglo-American forces met Mexican troops at the town of Gonzales; the
Mexican troops fled and the Americans moved on to take San Antonio. Now more cautious, delegates to
the Consultation of 1835 at San Felipe de Austin voted against declaring independence, instead drafting
a statement, which became known as the Declaration of Causes, promising continued loyalty if Mexico
returned to a constitutional form of government. They selected Henry Smith, leader of the Independence
Party, as governor of Texas and placed Sam Houston, a former soldier who had been a congressman and
governor of Tennessee, in charge of its small military force.
The Consultation delegates met again in March 1836. They declared their independence from Mexico
and drafted a constitution calling for an American-style judicial system and an elected president and
legislature. Significantly, they also established that slavery would not be prohibited in Texas. Many
wealthy Tejanos supported the push for independence, hoping for liberal governmental reforms and
economic benefits.
REMEMBER THE ALAMO!

Mexico had no intention of losing its northern province. Santa Anna and his army of four thousand
had besieged San Antonio in February 1836. Hopelessly outnumbered, its two hundred defenders, under
Travis, fought fiercely from their refuge in an old mission known as the Alamo (Figure 11.12). After ten
days, however, the mission was taken and all but a few of the defenders were dead, including Travis
and James Bowie, the famed frontiersman who was also a land speculator and slave trader. A few male
survivors, possibly including the frontier legend and former Tennessee congressman Davy Crockett, were
led outside the walls and executed. The few women and children inside the mission were allowed to leave
with the only adult male survivor, a slave owned by Travis who was then freed by the Mexican Army.
Terrified, they fled.
Figure 11.12 The Fall of the Alamo, painted by Theodore Gentilz fewer than ten years after this pivotal moment in
the Texas Revolution, depicts the 1836 assault on the Alamo complex.
Although hungry for revenge, the Texas forces under Sam Houston nevertheless withdrew across Texas,
gathering recruits as they went. Coming upon Santa Anna’s encampment on the banks of San Jacinto River
on April 21, 1836, they waited as the Mexican troops settled for an afternoon nap. Assured by Houston
that “Victory is certain!” and told to “Trust in God and fear not!” the seven hundred men descended on
a sleeping force nearly twice their number with cries of “Remember the Alamo!” Within fifteen minutes
the Battle of San Jacinto was over. Approximately half the Mexican troops were killed, and the survivors,
including Santa Anna, taken prisoner.
Santa Anna grudgingly signed a peace treaty and was sent to Washington, where he met with President
Andrew Jackson and, under pressure, agreed to recognize an independent Texas with the Rio Grande
River as its southwestern border. By the time the agreement had been signed, however, Santa Anna had
been removed from power in Mexico. For that reason, the Mexican Congress refused to be bound by Santa
Anna’s promises and continued to insist that the renegade territory still belonged to Mexico.
Click and Explore
Visit the official Alamo (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Alamo) website to learn more

about the battle of the Alamo and take a virtual tour of the old mission.

THE LONE STAR REPUBLIC

In September 1836, military hero Sam Houston was elected president of Texas, and, following the
relentless logic of U.S. expansion, Texans voted in favor of annexation to the United States. This had been
the dream of many settlers in Texas all along. They wanted to expand the United States west and saw
Texas as the next logical step. Slaveholders there, such as Sam Houston, William B. Travis and James Bowie
(the latter two of whom died at the Alamo), believed too in the destiny of slavery. Mindful of the vicious
debates over Missouri that had led to talk of disunion and war, American politicians were reluctant to
annex Texas or, indeed, even to recognize it as a sovereign nation. Annexation would almost certainly
mean war with Mexico, and the admission of a state with a large slave population, though permissible
under the Missouri Compromise, would bring the issue of slavery once again to the fore. Texas had
no choice but to organize itself as the independent Lone Star Republic. To protect itself from Mexican
attempts to reclaim it, Texas sought and received recognition from France, Great Britain, Belgium, and the
Netherlands. The United States did not officially recognize Texas as an independent nation until March
1837, nearly a year after the final victory over the Mexican army at San Jacinto.
Uncertainty about its future did not discourage Americans committed to expansion, especially
slaveholders, from rushing to settle in the Lone Star Republic, however. Between 1836 and 1846, its
population nearly tripled. By 1840, nearly twelve thousand enslaved Africans had been brought to Texas
by American slaveholders. Many new settlers had suffered financial losses in the severe financial
depression of 1837 and hoped for a new start in the new nation. According to folklore, across the United
States, homes and farms were deserted overnight, and curious neighbors found notes reading only “GTT”
(“Gone to Texas”). Many Europeans, especially Germans, also immigrated to Texas during this period.
In keeping with the program of ethnic cleansing and white racial domination, as illustrated by the image
at the beginning of this chapter, Americans in Texas generally treated both Tejano and Indian residents
with utter contempt, eager to displace and dispossess them. Anglo-American leaders failed to return the
support their Tejano neighbors had extended during the rebellion and repaid them by seizing their lands.
In 1839, the republic’s militia attempted to drive out the Cherokee and Comanche.
The impulse to expand did not lay dormant, and Anglo-American settlers and leaders in the newly formed
Texas republic soon cast their gaze on the Mexican province of New Mexico as well. Repeating the tactics
of earlier filibusters, a Texas force set out in 1841 intent on taking Santa Fe. Its members encountered an
army of New Mexicans and were taken prisoner and sent to Mexico City. On Christmas Day, 1842, Texans
avenged a Mexican assault on San Antonio by attacking the Mexican town of Mier. In August, another
Texas army was sent to attack Santa Fe, but Mexican troops forced them to retreat. Clearly, hostilities
between Texas and Mexico had not ended simply because Texas had declared its independence.

• Identify the causes of the Mexican-American War
• Describe the outcomes of the war in 1848, especially the Mexican Cession
• Describe the effect of the California Gold Rush on westward expansion
Tensions between the United States and Mexico rapidly deteriorated in the 1840s as American
expansionists eagerly eyed Mexican land to the west, including the lush northern Mexican province of
California. Indeed, in 1842, a U.S. naval fleet, incorrectly believing war had broken out, seized Monterey,
California, a part of Mexico. Monterey was returned the next day, but the episode only added to the
uneasiness with which Mexico viewed its northern neighbor. The forces of expansion, however, could
not be contained, and American voters elected James Polk in 1844 because he promised to deliver more
lands. President Polk fulfilled his promise by gaining Oregon and, most spectacularly, provoking a war
with Mexico that ultimately fulfilled the wildest fantasies of expansionists. By 1848, the United States
encompassed much of North America, a republic that stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
JAMES K. POLK AND THE TRIUMPH OF EXPANSION

A fervent belief in expansion gripped the United States in the 1840s. In 1845, a New York newspaper
editor, John O’Sullivan, introduced the concept of “manifest destiny” to describe the very popular idea of
the special role of the United States in overspreading the continent—the divine right and duty of white
Americans to seize and settle the American West, thus spreading Protestant, democratic values. In this
climate of opinion, voters in 1844 elected James K. Polk, a slaveholder from Tennessee, because he vowed
to annex Texas as a new slave state and take Oregon.
Annexing Oregon was an important objective for U.S. foreign policy because it appeared to be an area
rich in commercial possibilities. Northerners favored U.S. control of Oregon because ports in the Pacific
Northwest would be gateways for trade with Asia. Southerners hoped that, in exchange for their support
of expansion into the northwest, northerners would not oppose plans for expansion into the southwest.
President Polk—whose campaign slogan in 1844 had been “Fifty-four forty or fight!”—asserted the United
States’ right to gain full control of what was known as Oregon Country, from its southern border at 42°
latitude (the current boundary with California) to its northern border at 54° 40' latitude. According to an
1818 agreement, Great Britain and the United States held joint ownership of this territory, but the 1827
Treaty of Joint Occupation opened the land to settlement by both countries. Realizing that the British were
not willing to cede all claims to the territory, Polk proposed the land be divided at 49° latitude (the current
border between Washington and Canada). The British, however, denied U.S. claims to land north of the
Columbia River (Oregon’s current northern border) (Figure 11.13). Indeed, the British foreign secretary
refused even to relay Polk’s proposal to London. However, reports of the difficulty Great Britain would
face defending Oregon in the event of a U.S. attack, combined with concerns over affairs at home and
elsewhere in its empire, quickly changed the minds of the British, and in June 1846, Queen Victoria’s
government agreed to a division at the forty-ninth parallel.
Figure 11.13 This map of the Oregon territory during the period of joint occupation by the United States and Great
Britain shows the area whose ownership was contested by the two powers.

In contrast to the diplomatic solution with Great Britain over Oregon, when it came to Mexico, Polk and
the American people proved willing to use force to wrest more land for the United States. In keeping
with voters’ expectations, President Polk set his sights on the Mexican state of California. After the
mistaken capture of Monterey, negotiations about purchasing the port of San Francisco from Mexico
broke off until September 1845. Then, following a revolt in California that left it divided in two, Polk
attempted to purchase Upper California and New Mexico as well. These efforts went nowhere. The
Mexican government, angered by U.S. actions, refused to recognize the independence of Texas.
Finally, after nearly a decade of public clamoring for the annexation of Texas, in December 1845 Polk
officially agreed to the annexation of the former Mexican state, making the Lone Star Republic an
additional slave state. Incensed that the United States had annexed Texas, however, the Mexican
government refused to discuss the matter of selling land to the United States. Indeed, Mexico refused even
to acknowledge Polk’s emissary, John Slidell, who had been sent to Mexico City to negotiate. Not to be
deterred, Polk encouraged Thomas O. Larkin, the U.S. consul in Monterey, to assist any American settlers
and any Californios, the Mexican residents of the state, who wished to proclaim their independence from
Mexico. By the end of 1845, having broken diplomatic ties with the United States over Texas and having
grown alarmed by American actions in California, the Mexican government warily anticipated the next
move. It did not have long to wait.
WAR WITH MEXICO, 1846–1848

Expansionistic fervor propelled the United States to war against Mexico in 1846. The United States had
long argued that the Rio Grande was the border between Mexico and the United States, and at the end of
the Texas war for independence Santa Anna had been pressured to agree. Mexico, however, refused to be
bound by Santa Anna’s promises and insisted the border lay farther north, at the Nueces River (Figure
11.14). To set it at the Rio Grande would, in effect, allow the United States to control land it had never
occupied. In Mexico’s eyes, therefore, President Polk violated its sovereign territory when he ordered U.S.
troops into the disputed lands in 1846. From the Mexican perspective, it appeared the United States had
invaded their nation.
Figure 11.14 In 1845, when Texas joined the United States, Mexico insisted the United States had a right only to the
territory northeast of the Nueces River. The United States argued in turn that it should have title to all land between
the Nueces and the Rio Grande as well.
In January 1846, the U.S. force that was ordered to the banks of the Rio Grande to build a fort on the
“American” side encountered a Mexican cavalry unit on patrol. Shots rang out, and sixteen U.S. soldiers
were killed or wounded. Angrily declaring that Mexico “has invaded our territory and shed American
blood upon American soil,” President Polk demanded the United States declare war on Mexico. On May
12, Congress obliged.
The small but vocal antislavery faction decried the decision to go to war, arguing that Polk had deliberately
provoked hostilities so the United States could annex more slave territory. Illinois representative Abraham
Lincoln and other members of Congress issued the “Spot Resolutions” in which they demanded to know
the precise spot on U.S. soil where American blood had been spilled. Many Whigs also denounced the war.
Democrats, however, supported Polk’s decision, and volunteers for the army came forward in droves from
every part of the country except New England, the seat of abolitionist activity. Enthusiasm for the war
was aided by the widely held belief that Mexico was a weak, impoverished country and that the Mexican
people, perceived as ignorant, lazy, and controlled by a corrupt Roman Catholic clergy, would be easy to
defeat. (Figure 11.15).
Figure 11.15 Anti-Catholic sentiment played an important role in the Mexican-American War. The American public
widely regarded Roman Catholics as cowardly and vice-ridden, like the clergy in this ca. 1846 lithograph who are
shown fleeing the Mexican town of Matamoros accompanied by pretty women and baskets full of alcohol. (credit:
Library of Congress)
U.S. military strategy had three main objectives: 1) Take control of northern Mexico, including New
Mexico; 2) seize California; and 3) capture Mexico City. General Zachary Taylor and his Army of the
Center were assigned to accomplish the first goal, and with superior weapons they soon captured the
Mexican city of Monterrey. Taylor quickly became a hero in the eyes of the American people, and Polk
appointed him commander of all U.S. forces.
General Stephen Watts Kearny, commander of the Army of the West, accepted the surrender of Santa
Fe, New Mexico, and moved on to take control of California, leaving Colonel Sterling Price in command.
Despite Kearny’s assurances that New Mexicans need not fear for their lives or their property, and in fact
the region’s residents rose in revolt in January 1847 in an effort to drive the Americans away. Although
Price managed to put an end to the rebellion, tensions remained high.
Kearny, meanwhile, arrived in California to find it already in American hands through the joint efforts of
California settlers, U.S. naval commander John D. Sloat, and John C. Fremont, a former army captain and
son-in-law of Missouri senator Thomas Benton. Sloat, at anchor off the coast of Mazatlan, learned that war
had begun and quickly set sail for California. He seized the town of Monterey in July 1846, less than a
month after a group of American settlers led by William B. Ide had taken control of Sonoma and declared

California a republic. A week after the fall of Monterey, the navy took San Francisco with no resistance.
Although some Californios staged a short-lived rebellion in September 1846, many others submitted to the
U.S. takeover. Thus Kearny had little to do other than take command of California as its governor.
Leading the Army of the South was General Winfield Scott. Both Taylor and Scott were potential
competitors for the presidency, and believing—correctly—that whoever seized Mexico City would become
a hero, Polk assigned Scott the campaign to avoid elevating the more popular Taylor, who was
affectionately known as “Old Rough and Ready.”
Scott captured Veracruz in March 1847, and moving in a northwesterly direction from there (much as
Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés had done in 1519), he slowly closed in on the capital. Every step of
the way was a hard-fought victory, however, and Mexican soldiers and civilians both fought bravely to
save their land from the American invaders. Mexico City’s defenders, including young military cadets,
fought to the end. According to legend, cadet Juan Escutia’s last act was to save the Mexican flag, and he
leapt from the city’s walls with it wrapped around his body. On September 14, 1847, Scott entered Mexico
City’s central plaza; the city had fallen (Figure 11.16). While Polk and other expansionists called for “all
Mexico,” the Mexican government and the United States negotiated for peace in 1848, resulting in the
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
Figure 11.16 In General Scott’s Entrance into Mexico (1851), Carl Nebel depicts General Winfield Scott on a white
horse entering Mexico City’s Plaza de la Constitución as anxious residents of the city watch. One woman peers
furtively from behind the curtain of an upstairs window. On the left, a man bends down to pick up a paving stone to
throw at the invaders.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed in February 1848, was a triumph for American expansionism
under which Mexico ceded nearly half its land to the United States. The Mexican Cession, as the conquest
of land west of the Rio Grande was called, included the current states of California, New Mexico, Arizona,
Nevada, Utah, and portions of Colorado and Wyoming. Mexico also recognized the Rio Grande as the
border with the United States. Mexican citizens in the ceded territory were promised U.S. citizenship in
the future when the territories they were living in became states. In exchange, the United States agreed to
assume $3.35 million worth of Mexican debts owed to U.S. citizens, paid Mexico $15 million for the loss of
its land, and promised to guard the residents of the Mexican Cession from Indian raids.
As extensive as the Mexican Cession was, some argued the United States should not be satisfied until it
had taken all of Mexico. Many who were opposed to this idea were southerners who, while desiring the
annexation of more slave territory, did not want to make Mexico’s large mestizo (people of mixed Indian
and European ancestry) population part of the United States. Others did not want to absorb a large group
of Roman Catholics. These expansionists could not accept the idea of new U.S. territory filled with mixed-
race, Catholic populations.
Click and Explore
Explore the U.S.-Mexican War (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15MexAmWar) at PBS

to read about life in the Mexican and U.S. armies during the war and to learn more
about the various battles.
CALIFORNIA AND THE GOLD RUSH

The United States had no way of knowing that part of the land about to be ceded by Mexico had
just become far more valuable than anyone could have imagined. On January 24, 1848, James Marshall
discovered gold in the millrace of the sawmill he had built with his partner John Sutter on the south fork of
California’s American River. Word quickly spread, and within a few weeks all of Sutter’s employees had
left to search for gold. When the news reached San Francisco, most of its inhabitants abandoned the town
and headed for the American River. By the end of the year, thousands of California’s residents had gone
north to the gold fields with visions of wealth dancing in their heads, and in 1849 thousands of people
from around the world followed them (Figure 11.17). The Gold Rush had begun.
Figure 11.17 Word about the discovery of gold in California in 1848 quickly spread and thousands soon made their
way to the West Coast in search of quick riches.
The fantasy of instant wealth induced a mass exodus to California. Settlers in Oregon and Utah rushed
to the American River. Easterners sailed around the southern tip of South America or to Panama’s
Atlantic coast, where they crossed the Isthmus of Panama to the Pacific and booked ship’s passage for San
Francisco. As California-bound vessels stopped in South American ports to take on food and fresh water,
hundreds of Peruvians and Chileans streamed aboard. Easterners who could not afford to sail to California
crossed the continent on foot, on horseback, or in wagons. Others journeyed from as far away as Hawaii
and Europe. Chinese people came as well, adding to the polyglot population in the California boomtowns
(Figure 11.18).

Figure 11.18 This Currier & Ives lithograph from 1849 imagines the extreme lengths that people might go to in order
to be part of the California Gold Rush. In addition to the men with picks and shovels trying to reach the ship from the
dock, airships and rocket are shown flying overhead. (credit: Library of Congress)
Once in California, gathered in camps with names like Drunkard’s Bar, Angel’s Camp, Gouge Eye, and
Whiskeytown, the “forty-niners” did not find wealth so easy to come by as they had first imagined.
Although some were able to find gold by panning for it or shoveling soil from river bottoms into sieve-
like contraptions called rockers, most did not. The placer gold, the gold that had been washed down the
mountains into streams and rivers, was quickly exhausted, and what remained was deep below ground.
Independent miners were supplanted by companies that could afford not only to purchase hydraulic
mining technology but also to hire laborers to work the hills. The frustration of many a miner was
expressed in the words of Sullivan Osborne. In 1857, Osborne wrote that he had arrived in California “full
of high hopes and bright anticipations of the future” only to find his dreams “have long since perished.”
Although $550 million worth of gold was found in California between 1849 and 1850, very little of it went
to individuals.
Observers in the gold fields also reported abuse of Indians by miners. Some miners forced Indians to work
their claims for them; others drove Indians off their lands, stole from them, and even murdered them.
Foreigners were generally disliked, especially those from South America. The most despised, however,
were the thousands of Chinese migrants. Eager to earn money to send to their families in Hong Kong
and southern China, they quickly earned a reputation as frugal men and hard workers who routinely
took over diggings others had abandoned as worthless and worked them until every scrap of gold had
been found. Many American miners, often spendthrifts, resented their presence and discriminated against
them, believing the Chinese, who represented about 8 percent of the nearly 300,000 who arrived, were
depriving them of the opportunity to make a living.
Click and Explore
Visit The Chinese in California (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15ChinaCA) to learn

more about the experience of Chinese migrants who came to California in the Gold
Rush era.
In 1850, California imposed a tax on foreign miners, and in 1858 it prohibited all immigration from China.
Those Chinese who remained in the face of the growing hostility were often beaten and killed, and some
Westerners made a sport of cutting off Chinese men’s queues, the long braids of hair worn down their
backs (Figure 11.19). In 1882, Congress took up the power to restrict immigration by banning the further
immigration of Chinese.
Figure 11.19 “Pacific Chivalry: Encouragement to Chinese Immigration,” which appeared in Harper’s Weekly in
1869, depicts a white man attacking a Chinese man with a whip as he holds him by the queue. Americans sometimes
forcefully cut off the queues of Chinese immigrants. This could have serious consequences for the victim. Until 1911,
all Chinese men were required by their nation’s law to wear the queue as a sign of loyalty. Miners returning to China
without it could be put to death. (credit: Library of Congress)
As people flocked to California in 1849, the population of the new territory swelled from a few thousand
to about 100,000. The new arrivals quickly organized themselves into communities, and the trappings of
“civilized” life—stores, saloons, libraries, stage lines, and fraternal lodges—began to appear. Newspapers
were established, and musicians, singers, and acting companies arrived to entertain the gold seekers. The
epitome of these Gold Rush boomtowns was San Francisco, which counted only a few hundred residents
in 1846 but by 1850 had reached a population of thirty-four thousand (Figure 11.20). So quickly did the
territory grow that by 1850 California was ready to enter the Union as a state. When it sought admission,
however, the issue of slavery expansion and sectional tensions emerged once again.

Figure 11.20 This daguerreotype shows the bustling port of San Francisco in January 1851, just a few months after
San Francisco became part of the new U.S. state of California. (credit: Library of Congress)

• Describe the terms of the Wilmot Proviso
• Discuss why the Free-Soil Party objected to the westward expansion of slavery
• Explain why sectional and political divisions in the United States grew
• Describe the terms of the Compromise of 1850
The 1848 treaty with Mexico did not bring the United States domestic peace. Instead, the acquisition of new
territory revived and intensified the debate over the future of slavery in the western territories, widening
the growing division between North and South and leading to the creation of new single-issue parties.
Increasingly, the South came to regard itself as under attack by radical northern abolitionists, and many
northerners began to speak ominously of a southern drive to dominate American politics for the purpose
of protecting slaveholders’ human property. As tensions mounted and both sides hurled accusations,
national unity frayed. Compromise became nearly impossible and antagonistic sectional rivalries replaced
the idea of a unified, democratic republic.
THE LIBERTY PARTY, THE WILMOT PROVISO, AND THE ANTISLAVERY MOVEMENT
Committed to protecting white workers by keeping slavery out of the lands taken from Mexico,
Pennsylvania congressman David Wilmot attached to an 1846 revenue bill an amendment that would
prohibit slavery in the new territory. The Wilmot Proviso was not entirely new. Other congressmen had
drafted similar legislation, and Wilmot’s language was largely copied from the 1787 Northwest Ordinance
that had banned slavery in that territory. His ideas were very controversial in the 1840s, however, because
his proposals would prevent American slaveholders from bringing what they viewed as their lawful
property, their slaves, into the western lands. The measure passed the House but was defeated in the
Senate. When Polk tried again to raise revenue the following year (to pay for lands taken from Mexico), the
Wilmot Proviso was reintroduced, this time calling for the prohibition of slavery not only in the Mexican
Cession but in all U.S. territories. The revenue bill passed, but without the proviso.
That Wilmot, a loyal Democrat, should attempt to counter the actions of a Democratic president hinted
at the party divisions that were to come. The 1840s were a particularly active time in the creation and
reorganization of political parties and constituencies, mainly because of discontent with the positions of
the mainstream Whig and Democratic Parties in regard to slavery and its extension into the territories. The
first new party, the small and politically weak Liberty Party founded in 1840, was a single-issue party, as
were many of those that followed it. Its members were abolitionists who fervently believed slavery was
evil and should be ended, and that this was best accomplished by political means.
The Wilmot Proviso captured the “antislavery” sentiments during and after the Mexican War. Antislavery
advocates differed from the abolitionists. While abolitionists called for the end of slavery everywhere,
antislavery advocates, for various reasons, did not challenge the presence of slavery in the states where it
already existed. Those who supported antislavery fervently opposed its expansion westward because, they
argued, slavery would degrade white labor and reduce its value, cast a stigma upon hard-working whites,
and deprive them of a chance to advance economically. The western lands, they argued, should be open
to white men only—small farmers and urban workers for whom the West held the promise of economic
advancement. Where slavery was entrenched, according to antislavery advocates, there was little land left
for small farmers to purchase, and such men could not compete fairly with slaveholders who held large
farms and gangs of slaves. Ordinary laborers suffered also; no one would pay a white man a decent wage
when a slave worked for nothing. When labor was associated with loss of freedom, antislavery supporters
argued, all white workers carried a stigma that marked them as little better than slaves.
Wilmot opposed the extension of slavery into the Mexican Cession not because of his concern for African
Americans, but because of his belief that slavery hurt white workers, and that lands acquired by the
government should be used to better the position of white small farmers and laborers. Work was not
simply something that people did; it gave them dignity, but in a slave society, labor had no dignity.
In response to these arguments, southerners maintained that laborers in northern factories were treated
worse than slaves. Their work was tedious and low paid. Their meager income was spent on inadequate
food, clothing, and shelter. There was no dignity in such a life. In contrast, they argued, southern slaves
were provided with a home, the necessities of life, and the protection of their masters. Factory owners did
not care for or protect their employees in the same way.
THE FREE-SOIL PARTY AND THE ELECTION OF 1848

The Wilmot Proviso was an issue of great importance to the Democrats. Would they pledge to support it?
At the party’s New York State convention in Buffalo, Martin Van Buren’s antislavery supporters—called
Barnburners because they were likened to farmers who were willing to burn down their own barn to
get rid of a rat infestation—spoke in favor of the proviso. Their opponents, known as Hunkers, refused
to support it. Angered, the Barnburners organized their own convention, where they chose antislavery,
pro–Wilmot Proviso delegates to send to the Democrats’ national convention in Baltimore. In this way, the
controversy over the expansion of slavery divided the Democratic Party.
At the national convention, both sets of delegates were seated—the pro-proviso ones chosen by the
Barnburners and the anti-proviso ones chosen by the Hunkers. When it came time to vote for the party’s
presidential nominee, the majority of votes were for Lewis Cass, an advocate of popular sovereignty.
Popular sovereignty was the belief that citizens should be able to decide issues based on the principle of
majority rule; in this case, residents of a territory should have the right to decide whether slavery would be
allowed in it. Theoretically, this doctrine would allow slavery to become established in any U.S. territory,
including those from which it had been banned by earlier laws.
Disgusted by the result, the Barnburners united with antislavery Whigs and former members of the
Liberty Party to form a new political party—the Free-Soil Party, which took as its slogan “Free Soil, Free
Speech, Free Labor, and Free Men.” The party had one real goal—to oppose the extension of slavery
into the territories (Figure 11.21). In the minds of its members and many other northerners of the
time, southern slaveholders had marshaled their wealth and power to control national politics for the
purpose of protecting the institution of slavery and extending it into the territories. Many in the Free-Soil
Party believed in this far-reaching conspiracy of the slaveholding elite to control both foreign affairs and
domestic policies for their own ends, a cabal that came to be known as the Slave Power.

Figure 11.21 This political cartoon depicts Martin Van Buren and his son John, both Barnburners, forcing the slavery
issue within the Democratic Party by “smoking out” fellow Democrat Lewis Cass on the roof. Their support of the
Wilmot Proviso and the new Free-Soil Party is demonstrated by John’s declaration, “That’s you Dad! more ‘Free-Soil.’
We'll rat ‘em out yet. Long life to Davy Wilmot.” (credit: Library of Congress)
In the wake of the Mexican War, antislavery sentiment entered mainstream American politics when the
new Free-Soil party promptly selected Martin Van Buren as its presidential candidate. For the first time, a
national political party committed itself to the goal of stopping the expansion of slavery. The Democrats
chose Lewis Cass, and the Whigs nominated General Zachary Taylor, as Polk had assumed they would.
On Election Day, Democrats split their votes between Van Buren and Cass. With the strength of the
Democratic vote diluted, Taylor won. His popularity with the American people served him well, and his
status as a slaveholder helped him win the South.
Click and Explore
Visit the archives of the Gilder Lehrman Institute (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

15GerritSmith) to read an August 1848 letter from Gerrit Smith, a staunch abolitionist,
regarding the Free-Soil candidate, Martin Van Buren. Smith played a major role in the
Liberty Party and was their presidential candidate in 1848.
THE COMPROMISE OF 1850

The election of 1848 did nothing to quell the controversy over whether slavery would advance into the
Mexican Cession. Some slaveholders, like President Taylor, considered the question a moot point because
the lands acquired from Mexico were far too dry for growing cotton and therefore, they thought, no
slaveholder would want to move there. Other southerners, however, argued that the question was not
whether slaveholders would want to move to the lands of the Mexican Cession, but whether they could
and still retain control of their slave property. Denying them the right to freely relocate with their lawful
property was, they maintained, unfair and unconstitutional. Northerners argued, just as fervidly, that
because Mexico had abolished slavery, no slaves currently lived in the Mexican Cession, and to introduce
slavery there would extend it to a new territory, thus furthering the institution and giving the Slave Power
more control over the United States. The strong current of antislavery sentiment—that is, the desire to
protect white labor—only increased the opposition to the expansion of slavery into the West.
Most northerners, except members of the Free-Soil Party, favored popular sovereignty for California and
the New Mexico territory. Many southerners opposed this position, however, for they feared residents
of these regions might choose to outlaw slavery. Some southern politicians spoke ominously of secession
from the United States. Free-Soilers rejected popular sovereignty and demanded that slavery be
permanently excluded from the territories.
Beginning in January 1850, Congress worked for eight months on a compromise that might quiet the
growing sectional conflict. Led by the aged Henry Clay, members finally agreed to the following:
1. California, which was ready to enter the Union, was admitted as a free state in accordance
with its state constitution.
2. Popular sovereignty was to determine the status of slavery in New Mexico and Utah, even
though Utah and part of New Mexico were north of the Missouri Compromise line.
3. The slave trade was banned in the nation’s capital. Slavery, however, was allowed to remain.
4. Under a new fugitive slave law, those who helped runaway slaves or refused to assist in their
return would be fined and possibly imprisoned.
5. The border between Texas and New Mexico was established.
The Compromise of 1850 brought temporary relief. It resolved the issue of slavery in the territories for
the moment and prevented secession. The peace would not last, however. Instead of relieving tensions
between North and South, it had actually made them worse.

Key Terms
alcalde a Mexican official who often served as combined civil administrator, judge, and law enforcement
officer
Barnburners northern Democrats loyal to Martin Van Buren who opposed the extension of slavery into
the territories and broke away from the main party when it nominated a pro-popular sovereignty
candidate
Californios Mexican residents of California
Compromise of 1850 five separate laws passed by Congress in September 1850 to resolve issues
stemming from the Mexican Cession and the sectional crisis
Corps of Discovery the group led by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark on the expedition to explore
and map the territory acquired in the Louisiana Purchase
empresario a person who brought new settlers to Texas in exchange for a grant of land
filibuster a person who engages in an unofficial military operation intended to seize land from foreign
countries or foment revolution there
forty-niners the nickname for those who traveled to California in 1849 in hopes of finding gold
Free-Soil Party a political party that sought to exclude slavery from the western territories, leaving these
areas open for settlement by white farmers and ensuring that white laborers would not have to compete
with slaves
Liberty Party a political party formed in 1840 by those who believed political measures were the best
means by which abolition could be accomplished
Mexican Cession the lands west of the Rio Grande ceded to the United States by Mexico in 1848,
including California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Wyoming and Colorado
Missouri Compromise an agreement reached in Congress in 1820 that allowed Missouri to enter the
Union as a slave state, brought Maine into the Union as a free state, and prohibited slavery north of 36°
30' latitude
Northwest Passage the nonexistent all-water route across the North American continent sought by
European and American explorers
Slave Power a term northerners used to describe the disproportionate influence that they felt elite
southern slaveholders wielded in both domestic and international affairs
Tallmadge Amendment an amendment (which did not pass) proposed by representative James
Tallmadge in 1819 that called for Missouri to be admitted as a free state and for all slaves there to be
gradually emancipated
Tejanos Mexican residents of Texas
Wilmot Proviso an amendment to a revenue bill that would have barred slavery from all the territory
acquired from Mexico
Summary

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson appointed Meriwether Lewis to organize an expedition into the Louisiana
Territory to explore and map the area but also to find an all-water route from the Missouri River to the
Pacific Coast. The Louisiana Purchase and the journey of Lewis and Clark’s Corps of Discovery captured
the imagination of many, who dedicated themselves to the economic exploitation of the western lands
and the expansion of American influence and power. In the South, the Adams-Onís treaty legally secured
Florida for the United States, though it did nothing to end the resistance of the Seminoles against American
expansionists. At the same time, the treaty frustrated those Americans who considered Texas a part of the
Louisiana Purchase. Taking matters into their own hands, some American settlers tried to take Texas by
force.

The Missouri Crisis created a division over slavery that profoundly and ominously shaped sectional
identities and rivalries as never before. Conflict over the uneasy balance between slave and free states
in Congress came to a head when Missouri petitioned to join the Union as a slave state in 1819, and the
debate broadened from simple issues of representation to a critique of the morality of slavery. The debates
also raised the specter of disunion and civil war, leading many, including Thomas Jefferson, to fear for
the future of the republic. Under the Missouri Compromise, Missouri and Maine entered the Union at the
same time, Maine as a free state, Missouri as a slave state, and a line was drawn across the remainder of
the Louisiana territory north of which slavery was forbidden.

The establishment of the Lone Star Republic formed a new chapter in the history of U.S. westward
expansion. In contrast to the addition of the Louisiana Territory through diplomacy with France,
Americans in Texas employed violence against Mexico to achieve their goals. Orchestrated largely by
slaveholders, the acquisition of Texas appeared the next logical step in creating an American empire that
included slavery. Nonetheless, with the Missouri Crisis in mind, the United States refused the Texans’
request to enter the United States as a slave state in 1836. Instead, Texas formed an independent republic
where slavery was legal. But American settlers there continued to press for more land. The strained
relationship between expansionists in Texas and Mexico in the early 1840s hinted of things to come.

President James K. Polk’s administration was a period of intensive expansion for the United States. After
overseeing the final details regarding the annexation of Texas from Mexico, Polk negotiated a peaceful
settlement with Great Britain regarding ownership of the Oregon Country, which brought the United
States what are now the states of Washington and Oregon. The acquisition of additional lands from
Mexico, a country many in the United States perceived as weak and inferior, was not so bloodless. The
Mexican Cession added nearly half of Mexico’s territory to the United States, including New Mexico and
California, and established the U.S.-Mexico border at the Rio Grande. The California Gold Rush rapidly
expanded the population of the new territory, but also prompted concerns over immigration, especially
from China.

The acquisition of lands from Mexico in 1848 reawakened debates regarding slavery. The suggestion that
slavery be barred from the Mexican Cession caused rancorous debate between North and South and
split the Democratic Party when many northern members left to create the Free-Soil Party. Although the

Compromise of 1850 resolved the question of whether slavery would be allowed in the new territories,
the solution pleased no one. The peace brought by the compromise was short-lived, and the debate over
slavery continued.
Review Questions
1. As a result of the Adams-Onís Treaty, the D. 1845
United States gained which territory from Spain?
A. Florida 8. Texans defeated the army of General Antonio
B. New Mexico Lopez de Santa Anna at the battle of ________.
C. California A. the Alamo
D. Nevada B. San Jacinto
C. Nacogdoches
2. The Long Expedition established a short-lived D. Austin
republic in Texas known as ________.
A. the Lone Star Republic 9. How did Texas settlers’ view of Mexico and its
B. the Republic of Texas people contribute to the history of Texas in the
C. Columbiana 1830s?
D. the Republic of Fredonia
10. Which of the following was not a reason the
3. For what purposes did Thomas Jefferson send United States was reluctant to annex Texas?
Lewis and Clark to explore the Louisiana A. The United States did not want to fight a
Territory? What did he want them to accomplish? war with Mexico.
B. Annexing Texas would add more slave
4. A proposal to prohibit the importation of territory to the United States and anger
slaves to Missouri following its admission to the abolitionists.
United States was made by ________. C. Texans considered U.S. citizens inferior and
A. John C. Calhoun did not want to be part of their country.
B. Henry Clay D. Adding Texas would upset the balance
C. James Tallmadge between free and slave states in Congress.
D. John Quincy Adams
11. According to treaties signed in 1818 and 1827,
5. To balance votes in the Senate, ________ was with which country did the United States jointly
admitted to the Union as a free state at the same occupy Oregon?
time that Missouri was admitted as a slave state. A. Great Britain
A. Florida B. Spain
B. Maine C. Mexico
C. New York D. France
D. Arkansas
12. During the war between the United States
6. Why did the Missouri Crisis trigger threats of and Mexico, revolts against U.S. control broke out
disunion and war? Identify the positions of both in ________.
southern slaveholders and northern opponents of A. Florida and Texas
the spread of slavery. B. New Mexico and California
C. California and Texas
7. Texas won its independence from Mexico in D. Florida and California
________.
A. 1821 13. Why did whites in California dislike the
B. 1830 Chinese so much?
C. 1836
14. The practice of allowing residents of A. California was admitted as a free state.
territories to decide whether their land should be B. Slavery was abolished in Washington, DC.
slave or free was called ________. C. A stronger fugitive slave law was passed.
A. the democratic process D. Residents of New Mexico and Utah were to
B. the Wilmot Proviso decide for themselves whether their
C. popular sovereignty territories would be slave or free.
D. the Free Soil solution
16. Describe the events leading up to the
15. Which of the following was not a provision of formation of the Free-Soil Party.
the Compromise of 1850?

17. Consider the role of filibusters in American expansion. What are some arguments in favor of
filibustering? What are some arguments against it?
18. What are the economic and political issues raised by having an imbalance between free and slave
states? Why did the balance of free and slave states matter?
19. How did Anglo-American settlers in Texas see themselves? Did they adopt a Mexican identity because
they were living in Mexican territory? Why or why not?
20. Consider the annexation of Texas and the Mexican-American War from a Mexican perspective. What
would you find objectionable about American actions, foreign policy, and attitudes in the 1840s?
21. Describe the place of Texas in the history of American westward expansion by comparing Texas’s
early history to the Missouri Crisis in 1819–1820. What are the similarities and what are the differences?
22. Consider the arguments over the expansion of slavery made by both northerners and southerners in
the aftermath of the U.S. victory over Mexico. Who had the more compelling case? Or did each side make
equally significant arguments?

Chapter 12 Cotton is King: The Antebellum South, 1800–1860 331
CHAPTER 12
Cotton is King: The Antebellum

South, 1800–1860
Figure 12.1 Bateaux à Vapeur Géant, la Nouvelle-Orléans 1853 (Giant Steamboats at New Orleans, 1853), by
Hippolyte Sebron, shows how New Orleans, at the mouth of the Mississippi River, was the primary trading hub for the
cotton that fueled the growth of the southern economy.
Chapter Outline
12.1 The Economics of Cotton
12.2 African Americans in the Antebellum United States
12.3 Wealth and Culture in the South
12.4 The Filibuster and the Quest for New Slave States
Introduction
Nine new slave states entered the Union between 1789 and 1860, rapidly expanding and transforming the
South into a region of economic growth built on slave labor. In the image above (Figure 12.1), innumerable
slaves load cargo onto a steamship in the Port of New Orleans, the commercial center of the antebellum
South, while two well-dressed white men stand by talking. Commercial activity extends as far as the eye
can see.
By the mid-nineteenth century, southern commercial centers like New Orleans had become home to the
greatest concentration of wealth in the United States. While most white southerners did not own slaves,
they aspired to join the ranks of elite slaveholders, who played a key role in the politics of both the South
and the nation. Meanwhile, slavery shaped the culture and society of the South, which rested on a racial
ideology of white supremacy and a vision of the United States as a white man’s republic. Slaves endured
the traumas of slavery by creating their own culture and using the Christian message of redemption to
find hope for a world of freedom without violence.
332 Chapter 12 Cotton is King: The Antebellum South, 1800–1860

• Explain the labor-intensive processes of cotton production
• Describe the importance of cotton to the Atlantic and American antebellum economy
In the antebellum era—that is, in the years before the Civil War—American planters in the South
continued to grow Chesapeake tobacco and Carolina rice as they had in the colonial era. Cotton, however,
emerged as the antebellum South’s major commercial crop, eclipsing tobacco, rice, and sugar in economic
importance. By 1860, the region was producing two-thirds of the world’s cotton. In 1793, Eli Whitney
revolutionized the production of cotton when he invented the cotton gin, a device that separated the seeds
from raw cotton. Suddenly, a process that was extraordinarily labor-intensive when done by hand could
be completed quickly and easily. American plantation owners, who were searching for a successful staple
crop to compete on the world market, found it in cotton.
As a commodity, cotton had the advantage of being easily stored and transported. A demand for it
already existed in the industrial textile mills in Great Britain, and in time, a steady stream of slave-grown
American cotton would also supply northern textile mills. Southern cotton, picked and processed by
American slaves, helped fuel the nineteenth-century Industrial Revolution in both the United States and
Great Britain.
KING COTTON
Almost no cotton was grown in the United States in 1787, the year the federal constitution was written.
However, following the War of 1812, a huge increase in production resulted in the so-called cotton boom,
and by midcentury, cotton became the key cash crop (a crop grown to sell rather than for the farmer’s sole
use) of the southern economy and the most important American commodity. By 1850, of the 3.2 million
slaves in the country’s fifteen slave states, 1.8 million were producing cotton; by 1860, slave labor was
producing over two billion pounds of cotton per year. Indeed, American cotton soon made up two-thirds
of the global supply, and production continued to soar. By the time of the Civil War, South Carolina
Figure 12.2

politician James Hammond confidently proclaimed that the North could never threaten the South because
“cotton is king.”
The crop grown in the South was a hybrid: Gossypium barbadense, known as Petit Gulf cotton, a mix
of Mexican, Georgia, and Siamese strains. Petit Gulf cotton grew extremely well in different soils and
climates. It dominated cotton production in the Mississippi River Valley—home of the new slave states of
Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri—as well as in other states like Texas.
Whenever new slave states entered the Union, white slaveholders sent armies of slaves to clear the land in
order to grow and pick the lucrative crop. The phrase “to be sold down the river,” used by Harriet Beecher
Stowe in her 1852 novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin, refers to this forced migration from the upper southern states
to the Deep South, lower on the Mississippi, to grow cotton.
The slaves who built this cotton kingdom with their labor started by clearing the land. Although the
Jeffersonian vision of the settlement of new U.S. territories entailed white yeoman farmers single-handedly
carving out small independent farms, the reality proved quite different. Entire old-growth forests and
cypress swamps fell to the axe as slaves labored to strip the vegetation to make way for cotton. With the
land cleared, slaves readied the earth by plowing and planting. To ambitious white planters, the extent of
new land available for cotton production seemed almost limitless, and many planters simply leapfrogged
from one area to the next, abandoning their fields every ten to fifteen years after the soil became exhausted.
Theirs was a world of mobility and restlessness, a constant search for the next area to grow the valuable
crop. Slaves composed the vanguard of this American expansion to the West.
Cotton planting took place in March and April, when slaves planted seeds in rows around three to five
feet apart. Over the next several months, from April to August, they carefully tended the plants. Weeding
the cotton rows took significant energy and time. In August, after the cotton plants had flowered and the
flowers had begun to give way to cotton bolls (the seed-bearing capsule that contains the cotton fiber),
all the plantation’s slaves—men, women, and children—worked together to pick the crop (Figure 12.3).
On each day of cotton picking, slaves went to the fields with sacks, which they would fill as many times
as they could. The effort was laborious, and a white “driver” employed the lash to make slaves work as
quickly as possible.
Figure 12.3 In the late nineteenth century, J. N. Wilson captured this image of harvest time at a southern plantation.
While the workers in this photograph are not slave laborers, the process of cotton harvesting shown here had
changed little from antebellum times.
Cotton planters projected the amount of cotton they could harvest based on the number of slaves under
their control. In general, planters expected a good “hand,” or slave, to work ten acres of land and pick
two hundred pounds of cotton a day. An overseer or master measured each individual slave’s daily yield.
Great pressure existed to meet the expected daily amount, and some masters whipped slaves who picked
less than expected.
Cotton picking occurred as many as seven times a season as the plant grew and continued to produce bolls
through the fall and early winter. During the picking season, slaves worked from sunrise to sunset with
a ten-minute break at lunch; many slaveholders tended to give them little to eat, since spending on food
would cut into their profits. Other slaveholders knew that feeding slaves could increase productivity and
therefore provided what they thought would help ensure a profitable crop. The slaves’ day didn’t end after
they picked the cotton; once they had brought it to the gin house to be weighed, they then had to care for
the animals and perform other chores. Indeed, slaves often maintained their own gardens and livestock,
which they tended after working the cotton fields, in order to supplement their supply of food.
Sometimes the cotton was dried before it was ginned (put through the process of separating the seeds from
the cotton fiber). The cotton gin allowed a slave to remove the seeds from fifty pounds of cotton a day,
compared to one pound if done by hand. After the seeds had been removed, the cotton was pressed into
bales. These bales, weighing about four hundred to five hundred pounds, were wrapped in burlap cloth
and sent down the Mississippi River.
Click and Explore
Visit the Internet Archive (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15LoadCotton) to watch a

1937 WPA film showing cotton bales being loaded onto a steamboat.
As the cotton industry boomed in the South, the Mississippi River quickly became the essential water
highway in the United States. Steamboats, a crucial part of the transportation revolution thanks to their
enormous freight-carrying capacity and ability to navigate shallow waterways, became a defining
component of the cotton kingdom. Steamboats also illustrated the class and social distinctions of the
antebellum age. While the decks carried precious cargo, ornate rooms graced the interior. In these spaces,
whites socialized in the ship’s saloons and dining halls while black slaves served them (Figure 12.4).

Figure 12.4 As in this depiction of the saloon of the Mississippi River steamboat Princess, elegant and luxurious
rooms often occupied the interiors of antebellum steamships, whose decks were filled with cargo.
Investors poured huge sums into steamships. In 1817, only seventeen plied the waters of western rivers,
but by 1837, there were over seven hundred steamships in operation. Major new ports developed at St.
Louis, Missouri; Memphis, Tennessee; and other locations. By 1860, some thirty-five hundred vessels were
steaming in and out of New Orleans, carrying an annual cargo made up primarily of cotton that amounted
to $220 million worth of goods (approximately $6.5 billion in 2014 dollars).
New Orleans had been part of the French empire before the United States purchased it, along with the
rest of the Louisiana Territory, in 1803. In the first half of the nineteenth century, it rose in prominence
and importance largely because of the cotton boom, steam-powered river traffic, and its strategic position
near the mouth of the Mississippi River. Steamboats moved down the river transporting cotton grown on
plantations along the river and throughout the South to the port at New Orleans. From there, the bulk
of American cotton went to Liverpool, England, where it was sold to British manufacturers who ran the
cotton mills in Manchester and elsewhere. This lucrative international trade brought new wealth and new
residents to the city. By 1840, New Orleans alone had 12 percent of the nation’s total banking capital,
and visitors often commented on the great cultural diversity of the city. In 1835, Joseph Holt Ingraham
wrote: “Truly does New-Orleans represent every other city and nation upon earth. I know of none where
is congregated so great a variety of the human species.” Slaves, cotton, and the steamship transformed the
city from a relatively isolated corner of North America in the eighteenth century to a thriving metropolis
that rivaled New York in importance (Figure 12.5).
Figure 12.5 This print of The Levee - New Orleans (1884) shows the bustling port of New Orleans with bales of
cotton waiting to be shipped. The sheer volume of cotton indicates its economic importance throughout the century.
THE DOMESTIC SLAVE TRADE

The South’s dependence on cotton was matched by its dependence on slaves to harvest the cotton. Despite
the rhetoric of the Revolution that “all men are created equal,” slavery not only endured in the American
republic but formed the very foundation of the country’s economic success. Cotton and slavery occupied
a central—and intertwined—place in the nineteenth-century economy.
In 1807, the U.S. Congress abolished the foreign slave trade, a ban that went into effect on January 1,
1808. After this date, importing slaves from Africa became illegal in the United States. While smuggling
continued to occur, the end of the international slave trade meant that domestic slaves were in very high
demand. Fortunately for Americans whose wealth depended upon the exploitation of slave labor, a fall in
the price of tobacco had caused landowners in the Upper South to reduce their production of this crop and
use more of their land to grow wheat, which was far more profitable. While tobacco was a labor-intensive
crop that required many people to cultivate it, wheat was not. Former tobacco farmers in the older states of
Virginia and Maryland found themselves with “surplus” slaves whom they were obligated to feed, clothe,
and shelter. Some slaveholders responded to this situation by freeing slaves; far more decided to sell their
excess bondsmen. Virginia and Maryland therefore took the lead in the domestic slave trade, the trading
of slaves within the borders of the United States.
The domestic slave trade offered many economic opportunities for white men. Those who sold their
slaves could realize great profits, as could the slave brokers who served as middlemen between sellers
and buyers. Other white men could benefit from the trade as owners of warehouses and pens in which
slaves were held, or as suppliers of clothing and food for slaves on the move. Between 1790 and 1859,
slaveholders in Virginia sold more than half a million slaves. In the early part of this period, many
of these slaves were sold to people living in Kentucky, Tennessee, and North and South Carolina. By
the 1820s, however, people in Kentucky and the Carolinas had begun to sell many of their slaves as
well. Maryland slave dealers sold at least 185,000 slaves. Kentucky slaveholders sold some seventy-one
thousand individuals. Most of the slave traders carried these slaves further south to Alabama, Louisiana,
and Mississippi. New Orleans, the hub of commerce, boasted the largest slave market in the United States
and grew to become the nation’s fourth-largest city as a result. Natchez, Mississippi, had the second-largest
market. In Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas, and elsewhere in the South, slave auctions happened every
day.
All told, the movement of slaves in the South made up one of the largest forced internal migrations in the
United States. In each of the decades between 1820 and 1860, about 200,000 people were sold and relocated.
The 1800 census recorded over one million African Americans, of which nearly 900,000 were slaves. By
1860, the total number of African Americans increased to 4.4 million, and of that number, 3.95 million were

held in bondage. For many slaves, the domestic slave trade incited the terror of being sold away from
family and friends.
MY STORY
Solomon Northup Remembers the New Orleans Slave Market
Solomon Northup was a free black man living in Saratoga, New York, when he was kidnapped and
sold into slavery in 1841. He later escaped and wrote a book about his experiences: Twelve Years a
Slave. Narrative of Solomon Northup, a Citizen of New-York, Kidnapped in Washington City in 1841 and
Rescued in 1853 (the basis of a 2013 Academy Award–winning film). This excerpt derives from Northup’s
description of being sold in New Orleans, along with fellow slave Eliza and her children Randall and
Emily.
One old gentleman, who said he wanted a coachman, appeared to take a fancy to me. . . .
The same man also purchased Randall. The little fellow was made to jump, and run across
the floor, and perform many other feats, exhibiting his activity and condition. All the time the
trade was going on, Eliza was crying aloud, and wringing her hands. She besought the man
not to buy him, unless he also bought her self and Emily. . . . Freeman turned round to her,
savagely, with his whip in his uplifted hand, ordering her to stop her noise, or he would flog
her. He would not have such work—such snivelling; and unless she ceased that minute, he
would take her to the yard and give her a hundred lashes. . . . Eliza shrunk before him, and
tried to wipe away her tears, but it was all in vain. She wanted to be with her children, she
said, the little time she had to live. All the frowns and threats of Freeman, could not wholly
silence the afflicted mother.
What does Northup’s narrative tell you about the experience of being a slave? How does he characterize
Freeman, the slave trader? How does he characterize Eliza?
THE SOUTH IN THE AMERICAN AND WORLD MARKETS

The first half of the nineteenth century saw a market revolution in the United States, one in which
industrialization brought changes to both the production and the consumption of goods. Some southerners
of the time believed that their region’s reliance on a single cash crop and its use of slaves to produce it gave
the South economic independence and made it immune from the effects of these changes, but this was far
from the truth. Indeed, the production of cotton brought the South more firmly into the larger American
and Atlantic markets. Northern mills depended on the South for supplies of raw cotton that was then
converted into textiles. But this domestic cotton market paled in comparison to the Atlantic market. About
75 percent of the cotton produced in the United States was eventually exported abroad. Exporting at such
high volumes made the United States the undisputed world leader in cotton production. Between the years
1820 and 1860, approximately 80 percent of the global cotton supply was produced in the United States.
Nearly all the exported cotton was shipped to Great Britain, fueling its burgeoning textile industry and
making the powerful British Empire increasingly dependent on American cotton and southern slavery.
The power of cotton on the world market may have brought wealth to the South, but it also increased its
economic dependence on other countries and other parts of the United States. Much of the corn and pork
that slaves consumed came from farms in the West. Some of the inexpensive clothing, called “slops,” and
shoes worn by slaves were manufactured in the North. The North also supplied the furnishings found in
the homes of both wealthy planters and members of the middle class. Many of the trappings of domestic
life, such as carpets, lamps, dinnerware, upholstered furniture, books, and musical instruments—all the
accoutrements of comfortable living for southern whites—were made in either the North or Europe.
Southern planters also borrowed money from banks in northern cities, and in the southern summers, took
advantage of the developments in transportation to travel to resorts at Saratoga, New York; Litchfield,
Connecticut; and Newport, Rhode Island.

• Discuss the similarities and differences in the lives of slaves and free blacks
• Describe the independent culture and customs that slaves developed
In addition to cotton, the great commodity of the antebellum South was human chattel. Slavery was the
cornerstone of the southern economy. By 1850, about 3.2 million slaves labored in the United States, 1.8
million of whom worked in the cotton fields. Slaves faced arbitrary power abuses from whites; they coped
by creating family and community networks. Storytelling, song, and Christianity also provided solace and
allowed slaves to develop their own interpretations of their condition.
LIFE AS A SLAVE
Southern whites frequently relied upon the idea of paternalism—the premise that white slaveholders
acted in the best interests of slaves, taking responsibility for their care, feeding, discipline, and even their
Christian morality—to justify the existence of slavery. This grossly misrepresented the reality of slavery,
which was, by any measure, a dehumanizing, traumatizing, and horrifying human disaster and crime
against humanity. Nevertheless, slaves were hardly passive victims of their conditions; they sought and
found myriad ways to resist their shackles and develop their own communities and cultures.
Slaves often used the notion of paternalism to their advantage, finding opportunities within this system to
engage in acts of resistance and win a degree of freedom and autonomy. For example, some slaves played
into their masters’ racism by hiding their intelligence and feigning childishness and ignorance. The slaves
could then slow down the workday and sabotage the system in small ways by “accidentally” breaking
tools, for example; the master, seeing his slaves as unsophisticated and childlike, would believe these
incidents were accidents rather than rebellions. Some slaves engaged in more dramatic forms of resistance,
such as poisoning their masters slowly. Other slaves reported rebellious slaves to their masters, hoping to
gain preferential treatment. Slaves who informed their masters about planned slave rebellions could often
expect the slaveholder’s gratitude and, perhaps, more lenient treatment. Such expectations were always
tempered by the individual personality and caprice of the master.
Slaveholders used both psychological coercion and physical violence to prevent slaves from disobeying
their wishes. Often, the most efficient way to discipline slaves was to threaten to sell them. The lash, while
the most common form of punishment, was effective but not efficient; whippings sometimes left slaves
incapacitated or even dead. Slave masters also used punishment gear like neck braces, balls and chains,
leg irons, and paddles with holes to produce blood blisters. Slaves lived in constant terror of both physical
violence and separation from family and friends (Figure 12.6).

Figure 12.6 The original caption of this photograph of a slave’s scarred back (a), taken in Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
in 1863, reads as follows: “Overseer Artayou Carrier whipped me. I was two months in bed sore from the whipping.
My master come after I was whipped; he discharged the overseer. The very words of poor Peter, taken as he sat for
his picture.” Images like this one helped bolster the northern abolitionist message of the inhumanity of slavery. The
drawing of an iron mask, collar, leg shackles, and spurs (b) demonstrates the various cruel and painful instruments
used to restrain slaves.
Under southern law, slaves could not marry. Nonetheless, some slaveholders allowed marriages to
promote the birth of children and to foster harmony on plantations. Some masters even forced certain
slaves to form unions, anticipating the birth of more children (and consequently greater profits) from them.
Masters sometimes allowed slaves to choose their own partners, but they could also veto a match. Slave
couples always faced the prospect of being sold away from each other, and, once they had children, the
horrifying reality that their children could be sold and sent away at any time.
Click and Explore
Browse a collection of first-hand narratives of slaves and former slaves at the National
Humanities Center (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Enslavement) to learn more
about the experience of slavery.
Slave parents had to show their children the best way to survive under slavery. This meant teaching
them to be discreet, submissive, and guarded around whites. Parents also taught their children through
the stories they told. Popular stories among slaves included tales of tricksters, sly slaves, or animals like
Brer Rabbit, who outwitted their antagonists (Figure 12.7). Such stories provided comfort in humor and
conveyed the slaves’ sense of the wrongs of slavery. Slaves’ work songs commented on the harshness of
their life and often had double meanings—a literal meaning that whites would not find offensive and a
deeper meaning for slaves.
Figure 12.7 Brer Rabbit, depicted here in an illustration from Uncle Remus, His Songs and His Sayings: The Folk-
Lore of the Old Plantation (1881) by Joel Chandler Harris, was a trickster who outwitted his opponents.
African beliefs, including ideas about the spiritual world and the importance of African healers, survived
in the South as well. Whites who became aware of non-Christian rituals among slaves labeled such
practices as witchcraft. Among Africans, however, the rituals and use of various plants by respected slave
healers created connections between the African past and the American South while also providing a sense
of community and identity for slaves. Other African customs, including traditional naming patterns, the
making of baskets, and the cultivation of certain native African plants that had been brought to the New
World, also endured.

AMERICANA
African Americans and Christian Spirituals
Many slaves embraced Christianity. Their masters emphasized a scriptural message of obedience to
whites and a better day awaiting slaves in heaven, but slaves focused on the uplifting message of being
freed from bondage.
The styles of worship in the Methodist and Baptist churches, which emphasized emotional responses to
scripture, attracted slaves to those traditions and inspired some to become preachers. Spiritual songs
that referenced the Exodus (the biblical account of the Hebrews’ escape from slavery in Egypt), such
as “Roll, Jordan, Roll,” allowed slaves to freely express messages of hope, struggle, and overcoming
adversity (Figure 12.8).
Figure 12.8 This version of “Roll, Jordan, Roll” was included in Slave Songs of the United States, the
first published collection of African American music, which appeared in 1867.
What imagery might the Jordan River suggest to slaves working in the Deep South? What lyrics in this
song suggest redemption and a better world ahead?
Click and Explore
Listen to a rendition of “Roll, Jordan, Roll” (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

15RollJordan) from the movie based on Solomon Northup’s memoir and life.
THE FREE BLACK POPULATION

Complicating the picture of the antebellum South was the existence of a large free black population. In fact,
more free blacks lived in the South than in the North; roughly 261,000 lived in slave states, while 226,000
lived in northern states without slavery. Most free blacks did not live in the Lower, or Deep South: the
states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas. Instead,
the largest number lived in the upper southern states of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina,
and later Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia.
Part of the reason for the large number of free blacks living in slave states were the many instances of
manumission—the formal granting of freedom to slaves—that occurred as a result of the Revolution, when
many slaveholders put into action the ideal that “all men are created equal” and freed their slaves. The
transition in the Upper South to the staple crop of wheat, which did not require large numbers of slaves
to produce, also spurred manumissions. Another large group of free blacks in the South had been free
residents of Louisiana before the 1803 Louisiana Purchase, while still other free blacks came from Cuba
and Haiti.
Most free blacks in the South lived in cities, and a majority of free blacks were lighter-skinned women,
a reflection of the interracial unions that formed between white men and black women. Everywhere in
the United States blackness had come to be associated with slavery, the station at the bottom of the social
ladder. Both whites and those with African ancestry tended to delineate varying degrees of lightness in
skin color in a social hierarchy. In the slaveholding South, different names described one’s distance from
blackness or whiteness: mulattos (those with one black and one white parent), quadroons (those with
one black grandparent), and octoroons (those with one black great-grandparent) (Figure 12.9). Lighter-
skinned blacks often looked down on their darker counterparts, an indication of the ways in which both
whites and blacks internalized the racism of the age.
Figure 12.9 In this late eighteenth-century painting, a free woman of color stands with her quadroon daughter in
New Orleans. Families with members that had widely varying ethnic characteristics were not uncommon at the time,
especially in the larger cities.
Some free blacks in the South owned slaves of their own. Andrew Durnford, for example, was born in
New Orleans in 1800, three years before the Louisiana Purchase. His father was white, and his mother was
a free black. Durnford became an American citizen after the Louisiana Purchase, rising to prominence as
a Louisiana sugar planter and slaveholder. William Ellison, another free black who amassed great wealth
and power in the South, was born a slave in 1790 in South Carolina. After buying his freedom and that of
his wife and daughter, he proceeded to purchase his own slaves, whom he then put to work manufacturing
cotton gins. By the eve of the Civil War, Ellison had become one of the richest and largest slaveholders in
the entire state.
The phenomenon of free blacks amassing large fortunes within a slave society predicated on racial
difference, however, was exceedingly rare. Most free blacks in the South lived under the specter of slavery
and faced many obstacles. Beginning in the early nineteenth century, southern states increasingly made
manumission of slaves illegal. They also devised laws that divested free blacks of their rights, such as the
right to testify against whites in court or the right to seek employment where they pleased. Interestingly,
it was in the upper southern states that such laws were the harshest. In Virginia, for example, legislators
made efforts to require free blacks to leave the state. In parts of the Deep South, free blacks were able to

maintain their rights more easily. The difference in treatment between free blacks in the Deep South and
those in the Upper South, historians have surmised, came down to economics. In the Deep South, slavery
as an institution was strong and profitable. In the Upper South, the opposite was true. The anxiety of this
economic uncertainty manifested in the form of harsh laws that targeted free blacks.
SLAVE REVOLTS
Slaves resisted their enslavement in small ways every day, but this resistance did not usually translate
into mass uprisings. Slaves understood that the chances of ending slavery through rebellion were slim
and would likely result in massive retaliation; many also feared the risk that participating in such actions
would pose to themselves and their families. White slaveholders, however, constantly feared uprisings
and took drastic steps, including torture and mutilation, whenever they believed that rebellions might be
simmering. Gripped by the fear of insurrection, whites often imagined revolts to be in the works even
when no uprising actually happened.
At least two major slave uprisings did occur in the antebellum South. In 1811, a major rebellion broke out
in the sugar parishes of the booming territory of Louisiana. Inspired by the successful overthrow of the
white planter class in Haiti, Louisiana slaves took up arms against planters. Perhaps as many five hundred
slaves joined the rebellion, led by Charles Deslondes, a mixed-race slave driver on a sugar plantation
owned by Manuel Andry.
The revolt began in January 1811 on Andry’s plantation. Deslondes and other slaves attacked the Andry
household, where they killed the slave master’s son (although Andry himself escaped). The rebels then
began traveling toward New Orleans, armed with weapons gathered at Andry’s plantation. Whites
mobilized to stop the rebellion, but not before Deslondes and the other rebelling slaves set fire to three
plantations and killed numerous whites. A small white force led by Andry ultimately captured Deslondes,
whose body was mutilated and burned following his execution. Other slave rebels were beheaded, and
their heads placed on pikes along the Mississippi River.
The second rebellion, led by the slave Nat Turner, occurred in 1831 in Southampton County, Virginia.
Turner had suffered not only from personal enslavement, but also from the additional trauma of having his
wife sold away from him. Bolstered by Christianity, Turner became convinced that like Christ, he should
lay down his life to end slavery. Mustering his relatives and friends, he began the rebellion August 22,
killing scores of whites in the county. Whites mobilized quickly and within forty-eight hours had brought
the rebellion to an end. Shocked by Nat Turner’s Rebellion, Virginia’s state legislature considered ending
slavery in the state in order to provide greater security. In the end, legislators decided slavery would
remain and that their state would continue to play a key role in the domestic slave trade.
SLAVE MARKETS
As discussed above, after centuries of slave trade with West Africa, Congress banned the further
importation of slaves beginning in 1808. The domestic slave trade then expanded rapidly. As the cotton
trade grew in size and importance, so did the domestic slave trade; the cultivation of cotton gave new life
and importance to slavery, increasing the value of slaves. To meet the South’s fierce demand for labor,
American smugglers illegally transferred slaves through Florida and later through Texas. Many more
slaves arrived illegally from Cuba; indeed, Cubans relied on the smuggling of slaves to prop up their
finances. The largest number of slaves after 1808, however, came from the massive, legal internal slave
market in which slave states in the Upper South sold enslaved men, women, and children to states in the
Lower South. For slaves, the domestic trade presented the full horrors of slavery as children were ripped
from their mothers and fathers and families destroyed, creating heartbreak and alienation.
Some slaveholders sought to increase the number of slave children by placing male slaves with fertile
female slaves, and slave masters routinely raped their female slaves. The resulting births played an
important role in slavery’s expansion in the first half of the nineteenth century, as many slave children
were born as a result of rape. One account written by a slave named William J. Anderson captures
the horror of sexual exploitation in the antebellum South. Anderson wrote about how a Mississippi
slaveholder
divested a poor female slave of all wearing apparel, tied her down to stakes, and whipped
her with a handsaw until he broke it over her naked body. In process of time he ravished
[raped] her person, and became the father of a child by her. Besides, he always kept a colored
Miss in the house with him. This is another curse of Slavery—concubinage and illegitimate
connections—which is carried on to an alarming extent in the far South. A poor slave man who
lives close by his wife, is permitted to visit her but very seldom, and other men, both white and
colored, cohabit with her. It is undoubtedly the worst place of incest and bigamy in the world. A
white man thinks nothing of putting a colored man out to carry the fore row [front row in field
work], and carry on the same sport with the colored man’s wife at the same time.
Anderson, a devout Christian, recognized and explains in his narrative that one of the evils of slavery is
the way it undermines the family. Anderson was not the only critic of slavery to emphasize this point.
Frederick Douglass, a Maryland slave who escaped to the North in 1838, elaborated on this dimension of
slavery in his 1845 narrative. He recounted how slave masters had to sell their own children whom they
had with slave women to appease the white wives who despised their offspring.
The selling of slaves was a major business enterprise in the antebellum South, representing a key part of
the economy. White men invested substantial sums in slaves, carefully calculating the annual returns they
could expect from a slave as well as the possibility of greater profits through natural increase. The domestic
slave trade was highly visible, and like the infamous Middle Passage that brought captive Africans to
the Americas, it constituted an equally disruptive and horrifying journey now called the second middle
passage. Between 1820 and 1860, white American traders sold a million or more slaves in the domestic
slave market. Groups of slaves were transported by ship from places like Virginia, a state that specialized
in raising slaves for sale, to New Orleans, where they were sold to planters in the Mississippi Valley. Other
slaves made the overland trek from older states like North Carolina to new and booming Deep South states
like Alabama.
New Orleans had the largest slave market in the United States (Figure 12.10). Slaveholders brought their
slaves there from the East (Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas) and the West (Tennessee and Kentucky)
to be sold for work in the Mississippi Valley. The slave trade benefited whites in the Chesapeake and
Carolinas, providing them with extra income: A healthy young male slave in the 1850s could be sold for
$1,000 (approximately $30,000 in 2014 dollars), and a planter who could sell ten such slaves collected a
windfall.
Figure 12.10 In Sale of Estates, Pictures and Slaves in the Rotunda, New Orleans (1853) by J. M. Starling, it is
clear that slaves are considered property to be auctioned off, just like pictures or other items.

In fact, by the 1850s, the demand for slaves reached an all-time high, and prices therefore doubled. A slave
who would have sold for $400 in the 1820s could command a price of $800 in the 1850s. The high price of
slaves in the 1850s and the inability of natural increase to satisfy demands led some southerners to demand
the reopening of the international slave trade, a movement that caused a rift between the Upper South
and the Lower South. Whites in the Upper South who sold slaves to their counterparts in the Lower South
worried that reopening the trade would lower prices and therefore hurt their profits.
MY STORY
John Brown on Slave Life in Georgia
A slave named John Brown lived in Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia before he escaped and moved
to England. While there, he dictated his autobiography to someone at the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery
Society, who published it in 1855.
I really thought my mother would have died of grief at being obliged to leave her two children,
her mother, and her relations behind. But it was of no use lamenting, the few things we had
were put together that night, and we completed our preparations for being parted for life by
kissing one another over and over again, and saying good bye till some of us little ones fell
asleep. . . . And here I may as well tell what kind of man our new master was. He was of small
stature, and thin, but very strong. He had sandy hair, a very red face, and chewed tobacco.
His countenance had a very cruel expression, and his disposition was a match for it. He was,
indeed, a very bad man, and used to flog us dreadfully. He would make his slaves work on
one meal a day, until quite night, and after supper, set them to burn brush or spin cotton. We
worked from four in the morning till twelve before we broke our fast, and from that time till
eleven or twelve at night . . . we labored eighteen hours a day.
—John Brown, Slave Life in Georgia: A Narrative of the Life, Sufferings, and Escape of John
Brown, A Fugitive Slave, Now in England, 1855
What features of the domestic slave trade does Brown’s narrative illuminate? Why do you think he
brought his story to an antislavery society? How do you think people responded to this narrative?
Click and Explore
Read through several narratives at “Born in Slavery,” part of the American Memory
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15BornSlavery) collection at the Library of Congress.
Do these narratives have anything in common? What differences can you find between
them?

• Assess the distribution of wealth in the antebellum South
• Describe the southern culture of honor
• Identify the main proslavery arguments in the years prior to the Civil War
During the antebellum years, wealthy southern planters formed an elite master class that wielded most
of the economic and political power of the region. They created their own standards of gentility and
honor, defining ideals of southern white manhood and womanhood and shaping the culture of the South.
To defend the system of forced labor on which their economic survival and genteel lifestyles depended,
elite southerners developed several proslavery arguments that they levied at those who would see the
institution dismantled.
SLAVERY AND THE WHITE CLASS STRUCTURE

The South prospered, but its wealth was very unequally distributed. Upward social mobility did not
exist for the millions of slaves who produced a good portion of the nation’s wealth, while poor southern
whites envisioned a day when they might rise enough in the world to own slaves of their own. Because
of the cotton boom, there were more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi River Valley by 1860 than
anywhere else in the United States. However, in that same year, only 3 percent of whites owned more than
fifty slaves, and two-thirds of white households in the South did not own any slaves at all (Figure 12.11).
Distribution of wealth in the South became less democratic over time; fewer whites owned slaves in 1860
than in 1840.
Figure 12.11 As the wealth of the antebellum South increased, it also became more unequally distributed, and an
ever-smaller percentage of slaveholders held a substantial number of slaves.
At the top of southern white society stood the planter elite, which comprised two groups. In the Upper
South, an aristocratic gentry, generation upon generation of whom had grown up with slavery, held a
privileged place. In the Deep South, an elite group of slaveholders gained new wealth from cotton. Some
members of this group hailed from established families in the eastern states (Virginia and the Carolinas),
while others came from humbler backgrounds. South Carolinian Nathaniel Heyward, a wealthy rice
planter and member of the aristocratic gentry, came from an established family and sat atop the pyramid
of southern slaveholders. He amassed an enormous estate; in 1850, he owned more than eighteen hundred
slaves. When he died in 1851, he left an estate worth more than $2 million (approximately $63 million in
2014 dollars).
As cotton production increased, new wealth flowed to the cotton planters. These planters became the
staunchest defenders of slavery, and as their wealth grew, they gained considerable political power.

One member of the planter elite was Edward Lloyd V, who came from an established and wealthy family
of Talbot County, Maryland. Lloyd had inherited his position rather than rising to it through his own
labors. His hundreds of slaves formed a crucial part of his wealth. Like many of the planter elite, Lloyd’s
plantation was a masterpiece of elegant architecture and gardens (Figure 12.12).
Figure 12.12 The grand house of Edward Lloyd V advertised the status and wealth of its owner. In its heyday, the
Lloyd family’s plantation boasted holdings of forty-two thousand acres and one thousand slaves.
One of the slaves on Lloyd’s plantation was Frederick Douglass, who escaped in 1838 and became an
abolitionist leader, writer, statesman, and orator in the North. In his autobiography, Douglass described
the plantation’s elaborate gardens and racehorses, but also its underfed and brutalized slave population.
Lloyd provided employment opportunities to other whites in Talbot County, many of whom served
as slave traders and the “slave breakers” entrusted with beating and overworking unruly slaves into
submission. Like other members of the planter elite, Lloyd himself served in a variety of local and
national political offices. He was governor of Maryland from 1809 to 1811, a member of the House of
Representatives from 1807 to 1809, and a senator from 1819 to 1826. As a representative and a senator,
Lloyd defended slavery as the foundation of the American economy.
Wealthy plantation owners like Lloyd came close to forming an American ruling class in the years before
the Civil War. They helped shape foreign and domestic policy with one goal in view: to expand the
power and reach of the cotton kingdom of the South. Socially, they cultivated a refined manner and
believed whites, especially members of their class, should not perform manual labor. Rather, they created
an identity for themselves based on a world of leisure in which horse racing and entertainment mattered
greatly, and where the enslavement of others was the bedrock of civilization.
Below the wealthy planters were the yeoman farmers, or small landowners (Figure 12.13). Below yeomen
were poor, landless whites, who made up the majority of whites in the South. These landless white men
dreamed of owning land and slaves and served as slave overseers, drivers, and traders in the southern
economy. In fact, owning land and slaves provided one of the only opportunities for upward social and
economic mobility. In the South, living the American dream meant possessing slaves, producing cotton,
and owning land.
Figure 12.13 In this painting by Felix Octavius Carr Darley, a yeoman farmer carrying a scythe follows his livestock
down the road.
Despite this unequal distribution of wealth, non-slaveholding whites shared with white planters a
common set of values, most notably a belief in white supremacy. Whites, whether rich or poor, were bound
together by racism. Slavery defused class tensions among them, because no matter how poor they were,
white southerners had race in common with the mighty plantation owners. Non-slaveholders accepted the
rule of the planters as defenders of their shared interest in maintaining a racial hierarchy. Significantly, all
whites were also bound together by the constant, prevailing fear of slave uprisings.
MY STORY
D. R. Hundley on the Southern Yeoman
D. R. Hundley was a well-educated planter, lawyer, and banker from Alabama. Something of an amateur
sociologist, he argued against the common northern assumption that the South was made up exclusively
of two tiers of white residents: the very wealthy planter class and the very poor landless whites. In his
1860 book, Social Relations in Our Southern States, Hundley describes what he calls the “Southern
Yeomen,” a social group he insists is roughly equivalent to the middle-class farmers of the North.
But you have no Yeomen in the South, my dear Sir? Beg your pardon, our dear Sir, but
we have—hosts of them. I thought you had only poor White Trash? Yes, we dare say as
much—and that the moon is made of green cheese! . . . Know, then, that the Poor Whites
of the South constitute a separate class to themselves; the Southern Yeomen are as distinct
from them as the Southern Gentleman is from the Cotton Snob. Certainly the Southern
Yeomen are nearly always poor, at least so far as this world’s goods are to be taken into
account. As a general thing they own no slaves; and even in case they do, the wealthiest
of them rarely possess more than from ten to fifteen. . . . The Southern Yeoman much
resembles in his speech, religious opinions, household arrangements, indoor sports, and
family traditions, the middle class farmers of the Northern States. He is fully as intelligent as
the latter, and is on the whole much better versed in the lore of politics and the provisions
of our Federal and State Constitutions. . . . [A]lthough not as a class pecuniarily interested
in slave property, the Southern Yeomanry are almost unanimously pro-slavery in sentiment.
Nor do we see how any honest, thoughtful person can reasonably find fault with them on this
account.
—D. R. Hundley, Social Relations in Our Southern States, 1860
What elements of social relations in the South is Hundley attempting to emphasize for his readers? In
what respects might his position as an educated and wealthy planter influence his understanding of social
relations in the South?

Because race bound all whites together as members of the master race, non-slaveholding whites took part
in civil duties. They served on juries and voted. They also engaged in the daily rounds of maintaining
slavery by serving on neighborhood patrols to ensure that slaves did not escape and that rebellions did not
occur. The practical consequence of such activities was that the institution of slavery, and its perpetuation,
became a source of commonality among different economic and social tiers that otherwise were separated
by a gulf of difference.
Southern planters exerted a powerful influence on the federal government. Seven of the first eleven
presidents owned slaves, and more than half of the Supreme Court justices who served on the court
from its inception to the Civil War came from slaveholding states. However, southern white yeoman
farmers generally did not support an active federal government. They were suspicious of the state bank
and supported President Jackson’s dismantling of the Second Bank of the United States. They also did
not support taxes to create internal improvements such as canals and railroads; to them, government
involvement in the economic life of the nation disrupted what they perceived as the natural workings of
the economy. They also feared a strong national government might tamper with slavery.
Planters operated within a larger capitalist society, but the labor system they used to produce goods—that
is, slavery—was similar to systems that existed before capitalism, such as feudalism and serfdom. Under
capitalism, free workers are paid for their labor (by owners of capital) to produce commodities; the money
from the sale of the goods is used to pay for the work performed. As slaves did not reap any earnings from
their forced labor, some economic historians consider the antebellum plantation system a “pre-capitalist”
system.
HONOR IN THE SOUTH

A complicated code of honor among privileged white southerners, dictating the beliefs and behavior of
“gentlemen” and “ladies,” developed in the antebellum years. Maintaining appearances and reputation
was supremely important. It can be argued that, as in many societies, the concept of honor in the
antebellum South had much to do with control over dependents, whether slaves, wives, or relatives.
Defending their honor and ensuring that they received proper respect became preoccupations of whites
in the slaveholding South. To question another man’s assertions was to call his honor and reputation into
question. Insults in the form of words or behavior, such as calling someone a coward, could trigger a
rupture that might well end on the dueling ground (Figure 12.14). Dueling had largely disappeared in the
antebellum North by the early nineteenth century, but it remained an important part of the southern code
of honor through the Civil War years. Southern white men, especially those of high social status, settled
their differences with duels, before which antagonists usually attempted reconciliation, often through the
exchange of letters addressing the alleged insult. If the challenger was not satisfied by the exchange, a duel
would often result.
Figure 12.14 “The Modern Tribunal and Arbiter of Men’s Differences,” an illustration that appeared on the cover of
The Mascot, a newspaper published in nineteenth-century New Orleans, reveals the importance of dueling in
southern culture; it shows men bowing before an altar on which are laid a pistol and knife.
The dispute between South Carolina’s James Hammond and his erstwhile friend (and brother-in-law)
Wade Hampton II illustrates the southern culture of honor and the place of the duel in that culture. A
strong friendship bound Hammond and Hampton together. Both stood at the top of South Carolina’s
society as successful, married plantation owners involved in state politics. Prior to his election as governor
of the state in 1842, Hammond became sexually involved with each of Hampton’s four teenage daughters,
who were his nieces by marriage. “[A]ll of them rushing on every occasion into my arms,” Hammond
confided in his private diary, “covering me with kisses, lolling on my lap, pressing their bodies almost
into mine . . . and permitting my hands to stray unchecked.” Hampton found out about these dalliances,
and in keeping with the code of honor, could have demanded a duel with Hammond. However, Hampton
instead tried to use the liaisons to destroy his former friend politically. This effort proved disastrous for
Hampton, because it represented a violation of the southern code of honor. “As matters now stand,”
Hammond wrote, “he [Hampton] is a convicted dastard who, not having nerve to redress his own wrongs,
put forward bullies to do it for him. . . . To challenge me [to a duel] would be to throw himself upon
my mercy for he knows I am not bound to meet him [for a duel].” Because Hampton’s behavior marked
him as a man who lacked honor, Hammond was no longer bound to meet Hampton in a duel even if
Hampton were to demand one. Hammond’s reputation, though tarnished, remained high in the esteem of
South Carolinians, and the governor went on to serve as a U.S. senator from 1857 to 1860. As for the four
Hampton daughters, they never married; their names were disgraced, not only by the whispered-about
scandal but by their father’s actions in response to it; and no man of honor in South Carolina would stoop
so low as to marry them.
GENDER AND THE SOUTHERN HOUSEHOLD

The antebellum South was an especially male-dominated society. Far more than in the North, southern
men, particularly wealthy planters, were patriarchs and sovereigns of their own household. Among
the white members of the household, labor and daily ritual conformed to rigid gender delineations.
Men represented their household in the larger world of politics, business, and war. Within the family,
the patriarchal male was the ultimate authority. White women were relegated to the household and
lived under the thumb and protection of the male patriarch. The ideal southern lady conformed to her
prescribed gender role, a role that was largely domestic and subservient. While responsibilities and

experiences varied across different social tiers, women’s subordinate state in relation to the male patriarch
remained the same.
Writers in the antebellum period were fond of celebrating the image of the ideal southern woman (Figure
12.15). One such writer, Thomas Roderick Dew, president of Virginia’s College of William and Mary in
the mid-nineteenth century, wrote approvingly of the virtue of southern women, a virtue he concluded
derived from their natural weakness, piety, grace, and modesty. In his Dissertation on the Characteristic
Differences Between the Sexes, he writes that southern women derive their power not by
leading armies to combat, or of enabling her to bring into more formidable action the physical
power which nature has conferred on her. No! It is but the better to perfect all those feminine
graces, all those fascinating attributes, which render her the center of attraction, and which
delight and charm all those who breathe the atmosphere in which she moves; and, in the
language of Mr. Burke, would make ten thousand swords leap from their scabbards to avenge
the insult that might be offered to her. By her very meekness and beauty does she subdue all
around her.
Such popular idealizations of elite southern white women, however, are difficult to reconcile with their
lived experience: in their own words, these women frequently described the trauma of childbirth, the loss
of children, and the loneliness of the plantation.
Figure 12.15 This cover illustration from Harper’s Weekly in 1861 shows the ideal of southern womanhood.
MY STORY
Louisa Cheves McCord’s “Woman’s Progress”
Louisa Cheves McCord was born in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1810. A child of some privilege in the
South, she received an excellent education and became a prolific writer. As the excerpt from her poem
“Woman’s Progress” indicates, some southern women also contributed to the idealization of southern
white womanhood.
Sweet Sister! stoop not thou to be a man!
Man has his place as woman hers; and she
As made to comfort, minister and help;
Moulded for gentler duties, ill fulfils
His jarring destinies. Her mission is
To labour and to pray; to help, to heal,
To soothe, to bear; patient, with smiles, to suffer;
And with self-abnegation noble lose
Her private interest in the dearer weal
Of those she loves and lives for. Call not this—
(The all-fulfilling of her destiny;
She the world’s soothing mother)—call it not,
With scorn and mocking sneer, a drudgery.
The ribald tongue profanes Heaven’s holiest things,
But holy still they are. The lowliest tasks
Are sanctified in nobly acting them.
Christ washed the apostles’ feet, not thus cast shame
Upon the God-like in him. Woman lives
Man’s constant prophet. If her life be true
And based upon the instincts of her being,
She is a living sermon of that truth
Which ever through her gentle actions speaks,
That life is given to labour and to love.
—Louisa Susanna Cheves McCord, “Woman’s Progress,” 1853
What womanly virtues does Louisa Cheves McCord emphasize? How might her social status, as an
educated southern woman of great privilege, influence her understanding of gender relations in the
South?
For slaveholding whites, the male-dominated household operated to protect gendered divisions and
prevalent gender norms; for slave women, however, the same system exposed them to brutality and
frequent sexual domination. The demands on the labor of slave women made it impossible for them to
perform the role of domestic caretaker that was so idealized by southern men. That slaveholders put them
out into the fields, where they frequently performed work traditionally thought of as male, reflected little
the ideal image of gentleness and delicacy reserved for white women. Nor did the slave woman’s role as
daughter, wife, or mother garner any patriarchal protection. Each of these roles and the relationships they
defined was subject to the prerogative of a master, who could freely violate enslaved women’s persons,
sell off their children, or separate them from their families.
DEFENDING SLAVERY
With the rise of democracy during the Jacksonian era in the 1830s, slaveholders worried about the power of
the majority. If political power went to a majority that was hostile to slavery, the South—and the honor of
white southerners—would be imperiled. White southerners keen on preserving the institution of slavery
bristled at what they perceived to be northern attempts to deprive them of their livelihood. Powerful
southerners like South Carolinian John C. Calhoun (Figure 12.16) highlighted laws like the Tariff of

1828 as evidence of the North’s desire to destroy the southern economy and, by extension, its culture.
Such a tariff, he and others concluded, would disproportionately harm the South, which relied heavily
on imports, and benefit the North, which would receive protections for its manufacturing centers. The
tariff appeared to open the door for other federal initiatives, including the abolition of slavery. Because of
this perceived threat to southern society, Calhoun argued that states could nullify federal laws. This belief
illustrated the importance of the states’ rights argument to the southern states. It also showed slaveholders’
willingness to unite against the federal government when they believed it acted unjustly against their
interests.
Figure 12.16 John C. Calhoun, shown here in a ca. 1845 portrait by George Alexander Healy, defended states’
rights, especially the right of the southern states to protect slavery from a hostile northern majority.
As the nation expanded in the 1830s and 1840s, the writings of abolitionists—a small but vocal group
of northerners committed to ending slavery—reached a larger national audience. White southerners
responded by putting forth arguments in defense of slavery, their way of life, and their honor. Calhoun
became a leading political theorist defending slavery and the rights of the South, which he saw as
containing an increasingly embattled minority. He advanced the idea of a concurrent majority, a majority
of a separate region (that would otherwise be in the minority of the nation) with the power to veto or
disallow legislation put forward by a hostile majority.
Calhoun’s idea of the concurrent majority found full expression in his 1850 essay “Disquisition on
Government.” In this treatise, he wrote about government as a necessary means to ensure the preservation
of society, since society existed to “preserve and protect our race.” If government grew hostile to society,
then a concurrent majority had to take action, including forming a new government. “Disquisition on
Government” advanced a profoundly anti-democratic argument. It illustrates southern leaders’ intense
suspicion of democratic majorities and their ability to effect legislation that would challenge southern
interests.
Click and Explore
Go to the Internet Archive (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Disquisition) to read

John C. Calhoun’s “Disquisition on Government.” Why do you think he proposed the
creation of a concurrent majority?
White southerners reacted strongly to abolitionists’ attacks on slavery. In making their defense of slavery,
they critiqued wage labor in the North. They argued that the Industrial Revolution had brought about a
new type of slavery—wage slavery—and that this form of “slavery” was far worse than the slave labor
used on southern plantations. Defenders of the institution also lashed out directly at abolitionists such as
William Lloyd Garrison for daring to call into question their way of life. Indeed, Virginians cited Garrison
as the instigator of Nat Turner’s 1831 rebellion.
The Virginian George Fitzhugh contributed to the defense of slavery with his book Sociology for the
South, or the Failure of Free Society (1854). Fitzhugh argued that laissez-faire capitalism, as celebrated by
Adam Smith, benefited only the quick-witted and intelligent, leaving the ignorant at a huge disadvantage.
Slaveholders, he argued, took care of the ignorant—in Fitzhugh’s argument, the slaves of the South.
Southerners provided slaves with care from birth to death, he asserted; this offered a stark contrast to the
wage slavery of the North, where workers were at the mercy of economic forces beyond their control.
Fitzhugh’s ideas exemplified southern notions of paternalism.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
George Fitzhugh’s Defense of Slavery
George Fitzhugh, a southern writer of social treatises, was a staunch supporter of slavery, not as a
necessary evil but as what he argued was a necessary good, a way to take care of slaves and keep them
from being a burden on society. He published Sociology for the South, or the Failure of Free Society in
1854, in which he laid out what he believed to be the benefits of slavery to both the slaves and society as
a whole. According to Fitzhugh:
[I]t is clear the Athenian democracy would not suit a negro nation, nor will the government of
mere law suffice for the individual negro. He is but a grown up child and must be governed as
a child . . . The master occupies towards him the place of parent or guardian. . . . The negro is
improvident; will not lay up in summer for the wants of winter; will not accumulate in youth for
the exigencies of age. He would become an insufferable burden to society. Society has the
right to prevent this, and can only do so by subjecting him to domestic slavery.
In the last place, the negro race is inferior to the white race, and living in their midst, they
would be far outstripped or outwitted in the chase of free competition. . . . Our negroes are
not only better off as to physical comfort than free laborers, but their moral condition is better.
What arguments does Fitzhugh use to promote slavery? What basic premise underlies his ideas? Can
you think of a modern parallel to Fitzhugh’s argument?
The North also produced defenders of slavery, including Louis Agassiz, a Harvard professor of zoology
and geology. Agassiz helped to popularize polygenism, the idea that different human races came from
separate origins. According to this formulation, no single human family origin existed, and blacks made
up a race wholly separate from the white race. Agassiz’s notion gained widespread popularity in the 1850s

with the 1854 publication of George Gliddon and Josiah Nott’s Types of Mankind and other books. The
theory of polygenism codified racism, giving the notion of black inferiority the lofty mantle of science. One
popular advocate of the idea posited that blacks occupied a place in evolution between the Greeks and
chimpanzees (Figure 12.17).
Figure 12.17 This 1857 illustration by an advocate of polygenism indicates that the “Negro” occupies a place
between the Greeks and chimpanzees. What does this image reveal about the methods of those who advocated
polygenism?

• Explain the expansionist goals of advocates of slavery
• Describe the filibuster expeditions undertaken during the antebellum era
Southern expansionists had spearheaded the drive to add more territory to the United States. They
applauded the Louisiana Purchase and fervently supported Indian removal, the annexation of Texas, and
the Mexican-American War. Drawing inspiration from the annexation of Texas, proslavery expansionists
hoped to replicate that feat by bringing Cuba and other territories into the United States and thereby
enlarging the American empire of slavery.
In the 1850s, the expansionist drive among white southerners intensified. Among southern imperialists,
one way to push for the creation of an American empire of slavery was through the actions of
filibusters—men who led unofficial military operations intended to seize land from foreign countries or
foment revolution there. These unsanctioned military adventures were not part of the official foreign
policy of the United States; American citizens simply formed themselves into private armies to forcefully
annex new land without the government’s approval.
An 1818 federal law made it a crime to undertake such adventures, which was an indication of both the
reality of efforts at expansion through these illegal expeditions and the government’s effort to create a U.S.
foreign policy. Nonetheless, Americans continued to filibuster throughout the nineteenth century. In 1819,
an expedition of two hundred Americans invaded Spanish Texas, intent on creating a republic modeled on
the United States, only to be driven out by Spanish forces. Using force, taking action, and asserting white
supremacy in these militaristic drives were seen by many as an ideal of American male vigor. President
Jackson epitomized this military prowess as an officer in the Tennessee militia, where earlier in the century
he had played a leading role in ending the Creek War and driving Indian peoples out of Alabama and
Georgia. His reputation helped him to win the presidency in 1828 and again in 1832.
Filibustering plots picked up pace in the 1850s as the drive for expansion continued. Slaveholders looked
south to the Caribbean, Mexico, and Central America, hoping to add new slave states. Spanish Cuba
became the objective of many American slaveholders in the 1850s, as debate over the island dominated the
national conversation. Many who urged its annexation believed Cuba had to be made part of the United
States to prevent it from going the route of Haiti, with black slaves overthrowing their masters and creating
another black republic, a prospect horrifying to many in the United States. Americans also feared that
the British, who had an interest in the sugar island, would make the first move and snatch Cuba from
the United States. Since Britain had outlawed slavery in its colonies in 1833, blacks on the island of Cuba
would then be free.
Narisco López, a Cuban who wanted to end Spanish control of the island, gained American support. He
tried five times to take the island, with his last effort occurring in the summer of 1851 when he led an
armed group from New Orleans. Thousands came out to cheer his small force as they set off to wrest Cuba
from the Spanish. Unfortunately for López and his supporters, however, the effort to take Cuba did not
produce the hoped-for spontaneous uprising of the Cuban people. Spanish authorities in Cuba captured
and executed López and the American filibusters.
Efforts to take Cuba continued under President Franklin Pierce, who had announced at his inauguration
in 1853 his intention to pursue expansion. In 1854, American diplomats met in Ostend, Belgium, to find a
way to gain Cuba. They wrote a secret memo, known as the Ostend Manifesto (thought to be penned by
James Buchanan, who was elected president two years later), stating that if Spain refused to sell Cuba to
the United States, the United States was justified in taking the island as a national security measure.
The contents of this memo were supposed to remain secret, but details were leaked to the public, leading
the House of Representatives to demand a copy. Many in the North were outraged over what appeared
to be a southern scheme, orchestrated by what they perceived as the Slave Power—a term they used
to describe the disproportionate influence that elite slaveholders wielded—to expand slavery. European
powers also reacted with anger. Southern annexationists, however, applauded the effort to take Cuba. The
Louisiana legislature in 1854 asked the federal government to take decisive action, and John Quitman, a
former Mississippi governor, raised money from slaveholders to fund efforts to take the island.
Click and Explore
Read an 1860 editorial titled Annexation of Cuba Made Easy

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15AnnexCuba) from the online archives of The New
York Times. Does the author support annexation? Why or why not?
Controversy around the Ostend Manifesto caused President Pierce to step back from the plan to take Cuba.
After his election, President Buchanan, despite his earlier expansionist efforts, denounced filibustering as
the action of pirates. Filibustering caused an even wider gulf between the North and the South (Figure
12.18).

Figure 12.18 The “Ostend Doctrine” (1856), by artist Louis Maurer and lithographer Nathaniel Currier, mocks James
Buchanan by depicting him being robbed, just as many northerners believed slaveholders were attempting to rob
Spain. The thugs robbing Buchanan use specific phrases from the Ostend Manifesto as they relieve him of his
belongings.
Cuba was not the only territory in slaveholders’ expansionist sights: some focused on Mexico and Central
America. In 1855, Tennessee-born William Walker, along with an army of no more than sixty mercenaries,
gained control of the Central American nation of Nicaragua. Previously, Walker had launched a successful
invasion of Mexico, dubbing his conquered land the Republic of Sonora. In a relatively short period of
time, Walker was dislodged from Sonora by Mexican authorities and forced to retreat back to the United
States. His conquest of Nicaragua garnered far more attention, catapulting him into national popularity as
the heroic embodiment of white supremacy (Figure 12.19).
Figure 12.19 Famed Civil War photographer Mathew Brady took this photograph (a) of “General” William Walker
circa 1855–1860. Walker led a filibuster expedition and briefly conquered Nicaragua, fulfilling a dream of many pro-
expansionist southern slaveholders. Cornelius Vanderbilt (b), the shipping tycoon who controlled much of the traffic
across Nicaragua between the Atlantic and the Pacific, clashed with Walker and ultimately supported Costa Rica in its
war against him.
Why Nicaragua? Nicaragua presented a tempting target because it provided a quick route from the
Caribbean to the Pacific: Only twelve miles of land stood between the Pacific Ocean, the inland Lake
Nicaragua, and the river that drained into the Atlantic. Shipping from the East Coast to the West Coast
of the United States had to travel either by land across the continent, south around the entire continent of
South America, or through Nicaragua. Previously, American tycoon Cornelius Vanderbilt (Figure 12.19)
had recognized the strategic importance of Nicaragua and worked with the Nicaraguan government
to control shipping there. The filibustering of William Walker may have excited expansionist-minded
southerners, but it greatly upset Vanderbilt’s business interests in the region.
Walker clung to the racist, expansionist philosophies of the proslavery South. In 1856, Walker made
slavery legal in Nicaragua—it had been illegal there for thirty years—in a move to gain the support of the
South. He also reopened the slave trade. In 1856, he was elected president of Nicaragua, but in 1857, he
was chased from the country. When he returned to Central America in 1860, he was captured by the British
and released to Honduran authorities, who executed him by firing squad.

Key Terms
antebellum a term meaning “before the war” and used to describe the decades before the American Civil
War began in 1861
cash crop a crop grown to be sold for profit instead of consumption by the farmer’s family
concurrent majority a majority of a separate region (that would otherwise be in the minority of the
nation) with the power to veto or disallow legislation put forward by a hostile majority
cotton boom the upswing in American cotton production during the nineteenth century
cotton gin a device, patented by Eli Whitney in 1794, that separated the seeds from raw cotton quickly
and easily
domestic slave trade the trading of slaves within the borders of the United States
Ostend Manifesto the secret diplomatic memo stating that if Spain refused to sell Cuba to the United
States, the United States was justified in taking the island as a national security measure
paternalism the premise that southern white slaveholders acted in the best interests of their slaves
polygenism the idea that blacks and whites come from different origins
second middle passage the internal forced migration of slaves to the South and West in the United States
Summary
In the years before the Civil War, the South produced the bulk of the world’s supply of cotton. The
Mississippi River Valley slave states became the epicenter of cotton production, an area of frantic economic
activity where the landscape changed dramatically as land was transformed from pinewoods and swamps
into cotton fields. Cotton’s profitability relied on the institution of slavery, which generated the product
that fueled cotton mill profits in the North. When the international slave trade was outlawed in 1808, the
domestic slave trade exploded, providing economic opportunities for whites involved in many aspects
of the trade and increasing the possibility of slaves’ dislocation and separation from kin and friends.
Although the larger American and Atlantic markets relied on southern cotton in this era, the South
depended on these other markets for food, manufactured goods, and loans. Thus, the market revolution
transformed the South just as it had other regions.

Slave labor in the antebellum South generated great wealth for plantation owners. Slaves, in contrast,
endured daily traumas as the human property of masters. Slaves resisted their condition in a variety
of ways, and many found some solace in Christianity and the communities they created in the slave
quarters. While some free blacks achieved economic prosperity and even became slaveholders themselves,
the vast majority found themselves restricted by the same white-supremacist assumptions upon which the
institution of slavery was based.

Although a small white elite owned the vast majority of slaves in the South, and most other whites could
only aspire to slaveholders’ wealth and status, slavery shaped the social life of all white southerners
in profound ways. Southern culture valued a behavioral code in which men’s honor, based on the
domination of others and the protection of southern white womanhood, stood as the highest good. Slavery
also decreased class tensions, binding whites together on the basis of race despite their inequalities of
wealth. Several defenses of slavery were prevalent in the antebellum era, including Calhoun’s argument
that the South’s “concurrent majority” could overrule federal legislation deemed hostile to southern
interests; the notion that slaveholders’ care of their chattel made slaves better off than wage workers in the
North; and the profoundly racist ideas underlying polygenism.
The decade of the 1850s witnessed various schemes to expand the American empire of slavery. The Ostend
Manifesto articulated the right of the United States to forcefully seize Cuba if Spain would not sell it, while
filibuster expeditions attempted to annex new slave states without the benefit of governmental approval.
Those who pursued the goal of expanding American slavery believed they embodied the true spirit of
white racial superiority.
Review Questions
1. Which of the following was not one of the A. owned no slaves
effects of the cotton boom? B. owned between one and nine slaves each
A. U.S. trade increased with France and Spain. C. owned between ten and ninety-nine slaves
B. Northern manufacturing expanded. each
C. The need for slave labor grew. D. owned over one hundred slaves each
D. Port cities like New Orleans expanded.
7. John C. Calhoun argued for greater rights for
2. The abolition of the foreign slave trade in 1807 southerners with which idea?
led to _______. A. polygenism
A. a dramatic decrease in the price and B. nullification
demand for slaves C. concurrent majority
B. the rise of a thriving domestic slave trade D. paternalism
C. a reform movement calling for the complete
end to slavery in the United States 8. How did defenders of slavery use the concept
D. the decline of cotton production of paternalism to structure their ideas?
3. Why did some southerners believe their region 9. Why did southern expansionists conduct
was immune to the effects of the market filibuster expeditions?
revolution? Why was this thinking misguided? A. to gain political advantage
B. to annex new slave states
4. Under the law in the antebellum South, slaves C. to prove they could raise an army
were ________. D. to map unknown territories
A. servants
B. animals 10. The controversy at the heart of the Ostend
C. property Manifesto centered on the fate of:
D. indentures A. Ostend, Belgium
B. Nicaragua
5. How did both slaveholders and slaves use the C. Cuba
concept of paternalism to their advantage? D. Louisiana
6. The largest group of whites in the South 11. Why did expansionists set their sights on the
_______. annexation of Spanish Cuba?


12. Compare and contrast the steamboats of the antebellum years with technologies today. In your
estimation, what modern technology compares to steamboats in its transformative power?
13. Does the history of the cotton kingdom support or undermine the Jeffersonian vision of white farmers
on self-sufficient farms? Explain your answer.
14. Based on your reading of William J. Anderson’s and John Brown’s accounts, what types of traumas
did slaves experience? How were the experiences of black women and men similar and different?
15. What strategies did slaves employ to resist, revolt, and sustain their own independent communities
and cultures? How did slaves use white southerners’ own philosophies—paternalism and Christianity, for
example—to their advantage in these efforts?
16. What are the major arguments put forward by proslavery advocates? How would you argue against
their statements?
17. Consider filibustering from the point of view of the Cuban or Nicaraguan people. If you lived in Cuba
or Nicaragua, would you support filibustering? Why or why not?

Chapter 13 Antebellum Idealism and Reform Impulses, 1820–1860 363
CHAPTER 13
Antebellum Idealism and Reform

Impulses, 1820–1860
Figure 13.1 The masthead of The Liberator, by Hammatt Billings in 1850, highlights the religious aspect of
antislavery crusades. The Liberator was an abolitionist newspaper published by William Lloyd Garrison, one of the
leaders of the abolitionist movement in the United States.
Chapter Outline
13.1 An Awakening of Religion and Individualism
13.2 Antebellum Communal Experiments
13.3 Reforms to Human Health
13.4 Addressing Slavery
13.5 Women’s Rights
Introduction
This masthead for the abolitionist newspaper The Liberator shows two Americas (Figure 13.1). On the left
is the southern version where slaves are being sold; on the right, free blacks enjoy the blessing of liberty.
Reflecting the role of evangelical Protestantism in reforms such as abolition, the image features Jesus as the
central figure. The caption reads, “I come to break the bonds of the oppressor,” and below the masthead,
“Our country is the World, our Countrymen are all Mankind.”
The reform efforts of the antebellum years, including abolitionism, aimed to perfect the national destiny
and redeem the souls of individual Americans. A great deal of optimism, fueled by evangelical
Protestantism revivalism, underwrote the moral crusades of the first half of the nineteenth century. Some
reformers targeted what they perceived as the shallow, materialistic, and democratic market culture of
the United States and advocated a stronger sense of individualism and self-reliance. Others dreamed of a
more equal society and established their own idealistic communities. Still others, who viewed slavery as
the most serious flaw in American life, labored to end the institution. Women’s rights, temperance, health
reforms, and a host of other efforts also came to the forefront during the heyday of reform in the 1830s and
1840s.
364 Chapter 13 Antebellum Idealism and Reform Impulses, 1820–1860

• Explain the connection between evangelical Protestantism and the Second Great
Awakening
• Describe the message of the transcendentalists
Protestantism shaped the views of the vast majority of Americans in the antebellum years. The influence
of religion only intensified during the decades before the Civil War, as religious camp meetings spread the
word that people could bring about their own salvation, a direct contradiction to the Calvinist doctrine of
predestination. Alongside this religious fervor, transcendentalists advocated a more direct knowledge of
the self and an emphasis on individualism. The writers and thinkers devoted to transcendentalism, as well
as the reactions against it, created a trove of writings, an outpouring that has been termed the American
Renaissance.
THE SECOND GREAT AWAKENING

The reform efforts of the antebellum era sprang from the Protestant revival fervor that found expression
in what historians refer to as the Second Great Awakening. (The First Great Awakening of evangelical
Protestantism had taken place in the 1730s and 1740s.) The Second Great Awakening emphasized an
emotional religious style in which sinners grappled with their unworthy nature before concluding that
they were born again, that is, turning away from their sinful past and devoting themselves to living a
righteous, Christ-centered life. This emphasis on personal salvation, with its rejection of predestination
(the Calvinist concept that God selected only a chosen few for salvation), was the religious embodiment of
the Jacksonian celebration of the individual. Itinerant ministers preached the message of the awakening to
hundreds of listeners at outdoors revival meetings (Figure 13.3).
Figure 13.2

Figure 13.3 This 1819 engraving by Jacques Gerard shows a Methodist camp meeting. Revivalist camp meetings
held by itinerant Protestant ministers became a feature of nineteenth-century American life.
The burst of religious enthusiasm that began in Kentucky and Tennessee in the 1790s and early 1800s
among Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians owed much to the uniqueness of the early decades of the
republic. These years saw swift population growth, broad western expansion, and the rise of participatory
democracy. These political and social changes made many people anxious, and the more egalitarian,
emotional, and individualistic religious practices of the Second Great Awakening provided relief and
comfort for Americans experiencing rapid change. The awakening soon spread to the East, where it had
a profound impact on Congregationalists and Presbyterians. The thousands swept up in the movement
believed in the possibility of creating a much better world. Many adopted millennialism, the fervent belief
that the Kingdom of God would be established on earth and that God would reign on earth for a thousand
years, characterized by harmony and Christian morality. Those drawn to the message of the Second Great
Awakening yearned for stability, decency, and goodness in the new and turbulent American republic.
The Second Great Awakening also brought significant changes to American culture. Church membership
doubled in the years between 1800 and 1835. Several new groups formed to promote and strengthen
the message of religious revival. The American Bible Society, founded in 1816, distributed Bibles in an
effort to ensure that every family had access to the sacred text, while the American Sunday School Union,
established in 1824, focused on the religious education of children and published religious materials
specifically for young readers. In 1825, the American Tract Society formed with the goal of disseminating
the Protestant revival message in a flurry of publications.
Missionaries and circuit riders (ministers without a fixed congregation) brought the message of the
awakening across the United States, including into the lives of slaves. The revival spurred many
slaveholders to begin encouraging their slaves to become Christians. Previously, many slaveholders feared
allowing their slaves to convert, due to a belief that Christians could not be enslaved and because
of the fear that slaves might use Christian principles to oppose their enslavement. However, by the
1800s, Americans established a legal foundation for the enslavement of Christians. Also, by this time,
slaveholders had come to believe that if slaves learned the “right” (that is, white) form of Christianity, then
slaves would be more obedient and hardworking. Allowing slaves access to Christianity also served to
ease the consciences of Christian slaveholders, who argued that slavery was divinely ordained, yet it was
a faith that also required slaveholders to bring slaves to the “truth.” Also important to this era was the
creation of African American forms of worship as well as African American churches such as the African
Methodist Episcopal Church, the first independent black Protestant church in the United States. Formed
in the 1790s by Richard Allen, the African Methodist Episcopal Church advanced the African American
effort to express their faith apart from white Methodists (Figure 13.4).
Figure 13.4 Charles Grandison Finney (a) was one of the best-known ministers of the Second Great Awakening.
Richard Allen (b) created the first separate African American church, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, in the
1790s.
In the Northeast, Presbyterian minister Charles Grandison Finney rose to prominence as one of the most
important evangelicals in the movement (Figure 13.4). Born in 1792 in western New York, Finney studied
to be a lawyer until 1821, when he experienced a religious conversion and thereafter devoted himself to
revivals. He led revival meetings in New York and Pennsylvania, but his greatest success occurred after
he accepted a ministry in Rochester, New York, in 1830. At the time, Rochester was a boomtown because
the Erie Canal had brought a lively shipping business.
The new middle class—an outgrowth of the Industrial Revolution—embraced Finney’s message. It fit
perfectly with their understanding of themselves as people shaping their own destiny. Workers also
latched onto the message that they too could control their salvation, spiritually and perhaps financially as
well. Western New York gained a reputation as the “burned over district,” a reference to the intense flames
of religious fervor that swept the area during the Second Great Awakening.
TRANSCENDENTALISM
Beginning in the 1820s, a new intellectual movement known as transcendentalism began to grow in the
Northeast. In this context, to transcend means to go beyond the ordinary sensory world to grasp personal
insights and gain appreciation of a deeper reality, and transcendentalists believed that all people could
attain an understanding of the world that surpassed rational, sensory experience. Transcendentalists were
critical of mainstream American culture. They reacted against the age of mass democracy in Jacksonian
America—what Tocqueville called the “tyranny of majority”—by arguing for greater individualism
against conformity. European romanticism, a movement in literature and art that stressed emotion over
cold, calculating reason, also influenced transcendentalists in the United States, especially the
transcendentalists’ celebration of the uniqueness of individual feelings.
Ralph Waldo Emerson emerged as the leading figure of this movement (Figure 13.5). Born in Boston in
1803, Emerson came from a religious family. His father served as a Unitarian minister and, after graduating
from Harvard Divinity School in the 1820s, Emerson followed in his father’s footsteps. However, after his
wife died in 1831, he left the clergy. On a trip to Europe in 1832, he met leading figures of romanticism
who rejected the hyper-rationalism of the Enlightenment, emphasizing instead emotion and the sublime.

Figure 13.5 Ralph Waldo Emerson (a), shown here circa 1857, is considered the father of transcendentalism. This
letter (b) from Emerson to Walt Whitman, another brilliant writer of the transcendentalist movement, demonstrates the
closeness of a number of these writers.
When Emerson returned home the following year, he began giving lectures on his romanticism-influenced
ideas. In 1836, he published “Nature,” an essay arguing that humans can find their true spirituality
in nature, not in the everyday bustling working world of Jacksonian democracy and industrial
transformation. In 1841, Emerson published his essay “Self-Reliance,” which urged readers to think for
themselves and reject the mass conformity and mediocrity he believed had taken root in American life. In
this essay, he wrote, “Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist,” demanding that his readers be
true to themselves and not blindly follow a herd mentality. Emerson’s ideas dovetailed with those of the
French aristocrat, Alexis de Tocqueville, who wrote about the “tyranny of the majority” in his Democracy in
America. Tocqueville, like Emerson, expressed concern that a powerful majority could overpower the will
of individuals.
Click and Explore
Visit Emerson Central (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15SelfReliance) to read the full

text of “Self Reliance” by Ralph Waldo Emerson. How have Emerson’s ideas
influenced American society?
Emerson’s ideas struck a chord with a class of literate adults who also were dissatisfied with mainstream
American life and searching for greater spiritual meaning. Many writers were drawn to transcendentalism,
and they started to express its ideas through new stories, poems, essays, and articles. The ideas of
transcendentalism were able to permeate American thought and culture through a prolific print culture,
which allowed magazines and journals to be widely disseminated.
Among those attracted to Emerson’s ideas was his friend Henry David Thoreau, whom he encouraged
to write about his own ideas. Thoreau placed a special emphasis on the role of nature as a gateway to
the transcendentalist goal of greater individualism. In 1848, Thoreau gave a lecture in which he argued
that individuals must stand up to governmental injustice, a topic he chose because of his disgust over
the Mexican-American War and slavery. In 1849, he published his lecture “Civil Disobedience” and urged
readers to refuse to support a government that was immoral. In 1854, he published Walden; Or, Life in the
Woods, a book about the two years he spent in a small cabin on Walden Pond near Concord, Massachusetts
(Figure 13.6). Thoreau had lived there as an experiment in living apart, but not too far apart, from his
conformist neighbors.
Figure 13.6 Henry David Thoreau (a) argued that men had the right to resist authority if they deemed it unjust. “All
men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its
tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.” Thoreau’s Walden; or, Life in the Woods (b) articulated his
emphasis on the importance of nature as a gateway to greater individuality.
Margaret Fuller also came to prominence as a leading transcendentalist and advocate for women’s
equality. Fuller was a friend of Emerson and Thoreau, and other intellectuals of her day. Because she was
a woman, she could not attend Harvard, as it was a male-only institution for undergraduate students until
1973. However, she was later granted the use of the library there because of her towering intellect. In
1840, she became the editor of The Dial, a transcendentalist journal, and she later found employment as a
book reviewer for the New York Tribune newspaper. Tragically, in 1850, she died at the age of forty in a
shipwreck off Fire Island, New York.
Walt Whitman also added to the transcendentalist movement, most notably with his 1855 publication of
twelve poems, entitled Leaves of Grass, which celebrated the subjective experience of the individual. One of
the poems, “Song of Myself,” amplified the message of individualism, but by uniting the individual with
all other people through a transcendent bond.

AMERICANA
Walt Whitman’s “Song of Myself”
Walt Whitman (Figure 13.7) was a poet associated with the transcendentalists. His 1855 poem, “Song
of Myself,” shocked many when it was first published, but it has been called one of the most influential
poems in American literature.
Figure 13.7 This steel engraving of Walt Whitman by Samuel Hollyer is from a lost daguerreotype by
Gabriel Harrison, taken in 1854.
I CELEBRATE myself, and sing myself,

And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.
I loafe and invite my soul,
I lean and loafe at my ease observing a spear of summer grass.
My tongue, every atom of my blood, form’d from this soil, this air,
Born here of parents born here from parents the same, and their parents the same,
I, now thirty-seven years old in perfect health begin,
Hoping to cease not till death. . . .
And I say to mankind, Be not curious about God,
For I who am curious about each am not curious about God,
(No array of terms can say how much I am at peace about God and about death.)
I hear and behold God in every object, yet understand God not in the least,
Nor do I understand who there can be more wonderful than myself. . . .
I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable,
I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world. . . .
You will hardly know who I am or what I mean,
But I shall be good health to you nevertheless,
And filter and fibre your blood.
Failing to fetch me at first keep encouraged,
Missing me one place search another,
I stop somewhere waiting for you.
What images does Whitman use to describe himself and the world around him? What might have been
shocking about this poem in 1855? Why do you think it has endured?
Some critics took issue with transcendentalism’s emphasis on rampant individualism by pointing out the
destructive consequences of compulsive human behavior. Herman Melville’s novel Moby Dick, Or, The
Whale emphasized the perils of individual obsession by telling the tale of Captain Ahab’s single-minded
quest to kill a white whale, Moby Dick, which had destroyed Ahab’s original ship and caused him to
lose one of his legs. Edgar Allan Poe, a popular author, critic, and poet, decried “the so-called poetry of
the so-called transcendentalists.” These American writers who questioned transcendentalism illustrate the
underlying tension between individualism and conformity in American life.

• Identify similarities and differences among utopian groups of the antebellum era
• Explain how religious utopian communities differed from nonreligious ones
Prior to 1815, in the years before the market and Industrial Revolution, most Americans lived on farms
where they produced much of the foods and goods they used. This largely pre-capitalist culture centered
on large family units whose members all lived in the same towns, counties, and parishes.
Economic forces unleashed after 1815, however, forever altered that world. More and more people now
bought their food and goods in the thriving market economy, a shift that opened the door to a new way
of life. These economic transformations generated various reactions; some people were nostalgic for what
they viewed as simpler, earlier times, whereas others were willing to try new ways of living and working.
In the early nineteenth century, experimental communities sprang up, created by men and women who
hoped not just to create a better way of life but to recast American civilization, so that greater equality
and harmony would prevail. Indeed, some of these reformers envisioned the creation of alternative ways
of living, where people could attain perfection in human relations. The exact number of these societies is
unknown because many of them were so short-lived, but the movement reached its apex in the 1840s.
RELIGIOUS UTOPIAN SOCIETIES

Most of those attracted to utopian communities had been profoundly influenced by evangelical
Protestantism, especially the Second Great Awakening. However, their experience of revivalism had left
them wanting to further reform society. The communities they formed and joined adhered to various
socialist ideas and were considered radical, because members wanted to create a new social order, not
reform the old.
German Protestant migrants formed several pietistic societies: communities that stressed transformative
individual religious experience or piety over religious rituals and formality. One of the earliest of these,
the Ephrata Cloister in Pennsylvania, was founded by a charismatic leader named Conrad Beissel in the
1730s. By the antebellum era, it was the oldest communal experiment in the United States. Its members
devoted themselves to spiritual contemplation and a disciplined work regime while they awaited the
millennium. They wore homespun rather than buying cloth or premade clothing, and encouraged celibacy.
Although the Ephrata Cloister remained small, it served as an early example of the type of community that
antebellum reformers hoped to create.
In 1805, a second German religious society, led by George Rapp, took root in Pennsylvania with several
hundred members called Rappites who encouraged celibacy and adhered to the socialist principle of
holding all goods in common (as opposed to allowing individual ownership). They not only built the
town of Harmony but also produced surplus goods to sell to the outside world. In 1815, the group sold
its Pennsylvanian holdings and moved to Indiana, establishing New Harmony on a twenty-thousand-acre

plot along the Wabash River. In 1825, members returned to Pennsylvania, and established themselves in
the town called Economy.
The Shakers provide another example of a community established with a religious mission. The Shakers
started in England as an outgrowth of the Quaker religion in the middle of the eighteenth century. Ann
Lee, a leader of the group in England, emigrated to New York in the 1770s, having experienced a profound
religious awakening that convinced her that she was “mother in Christ.” She taught that God was both
male and female; Jesus embodied the male side, while Mother Ann (as she came to be known by her
followers) represented the female side. To Shakers in both England and the United States, Mother Ann
represented the completion of divine revelation and the beginning of the millennium of heaven on earth.
In practice, men and women in Shaker communities were held as equals—a radical departure at the
time—and women often outnumbered men. Equality extended to the possession of material goods as
well; no one could hold private property. Shaker communities aimed for self-sufficiency, raising food and
making all that was necessary, including furniture that emphasized excellent workmanship as a substitute
for worldly pleasure.
The defining features of the Shakers were their spiritual mysticism and their prohibition of sexual
intercourse, which they held as an example of a lesser spiritual life and a source of conflict between
women and men. Rapturous Shaker dances, for which the group gained notoriety, allowed for emotional
release (Figure 13.8). The high point of the Shaker movement came in the 1830s, when about six thousand
members populated communities in New England, New York, Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky.
Figure 13.8 In this image of a Shaker dance from 1840, note the raised arms, indicating emotional expression.
Click and Explore
Learn more about the musical heritage (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

15ShakerMusic) of the Shakers, including the well-known song “Simple Gifts,” which
has become part of American culture.
Another religious utopian experiment, the Oneida Community, began with the teachings of John
Humphrey Noyes, a Vermonter who had graduated from Dartmouth, Andover Theological Seminary,
and Yale. The Second Great Awakening exerted a powerful effect on him, and he came to believe in
perfectionism, the idea that it is possible to be perfect and free of sin. Noyes claimed to have achieved this
state of perfection in 1834.
Noyes applied his idea of perfection to relationships between men and women, earning notoriety for his
unorthodox views on marriage and sexuality. Beginning in his home town of Putney, Vermont, he began
to advocate what he called “complex marriage:” a form of communal marriage in which women and men
who had achieved perfection could engage in sexual intercourse without sin. Noyes also promoted “male
continence,” whereby men would not ejaculate, thereby freeing women from pregnancy and the difficulty
of determining paternity when they had many partners. Intercourse became fused with spiritual power
among Noyes and his followers.
The concept of complex marriage scandalized the townspeople in Putney, so Noyes and his followers
removed to Oneida, New York. Individuals who wanted to join the Oneida Community underwent a
tough screening process to weed out those who had not reached a state of perfection, which Noyes
believed promoted self-control, not out-of-control behavior. The goal was a balance between individuals
in a community of love and respect. The perfectionist community Noyes envisioned ultimately dissolved
in 1881, although the Oneida Community itself continues to this day (Figure 13.9).
Figure 13.9 The Oneida Community was a utopian experiment located in Oneida, New York, from 1848 to 1881.
The most successful religious utopian community to arise in the antebellum years was begun by Joseph
Smith. Smith came from a large Vermont family that had not prospered in the new market economy and
moved to the town of Palmyra, in the “burned over district” of western New York. In 1823, Smith claimed
to have to been visited by the angel Moroni, who told him the location of a trove of golden plates or tablets.
During the late 1820s, Smith translated the writing on the golden plates, and in 1830, he published his
finding as The Book of Mormon. That same year, he organized the Church of Christ, the progenitor of the
Church of Latter-Day Saints popularly known as Mormons. He presented himself as a prophet and aimed
to recapture what he viewed as the purity of the primitive Christian church, purity that had been lost over
the centuries. To Smith, this meant restoring male leadership.
Smith emphasized the importance of families being ruled by fathers. His vision of a reinvigorated
patriarchy resonated with men and women who had not thrived during the market revolution, and his
claims attracted those who hoped for a better future. Smith’s new church placed great stress on work and
discipline. He aimed to create a New Jerusalem where the church exercised oversight of its members.

Smith’s claims of translating the golden plates antagonized his neighbors in New York. Difficulties with
anti-Mormons led him and his followers to move to Kirtland, Ohio, in 1831. By 1838, as the United States
experienced continued economic turbulence following the Panic of 1837, Smith and his followers were
facing financial collapse after a series of efforts in banking and money-making ended in disaster. They
moved to Missouri, but trouble soon developed there as well, as citizens reacted against the Mormons’
beliefs. Actual fighting broke out in 1838, and the ten thousand or so Mormons removed to Nauvoo,
Illinois, where they founded a new center of Mormonism.
By the 1840s, Nauvoo boasted a population of thirty thousand, making it the largest utopian community
in the United States. Thanks to some important conversions to Mormonism among powerful citizens in
Illinois, the Mormons had virtual autonomy in Nauvoo, which they used to create the largest armed force
in the state. Smith also received further revelations there, including one that allowed male church leaders
to practice polygamy. He also declared that all of North and South America would be the new Zion and
announced that he would run for president in the 1844 election.
Smith and the Mormons’ convictions and practices generated a great deal of opposition from neighbors in
surrounding towns. Smith was arrested for treason (for destroying the printing press of a newspaper that
criticized Mormonism), and while he was in prison, an anti-Mormon mob stormed into his cell and killed
him. Brigham Young (Figure 13.10) then assumed leadership of the group, which he led to a permanent
home in what is now Salt Lake City, Utah.
Figure 13.10 Carl Christian Anton Christensen depicts The angel Moroni delivering the plates of the Book of
Mormon to Joseph Smith, circa 1886 (a). On the basis of these plates, Joseph Smith (b) founded the Church of
Latter-Day Saints. Following Smith’s death at the hands of a mob in Illinois, Brigham Young took control of the church
and led them west to the Salt Lake Valley, which at that time was still part of Mexico.
SECULAR UTOPIAN SOCIETIES

Not all utopian communities were prompted by the religious fervor of the Second Great Awakening;
some were outgrowths of the intellectual ideas of the time, such as romanticism with its emphasis on the
importance of individualism over conformity. One of these, Brook Farm, took shape in West Roxbury,
Massachusetts, in the 1840s. It was founded by George Ripley, a transcendentalist from Massachusetts. In
the summer of 1841, this utopian community gained support from Boston-area thinkers and writers, an
intellectual group that included many important transcendentalists. Brook Farm is best characterized as
a community of intensely individualistic personalities who combined manual labor, such as the growing
and harvesting food, with intellectual pursuits. They opened a school that specialized in the liberal arts
rather than rote memorization and published a weekly journal called The Harbinger, which was “Devoted
to Social and Political Progress” (Figure 13.11). Members of Brook Farm never totaled more than one
hundred, but it won renown largely because of the luminaries, such as Emerson and Thoreau, whose
names were attached to it. Nathaniel Hawthorne, a Massachusetts writer who took issue with some of
the transcendentalists’ claims, was a founding member of Brook Farm, and he fictionalized some of his
experiences in his novel The Blithedale Romance. In 1846, a fire destroyed the main building of Brook Farm,
and already hampered by financial problems, the Brook Farm experiment came to an end in 1847.
Figure 13.11 Brook Farm printed The Harbinger (a) to share its ideals more widely. George Ripley (b), who founded
the farm, was burdened with a huge debt several years later when the community collapsed.
Robert Owen, a British industrialist, helped inspire those who dreamed of a more equitable world in the
face of the changes brought about by industrialization. Owen had risen to prominence before he turned
thirty by running cotton mills in New Lanark, Scotland; these were considered the most successful cotton
mills in Great Britain. Owen was very uneasy about the conditions of workers, and he devoted both his life
and his fortune to trying to create cooperative societies where workers would lead meaningful, fulfilled
lives. Unlike the founders of many utopian communities, he did not gain inspiration from religion; his
vision derived instead from his faith in human reason to make the world better.
When the Rappite community in Harmony, Indiana, decided to sell its holdings and relocate to
Pennsylvania, Owen seized the opportunity to put his ideas into action. In 1825, he bought the twenty-
thousand-acre parcel in Indiana and renamed it New Harmony (Figure 13.12). After only a few years,
however, a series of bad decisions by Owen and infighting over issues like the elimination of private
property led to the dissolution of the community. But Owen’s ideas of cooperation and support inspired
other “Owenite” communities in the United States, Canada, and Great Britain.

Figure 13.12 This 1838 engraving of New Harmony shows the ideal collective community that Robert Owen hoped
to build.
A French philosopher who advocated the creation of a new type of utopian community, Charles Fourier
also inspired American readers, notably Arthur Brisbane, who popularized Fourier’s ideas in the United
States. Fourier emphasized collective effort by groups of people or “associations.” Members of the
association would be housed in large buildings or “phalanxes,” a type of communal living arrangement.
Converts to Fourier’s ideas about a new science of living published and lectured vigorously. They believed
labor was a type of capital, and the more unpleasant the job, the higher the wages should be. Fourierists
in the United States created some twenty-eight communities between 1841 and 1858, but by the late 1850s,
the movement had run its course in the United States.

• Explain the different reforms aimed at improving the health of the human body
• Describe the various factions and concerns within the temperance movement
Antebellum reform efforts aimed at perfecting the spiritual and social worlds of individuals, and as an
outgrowth of those concerns, some reformers moved in the direction of ensuring the health of American
citizens. Many Americans viewed drunkenness as a major national problem, and the battle against alcohol
and the many problems associated with it led many to join the temperance movement. Other reformers
offered plans to increase physical well-being, instituting plans designed to restore vigor. Still others
celebrated new sciences that would unlock the mysteries of human behavior and, by doing so, advance
American civilization.
TEMPERANCE
According to many antebellum reformers, intemperance (drunkenness) stood as the most troubling
problem in the United States, one that eroded morality, Christianity, and played a starring role in
corrupting American democracy. Americans consumed huge quantities of liquor in the early 1800s,
including gin, whiskey, rum, and brandy. Indeed, scholars agree that the rate of consumption of these
drinks during the first three decades of the 1800s reached levels that have never been equaled in American
history.
A variety of reformers created organizations devoted to temperance, that is, moderation or self-restraint.
Each of these organizations had its own distinct orientation and target audience. The earliest ones were
formed in the 1810s in New England. The Massachusetts Society for the Suppression of Intemperance and
the Connecticut Society for the Reformation of Morals were both formed in 1813. Protestant ministers led
both organizations, which enjoyed support from New Englanders who clung to the ideals of the Federalist
Party and later the Whigs. These early temperance societies called on individuals to lead pious lives and
avoid sin, including the sin of overindulging in alcohol. They called not for the eradication of drinking but
for a more restrained and genteel style of imbibing.
AMERICANA
The Drunkard’s Progress
This 1840 temperance illustration (Figure 13.13) charts the path of destruction for those who drink. The
step-by-step progression reads:
Step 1. A glass with a friend.
Step 2. A glass to keep the cold out.
Step 3. A glass too much.
Step 4. Drunk and riotous.
Step 5. The summit attained. Jolly companions. A confirmed drunkard.
Step 6. Poverty and disease.
Step 7. Forsaken by Friends.
Step 8. Desperation and crime.
Step 9. Death by suicide.
Figure 13.13 This 1846 image, The Drunkards Progress. From the First Glass to the Grave, by
Nathaniel Currier, shows the destruction that prohibitionists thought could result from drinking alcoholic
beverages.
Who do you think was the intended audience for this engraving? How do you think different audiences
(children, drinkers, nondrinkers) would react to the story it tells? Do you think it is an effective piece of
propaganda? Why or why not?
In the 1820s, temperance gained ground largely through the work of Presbyterian minister Lyman Beecher.
In 1825, Beecher delivered six sermons on temperance that were published the follow year as Six Sermons
on the Nature, Occasions, Signs, Evils, and Remedy of Intemperance. He urged total abstinence from hard liquor
and called for the formation of voluntary associations to bring forth a new day without spirits (whiskey,
rum, gin, brandy). Lyman’s work enjoyed a wide readership and support from leading Protestant
ministers as well as the emerging middle class; temperance fit well with the middle-class ethic of
encouraging hard work and a sober workforce.

In 1826, the American Temperance Society was formed, and by the early 1830s, thousands of similar
societies had sprouted across the country. Members originally pledged to shun only hard liquor. By
1836, however, leaders of the temperance movement, including Beecher, called for a more comprehensive
approach. Thereafter, most temperance societies advocated total abstinence; no longer would beer and
wine be tolerated. Such total abstinence from alcohol is known as teetotalism.
Teetotalism led to disagreement within the movement and a loss of momentum for reform after 1836.
However, temperance enjoyed a revival in the 1840s, as a new type of reformer took up the cause
against alcohol. The engine driving the new burst of enthusiastic temperance reform was the Washington
Temperance Society (named in deference to George Washington), which organized in 1840. The leaders
of the Washingtonians came not from the ranks of Protestant ministers but from the working class. They
aimed their efforts at confirmed alcoholics, unlike the early temperance advocates who mostly targeted the
middle class.
Washingtonians welcomed the participation of women and children, as they cast alcohol as the destroyer
of families, and those who joined the group took a public pledge of teetotalism. Americans flocked to the
Washingtonians; as many as 600,000 had taken the pledge by 1844. The huge surge in membership had
much to do with the style of this reform effort. The Washingtonians turned temperance into theater by
dramatizing the plight of those who fell into the habit of drunkenness. Perhaps the most famous fictional
drama put forward by the temperance movement was Ten Nights in a Bar-Room (1853), a novel that became
the basis for popular theatrical productions. The Washingtonians also sponsored picnics and parades that
drew whole families into the movement. The group’s popularity quickly waned in the late 1840s and early
1850s, when questions arose about the effectiveness of merely taking a pledge. Many who had done so
soon relapsed into alcoholism.
Still, by that time, temperance had risen to a major political issue. Reformers lobbied for laws limiting
or prohibiting alcohol, and states began to pass the first temperance laws. The earliest, an 1838 law in
Massachusetts, prohibited the sale of liquor in quantities less than fifteen gallons, a move designed to
make it difficult for ordinary workmen of modest means to buy spirits. The law was repealed in 1840, but
Massachusetts towns then took the initiative by passing local laws banning alcohol. In 1845, close to one
hundred towns in the state went “dry.”
An 1839 Mississippi law, similar to Massachusetts’ original law, outlawed the sale of less than a gallon
of liquor. Mississippi’s law illustrates the national popularity of temperance; regional differences
notwithstanding, citizens in northern and southern states agreed on the issue of alcohol. Nonetheless,
northern states pushed hardest for outlawing alcohol. Maine enacted the first statewide prohibition law in
1851. New England, New York, and states in the Midwest passed local laws in the 1850s, prohibiting the
sale and manufacture of intoxicating beverages.
REFORMS FOR THE BODY AND THE MIND

Beyond temperance, other reformers looked to ways to maintain and improve health in a rapidly changing
world. Without professional medical organizations or standards, health reform went in many different
directions; although the American Medical Association was formed in 1847, it did not have much power to
oversee medical practices. Too often, quack doctors prescribed regimens and medicines that did far more
harm that good.
Sylvester Graham stands out as a leading light among the health reformers in the antebellum years. A
Presbyterian minister, Graham began his career as a reformer, lecturing against the evils of strong drink.
He combined an interest in temperance with vegetarianism and sexuality into what he called a “Science of
Human Life,” calling for a regimented diet of more vegetables, fruits, and grain, and no alcohol, meat, or
spices.
Graham advocated baths and cleanliness in general to preserve health; hydropathy, or water cures for
various ailments, became popular in the United States in the 1840s and 1850s. He also viewed masturbation
and excessive sex as a cause of disease and debility. His ideas led him to create what he believed to be
a perfect food that would maintain health: the Graham cracker, which he invented in 1829. Followers of
Graham, known as Grahamites, established boardinghouses where lodgers followed the recommended
strict diet and sexual regimen.
During the early nineteenth century, reformers also interested themselves in the workings of the mind in
an effort to better understand the effects of a rapidly changing world awash with religious revivals and
democratic movements. Phrenology—the mapping of the cranium to specific human attributes—stands
as an early type of science, related to what would become psychology and devoted to understanding how
the mind worked. Phrenologists believed that the mind contained thirty-seven “faculties,” the strengths
or weaknesses of which could be determined by a close examination of the size and shape of the cranium
(Figure 13.14).
Figure 13.14 This March 1848 cover of the American Phrenological Journal illustrates the different faculties of the
mind as envisioned by phrenologists.
Initially developed in Europe by Franz Joseph Gall, a German doctor, phrenology first came to the United
States in the 1820s. In the 1830s and 1840s, it grew in popularity as lecturers crisscrossed the republic.
It was sometimes used as an educational test, and like temperance, it also became a form of popular
entertainment.
Click and Explore
Map the brain! Check out all thirty-seven of phrenology’s purported faculties
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Phrenology) of the mind.

The popularity of phrenology offers us some insight into the emotional world of the antebellum United
States. Its popularity speaks to the desire of those living in a rapidly changing society, where older ties to
community and family were being challenged, to understand one another. It appeared to offer a way to
quickly recognize an otherwise-unknown individual as a readily understood set of human faculties.

• Identify the different approaches to reforming the institution of slavery
• Describe the abolitionist movement in the early to mid-nineteenth century
The issue of slavery proved especially combustible in the reform-minded antebellum United States. Those
who hoped to end slavery had different ideas about how to do it. Some could not envision a biracial
society and advocated sending blacks to Africa or the Caribbean. Others promoted the use of violence as
the best method to bring American slavery to an end. Abolitionists, by contrast, worked to end slavery
and to create a multiracial society of equals using moral arguments—moral suasion—to highlight the
immorality of slavery. In keeping with the religious fervor of the era, abolitionists hoped to bring about a
mass conversion in public opinion to end slavery.
“REFORMS” TO SLAVERY
An early and popular “reform” to slavery was colonization, or a movement advocating the displacement
of African Americans out of the country, usually to Africa. In 1816, the Society for the Colonization of Free
People of Color of America (also called the American Colonization Society or ACS) was founded with this
goal. Leading statesmen including Thomas Jefferson endorsed the idea of colonization.
Members of the ACS did not believe that blacks and whites could live as equals, so they targeted the
roughly 200,000 free blacks in the United States for relocation to Africa. For several years after the ACS’s
founding, they raised money and pushed Congress for funds. In 1819, they succeeded in getting $100,000
from the federal government to further the colonization project. The ACS played a major role in the
creation of the colony of Liberia, on the west coast of Africa. The country’s capital, Monrovia, was named
in honor of President James Monroe. The ACS stands as an example of how white reformers, especially
men of property and standing, addressed the issue of slavery. Their efforts stand in stark contrast with
other reformers’ efforts to deal with slavery in the United States.
Although rebellion stretches the definition of reform, another potential solution to slavery was its violent
overthrow. Nat Turner’s Rebellion, one of the largest slave uprisings in American history, took place in
1831, in Southampton County, Virginia. Like many slaves, Nat Turner was inspired by the evangelical
Protestant fervor sweeping the republic. He preached to fellow slaves in Southampton County, gaining a
reputation among them as a prophet. He organized them for rebellion, awaiting a sign to begin, until an
eclipse in August signaled that the appointed time had come.
Turner and as many as seventy other slaves killed their masters and their masters’ families, murdering a
total of around sixty-five people (Figure 13.15). Turner eluded capture until late October, when he was
tried, hanged, and then beheaded and quartered. Virginia put to death fifty-six other slaves whom they
believed to have taken part in the rebellion. White vigilantes killed two hundred more as panic swept
through Virginia and the rest of the South.
Figure 13.15 In Horrid Massacre in Virginia, circa 1831, the text on the bottom reads, “The Scenes which the above
plate is designed to represent are Fig 1. a mother intreating for the lives of her children. -2. Mr. Travis, cruelly
murdered by his own Slaves. -3. Mr. Barrow, who bravely defended himself until his wife escaped. -4. A comp. of
mounted Dragoons in pursuit of the Blacks.” From whose side do you think the illustrator is telling this story?
MY STORY
Nat Turner on His Battle against Slavery
Thomas R. Gray was a lawyer in Southampton, Virginia, where he visited Nat Turner in jail. He published
The Confessions of Nat Turner, the leader of the late insurrection in Southampton, Va., as fully and
voluntarily made to Thomas R. Gray in November 1831, after Turner had been executed.
For as the blood of Christ had been shed on this earth, and had ascended to heaven for the
salvation of sinners, and was now returning to earth again in the form of dew . . . it was plain
to me that the Saviour was about to lay down the yoke he had borne for the sins of men, and
the great day of judgment was at hand. . . . And on the 12th of May, 1828, I heard a loud noise
in the heavens, and the Spirit instantly appeared to me and said the Serpent was loosened,
and Christ had laid down the yoke he had borne for the sins of men, and that I should take
it on and fight against the Serpent, . . . Ques. Do you not find yourself mistaken now? Ans.
Was not Christ crucified. And by signs in the heavens that it would make known to me when
I should commence the great work—and on the appearance of the sign, (the eclipse of the
sun last February) I should arise and prepare myself, and slay my enemies with their own
weapons.
How did Turner interpret his fight against slavery? What did he mean by the “serpent?”
Nat Turner’s Rebellion provoked a heated discussion in Virginia over slavery. The Virginia legislature
was already in the process of revising the state constitution, and some delegates advocated for an easier
manumission process. The rebellion, however, rendered that reform impossible. Virginia and other slave
states recommitted themselves to the institution of slavery, and defenders of slavery in the South
increasingly blamed northerners for provoking their slaves to rebel.
Literate, educated blacks, including David Walker, also favored rebellion. Walker was born a free black
man in North Carolina in 1796. He moved to Boston in the 1820s, lectured on slavery, and promoted the
first African American newspaper, Freedom’s Journal. He called for blacks to actively resist slavery and to
use violence if needed. He published An Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World in 1829, denouncing the
scheme of colonization and urging blacks to fight for equality in the United States, to take action against

racism. Walker died months after the publication of his Appeal, and debate continues to this day over the
cause of his death. Many believe he was murdered. Walker became a symbol of hope to free people in the
North and a symbol of the terrors of literate, educated blacks to the slaveholders of the South.
ABOLITIONISM
Abolitionists took a far more radical approach to the issue of the slavery by using moral arguments to
advocate its immediate elimination. They publicized the atrocities committed under slavery and aimed to
create a society characterized by equality of blacks and whites. In a world of intense religious fervor, they
hoped to bring about a mass awakening in the United States of the sin of slavery, confident that they could
transform the national conscience against the South’s peculiar institution.
William Lloyd Garrison and Antislavery Societies

William Lloyd Garrison of Massachusetts distinguished himself as the leader of the abolitionist
movement. Although he had once been in favor of colonization, he came to believe that such a scheme
only deepened racism and perpetuated the sinful practices of his fellow Americans. In 1831, he founded
the abolitionist newspaper The Liberator, whose first edition declared:
I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity?
I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to
think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a
moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the
mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen;—but urge me not
to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not
excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—AND I WILL BE HEARD.
White Virginians blamed Garrison for stirring up slaves and instigating slave rebellions like Nat Turner’s.
Garrison founded the New England Anti-Slavery Society in 1831, and the American Anti-Slavery Society
(AASS) in 1833. By 1838, the AASS had 250,000 members, sometimes called Garrisonians. They rejected
colonization as a racist scheme and opposed the use of violence to end slavery. Influenced by evangelical
Protestantism, Garrison and other abolitionists believed in moral suasion, a technique of appealing to
the conscience of the public, especially slaveholders. Moral suasion relied on dramatic narratives, often
from former slaves, about the horrors of slavery, arguing that slavery destroyed families, as children were
sold and taken away from their mothers and fathers (Figure 13.16). Moral suasion resonated with many
women, who condemned the sexual violence against slave women and the victimization of southern white
women by adulterous husbands.
Figure 13.16 These woodcuts of a chained and pleading slave, Am I Not a Man and a Brother? (a) and Am I Not a
Woman and a Sister?, accompanied abolitionist John Greenleaf Whittier’s antislavery poem, “Our Countrymen in
Chains.” Such images exemplified moral suasion: showing with pathos and humanity the moral wrongness of slavery.
Click and Explore
Read the full text of John Greenleaf Whittier’s antislavery poem

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15AmericasLost) “Our Countrymen in Chains.”
What imagery and rhetoric does Whittier use to advance the cause of abolitionism?
Garrison also preached immediatism: the moral demand to take immediate action to end slavery. He
wrote of equal rights and demanded that blacks be treated as equal to whites. He appealed to women and
men, black and white, to join the fight. The abolition press, which produced hundreds of tracts, helped
to circulate moral suasion. Garrison and other abolitionists also used the power of petitions, sending
hundreds of petitions to Congress in the early 1830s, demanding an end to slavery. Since most newspapers
published congressional proceedings, the debate over abolition petitions reached readers throughout the
nation.
Although Garrison rejected the U.S. political system as a tool of slaveholders, other abolitionists believed
mainstream politics could bring about their goal, and they helped create the Liberty Party in 1840. Its first
candidate was James G. Birney, who ran for president that year. Birney epitomized the ideal and goals of
the abolitionist movement. Born in Kentucky in 1792, Birney owned slaves and, searching for a solution to
what he eventually condemned as the immorality of slavery, initially endorsed colonization. In the 1830s,
however, he rejected colonization, freed his slaves, and began to advocate the immediate end of slavery.
The Liberty Party did not generate much support and remained a fringe third party. Many of its supporters
turned to the Free-Soil Party in the aftermath of the Mexican Cession.
The vast majority of northerners rejected abolition entirely. Indeed, abolition generated a fierce backlash
in the United States, especially during the Age of Jackson, when racism saturated American culture. Anti-
abolitionists in the North saw Garrison and other abolitionists as the worst of the worst, a threat to the
republic that might destroy all decency and order by upending time-honored distinctions between blacks
and whites, and between women and men. Northern anti-abolitionists feared that if slavery ended, the
North would be flooded with blacks who would take jobs from whites.

Opponents made clear their resistance to Garrison and others of his ilk; Garrison nearly lost his life in
1835, when a Boston anti-abolitionist mob dragged him through the city streets. Anti-abolitionists tried
to pass federal laws that made the distribution of abolitionist literature a criminal offense, fearing that
such literature, with its engravings and simple language, could spark rebellious blacks to action. Their
sympathizers in Congress passed a “gag rule” that forbade the consideration of the many hundreds
of petitions sent to Washington by abolitionists. A mob in Illinois killed an abolitionist named Elijah
Lovejoy in 1837, and the following year, ten thousand protestors destroyed the abolitionists’ newly built
Pennsylvania Hall in Philadelphia, burning it to the ground.
Frederick Douglass
Many escaped slaves joined the abolitionist movement, including Frederick Douglass. Douglass was born
in Maryland in 1818, escaping to New York in 1838. He later moved to New Bedford, Massachusetts, with
his wife. Douglass’s commanding presence and powerful speaking skills electrified his listeners when
he began to provide public lectures on slavery. He came to the attention of Garrison and others, who
encouraged him to publish his story. In 1845, Douglass published Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass,
An American Slave Written by Himself, in which he told about his life of slavery in Maryland (Figure 13.17).
He identified by name the whites who had brutalized him, and for that reason, along with the mere act of
publishing his story, Douglass had to flee the United States to avoid being murdered.
Figure 13.17 This 1856 ambrotype of Frederick Douglass (a) demonstrates an early type of photography developed
on glass. Douglass was an escaped slave who was instrumental in the abolitionism movement. His slave narrative,
told in Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave Written by Himself (b), followed a long line of
similar narratives that demonstrated the brutality of slavery for northerners unfamiliar with the institution.
British abolitionist friends bought his freedom from his Maryland owner, and Douglass returned to the
United States. He began to publish his own abolitionist newspaper, North Star, in Rochester, New York.
During the 1840s and 1850s, Douglass labored to bring about the end of slavery by telling the story of his
life and highlighting how slavery destroyed families, both black and white.
MY STORY
Frederick Douglass on Slavery
Most white slaveholders frequently raped female slaves. In this excerpt, Douglass explains the
consequences for the children fathered by white masters and slave women.
Slaveholders have ordained, and by law established, that the children of slave women shall
in all cases follow the condition of their mothers . . . this is done too obviously to administer
to their own lusts, and make a gratification of their wicked desires profitable as well as
pleasurable . . . the slaveholder, in cases not a few, sustains to his slaves the double relation
of master and father. . . .
Such slaves [born of white masters] invariably suffer greater hardships . . . They are . . . a
constant offence to their mistress . . . she is never better pleased than when she sees them
under the lash, . . . The master is frequently compelled to sell this class of his slaves, out of
deference to the feelings of his white wife; and, cruel as the deed may strike any one to be,
for a man to sell his own children to human flesh-mongers, . . . for, unless he does this, he
must not only whip them himself, but must stand by and see one white son tie up his brother,
of but few shades darker . . . and ply the gory lash to his naked back.
—Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave Written
by Himself (1845)
What moral complications did slavery unleash upon white slaveholders in the South, according to
Douglass? What imagery does he use?

• Explain the connections between abolition, reform, and antebellum feminism
• Describe the ways antebellum women’s movements were both traditional and
revolutionary
Women took part in all the antebellum reforms, from transcendentalism to temperance to abolition. In
many ways, traditional views of women as nurturers played a role in encouraging their participation.
Women who joined the cause of temperance, for example, amplified their accepted role as moral guardians
of the home. Some women advocated a much more expansive role for themselves and their peers by
educating children and men in solid republican principles. But it was their work in antislavery efforts that
served as a springboard for women to take action against gender inequality. Many, especially northern
women, came to the conclusion that they, like slaves, were held in shackles in a society dominated by men.
Despite the radical nature of their effort to end slavery and create a biracial society, most abolitionist men
clung to traditional notions of proper gender roles. White and black women, as well as free black men,
were forbidden from occupying leadership positions in the AASS. Because women were not allowed to
join the men in playing leading roles in the organization, they formed separate societies, such as the Boston
Female Anti-Slavery Society, the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society, and similar groups.
THE GRIMKÉ SISTERS

Two leading abolitionist women, Sarah and Angelina Grimké, played major roles in combining the fight
to end slavery with the struggle to achieve female equality. The sisters had been born into a prosperous
slaveholding family in South Carolina. Both were caught up in the religious fervor of the Second Great
Awakening, and they moved to the North and converted to Quakerism.

In the mid-1830s, the sisters joined the abolitionist movement, and in 1837, they embarked on a public
lecture tour, speaking about immediate abolition to “promiscuous assemblies,” that is, to audiences of
women and men. This public action thoroughly scandalized respectable society, where it was unheard of
for women to lecture to men. William Lloyd Garrison endorsed the Grimké sisters’ public lectures, but
other abolitionists did not. Their lecture tour served as a turning point; the reaction against them propelled
the question of women’s proper sphere in society to the forefront of public debate.
THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS AND SENTIMENTS

Participation in the abolitionist movement led some women to embrace feminism, the advocacy of
women’s rights. Lydia Maria Child, an abolitionist and feminist, observed, “The comparison between
women and the colored race is striking . . . both have been kept in subjection by physical force.” Other
women, including Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucy Stone, and Susan B. Anthony, agreed (Figure 13.18).
Figure 13.18 Elizabeth Cady Stanton (a) and Lucretia Mott (b) both emerged from the abolitionist movement as
strong advocates of women’s rights.
In 1848, about three hundred male and female feminists, many of them veterans of the abolition campaign,
gathered at the Seneca Falls Convention in New York for a conference on women’s rights that was
organized by Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. It was the first of what became annual meetings
that have continued to the present day. Attendees agreed to a “Declaration of Rights and Sentiments”
based on the Declaration of Independence; it declared, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all
men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights;
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” “The history of mankind,” the document
continued, “is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in
direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.”
Click and Explore
Read the entire text of the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15SenecaFalls) in the Internet Modern History
Sourcebook at Fordham University.
REPUBLICAN MOTHERHOOD IN THE ANTEBELLUM YEARS

Some northern female reformers saw new and vital roles for their sex in the realm of education. They
believed in traditional gender roles, viewing women as inherently more moral and nurturing than men.
Because of these attributes, the feminists argued, women were uniquely qualified to take up the roles of
educators of children.
Catharine Beecher, the daughter of Lyman Beecher, pushed for women’s roles as educators. In her 1845
book, The Duty of American Women to Their Country, she argued that the United States had lost its moral
compass due to democratic excess. Both “intelligence and virtue” were imperiled in an age of riots and
disorder. Women, she argued, could restore the moral center by instilling in children a sense of right and
wrong. Beecher represented a northern, middle-class female sensibility. The home, especially the parlor,
became the site of northern female authority.

Key Terms
abolitionist a believer in the complete elimination of slavery
colonization the strategy of moving African Americans out of the United States, usually to Africa
immediatism the moral demand to take immediate action against slavery to bring about its end
millennialism the belief that the Kingdom of God would be established on earth and that God would
reign on earth for a thousand years characterized by harmony and Christian morality
moral suasion an abolitionist technique of appealing to the consciences of the public, especially
slaveholders
Mormons an American denomination, also known as the Latter-Day Saints, that emphasized patriarchal
leadership
phrenology the mapping of the mind to specific human attributes
pietistic the stressing of stressed transformative individual religious experience or piety over religious
rituals and formality
Second Great Awakening a revival of evangelical Protestantism in the early nineteenth century
Seneca Falls the location of the first American conference on women’s rights and the signing of the
“Declaration of Rights and Sentiments” in 1848
Shakers a religious sect that emphasized communal living and celibacy
teetotalism complete abstinence from all alcohol
temperance a social movement encouraging moderation or self-restraint in the consumption of alcoholic

beverages
transcendentalism the belief that all people can attain an understanding of the world that transcends
rational, sensory experience
Summary
Evangelical Protestantism pervaded American culture in the antebellum era and fueled a belief in the
possibility of changing society for the better. Leaders of the Second Great Awakening like Charles G.
Finney urged listeners to take charge of their own salvation. This religious message dovetailed with the
new economic possibilities created by the market and Industrial Revolution, making the Protestantism
of the Second Great Awakening, with its emphasis on individual spiritual success, a reflection of the
individualistic, capitalist spirit of the age. Transcendentalists took a different approach, but like their
religiously oriented brethren, they too looked to create a better existence. These authors, most notably
Emerson, identified a major tension in American life between the effort to be part of the democratic
majority and the need to remain true to oneself as an individual.

Reformers who engaged in communal experiments aimed to recast economic and social relationships by
introducing innovations designed to create a more stable and equitable society. Their ideas found many
expressions, from early socialist experiments (such as by the Fourierists and the Owenites) to the dreams
of the New England intellectual elite (such as Brook Farm). The Second Great Awakening also prompted
many religious utopias, like those of the Rappites and Shakers. By any measure, the Mormons emerged as
the most successful of these.

Reformers targeted vices that corrupted the human body and society: the individual and the national soul.
For many, alcohol appeared to be the most destructive and widespread. Indeed, in the years before the
Civil War, the United States appeared to be a republic of drunkenness to many. To combat this national
substance abuse problem, reformers created a host of temperance organizations that first targeted the
middle and upper classes, and then the working classes. Thanks to Sylvester Graham and other health
reformers, exercise and fresh air, combined with a good diet, became fashionable. Phrenologists focused on
revealing the secrets of the mind and personality. In a fast-paced world, phrenology offered the possibility
of knowing different human characteristics.

Contrasting proposals were put forth to deal with slavery. Reformers in the antebellum United States
addressed the thorny issue of slavery through contrasting proposals that offered profoundly different
solutions to the dilemma of the institution. Many leading American statesmen, including slaveholders,
favored colonization, relocating American blacks to Africa, which abolitionists scorned. Slave rebellions
sought the end of the institution through its violent overthrow, a tactic that horrified many in the North
and the South. Abolitionists, especially those who followed William Lloyd Garrison, provoked equally
strong reactions by envisioning a new United States without slavery, where blacks and whites stood on
equal footing. Opponents saw abolition as the worst possible reform, a threat to all order and decency.
Slaveholders, in particular, saw slavery as a positive aspect of American society, one that reformed the
lives of slaves by exposing them to civilization and religion.

The spirit of religious awakening and reform in the antebellum era impacted women lives by allowing
them to think about their lives and their society in new and empowering ways. Of all the various
antebellum reforms, however, abolition played a significant role in generating the early feminist
movement in the United States. Although this early phase of American feminism did not lead to political
rights for women, it began the long process of overcoming gender inequalities in the republic.
Review Questions
1. Which of the following is not a characteristic of C. the individual
the Second Great Awakening? D. democracy
A. greater emphasis on nature
B. greater emphasis on religious education of 3. What do the Second Great Awakening and
children transcendentalism have in common?
C. greater church attendance
D. belief in the possibility of a better world 4. Which religious community focused on the
power of patriarchy?
2. Transcendentalists were most concerned with A. Shakers
________. B. Mormons
A. the afterlife C. Owenites
B. predestination D. Rappites

5. Which community or movement is associated B. the relocation of African Americans to

with transcendentalism? Africa
A. the Oneida Community C. American colonization of the Caribbean
B. the Ephrata Cloister D. American colonization of Africa
C. Brook Farm
D. Fourierism 11. Which of the following did William Lloyd
Garrison not employ in his abolitionist efforts?
6. How were the reform communities of the A. moral suasion
antebellum era treated by the general population? B. immediatism
C. political involvement
7. The first temperance laws were enacted by D. pamphleteering
________.
A. state governments 12. Why did William Lloyd Garrison’s
B. local governments endorsement of the Grimké sisters divide the
C. the federal government abolitionist movement?
D. temperance organizations A. They advocated equal rights for women.
B. They supported colonization.
8. Sylvester Graham’s reformers targeted C. They attended the Seneca Falls Convention.
________. D. They lectured to co-ed audiences.
A. the human body
B. nutrition 13. Which female reformer focused on women’s
C. sexuality roles as the educators of children?
D. all of the above A. Lydia Maria Child
B. Sarah Grimké
9. Whom did temperance reformers target? C. Catherine Beecher
D. Susan B. Anthony
10. In the context of the antebellum era, what
does colonization refer to? 14. How did the abolitionist movement impact
A. Great Britain’s colonization of North the women’s movement?
America

15. In what ways did the Second Great Awakening and transcendentalism reflect and react to the changes
in antebellum American thought and culture?
16. What did the antebellum communal projects have in common? How did the ones most influenced by
religion differ from those that had other influences?
17. In what ways do temperance, health reforms, and phrenology offer reflections on the changes in
the United States before the Civil War? What needs did these reforms fill in the lives of antebellum
Americans?
18. Of the various approaches to the problem of slavery, which one do you find to be the most effective
and why?
19. In what ways were antebellum feminists radical? In what ways were they traditional?

Chapter 14 Troubled Times: the Tumultuous 1850s 391
CHAPTER 14
Troubled Times: the Tumultuous

1850s
Figure 14.1 In Southern Chivalry: Argument versus Club’s (1856), by John Magee, South Carolinian Preston Brooks
attacks Massachusetts senator Charles Sumner after his speech denouncing “border ruffians” pouring into Kansas
from Missouri. For southerners, defending slavery meant defending southern honor.
Chapter Outline
14.1 The Compromise of 1850
14.2 The Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Republican Party
14.3 The Dred Scott Decision and Sectional Strife
14.4 John Brown and the Election of 1860
Introduction
The heated sectional controversy between the North and the South reached new levels of intensity in the
1850s. Southerners and northerners grew ever more antagonistic as they debated the expansion of slavery
in the West. The notorious confrontation between Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina and
Massachusetts senator Charles Sumner depicted in the image above (Figure 14.1), illustrates the contempt
between extremists on both sides. The “Caning of Sumner” in May 1856 followed upon a speech given by
Sumner two days earlier in which he condemned slavery in no uncertain terms, declaring: “[Admitting
Kansas as a slave state] is the rape of a virgin territory, compelling it to the hateful embrace of slavery; and
it may be clearly traced to a depraved longing for a new slave state, the hideous offspring of such a crime,
in the hope of adding to the power of slavery in the national government.” Sumner criticized proslavery
legislators, particularly attacking a fellow senator and relative of Preston Brooks. Brooks responded by
beating Sumner with a cane, a thrashing that southerners celebrated as a manly defense of gentlemanly
honor and their way of life. The episode highlights the violent clash between pro- and antislavery factions
in the 1850s, a conflict that would eventually lead to the traumatic unraveling of American democracy and
civil war.
392 Chapter 14 Troubled Times: the Tumultuous 1850s

• Explain the contested issues that led to the Compromise of 1850
• Describe and analyze the reactions to the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act
At the end of the Mexican-American War, the United States gained a large expanse of western territory
known as the Mexican Cession. The disposition of this new territory was in question; would the new states
be slave states or free-soil states? In the long run, the Mexican-American War achieved what abolitionism
alone had failed to do: it mobilized many in the North against slavery.
Antislavery northerners clung to the idea expressed in the 1846 Wilmot Proviso: slavery would not expand
into the areas taken, and later bought, from Mexico. Though the proviso remained a proposal and never
became a law, it defined the sectional division. The Free-Soil Party, which formed at the conclusion of
the Mexican-American War in 1848 and included many members of the failed Liberty Party, made this
position the centerpiece of all its political activities, ensuring that the issue of slavery and its expansion
remained at the front and center of American political debate. Supporters of the Wilmot Proviso and
members of the new Free-Soil Party did not want to abolish slavery in the states where it already existed;
rather, Free-Soil advocates demanded that the western territories be kept free of slavery for the benefit
of white laborers who might settle there. They wanted to protect white workers from having to compete
with slave labor in the West. (Abolitionists, in contrast, looked to destroy slavery everywhere in the United
States.) Southern extremists, especially wealthy slaveholders, reacted with outrage at this effort to limit
slavery’s expansion. They argued for the right to bring their slave property west, and they vowed to leave
the Union if necessary to protect their way of life—meaning the right to own slaves—and ensure that the
American empire of slavery would continue to grow.
BROKERING THE COMPROMISE

The issue of what to do with the western territories added to the republic by the Mexican Cession
consumed Congress in 1850. Other controversial matters, which had been simmering over time,
Figure 14.2

complicated the problem further. Chief among these issues were the slave trade in the District of
Columbia, which antislavery advocates hoped to end, and the fugitive slave laws, which southerners
wanted to strengthen. The border between Texas and New Mexico remained contested because many
Texans hoped to enlarge their state further, and, finally, the issue of California had not been resolved.
California was the crown jewel of the Mexican Cession, and following the discovery of gold, it was flush
with thousands of emigrants. By most estimates, however, it would be a free state, since the former
Mexican ban on slavery still remained in force and slavery had not taken root in California. The map below
(Figure 14.3) shows the disposition of land before the 1850 compromise.
Figure 14.3 This map shows the states and territories of the United States as they were in 1849–1850. (credit
“User:Golbez”/Wikimedia Commons)
The presidential election of 1848 did little to solve the problems resulting from the Mexican Cession.
Both the Whigs and the Democrats attempted to avoid addressing the issue of slavery publicly as much
as possible. The Democrats nominated Lewis Cass of Michigan, a supporter of the idea of popular
sovereignty, or letting the people in the territories decide the issue of whether or not to permit slavery
based on majority rule. The Whigs nominated General Zachary Taylor, a slaveholder from Louisiana, who
had achieved national prominence as a military hero in the Mexican-American War. Taylor did not take a
personal stand on any issue and remained silent throughout the campaign. The fledgling Free-Soil Party
put forward former president Martin Van Buren as their candidate. The Free-Soil Party attracted northern
Democrats who supported the Wilmot Proviso, northern Whigs who rejected Taylor because he was a
slaveholder, former members of the Liberty Party, and other abolitionists.
Both the Whigs and the Democrats ran different campaigns in the North and South. In the North, all three
parties attempted to win voters with promises of keeping the territories free of slavery, while in the South,
Whigs and Democrats promised to protect slavery in the territories. For southern voters, the slaveholder
Taylor appeared the natural choice. In the North, the Free-Soil Party took votes away from Whigs and
Democrats and helped to ensure Taylor’s election in 1848.
As president, Taylor sought to defuse the sectional controversy as much as possible, and, above all
else, to preserve the Union. Although Taylor was born in Virginia before relocating to Kentucky and
owned more than one hundred slaves by the late 1840s, he did not push for slavery’s expansion into
the Mexican Cession. However, the California Gold Rush made California’s statehood into an issue
demanding immediate attention. In 1849, after California residents adopted a state constitution prohibiting
slavery, President Taylor called on Congress to admit California and New Mexico as free states, a move
that infuriated southern defenders of slavery who argued for the right to bring their slave property
wherever they chose. Taylor, who did not believe slavery could flourish in the arid lands of the Mexican
Cession because the climate prohibited plantation-style farming, proposed that the Wilmot Proviso be
applied to the entire area.
In Congress, Kentucky senator Henry Clay, a veteran of congressional conflicts, offered a series of
resolutions addressing the list of issues related to slavery and its expansion. Clay’s resolutions called for
the admission of California as a free state; no restrictions on slavery in the rest of the Mexican Cession
(a rejection of the Wilmot Proviso and the Free-Soil Party’s position); a boundary between New Mexico
and Texas that did not expand Texas (an important matter, since Texas allowed slavery and a larger Texas
meant more opportunities for the expansion of slavery); payment of outstanding Texas debts from the
Lone Star Republic days; and the end of the slave trade (but not of slavery) in the nation’s capital, coupled
with a more robust federal fugitive slave law. Clay presented these proposals as an omnibus bill, that is,
one that would be voted on its totality.
Clay’s proposals ignited a spirited and angry debate that lasted for eight months. The resolution calling for
California to be admitted as a free state aroused the wrath of the aged and deathly ill John C. Calhoun, the
elder statesman for the proslavery position. Calhoun, too sick to deliver a speech, had his friend Virginia
senator James Mason present his assessment of Clay’s resolutions and the current state of sectional strife.
In Calhoun’s eyes, blame for the stalemate fell squarely on the North, which stood in the way of southern
and American prosperity by limiting the zones where slavery could flourish. Calhoun called for a vigorous
federal law to ensure that runaway slaves were returned to their masters. He also proposed a
constitutional amendment specifying a dual presidency—one office that would represent the South and
another for the North—a suggestion that hinted at the possibility of disunion. Calhoun’s argument
portrayed an embattled South faced with continued northern aggression—a line of reasoning that only
furthered the sectional divide.
Several days after Mason delivered Calhoun’s speech, Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster countered
Calhoun in his “Seventh of March” speech. Webster called for national unity, famously declaring that
he spoke “not as a Massachusetts man, not as a Northern man, but as an American.” Webster asked
southerners to end threats of disunion and requested that the North stop antagonizing the South by
harping on the Wilmot Proviso. Like Calhoun, Webster also called for a new federal law to ensure the
return of runaway slaves.
Webster’s efforts to compromise led many abolitionist sympathizers to roundly denounce him as a
traitor. Whig senator William H. Seward, who aspired to be president, declared that slavery—which
he characterized as incompatible with the assertion in the Declaration of Independence that “all men
are created equal”—would one day be extinguished in the United States. Seward’s speech, in which he
invoked the idea of a higher moral law than the Constitution, secured his reputation in the Senate as an
advocate of abolition.
The speeches made in Congress were published in the nation’s newspapers, and the American public
followed the debates with great interest, anxious to learn how the issues of the day, especially the potential
advance of slavery, would be resolved. Colorful reports of wrangling in Congress further piqued public
interest. Indeed, it was not uncommon for arguments to devolve into fistfights or worse. One of the most
astonishing episodes of the debate occurred in April 1850, when a quarrel erupted between Missouri
Democratic senator Thomas Hart Benton, who by the time of the debate had become a critic of slavery
(despite owning slaves), and Mississippi Democratic senator Henry S. Foote. When the burly Benton
appeared ready to assault Foote, the Mississippi senator drew his pistol (Figure 14.4).

Figure 14.4 This 1850 print, Scene in Uncle Sam’s Senate, depicts Mississippi senator Henry S. Foote taking aim at
Missouri senator Thomas Hart Benton. In the print, Benton declares: “Get out of the way, and let the assassin fire! let
the scoundrel use his weapon! I have no arm’s! I did not come here to assassinate!” Foote responds, “I only meant to
defend myself!” (credit: Library of Congress)
President Taylor and Henry Clay, whose resolutions had begun the verbal fireworks in the Senate, had no
patience for each other. Clay had long harbored ambitions for the White House, and, for his part, Taylor
resented Clay and disapproved of his resolutions. With neither side willing to budge, the government
stalled on how to resolve the disposition of the Mexican Cession and the other issues of slavery. The
drama only increased when on July 4, 1850, President Taylor became gravely ill, reportedly after eating
an excessive amount of fruit washed down with milk. He died five days later, and Vice President
Millard Fillmore became president. Unlike his predecessor, who many believed would be opposed to a
compromise, Fillmore worked with Congress to achieve a solution to the crisis of 1850.
In the end, Clay stepped down as leader of the compromise effort in frustration, and Illinois senator
Stephen Douglas pushed five separate bills through Congress, collectively composing the Compromise of
1850. First, as advocated by the South, Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act, a law that provided federal
money—or “bounties”—to slave-catchers. Second, to balance this concession to the South, Congress
admitted California as a free state, a move that cheered antislavery advocates and abolitionists in the
North. Third, Congress settled the contested boundary between New Mexico and Texas by favoring New
Mexico and not allowing for an enlarged Texas, another outcome pleasing to the North. Fourth, antislavery
advocates welcomed Congress’s ban on the slave trade in Washington, DC, although slavery continued
to thrive in the nation’s capital. Finally, on the thorny issue of whether slavery would expand into the
territories, Congress avoided making a direct decision and instead relied on the principle of popular
sovereignty. This put the onus on residents of the territories to decide for themselves whether to allow
slavery. Popular sovereignty followed the logic of American democracy; majorities in each territory would
decide the territory’s laws. The compromise, however, further exposed the sectional divide as votes on the
bills divided along strict regional lines.
Most Americans breathed a sigh of relief over the deal brokered in 1850, choosing to believe it had saved
the Union. Rather than resolving divisions between the North and the South, however, the compromise
stood as a truce in an otherwise white-hot sectional conflict. Tensions in the nation remained extremely
high; indeed, southerners held several conventions after the compromise to discuss ways to protect the
South. At these meetings, extremists who called for secession found themselves in the minority, since most
southerners committed themselves to staying in the Union—but only if slavery remained in the states
where it already existed, and if no effort was made to block its expansion into areas where citizens wanted
it, thereby applying the idea of popular sovereignty (Figure 14.5).
Figure 14.5 This map shows the states and territories of the United States as they were from 1850 to March 1853.
(credit “User:Golbez”/Wikimedia Commons)
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

The hope that the Compromise of 1850 would resolve the sectional crisis proved short-lived when the
Fugitive Slave Act turned into a major source of conflict. The federal law imposed heavy fines and prison
sentences on northerners and midwesterners who aided runaway slaves or refused to join posses to catch
fugitives. Many northerners felt the law forced them to act as slave-catchers against their will.
The law also established a new group of federal commissioners who would decide the fate of fugitives
brought before them. In some instances, slave-catchers even brought in free northern blacks, prompting
abolitionist societies to step up their efforts to prevent kidnappings (Figure 14.6). The commissioners had
a financial incentive to send fugitives and free blacks to the slaveholding South, since they received ten
dollars for every African American sent to the South and only five if they decided the person who came
before them was actually free. The commissioners used no juries, and the alleged runaways could not
testify in their own defense.

Figure 14.6 This 1851 poster, written by Boston abolitionist Theodore Parker, warned that any black person, free or
slave, risked kidnapping by slave-catchers.
The operation of the law further alarmed northerners and confirmed for many the existence of a “Slave
Power”—that is, a minority of elite slaveholders who wielded a disproportionate amount of power over
the federal government, shaping domestic and foreign policies to suit their interests. Despite southerners’
repeated insistence on states’ rights, the Fugitive Slave Act showed that slaveholders were willing to use
the power of the federal government to bend people in other states to their will. While rejecting the use of
federal power to restrict the expansion of slavery, proslavery southerners turned to the federal government
to protect and promote the institution of slavery.
The actual number of runaway slaves who were not captured within a year of escaping remained very
low, perhaps no more than one thousand per year in the early 1850s. Most stayed in the South, hiding
in plain sight among free blacks in urban areas. Nonetheless, southerners feared the influence of a vast
Underground Railroad: the network of northern whites and free blacks who sympathized with runaway
slaves and provided safe houses and safe passage from the South. Quakers, who had long been troubled
by slavery, were especially active in this network. It is unclear how many slaves escaped through the
Underground Railroad, but historians believe that between 50,000 and 100,000 slaves used the network
in their bids for freedom. Meanwhile, the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act greatly increased the perils of being
captured. For many thousands of fugitives, escaping the United States completely by going to southern
Ontario, Canada, where slavery had been abolished, offered the best chance of a better life beyond the
reach of slaveholders.
Harriet Tubman, one of the thousands of slaves who made their escape through the Underground
Railroad, distinguished herself for her efforts in helping other enslaved men and women escape. Born
a slave in Maryland around 1822, Tubman, who suffered greatly under slavery but found solace in
Christianity, made her escape in the late 1840s. She returned to the South more than a dozen times to lead
other slaves, including her family and friends, along the Underground Railroad to freedom.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Harriet Tubman: An American Moses?
Harriet Tubman (Figure 14.7) was a legendary figure in her own time and beyond. An escaped
slave herself, she returned to the South thirteen times to help over three hundred slaves through the
Underground Railroad to liberty in the North. In 1869, printer William J. Moses published Sarah H.
Bradford’s Scenes in the Life of Harriet Tubman. Bradford was a writer and biographer who had known
Tubman’s family for years. The excerpt below is from the beginning of her book, which she updated in
1886 under the title Harriet, the Moses of Her People.
Figure 14.7 This full-length portrait of Harriet Tubman hangs in the National Portrait Gallery of the
Smithsonian.
It is proposed in this little book to give a plain and unvarnished account of some scenes and
adventures in the life of a woman who, though one of earth’s lowly ones, and of dark-hued
skin, has shown an amount of heroism in her character rarely possessed by those of any
station in life. Her name (we say it advisedly and without exaggeration) deserves to be handed
down to posterity side by side with the names of Joan of Arc, Grace Darling, and Florence
Nightingale; for not one of these women has shown more courage and power of endurance
in facing danger and death to relieve human suffering, than has this woman in her heroic and
successful endeavors to reach and save all whom she might of her oppressed and suffering
race, and to pilot them from the land of Bondage to the promised land of Liberty. Well has she
been called “Moses,” for she has been a leader and deliverer unto hundreds of her people.
—Sarah H. Bradford, Scenes in the Life of Harriet Tubman
How does Bradford characterize Tubman? What language does Bradford use to tie religion into the fight
for freedom?
The Fugitive Slave Act provoked widespread reactions in the North. Some abolitionists, such as Frederick
Douglass, believed that standing up against the law necessitated violence. In Boston and elsewhere,
abolitionists tried to protect fugitives from federal authorities. One case involved Anthony Burns, who

had escaped slavery in Virginia in 1853 and made his way to Boston (Figure 14.8). When federal officials
arrested Burns in 1854, abolitionists staged a series of mass demonstrations and a confrontation at the
courthouse. Despite their best efforts, however, Burns was returned to Virginia when President Franklin
Pierce supported the Fugitive Slave Act with federal troops. Boston abolitionists eventually bought Burns’s
freedom. For many northerners, however, the Burns incident, combined with Pierce’s response, only
amplified their sense of a conspiracy of southern power.
Figure 14.8 Anthony Burns, drawn ca. 1855 by an artist identified only as “Barry,” shows a portrait of the fugitive
slave surrounded by scenes from his life, including his escape from Virginia, his arrest in Boston, and his address to
the court.
The most consequential reaction against the Fugitive Slave Act came in the form of a novel, Uncle Tom’s
Cabin. In it, author Harriet Beecher Stowe, born in Connecticut, made use of slaves’ stories she had heard
firsthand after marrying and moving to Ohio, then on the country’s western frontier. Her novel first
appeared as a series of stories in a Free-Soil newspaper, the National Era, in 1851 and was published as a
book the following year. Stowe told the tale of slaves who were sold by their Kentucky master. While Uncle
Tom is indeed sold down the river, young Eliza escapes with her baby (Figure 14.9). The story highlighted
the idea that slavery was a sin because it destroyed families, ripping children from their parents and
husbands and wives from one another. Stowe also emphasized the ways in which slavery corrupted white
citizens. The cruelty of some of the novel’s white slaveholders (who genuinely believe that slaves don’t feel
things the way that white people do) and the brutality of the slave dealer Simon Legree, who beats slaves
and sexually exploits a slave woman, demonstrate the dehumanizing effect of the institution even on those
who benefit from it.
Figure 14.9 This drawing from Uncle Tom’s Cabin, captioned “Eliza comes to tell Uncle Tom that he is sold, and that
she is running away to save her child,” illustrates the ways in which Harriet Beecher Stowe’s antislavery novel
bolstered abolitionists’ arguments against slavery.
Stowe’s novel proved a runaway bestseller and was the most-read novel of the nineteenth century,
inspiring multiple theatrical productions and musical compositions. It was translated into sixty languages
and remains in print to this day. Its message about the evils of slavery helped convince many northerners
of the righteousness of the cause of abolition. The novel also demonstrated the power of women to shape
public opinion. Stowe and other American women believed they had a moral obligation to mold the
conscience of the United States, even though they could not vote (Figure 14.10).
Figure 14.10 This photograph shows Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, in 1852. Stowe’s
work was an inspiration not only to abolitionists, but also to those who believed that women could play a significant
role in upholding the nation’s morality and shaping public opinion.

Click and Explore
Visit the Documenting the American South (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

15LeviCoffin) collection on the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill website to
read the memoirs of Levi Coffin, a prominent Quaker abolitionist who was known as
the “president” of the Underground Railroad for his active role in helping slaves to
freedom. The memoirs include the story of Eliza Harris, which inspired Harriet Beecher
Stowe’s famous character.
The backlash against the Fugitive Slave Act, fueled by Uncle Tom’s Cabin and well-publicized cases like
that of Anthony Burns, also found expression in personal liberty laws passed by eight northern state
legislatures. These laws emphasized that the state would provide legal protection to anyone arrested as a
fugitive slave, including the right to trial by jury. The personal liberty laws stood as a clear-cut example
of the North’s use of states’ rights in opposition to federal power while providing further evidence to
southerners that northerners had no respect for the Fugitive Slave Act or slaveholders’ property rights.
Click and Explore
Go to an archived page from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15MIPFreedom) site to read the original text of
Michigan’s 1855 personal liberty laws. How do these laws refute the provisions of the
federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1850?

• Explain the political ramifications of the Kansas-Nebraska Act
• Describe the founding of the Republican Party
In the early 1850s, the United States’ sectional crisis had abated somewhat, cooled by the Compromise
of 1850 and the nation’s general prosperity. In 1852, voters went to the polls in a presidential contest
between Whig candidate Winfield Scott and Democratic candidate Franklin Pierce. Both men endorsed the
Compromise of 1850. Though it was considered unseemly to hit the campaign trail, Scott did so—much to
the benefit of Pierce, as Scott’s speeches focused on forty-year-old battles during the War of 1812 and the
weather. In New York, Scott, known as “Old Fuss and Feathers,” talked about a thunderstorm that did not
occur and greatly confused the crowd. In Ohio, a cannon firing to herald Scott’s arrival killed a spectator.
Pierce was a supporter of the “Young America” movement of the Democratic Party, which enthusiastically
anticipated extending democracy around the world and annexing additional territory for the United
States. Pierce did not take a stance on the slavery issue. Helped by Scott’s blunders and the fact that he
had played no role in the bruising political battles of the past five years, Pierce won the election. The brief
period of tranquility between the North and South did not last long, however; it came to an end in 1854
with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This act led to the formation of a new political party, the
Republican Party, that committed itself to ending the further expansion of slavery.
THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT

The relative calm over the sectional issue was broken in 1854 over the issue of slavery in the territory
of Kansas. Pressure had been building among northerners to organize the territory west of Missouri and
Iowa, which had been admitted to the Union as a free state in 1846. This pressure came primarily from
northern farmers, who wanted the federal government to survey the land and put it up for sale. Promoters
of a transcontinental railroad were also pushing for this westward expansion.
Southerners, however, had long opposed the Wilmot Proviso’s stipulation that slavery should not expand
into the West. By the 1850s, many in the South were also growing resentful of the Missouri Compromise
of 1820, which established the 36° 30' parallel as the geographical boundary of slavery on the north-south
axis. Proslavery southerners now contended that popular sovereignty should apply to all territories, not
just Utah and New Mexico. They argued for the right to bring their slave property wherever they chose.
Attitudes toward slavery in the 1850s were represented by a variety of regional factions. Throughout
the South, slaveholders entrenched themselves in defense of their “way of life,” which depended on the
ownership of slaves. Since the 1830s, abolitionists, led by journalist and reformer William Lloyd Garrison,
had cast slavery as a national sin and called for its immediate end. For three decades, the abolitionists
remained a minority, but they had a significant effect on American society by bringing the evils of slavery
into the public consciousness. By the 1850s, some abolitionists advocated the use of violence against those
who owned slaves. In 1840, the Liberty Party, whose members came from the ranks of ministers, was
founded; this group sought to work within the existing political system, a strategy Garrison and others
rejected. Meanwhile, the Free-Soil Party committed itself to ensuring that white laborers would find work
in newly acquired territories and not have to compete with unpaid slaves.
It is important to note that, even among those who opposed the expansion of slavery in the West, very
different attitudes toward slavery existed. Some antislavery northerners wanted the West to be the best
country for poor whites to go and seek opportunity. They did not want white workers to have to compete
with slave labor, a contest that they believed demeaned white labor. Radical abolitionists, in contrast,
envisioned the end of all slavery, and a society of equality between blacks and whites. Others opposed
slavery in principle, but believed that the best approach was colonization; that is, settling freed slaves in a
colony in Africa.
The growing political movement to address the issue of slavery stiffened the resolve of southern
slaveholders to defend themselves and their society at all costs. Prohibiting slavery’s expansion, they
argued, ran counter to basic American property rights. As abolitionists fanned the flames of antislavery
sentiment, southerners solidified their defense of their enormous investment in human chattel. Across the
country, people of all political stripes worried that the nation’s arguments would cause irreparable rifts in
the country (Figure 14.11).

Figure 14.11 In this 1850 political cartoon, the artist takes aim at abolitionists, the Free-Soil Party, Southern states’
rights activists, and others he believes risk the health of the Union.
As these different factions were agitating for the settlement of Kansas and Nebraska, leaders of the
Democratic Party in 1853 and 1854 sought to bind their party together in the aftermath of intraparty fights
over the distribution of patronage jobs. Illinois Democratic senator Stephen Douglas believed he had found
a solution—the Kansas-Nebraska bill—that would promote party unity and also satisfy his colleagues
from the South, who detested the Missouri Compromise line. In January 1854, Douglas introduced the bill
(Figure 14.12). The act created two territories: Kansas, directly west of Missouri; and Nebraska, west of
Iowa. The act also applied the principle of popular sovereignty, dictating that the people of these territories
would decide for themselves whether to adopt slavery. In a concession crucial to many southerners, the
proposed bill would also repeal the 36° 30' line from the Missouri Compromise. Douglas hoped his bill
would increase his political capital and provide a step forward on his quest for the presidency. Douglas
also wanted the territory organized in hopes of placing the eastern terminus of a transcontinental railroad
in Chicago, rather than St. Louis or New Orleans.
Figure 14.12 This 1855 map shows the new territories of Kansas and Nebraska, complete with proposed routes of
the transcontinental railroad.
After heated debates, Congress narrowly passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. (In the House of
Representatives, the bill passed by a mere three votes: 113 to 110.) This move had major political
consequences. The Democrats divided along sectional lines as a result of the bill, and the Whig party, in
decline in the early 1850s, found its political power slipping further. Most important, the Kansas-Nebraska
Act gave rise to the Republican Party, a new political party that attracted northern Whigs, Democrats who
shunned the Kansas-Nebraska Act, members of the Free-Soil Party, and assorted abolitionists. Indeed, with
the formation of the Republican Party, the Free-Soil Party ceased to exist.
The new Republican Party pledged itself to preventing the spread of slavery into the territories and railed
against the Slave Power, infuriating the South. As a result, the party became a solidly northern political
organization. As never before, the U.S. political system was polarized along sectional fault lines.
BLEEDING KANSAS
In 1855 and 1856, pro- and antislavery activists flooded Kansas with the intention of influencing the
popular-sovereignty rule of the territories. Proslavery Missourians who crossed the border to vote in
Kansas became known as border ruffians; these gained the advantage by winning the territorial elections,
most likely through voter fraud and illegal vote counting. (By some estimates, up to 60 percent of the votes
cast in Kansas were fraudulent.) Once in power, the proslavery legislature, meeting at Lecompton, Kansas,
drafted a proslavery constitution known as the Lecompton Constitution. It was supported by President
Buchanan, but opposed by Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois.

DEFINING "AMERICAN"
The Lecompton Constitution
Kansas was home to no fewer than four state constitutions in its early years. Its first constitution, the
Topeka Constitution, would have made Kansas a free-soil state. A proslavery legislature, however,
created the 1857 Lecompton Constitution to enshrine the institution of slavery in the new Kansas-
Nebraska territories. In January 1858, Kansas voters defeated the proposed Lecompton Constitution,
excerpted below, with an overwhelming margin of 10,226 to 138.
ARTICLE VII.—SLAVERY
SECTION 1. The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction, and
the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase is the same and as inviolable
as the right of the owner of any property whatever.
SEC. 2. The Legislature shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves
without the consent of the owners, or without paying the owners previous to their
emancipation a full equivalent in money for the slaves so emancipated. They shall have
no power to prevent immigrants to the State from bringing with them such persons as are
deemed slaves by the laws of any one of the United States or Territories, so long as any
person of the same age or description shall be continued in slavery by the laws of this State:
Provided, That such person or slave be the bona fide property of such immigrants.
How are slaves defined in the 1857 Kansas constitution? How does this constitution safeguard the rights
of slaveholders?
The majority in Kansas, however, were Free-Soilers who seethed at the border ruffians’ co-opting of the
democratic process (Figure 14.13). Many had come from New England to ensure a numerical advantage
over the border ruffians. The New England Emigrant Aid Society, a northern antislavery group, helped
fund these efforts to halt the expansion of slavery into Kansas and beyond.
Figure 14.13 This full-page editorial ran in the Free-Soiler Kansas Tribune on September 15, 1855, the day Kansas’
Act to Punish Offences against Slave Property of 1855 went into effect. This law made it punishable by death to aid or
abet a fugitive slave, and it called for punishment of no less than two years for anyone who might: “print, publish,
write, circulate, or cause to be introduced into this Territory . . . [any materials] . . . containing any denial of the right of
persons to hold slaves in this Territory.”
Click and Explore
Go to the Kansas Historical Society’s Kansapedia (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

15KSConst) to read the four different state constitutions that Kansas had during its
early years as a United States Territory. What can you deduce about the authors of
each constitution?
In 1856, clashes between antislavery Free-Soilers and border ruffians came to a head in Lawrence, Kansas.
The town had been founded by the New England Emigrant Aid Society, which funded antislavery
settlement in the territory and were determined that Kansas should be a free-soil state. Proslavery
emigrants from Missouri were equally determined that no “abolitionist tyrants” or “negro thieves” would
control the territory. In the spring of 1856, several of Lawrence’s leading antislavery citizens were indicted
for treason, and federal marshal Israel Donaldson called for a posse to help make arrests. He did not
have trouble finding volunteers from Missouri. When the posse, which included Douglas County sheriff
Samuel Jones, arrived outside Lawrence, the antislavery town’s “committee of safety” agreed on a policy
of nonresistance. Most of those who were indicted fled. Donaldson arrested two men without incident and
dismissed the posse.
However, Jones, who had been shot during an earlier confrontation in the town, did not leave. On May 21,
falsely claiming that he had a court order to do so, Jones took command of the posse and rode into town
armed with rifles, revolvers, cutlasses and bowie knives. At the head of the procession, two flags flew: an
American flag and a flag with a crouching tiger. Other banners followed, bearing the words “Southern
rights” and “The Superiority of the White Race.” In the rear were five artillery pieces, which were dragged
to the center of town. The posse smashed the presses of the two newspapers, Herald of Freedom and the
Kansas Free State, and burned down the deserted Free State Hotel (Figure 14.14). When the posse finally
left, Lawrence residents found themselves unharmed but terrified.
The next morning, a man named John Brown and his sons, who were on their way to provide Lawrence
with reinforcements, heard the news of the attack. Brown, a strict, God-fearing Calvinist and staunch
abolitionist, once remarked that “God had raised him up on purpose to break the jaws of the wicked.”
Disappointed that the citizens of Lawrence did not resist the “slave hounds” of Missouri, Brown opted
not to go to Lawrence, but to the homes of proslavery settlers near Pottawatomie Creek in Kansas. The
group of seven, including Brown’s four sons, arrived on May 24, 1856, and announced they were the
“Northern Army” that had come to serve justice. They burst into the cabin of proslavery Tennessean James
Doyle and marched him and two of his sons off, sparing the youngest at the desperate request of Doyle’s
wife, Mahala. One hundred yards down the road, Owen and Salmon Brown hacked their captives to
death with broadswords and John Brown shot a bullet into Doyle’s forehead. Before the night was done,
the Browns visited two more cabins and brutally executed two other proslavery settlers. None of those
executed owned any slaves or had had anything to do with the raid on Lawrence.
Brown’s actions precipitated a new wave of violence. All told, the guerilla warfare between proslavery
“border ruffians” and antislavery forces, which would continue and even escalate during the Civil War,
resulted in over 150 deaths and significant property loss. The events in Kansas served as an extreme
reply to Douglas’s proposition of popular sovereignty. As the violent clashes increased, Kansas became
known as “Bleeding Kansas.” Antislavery advocates’ use of force carved out a new direction for some
who opposed slavery. Distancing themselves from William Lloyd Garrison and other pacifists, Brown and
fellow abolitionists believed the time had come to fight slavery with violence.

Figure 14.14 This undated image shows the aftermath of the sacking of Lawrence, Kansas, by border ruffians.
Shown are the ruins of the Free State Hotel.
The violent hostilities associated with Bleeding Kansas were not limited to Kansas itself. It was the
controversy over Kansas that prompted the caning of Charles Sumner, introduced at the beginning of this
chapter with the political cartoon Southern Chivalry: Argument versus Club’s (Figure 14.1). Note the title of
the cartoon; it lampoons the southern ideal of chivalry, the code of behavior that Preston Brooks believed
he was following in his attack on Sumner. In Sumner’s “Crime against Kansas” speech he went much
further than politics, filling his verbal attack with allusions to sexuality by singling out fellow senator
Andrew Butler from South Carolina, a zealous supporter of slavery and Brooks’s uncle. Sumner insulted
Butler by comparing slavery to prostitution, declaring, “Of course he [Butler] has chosen a mistress to
whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in
the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight. I mean the harlot Slavery.” Because Butler was aged, it was his
nephew, Brooks, who sought satisfaction for Sumner’s attack on his family and southern honor. Brooks did
not challenge Sumner to a duel; by choosing to beat him with a cane instead, he made it clear that he did
not consider Sumner a gentleman. Many in the South rejoiced over Brooks’s defense of slavery, southern
society, and family honor, sending him hundreds of canes to replace the one he had broken assaulting
Sumner. The attack by Brooks left Sumner incapacitated physically and mentally for a long period of time.
Despite his injuries, the people of Massachusetts reelected him.
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1856

The electoral contest in 1856 took place in a transformed political landscape. A third political party
appeared: the anti-immigrant American Party, a formerly secretive organization with the nickname “the
Know-Nothing Party” because its members denied knowing anything about it. By 1856, the American
or Know-Nothing Party had evolved into a national force committed to halting further immigration.
Its members were especially opposed to the immigration of Irish Catholics, whose loyalty to the Pope,
they believed, precluded their loyalty to the United States. On the West Coast, they opposed the entry
of immigrant laborers from China, who were thought to be too foreign to ever assimilate into a white
America.
The election also featured the new Republican Party, which offered John C. Fremont as its candidate.
Republicans accused the Democrats of trying to nationalize slavery through the use of popular sovereignty
in the West, a view captured in the 1856 political cartoon Forcing Slavery Down the Throat of a Free Soiler
(Figure 14.15). The cartoon features the image of a Free-Soiler settler tied to the Democratic Party platform
while Senator Douglas (author of the Kansas-Nebraska Act) and President Pierce force a slave down his
throat. Note that the slave cries out “Murder!!! Help—neighbors help, O my poor Wife and Children,” a
reference to the abolitionists’ argument that slavery destroyed families.
Figure 14.15 This 1856 political cartoon, Forcing Slavery Down the Throat of a Free Soiler, by John Magee, shows
Republican resentment of the Democratic platform—here represented as an actual platform—of expanding slavery
into new western territories.
The Democrats offered James Buchanan as their candidate. Buchanan did not take a stand on either side of
the issue of slavery; rather, he attempted to please both sides. His qualification, in the minds of many, was
that he was out of the country when the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed. In the above political cartoon,
Buchanan, along with Democratic senator Lewis Cass, holds down the Free-Soil advocate. Buchanan won
the election, but Fremont garnered more than 33 percent of the popular vote, an impressive return for
a new party. The Whigs had ceased to exist and had been replaced by the Republican Party. Know-
Nothings also transferred their allegiance to the Republicans because the new party also took an anti-
immigrant stance, a move that further boosted the new party’s standing. (The Democrats courted the
Catholic immigrant vote.) The Republican Party was a thoroughly northern party; no southern delegate
voted for Fremont.

• Explain the importance of the Supreme Court's Dred Scott ruling
• Discuss the principles of the Republican Party as expressed by Abraham Lincoln in
1858
As president, Buchanan confronted a difficult and volatile situation. The nation needed a strong
personality to lead it, and Buchanan did not possess this trait. The violence in Kansas demonstrated
that applying popular sovereignty—the democratic principle of majority rule—to the territory offered no
solution to the national battle over slavery. A decision by the Supreme Court in 1857, which concerned the
slave Dred Scott, only deepened the crisis.
DRED SCOTT
In 1857, several months after President Buchanan took the oath of office, the Supreme Court ruled in
Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott (Figure 14.16), born a slave in Virginia in 1795, had been one of the
thousands forced to relocate as a result of the massive internal slave trade and taken to Missouri, where
slavery had been adopted as part of the Missouri Compromise. In 1820, Scott’s owner took him first to
Illinois and then to the Wisconsin territory. However, both of those regions were part of the Northwest
Territory, where the 1787 Northwest Ordinance had prohibited slavery. When Scott returned to Missouri,

he attempted to buy his freedom. After his owner refused, he sought relief in the state courts, arguing that
by virtue of having lived in areas where slavery was banned, he should be free.
Figure 14.16 This 1888 portrait by Louis Schultze shows Dred Scott, who fought for his freedom through the
American court system.
In a complicated set of legal decisions, a jury found that Scott, along with his wife and two children, were
free. However, on appeal from Scott’s owner, the state Superior Court reversed the decision, and the Scotts
remained slaves. Scott then became the property of John Sanford (his name was misspelled as “Sandford”
in later court documents), who lived in New York. He continued his legal battle, and because the issue
involved Missouri and New York, the case fell under the jurisdiction of the federal court. In 1854, Scott lost
in federal court and appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
In 1857, the Supreme Court—led by Chief Justice Roger Taney, a former slaveholder who had freed his
slaves—handed down its decision. On the question of whether Scott was free, the Supreme Court decided
he remained a slave. The court then went beyond the specific issue of Scott’s freedom to make a sweeping
and momentous judgment about the status of blacks, both free and slave. Per the court, blacks could
never be citizens of the United States. Further, the court ruled that Congress had no authority to stop or
limit the spread of slavery into American territories. This proslavery ruling explicitly made the Missouri
Compromise unconstitutional; implicitly, it made Douglas’s popular sovereignty unconstitutional.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Roger Taney on Dred Scott v. Sandford
In 1857, the United States Supreme Court ended years of legal battles when it ruled that Dred Scott,
a slave who had resided in several free states, should remain a slave. The decision, written by Chief
Justice Roger Taney, also stated that blacks could not be citizens and that Congress had no power to
limit the spread of slavery. The excerpt below is from Taney’s decision.
A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as
slaves, is not a “citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. . . .
The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race treat them as persons whom
it was morally lawfully to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves. . . .
Every citizen has a right to take with him into the Territory any article of property which the
Constitution of the United States recognises as property. . . .
The Constitution of the United States recognises slaves as property, and pledges the Federal
Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of
that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind. . . .
Prohibiting a citizen of the United States from taking with him his slaves when he removes to
the Territory . . . is an exercise of authority over private property which is not warranted by the
Constitution, and the removal of the plaintiff [Dred Scott] by his owner to that Territory gave
him no title to freedom.
How did the Supreme Court define Dred Scott? How did the court interpret the Constitution on this score?
The Dred Scott decision infuriated Republicans by rendering their goal—to prevent slavery’s spread into
the territories—unconstitutional. To Republicans, the decision offered further proof of the reach of the
South’s Slave Power, which now apparently extended even to the Supreme Court. The decision also
complicated life for northern Democrats, especially Stephen Douglas, who could no longer sell popular
sovereignty as a symbolic concession to southerners from northern voters. Few northerners favored
slavery’s expansion westward.
THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES

The turmoil in Kansas, combined with the furor over the Dred Scott decision, provided the background
for the 1858 senatorial contest in Illinois between Democratic senator Stephen Douglas and Republican
hopeful Abraham Lincoln (Figure 14.17). Lincoln and Douglas engaged in seven debates before huge
crowds that met to hear the two men argue the central issue of slavery and its expansion. Newspapers
throughout the United States published their speeches. Whereas Douglas already enjoyed national
recognition, Lincoln remained largely unknown before the debates. These appearances provided an
opportunity for him to raise his profile with both northerners and southerners.

Figure 14.17 In 1858, Abraham Lincoln (a) debated Stephen Douglas (b) seven times in the Illinois race for the U.S.
Senate. Although Douglas won the seat, the debates propelled Lincoln into the national political spotlight.
Douglas portrayed the Republican Party as an abolitionist effort—one that aimed to bring about
miscegenation, or race-mixing through sexual relations or marriage. The “black Republicans,” Douglas
declared, posed a dangerous threat to the Constitution. Indeed, because Lincoln declared the nation could
not survive if the slave state–free state division continued, Douglas claimed the Republicans aimed to
destroy what the founders had created.
For his part, Lincoln said: “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot
endure permanently half Slave and half Free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect
the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall
rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction: or its advocates will push it forward till it
shall became alike lawful in all the States—old as well as new, North as well as South.” Lincoln interpreted
the Dred Scott decision and the Kansas-Nebraska Act as efforts to nationalize slavery: that is, to make it
legal everywhere from New England to the Midwest and beyond.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
The Lincoln-Douglas Debates
On August 21, 1858, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas met in Ottawa, Illinois, for the first of seven
debates. People streamed into Ottawa from neighboring counties and from as far away as Chicago.
Reporting on the event was strictly partisan, with each of the candidates’ supporters claiming victory for
their candidate. In this excerpt, Lincoln addresses the issues of equality between blacks and whites.
[A]nything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro,
is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, . . . I have no purpose, directly or
indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe
I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to
introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a
physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their
living together upon the footing of perfect equality, . . . I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor
of the race to which I belong having the superior position. . . . [N]otwithstanding all this, there
is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in
the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold
that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. . . . [I]n the right to eat the bread, without
the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge
Douglas, and the equal of every living man.
—Lincoln’s speech on August 21, 1858, in Ottawa, Illinois
How would you characterize Lincoln’s position on equality between blacks and whites? What types of
equality exist, according to Lincoln?
Click and Explore
Go to the Lincoln Home National Historic Site (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

15LincDoug) on the National Park Service’s website to read excerpts from and full
texts of the debates. Then, visit The Lincoln/Douglas Debates of 1858
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15LincDoug2) on the Northern Illinois University
website to read different newspaper accounts of the debates. Do you see any major
differences in the way the newspapers reported the debates? How does the commentary vary, and why?
During the debates, Lincoln demanded that Douglas explain whether or not he believed that the 1857
Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case trumped the right of a majority to prevent the expansion
of slavery under the principle of popular sovereignty. Douglas responded to Lincoln during the second
debate at Freeport, Illinois. In what became known as the Freeport Doctrine, Douglas adamantly upheld
popular sovereignty, declaring: “It matters not what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to
the abstract question whether slavery may or may not go into a territory under the Constitution, the people
have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it as they please.” The Freeport Doctrine antagonized
southerners and caused a major rift in the Democratic Party. The doctrine did help Douglas in Illinois,
however, where most voters opposed the further expansion of slavery. The Illinois legislature selected
Douglas over Lincoln for the senate, but the debates had the effect of launching Lincoln into the national
spotlight. Lincoln had argued that slavery was morally wrong, even as he accepted the racism inherent
in slavery. He warned that Douglas and the Democrats would nationalize slavery through the policy

of popular sovereignty. Though Douglas had survived the election challenge from Lincoln, his Freeport
Doctrine undermined the Democratic Party as a national force.

• Describe John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry and its results
• Analyze the results of the election of 1860
Events in the late 1850s did nothing to quell the country’s sectional unrest, and compromise on the
issue of slavery appeared impossible. Lincoln’s 1858 speeches during his debates with Douglas made the
Republican Party’s position well known; Republicans opposed the extension of slavery and believed a
Slave Power conspiracy sought to nationalize the institution. They quickly gained political momentum and
took control of the House of Representatives in 1858. Southern leaders were divided on how to respond to
Republican success. Southern extremists, known as “Fire-Eaters,” openly called for secession. Others, like
Mississippi senator Jefferson Davis, put forward a more moderate approach by demanding constitutional
protection of slavery.
JOHN BROWN
In October 1859, the radical abolitionist John Brown and eighteen armed men, both blacks and whites,
attacked the federal arsenal in Harpers Ferry, Virginia. They hoped to capture the weapons there and
distribute them among slaves to begin a massive uprising that would bring an end to slavery. Brown
had already demonstrated during the 1856 Pottawatomie attack in Kansas that he had no patience for the
nonviolent approach preached by pacifist abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison. Born in Connecticut
in 1800, Brown (Figure 14.18) spent much of his life in the North, moving from Ohio to Pennsylvania and
then upstate New York as his various business ventures failed. To him, slavery appeared an unacceptable
evil that must be purged from the land, and like his Puritan forebears, he believed in using the sword to
defeat the ungodly.
Figure 14.18 John Brown, shown here in a photograph from 1859, was a radical abolitionist who advocated the
violent overthrow of slavery.
Brown had gone to Kansas in the 1850s in an effort to stop slavery, and there, he had perpetrated the
killings at Pottawatomie. He told other abolitionists of his plan to take Harpers Ferry Armory and initiate
a massive slave uprising. Some abolitionists provided financial support, while others, including Frederick
Douglass, found the plot suicidal and refused to join. On October 16, 1859, Brown’s force easily took
control of the federal armory, which was unguarded (Figure 14.19). However, his vision of a mass
uprising failed completely. Very few slaves lived in the area to rally to Brown’s side, and the group found
themselves holed up in the armory’s engine house with townspeople taking shots at them. Federal troops,
commanded by Colonel Robert E. Lee, soon captured Brown and his followers. On December 2, Brown
was hanged by the state of Virginia for treason.
Figure 14.19 John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry represented the radical abolitionist’s attempt to start a revolt that
would ultimately end slavery. This 1859 illustration, captioned “Harper’s Ferry insurrection—Interior of the Engine-
House, just before the gate is broken down by the storming party—Col. Washington and his associates as captives,
held by Brown as hostages,” is from Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Magazine. Do you think this image represents a
southern or northern version of the raid? How are the characters in the scene depicted?
Click and Explore
Visit the Avalon Project (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15JohnBrown) on Yale Law

School’s website to read the impassioned speech that Henry David Thoreau delivered
on October 30, 1859, arguing against the execution of John Brown. How does Thoreau
characterize Brown? What does he ask of his fellow citizens?
John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry generated intense reactions in both the South and the North.
Southerners grew especially apprehensive of the possibility of other violent plots. They viewed Brown as
a terrorist bent on destroying their civilization, and support for secession grew. Their anxiety led several
southern states to pass laws designed to prevent slave rebellions. It seemed that the worst fears of the
South had come true: A hostile majority would stop at nothing to destroy slavery. Was it possible, one
resident of Maryland asked, to “live under a government, a majority of whose subjects or citizens regard
John Brown as a martyr and Christian hero?” Many antislavery northerners did in fact consider Brown a
martyr to the cause, and those who viewed slavery as a sin saw easy comparisons between him and Jesus
Christ.

THE ELECTION OF 1860

The election of 1860 triggered the collapse of American democracy when the elevation of Abraham Lincoln
to the presidency inspired secessionists in the South to withdraw their states from the Union.
Lincoln’s election owed much to the disarray in the Democratic Party. The Dred Scott decision and the
Freeport Doctrine had opened up huge sectional divisions among Democrats. Though Brown did not
intend it, his raid had furthered the split between northern and southern Democrats. Fire-Eaters vowed
to prevent a northern Democrat, especially Illinois’s Stephen Douglas, from becoming their presidential
candidate. These proslavery zealots insisted on a southern Democrat.
The Democratic nominating convention met in April 1860 in Charleston, South Carolina. However, it
broke up after northern Democrats, who made up a majority of delegates, rejected Jefferson Davis’s efforts
to protect slavery in the territories. These northern Democratic delegates knew that supporting Davis
on this issue would be very unpopular among the people in their states. A second conference, held in
Baltimore, further illustrated the divide within the Democratic Party. Northern Democrats nominated
Stephen Douglas, while southern Democrats, who met separately, put forward Vice President John
Breckinridge from Kentucky. The Democratic Party had fractured into two competing sectional factions.
By offering two candidates for president, the Democrats gave the Republicans an enormous advantage.
Also hoping to prevent a Republican victory, pro-Unionists from the border states organized the
Constitutional Union Party and put up a fourth candidate, John Bell, for president, who pledged to end
slavery agitation and preserve the Union but never fully explained how he’d accomplish this objective.
In a pro-Lincoln political cartoon of the time (Figure 14.20), the presidential election is presented as a
baseball game. Lincoln stands on home plate. A skunk raises its tail at the other candidates. Holding his
nose, southern Democrat John Breckinridge holds a bat labeled “Slavery Extension” and declares “I guess
I’d better leave for Kentucky, for I smell something strong around here, and begin to think, that we are
completely skunk’d.”
Figure 14.20 The national game. Three “outs” and one “run” (1860), by Currier and Ives, shows the two Democratic
candidates and one Constitutional Union candidate who lost the 1860 election to Republican Lincoln, shown at right.
The Republicans nominated Lincoln, and in the November election, he garnered a mere 40 percent of the
popular vote, though he won every northern state except New Jersey. (Lincoln’s name was blocked from
even appearing on many southern states’ ballots by southern Democrats.) More importantly, Lincoln did
gain a majority in the Electoral College (Figure 14.21). The Fire-Eaters, however, refused to accept the
results. With South Carolina leading the way, Fire-Eaters in southern states began to withdraw formally
from the United States in 1860. South Carolinian Mary Boykin Chesnut wrote in her diary about the
reaction to the Lincoln’s election. “Now that the black radical Republicans have the power,” she wrote,
“I suppose they will Brown us all.” Her statement revealed many southerners’ fear that with Lincoln as
President, the South could expect more mayhem like the John Brown raid.
Figure 14.21 This map shows the disposition of electoral votes for the election of 1860. The votes were divided
along almost perfect sectional lines.

Key Terms
American Party also called the Know-Nothing Party, a political party that emerged in 1856 with an anti-
immigration platform
Bleeding Kansas a reference to the violent clashes in Kansas between Free-Soilers and slavery
supporters
border ruffians proslavery Missourians who crossed the border into Kansas to influence the legislature
Compromise of 1850 five laws passed by Congress to resolve issues stemming from the Mexican Cession
and the sectional crisis
Dred Scott v. Sandford an 1857 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that blacks could not be citizens
and Congress had no jurisdiction to impede the expansion of slavery
Fire-Eaters radical southern secessionists
Free-Soil Party a political party committed to ensuring that white laborers would not have to compete
with unpaid slaves in newly acquired territories
Freeport Doctrine a doctrine that emerged during the Lincoln-Douglas debates in which Douglas
reaffirmed his commitment to popular sovereignty, including the right to halt the spread of slavery,
despite the 1857 Dred Scott decision affirming slaveholders’ right to bring their property wherever they
wished
Harpers Ferry the site of a federal arsenal in Virginia, where radical abolitionist John Brown staged an
ill-fated effort to end slavery by instigating a mass uprising among slaves
miscegenation race-mixing through sexual relations or marriage
popular sovereignty the principle of letting the people residing in a territory decide whether or not to
permit slavery in that area based on majority rule
Republican Party an antislavery political party formed in 1854 in response to Stephen Douglas’s Kansas-
Nebraska Act
Underground Railroad a network of free blacks and northern whites who helped slaves escape bondage
through a series of designated routes and safe houses
Summary
The difficult process of reaching a compromise on slavery in 1850 exposed the sectional fault lines in the
United States. After several months of rancorous debate, Congress passed five laws—known collectively
as the Compromise of 1850—that people on both sides of the divide hoped had solved the nation’s
problems. However, many northerners feared the impact of the Fugitive Slave Act, which made it a crime
not only to help slaves escape, but also to fail to help capture them. Many Americans, both black and
white, flouted the Fugitive Slave Act by participating in the Underground Railroad, providing safe houses
for slaves on the run from the South. Eight northern states passed personal liberty laws to counteract the
effects of the Fugitive Slave Act.

The application of popular sovereignty to the organization of the Kansas and Nebraska territories ended
the sectional truce that had prevailed since the Compromise of 1850. Senator Douglas’s Kansas-Nebraska
Act opened the door to chaos in Kansas as proslavery and Free-Soil forces waged war against each other,
and radical abolitionists, notably John Brown, committed themselves to violence to end slavery. The act
also upended the second party system of Whigs and Democrats by inspiring the formation of the new
Republican Party, committed to arresting the further spread of slavery. Many voters approved its platform
in the 1856 presidential election, though the Democrats won the race because they remained a national,
rather than a sectional, political force.

The Dred Scott decision of 1857 went well beyond the question of whether or not Dred Scott gained his
freedom. Instead, the Supreme Court delivered a far-reaching pronouncement about African Americans
in the United States, finding they could never be citizens and that Congress could not interfere with the
expansion of slavery into the territories. Republicans erupted in anger at this decision, which rendered
their party’s central platform unconstitutional. Abraham Lincoln fully articulated the Republican position
on the issue of slavery in his 1858 debates with Senator Stephen Douglas. By the end of that year, Lincoln
had become a nationally known Republican icon. For the Democrats’ part, unity within their party frayed
over both the Dred Scott case and the Freeport Doctrine, undermining the Democrats’ future ability to
retain control of the presidency.

A new level of animosity and distrust emerged in 1859 in the aftermath of John Brown’s raid. The South
exploded in rage at the northern celebration of Brown as a heroic freedom fighter. Fire-Eaters called
openly for disunion. Poisoned relations split the Democrats into northern and southern factions, a boon
to the Republican candidate Lincoln. His election triggered the downfall of the American experiment with
democracy as southern states began to leave the Union.
Review Questions
1. What was President Zachary Taylor’s top 4. Which of the following was a focus of the new
priority as president? Republican Party?
A. preserving the Union A. supporting Irish Catholic immigration
B. ensuring the recapture of runaway slaves B. encouraging the use of popular sovereignty
C. expanding slavery to determine where slavery could exist
D. enlarging the state of Texas C. promoting states’ rights
D. halting the spread of slavery
2. Which of the following was not a component of
the Compromise of 1850? 5. Border ruffians helped to ________.
A. the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act A. chase abolitionists out of Missouri
B. the admission of Kansas as a free state B. elect a proslavery legislature in Kansas
C. the admission of California as a free state C. capture runaway slaves
D. a ban on the slave trade in Washington, DC D. disseminate abolitionist literature in Kansas
3. Why did many in the North resist the Fugitive 6. How did the “Bleeding Kansas” incident
Slave Act? change the face of antislavery advocacy?

7. On what grounds did Dred Scott sue for A. to seize weapons to distribute to slaves for
freedom? a massive uprising
A. the inherent inhumanity of slavery B. to hold as a military base against proslavery
B. the cruelty of his master forces
C. the fact that he had lived in free states C. in revenge after the sacking of Lawrence
D. the fact that his family would be torn apart D. to prevent southern states from seceding
8. Which of the following was not a result of the 11. Which of the following did not contribute to
Lincoln-Douglas debates? Lincoln’s victory in the election of 1860?
A. Douglas was elected senator of Illinois. A. the split between northern and southern
B. Lincoln’s national profile was raised. democrats
C. Citizens in both the North and South B. the defeat of the Whig party
followed the debates closely. C. Lincoln’s improved national standing after
D. Lincoln successfully defended the principle his senatorial debates with Stephen
of popular sovereignty. Douglas
D. the Constitutional Union party’s further
9. What are the main points of the Dred Scott splintering the vote
decision?
12. What were southerners’ and northerners’
10. Why did John Brown attack the armory at views of John Brown?
Harpers Ferry?

13. Why would Americans view the Compromise of 1850 as a final solution to the sectional controversy
that began with the Wilmot Proviso in 1846?
14. If you were a proslavery advocate, how would you feel about the platform of the newly formed
Republican Party?
15. Based on the text of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, what was the position of the Republican Party in
1858? Was the Republican Party an abolitionist party? Why or why not?
16. John Brown is often described as a terrorist. Do you agree with this description? Why or why not?
What attributes might make him fit this profile?
17. Was it possible to save American democracy in 1860? What steps might have been taken to maintain
unity? Why do you think these steps were not taken?

Chapter 15 The Civil War, 1860–1865 421
CHAPTER 15
The Civil War, 1860–1865
Figure 15.1 This photograph by John Reekie, entitled, “A burial party on the battle-field of Cold Harbor,” drives
home the brutality and devastation wrought by the Civil War. Here, in April 1865, African Americans collect the bones
of soldiers killed in Virginia during General Ulysses S. Grant’s Wilderness Campaign of May–June 1864.
Chapter Outline
15.1 The Origins and Outbreak of the Civil War
15.2 Early Mobilization and War
15.3 1863: The Changing Nature of the War
15.4 The Union Triumphant
Introduction
In May 1864, General Ulysses S. Grant ordered the Union’s Army of the Potomac to cross the Rapidan
River in Virginia. Grant knew that Confederate general Robert E. Lee would defend the Confederate
capital at Richmond at all costs, committing troops that might otherwise be sent to the Shenandoah or the
Deep South to stop Union general William Tecumseh Sherman from capturing Atlanta, a key Confederate
city. For two days, the Army of the Potomac fought Lee’s troops in the Wilderness, a wooded area along
the Rapidan River. Nearly ten thousand Confederate soldiers were killed or wounded, as were more than
seventeen thousand Union troops. A few weeks later, the armies would meet again at the Battle of Cold
Harbor, where another fifteen thousand men would be wounded or killed. As in many battles, the bodies
of those who died were left on the field where they fell. A year later, African Americans, who were often
called upon to perform menial labor for the Union army (Figure 15.1), collected the skeletal remains of the
dead for a proper burial. The state of the graves of many Civil War soldiers partly inspired the creation of
Memorial Day, a day set aside for visiting and decorating the graves of the dead.
422 Chapter 15 The Civil War, 1860–1865

• Explain the major events that occurred during the Secession Crisis
• Describe the creation and founding principles of the Confederate States of America
The 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln was a turning point for the United States. Throughout the
tumultuous 1850s, the Fire-Eaters of the southern states had been threatening to leave the Union. With
Lincoln’s election, they prepared to make good on their threats. Indeed, the Republican president-elect
appeared to be their worst nightmare. The Republican Party committed itself to keeping slavery out of the
territories as the country expanded westward, a position that shocked southern sensibilities. Meanwhile,
southern leaders suspected that Republican abolitionists would employ the violent tactics of John Brown
to deprive southerners of their slave property. The threat posed by the Republican victory in the election
of 1860 spurred eleven southern states to leave the Union to form the Confederate States of America, a
new republic dedicated to maintaining and expanding slavery. The Union, led by President Lincoln, was
unwilling to accept the departure of these states and committed itself to restoring the country. Beginning
in 1861 and continuing until 1865, the United States engaged in a brutal Civil War that claimed the lives
of over 600,000 soldiers. By 1863, the conflict had become not only a war to save the Union, but also a war
to end slavery in the United States. Only after four years of fighting did the North prevail. The Union was
preserved, and the institution of slavery had been destroyed in the nation.
THE CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WAR

Lincoln’s election sparked the southern secession fever into flame, but it did not cause the Civil War. For
decades before Lincoln took office, the sectional divisions in the country had been widening. Both the
Northern and southern states engaged in inflammatory rhetoric and agitation, and violent emotions ran
strong on both sides. Several factors played into the ultimate split between the North and the South.
Figure 15.2 (credit “1865”: modification of work by “Alaskan Dude”/Wikimedia Commons)

One key irritant was the question of slavery’s expansion westward. The debate over whether new states
would be slave or free reached back to the controversy over statehood for Missouri beginning in 1819
and Texas in the 1830s and early 1840s. This question arose again after the Mexican-American War
(1846–1848), when the government debated whether slavery would be permitted in the territories taken
from Mexico. Efforts in Congress to reach a compromise in 1850 fell back on the principle of popular
sovereignty—letting the people in the new territories south of the 1820 Missouri Compromise line decide
whether to allow slavery. This same principle came to be applied to the Kansas-Nebraska territories in
1854, a move that added fuel to the fire of sectional conflict by destroying the Missouri Compromise
boundary and leading to the birth of the Republican Party. In the end, popular sovereignty proved to be
no solution at all. This was especially true in “Bleeding Kansas” in the mid-1850s, as pro- and antislavery
forces battled each another in an effort to gain the upper hand.
The small but very vocal abolitionist movement further contributed to the escalating tensions between
the North and the South. Since the 1830s, abolitionists, led by journalist and reformer William Lloyd
Garrison, had cast slavery as a national sin and called for its immediate end. For three decades, the
abolitionists—a minority even within the antislavery movement—had had a significant effect on American
society by bringing the evils of slavery into the public consciousness. By the 1850s, some of the most radical
abolitionists, such as John Brown, had resorted to violence in their efforts to destroy the institution of
slavery.
The formation of the Liberty Party (1840), the Free-Soil Party (1848), and the Republican Party (1854), all of
which strongly opposed the spread of slavery to the West, brought the question solidly into the political
arena. Although not all those who opposed the westward expansion of slavery had a strong abolitionist
bent, the attempt to limit slaveholders’ control of their human property stiffened the resolve of southern
leaders to defend their society at all costs. Prohibiting slavery’s expansion, they argued, ran counter to
fundamental American property rights. Across the country, people of all political stripes worried that the
nation’s arguments would cause irreparable rifts in the country.
Despite the ruptures and tensions, by the 1860s, some hope of healing the nation still existed. Before
Lincoln took office, John Crittenden, a senator from Kentucky who had helped form the Constitutional
Union Party during the 1860 presidential election, attempted to diffuse the explosive situation by offering
six constitutional amendments and a series of resolutions, known as the Crittenden Compromise.
Crittenden’s goal was to keep the South from seceding, and his strategy was to transform the Constitution
to explicitly protect slavery forever. Specifically, Crittenden proposed an amendment that would restore
the 36°30′ line from the Missouri Compromise and extend it all the way to the Pacific Ocean, protecting
and ensuring slavery south of the line while prohibiting it north of the line (Figure 15.3). He further
proposed an amendment that would prohibit Congress from abolishing slavery anywhere it already
existed or from interfering with the interstate slave trade.
Figure 15.3 Crittenden’s Compromise would protect slavery in all states where it already existed. More importantly,
however, it proposed to allow the western expansion of slavery into states below the Missouri Compromise line.
Republicans, including President-elect Lincoln, rejected Crittenden’s proposals because they ran counter
to the party’s goal of keeping slavery out of the territories. The southern states also rejected Crittenden’s
attempts at compromise, because it would prevent slaveholders from taking their human chattel north
of the 36°30′ line. On December 20, 1860, only a few days after Crittenden’s proposal was introduced
in Congress, South Carolina began the march towards war when it seceded from the United States.
Three more states of the Deep South—Mississippi, Florida, and Alabama—seceded before the U.S. Senate
rejected Crittenden’s proposal on January 16, 1861. Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas joined them in rapid
succession on January 19, January 26, and February 1, respectively (Figure 15.4). In many cases, these
secessions occurred after extremely divided conventions and popular votes. A lack of unanimity prevailed
in much of the South.
Figure 15.4 Georgia’s Ordinance of Secession and those of the other Deep South states were all based on that of
South Carolina, which was drafted just a month after Abraham Lincoln was elected.

Click and Explore
Explore the causes, battles, and aftermath of the Civil War at the interactive website
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Causes) offered by the National Parks Service.
THE CREATION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA

The seven Deep South states that seceded quickly formed a new government. In the opinion of many
Southern politicians, the federal Constitution that united the states as one nation was a contract by which
individual states had agreed to be bound. However, they maintained, the states had not sacrificed their
autonomy and could withdraw their consent to be controlled by the federal government. In their eyes, their
actions were in keeping with the nature of the Constitution and the social contract theory of government
that had influenced the founders of the American Republic.
The new nation formed by these men would not be a federal union, but a confederation. In a confederation,
individual member states agree to unite under a central government for some purposes, such as defense,
but to retain autonomy in other areas of government. In this way, states could protect themselves,
and slavery, from interference by what they perceived to be an overbearing central government. The
constitution of the Confederate States of America (CSA), or the Confederacy, drafted at a convention in
Montgomery, Alabama, in February 1861, closely followed the 1787 Constitution. The only real difference
between the two documents centered on slavery. The Confederate Constitution declared that the new
nation existed to defend and perpetuate racial slavery, and the leadership of the slaveholding class.
Specifically, the constitution protected the interstate slave trade, guaranteed that slavery would exist in
any new territory gained by the Confederacy, and, perhaps most importantly, in Article One, Section Nine,
declared that “No . . . law impairing or denying the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”
Beyond its focus on slavery, the Confederate Constitution resembled the 1787 U.S. Constitution. It allowed
for a Congress composed of two chambers, a judicial branch, and an executive branch with a president to
serve for six years.
The convention delegates chose Jefferson Davis of Mississippi to lead the new provisional government
as president and Alexander Stephens of Georgia to serve as vice president until elections could be held
in the spring and fall of 1861. By that time, four new states—Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North
Carolina—had joined the CSA. As 1861 progressed, the Confederacy claimed Missouri and Kentucky, even
though no ordinance of secession had been approved in those states. Southern nationalism ran high, and
the Confederacy, buoyed by its sense of purpose, hoped that their new nation would achieve eminence in
the world.
By the time Lincoln reached Washington, DC, in February 1861, the CSA had already been established. The
new president confronted an unprecedented crisis. A conference held that month with delegates from the
Southern states failed to secure a promise of peace or to restore the Union. On inauguration day, March
4, 1861, the new president repeated his views on slavery: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to
interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to
do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” His recognition of slavery in the South did nothing to mollify
slaveholders, however, because Lincoln also pledged to keep slavery from expanding into the new western
territories. Furthermore, in his inaugural address, Lincoln made clear his commitment to maintaining
federal power against the secessionists working to destroy it. Lincoln declared that the Union could not be
dissolved by individual state actions, and, therefore, secession was unconstitutional.
Click and Explore
Read Lincoln’s entire inaugural address (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

15LincAddress) at the Yale Avalon project’s website. How would Lincoln’s audience
have responded to this speech?
FORT SUMTER
President Lincoln made it clear to Southern secessionists that he would fight to maintain federal property
and to keep the Union intact. Other politicians, however, still hoped to avoid the use of force to resolve the
crisis. In February 1861, in an effort to entice the rebellious states to return to the Union without resorting
to force, Thomas Corwin, a representative from Ohio, introduced a proposal to amend the Constitution
in the House of Representatives. His was but one of several measures proposed in January and February
1861, to head off the impending conflict and save the United States. The proposed amendment would have
made it impossible for Congress to pass any law abolishing slavery. The proposal passed the House on
February 28, 1861, and the Senate passed the proposal on March 2, 1861. It was then sent to the states
to be ratified. Once ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures, it would become law. In his inaugural
address, Lincoln stated that he had no objection to the amendment, and his predecessor James Buchanan
had supported it. By the time of Lincoln’s inauguration, however, seven states had already left the Union.
Of the remaining states, Ohio ratified the amendment in 1861, and Maryland and Illinois did so in 1862.
Despite this effort at reconciliation, the Confederate states did not return to the Union.
Indeed, by the time of the Corwin amendment’s passage through Congress, Confederate forces in the
Deep South had already begun to take over federal forts. The loss of Fort Sumter, in the harbor of
Charleston, South Carolina, proved to be the flashpoint in the contest between the new Confederacy and
the federal government. A small Union garrison of fewer than one hundred soldiers and officers held
the fort, making it a vulnerable target for the Confederacy. Fire-Eaters pressured Jefferson Davis to take
Fort Sumter and thereby demonstrate the Confederate government’s resolve. Some also hoped that the
Confederacy would gain foreign recognition, especially from Great Britain, by taking the fort in the South’s
most important Atlantic port. The situation grew dire as local merchants refused to sell food to the fort’s
Union soldiers, and by mid-April, the garrison’s supplies began to run out. President Lincoln let it be
known to Confederate leaders that he planned to resupply the Union forces. His strategy was clear: The
decision to start the war would rest squarely on the Confederates, not on the Union. On April 12, 1861,
Confederate forces in Charleston began a bombardment of Fort Sumter (Figure 15.5). Two days later, the
Union soldiers there surrendered.

Figure 15.5 The Confederacy’s attack on Fort Sumter, depicted here in an 1861 lithograph by Currier and Ives,
stoked pro-war sentiment on both sides of the conflict.
The attack on Fort Sumter meant war had come, and on April 15, 1861, Lincoln called upon loyal states
to supply armed forces to defeat the rebellion and regain Fort Sumter. Faced with the need to choose
between the Confederacy and the Union, border states and those of the Upper South, which earlier had
been reluctant to dissolve their ties with the United States, were inspired to take action. They quickly
voted for secession. A convention in Virginia that had been assembled earlier to consider the question of
secession voted to join the Confederacy on April 17, two days after Lincoln called for troops. Arkansas left
the Union on May 6 along with Tennessee one day later. North Carolina followed on May 20.
Not all residents of the border states and the Upper South wished to join the Confederacy, however.
Pro-Union feelings remained strong in Tennessee, especially in the eastern part of the state where slaves
were few and consisted largely of house servants owned by the wealthy. The state of Virginia—home of
revolutionary leaders and presidents such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and
James Monroe—literally was split on the issue of secession. Residents in the north and west of the state,
where few slaveholders resided, rejected secession. These counties subsequently united to form “West
Virginia,” which entered the Union as a free state in 1863. The rest of Virginia, including the historic
lands along the Chesapeake Bay that were home to such early American settlements as Jamestown and
Williamsburg, joined the Confederacy. The addition of this area gave the Confederacy even greater hope
and brought General Robert E. Lee, arguably the best military commander of the day, to their side. In
addition, the secession of Virginia brought Washington, DC, perilously close to the Confederacy, and
fears that the border state of Maryland would also join the CSA, thus trapping the U.S. capital within
Confederate territories, plagued Lincoln.
The Confederacy also gained the backing of the Five Civilized Tribes, as they were called, in the Indian
Territory. The Five Civilized Tribes comprised the Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks, Seminoles, and
Cherokees. The tribes supported slavery and many members owned slaves. These Indian slaveholders,
who had been forced from their lands in Georgia and elsewhere in the Deep South during the presidency
of Andrew Jackson, now found unprecedented common cause with white slaveholders. The CSA even
allowed them to send delegates to the Confederate Congress.
While most slaveholding states joined the Confederacy, four crucial slave states remained in the Union
(Figure 15.6). Delaware, which was technically a slave state despite its tiny slave population, never voted
to secede. Maryland, despite deep divisions, remained in the Union as well. Missouri became the site of
vicious fighting and the home of pro-Confederate guerillas but never joined the Confederacy. Kentucky
declared itself neutral, although that did little to stop the fighting that occurred within the state. In all,
these four states deprived the Confederacy of key resources and soldiers.
Figure 15.6 This map illustrates the southern states that seceded from the Union and formed the Confederacy in
1861, at the outset of the Civil War.

• Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Confederacy and the Union
• Explain the strategic importance of the Battle of Bull Run and the Battle of Shiloh
In 1861, enthusiasm for war ran high on both sides. The North fought to restore the Union, which Lincoln
declared could never be broken. The Confederacy, which by the summer of 1861 consisted of eleven states,
fought for its independence from the United States. The continuation of slavery was a central issue in
the war, of course, although abolitionism and western expansion also played roles, and Northerners and
Southerners alike flocked eagerly to the conflict. Both sides thought it would be over quickly. Militarily,
however, the North and South were more equally matched than Lincoln had realized, and it soon became
clear that the war effort would be neither brief nor painless. In 1861, Americans in both the North and
South romanticized war as noble and positive. Soon the carnage and slaughter would awaken them to the
horrors of war.
THE FIRST BATTLE OF BULL RUN

After the fall of Fort Sumter on April 15, 1861, Lincoln called for seventy-five thousand volunteers from
state militias to join federal forces. His goal was a ninety-day campaign to put down the Southern
rebellion. The response from state militias was overwhelming, and the number of Northern troops
exceeded the requisition. Also in April, Lincoln put in place a naval blockade of the South, a move that
gave tacit recognition of the Confederacy while providing a legal excuse for the British and the French
to trade with Southerners. The Confederacy responded to the blockade by declaring that a state of war
existed with the United States. This official pronouncement confirmed the beginning of the Civil War. Men
rushed to enlist, and the Confederacy turned away tens of thousands who hoped to defend the new nation.
Many believed that a single, heroic battle would decide the contest. Some questioned how committed
Southerners really were to their cause. Northerners hoped that most Southerners would not actually fire
on the American flag. Meanwhile, Lincoln and military leaders in the North hoped a quick blow to the
South, especially if they could capture the Confederacy’s new capital of Richmond, Virginia, would end
the rebellion before it went any further. On July 21, 1861, the two armies met near Manassas, Virginia,
along Bull Run Creek, only thirty miles from Washington, DC. So great was the belief that this would

be a climactic Union victory that many Washington socialites and politicians brought picnic lunches to a
nearby area, hoping to witness history unfolding before them. At the First Battle of Bull Run, also known
as First Manassas, some sixty thousand troops assembled, most of whom had never seen combat, and
each side sent eighteen thousand into the fray. The Union forces attacked first, only to be pushed back.
The Confederate forces then carried the day, sending the Union soldiers and Washington, DC, onlookers
scrambling back from Virginia and destroying Union hopes of a quick, decisive victory. Instead, the war
would drag on for four long, deadly years (Figure 15.7).
Figure 15.7 The First Battle of Bull Run, which many Northerners thought would put a quick and decisive end to the
South’s rebellion, ended with a Confederate victory.
BALANCE SHEET: THE UNION AND THE CONFEDERACY

As it became clearer that the Union would not be dealing with an easily quashed rebellion, the two sides
assessed their strengths and weaknesses. At the onset on the war, in 1861 and 1862, they stood as relatively
equal combatants.
The Confederates had the advantage of being able to wage a defensive war, rather than an offensive one.
They had to protect and preserve their new boundaries, but they did not have to be the aggressors against
the Union. The war would be fought primarily in the South, which gave the Confederates the advantages
of the knowledge of the terrain and the support of the civilian population. Further, the vast coastline from
Texas to Virginia offered ample opportunities to evade the Union blockade. And with the addition of the
Upper South states, especially Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas, the Confederacy gained
a much larger share of natural resources and industrial might than the Deep South states could muster.
Still, the Confederacy had disadvantages. The South’s economy depended heavily on the export of cotton,
but with the naval blockade, the flow of cotton to England, the region’s primary importer, came to an end.
The blockade also made it difficult to import manufactured goods. Although the secession of the Upper
South added some industrial assets to the Confederacy, overall, the South lacked substantive industry or
an extensive railroad infrastructure to move men and supplies. To deal with the lack of commerce and
the resulting lack of funds, the Confederate government began printing paper money, leading to runaway
inflation (Figure 15.8). The advantage that came from fighting on home territory quickly turned to a
disadvantage when Confederate armies were defeated and Union forces destroyed Southern farms and
towns, and forced Southern civilians to take to the road as refugees. Finally, the population of the South
stood at fewer than nine million people, of whom nearly four million were black slaves, compared to over
twenty million residents in the North. These limited numbers became a major factor as the war dragged
on and the death toll rose.
Figure 15.8 The Confederacy started printing paper money at an accelerated rate, causing runaway inflation and an
economy in which formerly well-off people were unable to purchase food.
The Union side held many advantages as well. Its larger population, bolstered by continued immigration
from Europe throughout the 1860s, gave it greater manpower reserves to draw upon. The North’s greater
industrial capabilities and extensive railroad grid made it far better able to mobilize men and supplies for
the war effort. The Industrial Revolution and the transportation revolution, beginning in the 1820s and
continuing over the next several decades, had transformed the North. Throughout the war, the North was
able to produce more war materials and move goods more quickly than the South. Furthermore, the farms
of New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the Old Northwest, and the prairie states supplied Northern civilians
and Union troops with abundant food throughout the war. Food shortages and hungry civilians were
common in the South, where the best land was devoted to raising cotton, but not in the North.
Unlike the South, however, which could hunker down to defend itself and needed to maintain relatively
short supply lines, the North had to go forth and conquer. Union armies had to establish long supply lines,
and Union soldiers had to fight on unfamiliar ground and contend with a hostile civilian population off
the battlefield. Furthermore, to restore the Union—Lincoln’s overriding goal, in 1861—the United States,
after defeating the Southern forces, would then need to pacify a conquered Confederacy, an area of over
half a million square miles with nearly nine million residents. In short, although it had better resources
and a larger population, the Union faced a daunting task against the well-positioned Confederacy.
MILITARY STALEMATE
The military forces of the Confederacy and the Union battled in 1861 and early 1862 without either side
gaining the upper hand. The majority of military leaders on both sides had received the same military
education and often knew one another personally, either from their time as students at West Point or
as commanding officers in the Mexican-American War. This familiarity allowed them to anticipate each
other’s strategies. Both sides believed in the use of concentrated armies charged with taking the capital
city of the enemy. For the Union, this meant the capture of the Confederate capital in Richmond, Virginia,
whereas Washington, DC, stood as the prize for Confederate forces. After hopes of a quick victory faded
at Bull Run, the months dragged on without any major movement on either side (Figure 15.9).

Figure 15.9 As this cartoon indicates, the fighting strategy at the beginning of the war included watchful waiting by
the leaders of the North and South.
General George B. McClellan, the general in chief of the army, responsible for overall control of Union
land forces, proved especially reluctant to engage in battle with the Confederates. In direct command of
the Army of the Potomac, the Union fighting force operating outside Washington, DC, McClellan believed,
incorrectly, that Confederate forces were too strong to defeat and was reluctant to risk his troops in battle.
His cautious nature made him popular with his men but not with the president or Congress. By 1862,
however, both President Lincoln and the new Secretary of War Edwin Stanton had tired of waiting. The
Union put forward a new effort to bolster troop strength, enlisting one million men to serve for three-year
stints in the Army of the Potomac. In January 1862, Lincoln and Stanton ordered McClellan to invade the
Confederacy with the goal of capturing Richmond.
To that end, General McClellan slowly moved 100,000 soldiers of the Army of the Potomac toward
Richmond but stopped a few miles outside the city. As he did so, a Confederate force led by Thomas
“Stonewall” Jackson moved north to take Washington, DC. To fend off Jackson’s attack, somewhere
between one-quarter and one-third of McClellan’s soldiers, led by Major General Irvin McDowell, returned
to defend the nation’s capital, a move that Jackson hoped would leave the remaining troops near
Richmond more vulnerable. Having succeeding in drawing off a sizable portion of the Union force, he
joined General Lee to launch an attack on McClellan’s remaining soldiers near Richmond. From June 25 to
July 1, 1862, the two sides engaged in the brutal Seven Days Battles that killed or wounded almost twenty
thousand Confederate and ten thousand Union soldiers. McClellan’s army finally returned north, having
failed to take Richmond.
General Lee, flush from his success at keeping McClellan out of Richmond, tried to capitalize on the
Union’s failure by taking the fighting northward. He moved his forces into northern Virginia, where, at
the Second Battle of Bull Run, the Confederates again defeated the Union forces. Lee then pressed into
Maryland, where his troops met the much larger Union forces near Sharpsburg, at Antietam Creek. The
ensuing one-day battle on September 17, 1862, led to a tremendous loss of life. Although there are varying
opinions about the total number of deaths, eight thousand soldiers were killed or wounded, more than on
any other single day of combat. Once again, McClellan, mistakenly believing that the Confederate troops
outnumbered his own, held back a significant portion of his forces. Lee withdrew from the field first, but
McClellan, fearing he was outnumbered, refused to pursue him.
The Union army’s inability to destroy Lee’s army at Antietam made it clear to Lincoln that McClellan
would never win the war, and the president was forced to seek a replacement. Lincoln wanted someone
who could deliver a decisive Union victory. He also personally disliked McClellan, who referred to the
president as a “baboon” and a “gorilla,” and constantly criticized his decisions. Lincoln chose General
Ambrose E. Burnside to replace McClellan as commander of the Army of the Potomac, but Burnside’s
efforts to push into Virginia failed in December 1862, as Confederates held their position at Fredericksburg
and devastated Burnside’s forces with heavy artillery fire. The Union’s defeat at Fredericksburg harmed
morale in the North but bolstered Confederate spirits. By the end of 1862, the Confederates were still
holding their ground in Virginia. Burnside’s failure led Lincoln to make another change in leadership, and
Joseph “Fighting Joe” Hooker took over command of the Army of the Potomac in January 1863.
General Ulysses S. Grant’s Army of the West, operating in Kentucky, Tennessee, and the Mississippi
River Valley, had been more successful. In the western campaign, the goal of both the Union and the
Confederacy was to gain control of the major rivers in the west, especially the Mississippi. If the Union
could control the Mississippi, the Confederacy would be split in two. The fighting in this campaign initially
centered in Tennessee, where Union forces commanded by Grant pushed Confederate troops back and
gained control of the state. The major battle in the western theater took place at Pittsburgh Landing,
Tennessee, on April 6 and 7, 1862. Grant’s army was camped on the west side of the Tennessee River near
a small log church called Shiloh, which gave the battle its name. On Sunday morning, April 6, Confederate
forces under General Albert Sidney Johnston attacked Grant’s encampment with the goal of separating
them from their supply line on the Tennessee River and driving them into the swamps on the river’s
western side, where they could be destroyed. Union general William Tecumseh Sherman tried to rally the
Union forces as Grant, who had been convalescing from an injured leg when the attack began and was
unable to walk without crutches, called for reinforcements and tried to mount a defense. Many of Union
troops fled in terror.
Unfortunately for the Confederates, Johnston was killed on the afternoon of the first day. Leadership of
the Southern forces fell to General P. G. T. Beauregard, who ordered an assault at the end of that day. This
assault was so desperate that one of the two attacking columns did not even have ammunition. Heavily
reinforced Union forces counterattacked the next day, and the Confederate forces were routed. Grant had
maintained the Union foothold in the western part of the Confederacy. The North could now concentrate
on its efforts to gain control of the Mississippi River, splitting the Confederacy in two and depriving it of
its most important water route.
Click and Explore
Read a first-hand account (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15HMStanley) from a

Confederate soldier at the Battle at Shiloh, followed by the perspective of a Union
soldier (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15CFBoyd) at the same battle.
In the spring and summer of 1862, the Union was successful in gaining control of part of the Mississippi
River. In April 1862, the Union navy under Admiral David Farragut fought its way past the forts that
guarded New Orleans and fired naval guns upon the below-sea-level city. When it became obvious that
New Orleans could no longer be defended, Confederate major general Marshall Lovell sent his artillery
upriver to Vicksburg, Mississippi. Armed civilians in New Orleans fought the Union forces that entered
the city. They also destroyed ships and military supplies that might be used by the Union. Upriver, Union
naval forces also bombarded Fort Pillow, forty miles from Memphis, Tennessee, a Southern industrial
center and one of the largest cities in the Confederacy. On June 4, 1862, the Confederate defenders
abandoned the fort. On June 6, Memphis fell to the Union after the ships defending it were destroyed.


• Explain what is meant by the term “total war” and provide examples
• Describe mobilization efforts in the North and the South
• Explain why 1863 was a pivotal year in the war
Wars have their own logic; they last far longer than anyone anticipates at the beginning of hostilities. As
they drag on, the energy and zeal that marked the entry into warfare often wane, as losses increase and
people on both sides suffer the tolls of war. The American Civil War is a case study of this characteristic of
modern war.
Although Northerners and Southerners both anticipated that the battle between the Confederacy and the
Union would be settled quickly, it soon became clear to all that there was no resolution in sight. The longer
the war continued, the more it began to affect life in both the North and the South. Increased need for
manpower, the issue of slavery, and the ongoing challenges of keeping the war effort going changed the
way life on both sides as the conflict progressed.
MASS MOBILIZATION
By late 1862, the course of the war had changed to take on the characteristics of total war, in which armies
attempt to demoralize the enemy by both striking military targets and disrupting their opponent’s ability
to wage war through destruction of their resources. In this type of war, armies often make no distinction
between civilian and military targets. Both the Union and Confederate forces moved toward total war,
although neither side ever entirely abolished the distinction between military and civilian. Total war also
requires governments to mobilize all resources, extending their reach into their citizens’ lives as never
before. Another reality of war that became apparent in 1862 and beyond was the influence of combat on
the size and scope of government. Both the Confederacy and the Union governments had to continue to
grow in order to manage the logistics of recruiting men and maintaining, feeding, and equipping an army.
Confederate Mobilization
The Confederate government in Richmond, Virginia, exercised sweeping powers to ensure victory, in stark
contradiction to the states’ rights sentiments held by many Southern leaders. The initial emotional outburst
of enthusiasm for war in the Confederacy waned, and the Confederate government instituted a military
draft in April 1862. Under the terms of the draft, all men between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five
would serve three years. The draft had a different effect on men of different socioeconomic classes. One
loophole permitted men to hire substitutes instead of serving in the Confederate army. This provision
favored the wealthy over the poor, and led to much resentment and resistance. Exercising its power over
the states, the Confederate Congress denied state efforts to circumvent the draft.
In order to fund the war, the Confederate government also took over the South’s economy. The
government ran Southern industry and built substantial transportation and industrial infrastructure to
make the weapons of war. Over the objections of slaveholders, it impressed slaves, seizing these workers
from their owners and forcing them to work on fortifications and rail lines. Concerned about the resistance
to and unhappiness with the government measures, in 1862, the Confederate Congress gave President
Davis the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, the right of those arrested to be brought before a
judge or court to determine whether there is cause to hold the prisoner. With a stated goal of bolstering
national security in the fledgling republic, this change meant that the Confederacy could arrest and
detain indefinitely any suspected enemy without giving a reason. This growth of the Confederate central
government stood as a glaring contradiction to the earlier states’ rights argument of pro-Confederate
advocates.
The war efforts were costing the new nation dearly. Nevertheless, the Confederate Congress heeded
the pleas of wealthy plantation owners and refused to place a tax on slaves or cotton, despite the
Confederacy’s desperate need for the revenue that such a tax would have raised. Instead, the Confederacy
drafted a taxation plan that kept the Southern elite happy but in no way met the needs of the war. The
government also resorted to printing immense amounts of paper money, which quickly led to runaway
inflation. Food prices soared, and poor, white Southerners faced starvation. In April 1863, thousands of
hungry people rioted in Richmond, Virginia (Figure 15.10). Many of the rioters were mothers who could
not feed their children. The riot ended when President Davis threatened to have Confederate forces open
fire on the crowds.
Figure 15.10 Rampant inflation in the 1860s made food too expensive for many Southerners, leading to widespread
starvation.
One of the reasons that the Confederacy was so economically devastated was its ill-advised gamble
that cotton sales would continue during the war. The government had high hopes that Great Britain
and France, which both used cotton as the raw material in their textile mills, would ensure the South’s
economic strength—and therefore victory in the war—by continuing to buy. Furthermore, the Confederate
government hoped that Great Britain and France would make loans to their new nation in order to
ensure the continued flow of raw materials. These hopes were never realized. Great Britain in particular
did not wish to risk war with the United States, which would have meant the invasion of Canada. The
United States was also a major source of grain for Britain and an important purchaser of British goods.
Furthermore, the blockade made Southern trade with Europe difficult. Instead, Great Britain, the major
consumer of American cotton, found alternate sources in India and Egypt, leaving the South without the
income or alliance it had anticipated.
Dissent within the Confederacy also affected the South’s ability to fight the war. Confederate politicians
disagreed over the amount of power that the central government should be allowed to exercise. Many
states’ rights advocates, who favored a weak central government and supported the sovereignty of
individual states, resented President Davis’s efforts to conscript troops, impose taxation to pay for the war,
and requisition necessary resources. Governors in the Confederate states often proved reluctant to provide
supplies or troops for the use of the Confederate government. Even Jefferson Davis’s vice president
Alexander Stephens opposed conscription, the seizure of slave property to work for the Confederacy,
and suspension of habeas corpus. Class divisions also divided Confederates. Poor whites resented the
ability of wealthy slaveholders to excuse themselves from military service. Racial tensions plagued the

South as well. On those occasions when free blacks volunteered to serve in the Confederate army, they
were turned away, and enslaved African Americans were regarded with fear and suspicion, as whites
whispered among themselves about the possibility of slave insurrections.
Union Mobilization
Mobilization for war proved to be easier in the North than it was in the South. During the war, the federal
government in Washington, DC, like its Southern counterpart, undertook a wide range of efforts to ensure
its victory over the Confederacy. To fund the war effort and finance the expansion of Union infrastructure,
Republicans in Congress drastically expanded government activism, impacting citizens’ everyday lives
through measures such as new types of taxation. The government also contracted with major suppliers of
food, weapons, and other needed materials. Virtually every sector of the Northern economy became linked
to the war effort.
In keeping with their longstanding objective of keeping slavery out of the newly settled western territories,
the Republicans in Congress (the dominant party) passed several measures in 1862. First, the Homestead
Act provided generous inducements for Northerners to relocate and farm in the West. Settlers could lay
claim to 160 acres of federal land by residing on the property for five years and improving it. The act
not only motivated free-labor farmers to move west, but it also aimed to increase agricultural output for
the war effort. The federal government also turned its attention to creating a transcontinental railroad to
facilitate the movement of people and goods across the country. Congress chartered two companies, the
Union Pacific and the Central Pacific, and provided generous funds for these two businesses to connect the
country by rail.
The Republican emphasis on free labor, rather than slave labor, also influenced the 1862 Land Grant
College Act, commonly known as the Morrill Act after its author, Vermont Republican senator Justin Smith
Morrill. The measure provided for the creation of agricultural colleges, funded through federal grants, to
teach the latest agricultural techniques. Each state in the Union would be granted thirty thousand acres of
federal land for the use of these institutions of higher education.
Congress paid for the war using several strategies. They levied a tax on the income of the wealthy, as well
as a tax on all inheritances. They also put high tariffs in place. Finally, they passed two National Bank Acts,
one in 1863 and one in 1864, calling on the U.S. Treasury to issue war bonds and on Union banks to buy the
bonds. A Union campaign to convince individuals to buy the bonds helped increase sales. The Republicans
also passed the Legal Tender Act of 1862, calling for paper money—known as greenbacks—to be printed
Figure 15.11). Some $150 million worth of greenbacks became legal tender, and the Northern economy
boomed, although high inflation also resulted.
Figure 15.11 The Union began printing these paper “greenbacks” to use as legal tender as one of its strategies for
funding the war effort.
Like the Confederacy, the Union turned to conscription to provide the troops needed for the war. In March
1863, Congress passed the Enrollment Act, requiring all unmarried men between the ages of twenty and
twenty-five, and all married men between the ages of thirty-five and forty-five—including immigrants
who had filed for citizenship—to register with the Union to fight in the Civil War. All who registered were
subject to military service, and draftees were selected by a lottery system (Figure 15.12). As in the South,
a loophole in the law allowed individuals to hire substitutes if they could afford it. Others could avoid
enlistment by paying $300 to the federal government. In keeping with the Supreme Court decision in Dred
Scott v. Sandford, African Americans were not citizens and were therefore exempt from the draft.
Figure 15.12 The Union tried to provide additional incentives for soldiers, in the form of bounties, to enlist without
waiting for the draft, as shown in recruitment posters (a) and (b).
Like the Confederacy, the Union also took the step of suspending habeas corpus rights, so those suspected
of pro-Confederate sympathies could be arrested and held without being given the reason. Lincoln
had selectively suspended the writ of habeas corpus in the slave state of Maryland, home to many
Confederate sympathizers, in 1861 and 1862, in an effort to ensure that the Union capital would be safe.
In March 1863, he signed into law the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, giving him the power to detain
suspected Confederate operatives throughout the Union. The Lincoln administration also closed down
three hundred newspapers as a national security measure during the war.
In both the North and the South, the Civil War dramatically increased the power of the belligerent
governments. Breaking all past precedents in American history, both the Confederacy and the Union
employed the power of their central governments to mobilize resources and citizens.
Women’s Mobilization
As men on both sides mobilized for the war, so did women. In both the North and the South, women
were forced to take over farms and businesses abandoned by their husbands as they left for war. Women
organized themselves into ladies’ aid societies to sew uniforms, knit socks, and raise money to purchase
necessities for the troops. In the South, women took wounded soldiers into their homes to nurse. In the
North, women volunteered for the United States Sanitary Commission, which formed in June 1861. They
inspected military camps with the goal of improving cleanliness and reducing the number of soldiers
who died from disease, the most common cause of death in the war. They also raised money to buy
medical supplies and helped with the injured. Other women found jobs in the Union army as cooks and
laundresses. Thousands volunteered to care for the sick and wounded in response to a call by reformer
Dorothea Dix, who was placed in charge of the Union army’s nurses. According to rumor, Dix sought
respectable women over the age of thirty who were “plain almost to repulsion in dress” and thus could be
trusted not to form romantic liaisons with soldiers. Women on both sides also acted as spies and, disguised
as men, engaged in combat.

EMANCIPATION
Early in the war, President Lincoln approached the issue of slavery cautiously. While he disapproved of
slavery personally, he did not believe that he had the authority to abolish it. Furthermore, he feared that
making the abolition of slavery an objective of the war would cause the border slave states to join the
Confederacy. His one objective in 1861 and 1862 was to restore the Union.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Lincoln’s Evolving Thoughts on Slavery
President Lincoln wrote the following letter to newspaper editor Horace Greeley on August 22, 1862. In
it, Lincoln states his position on slavery, which is notable for being a middle-of-the-road stance. Lincoln’s
later public speeches on the issue take the more strident antislavery tone for which he is remembered.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner
the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.”
If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save
Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless
they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object
in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could
save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the
slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would
also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to
save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save
the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I
shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct
errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be
true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend
no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free.
Yours, A. LINCOLN.
How would you characterize Lincoln’s public position in August 1862? What was he prepared to do for
slaves, and under what conditions?
Since the beginning of the war, thousands of slaves had fled to the safety of Union lines. In May 1861,
Union general Benjamin Butler and others labeled these refugees from slavery contrabands. Butler
reasoned that since Southern states had left the United States, he was not obliged to follow federal fugitive
slave laws. Slaves who made it through the Union lines were shielded by the U.S. military and not returned
to slavery. The intent was not only to assist slaves but also to deprive the South of a valuable source of
manpower.
Congress began to define the status of these ex-slaves in 1861 and 1862. In August 1861, legislators
approved the Confiscation Act of 1861, empowering the Union to seize property, including slaves, used
by the Confederacy. The Republican-dominated Congress took additional steps, abolishing slavery in
Washington, DC, in April 1862. Congress passed a second Confiscation Act in July 1862, which extended
freedom to runaway slaves and those captured by Union armies. In that month, Congress also addressed
the issue of slavery in the West, banning the practice in the territories. This federal law made the 1846
Wilmot Proviso and the dreams of the Free-Soil Party a reality. However, even as the Union government
took steps to aid individual slaves and to limit the practice of slavery, it passed no measure to address the
institution of slavery as a whole.
Lincoln moved slowly and cautiously on the issue of abolition. His primary concern was the cohesion of
the Union and the bringing of the Southern states back into the fold. However, as the war dragged on and
many thousands of contrabands made their way north, Republicans in Congress continued to call for the
end of slavery. Throughout his political career, Lincoln’s plans for former slaves had been to send them to
Liberia. As late as August 1862, he had hoped to interest African Americans in building a colony for former
slaves in Central America, an idea that found favor neither with black leaders nor with abolitionists, and
thus was abandoned by Lincoln. Responding to Congressional demands for an end to slavery, Lincoln
presented an ultimatum to the Confederates on September 22, 1862, shortly after the Confederate retreat
at Antietam. He gave the Confederate states until January 1, 1863, to rejoin the Union. If they did, slavery
would continue in the slave states. If they refused to rejoin, however, the war would continue and all slaves
would be freed at its conclusion. The Confederacy took no action. It had committed itself to maintaining
its independence and had no interest in the president’s ultimatum.
On January 1, 1863, Lincoln made good on his promise and signed the Emancipation Proclamation.
It stated “That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof
shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.”
The proclamation did not immediately free the slaves in the Confederate states. Although they were in
rebellion against the United States, the lack of the Union army’s presence in such areas meant that the
president’s directive could not be enforced. The proclamation also did not free slaves in the border states,
because these states were not, by definition, in rebellion. Lincoln relied on his powers as commander-in-
chief in issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. He knew the proclamation could be easily challenged
in court, but by excluding the territories still outside his control, slaveholders and slave governments
could not sue him. Moreover, slave states in the Union, such as Kentucky, could not sue because the
proclamation did not apply to them. Slaveholders in Kentucky knew full well that if the institution were
abolished throughout the South, it would not survive in a handful of border territories. Despite the limits
of the proclamation, Lincoln dramatically shifted the objective of the war increasingly toward ending
slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation became a monumental step forward on the road to changing the
character of the United States.
Click and Explore
Read through the full text of the Emancipation Proclamation

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Emancipation) at the National Archives website.
The proclamation generated quick and dramatic reactions. The news created euphoria among slaves,
as it signaled the eventual end of their bondage. Predictably, Confederate leaders raged against the
proclamation, reinforcing their commitment to fight to maintain slavery, the foundation of the
Confederacy. In the North, opinions split widely on the issue. Abolitionists praised Lincoln’s actions,
which they saw as the fulfillment of their long campaign to strike down an immoral institution. But other
Northerners, especially Irish, working-class, urban dwellers loyal to the Democratic Party and others with
racist beliefs, hated the new goal of emancipation and found the idea of freed slaves repugnant. At its core,
much of this racism had an economic foundation: Many Northerners feared competing with emancipated
slaves for scarce jobs.
In New York City, the Emancipation Proclamation, combined with unhappiness over the Union draft,
which began in March 1863, fanned the flames of white racism. Many New Yorkers supported the
Confederacy for business reasons, and, in 1861, the city’s mayor actually suggested that New York City
leave the Union. On July 13, 1863, two days after the first draft lottery took place, this racial hatred erupted

into violence. A volunteer fire company whose commander had been drafted initiated a riot, and the
violence spread quickly across the city. The rioters chose targets associated either with the Union army
or with African Americans. An armory was destroyed, as was a Brooks Brothers’ store, which supplied
uniforms to the army. White mobs attacked and killed black New Yorkers and destroyed an African
American orphanage (Figure 15.13). On the fourth day of the riots, federal troops dispatched by Lincoln
arrived in the city and ended the violence. Millions of dollars in property had been destroyed. More than
one hundred people died, approximately one thousand were left injured, and about one-fifth of the city’s
African American population fled New York in fear.
Figure 15.13 The race riots in New York showed just how divided the North was on the issue of equality, even as
the North went to war with the South over the issue of slavery.
UNION ADVANCES
The war in the west continued in favor of the North in 1863. At the start of the year, Union forces controlled
much of the Mississippi River. In the spring and summer of 1862, they had captured New Orleans—the
most important port in the Confederacy, through which cotton harvested from all the Southern states
was exported—and Memphis. Grant had then attempted to capture Vicksburg, Mississippi, a commercial
center on the bluffs above the Mississippi River. Once Vicksburg fell, the Union would have won complete
control over the river. A military bombardment that summer failed to force a Confederate surrender. An
assault by land forces also failed in December 1862.
In April 1863, the Union began a final attempt to capture Vicksburg. On July 3, after more than a month of a
Union siege, during which Vicksburg’s residents hid in caves to protect themselves from the bombardment
and ate their pets to stay alive, Grant finally achieved his objective. The trapped Confederate forces
surrendered. The Union had succeeded in capturing Vicksburg and splitting the Confederacy (Figure
15.14). This victory inflicted a serious blow to the Southern war effort.
Figure 15.14 In this illustration, Union gun boats fire on Vicksburg in the campaign that helped the Union take
control of the Mississippi River.
As Grant and his forces pounded Vicksburg, Confederate strategists, at the urging of General Lee, who had
defeated a larger Union army at Chancellorsville, Virginia, in May 1863, decided on a bold plan to invade
the North. Leaders hoped this invasion would force the Union to send troops engaged in the Vicksburg
campaign east, thus weakening their power over the Mississippi. Further, they hoped the aggressive action
of pushing north would weaken the Union’s resolve to fight. Lee also hoped that a significant Confederate
victory in the North would convince Great Britain and France to extend support to Jefferson Davis’s
government and encourage the North to negotiate peace.
Beginning in June 1863, General Lee began to move the Army of Northern Virginia north through
Maryland. The Union army—the Army of the Potomac—traveled east to end up alongside the Confederate
forces. The two armies met at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, where Confederate forces had gone to secure
supplies. The resulting battle lasted three days, July 1–3 (Figure 15.15) and remains the biggest and
costliest battle ever fought in North America. The climax of the Battle of Gettysburg occurred on the third
day. In the morning, after a fight lasting several hours, Union forces fought back a Confederate attack on
Culp’s Hill, one of the Union’s defensive positions. To regain a perceived advantage and secure victory,
Lee ordered a frontal assault, known as Pickett’s Charge (for Confederate general George Pickett), against
the center of the Union lines on Cemetery Ridge. Approximately fifteen thousand Confederate soldiers
took part, and more than half lost their lives, as they advanced nearly a mile across an open field to attack
the entrenched Union forces. In all, more than a third of the Army of Northern Virginia had been lost, and
on the evening of July 4, Lee and his men slipped away in the rain. General George Meade did not pursue
them. Both sides suffered staggering losses. Total casualties numbered around twenty-three thousand for
the Union and some twenty-eight thousand among the Confederates. With its defeats at Gettysburg and
Vicksburg, both on the same day, the Confederacy lost its momentum. The tide had turned in favor of the
Union in both the east and the west.

Figure 15.15 As this map indicates, the battlefield at Gettysburg was the farthest north that the Confederate army
advanced. (credit: Hal Jesperson)
Following the Battle of Gettysburg, the bodies of those who had fallen were hastily buried. Attorney David
Wills, a resident of Gettysburg, campaigned for the creation of a national cemetery on the site of the
battlefield, and the governor of Pennsylvania tasked him with creating it. President Lincoln was invited
to attend the cemetery’s dedication. After the featured orator had delivered a two-hour speech, Lincoln
addressed the crowd for several minutes. In his speech, known as the Gettysburg Address, which he
had finished writing while a guest in David Wills’ home the day before the dedication, Lincoln invoked
the Founding Fathers and the spirit of the American Revolution. The Union soldiers who had died at
Gettysburg, he proclaimed, had died not only to preserve the Union, but also to guarantee freedom and
equality for all.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address
Several months after the battle at Gettysburg, Lincoln traveled to Pennsylvania and, speaking to an
audience at the dedication of the new Soldiers’ National Ceremony near the site of the battle, he delivered
his now-famous Gettysburg Address to commemorate the turning point of the war and the soldiers whose
sacrifices had made it possible. The two-minute speech was politely received at the time, although press
reactions split along party lines. Upon receiving a letter of congratulations from Massachusetts politician
and orator William Everett, whose speech at the ceremony had lasted for two hours, Lincoln said he was
glad to know that his brief address, now virtually immortal, was not “a total failure.”
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation,
conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so
conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war.
We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here
gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do
this.
It is for us the living . . . to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from
these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last
full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in
vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of
the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
—Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863
What did Lincoln mean by “a new birth of freedom”? What did he mean when he said “a government of
the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”?
Click and Explore
Acclaimed filmmaker Ken Burns has created a documentary

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Address) about a small boys’ school in Vermont
where students memorize the Gettysburg Address. It explores the value the address
has in these boys’ lives, and why the words still matter.

• Describe the reasons why many Americans doubted that Abraham Lincoln would be
reelected
• Explain how the Union forces overpowered the Confederacy
By the outset of 1864, after three years of war, the Union had mobilized its resources for the ongoing
struggle on a massive scale. The government had overseen the construction of new railroad lines and
for the first time used standardized rail tracks that allowed the North to move men and materials with

greater ease. The North’s economy had shifted to a wartime model. The Confederacy also mobilized,
perhaps to a greater degree than the Union, its efforts to secure independence and maintain slavery. Yet the
Confederacy experienced ever-greater hardships after years of war. Without the population of the North, it
faced a shortage of manpower. The lack of industry, compared to the North, undercut the ability to sustain
and wage war. Rampant inflation as well as food shortages in the South lowered morale.
THE RELATIONSHIP WITH EUROPE

From the beginning of the war, the Confederacy placed great hope in being recognized and supported by
Great Britain and France. European intervention in the conflict remained a strong possibility, but when it
did occur, it was not in a way anticipated by either the Confederacy or the Union.
Napoleon III of France believed the Civil War presented an opportunity for him to restore a French
empire in the Americas. With the United States preoccupied, the time seemed ripe for action. Napoleon’s
target was Mexico, and in 1861, a large French fleet took Veracruz. The French then moved to capture
Mexico City, but the advance came to an end when Mexican forces defeated the French in 1862. Despite
this setback, France eventually did conquer Mexico, establishing a regime that lasted until 1867. Rather
than coming to the aid of the Confederacy, France used the Civil War to provide a pretext for efforts to
reestablish its former eighteenth-century colonial holdings.
Still, the Confederacy had great confidence that it would find an ally in Great Britain despite the
antislavery sentiment there. Southerners hoped Britain’s dependence on cotton for its textile mills would
keep the country on their side. The fact that the British proved willing to build and sell ironclad ships
intended to smash through the Union naval blockade further raised Southern hopes. The Confederacy
purchased two of these armored blockade runners, the CSS Florida and the CSS Alabama. Both were
destroyed during the war.
The Confederacy’s staunch commitment to slavery eventually worked against British recognition and
support, since Great Britain had abolished slavery in 1833. The 1863 Emancipation Proclamation ended
any doubts the British had about the goals of the Union cause. In the aftermath of the proclamation,
many in Great Britain cheered for a Union victory. Ultimately, Great Britain, like France, disappointed
the Confederacy’s hope of an alliance, leaving the outnumbered and out-resourced states that had left the
Union to fend for themselves.
AFRICAN AMERICAN SOLDIERS

At the beginning of the war, in 1861 and 1862, Union forces had used contrabands, or escaped slaves, for
manual labor. The Emancipation Proclamation, however, led to the enrollment of African American men
as Union soldiers. Huge numbers, former slaves as well as free blacks from the North, enlisted, and by
the end of the war in 1865, their numbers had swelled to over 190,000. Racism among whites in the Union
army ran deep, however, fueling the belief that black soldiers could never be effective or trustworthy. The
Union also feared for the fate of captured black soldiers. Although many black soldiers saw combat duty,
these factors affected the types of tasks assigned to them. Many black regiments were limited to hauling
supplies, serving as cooks, digging trenches, and doing other types of labor, rather than serving on the
battlefield (Figure 15.16).
Figure 15.16 This 1865 daguerreotype illustrates three of the Union’s distinct advantages: African American
soldiers, a stream of cannons and supplies, and an extensive railroad grid. (credit: Library of Congress)
African American soldiers also received lower wages than their white counterparts: ten dollars per month,
with three dollars deducted for clothing. White soldiers, in contrast, received thirteen dollars monthly,
with no deductions. Abolitionists and their Republican supporters in Congress worked to correct this
discriminatory practice, and in 1864, black soldiers began to receive the same pay as white soldiers plus
retroactive pay to 1863 (Figure 15.17).
Figure 15.17 African American and white soldiers of the Union army pose together in this photograph, although in
reality, black soldiers were often kept separate and given only menial jobs.
For their part, African American soldiers welcomed the opportunity to prove themselves. Some 85 percent
were former slaves who were fighting for the liberation of all slaves and the end of slavery. When given
the opportunity to serve, many black regiments did so heroically. One such regiment, the Fifty-Fourth
Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteers, distinguished itself at Fort Wagner in South Carolina by fighting
valiantly against an entrenched Confederate position. They willingly gave their lives for the cause.

The Confederacy, not surprisingly, showed no mercy to African American troops. In April 1864, Southern
forces attempted to take Fort Pillow in Tennessee from the Union forces that had captured it in 1862.
Confederate troops under Major General Nathan Bedford Forrest, the future founder of the Ku Klux Klan,
quickly overran the fort, and the Union defenders surrendered. Instead of taking the African American
soldiers prisoner, as they did the white soldiers, the Confederates executed them. The massacre outraged
the North, and the Union refused to engage in any future exchanges of prisoners with the Confederacy.
THE CAMPAIGNS OF 1864 AND 1865

In the final years of the war, the Union continued its efforts on both the eastern and western fronts while
bringing the war into the Deep South. Union forces increasingly engaged in total war, not distinguishing
between military and civilian targets. They destroyed everything that lay in their path, committed to
breaking the will of the Confederacy and forcing an end to the war. General Grant, mastermind of the
Vicksburg campaign, took charge of the war effort. He understood the advantage of having large numbers
of soldiers at his disposal and recognized that Union soldiers could be replaced, whereas the Confederates,
whose smaller population was feeling the strain of the years of war, could not. Grant thus pushed forward
relentlessly, despite huge losses of men. In 1864, Grant committed his forces to destroying Lee’s army in
Virginia.
In the Virginia campaign, Grant hoped to use his larger army to his advantage. But at the Battle of
the Wilderness, fought from May 5 to May 7, Confederate forces stopped Grant’s advance. Rather than
retreating, he pushed forward. At the Battle of Spotsylvania on May 8 through 12, Grant again faced
determined Confederate resistance, and again his advance was halted. As before, he renewed the Union
campaign. At the Battle of Cold Harbor in early June, Grant had between 100,000 and 110,000 soldiers,
whereas the Confederates had slightly more than half that number. Again, the Union advance was halted,
if only momentarily, as Grant awaited reinforcements. An attack on the Confederate position on June
3 resulted in heavy casualties for the Union, and nine days later, Grant led his army away from Cold
Harbor to Petersburg, Virginia, a rail center that supplied Richmond. The immense losses that Grant’s
forces suffered severely hurt Union morale. The war seemed unending, and with the tremendous loss of
life, many in the North began to question the war and desire peace. Undaunted by the changing opinion
in the North and hoping to destroy the Confederate rail network in the Upper South, however, Grant laid
siege to Petersburg for nine months. As the months wore on, both sides dug in, creating miles of trenches
and gun emplacements.
The other major Union campaigns of 1864 were more successful and gave President Lincoln the advantage
that he needed to win reelection in November. In August 1864, the Union navy captured Mobile Bay.
General Sherman invaded the Deep South, advancing slowly from Tennessee into Georgia, confronted
at every turn by the Confederates, who were commanded by Johnston. When President Davis replaced
Johnston with General John B. Hood, the Confederates made a daring but ultimately costly direct attack on
the Union army that failed to drive out the invaders. Atlanta fell to Union forces on September 2, 1864. The
fall of Atlanta held tremendous significance for the war-weary Union and helped to reverse the North’s
sinking morale. In keeping with the logic of total war, Sherman’s forces cut a swath of destruction to
Savannah. On Sherman’s March to the Sea, the Union army, seeking to demoralize the South, destroyed
everything in its path, despite strict instructions regarding the preservation of civilian property. Although
towns were left standing, houses and barns were burned. Homes were looted, food was stolen, crops were
destroyed, orchards were burned, and livestock was killed or confiscated. Savannah fell on December
21, 1864—a Christmas gift for Lincoln, Sherman proclaimed. In 1865, Sherman’s forces invaded South
Carolina, capturing Charleston and Columbia. In Columbia, the state capital, the Union army burned
slaveholders’ homes and destroyed much of the city. From South Carolina, Sherman’s force moved north
in an effort to join Grant and destroy Lee’s army.
MY STORY
Dolly Sumner Lunt on Sherman’s March to the Sea
The following account is by Dolly Sumner Lunt, a widow who ran her Georgia cotton plantation after the
death of her husband. She describes General Sherman’s march to Savannah, where he enacted the
policy of total war by burning and plundering the landscape to inhibit the Confederates’ ability to keep
fighting.
Alas! little did I think while trying to save my house from plunder and fire that they were forcing
my boys [slaves] from home at the point of the bayonet. One, Newton, jumped into bed in his
cabin, and declared himself sick. Another crawled under the floor,—a lame boy he was,—but
they pulled him out, placed him on a horse, and drove him off. Mid, poor Mid! The last I saw
of him, a man had him going around the garden, looking, as I thought, for my sheep, as he
was my shepherd. Jack came crying to me, the big tears coursing down his cheeks, saying
they were making him go. I said: ‘Stay in my room.’
But a man followed in, cursing him and threatening to shoot him if he did not go; so poor Jack
had to yield. . . .
Sherman himself and a greater portion of his army passed my house that day. All day, as the
sad moments rolled on, were they passing not only in front of my house, but from behind; they
tore down my garden palings, made a road through my back-yard and lot field, driving their
stock and riding through, tearing down my fences and desolating my home—wantonly doing
it when there was no necessity for it. . . .
About ten o’clock they had all passed save one, who came in and wanted coffee made,
which was done, and he, too, went on. A few minutes elapsed, and two couriers riding
rapidly passed back. Then, presently, more soldiers came by, and this ended the passing
of Sherman’s army by my place, leaving me poorer by thirty thousand dollars than I was
yesterday morning. And a much stronger Rebel!
According to this account, what was the reaction of slaves to the arrival of the Union forces? What did
the Union forces do with the slaves? For Lunt, did the strategy of total war work as planned?

Despite the military successes for the Union army in 1863, in 1864, Lincoln’s status among many Northern
voters plummeted. Citing the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, many saw him as a dictator, bent
on grabbing power while senselessly and uncaringly drafting more young men into combat. Arguably, his
greatest liability, however, was the Emancipation Proclamation and the enlistment of African American
soldiers. Many whites in the North found this deeply offensive, since they still believed in racial inequality.
The 1863 New York City Draft Riots illustrated the depth of white anger.
Northern Democrats railed against Lincoln and the war. Republicans labeled these vocal opponents of the
President Copperheads, a term that many antiwar Democrats accepted. As the anti-Lincoln poster below
illustrates, his enemies tried to paint him as an untrustworthy and suspect leader (Figure 15.18). It seemed
to most in the North that the Democratic candidate, General George B. McClellan, who did not support
abolition and was replaced with another commander by Lincoln, would win the election.

Figure 15.18 Anti-Lincoln sentiment in the North ran high in 1864, and many believed he would not be reelected
president that year.
The Republican Party also split over the issue of reelecting Lincoln. Those who found him timid and
indecisive, and favored extending full rights to African Americans, as well as completely refashioning the
South after its defeat, earned the name Radicals. A moderate faction of Republicans opposed the Radicals.
For his part, Lincoln did not align himself with either group.
The tide of the election campaign turned in favor of Lincoln, however, in the fall of 1864. Above all else,
Union victories, including the fall of Atlanta in September and General Philip Sheridan’s successes in the
Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, bolstered Lincoln’s popularity and his reelection bid. In November 1864,
despite earlier forecasts to the contrary, Lincoln was reelected. Lincoln won all but three states—New
Jersey and the border states of Delaware and Kentucky. To the chagrin of his opponent, McClellan, even
Union army troops voted overwhelmingly for the incumbent President.
THE WAR ENDS

By the spring of 1865, it had become clear to both sides that the Confederacy could not last much longer.
Most of its major cities, ports, and industrial centers—Atlanta, Savannah, Charleston, Columbia, Mobile,
New Orleans, and Memphis—had been captured. In April 1865, Lee had abandoned both Petersburg and
Richmond. His goal in doing so was to unite his depleted army with Confederate forces commanded by
General Johnston. Grant effectively cut him off. On April 9, 1865, Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox
Court House in Virginia (Figure 15.19). By that time, he had fewer than 35,000 soldiers, while Grant
had some 100,000. Meanwhile, Sherman’s army proceeded to North Carolina, where General Johnston
surrendered on April 19, 1865. The Civil War had come to an end. The war had cost the lives of more
than 600,000 soldiers. Many more had been wounded. Thousands of women were left widowed. Children
were left without fathers, and many parents were deprived of a source of support in their old age. In some
areas, where local volunteer units had marched off to battle, never to return, an entire generation of young
women was left without marriage partners. Millions of dollars’ worth of property had been destroyed, and
towns and cities were laid to waste. With the conflict finally over, the very difficult work of reconciling
North and South and reestablishing the United States lay ahead.
Figure 15.19 Vastly outnumbered by the Union army, the Confederate general Robert E. Lee (seated at the left)
surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse. (credit: “Alaskan Dude”/Wikimedia Commons)

Key Terms
Army of the Potomac the Union fighting force operating outside Washington, DC
Army of the West the Union fighting force operating in Kentucky, Tennessee, and the Mississippi River
Valley
Confederacy the new nation formed by the seceding southern states, also known as the Confederate
States of America (CSA)
contrabands slaves who escaped to the Union army’s lines
Copperheads Democrats who opposed Lincoln in the 1864 election
Crittenden Compromise a compromise, suggested by Kentucky senator John Crittenden, that would
restore the 36°30′ line from the Missouri Compromise and extend it to the Pacific Ocean, allowing
slavery to expand into the southwestern territories
Emancipation Proclamation signed on January 1, 1863, the document with which President Lincoln
transformed the Civil War into a struggle to end slavery
Fort Sumter a fort in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina, where the Union garrison came under
siege by Confederate forces in an attack on April 12, 1861, beginning the Civil War
general in chief the commander of army land forces
Gettysburg Address a speech by Abraham Lincoln dedicating the military cemetery at Gettysburg on
November 19, 1863
greenbacks paper money the United States began to issue during the Civil War
habeas corpus the right of those arrested to be brought before a judge or court to determine whether
there is cause to hold the prisoner
Sherman’s March to the Sea the scorched-earth campaign employed in Georgia by Union general
William Tecumseh Sherman
total war a state of war in which the government makes no distinction between military and civilian
targets, and mobilizes all resources, extending its reach into all areas of citizens’ lives
Summary
The election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency in 1860 proved to be a watershed event. While it did
not cause the Civil War, it was the culmination of increasing tensions between the proslavery South and
the antislavery North. Before Lincoln had even taken office, seven Deep South states had seceded from the
Union to form the CSA, dedicated to maintaining racial slavery and white supremacy. Last-minute efforts
to reach a compromise, such as the proposal by Senator Crittenden and the Corwin amendment, went
nowhere. The time for compromise had come to an end. With the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, the
Civil War began.

Many in both the North and the South believed that a short, decisive confrontation in 1861 would settle
the question of the Confederacy. These expectations did not match reality, however, and the war dragged
on into a second year. Both sides mobilized, with advantages and disadvantages on each side that led to
a rough equilibrium. The losses of battles at Manassas and Fredericksburg, Virginia, kept the North from
achieving the speedy victory its generals had hoped for, but the Union did make gains and continued to
press forward. While they could not capture the Southern capital of Richmond, they were victorious in the
Battle of Shiloh and captured New Orleans and Memphis. Thus, the Confederates lost major ground on
the western front.

The year 1863 proved decisive in the Civil War for two major reasons. First, the Union transformed
the purpose of the struggle from restoring the Union to ending slavery. While Lincoln’s Emancipation
Proclamation actually succeeded in freeing few slaves, it made freedom for African Americans a cause
of the Union. Second, the tide increasingly turned against the Confederacy. The success of the Vicksburg
Campaign had given the Union control of the Mississippi River, and Lee’s defeat at Gettysburg had ended
the attempted Confederate invasion of the North.

Having failed to win the support it expected from either Great Britain or France, the Confederacy faced a
long war with limited resources and no allies. Lincoln won reelection in 1864, and continued to pursue the
Union campaign, not only in the east and west, but also with a drive into the South under the leadership
of General Sherman, whose March to the Sea through Georgia destroyed everything in its path. Cut off
and outnumbered, Confederate general Lee surrendered to Union general Grant on April 9 at Appomattox
Court House in Virginia. Within days of Lee’s surrender, Confederate troops had lay down their arms, and
the devastating war came to a close.
Review Questions
1. Which of the following does not represent a D. that the interstate slave trade would be
goal of the Confederate States of America? allowed to continue
A. to protect slavery from any effort to abolish
it 3. Why did the states of the Deep South secede
B. to protect the domestic slave trade from the Union sooner than the states of the
C. to ensure that slavery would be allowed to Upper South and the border states?
spread into western territories
D. to ensure that the international slave trade 4. All the following were strengths of the Union
would be allowed to continue except ________.
A. a large population
2. Which was not a provision of the Crittenden B. substantial industry
Compromise? C. an extensive railroad
A. that the Five Civilized Tribes would be D. the ability to fight defensively, rather than
admitted into the Confederacy offensively
B. that the 36°30′ line from the Missouri
Compromise would be restored and 5. All the following were strengths of the
extended Confederacy except ________.
C. that Congress would be prohibited from A. the ability to wage a defensive war
abolishing slavery where it already existed B. shorter supply lines

C. the resources of the Upper South states 9. Which of the following is not a reason why
D. a strong navy many people opposed Lincoln’s reelection in
1864?
6. What military successes and defeats did the A. He appeared to have overstepped his
Union experience in 1862? authority by suspending the writ of habeas
corpus.
7. Which of the following did the North not do to B. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
mobilize for war? C. He had replaced General George B.
A. institute a military draft McClellan.
B. form a military alliance with Great Britain D. He was seen as a power-hungry dictator.
C. print paper money
D. pass the Homestead Act 10. What was General Sherman’s objective on his
March to the Sea?
8. Why is 1863 considered a turning point in the A. to destroy military and civilian resources
Civil War? wherever possible
B. to free black prisoners of war
C. to join his army to that of General Grant
D. to capture General Robert E. Lee

11. Could the differences between the North and South have been worked out in late 1860 and 1861?
Could war have been avoided? Provide evidence to support your answer.
12. Why did the North prevail in the Civil War? What might have turned the tide of the war against the
North?
13. If you were in charge of the Confederate war effort, what strategy or strategies would you have
pursued? Conversely, if you had to devise the Union strategy, what would you propose? How does your
answer depend on your knowledge of how the war actually played out?
14. What do you believe to be the enduring qualities of the Gettysburg Address? Why has this two-minute
speech so endured?
15. What role did women and African Americans play in the war?

Chapter 16 The Era of Reconstruction, 1865–1877 453
CHAPTER 16
The Era of Reconstruction,

1865–1877
Figure 16.1 In this political cartoon by Thomas Nast, which appeared in Harper’s Weekly in October 1874, the
“White League” shakes hands with the Ku Klux Klan over a shield that shows a couple weeping over a baby. In the
background, a schoolhouse burns, and a lynched freedman is shown hanging from a tree. Above the shield, which is
labeled “Worse than Slavery,” the text reads, “The Union as It Was: This Is a White Man’s Government.”
Chapter Outline
16.1 Restoring the Union
16.2 Congress and the Remaking of the South, 1865–1866
16.3 Radical Reconstruction, 1867–1872
16.4 The Collapse of Reconstruction
Introduction
Few times in U.S. history have been as turbulent and transformative as the Civil War and the twelve
years that followed. Between 1865 and 1877, one president was murdered and another impeached. The
Constitution underwent major revision with the addition of three amendments. The effort to impose Union
control and create equality in the defeated South ignited a fierce backlash as various terrorist and vigilante
organizations, most notably the Ku Klux Klan, battled to maintain a pre–Civil War society in which whites
held complete power. These groups unleashed a wave of violence, including lynching and arson, aimed
at freed blacks and their white supporters. Historians refer to this era as Reconstruction, when an effort to
remake the South faltered and ultimately failed.
The above political cartoon (Figure 16.1) expresses the anguish many Americans felt in the decade after
the Civil War. The South, which had experienced catastrophic losses during the conflict, was reduced
to political dependence and economic destitution. This humiliating condition led many southern whites
to vigorously contest Union efforts to transform the South’s racial, economic, and social landscape.
Supporters of equality grew increasingly dismayed at Reconstruction’s failure to undo the old system,
which further compounded the staggering regional and racial inequalities in the United States.
454 Chapter 16 The Era of Reconstruction, 1865–1877

• Describe Lincoln’s plan to restore the Union at the end of the Civil War
• Discuss the tenets of Radical Republicanism
• Analyze the success or failure of the Thirteenth Amendment
The end of the Civil War saw the beginning of the Reconstruction era, when former rebel Southern
states were integrated back into the Union. President Lincoln moved quickly to achieve the war’s ultimate
goal: reunification of the country. He proposed a generous and non-punitive plan to return the former
Confederate states speedily to the United States, but some Republicans in Congress protested, considering
the president’s plan too lenient to the rebel states that had torn the country apart. The greatest flaw of
Lincoln’s plan, according to this view, was that it appeared to forgive traitors instead of guaranteeing civil
rights to former slaves. President Lincoln oversaw the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing
slavery, but he did not live to see its ratification.
THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN

From the outset of the rebellion in 1861, Lincoln’s overriding goal had been to bring the Southern states
quickly back into the fold in order to restore the Union (Figure 16.3). In early December 1863, the president
began the process of reunification by unveiling a three-part proposal known as the ten percent plan that
outlined how the states would return. The ten percent plan gave a general pardon to all Southerners
except high-ranking Confederate government and military leaders; required 10 percent of the 1860 voting
population in the former rebel states to take a binding oath of future allegiance to the United States and
the emancipation of slaves; and declared that once those voters took those oaths, the restored Confederate
states would draft new state constitutions.
Figure 16.2

Figure 16.3 Thomas Le Mere took this albumen silver print (a) of Abraham Lincoln in April 1863. Le Mere thought a
standing pose of Lincoln would be popular. In this political cartoon from 1865 (b), Lincoln and his vice president,
Andrew Johnson, endeavor to sew together the torn pieces of the Union.
Lincoln hoped that the leniency of the plan—90 percent of the 1860 voters did not have to swear allegiance
to the Union or to emancipation—would bring about a quick and long-anticipated resolution and make
emancipation more acceptable everywhere. This approach appealed to some in the moderate wing of the
Republican Party, which wanted to put the nation on a speedy course toward reconciliation. However,
the proposal instantly drew fire from a larger faction of Republicans in Congress who did not want to
deal moderately with the South. These members of Congress, known as Radical Republicans, wanted
to remake the South and punish the rebels. Radical Republicans insisted on harsh terms for the defeated
Confederacy and protection for former slaves, going far beyond what the president proposed.
In February 1864, two of the Radical Republicans, Ohio senator Benjamin Wade and Maryland
representative Henry Winter Davis, answered Lincoln with a proposal of their own. Among other
stipulations, the Wade-Davis Bill called for a majority of voters and government officials in Confederate
states to take an oath, called the Ironclad Oath, swearing that they had never supported the Confederacy
or made war against the United States. Those who could not or would not take the oath would be unable
to take part in the future political life of the South. Congress assented to the Wade-Davis Bill, and it went
to Lincoln for his signature. The president refused to sign, using the pocket veto (that is, taking no action)
to kill the bill. Lincoln understood that no Southern state would have met the criteria of the Wade-Davis
Bill, and its passage would simply have delayed the reconstruction of the South.
THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT

Despite the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, the legal status of slaves and the institution of slavery
remained unresolved. To deal with the remaining uncertainties, the Republican Party made the abolition
of slavery a top priority by including the issue in its 1864 party platform. The platform read: “That as
slavery was the cause, and now constitutes the strength of this Rebellion, and as it must be, always and
everywhere, hostile to the principles of Republican Government, justice and the National safety demand
its utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the Republic; and that, while we uphold and maintain
the acts and proclamations by which the Government, in its own defense, has aimed a deathblow at this
gigantic evil, we are in favor, furthermore, of such an amendment to the Constitution, to be made by the
people in conformity with its provisions, as shall terminate and forever prohibit the existence of Slavery
within the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States.” The platform left no doubt about the intention to
abolish slavery.
The president, along with the Radical Republicans, made good on this campaign promise in 1864 and 1865.
A proposed constitutional amendment passed the Senate in April 1864, and the House of Representatives
concurred in January 1865. The amendment then made its way to the states, where it swiftly gained the
necessary support, including in the South. In December 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment was officially
ratified and added to the Constitution. The first amendment added to the Constitution since 1804, it
overturned a centuries-old practice by permanently abolishing slavery.
Click and Explore
Explore a comprehensive collection of documents, images, and ephemera related to

Abraham Lincoln (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Lincoln) on the Library of
Congress website.
President Lincoln never saw the final ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. On April 14, 1865, the
Confederate supporter and well-known actor John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln while he was attending a
play, Our American Cousin, at Ford’s Theater in Washington. The president died the next day (Figure 16.4).
Booth had steadfastly defended the Confederacy and white supremacy, and his act was part of a larger
conspiracy to eliminate the heads of the Union government and keep the Confederate fight going. One of
Booth’s associates stabbed and wounded Secretary of State William Seward the night of the assassination.
Another associate abandoned the planned assassination of Vice President Andrew Johnson at the last
moment. Although Booth initially escaped capture, Union troops shot and killed him on April 26, 1865,
in a Maryland barn. Eight other conspirators were convicted by a military tribunal for participating in the
conspiracy, and four were hanged. Lincoln’s death earned him immediate martyrdom, and hysteria spread
throughout the North. To many Northerners, the assassination suggested an even greater conspiracy
than what was revealed, masterminded by the unrepentant leaders of the defeated Confederacy. Militant
Republicans would use and exploit this fear relentlessly in the ensuing months.

Figure 16.4 In The Assassination of President Lincoln (1865), by Currier and Ives, John Wilkes Booth shoots
Lincoln in the back of the head as he sits in the theater box with his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, and their guests, Major
Henry R. Rathbone and Clara Harris.
ANDREW JOHNSON AND THE BATTLE OVER RECONSTRUCTION

Lincoln’s assassination elevated Vice President Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, to the presidency. Johnson
had come from very humble origins. Born into extreme poverty in North Carolina and having never
attended school, Johnson was the picture of a self-made man. His wife had taught him how to read and
he had worked as a tailor, a trade he had been apprenticed to as a child. In Tennessee, where he had
moved as a young man, he gradually rose up the political ladder, earning a reputation for being a skillful
stump speaker and a staunch defender of poor southerners. He was elected to serve in the House of
Representatives in the 1840s, became governor of Tennessee the following decade, and then was elected
a U.S. senator just a few years before the country descended into war. When Tennessee seceded, Johnson
remained loyal to the Union and stayed in the Senate. As Union troops marched on his home state of
North Carolina, Lincoln appointed him governor of the then-occupied state of Tennessee, where he served
until being nominated by the Republicans to run for vice president on a Lincoln ticket. The nomination
of Johnson, a Democrat and a slaveholding southerner, was a pragmatic decision made by concerned
Republicans. It was important for them to show that the party supported all loyal men, regardless of their
origin or political persuasion. Johnson appeared an ideal choice, because his nomination would bring with
it the support of both pro-Southern elements and the War Democrats who rejected the conciliatory stance
of the Copperheads, the northern Democrats who opposed the Civil War.
Unexpectedly elevated to the presidency in 1865, this formerly impoverished tailor’s apprentice and
unwavering antagonist of the wealthy southern planter class now found himself tasked with
administering the restoration of a destroyed South. Lincoln’s position as president had been that the
secession of the Southern states was never legal; that is, they had not succeeded in leaving the Union,
therefore they still had certain rights to self-government as states. In keeping with Lincoln’s plan, Johnson
desired to quickly reincorporate the South back into the Union on lenient terms and heal the wounds
of the nation. This position angered many in his own party. The northern Radical Republican plan for
Reconstruction looked to overturn southern society and specifically aimed at ending the plantation system.
President Johnson quickly disappointed Radical Republicans when he rejected their idea that the federal
government could provide voting rights for freed slaves. The initial disagreements between the president
and the Radical Republicans over how best to deal with the defeated South set the stage for further conflict.
In fact, President Johnson’s Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction in May 1865 provided sweeping
“amnesty and pardon” to rebellious Southerners. It returned to them their property, with the notable
exception of their former slaves, and it asked only that they affirm their support for the Constitution
of the United States. Those Southerners excepted from this amnesty included the Confederate political
leadership, high-ranking military officers, and persons with taxable property worth more than $20,000.
The inclusion of this last category was specifically designed to make it clear to the southern planter class
that they had a unique responsibility for the outbreak of hostilities. But it also satisfied Johnson’s desire to
exact vengeance on a class of people he had fought politically for much of his life. For this class of wealthy
Southerners to regain their rights, they would have to swallow their pride and request a personal pardon
from Johnson himself.
For the Southern states, the requirements for readmission to the Union were also fairly straightforward.
States were required to hold individual state conventions where they would repeal the ordinances of
secession and ratify the Thirteenth Amendment. By the end of 1865, a number of former Confederate
leaders were in the Union capital looking to claim their seats in Congress. Among them was Alexander
Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, who had spent several months in a Boston jail after the
war. Despite the outcries of Republicans in Congress, by early 1866 Johnson announced that all former
Confederate states had satisfied the necessary requirements. According to him, nothing more needed to be
done; the Union had been restored.
Understandably, Radical Republicans in Congress did not agree with Johnson’s position. They, and
their northern constituents, greatly resented his lenient treatment of the former Confederate states, and
especially the return of former Confederate leaders like Alexander Stephens to Congress. They refused to
acknowledge the southern state governments he allowed. As a result, they would not permit senators and
representatives from the former Confederate states to take their places in Congress.
Instead, the Radical Republicans created a joint committee of representatives and senators to oversee
Reconstruction. In the 1866 congressional elections, they gained control of the House, and in the ensuing
years they pushed for the dismantling of the old southern order and the complete reconstruction of
the South. This effort put them squarely at odds with President Johnson, who remained unwilling to
compromise with Congress, setting the stage for a series of clashes.

• Describe the efforts made by Congress in 1865 and 1866 to bring to life its vision of
Reconstruction
• Explain how the Fourteenth Amendment transformed the Constitution
President Johnson and Congress’s views on Reconstruction grew even further apart as Johnson’s
presidency progressed. Congress repeatedly pushed for greater rights for freed people and a far more
thorough reconstruction of the South, while Johnson pushed for leniency and a swifter reintegration.
President Johnson lacked Lincoln’s political skills and instead exhibited a stubbornness and
confrontational approach that aggravated an already difficult situation.
THE FREEDMEN’S BUREAU

Freed people everywhere celebrated the end of slavery and immediately began to take steps to improve
their own condition by seeking what had long been denied to them: land, financial security, education, and
the ability to participate in the political process. They wanted to be reunited with family members, grasp
the opportunity to make their own independent living, and exercise their right to have a say in their own
government.
However, they faced the wrath of defeated but un-reconciled southerners who were determined to
keep blacks an impoverished and despised underclass. Recognizing the widespread devastation in the

South and the dire situation of freed people, Congress created the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and
Abandoned Lands in March 1865, popularly known as the Freedmen’s Bureau. Lincoln had approved of
the bureau, giving it a charter for one year.
The Freedmen’s Bureau engaged in many initiatives to ease the transition from slavery to freedom. It
delivered food to blacks and whites alike in the South. It helped freed people gain labor contracts, a
significant step in the creation of wage labor in place of slavery. It helped reunite families of freedmen,
and it also devoted much energy to education, establishing scores of public schools where freed people
and poor whites could receive both elementary and higher education. Respected institutions such as Fisk
University, Hampton University, and Dillard University are part of the legacy of the Freedmen’s Bureau.
In this endeavor, the Freedmen’s Bureau received support from Christian organizations that had long
advocated for abolition, such as the American Missionary Association (AMA). The AMA used the
knowledge and skill it had acquired while working in missions in Africa and with American Indian groups
to establish and run schools for freed slaves in the postwar South. While men and women, white and black,
taught in these schools, the opportunity was crucially important for participating women (Figure 16.5). At
the time, many opportunities, including admission to most institutes of higher learning, remained closed
to women. Participating in these schools afforded these women the opportunities they otherwise may have
been denied. Additionally, the fact they often risked life and limb to work in these schools in the South
demonstrated to the nation that women could play a vital role in American civic life.
Figure 16.5 The Freedmen’s Bureau, as shown in this 1866 illustration from Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper,
created many schools for black elementary school students. Many of the teachers who provided instruction in these
southern schools, though by no means all, came from northern states.
The schools that the Freedmen’s Bureau and the AMA established inspired great dismay and resentment
among the white populations in the South and were sometimes targets of violence. Indeed, the Freedmen’s
Bureau’s programs and its very existence were sources of controversy. Racists and others who resisted this
type of federal government activism denounced it as both a waste of federal money and a foolish effort
that encouraged laziness among blacks. Congress renewed the bureau’s charter in 1866, but President
Johnson, who steadfastly believed that the work of restoring the Union had been completed, vetoed the re-
chartering. Radical Republicans continued to support the bureau, igniting a contest between Congress and
the president that intensified during the next several years. Part of this dispute involved conflicting visions
of the proper role of the federal government. Radical Republicans believed in the constructive power of
the federal government to ensure a better day for freed people. Others, including Johnson, denied that the
government had any such role to play.
AMERICANA
The Freedmen’s Bureau
The image below (Figure 16.6) shows a campaign poster for Hiester Clymer, who ran for governor of
Pennsylvania in 1866 on a platform of white supremacy.
Figure 16.6 The caption of this image reads, “The Freedman’s Bureau! An agency to keep the Negro
in idleness at the expense of the white man. Twice vetoed by the President, and made a law by
Congress. Support Congress & you support the Negro. Sustain the President & you protect the white
man.”
The image in the foreground shows an indolent black man wondering, “Whar is de use for me to work as
long as dey make dese appropriations.” White men toil in the background, chopping wood and plowing a
field. The text above them reads, “In the sweat of thy face shall thou eat bread. . . . The white man must
work to keep his children and pay his taxes.” In the middle background, the Freedmen’s Bureau looks
like the Capitol, and the pillars are inscribed with racist assumptions of things blacks value, like “rum,”
“idleness,” and “white women.” On the right are estimates of the costs of the Freedmen’s Bureau and the
bounties (fees for enlistment) given to both white and black Union soldiers.
What does this poster indicate about the political climate of the Reconstruction era? How might different
people have received this image?
BLACK CODES
In 1865 and 1866, as Johnson announced the end of Reconstruction, southern states began to pass a series
of discriminatory state laws collectively known as black codes. While the laws varied in both content and
severity from state to state, the goal of the laws remained largely consistent. In effect, these codes were
designed to maintain the social and economic structure of racial slavery in the absence of slavery itself. The
laws codified white supremacy by restricting the civic participation of freed slaves—depriving them of the
right to vote, the right to serve on juries, the right to own or carry weapons, and, in some cases, even the
right to rent or lease land.
A chief component of the black codes was designed to fulfill an important economic need in the postwar
South. Slavery had been a pillar of economic stability in the region before the war. To maintain agricultural
production, the South had relied on slaves to work the land. Now the region was faced with the daunting
prospect of making the transition from a slave economy to one where labor was purchased on the open
market. Not surprisingly, planters in the southern states were reluctant to make such a transition. Instead,

they drafted black laws that would re-create the antebellum economic structure with the façade of a free-
labor system.
Black codes used a variety of tactics to tie freed slaves to the land. To work, the freed slaves were forced
to sign contracts with their employer. These contracts prevented blacks from working for more than one
employer. This meant that, unlike in a free labor market, blacks could not positively influence wages and
conditions by choosing to work for the employer who gave them the best terms. The predictable outcome
was that freed slaves were forced to work for very low wages. With such low wages, and no ability to
supplement income with additional work, workers were reduced to relying on loans from their employers.
The debt that these workers incurred ensured that they could never escape from their condition. Those
former slaves who attempt to violate these contracts could be fined or beaten. Those who refused to sign
contracts at all could be arrested for vagrancy and then made to work for no wages, essentially being
reduced to the very definition of a slave.
The black codes left no doubt that the former breakaway Confederate states intended to maintain white
supremacy at all costs. These draconian state laws helped spur the congressional Joint Committee on
Reconstruction into action. Its members felt that ending slavery with the Thirteenth Amendment did not
go far enough. Congress extended the life of the Freedmen’s Bureau to combat the black codes and in April
1866 passed the first Civil Rights Act, which established the citizenship of African Americans. This was a
significant step that contradicted the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision, which declared that blacks
could never be citizens. The law also gave the federal government the right to intervene in state affairs to
protect the rights of citizens, and thus, of African Americans. President Johnson, who continued to insist
that restoration of the United States had already been accomplished, vetoed the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
However, Congress mustered the necessary votes to override his veto. Despite the Civil Rights Act, the
black codes endured, forming the foundation of the racially discriminatory Jim Crow segregation policies
that impoverished generations of African Americans.
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Questions swirled about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Supreme Court, in its
1857 decision forbidding black citizenship, had interpreted the Constitution in a certain way; many argued
that the 1866 statute, alone, could not alter that interpretation. Seeking to overcome all legal questions,
Radical Republicans drafted another constitutional amendment with provisions that followed those of the
1866 Civil Rights Act. In July 1866, the Fourteenth Amendment went to state legislatures for ratification.
The Fourteenth Amendment stated, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It gave citizens
equal protection under both the state and federal law, overturning the Dred Scott decision. It eliminated
the three-fifths compromise of the 1787 Constitution, whereby slaves had been counted as three-fifths of a
free white person, and it reduced the number of House representatives and Electoral College electors for
any state that denied suffrage to any adult male inhabitant, black or white. As Radical Republicans had
proposed in the Wade-Davis bill, individuals who had “engaged in insurrection or rebellion [against] . . .
or given aid or comfort to the enemies [of]” the United States were barred from holding political (state or
federal) or military office unless pardoned by two-thirds of Congress.
The amendment also answered the question of debts arising from the Civil War by specifying that all
debts incurred by fighting to defeat the Confederacy would be honored. Confederate debts, however,
would not: “[N]either the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred
in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation
of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.” Thus, claims by
former slaveholders requesting compensation for slave property had no standing. Any state that ratified
the Fourteenth Amendment would automatically be readmitted. Yet, all former Confederate states refused
to ratify the amendment in 1866.
President Johnson called openly for the rejection of the Fourteenth Amendment, a move that drove a
further wedge between him and congressional Republicans. In late summer of 1866, he gave a series of
speeches, known as the “swing around the circle,” designed to gather support for his mild version of
Reconstruction. Johnson felt that ending slavery went far enough; extending the rights and protections
of citizenship to freed people, he believed, went much too far. He continued to believe that blacks were
inferior to whites. The president’s “swing around the circle” speeches to gain support for his program and
derail the Radical Republicans proved to be a disaster, as hecklers provoked Johnson to make damaging
statements. Radical Republicans charged that Johnson had been drunk when he made his speeches. As a
result, Johnson’s reputation plummeted.
Click and Explore
Read the text of the Fourteenth Amendment (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

15Fourteena) and then view the original document (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/
15Fourteenb) at Our Documents.

• Explain the purpose of the second phase of Reconstruction and some of the key
legislation put forward by Congress
• Describe the impeachment of President Johnson
• Discuss the benefits and drawbacks of the Fifteenth Amendment
During the Congressional election in the fall of 1866, Republicans gained even greater victories. This was
due in large measure to the northern voter opposition that had developed toward President Johnson
because of the inflexible and overbearing attitude he had exhibited in the White House, as well as his
missteps during his 1866 speaking tour. Leading Radical Republicans in Congress included Massachusetts
senator Charles Sumner (the same senator whom proslavery South Carolina representative Preston Brooks
had thrashed with his cane in 1856 during the Bleeding Kansas crisis) and Pennsylvania representative
Thaddeus Stevens. These men and their supporters envisioned a much more expansive change in the
South. Sumner advocated integrating schools and giving black men the right to vote while
disenfranchising many southern voters. For his part, Stevens considered that the southern states had
forfeited their rights as states when they seceded, and were no more than conquered territory that the
federal government could organize as it wished. He envisioned the redistribution of plantation lands and
U.S. military control over the former Confederacy.
Their goals included the transformation of the South from an area built on slave labor to a free-labor
society. They also wanted to ensure that freed people were protected and given the opportunity for a better
life. Violent race riots in Memphis, Tennessee, and New Orleans, Louisiana, in 1866 gave greater urgency
to the second phase of Reconstruction, begun in 1867.

THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS

The 1867 Military Reconstruction Act, which encompassed the vision of Radical Republicans, set a new
direction for Reconstruction in the South. Republicans saw this law, and three supplementary laws passed
by Congress that year, called the Reconstruction Acts, as a way to deal with the disorder in the South. The
1867 act divided the ten southern states that had yet to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment into five military
districts (Tennessee had already been readmitted to the Union by this time and so was excluded from
these acts). Martial law was imposed, and a Union general commanded each district. These generals and
twenty thousand federal troops stationed in the districts were charged with protecting freed people. When
a supplementary act extended the right to vote to all freed men of voting age (21 years old), the military
in each district oversaw the elections and the registration of voters. Only after new state constitutions
had been written and states had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment could these states rejoin the Union.
Predictably, President Johnson vetoed the Reconstruction Acts, viewing them as both unnecessary and
unconstitutional. Once again, Congress overrode Johnson’s vetoes, and by the end of 1870, all the southern
states under military rule had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment and been restored to the Union (Figure
16.7).
Figure 16.7 The map above shows the five military districts established by the 1867 Military Reconstruction Act and
the date each state rejoined the Union. Tennessee was not included in the Reconstruction Acts as it had already
been readmitted to the Union at the time of their passage.
THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON

President Johnson’s relentless vetoing of congressional measures created a deep rift in Washington, DC,
and neither he nor Congress would back down. Johnson’s prickly personality proved to be a liability, and
many people found him grating. Moreover, he firmly believed in white supremacy, declaring in his 1868
State of the Union address, “The attempt to place the white population under the domination of persons of
color in the South has impaired, if not destroyed, the kindly relations that had previously existed between
them; and mutual distrust has engendered a feeling of animosity which leading in some instances to
collision and bloodshed, has prevented that cooperation between the two races so essential to the success
of industrial enterprise in the southern states.” The president’s racism put him even further at odds with
those in Congress who wanted to create full equality between blacks and whites.
The Republican majority in Congress by now despised the president, and they wanted to prevent him
from interfering in congressional Reconstruction. To that end, Radical Republicans passed two laws of
dubious constitutionality. The Command of the Army Act prohibited the president from issuing military
orders except through the commanding general of the army, who could not be relieved or reassigned
without the consent of the Senate. The Tenure of Office Act, which Congress passed in 1867, required the
president to gain the approval of the Senate whenever he appointed or removed officials. Congress had
passed this act to ensure that Republicans who favored Radical Reconstruction would not be barred or
stripped of their jobs. In August 1867, President Johnson removed Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton,
who had aligned himself with the Radical Republicans, without gaining Senate approval. He replaced
Stanton with Ulysses S. Grant, but Grant resigned and sided with the Republicans against the president.
Many Radical Republicans welcomed this blunder by the president as it allowed them to take action to
remove Johnson from office, arguing that Johnson had openly violated the Tenure of Office Act. The House
of Representatives quickly drafted a resolution to impeach him, a first in American history.
In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives serves as the prosecution and the Senate
acts as judge, deciding whether the president should be removed from office (Figure 16.8). The House
brought eleven counts against Johnson, all alleging his encroachment on the powers of Congress. In the
Senate, Johnson barely survived. Seven Republicans joined the Democrats and independents to support
acquittal; the final vote was 35 to 19, one vote short of the required two-thirds majority. The Radicals then
dropped the impeachment effort, but the events had effectively silenced President Johnson, and Radical
Republicans continued with their plan to reconstruct the South.
Figure 16.8 This illustration by Theodore R. Davis, which was captioned “The Senate as a court of impeachment for
the trial of Andrew Johnson,” appeared in Harper’s Weekly in 1868. Here, the House of Representatives brings its
grievances against Johnson to the Senate during impeachment hearings.
THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT

In November 1868, Ulysses S. Grant, the Union’s war hero, easily won the presidency in a landslide
victory. The Democratic nominee was Horatio Seymour, but the Democrats carried the stigma of disunion.
The Republicans, in their campaign, blamed the devastating Civil War and the violence of its aftermath on
the rival party, a strategy that southerners called “waving the bloody shirt.”
Though Grant did not side with the Radical Republicans, his victory allowed the continuance of the
Radical Reconstruction program. In the winter of 1869, Republicans introduced another constitutional
amendment, the third of the Reconstruction era. When Republicans had passed the Fourteenth

Amendment, which addressed citizenship rights and equal protections, they were unable to explicitly
ban states from withholding the franchise based on race. With the Fifteenth Amendment, they sought
to correct this major weakness by finally extending to black men the right to vote. The amendment
directed that “[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Unfortunately,
the new amendment had weaknesses of its own. As part of a compromise to ensure the passage of
the amendment with the broadest possible support, drafters of the amendment specifically excluded
language that addressed literacy tests and poll taxes, the most common ways blacks were traditionally
disenfranchised in both the North and the South. Indeed, Radical Republican leader Charles Sumner of
Massachusetts, himself an ardent supporter of legal equality without exception to race, refused to vote for
the amendment precisely because it did not address these obvious loopholes.
Despite these weaknesses, the language of the amendment did provide for universal manhood
suffrage—the right of all men to vote—and crucially identified black men, including those who had been
slaves, as deserving the right to vote. This, the third and final of the Reconstruction amendments, was
ratified in 1870 (Figure 16.9). With the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, many believed that the
process of restoring the Union was safely coming to a close and that the rights of freed slaves were finally
secure. African American communities expressed great hope as they celebrated what they understood to
be a national confirmation of their unqualified citizenship.
Figure 16.9 The Fifteenth Amendment. Celebrated May 19th, 1870, a commemorative print by Thomas Kelly,
celebrates the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment with a series of vignettes highlighting black rights and those who
championed them. Portraits include Ulysses S. Grant, Abraham Lincoln, and John Brown, as well as black leaders
Martin Delany, Frederick Douglass, and Hiram Revels. Vignettes include the celebratory parade for the amendment’s
passage, “The Ballot Box is open to us,” and “Our representative Sits in the National Legislature.”
Click and Explore
Visit the Library of Congress (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Fifteen) to take a

closer look at The Fifteenth Amendment by Thomas Kelly. Examine each individual
vignette and the accompanying text. Why do you think Kelly chose these to highlight?
WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE
While the Fifteenth Amendment may have been greeted with applause in many corners, leading women’s
rights activists, who had been campaigning for decades for the right to vote, saw it as a major
disappointment. More dispiriting still was the fact that many women’s rights activists, such as Susan
B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, had played a large part in the abolitionist movement leading
up to the Civil War. Following the war, women and men, white and black, formed the American Equal
Rights Association (AERA) for the expressed purpose of securing “equal Rights to all American citizens,
especially the right of suffrage, irrespective of race, color or sex.” Two years later, with the adoption of
the Fourteenth Amendment, section 2 of which specifically qualified the liberties it extended to “male
citizens,” it seemed as though the progress made in support of civil rights was not only passing women
by but was purposely codifying their exclusion. As Congress debated the language of the Fifteenth
Amendment, some held out hope that it would finally extend the franchise to women. Those hopes were
dashed when Congress adopted the final language.
The consequence of these frustrated hopes was the effective split of a civil rights movement that had once
been united in support of African Americans and women. Seeing this split occur, Frederick Douglass, a
great admirer of Stanton, struggled to argue for a piecemeal approach that should prioritize the franchise
for black men if that was the only option. He insisted that his support for women’s right to vote was
sincere, but that getting black men the right to vote was “of the most urgent necessity.” “The government
of this country loves women,” he argued. “They are the sisters, mothers, wives and daughters of our rulers;
but the negro is loathed. . . . The negro needs suffrage to protect his life and property, and to ensure him
respect and education.”
These appeals were largely accepted by women’s rights leaders and AERA members like Lucy Stone and
Henry Browne Blackwell, who believed that more time was needed to bring about female suffrage. Others
demanded immediate action. Among those who pressed forward despite the setback were Stanton and
Anthony. They felt greatly aggrieved at the fact that other abolitionists, with whom they had worked
closely for years, did not demand that women be included in the language of the amendments. Stanton
argued that the women’s vote would be necessary to counter the influence of uneducated freedmen in the
South and the waves of poor European immigrants arriving in the East.
In 1869, Stanton and Anthony helped organize the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA), an
organization dedicated to ensuring that women gained the right to vote immediately, not at some future,
undetermined date. Some women, including Virginia Minor, a member of the NWSA, took action by
trying to register to vote; Minor attempted this in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1872. When election officials
turned her away, Minor brought the issue to the Missouri state courts, arguing that the Fourteenth
Amendment ensured that she was a citizen with the right to vote. This legal effort to bring about women’s
suffrage eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, which declared in 1874 that “the constitution of
the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one,” effectively dismissing Minor’s claim.

DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Constitution of the National Woman Suffrage Association
Despite the Fifteenth Amendment’s failure to guarantee female suffrage, women did gain the right to vote
in western territories, with the Wyoming Territory leading the way in 1869. One reason for this was a belief
that giving women the right to vote would provide a moral compass to the otherwise lawless western
frontier. Extending the right to vote in western territories also provided an incentive for white women to
emigrate to the West, where they were scarce. However, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and
others believed that immediate action on the national front was required, leading to the organization of
the NWSA and its resulting constitution.
ARTICLE 1.—This organization shall be called the National Woman Suffrage Association.
ARTICLE 2.—The object of this Association shall be to secure STATE and NATIONAL
protection for women citizens in the exercise of their right to vote.
ARTICLE 3.—All citizens of the United States subscribing to this Constitution, and
contributing not less than one dollar annually, shall be considered members of the
Association, with the right to participate in its deliberations.
ARTICLE 4.—The officers of this Association shall be a President, Vice-Presidents from each
of the States and Territories, Corresponding and Recording Secretaries, a Treasurer, an
Executive Committee of not less than five, and an Advisory Committee consisting of one or
more persons from each State and Territory.
ARTICLE 5.—All Woman Suffrage Societies throughout the country shall be welcomed as
auxiliaries; and their accredited officers or duly appointed representatives shall be recognized
as members of the National Association.
OFFICERS OF THE NATIONAL WOMAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION.
PRESIDENT.
SUSAN B. ANTHONY, Rochester, N. Y.
How was the NWSA organized? How would the fact that it operated at the national level, rather than at
the state or local level, help it to achieve its goals?
BLACK POLITICAL ACHIEVEMENTS

Black voter registration in the late 1860s and the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment finally brought
what Lincoln had characterized as “a new birth of freedom.” Union Leagues, fraternal groups founded in
the North that promoted loyalty to the Union and the Republican Party during the Civil War, expanded
into the South after the war and were transformed into political clubs that served both political and
civic functions. As centers of the black communities in the South, the leagues became vehicles for the
dissemination of information, acted as mediators between members of the black community and the white
establishment, and served other practical functions like helping to build schools and churches for the
community they served. As extensions of the Republican Party, these leagues worked to enroll newly
enfranchised black voters, campaign for candidates, and generally help the party win elections (Figure
16.10).
Figure 16.10 The First Vote, by Alfred R. Waud, appeared in Harper’s Weekly in 1867. The Fifteenth Amendment
gave black men the right to vote for the first time.
The political activities of the leagues launched a great many African Americans and former slaves into
politics throughout the South. For the first time, blacks began to hold political office, and several were
elected to the U.S. Congress. In the 1870s, fifteen members of the House of Representatives and two
senators were black. The two senators, Blanche K. Bruce and Hiram Revels, were both from Mississippi,
the home state of former U.S. senator and later Confederate president Jefferson Davis. Hiram Revels
(Figure 16.11), was a freeborn man from North Carolina who rose to prominence as a minister in the
African Methodist Episcopal Church and then as a Mississippi state senator in 1869. The following year
he was elected by the state legislature to fill one of Mississippi’s two U.S. Senate seats, which had been
vacant since the war. His arrival in Washington, DC, drew intense interest: as the New York Times noted,
when “the colored Senator from Mississippi, was sworn in and admitted to his seat this afternoon . . . there
was not an inch of standing or sitting room in the galleries, so densely were they packed. . . . When the
Vice-President uttered the words, ‘The Senator elect will now advance and take the oath,’ a pin might have
been heard drop.”
Figure 16.11 Hiram Revels served as a preacher throughout the Midwest before settling in Mississippi in 1866.
When he was elected by the Mississippi state legislature in 1870, he became the country’s first African American
senator.

DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Senator Revels on Segregated Schools in Washington, DC
Hiram R. Revels became the first African American to serve in the U.S. Senate in 1870. In 1871, he gave
the following speech about Washington’s segregated schools before Congress.
Will establishing such [desegregated] schools as I am now advocating in this District harm
our white friends? . . . By some it is contended that if we establish mixed schools here a great
insult will be given to the white citizens, and that the white schools will be seriously damaged.
. . . When I was on a lecturing tour in the state of Ohio . . . [o]ne of the leading gentlemen
connected with the schools in that town came to see me. . . . He asked me, “Have you been to
New England, where they have mixed schools?” I replied, “I have sir.” “Well,” said he, “please
tell me this: does not social equality result from mixed schools?” “No, sir; very far from it,” I
responded. “Why,” said he, “how can it be otherwise?” I replied, “I will tell you how it can be
otherwise, and how it is otherwise. Go to the schools and you see there white children and
colored children seated side by side, studying their lessons, standing side by side and reciting
their lessons, and perhaps in walking to school they may walk together; but that is the last of
it. The white children go to their homes; the colored children go to theirs; and on the Lord’s
day you will see those colored children in colored churches, and the white family, you will see
the white children there, and the colored children at entertainments given by persons of their
color.” I aver, sir, that mixed schools are very far from bringing about social equality.”
According to Senator Revels’s speech, what is “social equality” and why is it important to the issue of
desegregated schools? Does Revels favor social equality or social segregation? Did social equality exist
in the United States in 1871?
Though the fact of their presence was dramatic and important, as the New York Times description above
demonstrates, the few African American representatives and senators who served in Congress during
Reconstruction represented only a tiny fraction of the many hundreds, possibly thousands, of blacks
who served in a great number of capacities at the local and state levels. The South during the early
1870s brimmed with freed slaves and freeborn blacks serving as school board commissioners, county
commissioners, clerks of court, board of education and city council members, justices of the peace,
constables, coroners, magistrates, sheriffs, auditors, and registrars. This wave of local African American
political activity contributed to and was accompanied by a new concern for the poor and disadvantaged
in the South. The southern Republican leadership did away with the hated black codes, undid the work of
white supremacists, and worked to reduce obstacles confronting freed people.
Reconstruction governments invested in infrastructure, paying special attention to the rehabilitation of
the southern railroads. They set up public education systems that enrolled both white and black students.
They established or increased funding for hospitals, orphanages, and asylums for the insane. In some
states, the state and local governments provided the poor with basic necessities like firewood and even
bread. And to pay for these new services and subsidies, the governments levied taxes on land and
property, an action that struck at the heart of the foundation of southern economic inequality. Indeed,
the land tax compounded the existing problems of white landowners, who were often cash-poor, and
contributed to resentment of what southerners viewed as another northern attack on their way of life.
White southerners reacted with outrage at the changes imposed upon them. The sight of once-enslaved
blacks serving in positions of authority as sheriffs, congressmen, and city council members stimulated
great resentment at the process of Reconstruction and its undermining of the traditional social and
economic foundations of the South. Indignant southerners referred to this period of reform as a time
of “negro misrule.” They complained of profligate corruption on the part of vengeful freed slaves and
greedy northerners looking to fill their pockets with the South’s riches. Unfortunately for the great many
honest reformers, southerners did have a handful of real examples of corruption they could point to,
such as legislators using state revenues to buy hams and perfumes or giving themselves inflated salaries.
Such examples, however, were relatively few and largely comparable to nineteenth-century corruption
across the country. Yet these powerful stories, combined with deep-seated racial animosity toward blacks
in the South, led to Democratic campaigns to “redeem” state governments. Democrats across the South
leveraged planters’ economic power and wielded white vigilante violence to ultimately take back state
political power from the Republicans. By the time President Grant’s attentions were being directed away
from the South and toward the Indian Wars in the West in 1876, power in the South had largely been
returned to whites and Reconstruction was effectively abandoned. By the end of 1876, only South Carolina,
Louisiana, and Florida still had Republican governments.
The sense that the South had been unfairly sacrificed to northern vice and black vengeance, despite a
wealth of evidence to the contrary, persisted for many decades. So powerful and pervasive was this
narrative that by the time D. W. Griffith released his 1915 motion picture, The Birth of a Nation, whites
around the country were primed to accept the fallacy that white southerners were the frequent victims
of violence and violation at the hands of unrestrained blacks. The reality is that the opposite was true.
White southerners orchestrated a sometimes violent and generally successful counterrevolution against
Reconstruction policies in the South beginning in the 1860s. Those who worked to change and modernize
the South typically did so under the stern gaze of exasperated whites and threats of violence. Black
Republican officials in the South were frequently terrorized, assaulted, and even murdered with impunity
by organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. When not ignoring the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
altogether, white leaders often used trickery and fraud at the polls to get the results they wanted. As
Reconstruction came to a close, these methods came to define southern life for African Americans for
nearly a century afterward.

• Explain the reasons for the collapse of Reconstruction
• Describe the efforts of white southern “redeemers” to roll back the gains of
Reconstruction
The effort to remake the South generated a brutal reaction among southern whites, who were committed to
keeping blacks in a subservient position. To prevent blacks from gaining economic ground and to maintain
cheap labor for the agricultural economy, an exploitative system of sharecropping spread throughout the
South. Domestic terror organizations, most notably the Ku Klux Klan, employed various methods (arson,
whipping, murder) to keep freed people from voting and achieving political, social, or economic equality
with whites.
BUILDING BLACK COMMUNITIES

The degraded status of black men and women had placed them outside the limits of what antebellum
southern whites considered appropriate gender roles and familial hierarchies. Slave marriages did not
enjoy legal recognition. Enslaved men were humiliated and deprived of authority and of the ability to
protect enslaved women, who were frequently exposed to the brutality and sexual domination of white
masters and vigilantes alike. Slave parents could not protect their children, who could be bought, sold, put
to work, brutally disciplined, and abused without their consent; parents, too, could be sold away from their
children (Figure 16.12). Moreover, the division of labor idealized in white southern society, in which men
worked the land and women performed the role of domestic caretaker, was null and void where slaves
were concerned. Both slave men and women were made to perform hard labor in the fields.

Figure 16.12 After emancipation, many fathers who had been sold from their families as slaves—a circumstance
illustrated in the engraving above, which shows a male slave forced to leave his wife and children—set out to find
those lost families and rebuild their lives.
In the Reconstruction era, African Americans embraced the right to enjoy the family bonds and the
expression of gender norms they had been systematically denied. Many thousands of freed black men
who had been separated from their families as slaves took to the road to find their long-lost spouses and
children and renew their bonds. In one instance, a journalist reported having interviewed a freed slave
who traveled over six hundred miles on foot in search of the family that was taken from him while in
bondage. Couples that had been spared separation quickly set out to legalize their marriages, often by
way of the Freedmen’s Bureau, now that this option was available. Those who had no families would
sometimes relocate to southern towns and cities, so as to be part of the larger black community where
churches and other mutual aid societies offered help and camaraderie.
SHARECROPPING
Most freed people stayed in the South on the lands where their families and loved ones had worked for
generations as slaves. They hungered to own and farm their own lands instead of the lands of white
plantation owners. In one case, former slaves on the Sea Islands off the coast of South Carolina initially had
hopes of owning the land they had worked for many decades after General Sherman directed that freed
people be granted title to plots of forty acres.
The Freedmen’s Bureau provided additional cause for such hopes by directing that leases and titles to
lands in the South be made available to former slaves. However, these efforts ran afoul of President
Johnson. In 1865, he ordered the return of land to white landowners, a setback for those freed people, such
as those on the South Carolina Sea Islands, who had begun to cultivate the land as their own. Ultimately,
there was no redistribution of land in the South.
The end of slavery meant the transition to wage labor. However, this conversion did not entail a new
era of economic independence for former slaves. While they no longer faced relentless toil under the
lash, freed people emerged from slavery without any money and needed farm implements, food, and
other basic necessities to start their new lives. Under the crop-lien system, store owners extended credit
to farmers under the agreement that the debtors would pay with a portion of their future harvest.
However, the creditors charged high interest rates, making it even harder for freed people to gain
economic independence.
Throughout the South, sharecropping took root, a crop-lien system that worked to the advantage of
landowners. Under the system, freed people rented the land they worked, often on the same plantations
where they had been slaves. Some landless whites also became sharecroppers. Sharecroppers paid their
landlords with the crops they grew, often as much as half their harvest. Sharecropping favored the
landlords and ensured that freed people could not attain independent livelihoods. The year-to-year leases
meant no incentive existed to substantially improve the land, and high interest payments siphoned
additional money away from the farmers. Sharecroppers often became trapped in a never-ending cycle
of debt, unable to buy their own land and unable to stop working for their creditor because of what
they owed. The consequences of sharecropping affected the entire South for many generations, severely
limiting economic development and ensuring that the South remained an agricultural backwater.
THE “INVISIBLE EMPIRE OF THE SOUTH”

Paramilitary white-supremacist terror organizations in the South helped bring about the collapse of
Reconstruction, using violence as their primary weapon. The “Invisible Empire of the South,” or Ku Klux
Klan, stands as the most notorious. The Klan was founded in 1866 as an oath-bound fraternal order of
Confederate veterans in Tennessee, with former Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest as its first
leader. The organization—its name likely derived from kuklos, a Greek word meaning circle—devised
elaborate rituals and grandiose names for its ranking members: Grand Wizard, Grand Dragon, Grand
Titan, and Grand Cyclops. Soon, however, this fraternal organization evolved into a vigilante terrorist
group that vented southern whites’ collective frustration over the loss of the war and the course of Radical
Reconstruction through acts of intimidation and violence.
The Klan terrorized newly freed blacks to deter them from exercising their citizenship rights and freedoms.
Other anti-black vigilante groups around the South began to adopt the Klan name and perpetrate acts of
unspeakable violence against anyone they considered a tool of Reconstruction. Indeed, as historians have
noted, Klan units around the South operated autonomously and with a variety of motives. Some may have
sincerely believed they were righting wrongs, others merely satisfying their lurid desires for violence. Nor
was the Klan the only racist vigilante organization. Other groups, like the Red Shirts from Mississippi and
the Knights of the White Camelia and the White League, both from Louisiana, also sprang up at this time.
The Klan and similar organizations also worked as an extension of the Democratic Party to win elections.
Despite the great variety in Klan membership, on the whole, the group tended to direct its attention
toward persecuting freed people and people they considered carpetbaggers, a term of abuse applied to
northerners accused of having come to the South to acquire wealth through political power at the expense
of southerners. The colorful term captured the disdain of southerners for these people, reflecting the
common assumption that these men, sensing great opportunity, packed up all their worldly possessions in
carpetbags, a then-popular type of luggage, and made their way to the South. Implied in this definition is
the notion that these men came from little and were thus shiftless wanderers motivated only by the desire
for quick money. In reality, these northerners tended to be young, idealistic, often well-educated men who
responded to northern campaigns urging them to lead the modernization of the South. But the image
of them as swindlers taking advantage of the South at its time of need resonated with a white southern
population aggrieved by loss and economic decline. Southern whites who supported Reconstruction,
known as scalawags, also generated great hostility as traitors to the South. They, too, became targets of the
Klan and similar groups.
The Klan seized on the pervasive but largely fictional narrative of the northern carpetbagger as a powerful
tool for restoring white supremacy and overturning Republican state governments in the South (Figure
16.13). To preserve a white-dominated society, Klan members punished blacks for attempting to improve
their station in life or acting “uppity.” To prevent freed people from attaining an education, the Klan
burned public schools. In an effort to stop blacks from voting, the Klan murdered, whipped, and otherwise
intimidated freed people and their white supporters. It wasn’t uncommon for Klan members to intimidate
Union League members and Freedmen’s Bureau workers. The Klan even perpetrated acts of political

assassination, killing a sitting U.S. congressman from Arkansas and three state congressmen from South
Carolina.
Figure 16.13 The Ku Klux Klan posted circulars such as this 1867 West Virginia broadside to warn blacks and white
sympathizers of the power and ubiquity of the Klan.
Klan tactics included riding out to victims’ houses, masked and armed, and firing into the homes or
burning them down (Figure 16.14). Other tactics relied more on the threat of violence, such as happened
in Mississippi when fifty masked Klansmen rode out to a local schoolteacher’s house to express their
displeasure with the school tax and to suggest that she consider leaving. Still other tactics intimidated
through imaginative trickery. One such method was to dress up as ghosts of slain Confederate soldiers
and stage stunts designed to convince their victims of their supernatural abilities.
Figure 16.14 This illustration by Frank Bellew, captioned “Visit of the Ku-Klux,” appeared in Harper’s Weekly in
1872. A hooded Klansman surreptitiously points a rifle at an unaware black family in their home.
Regardless of the method, the general goal of reinstating white supremacy as a foundational principle and
returning the South to a situation that largely resembled antebellum conditions remained a constant. The
Klan used its power to eliminate black economic independence, decimate blacks’ political rights, reclaim
white dominance over black women’s bodies and black men’s masculinity, tear apart black communities,
and return blacks to earlier patterns of economic and political subservience and social deference. In this,
they were largely successful.
Click and Explore
Visit Freedmen’s Bureau Online (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Freedmen) to view

digitized records of attacks on freed people that were reported in Albany, Georgia,
between January 1 and October 31, 1868.
The president and Congress, however, were not indifferent to the violence, and they worked to bring it
to an end. In 1870, at the insistence of the governor of North Carolina, President Grant told Congress to
investigate the Klan. In response, Congress in 1871 created the Joint Select Committee to Inquire into the
Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States. The committee took testimony from freed people
in the South, and in 1872, it published a thirteen-volume report on the tactics the Klan used to derail
democracy in the South through the use of violence.

MY STORY
Abram Colby on the Methods of the Ku Klux Klan
The following statements are from the October 27, 1871, testimony of fifty-two-year-old former slave
Abram Colby, which the joint select committee investigating the Klan took in Atlanta, Georgia. Colby had
been elected to the lower house of the Georgia State legislature in 1868.
On the 29th of October, they came to my house and broke my door open, took me out of my
bed and took me to the woods and whipped me three hours or more and left me in the woods
for dead. They said to me, “Do you think you will ever vote another damned Radical ticket?”
I said, “I will not tell you a lie.” They said, “No; don’t tell a lie.” . . . I said, “If there was an
election to-morrow, I would vote the Radical ticket.” They set in and whipped me a thousand
licks more, I suppose. . . .
They said I had influence with the negroes of other counties, and had carried the negroes
against them. About two days before they whipped me they offered me $5,000 to turn and go
with them, and said they would pay me $2,500 cash if I would turn and let another man go to
the legislature in my place. . . .
I would have come before the court here last week, but I knew it was no use for me to try
to get Ku-Klux condemned by Ku-Klux, and I did not come. Mr. Saunders, a member of the
grand jury here last week, is the father of one of the very men I knew whipped me. . . .
They broke something inside of me, and the doctor has been attending to me for more than a
year. Sometimes I cannot get up and down off my bed, and my left hand is not of much use
to me.
—Abram Colby testimony, Joint Select Committee Report, 1872
Why did the Klan target Colby? What methods did they use?
Congress also passed a series of three laws designed to stamp out the Klan. Passed in 1870 and 1871,
the Enforcement Acts or “Force Acts” were designed to outlaw intimidation at the polls and to give the
federal government the power to prosecute crimes against freed people in federal rather than state courts.
Congress believed that this last step, a provision in the third Enforcement Act, also called the Ku Klux
Klan Act, was necessary in order to ensure that trials would not be decided by white juries in southern
states friendly to the Klan. The act also allowed the president to impose martial law in areas controlled by
the Klan and gave President Grant the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, a continuation of the
wartime power granted to President Lincoln. The suspension meant individuals suspected of engaging in
Klan activity could be jailed indefinitely.
President Grant made frequent use of the powers granted to him by Congress, especially in South Carolina,
where federal troops imposed martial law in nine counties in an effort to derail Klan activities. However,
the federal government faced entrenched local organizations and a white population firmly opposed to
Radical Reconstruction. Changes came slowly or not at all, and disillusionment set in. After 1872, federal
government efforts to put down paramilitary terror in the South waned.
“REDEEMERS” AND THE END OF RECONSTRUCTION

While the president and Congress may have seen the Klan and other clandestine white supremacist,
terrorist organizations as a threat to stability and progress in the South, many southern whites saw them
as an instrument of order in a world turned upside down. Many white southerners felt humiliated by the
process of Radical Reconstruction and the way Republicans had upended southern society, placing blacks
in positions of authority while taxing large landowners to pay for the education of former slaves. Those
committed to rolling back the tide of Radical Reconstruction in the South called themselves redeemers, a
label that expressed their desire to redeem their states from northern control and to restore the antebellum
social order whereby blacks were kept safely under the boot heel of whites. They represented the
Democratic Party in the South and worked tirelessly to end what they saw as an era of “negro misrule.”
By 1877, they had succeeded in bringing about the “redemption” of the South, effectively destroying the
dream of Radical Reconstruction.
Although Ulysses S. Grant won a second term in the presidential election of 1872, the Republican grip
on national political power began to slip in the early 1870s. Three major events undermined Republican
control. First, in 1873, the United States experienced the start of a long economic downturn, the result of
economic instability in Europe that spread to the United States. In the fall of 1873, the bank of Jay Cooke
& Company failed to meet its financial obligations and went bankrupt, setting off a panic in American
financial markets. An economic depression ensued, which Democrats blamed on Republicans and which
lasted much of the decade.
Second, the Republican Party experienced internal squabbles and divided into two factions. Some
Republicans began to question the expansive role of the federal government, arguing for limiting the size
and scope of federal initiatives. These advocates, known as Liberal Republicans because they followed
classical liberalism in championing small government, formed their own breakaway party. Their ideas
changed the nature of the debate over Reconstruction by challenging reliance on federal government help
to bring about change in the South. Now some Republicans argued for downsizing Reconstruction efforts.
Third, the Grant administration became mired in scandals, further tarnishing the Republicans while
giving Democrats the upper hand. One scandal arose over the siphoning off of money from excise taxes
on whiskey. The “Whiskey Ring,” as it was called, involved people at the highest levels of the Grant
administration, including the president’s personal secretary, Orville Babcock. Another scandal entangled
Crédit Mobilier of America, a construction company and part of the important French Crédit Mobilier
banking company. The Union Pacific Railroad company, created by the federal government during the
Civil War to construct a transcontinental railroad, paid Crédit Mobilier to build the railroad. However,
Crédit Mobilier used the funds it received to buy Union Pacific Railroad bonds and resell them at a huge
profit. Some members of Congress, as well as Vice President Schuyler Colfax, had accepted funds from
Crédit Mobilier in return for forestalling an inquiry. When the scam became known in 1872, Democratic
opponents of Reconstruction pointed to Crédit Mobilier as an example of corruption in the Republican-
dominated federal government and evidence that smaller government was better.
The Democratic Party in the South made significant advances in the 1870s in its efforts to wrest political
control from the Republican-dominated state governments. The Ku Klux Klan, as well as other
paramilitary groups in the South, often operated as military wings of the Democratic Party in former
Confederate states. In one notorious episode following a contested 1872 gubernatorial election in
Louisiana, as many as 150 freedmen loyal to the Republican Party were killed at the Colfax courthouse by
armed members of the Democratic Party, even as many of them tried to surrender (Figure 16.15).

Figure 16.15 In this illustration by Charles Harvey Weigall, captioned “The Louisiana Murders—Gathering the Dead
and Wounded” and published in Harper’s Weekly in 1873, survivors of the Colfax Massacre tend to those involved in
the conflict. The dead and wounded all appear to be black, and two white men on horses watch over them. Another
man stands with a gun pointed at the survivors.
In other areas of the South, the Democratic Party gained control over state politics. Texas came under
Democratic control by 1873, and in the following year Alabama and Arkansas followed suit. In national
politics, too, the Democrats gained ground—especially during the 1874 elections, when they recaptured
control of the House of Representatives for the first time since before the Civil War. Every other southern
state, with the exception of Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana—the states where federal troops
remained a force—also fell to the Democratic Party and the restoration of white supremacy. Southerners
everywhere celebrated their “redemption” from Radical Republican rule.
THE CONTESTED ELECTION OF 1876

By the time of the 1876 presidential election, Reconstruction had come to an end in most southern states.
In Congress, the political power of the Radical Republicans had waned, although some continued their
efforts to realize the dream of equality between blacks and whites. One of the last attempts to do so was the
passage of the 1875 Civil Rights Act, which required equality in public places and on juries. This law was
challenged in court, and in 1883 the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, arguing that the Thirteenth
and Fourteenth Amendments did not prohibit discrimination by private individuals. By the 1870s, the
Supreme Court had also undercut the letter and the spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment by interpreting it
as affording freed people only limited federal protection from the Klan and other terror groups.
The country remained bitterly divided, and this was reflected in the contested election of 1876. While
Grant wanted to run for a third term, scandals and Democratic successes in the South dashed those hopes.
Republicans instead selected Rutherford B. Hayes, the three-time governor of Ohio. Democrats nominated
Samuel Tilden, the reform governor of New York, who was instrumental in ending the Tweed Ring and
Tammany Hall corruption in New York City. The November election produced an apparent Democratic
victory, as Tilden carried the South and large northern states with a 300,000-vote advantage in the popular
vote. However, disputed returns from Louisiana, South Carolina, Florida, and Oregon, whose electoral
votes totaled twenty, threw the election into doubt.
Hayes could still win if he gained those twenty electoral votes. As the Constitution did not provide a
method to determine the validity of disputed votes, the decision fell to Congress, where Republicans
controlled the Senate and Democrats controlled the House of Representatives. In late January 1877,
Congress tried to break the deadlock by creating a special electoral commission composed of five senators,
five representatives, and five justices of the Supreme Court. The congressional delegation represented both
parties equally, with five Democrats and five Republicans. The court delegation had two Democrats, two
Republicans, and one independent—David Davis, who resigned from the Supreme Court (and from the
commission) when the Illinois legislature elected him to the Senate. After Davis’s resignation, President
Grant selected a Republican to take his place, tipping the scales in favor of Hayes. The commission then
awarded the disputed electoral votes and the presidency to Hayes, voting on party lines, 8 to 7 (Figure
16.16). The Democrats called foul, threatening to hold up the commission’s decision in the courts.
Figure 16.16 This map illustrates the results of the presidential election of 1876. Tilden, the Democratic candidate,
swept the South, with the exception of the contested states of Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina.
In what became known as the Compromise of 1877, Republican Senate leaders worked with the
Democratic leadership so they would support Hayes and the commission’s decision. The two sides agreed
that one Southern Democrat would be appointed to Hayes’s cabinet, Democrats would control federal
patronage (the awarding of government jobs) in their areas in the South, and there would be a commitment
to generous internal improvements, including federal aid for the Texas and Pacific Railway. Perhaps most
important, all remaining federal troops would be withdrawn from the South, a move that effectively
ended Reconstruction. Hayes believed that southern leaders would obey and enforce the Reconstruction-
era constitutional amendments that protected the rights of freed people. His trust was soon proved to be
misguided, much to his dismay, and he devoted a large part of his life to securing rights for freedmen.
For their part, the Democrats took over the remaining southern states, creating what became known as the
“Solid South”—a region that consistently voted in a bloc for the Democratic Party.

Key Terms
black codes laws some southern states designed to maintain white supremacy by keeping freed people
impoverished and in debt
carpetbagger a term used for northerners working in the South during Reconstruction; it implied that
these were opportunists who came south for economic or political gain
Compromise of 1877 the agreement between Republicans and Democrats, after the contested election of
1876, in which Rutherford B. Hayes was awarded the presidency in exchange for withdrawing the last of
the federal troops from the South
crop-lien system a loan system in which store owners extended credit to farmers for the purchase of
goods in exchange for a portion of their future crops
Freedmen’s Bureau the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, which was created in
1865 to ease blacks’ transition from slavery to freedom
Ironclad Oath an oath that the Wade-Davis Bill required a majority of voters and government officials in
Confederate states to take; it involved swearing that they had never supported the Confederacy
Ku Klux Klan a white vigilante organization that engaged in terroristic violence with the aim of
stopping Reconstruction
Radical Republicans northern Republicans who contested Lincoln’s treatment of Confederate states and
proposed harsher punishments
Reconstruction the twelve-year period after the Civil War in which the rebel Southern states were
integrated back into the Union
redeemers a term used for southern whites committed to rolling back the gains of Reconstruction
scalawags a pejorative term used for southern whites who supported Reconstruction
sharecropping a crop-lien system in which people paid rent on land they farmed (but did not own) with
the crops they grew
ten percent plan Lincoln’s Reconstruction plan, which required only 10 percent of the 1860 voters in
Confederate states to take an oath of allegiance to the Union
Union Leagues fraternal groups loyal to the Union and the Republican Party that became political and
civic centers for blacks in former Confederate states
Summary
President Lincoln worked to reach his goal of reunifying the nation quickly and proposed a lenient plan
to reintegrate the Confederate states. After his murder in 1865, Lincoln’s vice president, Andrew Johnson,
sought to reconstitute the Union quickly, pardoning Southerners en masse and providing Southern states
with a clear path back to readmission. By 1866, Johnson announced the end of Reconstruction. Radical
Republicans in Congress disagreed, however, and in the years ahead would put forth their own plan of
Reconstruction.

The conflict between President Johnson and the Republican-controlled Congress over the proper steps to
be taken with the defeated Confederacy grew in intensity in the years immediately following the Civil
War. While the president concluded that all that needed to be done in the South had been done by early
1866, Congress forged ahead to stabilize the defeated Confederacy and extend to freed people citizenship
and equality before the law. Congress prevailed over Johnson’s vetoes as the friction between the president
and the Republicans increased.

Though President Johnson declared Reconstruction complete less than a year after the Confederate
surrender, members of Congress disagreed. Republicans in Congress began to implement their own
plan of bringing law and order to the South through the use of military force and martial law. Radical
Republicans who advocated for a more equal society pushed their program forward as well, leading to the
ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, which finally gave blacks the right to vote. The new amendment
empowered black voters, who made good use of the vote to elect black politicians. It disappointed female
suffragists, however, who had labored for years to gain women’s right to vote. By the end of 1870, all
the southern states under Union military control had satisfied the requirements of Congress and been
readmitted to the Union.

The efforts launched by Radical Republicans in the late 1860s generated a massive backlash in the South
in the 1870s as whites fought against what they considered “negro misrule.” Paramilitary terrorist cells
emerged, committing countless atrocities in their effort to “redeem” the South from black Republican rule.
In many cases, these organizations operated as an extension of the Democratic Party. Scandals hobbled the
Republican Party, as did a severe economic depression. By 1875, Reconstruction had largely come to an
end. The contested presidential election the following year, which was decided in favor of the Republican
candidate, and the removal of federal troops from the South only confirmed the obvious: Reconstruction
had failed to achieve its primary objective of creating an interracial democracy that provided equal rights
to all citizens.
Review Questions
1. What was Lincoln’s primary goal immediately 3. What was the purpose of the Thirteenth
following the Civil War? Amendment? How was it different from the
A. punishing the rebel states Emancipation Proclamation?
B. improving the lives of former slaves
C. reunifying the country 4. Which of the following was not one of the
D. paying off the debts of the war functions of the Freedmen’s Bureau?
A. collecting taxes
2. In 1864 and 1865, Radical Republicans were B. reuniting families
most concerned with ________. C. establishing schools
A. securing civil rights for freed slaves D. helping workers secure labor contracts
B. barring ex-Confederates from political
office 5. Which person or group was most responsible
C. seeking restitution from Confederate states for the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment?
D. preventing Andrew Johnson’s ascent to the A. President Johnson
presidency B. northern voters
C. southern voters
D. Radical Republicans in Congress

6. What was the goal of the black codes? 10. Which of the following is not one of the
methods the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist
7. Under Radical Reconstruction, which of the groups used to intimidate blacks and white
following did former Confederate states not need sympathizers?
to do in order to rejoin the Union? A. burning public schools
A. pass the Fourteenth Amendment B. petitioning Congress
B. pass the Fifteenth Amendment C. murdering freedmen who tried to vote
C. revise their state constitution D. threatening, beating, and killing those who
D. allow all freed men over the age of 21 to disagreed with them
vote
11. Which of the following was the term
8. The House of Representatives impeached southerners used for a white southerner who tried
Andrew Johnson over ________. to overturn the changes of Reconstruction?
A. the Civil Rights Act A. scalawag
B. the Fourteenth Amendment B. carpetbagger
C. the Military Reconstruction Act C. redeemer
D. the Tenure of Office Act D. white knight
9. What were the benefits and drawbacks of the 12. Why was it difficult for southern free blacks
Fifteenth Amendment? to gain economic independence after the Civil
War?

13. How do you think would history have been different if Lincoln had not been assassinated? How might
his leadership after the war have differed from that of Andrew Johnson?
14. Was the Thirteenth Amendment a success or a failure? Discuss the reasons for your answer.
15. Consider the differences between the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. What does the
Fourteenth Amendment do that the Thirteenth does not?
16. Consider social, political, and economic equality. In what ways did Radical Reconstruction address
and secure these forms of equality? Where did it fall short?
17. Consider the problem of terrorism during Radical Reconstruction. If you had been an adviser to
President Grant, how would you propose to deal with the problem?

Chapter 17 Go West Young Man! Westward Expansion, 1840-1900 483
CHAPTER 17
Go West Young Man! Westward

Expansion, 1840-1900
Figure 17.1 Widely held rhetoric of the nineteenth century suggested to Americans that it was their divine right and
responsibility to settle the West with Protestant democratic values. Newspaper editor Horace Greely, who coined the
phrase “Go west, young man,” encouraged Americans to fulfill this dream. Artists of the day depicted this western
expansion in idealized landscapes that bore little resemblance to the difficulties of life on the trail.
Chapter Outline
17.1 The Westward Spirit
17.2 Homesteading: Dreams and Realities
17.3 Making a Living in Gold and Cattle
17.4 The Loss of American Indian Life and Culture
17.5 The Impact of Expansion on Chinese Immigrants and Hispanic Citizens
Introduction
In the middle of the nineteenth century, farmers in the “Old West”—the land across the Allegheny
Mountains in Pennsylvania—began to hear about the opportunities to be found in the “New West.” They
had long believed that the land west of the Mississippi was a great desert, unfit for human habitation.
But now, the federal government was encouraging them to join the migratory stream westward to this
unknown land. For a variety of reasons, Americans increasingly felt compelled to fulfill their “Manifest
Destiny,” a phrase that came to mean that they were expected to spread across the land given to them by
God and, most importantly, spread predominantly American values to the frontier (Figure 17.1).
With great trepidation, hundreds, and then hundreds of thousands, of settlers packed their lives into
wagons and set out, following the Oregon, California, and Santa Fe Trails, to seek a new life in the
West. Some sought open lands and greater freedom to fulfill the democratic vision originally promoted
by Thomas Jefferson and experienced by their ancestors. Others saw economic opportunity. Still others
believed it was their job to spread the word of God to the “heathens” on the frontier. Whatever their
motivation, the great migration was underway. The American pioneer spirit was born.
484 Chapter 17 Go West Young Man! Westward Expansion, 1840-1900

• Explain the evolution of American views about westward migration in the mid-
nineteenth century
• Analyze the ways in which the federal government facilitated Americans’ westward
migration in the mid-nineteenth century
While a small number of settlers had pushed westward before the mid-nineteenth century, the land
west of the Mississippi was largely unexplored. Most Americans, if they thought of it at all, viewed this
territory as an arid wasteland suitable only for Indians whom the federal government had displaced
from eastern lands in previous generations. The reflections of early explorers who conducted scientific
treks throughout the West tended to confirm this belief. Major Stephen Harriman Long, who commanded
an expedition through Missouri and into the Yellowstone region in 1819–1820, frequently described the
Great Plains as a arid and useless region, suitable as nothing more than a “great American desert.” But,
beginning in the 1840s, a combination of economic opportunity and ideological encouragement changed
the way Americans thought of the West. The federal government offered a number of incentives, making
it viable for Americans to take on the challenge of seizing these rough lands from others and subsequently
taming them. Still, most Americans who went west needed some financial security at the outset of their
journey; even with government aid, the truly poor could not make the trip. The cost of moving an
entire family westward, combined with the risks as well as the questionable chances of success, made
the move prohibitive for most. While the economic Panic of 1837 led many to question the promise of
urban America, and thus turn their focus to the promise of commercial farming in the West, the Panic also
resulted in many lacking the financial resources to make such a commitment. For most, the dream to “Go
west, young man” remained unfulfilled.
While much of the basis for westward expansion was economic, there was also a more philosophical
reason, which was bound up in the American belief that the country—and the “heathens” who populated
Figure 17.2 (credit “barbed wire”: modification of work by the U.S. Department of Commerce)

it—was destined to come under the civilizing rule of Euro-American settlers and their superior technology,
most notably railroads and the telegraph. While the extent to which that belief was a heartfelt motivation
held by most Americans, or simply a rationalization of the conquests that followed, remains debatable, the
clashes—both physical and cultural—that followed this western migration left scars on the country that
are still felt today.
MANIFEST DESTINY
The concept of Manifest Destiny found its roots in the long-standing traditions of territorial expansion
upon which the nation itself was founded. This phrase, which implies divine encouragement for territorial
expansion, was coined by magazine editor John O’Sullivan in 1845, when he wrote in the United States
Magazine and Democratic Review that “it was our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by
Providence for the free development of our multiplying millions.” Although the context of O’Sullivan’s
original article was to encourage expansion into the newly acquired Texas territory, the spirit it invoked
would subsequently be used to encourage westward settlement throughout the rest of the nineteenth
century. Land developers, railroad magnates, and other investors capitalized on the notion to encourage
westward settlement for their own financial benefit. Soon thereafter, the federal government encouraged
this inclination as a means to further develop the West during the Civil War, especially at its outset, when
concerns over the possible expansion of slavery deeper into western territories was a legitimate fear.
The idea was simple: Americans were destined—and indeed divinely ordained—to expand democratic
institutions throughout the continent. As they spread their culture, thoughts, and customs, they would,
in the process, “improve” the lives of the native inhabitants who might otherwise resist Protestant
institutions and, more importantly, economic development of the land. O’Sullivan may have coined the
phrase, but the concept had preceded him: Throughout the 1800s, politicians and writers had stated the
belief that the United States was destined to rule the continent. O’Sullivan’s words, which resonated in the
popular press, matched the economic and political goals of a federal government increasingly committed
to expansion.
Manifest Destiny justified in Americans’ minds their right and duty to govern any other groups they
encountered during their expansion, as well as absolved them of any questionable tactics they employed
in the process. While the commonly held view of the day was of a relatively empty frontier, waiting for the
arrival of the settlers who could properly exploit the vast resources for economic gain, the reality was quite
different. Hispanic communities in the Southwest, diverse Indian tribes throughout the western states, as
well as other settlers from Asia and Western Europe already lived in many parts of the country. American
expansion would necessitate a far more complex and involved exchange than simply filling empty space.
Still, in part as a result of the spark lit by O’Sullivan and others, waves of Americans and recently arrived
immigrants began to move west in wagon trains. They travelled along several identifiable trails: first
the Oregon Trail, then later the Santa Fe and California Trails, among others. The Oregon Trail is the
most famous of these western routes. Two thousand miles long and barely passable on foot in the early
nineteenth century, by the 1840s, wagon trains were a common sight. Between 1845 and 1870, considered
to be the height of migration along the trail, over 400,000 settlers followed this path west from Missouri
(Figure 17.3).
Figure 17.3 Hundreds of thousands of people travelled west on the Oregon, California, and Santa Fe Trails, but
their numbers did not ensure their safety. Illness, starvation, and other dangers—both real and imagined— made
survival hard. (credit: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration)
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Who Will Set Limits to Our Onward March?
America is destined for better deeds. It is our unparalleled glory that we have no
reminiscences of battle fields, but in defense [sic] of humanity, of the oppressed of all nations,
of the rights of conscience, the rights of personal enfranchisement. Our annals describe no
scenes of horrid carnage, where men were led on by hundreds of thousands to slay one
another, dupes and victims to emperors, kings, nobles, demons in the human form called
heroes. We have had patriots to defend our homes, our liberties, but no aspirants to crowns
or thrones; nor have the American people ever suffered themselves to be led on by wicked
ambition to depopulate the land, to spread desolation far and wide, that a human being might
be placed on a seat of supremacy. . . .
The expansive future is our arena, and for our history. We are entering on its untrodden
space, with the truths of God in our minds, beneficent objects in our hearts, and with a clear
conscience unsullied by the past. We are the nation of human progress, and who will, what
can, set limits to our onward march? Providence is with us, and no earthly power can.
—John O’Sullivan, 1839
Think about how this quotation resonated with different groups of Americans at the time. When looked
at through today’s lens, the actions of the westward-moving settlers were fraught with brutality and
racism. At the time, however, many settlers felt they were at the pinnacle of democracy, and that with
no aristocracy or ancient history, America was a new world where anyone could succeed. Even then,
consider how the phrase “anyone” was restricted by race, gender, and nationality.

Click and Explore
Visit Across the Plains in ‘64 (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/iowaoregon) to follow

one family making their way westward from Iowa to Oregon. Click on a few of the
entries and see how the author describes their journey, from the expected to the
surprising.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE

To assist the settlers in their move westward and transform the migration from a trickle into a steady flow,
Congress passed two significant pieces of legislation in 1862: the Homestead Act and the Pacific Railway
Act. Born largely out of President Abraham Lincoln’s growing concern that a potential Union defeat in the
early stages of the Civil War might result in the expansion of slavery westward, Lincoln hoped that such
laws would encourage the expansion of a “free soil” mentality across the West.
The Homestead Act allowed any head of household, or individual over the age of twenty-one—including
unmarried women—to receive a parcel of 160 acres for only a nominal filing fee. All that recipients were
required to do in exchange was to “improve the land” within a period of five years of taking possession.
The standards for improvement were minimal: Owners could clear a few acres, build small houses or
barns, or maintain livestock. Under this act, the government transferred over 270 million acres of public
domain land to private citizens.
The Pacific Railway Act was pivotal in helping settlers move west more quickly, as well as move their
farm products, and later cattle and mining deposits, back east. The first of many railway initiatives, this
act commissioned the Union Pacific Railroad to build new track west from Omaha, Nebraska, while the
Central Pacific Railroad moved east from Sacramento, California. The law provided each company with
ownership of all public lands within two hundred feet on either side of the track laid, as well as additional
land grants and payment through load bonds, prorated on the difficulty of the terrain it crossed. Because
of these provisions, both companies made a significant profit, whether they were crossing hundreds of
miles of open plains, or working their way through the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. As a result,
the nation’s first transcontinental railroad was completed when the two companies connected their tracks
at Promontory Point, Utah, in the spring of 1869. Other tracks, including lines radiating from this original
one, subsequently created a network that linked all corners of the nation (Figure 17.4).
Figure 17.4 The “Golden Spike” connecting the country by rail was driven into the ground in Promontory Point,
Utah, in 1869. The completion of the first transcontinental railroad dramatically changed the tenor of travel in the
country, as people were able to complete in a week a route that had previously taken months.
In addition to legislation designed to facilitate western settlement, the U.S. government assumed an active
role on the ground, building numerous forts throughout the West to protect and assist settlers during their
migration. Forts such as Fort Laramie in Wyoming (built in 1834) and Fort Apache in Arizona (1870) served
as protection from nearby Indians as well as maintained peace between potential warring tribes. Others
located throughout Colorado and Wyoming became important trading posts for miners and fur trappers.
Those built in Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas served primarily to provide relief for farmers during
times of drought or related hardships. Forts constructed along the California coastline provided protection
in the wake of the Mexican-American War as well as during the American Civil War. These locations
subsequently serviced the U.S. Navy and provided important support for growing Pacific trade routes.
Whether as army posts constructed for the protection of white settlers and to maintain peace among Indian
tribes, or as trading posts to further facilitate the development of the region, such forts proved to be vital
contributions to westward migration.
WHO WERE THE SETTLERS?

In the nineteenth century, as today, it took money to relocate and start a new life. Due to the initial cost of
relocation, land, and supplies, as well as months of preparing the soil, planting, and subsequent harvesting
before any produce was ready for market, the original wave of western settlers along the Oregon Trail in
the 1840s and 1850s consisted of moderately prosperous, white, native-born farming families of the East.
But the passage of the Homestead Act and completion of the first transcontinental railroad meant that, by
1870, the possibility of western migration was opened to Americans of more modest means. What started
as a trickle became a steady flow of migration that would last until the end of the century.
Nearly 400,000 settlers had made the trek westward by the height of the movement in 1870. The vast
majority were men, although families also migrated, despite incredible hardships for women with young
children. More recent immigrants also migrated west, with the largest numbers coming from Northern
Europe and Canada. Germans, Scandinavians, and Irish were among the most common. These ethnic
groups tended to settle close together, creating strong rural communities that mirrored the way of life
they had left behind. According to U.S. Census Bureau records, the number of Scandinavians living in the
United States during the second half of the nineteenth century exploded, from barely 18,000 in 1850 to
over 1.1 million in 1900. During that same time period, the German-born population in the United States
grew from 584,000 to nearly 2.7 million and the Irish-born population grew from 961,000 to 1.6 million. As
they moved westward, several thousand immigrants established homesteads in the Midwest, primarily in
Minnesota and Wisconsin, where, as of 1900, over one-third of the population was foreign-born, and in

North Dakota, whose immigrant population stood at 45 percent at the turn of the century. Compared to
European immigrants, those from China were much less numerous, but still significant. More than 200,000
Chinese arrived in California between 1876 and 1890, albeit for entirely different reasons related to the
Gold Rush.
In addition to a significant European migration westward, several thousand African Americans migrated
west following the Civil War, as much to escape the racism and violence of the Old South as to find
new economic opportunities. They were known as exodusters, referencing the biblical flight from Egypt,
because they fled the racism of the South, with most of them headed to Kansas from Kentucky, Tennessee,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Over twenty-five thousand exodusters arrived in Kansas in 1879–1880
alone. By 1890, over 500,000 blacks lived west of the Mississippi River. Although the majority of black
migrants became farmers, approximately twelve thousand worked as cowboys during the Texas cattle
drives. Some also became “Buffalo Soldiers” in the wars against Indians. “Buffalo Soldiers” were African
Americans allegedly so-named by various Indian tribes who equated their black, curly hair with that of
the buffalo. Many had served in the Union army in the Civil War and were now organized into six, all-
black cavalry and infantry units whose primary duties were to protect settlers from Indian attacks during
the westward migration, as well as to assist in building the infrastructure required to support western
settlement (Figure 17.5).
Figure 17.5 “Buffalo Soldiers,” the first peacetime all-black regiments in the U.S. Army, protected settlers from
Indian attacks. These soldiers also served as some of the country’s first national park rangers.
Click and Explore
The Oxford African American Studies Center (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

homesteads) features photographs and stories about black homesteaders. From
exodusters to all-black settlements, the essay describes the largely hidden role that
African Americans played in western expansion.
While white easterners, immigrants, and African Americans were moving west, several hundred thousand
Hispanics had already settled in the American Southwest prior to the U.S. government seizing the land
during its war with Mexico (1846–1848). The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the war in
1848, granted American citizenship to those who chose to stay in the United States, as the land switched
from Mexican to U.S. ownership. Under the conditions of the treaty, Mexicans retained the right to their
language, religion, and culture, as well as the property they held. As for citizenship, they could choose
one of three options: 1) declare their intent to live in the United States but retain Mexican citizenship; 2)
become U.S. citizens with all rights under the constitution; or 3) leave for Mexico. Despite such guarantees,
within one generation, these new Hispanic American citizens found their culture under attack, and legal
protection of their property all but non-existent.

• Identify the challenges that farmers faced as they settled west of the Mississippi River
• Describe the unique experiences of women who participated in westward migration
As settlers and homesteaders moved westward to improve the land given to them through the Homestead
Act, they faced a difficult and often insurmountable challenge. The land was difficult to farm, there
were few building materials, and harsh weather, insects, and inexperience led to frequent setbacks. The
prohibitive prices charged by the first railroad lines made it expensive to ship crops to market or have
goods sent out. Although many farms failed, some survived and grew into large “bonanza” farms that
hired additional labor and were able to benefit enough from economies of scale to grow profitable.
Still, small family farms, and the settlers who worked them, were hard-pressed to do more than scrape
out a living in an unforgiving environment that comprised arid land, violent weather shifts, and other
challenges (Figure 17.6).
Figure 17.6 This map shows the trails (orange) used in westward migration and the development of railroad lines
(blue) constructed after the completion of the first transcontinental railroad.

THE DIFFICULT LIFE OF THE PIONEER FARMER

Of the hundreds of thousands of settlers who moved west, the vast majority were homesteaders. These
pioneers, like the Ingalls family of Little House on the Prairie book and television fame (see inset below),
were seeking land and opportunity. Popularly known as “sodbusters,” these men and women in the
Midwest faced a difficult life on the frontier. They settled throughout the land that now makes up
the Midwestern states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. The weather and
environment were bleak, and settlers struggled to eke out a living. A few unseasonably rainy years had
led would-be settlers to believe that the “great desert” was no more, but the region’s typically low rainfall
and harsh temperatures made crop cultivation hard. Irrigation was a requirement, but finding water and
building adequate systems proved too difficult and expensive for many farmers. It was not until 1902 and
the passage of the Newlands Reclamation Act that a system finally existed to set aside funds from the
sale of public lands to build dams for subsequent irrigation efforts. Prior to that, farmers across the Great
Plains relied primarily on dry-farming techniques to grow corn, wheat, and sorghum, a practice that many
continued in later years. A few also began to employ windmill technology to draw water, although both
the drilling and construction of windmills became an added expense that few farmers could afford.
AMERICANA
The Enduring Appeal of Little House on the Prairie
The story of western migration and survival has remained a touchstone of American culture, even
today. The television show Frontier Life on PBS is one example, as are countless other modern-day
evocations of the settlers. Consider the enormous popularity of the Little House series. The books,
originally published in the 1930s and 1940s, have been in print continuously. The television show, Little
House on the Prairie, ran for over a decade and was hugely successful (and was said to be President
Ronald Reagan’s favorite show). The books, although fictional, were based on Laura Ingalls Wilder’s
own childhood, as she travelled west with her family via covered wagon, stopping in Kansas, Wisconsin,
South Dakota, and beyond (Figure 17.7).
Figure 17.7 Laura Ingalls Wilder (a) is the celebrated author of the Little House series, which began in
1932 with the publication of Little House in the Big Woods. The third, and best known, book in the
series, Little House on the Prairie (b), was published just three years later.
Wilder wrote of her stories, “As you read my stories of long ago I hope you will remember that the things
that are truly worthwhile and that will give you happiness are the same now as they were then. Courage
and kindness, loyalty, truth, and helpfulness are always the same and always needed.” While Ingalls
makes the point that her stories underscore traditional values that remain the same over time, this is not
necessarily the only thing that made these books so popular. Perhaps part of their appeal is that they are
adventure stories, with wild weather, wild animals, and wild Indians all playing a role. Does this explain
their ongoing popularity? What other factors might make these stories appealing so long after they were
originally written?
The first houses built by western settlers were typically made of mud and sod with thatch roofs, as there
was little timber for building. Rain, when it arrived, presented constant problems for these sod houses,
with mud falling into food, and vermin, most notably lice, scampering across bedding (Figure 17.8).
Weather patterns not only left the fields dry, they also brought tornadoes, droughts, blizzards, and insect
swarms. Tales of swarms of locusts were commonplace, and the crop-eating insects would at times cover
the ground six to twelve inches deep. One frequently quoted Kansas newspaper reported a locust swarm
in 1878 during which the insects devoured “everything green, stripping the foliage off the bark and from

the tender twigs of the fruit trees, destroying every plant that is good for food or pleasant to the eye, that
man has planted.”
Figure 17.8 Sod houses were common in the Midwest as settlers moved west. There was no lumber to gather and
no stones with which to build. These mud homes were vulnerable to weather and vermin, making life incredibly hard
for the newly arrived homesteaders.
Farmers also faced the ever-present threat of debt and farm foreclosure by the banks. While land was
essentially free under the Homestead Act, all other farm necessities cost money and were initially difficult
to obtain in the newly settled parts of the country where market economies did not yet fully reach.
Horses, livestock, wagons, wells, fencing, seed, and fertilizer were all critical to survival, but often hard to
come by as the population initially remained sparsely settled across vast tracts of land. Railroads charged
notoriously high rates for farm equipment and livestock, making it difficult to procure goods or make a
profit on anything sent back east. Banks also charged high interest rates, and, in a cycle that replayed itself
year after year, farmers would borrow from the bank with the intention of repaying their debt after the
harvest. As the number of farmers moving westward increased, the market price of their produce steadily
declined, even as the value of the actual land increased. Each year, hard-working farmers produced ever-
larger crops, flooding the markets and subsequently driving prices down even further. Although some
understood the economics of supply and demand, none could overtly control such forces.
Eventually, the arrival of a more extensive railroad network aided farmers, mostly by bringing much-
needed supplies such as lumber for construction and new farm machinery. While John Deere sold a
steel-faced plow as early as 1838, it was James Oliver’s improvements to the device in the late 1860s
that transformed life for homesteaders. His new, less expensive “chilled plow” was better equipped to
cut through the shallow grass roots of the Midwestern terrain, as well as withstand damage from rocks
just below the surface. Similar advancements in hay mowers, manure spreaders, and threshing machines
greatly improved farm production for those who could afford them. Where capital expense became a
significant factor, larger commercial farms—known as “bonanza farms”—began to develop. Farmers in
Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota hired migrant farmers to grow wheat on farms in excess
of twenty thousand acres each. These large farms were succeeding by the end of the century, but small
family farms continued to suffer. Although the land was nearly free, it cost close to $1000 for the necessary
supplies to start up a farm, and many would-be landowners lured westward by the promise of cheap land
became migrant farmers instead, working other peoples’ land for a wage. The frustration of small farmers
grew, ultimately leading to a revolt of sorts, discussed in a later chapter.
Click and Explore
Frontier House (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/homesteader) includes information on

the logistics of moving across the country as a homesteader. Take a look at the list of
supplies and gear. It is easy to understand why, even when the government gave the
land away for free, it still took significant resources to make such a journey.
AN EVEN MORE CHALLENGING LIFE: A PIONEER WIFE

Although the West was numerically a male-dominated society, homesteading in particular encouraged the
presence of women, families, and a domestic lifestyle, even if such a life was not an easy one. Women faced
all the physical hardships that men encountered in terms of weather, illness, and danger, with the added
complication of childbirth. Often, there was no doctor or midwife providing assistance, and many women
died from treatable complications, as did their newborns. While some women could find employment in
the newly settled towns as teachers, cooks, or seamstresses, they originally did not enjoy many rights.
They could not sell property, sue for divorce, serve on juries, or vote. And for the vast majority of women,
their work was not in towns for money, but on the farm. As late as 1900, a typical farm wife could expect
to devote nine hours per day to chores such as cleaning, sewing, laundering, and preparing food. Two
additional hours per day were spent cleaning the barn and chicken coop, milking the cows, caring for the
chickens, and tending the family garden. One wife commented in 1879, “[We are] not much better than
slaves. It is a weary, monotonous round of cooking and washing and mending and as a result the insane
asylum is a third filled with wives of farmers.”
Despite this grim image, the challenges of farm life eventually empowered women to break through some
legal and social barriers. Many lived more equitably as partners with their husbands than did their eastern
counterparts, helping each other through both hard times and good. If widowed, a wife typically took over
responsibility for the farm, a level of management that was very rare back east, where the farm would fall
to a son or other male relation. Pioneer women made important decisions and were considered by their
husbands to be more equal partners in the success of the homestead, due to the necessity that all members
had to work hard and contribute to the farming enterprise for it to succeed. Therefore, it is not surprising
that the first states to grant women’s rights, including the right to vote, were those in the Pacific Northwest
and Upper Midwest, where women pioneers worked the land side by side with men. Some women seemed
to be well suited to the challenges that frontier life presented them. Writing to her Aunt Martha from their
homestead in Minnesota in 1873, Mary Carpenter refused to complain about the hardships of farm life: “I
try to trust in God’s promises, but we can’t expect him to work miracles nowadays. Nevertheless, all that
is expected of us is to do the best we can, and that we shall certainly endeavor to do. Even if we do freeze
and starve in the way of duty, it will not be a dishonorable death.”


• Identify the major discoveries and developments in western gold, silver, and copper
mining in the mid-nineteenth century
• Explain why the cattle industry was paramount to the development of the West and
how it became the catalyst for violent range wars
Although homestead farming was the primary goal of most western settlers in the latter half of the
nineteenth century, a small minority sought to make their fortunes quickly through other means.
Specifically, gold (and, subsequently, silver and copper) prospecting attracted thousands of miners looking
to “get rich quick” before returning east. In addition, ranchers capitalized on newly available railroad lines
to move longhorn steers that populated southern and western Texas. This meat was highly sought after
in eastern markets, and the demand created not only wealthy ranchers but an era of cowboys and cattle
drives that in many ways defines how we think of the West today. Although neither miners nor ranchers
intended to remain permanently in the West, many individuals from both groups ultimately stayed and
settled there, sometimes due to the success of their gamble, and other times due to their abject failure.
THE CALIFORNIA GOLD RUSH AND BEYOND

The allure of gold has long sent people on wild chases; in the American West, the possibility of quick
riches was no different. The search for gold represented an opportunity far different from the slow plod
that homesteading farmers faced. The discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill in Coloma, California, set a pattern
for such strikes that was repeated again and again for the next decade, in what collectively became known
as the California Gold Rush. In what became typical, a sudden disorderly rush of prospectors descended
upon a new discovery site, followed by the arrival of those who hoped to benefit from the strike by
preying off the newly rich. This latter group of camp followers included saloonkeepers, prostitutes, store
owners, and criminals, who all arrived in droves. If the strike was significant in size, a town of some
magnitude might establish itself, and some semblance of law and order might replace the vigilante justice
that typically grew in the small and short-lived mining outposts.
The original Forty-Niners were individual prospectors who sifted gold out of the dirt and gravel through
“panning” or by diverting a stream through a sluice box (Figure 17.9). To varying degrees, the original
California Gold Rush repeated itself throughout Colorado and Nevada for the next two decades. In 1859,
Henry T. P. Comstock, a Canadian-born fur trapper, began gold mining in Nevada with other prospectors
but then quickly found a blue-colored vein that proved to be the first significant silver discovery in the
United States. Within twenty years, the Comstock Lode, as it was called, yielded more than $300 million
in shafts that reached hundreds of feet into the mountain. Subsequent mining in Arizona and Montana
yielded copper, and, while it lacked the glamour of gold, these deposits created huge wealth for those who
exploited them, particularly with the advent of copper wiring for the delivery of electricity and telegraph
communication.
Figure 17.9 The first gold prospectors in the 1850s and 1860s worked with easily portable tools that allowed anyone
to follow their dream and strike it rich (a). It didn’t take long for the most accessible minerals to be stripped, making
way for large mining operations, including hydraulic mining, where high-pressure water jets removed sediment and
rocks (b).
By the 1860s and 1870s, however, individual efforts to locate precious metals were less successful. The
lowest-hanging fruit had been picked, and now it required investment capital and machinery to dig mine
shafts that could reach remaining ore. With a much larger investment, miners needed a larger strike to be
successful. This shift led to larger businesses underwriting mining operations, which eventually led to the
development of greater urban stability and infrastructure. Denver, Colorado, was one of several cities that
became permanent settlements, as businesses sought a stable environment to use as a base for their mining
ventures.
For miners who had not yet struck it rich, this development was not a good one. They were now paid a
daily or weekly wage to work underground in very dangerous conditions. They worked in shafts where
the temperature could rise to above one hundred degrees Fahrenheit, and where poor ventilation might
lead to long-term lung disease. They coped with shaft fires, dynamite explosions, and frequent cave-ins. By
some historical accounts, close to eight thousand miners died on the frontier during this period, with over
three times that number suffering crippling injuries. Some miners organized into unions and led strikes
for better conditions, but these efforts were usually crushed by state militias.
Eventually, as the ore dried up, most mining towns turned into ghost towns. Even today, a visit through
the American West shows old saloons and storefronts, abandoned as the residents moved on to their
next shot at riches. The true lasting impact of the early mining efforts was the resulting desire of the
U.S. government to bring law and order to the “Wild West” in order to more efficiently extract natural
resources and encourage stable growth in the region. As more Americans moved to the region to seek
permanent settlement, as opposed to brief speculative ventures, they also sought the safety and support
that government order could bring. Nevada was admitted to the Union as a state in 1864, with Colorado
following in 1876, then North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington in 1889; and Idaho and
Wyoming in 1890.
THE CATTLE KINGDOM

While the cattle industry lacked the romance of the Gold Rush, the role it played in western expansion
should not be underestimated. For centuries, wild cattle roamed the Spanish borderlands. At the end of the
Civil War, as many as five million longhorn steers could be found along the Texas frontier, yet few settlers
had capitalized on the opportunity to claim them, due to the difficulty of transporting them to eastern
markets. The completion of the first transcontinental railroad and subsequent railroad lines changed the
game dramatically. Cattle ranchers and eastern businessmen realized that it was profitable to round up the

wild steers and transport them by rail to be sold in the East for as much as thirty to fifty dollars per head.
These ranchers and businessmen began the rampant speculation in the cattle industry that made, and lost,
many fortunes.
So began the impressive cattle drives of the 1860s and 1870s. The famous Chisholm Trail provided a quick
path from Texas to railroad terminals in Abilene, Wichita, and Dodge City, Kansas, where cowboys would
receive their pay. These “cowtowns,” as they became known, quickly grew to accommodate the needs of
cowboys and the cattle industry. Cattlemen like Joseph G. McCoy, born in Illinois, quickly realized that the
railroad offered a perfect way to get highly sought beef from Texas to the East. McCoy chose Abilene as a
locale that would offer cowboys a convenient place to drive the cattle, and went about building stockyards,
hotels, banks, and more to support the business. He promoted his services and encouraged cowboys to
bring their cattle through Abilene for good money; soon, the city had grown into a bustling western city,
complete with ways for the cowboys to spend their hard-earned pay (Figure 17.10).
Figure 17.10 Cattle drives were an integral part of western expansion. Cowboys worked long hours in the saddle,
driving hardy longhorns to railroad towns that could ship the meat back east.
Between 1865 and 1885, as many as forty thousand cowboys roamed the Great Plains, hoping to work
for local ranchers. They were all men, typically in their twenties, and close to one-third of them were
Hispanic or African American. It is worth noting that the stereotype of the American cowboy—and indeed
the cowboys themselves—borrowed much from the Mexicans who had long ago settled those lands. The
saddles, lassos, chaps, and lariats that define cowboy culture all arose from the Mexican ranchers who had
used them to great effect before the cowboys arrived.
Life as a cowboy was dirty and decidedly unglamorous. The terrain was difficult; conflicts with Native
Americans, especially in Indian Territory (now Oklahoma), were notoriously deadly. But the longhorn
cattle were hardy stock, and could survive and thrive while grazing along the long trail, so cowboys
braved the trip for the promise of steady employment and satisfying wages. Eventually, however, the era
of the free range ended. Ranchers developed the land, limiting grazing opportunities along the trail, and
in 1873, the new technology of barbed wire allowed ranchers to fence off their lands and cattle claims.
With the end of the free range, the cattle industry, like the mining industry before it, grew increasingly
dominated by eastern businessmen. Capital investors from the East expanded rail lines and invested in
ranches, ending the reign of the cattle drives.
AMERICANA
Barbed Wire and a Way of Life Gone
Called the “devil’s rope” by Indians, barbed wire had a profound impact on the American West. Before
its invention, settlers and ranchers alike were stymied by a lack of building materials to fence off
land. Communal grazing and long cattle drives were the norm. But with the invention of barbed wire,
large cattle ranchers and their investors were able to cheaply and easily parcel off the land they
wanted—whether or not it was legally theirs to contain. As with many other inventions, several people
“invented” barbed wire around the same time. In 1873, it was Joseph Glidden, however, who claimed the
winning design and patented it. Not only did it spell the end of the free range for settlers and cowboys, it
kept more land away from Indian tribes, who had never envisioned a culture that would claim to own land
(Figure 17.11).
Figure 17.11 Joseph Glidden’s invention of barbed wire in 1873 made him rich, changing the face of
the American West forever. (credit: modification of work by the U.S. Department of Commerce)
In the early twentieth century, songwriter Cole Porter would take a poem by a Montana poet named Bob
Fletcher and convert it into a cowboy song called, “Don’t Fence Me In.” As the lyrics below show, the
song gave voice to the feeling that, as the fences multiplied, the ethos of the West was forever changed:
Oh, give me land, lots of land, under starry skies above
Don't fence me in
Let me ride thru the wide-open country that I love
Don't fence me in . . .
Just turn me loose
Let me straddle my old saddle underneath the western skies
On my cayuse
Let me wander over yonder till I see the mountains rise
I want to ride to the ridge where the west commences
Gaze at the moon until I lose my senses
I can't look at hobbles and I can't stand fences
Don't fence me in.

VIOLENCE IN THE WILD WEST: MYTH AND REALITY

The popular image of the Wild West portrayed in books, television, and film has been one of violence and
mayhem. The lure of quick riches through mining or driving cattle meant that much of the West did indeed
consist of rough men living a rough life, although the violence was exaggerated and even glorified in the
dime store novels of the day. The exploits of Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday, and others made for good stories,
but the reality was that western violence was more isolated than the stories might suggest. These clashes
often occurred as people struggled for the scarce resources that could make or break their chance at riches,
or as they dealt with the sudden wealth or poverty that prospecting provided.
Where sporadic violence did erupt, it was concentrated largely in mining towns or during range wars
among large and small cattle ranchers. Some mining towns were indeed as rough as the popular
stereotype. Men, money, liquor, and disappointment were a recipe for violence. Fights were frequent,
deaths were commonplace, and frontier justice reigned. The notorious mining town of Bodie, California,
had twenty-nine murders between 1877 and 1883, which translated to a murder rate higher than any other
city at that time, and only one person was ever convicted of a crime. The most prolific gunman of the day
was John Wesley Hardin, who allegedly killed over twenty men in Texas in various gunfights, including
one victim he killed in a hotel for snoring too loudly (Figure 17.12).
Figure 17.12 The towns that sprouted up around gold strikes existed first and foremost as places for the men who
struck it rich to spend their money. Stores, saloons, and brothels were among the first businesses to arrive. The
combination of lawlessness, vice, and money often made for a dangerous mix.
Ranching brought with it its own dangers and violence. In the Texas cattle lands, owners of large ranches
took advantage of their wealth and the new invention of barbed wire to claim the prime grazing lands
and few significant watering holes for their herds. Those seeking only to move their few head of cattle to
market grew increasingly frustrated at their inability to find even a blade of grass for their meager herds.
Eventually, frustration turned to violence, as several ranchers resorted to vandalizing the barbed wire
fences to gain access to grass and water for their steers. Such vandalism quickly led to cattle rustling, as
these cowboys were not averse to leading a few of the rancher’s steers into their own herds as they left.
One example of the violence that bubbled up was the infamous Fence Cutting War in Clay County, Texas
(1883–1884). There, cowboys began destroying fences that several ranchers erected along public lands:
land they had no right to enclose. Confrontations between the cowboys and armed guards hired by the
ranchers resulted in three deaths—hardly a “war,” but enough of a problem to get the governor’s attention.
Eventually, a special session of the Texas legislature addressed the problem by passing laws to outlaw
fence cutting, but also forced ranchers to remove fences illegally erected along public lands, as well as to
place gates for passage where public areas adjoined private lands.
An even more violent confrontation occurred between large ranchers and small farmers in Johnson
County, Wyoming, where cattle ranchers organized a “lynching bee” in 1891–1892 to make examples of
cattle rustlers. Hiring twenty-two “invaders” from Texas to serve as hired guns, the ranch owners and
their foremen hunted and subsequently killed the two rustlers best known for organizing the owners of
the smaller Wyoming farms. Only the intervention of federal troops, who arrested and then later released
the invaders, allowing them to return to Texas, prevented a greater massacre.
While there is much talk—both real and mythical—of the rough men who lived this life, relatively few
women experienced it. While homesteaders were often families, gold speculators and cowboys tended
to be single men in pursuit of fortune. The few women who went to these wild outposts were typically
prostitutes, and even their numbers were limited. In 1860, in the Comstock Lode region of Nevada, for
example, there were reportedly only thirty women total in a town of twenty-five hundred men. Some of
the “painted ladies” who began as prostitutes eventually owned brothels and emerged as businesswomen
in their own right; however, life for these young women remained a challenging one as western settlement
progressed. A handful of women, numbering no more than six hundred, braved both the elements and
male-dominated culture to become teachers in several of the more established cities in the West. Even
fewer arrived to support husbands or operate stores in these mining towns.
As wealthy men brought their families west, the lawless landscape began to change slowly. Abilene,
Kansas, is one example of a lawless town, replete with prostitutes, gambling, and other vices, transformed
when middle-class women arrived in the 1880s with their cattle baron husbands. These women began to
organize churches, school, civic clubs, and other community programs to promote family values. They
fought to remove opportunities for prostitution and all the other vices that they felt threatened the values
that they held dear. Protestant missionaries eventually joined the women in their efforts, and, while
they were not widely successful, they did bring greater attention to the problems. As a response, the
U.S. Congress passed both the Comstock Law (named after its chief proponent, anti-obscenity crusader
Anthony Comstock) in 1873 to ban the spread of “lewd and lascivious literature” through the mail
and the subsequent Page Act of 1875 to prohibit the transportation of women into the United States
for employment as prostitutes. However, the “houses of ill repute” continued to operate and remained
popular throughout the West despite the efforts of reformers.
Click and Explore
Take a look at the National Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/natcowboy) to determine whether this site’s portrayal
of cowboy culture matches or contradicts the history shared in this chapter.

• Describe the methods that the U.S. government used to address the “Indian threat”
during the settlement of the West
• Explain the process of “Americanization” as it applied to Indians in the nineteenth
century

As American settlers pushed westward, they inevitably came into conflict with Indian tribes that had long
been living on the land. Although the threat of Indian attacks was quite slim and nowhere proportionate
to the number of U.S. Army actions directed against them, the occasional attack—often one of
retaliation—was enough to fuel the popular fear of the “savage” Indians. The clashes, when they
happened, were indeed brutal, although most of the brutality occurred at the hands of the settlers.
Ultimately, the settlers, with the support of local militias and, later, with the federal government behind
them, sought to eliminate the tribes from the lands they desired. The result was devastating for the Indian
tribes, which lacked the weapons and group cohesion to fight back against such well-armed forces. The
Manifest Destiny of the settlers spelled the end of the Indian way of life.
CLAIMING LAND, RELOCATING LANDOWNERS

Back east, the popular vision of the West was of a vast and empty land. But of course this was an
exaggerated depiction. On the eve of westward expansion, as many as 250,000 Indians, representing a
variety of tribes, populated the Great Plains. Previous wars against these tribes in the early nineteenth
century, as well as the failure of earlier treaties, had led to a general policy of the forcible removal of many
tribes in the eastern United States. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 resulted in the infamous “Trail of
Tears,” which saw nearly fifty thousand Seminole, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Creek Indians relocated west
of the Mississippi River to what is now Oklahoma between 1831 and 1838. Building upon such a history,
the U.S. government was prepared, during the era of western settlement, to deal with tribes that settlers
viewed as obstacles to expansion.
As settlers sought more land for farming, mining, and cattle ranching, the first strategy employed to deal
with the perceived Indian threat was to negotiate settlements to move tribes out of the path of white
settlers. In 1851, the chiefs of most of the Great Plains tribes agreed to the First Treaty of Fort Laramie.
This agreement established distinct tribal borders, essentially codifying the reservation system. In return
for annual payments of $50,000 to the tribes (originally guaranteed for fifty years, but later revised to last
for only ten) as well as the hollow promise of noninterference from westward settlers, Indians agreed to
stay clear of the path of settlement. Due to government corruption, many annuity payments never reached
the tribes, and some reservations were left destitute and near starving. In addition, within a decade, as
the pace and number of western settlers increased, even designated reservations became prime locations
for farms and mining. Rather than negotiating new treaties, settlers—oftentimes backed by local or state
militia units—simply attacked the tribes out of fear or to force them from the land. Some Indians resisted,
only to then face massacres.
In 1862, frustrated and angered by the lack of annuity payments and the continuous encroachment on
their reservation lands, Dakota Sioux Indians in Minnesota rebelled in what became known as the Dakota
War, killing the white settlers who moved onto their tribal lands. Over one thousand white settlers were
captured or killed in the attack, before an armed militia regained control. Of the four hundred Sioux
captured by U.S. troops, 303 were sentenced to death, but President Lincoln intervened, releasing all but
thirty-eight of the men. The thirty-eight who were found guilty were hanged in the largest mass execution
in the country’s history, and the rest of the tribe was banished. Settlers in other regions responded to
news of this raid with fear and aggression. In Colorado, Arapahoe and Cheyenne tribes fought back
against land encroachment; white militias then formed, decimating even some of the tribes that were
willing to cooperate. One of the more vicious examples was near Sand Creek, Colorado, where Colonel
John Chivington led a militia raid upon a camp in which the leader had already negotiated a peaceful
settlement. The camp was flying both the American flag and the white flag of surrender when Chivington’s
troops murdered close to one hundred people, the majority of them women and children, in what became
known as the Sand Creek Massacre. For the rest of his life, Chivington would proudly display his
collection of nearly one hundred Indian scalps from that day. Subsequent investigations by the U.S. Army
condemned Chivington’s tactics and their results; however, the raid served as a model for some settlers
who sought any means by which to eradicate the perceived Indian threat.
Hoping to forestall similar uprisings and all-out Indian wars, the U.S. Congress commissioned a committee
to investigate the causes of such incidents. The subsequent report of their findings led to the passage
of two additional treaties: the Second Treaty of Fort Laramie and the Treaty of Medicine Lodge Creek,
both designed to move the remaining tribes to even more remote reservations. The Second Treaty of Fort
Laramie moved the remaining Sioux to the Black Hills in the Dakota Territory and the Treaty of Medicine
Lodge Creek moved the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Kiowa, and Comanche to “Indian Territory,” later to become
the State of Oklahoma.
The agreements were short-lived, however. With the subsequent discovery of gold in the Black Hills,
settlers seeking their fortune began to move upon the newly granted Sioux lands with support from U.S.
cavalry troops. By the middle of 1875, thousands of white prospectors were illegally digging and panning
in the area. The Sioux protested the invasion of their territory and the violation of sacred ground. The
government offered to lease the Black Hills or to pay $6 million if the Indians were willing to sell the land.
When the tribes refused, the government imposed what it considered a fair price for the land, ordered the
Indians to move, and in the spring of 1876, made ready to force them onto the reservation.
In the Battle of Little Bighorn, perhaps the most famous battle of the American West, a Sioux chieftain,
Sitting Bull, urged Indians from all neighboring tribes to join his men in defense of their lands (Figure
17.13). At the Little Bighorn River, the U.S. Army’s Seventh Cavalry, led by Colonel George Custer,
sought a showdown. Driven by his own personal ambition, on June 25, 1876, Custer foolishly attacked
what he thought was a minor Indian encampment. Instead, it turned out to be the main Sioux force. The
Sioux warriors—nearly three thousand in strength—surrounded and killed Custer and 262 of his men and
support units, in the single greatest loss of U.S. troops to an Indian attack in the era of westward expansion.
Eyewitness reports of the attack indicated that the victorious Sioux bathed and wrapped Custer’s body
in the tradition of a chieftain burial; however, they dismembered many other soldiers’ corpses in order
for a few distant observers from Major Marcus Reno’s wounded troops and Captain Frederick Benteen’s
company to report back to government officials about the ferocity of the Sioux enemy.

Figure 17.13 The iconic figure who led the battle at Little Bighorn River, Sitting Bull led Indians in what was their
largest victory against American settlers. While the battle was a rout by the Sioux over Custer’s troops, the ultimate
outcome for his tribe and the men who had joined him was one of constant harassment, arrest, and death at the
hands of federal troops.
AMERICAN INDIAN SUBMISSION

Despite their success at Little Bighorn, neither the Sioux nor any other Plains tribe followed this battle
with any other armed encounter. Rather, they either returned to tribal life or fled out of fear of remaining
troops, until the U.S. Army arrived in greater numbers and began to exterminate Indian encampments and
force others to accept payment for forcible removal from their lands. Sitting Bull himself fled to Canada,
although he later returned in 1881 and subsequently worked in Buffalo Bill’s Wild West show. In Montana,
the Blackfoot and Crow were forced to leave their tribal lands. In Colorado, the Utes gave up their lands
after a brief period of resistance. In Idaho, most of the Nez Perce gave up their lands peacefully, although
in an incredible episode, a band of some eight hundred Indians sought to evade U.S. troops and escape
into Canada.
MY STORY
I Will Fight No More: Chief Joseph’s Capitulation
Chief Joseph, known to his people as “Thunder Traveling to the Loftier Mountain Heights,” was the chief
of the Nez Perce tribe, and he had realized that they could not win against the whites. In order to avoid a
war that would undoubtedly lead to the extermination of his people, he hoped to lead his tribe to Canada,
where they could live freely. He led a full retreat of his people over fifteen hundred miles of mountains
and harsh terrain, only to be caught within fifty miles of the Canadian border in late 1877. His speech has
remained a poignant and vivid reminder of what the tribe had lost.
Tell General Howard I know his heart. What he told me before, I have it in my heart. I am tired
of fighting. Our Chiefs are killed; Looking Glass is dead, Ta Hool Hool Shute is dead. The old
men are all dead. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who led on the young men is
dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets; the little children are freezing to death. My people,
some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where
they are—perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children, and see how
many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my Chiefs! I am
tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever.
—Chief Joseph, 1877
The final episode in the so-called Indian Wars occurred in 1890, at the Battle of Wounded Knee in South
Dakota. On their reservation, the Sioux had begun to perform the “Ghost Dance,” which told of an Indian
Messiah who would deliver the tribe from its hardship, with such frequency that white settlers began to
worry that another uprising would occur. The militia prepared to round up the Sioux. The tribe, after the
death of Sitting Bull, who had been arrested, shot, and killed in 1890, prepared to surrender at Wounded
Knee, South Dakota, on December 29, 1890. Although the accounts are unclear, an apparent accidental rifle
discharge by a young male Indian preparing to lay down his weapon led the U.S. soldiers to begin firing
indiscriminately upon the Indians. What little resistance the Indians mounted with a handful of concealed
rifles at the outset of the fight diminished quickly, with the troops eventually massacring between 150
and 300 men, women, and children. The U.S. troops suffered twenty-five fatalities, some of which were
the result of their own crossfire. Captain Edward Godfrey of the Seventh Cavalry later commented, “I
know the men did not aim deliberately and they were greatly excited. I don’t believe they saw their sights.
They fired rapidly but it seemed to me only a few seconds till there was not a living thing before us;
warriors, squaws, children, ponies, and dogs . . . went down before that unaimed fire.” With this last show
of brutality, the Indian Wars came to a close. U.S. government officials had already begun the process of
seeking an alternative to the meaningless treaties and costly battles. A more effective means with which to
address the public perception of the “Indian threat” was needed. Americanization provided the answer.
AMERICANIZATION
Through the years of the Indian Wars of the 1870s and early 1880s, opinion back east was mixed. There
were many who felt, as General Philip Sheridan (appointed in 1867 to pacify the Plains Indians) allegedly
said, that the only good Indian was a dead Indian. But increasingly, several American reformers who
would later form the backbone of the Progressive Era had begun to criticize the violence, arguing that
the Indians should be helped through “Americanization” to become assimilated into American society.
Individual land ownership, Christian worship, and education for children became the cornerstones of this
new, and final, assault on Indian life and culture.
Beginning in the 1880s, clergymen, government officials, and social workers all worked to assimilate
Indians into American life. The government permitted reformers to remove Indian children from their
homes and place them in boarding schools, such as the Carlisle Indian School or the Hampton Institute,
where they were taught to abandon their tribal traditions and embrace the tools of American productivity,

modesty, and sanctity through total immersion. Such schools not only acculturated Indian boys and girls,
but also provided vocational training for males and domestic science classes for females. Adults were
also targeted by religious reformers, specifically evangelical Protestants as well as a number of Catholics,
who sought to convince Indians to abandon their language, clothing, and social customs for a more Euro-
American lifestyle (Figure 17.14).
Figure 17.14 The federal government’s policy towards the Indians shifted in the late 1880s from relocating them to
assimilating them into the American ideal. Indians were given land in exchange for renouncing their tribe, traditional
clothing, and way of life.
A vital part of the assimilation effort was land reform. During earlier negotiations, the government had
respected that the Indian tribes used their land communally. Most Indian belief structures did not allow
for the concept of individual land ownership; rather, land was available for all to use, and required
responsibility from all to protect it. As a part of their plan to Americanize the tribes, reformers sought
legislation to replace this concept with the popular Euro-American notion of real estate ownership and
self-reliance. One such law was the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887, named after a reformer and senator from
Massachusetts, which struck a deadly blow to the Indian way of life. In what was essentially an Indian
version of the original Homestead Act, the Dawes Act permitted the federal government to divide the
lands of any tribe and grant 160 acres of farmland or 320 acres of grazing land to each head of family,
with lesser amounts to others. In a nod towards the paternal relationship with which whites viewed
Indians—similar to the justification of the previous treatment of African American slaves—the Dawes Act
permitted the federal government to hold an individual Indian’s newly acquired land in trust for twenty-
five years. Only then would he obtain full title and be granted the citizenship rights that land ownership
entailed. It would not be until 1924 that formal citizenship was granted to all Native Americans. Under the
Dawes Act, Indians were given the most arid, useless land. Further, inefficiencies and corruption in the
government meant that much of the land due to be allotted to Indians was simply deemed “surplus” and
claimed by settlers. Once all allotments were determined, the remaining tribal lands—as much as eighty
million acres—were sold to white American settlers.
The final element of “Americanization” was the symbolic “last arrow” pageant, which often coincided
with the formal redistribution of tribal lands under the Dawes Act. At these events, Indians were forced
to assemble in their tribal garb, carrying a bow and arrow. They would then symbolically fire their “last
arrow” into the air, enter a tent where they would strip away their Indian clothing, dress in a white
farmer’s coveralls, and emerge to take a plow and an American flag to show that they had converted to
a new way of life. It was a seismic shift for the Indians, and one that left them bereft of their culture and
history.
Click and Explore
Take a look at the Carlisle Industrial Indian School (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

carlisleschool) where Indian students were “civilized” from 1879 to 1918. It is worth
looking through the photographs and records of the school to see how this well-
intended program obliterated Indian culture.
17.5 The Impact of Expansion on Chinese Immigrants and Hispanic

Citizens

• Describe the treatment of Chinese immigrants and Hispanic citizens during the
westward expansion of the nineteenth century
As white Americans pushed west, they not only collided with Indian tribes but also with Hispanic
Americans and Chinese immigrants. Hispanics in the Southwest had the opportunity to become American
citizens at the end of the Mexican-American war, but their status was markedly second-class. Chinese
immigrants arrived en masse during the California Gold Rush and numbered in the hundreds of
thousands by the late 1800s, with the majority living in California, working menial jobs. These distinct
cultural and ethnic groups strove to maintain their rights and way of life in the face of persistent racism
and entitlement. But the large number of white settlers and government-sanctioned land acquisitions left
them at a profound disadvantage. Ultimately, both groups withdrew into homogenous communities in
which their language and culture could survive.
CHINESE IMMIGRANTS IN THE AMERICAN WEST

The initial arrival of Chinese immigrants to the United States began as a slow trickle in the 1820s, with
barely 650 living in the U.S. by the end of 1849. However, as gold rush fever swept the country, Chinese
immigrants, too, were attracted to the notion of quick fortunes. By 1852, over 25,000 Chinese immigrants
had arrived, and by 1880, over 300,000 Chinese lived in the United States, most in California. While they
had dreams of finding gold, many instead found employment building the first transcontinental railroad
(Figure 17.15). Some even traveled as far east as the former cotton plantations of the Old South, which
they helped to farm after the Civil War. Several thousand of these immigrants booked their passage
to the United States using a “credit-ticket,” in which their passage was paid in advance by American
businessmen to whom the immigrants were then indebted for a period of work. Most arrivals were men:
Few wives or children ever traveled to the United States. As late as 1890, less than 5 percent of the
Chinese population in the U.S. was female. Regardless of gender, few Chinese immigrants intended to
stay permanently in the United States, although many were reluctantly forced to do so, as they lacked the
financial resources to return home.

Figure 17.15 Building the railroads was dangerous and backbreaking work. On the western railroad line, Chinese
migrants, along with other nonwhite workers, were often given the most difficult and dangerous jobs of all.
Prohibited by law since 1790 from obtaining U.S. citizenship through naturalization, Chinese immigrants
faced harsh discrimination and violence from American settlers in the West. Despite hardships like the
special tax that Chinese miners had to pay to take part in the Gold Rush, or their subsequent forced
relocation into Chinese districts, these immigrants continued to arrive in the United States seeking a
better life for the families they left behind. Only when the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 forbade further
immigration from China for a ten-year period did the flow stop.
The Chinese community banded together in an effort to create social and cultural centers in cities such
as San Francisco. In a haphazard fashion, they sought to provide services ranging from social aid to
education, places of worship, health facilities, and more to their fellow Chinese immigrants. But only
American Indians suffered greater discrimination and racial violence, legally sanctioned by the federal
government, than did Chinese immigrants at this juncture in American history. As Chinese workers
began competing with white Americans for jobs in California cities, the latter began a system of built-
in discrimination. In the 1870s, white Americans formed “anti-coolie clubs” (“coolie” being a racial slur
directed towards people of any Asian descent), through which they organized boycotts of Chinese-
produced products and lobbied for anti-Chinese laws. Some protests turned violent, as in 1885 in Rock
Springs, Wyoming, where tensions between white and Chinese immigrant miners erupted in a riot,
resulting in over two dozen Chinese immigrants being murdered and many more injured.
Slowly, racism and discrimination became law. The new California constitution of 1879 denied naturalized
Chinese citizens the right to vote or hold state employment. Additionally, in 1882, the U.S. Congress
passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which forbade further Chinese immigration into the United States for
ten years. The ban was later extended on multiple occasions until its repeal in 1943. Eventually, some
Chinese immigrants returned to China. Those who remained were stuck in the lowest-paying, most menial
jobs. Several found assistance through the creation of benevolent associations designed to both support
Chinese communities and defend them against political and legal discrimination; however, the history of
Chinese immigrants to the United States remained largely one of deprivation and hardship well into the
twentieth century.
Click and Explore
The Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/railroadchina) provides a context for the role of the
Chinese who helped build the railroads. What does the site celebrate, and what, if
anything, does it condemn?
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
The Backs that Built the Railroad
Below is a description of the construction of the railroad in 1867. Note the way it describes the scene, the
laborers, and the effort.
The cars now (1867) run nearly to the summit of the Sierras. . . . four thousand laborers were
at work—one-tenth Irish, the rest Chinese. They were a great army laying siege to Nature in
her strongest citadel. The rugged mountains looked like stupendous ant-hills. They swarmed
with Celestials, shoveling, wheeling, carting, drilling and blasting rocks and earth, while their
dull, moony eyes stared out from under immense basket-hats, like umbrellas. At several
dining camps we saw hundreds sitting on the ground, eating soft boiled rice with chopsticks
as fast as terrestrials could with soup-ladles. Irish laborers received thirty dollars per month
(gold) and board; Chinese, thirty-one dollars, boarding themselves. After a little experience
the latter were quite as efficient and far less troublesome.
—Albert D. Richardson, Beyond the Mississippi
Several great American advancements of the nineteenth century were built with the hands of many other
nations. It is interesting to ponder how much these immigrant communities felt they were building their
own fortunes and futures, versus the fortunes of others. Is it likely that the Chinese laborers, many of
whom died due to the harsh conditions, considered themselves part of “a great army”? Certainly, this
account reveals the unwitting racism of the day, where workers were grouped together by their ethnicity,
and each ethnic group was labeled monolithically as “good workers” or “troublesome,” with no regard for
individual differences among the hundreds of Chinese or Irish workers.
HISPANIC AMERICANS IN THE AMERICAN WEST

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848, promised U.S.
citizenship to the nearly seventy-five thousand Hispanics now living in the American Southwest;
approximately 90 percent accepted the offer and chose to stay in the United States despite their immediate
relegation to second-class citizenship status. Relative to the rest of Mexico, these lands were sparsely
populated and had been so ever since the country achieved its freedom from Spain in 1821. In fact, New
Mexico—not Texas or California—was the center of settlement in the region in the years immediately
preceding the war with the United States, containing nearly fifty thousand Mexicans. However, those who
did settle the area were proud of their heritage and ability to develop rancheros of great size and success.
Despite promises made in the treaty, these Californios—as they came to be known—quickly lost their land
to white settlers who simply displaced the rightful landowners, by force if necessary. Repeated efforts at
legal redress mostly fell upon deaf ears. In some instances, judges and lawyers would permit the legal
cases to proceed through an expensive legal process only to the point where Hispanic landowners who
insisted on holding their ground were rendered penniless for their efforts.

Much like Chinese immigrants, Hispanic citizens were relegated to the worst-paying jobs under the most
terrible working conditions. They worked as peóns (manual laborers similar to slaves), vaqueros (cattle
herders), and cartmen (transporting food and supplies) on the cattle ranches that white landowners
possessed, or undertook the most hazardous mining tasks (Figure 17.16).
Figure 17.16 Mexican ranchers had worked the land in the American Southwest long before American “cowboys”
arrived. In what ways might the Mexican vaquero pictured above have influenced the American cowboy?
In a few instances, frustrated Hispanic citizens fought back against the white settlers who dispossessed
them of their belongings. In 1889–1890 in New Mexico, several hundred Mexican Americans formed las
Gorras Blancas (the White Caps) to try and reclaim their land and intimidate white Americans, preventing
further land seizures. White Caps conducted raids of white farms, burning homes, barns, and crops to
express their growing anger and frustration. However, their actions never resulted in any fundamental
changes. Several White Caps were captured, beaten, and imprisoned, whereas others eventually gave
up, fearing harsh reprisals against their families. Some White Caps adopted a more political strategy,
gaining election to local offices throughout New Mexico in the early 1890s, but growing concerns over the
potential impact upon the territory’s quest for statehood led several citizens to heighten their repression
of the movement. Other laws passed in the United States intended to deprive Mexican Americans of
their heritage as much as their lands. “Sunday Laws” prohibited “noisy amusements” such as bullfights,
cockfights, and other cultural gatherings common to Hispanic communities at the time. “Greaser Laws”
permitted the imprisonment of any unemployed Mexican American on charges of vagrancy. Although
Hispanic Americans held tightly to their cultural heritage as their remaining form of self-identity, such
laws did take a toll.
In California and throughout the Southwest, the massive influx of Anglo-American settlers simply overran
the Hispanic populations that had been living and thriving there, sometimes for generations. Despite being
U.S. citizens with full rights, Hispanics quickly found themselves outnumbered, outvoted, and, ultimately,
outcast. Corrupt state and local governments favored whites in land disputes, and mining companies
and cattle barons discriminated against them, as with the Chinese workers, in terms of pay and working
conditions. In growing urban areas such as Los Angeles, barrios, or clusters of working-class homes, grew
more isolated from the white American centers. Hispanic Americans, like the Native Americans and
Chinese, suffered the fallout of the white settlers’ relentless push west.
Key Terms
Americanization the process by which an Indian was “redeemed” and assimilated into the American
way of life by changing his clothing to western clothing and renouncing his tribal customs in exchange
for a parcel of land
Battle of Wounded Knee an attempt to disarm a group of Lakota Sioux Indians near Wounded Knee,
South Dakota, which resulted in members of the Seventh Cavalry of the U.S. Army opening fire and
killing over 150 Indians
bonanza farms large farms owned by speculators who hired laborers to work the land; these large farms
allowed their owners to benefit from economies of scale and prosper, but they did nothing to help small
family farms, which continued to struggle
California Gold Rush the period between 1848 and 1849 when prospectors found large strikes of gold in
California, leading others to rush in and follow suit; this period led to a cycle of boom and bust through
the area, as gold was discovered, mined, and stripped
Comstock Lode the first significant silver find in the country, discovered by Henry T. P. Comstock in
1859 in Nevada
exodusters a term used to describe African Americans who moved to Kansas from the Old South to
escape the racism there
Fence Cutting War this armed conflict between cowboys moving cattle along the trail and ranchers who
wished to keep the best grazing lands for themselves occurred in Clay County, Texas, between 1883 and
1884
las Gorras Blancas the Spanish name for White Caps, the rebel group of Hispanic Americans who fought
back against the appropriation of Hispanic land by whites; for a period in 1889–1890, they burned farms,
homes, and crops to express their growing anger at the injustice of the situation
Manifest Destiny the phrase, coined by journalist John O’Sullivan, which came to stand for the idea that
white Americans had a calling and a duty to seize and settle the American West with Protestant
democratic values
Sand Creek Massacre a militia raid led by Colonel Chivington on an Indian camp in Colorado, flying
both the American flag and the white flag of surrender; over one hundred men, women, and children
were killed
sod house a frontier home constructed of dirt held together by thick-rooted prairie grass that was
prevalent in the Midwest; sod, cut into large rectangles, was stacked to make the walls of the structure,
providing an inexpensive, yet damp, house for western settlers
Summary
While a few bold settlers had moved westward before the middle of the nineteenth century, they were the
exception, not the rule. The “great American desert,” as it was called, was considered a vast and empty
place, unfit for civilized people. In the 1840s, however, this idea started to change, as potential settlers
began to learn more from promoters and land developers of the economic opportunities that awaited them
in the West, and Americans extolled the belief that it was their Manifest Destiny—their divine right—to
explore and settle the western territories in the name of the United States.

Most settlers in this first wave were white Americans of means. Whether they sought riches in gold,
cattle, or farming, or believed it their duty to spread Protestant ideals to native inhabitants, they headed
west in wagon trains along paths such as the Oregon Trail. European immigrants, particularly those from
Northern Europe, also made the trip, settling in close-knit ethnic enclaves out of comfort, necessity, and
familiarity. African Americans escaping the racism of the South also went west. In all, the newly settled
areas were neither a fast track to riches nor a simple expansion into an empty land, but rather a clash of
cultures, races, and traditions that defined the emerging new America.

The concept of Manifest Destiny and the strong incentives to relocate sent hundreds of thousands of people
west across the Mississippi. The rigors of this new way of life presented many challenges and difficulties to
homesteaders. The land was dry and barren, and homesteaders lost crops to hail, droughts, insect swarms,
and more. There were few materials with which to build, and early homes were made of mud, which did
not stand up to the elements. Money was a constant concern, as the cost of railroad freight was exorbitant,
and banks were unforgiving of bad harvests. For women, life was difficult in the extreme. Farm wives
worked at least eleven hours per day on chores and had limited access to doctors or midwives. Still, they
were more independent than their eastern counterparts and worked in partnership with their husbands.
As the railroad expanded and better farm equipment became available, by the 1870s, large farms began to
succeed through economies of scale. Small farms still struggled to stay afloat, however, leading to a rising
discontent among the farmers, who worked so hard for so little success.

While homesteading was the backbone of western expansion, mining and cattle also played significant
roles in shaping the West. Much rougher in character and riskier in outcomes than farming, these two
opportunities brought forward a different breed of settler than the homesteaders. Many of the long-trail
cattle riders were Mexican American or African American, and most of the men involved in both pursuits
were individuals willing to risk what little they had in order to strike it rich.
In both the mining and cattle industries, however, individual opportunities slowly died out, as
resources—both land for grazing and easily accessed precious metals—disappeared. In their place came
big business, with the infrastructure and investments to make a profit. These businesses built up small
towns into thriving cities, and the influx of middle-class families sought to drive out some of the violence
and vice that characterized the western towns. Slowly but inexorably, the “American” way of life, as
envisioned by the eastern establishment who initiated and promoted the concept of Manifest Destiny, was
spreading west.

The interaction of the American Indians with white settlers during the western expansion movement was a
painful and difficult one. For settlers raised on the notion of Manifest Destiny and empty lands, the Indians
added a terrifying element to what was already a difficult and dangerous new world. For the Indians, the
arrival of the settlers meant nothing less than the end of their way of life. Rather than cultural exchange,
contact led to the virtual destruction of Indian life and culture. While violent acts broke out on both sides,
the greatest atrocities were perpetrated by whites, who had superior weapons and often superior numbers,
as well as the support of the U.S. government.
The death of the Indian way of life happened as much at the hands of well-intentioned reformers as those
who wished to see the Indians exterminated. Individual land ownership, boarding schools, and pleas to
renounce Indian gods and culture were all elements of the reformers’ efforts. With so much of their life
stripped away, it was ever more difficult for the Indians to maintain their tribal integrity.
17.5 The Impact of Expansion on Chinese Immigrants and Hispanic Citizens

In the nineteenth century, the Hispanic, Chinese, and white populations of the country collided. Whites
moved further west in search of land and riches, bolstered by government subsidies and an inherent and
unshakable belief that the land and its benefits existed for their use. In some ways, it was a race to the
prize: White Americans believed that they deserved the best lands and economic opportunities the country
afforded, and did not consider prior claims to be valid.
Neither Chinese immigrants nor Hispanic Americans could withstand the assault on their rights by the
tide of white settlers. Sheer numbers, matched with political backing, gave the whites the power they
needed to overcome any resistance. Ultimately, both ethnic groups retreated into urban enclaves, where
their language and traditions could survive.
Review Questions
1. Which of the following does not represent a D. limited building supplies
group that participated significantly in westward
migration after 1870? 5. What accounts for the success of large,
A. African American “exodusters” escaping commercial “bonanza farms?” What benefits did
racism and seeking economic opportunities they enjoy over their smaller family-run
B. former Southern slaveholders seeking land counterparts?
and new financial opportunities
C. recent immigrants from Northern Europe 6. How did everyday life in the American West
and Canada hasten equality for women who settled the land?
D. recent Chinese immigrants seeking gold in
California
7. Which of the following groups was not
impacted by the invention of barbed wire?
2. Which of the following represents an action A. ranchers
that the U.S. government took to help Americans B. cowboys
fulfill the goal of western expansion? C. farmers
A. the passage of the Homestead Act D. illegal prostitutes
B. the official creation of the philosophy of
Manifest Destiny
8. The American cowboy owes much of its model
C. the development of stricter immigration
to what other culture?
policies
A. Mexicans
D. the introduction of new irrigation
B. Indians
techniques
C. Northern European immigrants
D. Chinese immigrants
3. Why and how did the U.S. government
promote western migration in the midst of
9. How did mining and cattle ranching transform
fighting the Civil War?
individual “get rich quick” efforts into “big
business” efforts when the nineteenth century
4. What specific types of hardships did an came to a close?
average American farmer not face as he built his
homestead in the Midwest?
10. Which of the following was not a primary
A. droughts
method by which the American government dealt
B. insect swarms
with American Indians during the period of
C. hostile Indian attacks
western settlement?

A. relocation B. work opportunities on the railroads

B. appeasement C. the Homestead Act
C. extermination D. Chinese benevolent associations
D. assimilation
13. How were Hispanic citizens deprived of their
11. What did the Last Arrow pageant symbolize? wealth and land in the course of western
A. the continuing fight of the Indians settlement?
B. the total extermination of the Indians from A. Indian raids
the West B. land seizures
C. the final step in the Americanization C. prisoner of war status
process D. infighting
D. the rebellion at Little Bighorn
14. Compare and contrast the treatment of
12. What brought the majority of Chinese Chinese immigrants and Hispanic citizens to that
immigrants to the U.S.? of Indians during the period of western
A. gold settlement.

15. Describe the philosophy of Manifest Destiny. What effect did it have on Americans’ westward
migration? How might the different groups that migrated have sought to apply this philosophy to their
individual circumstances?
16. Compare the myth of the “Wild West” with its reality. What elements of truth would these stories
have contained, and what was fabricated or left out? What was life actually like for cowboys, ranchers, and
the few women present in mining towns or along the cattle range?
17. What were the primary methods that the U.S. government, as well as individual reformers, used
to deal with the perceived Indian threat to westward settlement? In what ways were these methods
successful and unsuccessful? What were their short-term and long-term effects on Native Americans?
18. Describe the ways in which the U.S. government, local governments, and/or individuals attempted to
interfere with the specific cultural traditions and customs of Indians, Hispanics, and Chinese immigrants.
What did these efforts have in common? How did each group respond?
19. In what ways did westward expansion provide new opportunities for women and African
Americans? In what ways did it limit these opportunities?

Chapter 18 Industrialization and the Rise of Big Business, 1870-1900 515
CHAPTER 18
Industrialization and the Rise of Big

Business, 1870-1900
Figure 18.1 The Electrical Building, constructed in 1892 for the World’s Columbian Exposition, included displays
from General Electric and Westinghouse, and introduced the American public to alternating current and neon lights.
The Chicago World’s Fair, as the universal exposition was more commonly known, featured architecture, inventions,
and design, serving as both a showcase for and an influence on the country’s optimism about the Industrial Age.
Chapter Outline
18.1 Inventors of the Age
18.2 From Invention to Industrial Growth
18.3 Building Industrial America on the Backs of Labor
18.4 A New American Consumer Culture
Introduction
“The electric age was ushered into being in this last decade of the nineteenth century today when President
Cleveland, by pressing a button, started the mighty machinery, rushing waters and revolving wheels in the
World’s Columbian exhibition.” With this announcement about the official start of the Chicago World’s
Fair in 1893 (Figure 18.1), the Salt Lake City Herald captured the excitement and optimism of the machine
age. “In the previous expositions,” the editorial continued, “the possibilities of electricity had been limited
to the mere starting of the engines in the machinery hall, but in this it made thousands of servants do its
bidding . . . the magic of electricity did the duty of the hour.”
The fair, which commemorated the four hundredth anniversary of Columbus’s journey to America, was
a potent symbol of the myriad inventions that changed American life and contributed to the significant
economic growth of the era, as well as the new wave of industrialization that swept the country. While
businessmen capitalized upon such technological innovations, the new industrial working class faced
enormous challenges. Ironically, as the World’s Fair welcomed its first visitors, the nation was spiraling
downward into the worst depression of the century. Subsequent frustrations among working-class
Americans laid the groundwork for the country’s first significant labor movement.
516 Chapter 18 Industrialization and the Rise of Big Business, 1870-1900

• Explain how the ideas and products of late nineteenth-century inventors contributed to
the rise of big business
• Explain how the inventions of the late nineteenth century changed everyday American
life
The late nineteenth century was an energetic era of inventions and entrepreneurial spirit. Building upon
the mid-century Industrial Revolution in Great Britain, as well as answering the increasing call from
Americans for efficiency and comfort, the country found itself in the grip of invention fever, with more
people working on their big ideas than ever before. In retrospect, harnessing the power of steam and then
electricity in the nineteenth century vastly increased the power of man and machine, thus making other
advances possible as the century progressed.
Facing an increasingly complex everyday life, Americans sought the means by which to cope with it.
Inventions often provided the answers, even as the inventors themselves remained largely unaware of
the life-changing nature of their ideas. To understand the scope of this zeal for creation, consider the U.S.
Patent Office, which, in 1790—its first decade of existence—recorded only 276 inventions. By 1860, the
office had issued a total of 60,000 patents. But between 1860 and 1890, that number exploded to nearly
450,000, with another 235,000 in the last decade of the century. While many of these patents came to
naught, some inventions became lynchpins in the rise of big business and the country’s move towards an
industrial-based economy, in which the desire for efficiency, comfort, and abundance could be more fully
realized by most Americans.
Figure 18.2

AN EXPLOSION OF INVENTIVE ENERGY

From corrugated rollers that could crack hard, homestead-grown wheat into flour to refrigerated train
cars and garment-sewing machines (Figure 18.3), new inventions fueled industrial growth around the
country. As late as 1880, fully one-half of all Americans still lived and worked on farms, whereas fewer
than one in seven—mostly men, except for long-established textile factories in which female employees
tended to dominate—were employed in factories. However, the development of commercial electricity by
the close of the century, to complement the steam engines that already existed in many larger factories,
permitted more industries to concentrate in cities, away from the previously essential water power. In turn,
newly arrived immigrants sought employment in new urban factories. Immigration, urbanization, and
industrialization coincided to transform the face of American society from primarily rural to significantly
urban. From 1880 to 1920, the number of industrial workers in the nation quadrupled from 2.5 million to
over 10 million, while over the same period urban populations doubled, to reach one-half of the country’s
total population.
Figure 18.3 Advertisements of the late nineteenth century promoted the higher quality and lower prices that people
could expect from new inventions. Here, a knitting factory promotes the fact that its machines make seamless hose,
while still acknowledging the traditional role of women in the garment industry, from grandmothers who used to sew
by hand to young women who now used machines.
In offices, worker productivity benefited from the typewriter, invented in 1867, the cash register, invented
in 1879, and the adding machine, invented in 1885. These tools made it easier than ever to keep up with the
rapid pace of business growth. Inventions also slowly transformed home life. The vacuum cleaner arrived
during this era, as well as the flush toilet. These indoor “water closets” improved public health through the
reduction in contamination associated with outhouses and their proximity to water supplies and homes.
Tin cans and, later, Clarence Birdseye’s experiments with frozen food, eventually changed how women
shopped for, and prepared, food for their families, despite initial health concerns over preserved foods.
With the advent of more easily prepared food, women gained valuable time in their daily schedules, a step
that partially laid the groundwork for the modern women’s movement. Women who had the means to
purchase such items could use their time to seek other employment outside of the home, as well as broaden
their knowledge through education and reading. Such a transformation did not occur overnight, as these
inventions also increased expectations for women to remain tied to the home and their domestic chores;
slowly, the culture of domesticity changed.
Perhaps the most important industrial advancement of the era came in the production of steel.
Manufacturers and builders preferred steel to iron, due to its increased strength and durability. After the
Civil War, two new processes allowed for the creation of furnaces large enough and hot enough to melt
the wrought iron needed to produce large quantities of steel at increasingly cheaper prices. The Bessemer
process, named for English inventor Henry Bessemer, and the open-hearth process, changed the way the
United States produced steel and, in doing so, led the country into a new industrialized age. As the new
material became more available, builders eagerly sought it out, a demand that steel mill owners were
happy to supply.
In 1860, the country produced thirteen thousand tons of steel. By 1879, American furnaces were producing
over one million tons per year; by 1900, this figure had risen to ten million. Just ten years later, the United
States was the top steel producer in the world, at over twenty-four million tons annually. As production
increased to match the overwhelming demand, the price of steel dropped by over 80 percent. When quality
steel became cheaper and more readily available, other industries relied upon it more heavily as a key to
their growth and development, including construction and, later, the automotive industry. As a result, the
steel industry rapidly became the cornerstone of the American economy, remaining the primary indicator
of industrial growth and stability through the end of World War II.
ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL AND THE TELEPHONE

Advancements in communications matched the pace of growth seen in industry and home life.
Communication technologies were changing quickly, and they brought with them new ways for
information to travel. In 1858, British and American crews laid the first transatlantic cable lines, enabling
messages to pass between the United States and Europe in a matter of hours, rather than waiting the few
weeks it could take for a letter to arrive by steamship. Although these initial cables worked for barely a
month, they generated great interest in developing a more efficient telecommunications industry. Within
twenty years, over 100,000 miles of cable crisscrossed the ocean floors, connecting all the continents.
Domestically, Western Union, which controlled 80 percent of the country’s telegraph lines, operated nearly
200,000 miles of telegraph routes from coast to coast. In short, people were connected like never before,
able to relay messages in minutes and hours rather than days and weeks.
One of the greatest advancements was the telephone, which Alexander Graham Bell patented in 1876
(Figure 18.4). While he was not the first to invent the concept, Bell was the first one to capitalize on it;
after securing the patent, he worked with financiers and businessmen to create the National Bell Telephone
Company. Western Union, which had originally turned down Bell’s machine, went on to commission
Thomas Edison to invent an improved version of the telephone. It is actually Edison’s version that
is most like the modern telephone used today. However, Western Union, fearing a costly legal battle
they were likely to lose due to Bell’s patent, ultimately sold Edison’s idea to the Bell Company. With
the communications industry now largely in their control, along with an agreement from the federal
government to permit such control, the Bell Company was transformed into the American Telephone and
Telegraph Company, which still exists today as AT&T. By 1880, fifty thousand telephones were in use in
the United States, including one at the White House. By 1900, that number had increased to 1.35 million,

and hundreds of American cities had obtained local service for their citizens. Quickly and inexorably,
technology was bringing the country into closer contact, changing forever the rural isolation that had
defined America since its beginnings.
Figure 18.4 Alexander Graham Bell’s patent of the telephone was one of almost 700,000 U.S. patents issued
between 1850 and 1900. Although the patent itself was only six pages long, including two pages of illustrations, it
proved to be one of the most contested and profitable of the nineteenth century. (credit: U.S. National Archives and
Records Administration)
Click and Explore
Visit the Library of Congress (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/telephone) to examine

the controversy over the invention of the telephone. While Alexander Graham Bell is
credited with the invention, several other inventors played a role in its development;
however, Bell was the first to patent the device.
THOMAS EDISON AND ELECTRIC LIGHTING

Although Thomas Alva Edison (Figure 18.5) is best known for his contributions to the electrical industry,
his experimentation went far beyond the light bulb. Edison was quite possibly the greatest inventor of the
turn of the century, saying famously that he “hoped to have a minor invention every ten days and a big
thing every month or so.” He registered 1,093 patents over his lifetime and ran a world-famous laboratory,
Menlo Park, which housed a rotating group of up to twenty-five scientists from around the globe.
Edison became interested in the telegraph industry as a boy, when he worked aboard trains selling candy
and newspapers. He soon began tinkering with telegraph technology and, by 1876, had devoted himself
full time to lab work as an inventor. He then proceeded to invent a string of items that are still used today:
the phonograph, the mimeograph machine, the motion picture projector, the dictaphone, and the storage
battery, all using a factory-oriented assembly line process that made the rapid production of inventions
possible.
Figure 18.5 Thomas Alva Edison was the quintessential inventor of the era, with a passion for new ideas and over
one thousand patents to his name. Seen here with his incandescent light bulb, which he invented in 1879, Edison
produced many inventions that subsequently transformed the country and the world.
In 1879, Edison invented the item that has led to his greatest fame: the incandescent light bulb. He allegedly
explored over six thousand different materials for the filament, before stumbling upon tungsten as the
ideal substance. By 1882, with financial backing largely from financier J. P. Morgan, he had created the
Edison Electric Illuminating Company, which began supplying electrical current to a small number of
customers in New York City. Morgan guided subsequent mergers of Edison’s other enterprises, including
a machine works firm and a lamp company, resulting in the creation of the Edison General Electric
Company in 1889.
The next stage of invention in electric power came about with the contribution of George Westinghouse.
Westinghouse was responsible for making electric lighting possible on a national scale. While Edison
used “direct current” or DC power, which could only extend two miles from the power source, in 1886,
Westinghouse invented “alternating current” or AC power, which allowed for delivery over greater
distances due to its wavelike patterns. The Westinghouse Electric Company delivered AC power, which
meant that factories, homes, and farms—in short, anything that needed power—could be served,
regardless of their proximity to the power source. A public relations battle ensued between the
Westinghouse and Edison camps, coinciding with the invention of the electric chair as a form of prisoner
execution. Edison publicly proclaimed AC power to be best adapted for use in the chair, in the hope that
such a smear campaign would result in homeowners becoming reluctant to use AC power in their houses.
Although Edison originally fought the use of AC power in other devices, he reluctantly adapted to it as its
popularity increased.

Click and Explore
Not all of Edison’s ventures were successful. Read about Edison’s Folly
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/edisonfail) to learn the story behind his greatest failure.
Was there some benefit to his efforts? Or was it wasted time and money?

• Explain how the inventions of the late nineteenth century contributed directly to
industrial growth in America
• Identify the contributions of Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller, and J. P. Morgan to
the new industrial order emerging in the late nineteenth century
• Describe the visions, philosophies, and business methods of the leaders of the new
industrial order
As discussed previously, new processes in steel refining, along with inventions in the fields of
communications and electricity, transformed the business landscape of the nineteenth century. The
exploitation of these new technologies provided opportunities for tremendous growth, and business
entrepreneurs with financial backing and the right mix of business acumen and ambition could make their
fortunes. Some of these new millionaires were known in their day as robber barons, a negative term that
connoted the belief that they exploited workers and bent laws to succeed. Regardless of how they were
perceived, these businessmen and the companies they created revolutionized American industry.
RAILROADS AND ROBBER BARONS

Earlier in the nineteenth century, the first transcontinental railroad and subsequent spur lines paved
the way for rapid and explosive railway growth, as well as stimulated growth in the iron, wood, coal,
and other related industries. The railroad industry quickly became the nation’s first “big business.” A
powerful, inexpensive, and consistent form of transportation, railroads accelerated the development of
virtually every other industry in the country. By 1890, railroad lines covered nearly every corner of the
United States, bringing raw materials to industrial factories and finished goods to consumer markets. The
amount of track grew from 35,000 miles at the end of the Civil War to over 200,000 miles by the close of the
century. Inventions such as car couplers, air brakes, and Pullman passenger cars allowed the volume of
both freight and people to increase steadily. From 1877 to 1890, both the amount of goods and the number
of passengers traveling the rails tripled.
Financing for all of this growth came through a combination of private capital and government loans
and grants. Federal and state loans of cash and land grants totaled $150 million and 185 million acres of
public land, respectively. Railroads also listed their stocks and bonds on the New York Stock Exchange to
attract investors from both within the United States and Europe. Individual investors consolidated their
power as railroads merged and companies grew in size and power. These individuals became some of the
wealthiest Americans the country had ever known. Midwest farmers, angry at large railroad owners for
their exploitative business practices, came to refer to them as “robber barons,” as their business dealings
were frequently shady and exploitative. Among their highly questionable tactics was the practice of
differential shipping rates, in which larger business enterprises received discounted rates to transport their
goods, as opposed to local producers and farmers whose higher rates essentially subsidized the discounts.
Jay Gould was perhaps the first prominent railroad magnate to be tarred with the “robber baron” brush.
He bought older, smaller, rundown railroads, offered minimal improvements, and then capitalized on
factory owners’ desires to ship their goods on this increasingly popular and more cost-efficient form
of transportation. His work with the Erie Railroad was notorious among other investors, as he drove
the company to near ruin in a failed attempt to attract foreign investors during a takeover attempt. His
model worked better in the American West, where the railroads were still widely scattered across the
country, forcing farmers and businesses to pay whatever prices Gould demanded in order to use his trains.
In addition to owning the Union Pacific Railroad that helped to construct the original transcontinental
railroad line, Gould came to control over ten thousand miles of track across the United States, accounting
for 15 percent of all railroad transportation. When he died in 1892, Gould had a personal worth of over
$100 million, although he was a deeply unpopular figure.
In contrast to Gould’s exploitative business model, which focused on financial profit more than on tangible
industrial contributions, Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt was a “robber baron” who truly cared about
the success of his railroad enterprise and its positive impact on the American economy. Vanderbilt
consolidated several smaller railroad lines, called trunk lines, to create the powerful New York Central
Railroad Company, one of the largest corporations in the United States at the time (Figure 18.6). He later
purchased stock in the major rail lines that would connect his company to Chicago, thus expanding his
reach and power while simultaneously creating a railroad network to connect Chicago to New York City.
This consolidation provided more efficient connections from Midwestern suppliers to eastern markets. It
was through such consolidation that, by 1900, seven major railroad tycoons controlled over 70 percent of
all operating lines. Vanderbilt’s personal wealth at his death (over $100 million in 1877), placed him among
the top three wealthiest individuals in American history.
Figure 18.6 “The Great Race for the Western Stakes,” a Currier & Ives lithograph from 1870, depicts one of
Cornelius Vanderbilt’s rare failed attempts at further consolidating his railroad empire, when he lost his 1866–1868
battle with James Fisk, Jay Gould, and Daniel Drew for control of the Erie Railway Company.
GIANTS OF WEALTH: CARNEGIE, ROCKEFELLER, AND MORGAN

The post-Civil War inventors generated ideas that transformed the economy, but they were not big
businessmen. The evolution from technical innovation to massive industry took place at the hands of the
entrepreneurs whose business gambles paid off, making them some of the richest Americans of their day.
Steel magnate Andrew Carnegie, oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, and business financier J. P. Morgan were
all businessmen who grew their respective businesses to a scale and scope that were unprecedented. Their
companies changed how Americans lived and worked, and they themselves greatly influenced the growth
of the country.

Andrew Carnegie and The Gospel of Wealth

Andrew Carnegie, steel magnate, has the prototypical rags-to-riches story. Although such stories
resembled more myth than reality, they served to encourage many Americans to seek similar paths to
fame and fortune. In Carnegie, the story was one of few derived from fact. Born in Scotland, Carnegie
immigrated with his family to Pennsylvania in 1848. Following a brief stint as a “bobbin boy,” changing
spools of thread at a Pittsburgh clothing manufacturer at age thirteen, he subsequently became a telegram
messenger boy. As a messenger, he spent much of his time around the Pennsylvania Railroad office and
developed parallel interests in railroads, bridge building, and, eventually, the steel industry.
Ingratiating himself to his supervisor and future president of the Pennsylvania Railroad, Tom Scott,
Carnegie worked his way into a position of management for the company and subsequently began to
invest some of his earnings, with Scott’s guidance. One particular investment, in the booming oil fields
of northwest Pennsylvania in 1864, resulted in Carnegie earning over $1 million in cash dividends, thus
providing him with the capital necessary to pursue his ambition to modernize the iron and steel industries,
transforming the United States in the process. Having seen firsthand during the Civil War, when he served
as Superintendent of Military Railways and telegraph coordinator for the Union forces, the importance of
industry, particularly steel, to the future growth of the country, Carnegie was convinced of his strategy.
His first company was the J. Edgar Thompson Steel Works, and, a decade later, he bought out the newly
built Homestead Steel Works from the Pittsburgh Bessemer Steel Company. By the end of the century, his
enterprise was running an annual profit in excess of $40 million (Figure 18.7).
Figure 18.7 Andrew Carnegie made his fortune in steel at such factories as the Carnegie Steel Works located in
Youngstown, Ohio, where new technologies allowed the strong metal to be used in far more applications than ever
before. Carnegie’s empire grew to include iron ore mines, furnaces, mills, and steel works companies.
Although not a scientific expert in steel, Carnegie was an excellent promoter and salesman, able to
locate financial backing for his enterprise. He was also shrewd in his calculations on consolidation and
expansion, and was able to capitalize on smart business decisions. Always thrifty with the profits he
earned, a trait owed to his upbringing, Carnegie saved his profits during prosperous times and used them
to buy out other steel companies at low prices during the economic recessions of the 1870s and 1890s. He
insisted on up-to-date machinery and equipment, and urged the men who worked at and managed his
steel mills to constantly think of innovative ways to increase production and reduce cost.
Carnegie, more than any other businessman of the era, championed the idea that America’s leading
tycoons owed a debt to society. He believed that, given the circumstances of their successes, they should
serve as benefactors to the less fortunate public. For Carnegie, poverty was not an abstract concept, as his
family had been a part of the struggling masses. He desired to set an example of philanthropy for all other
prominent industrialists of the era to follow. Carnegie’s famous essay, The Gospel of Wealth, featured below,
expounded on his beliefs. In it, he borrowed from Herbert Spencer’s theory of social Darwinism, which
held that society developed much like plant or animal life through a process of evolution in which the most
fit and capable enjoyed the greatest material and social success.
MY STORY
Andrew Carnegie on Wealth
Carnegie applauded American capitalism for creating a society where, through hard work, ingenuity, and
a bit of luck, someone like himself could amass a fortune. In return for that opportunity, Carnegie wrote
that the wealthy should find proper uses for their wealth by funding hospitals, libraries, colleges, the arts,
and more. The Gospel of Wealth spelled out that responsibility.
Poor and restricted are our opportunities in this life; narrow our horizon; our best work most
imperfect; but rich men should be thankful for one inestimable boon. They have it in their
power during their lives to busy themselves in organizing benefactions from which the masses
of their fellows will derive lasting advantage, and thus dignify their own lives. . . .
This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of Wealth: First, to set an example of modest,
unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the
legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and after doing so to consider all surplus
revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer,
and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is
best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community—the man of wealth
thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his
superior wisdom, experience and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would
or could do for themselves. . . .
In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help those who will help themselves;
to provide part of the means by which those who desire to improve may do so; to give those
who desire to use the aids by which they may rise; to assist, but rarely or never to do all.
Neither the individual nor the race is improved by alms-giving. Those worthy of assistance,
except in rare cases, seldom require assistance. The really valuable men of the race never
do, except in cases of accident or sudden change. Every one has, of course, cases of
individuals brought to his own knowledge where temporary assistance can do genuine good,
and these he will not overlook. But the amount which can be wisely given by the individual
for individuals is necessarily limited by his lack of knowledge of the circumstances connected
with each. He is the only true reformer who is as careful and as anxious not to aid the
unworthy as he is to aid the worthy, and, perhaps, even more so, for in alms-giving more injury
is probably done by rewarding vice than by relieving virtue.
—Andrew Carnegie, The Gospel of Wealth
Social Darwinism added a layer of pseudoscience to the idea of the self-made man, a desirable thought
for all who sought to follow Carnegie’s example. The myth of the rags-to-riches businessman was a potent
one. Author Horatio Alger made his own fortune writing stories about young enterprising boys who
beat poverty and succeeded in business through a combination of “luck and pluck.” His stories were
immensely popular, even leading to a board game (Figure 18.8) where players could hope to win in the
same way that his heroes did.

Figure 18.8 Based on a book by Horatio Alger, District Messenger Boy was a board game where players could
achieve the ultimate goal of material success. Alger wrote hundreds of books on a common theme: A poor but
hardworking boy can get ahead and make his fortune through a combination of “luck and pluck.”
John D. Rockefeller and Business Integration Models

Like Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller was born in 1839 of modest means, with a frequently absent traveling
salesman of a father who sold medicinal elixirs and other wares. Young Rockefeller helped his mother
with various chores and earned extra money for the family through the sale of family farm products.
When the family moved to a suburb of Cleveland in 1853, he had an opportunity to take accounting and
bookkeeping courses while in high school and developed a career interest in business. While living in
Cleveland in 1859, he learned of Colonel Edwin Drake who had struck “black gold,” or oil, near Titusville,
Pennsylvania, setting off a boom even greater than the California Gold Rush of the previous decade. Many
sought to find a fortune through risky and chaotic “wildcatting,” or drilling exploratory oil wells, hoping
to strike it rich. But Rockefeller chose a more certain investment: refining crude oil into kerosene, which
could be used for both heating and lamps. As a more efficient source of energy, as well as less dangerous to
produce, kerosene quickly replaced whale oil in many businesses and homes. Rockefeller worked initially
with family and friends in the refining business located in the Cleveland area, but by 1870, Rockefeller
ventured out on his own, consolidating his resources and creating the Standard Oil Company of Ohio,
initially valued at $1 million.
Rockefeller was ruthless in his pursuit of total control of the oil refining business. As other entrepreneurs
flooded the area seeking a quick fortune, Rockefeller developed a plan to crush his competitors and
create a true monopoly in the refining industry. Beginning in 1872, he forged agreements with several
large railroad companies to obtain discounted freight rates for shipping his product. He also used the
railroad companies to gather information on his competitors. As he could now deliver his kerosene at
lower prices, he drove his competition out of business, often offering to buy them out for pennies on
the dollar. He hounded those who refused to sell out to him, until they were driven out of business.
Through his method of growth via mergers and acquisitions of similar companies—known as horizontal
integration —Standard Oil grew to include almost all refineries in the area. By 1879, the Standard Oil
Company controlled nearly 95 percent of all oil refining businesses in the country, as well as 90 percent of
all the refining businesses in the world. Editors of the New York World lamented of Standard Oil in 1880
that, “When the nineteenth century shall have passed into history, the impartial eyes of the reviewers will
be amazed to find that the U.S. . . . tolerated the presence of the most gigantic, the most cruel, impudent,
pitiless and grasping monopoly that ever fastened itself upon a country.”
Seeking still more control, Rockefeller recognized the advantages of controlling the transportation of his
product. He next began to grow his company through vertical integration, wherein a company handles
all aspects of a product’s lifecycle, from the creation of raw materials through the production process to
the delivery of the final product. In Rockefeller’s case, this model required investment and acquisition of
companies involved in everything from barrel-making to pipelines, tanker cars to railroads. He came to
own almost every type of business and used his vast power to drive competitors from the market through
intense price wars. Although vilified by competitors who suffered from his takeovers and considered him
to be no better than a robber baron, several observers lauded Rockefeller for his ingenuity in integrating
the oil refining industry and, as a result, lowering kerosene prices by as much as 80 percent by the end
of the century. Other industrialists quickly followed suit, including Gustavus Swift, who used vertical
integration to dominate the U.S. meatpacking industry in the late nineteenth century.
In order to control the variety of interests he now maintained in industry, Rockefeller created a new legal
entity, known as a trust. In this arrangement, a small group of trustees possess legal ownership of a
business that they operate for the benefit of other investors. In 1882, all thirty-seven stockholders in the
various Standard Oil enterprises gave their stock to nine trustees who were to control and direct all of
the company’s business ventures. State and federal challenges arose, due to the obvious appearance of
a monopoly, which implied sole ownership of all enterprises composing an entire industry. When the
Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the Standard Oil Company must dissolve, as its monopoly control over
all refining operations in the U.S. was in violation of state and federal statutes, Rockefeller shifted to yet
another legal entity, called a holding company model. The holding company model created a central
corporate entity that controlled the operations of multiple companies by holding the majority of stock
for each enterprise. While not technically a “trust” and therefore not vulnerable to anti-monopoly laws,
this consolidation of power and wealth into one entity was on par with a monopoly; thus, progressive
reformers of the late nineteenth century considered holding companies to epitomize the dangers inherent
in capitalistic big business, as can be seen in the political cartoon below (Figure 18.9). Impervious to
reformers’ misgivings, other businessmen followed Rockefeller’s example. By 1905, over three hundred
business mergers had occurred in the United States, affecting more than 80 percent of all industries. By
that time, despite passage of federal legislation such as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1890, 1 percent of
the country’s businesses controlled over 40 percent of the nation’s economy.

Figure 18.9 John D. Rockefeller, like Carnegie, grew from modest means to a vast fortune. Unlike Carnegie,
however, his business practices were often predatory and aggressive. This cartoon from the era shows how his
conglomerate, Standard Oil, was perceived by progressive reformers and other critics.
Click and Explore
The PBS video on Robber Barons or Industrial Giants (http://openstaxcollege.org/

l/barons1) presents a lively discussion of whether the industrialists of the nineteenth
century were really “robber barons” or if they were “industrial giants.”
J. Pierpont Morgan
Unlike Carnegie and Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan was no rags-to-riches hero. He was born to wealth and
became much wealthier as an investment banker, making wise financial decisions in support of the hard-
working entrepreneurs building their fortunes. Morgan’s father was a London banker, and Morgan the
son moved to New York in 1857 to look after the family’s business interests there. Once in America, he
separated from the London bank and created the J. Pierpont Morgan and Company financial firm. The
firm bought and sold stock in growing companies, investing the family’s wealth in those that showed great
promise, turning an enormous profit as a result. Investments from firms such as his were the key to the
success stories of up-and-coming businessmen like Carnegie and Rockefeller. In return for his investment,
Morgan and other investment bankers demanded seats on the companies’ boards, which gave them
even greater control over policies and decisions than just investment alone. There were many critics of
Morgan and these other bankers, particularly among members of a U.S. congressional subcommittee who
investigated the control that financiers maintained over key industries in the country. The subcommittee
referred to Morgan’s enterprise as a form of “money trust” that was even more powerful than the trusts
operated by Rockefeller and others. Morgan argued that his firm, and others like it, brought stability and
organization to a hypercompetitive capitalist economy, and likened his role to a kind of public service.
Ultimately, Morgan’s most notable investment, and greatest consolidation, was in the steel industry,
when he bought out Andrew Carnegie in 1901. Initially, Carnegie was reluctant to sell, but after repeated
badgering by Morgan, Carnegie named his price: an outrageously inflated sum of $500 million. Morgan
agreed without hesitation, and then consolidated Carnegie’s holdings with several smaller steel firms
to create the U.S. Steel Corporation. U.S. Steel was subsequently capitalized at $1.4 billion. It was the
country’s first billion-dollar firm. Lauded by admirers for the efficiency and modernization he brought
to investment banking practices, as well as for his philanthropy and support of the arts, Morgan was
also criticized by reformers who subsequently blamed his (and other bankers’) efforts for contributing to
the artificial bubble of prosperity that eventually burst in the Great Depression of the 1930s. What none
could doubt was that Morgan’s financial aptitude and savvy business dealings kept him in good stead.
A subsequent U.S. congressional committee, in 1912, reported that his firm held 341 directorships in 112
corporations that controlled over $22 billion in assets. In comparison, that amount of wealth was greater
than the assessed value of all the land in the United States west of the Mississippi River.

• Explain the qualities of industrial working-class life in the late nineteenth century
• Analyze both workers’ desire for labor unions and the reasons for unions’ inability to
achieve their goals
The growth of the American economy in the last half of the nineteenth century presented a paradox. The
standard of living for many American workers increased. As Carnegie said in The Gospel of Wealth, “the
poor enjoy what the rich could not before afford. What were the luxuries have become the necessaries of
life. The laborer has now more comforts than the landlord had a few generations ago.” In many ways,
Carnegie was correct. The decline in prices and the cost of living meant that the industrial era offered many
Americans relatively better lives in 1900 than they had only decades before. For some Americans, there
were also increased opportunities for upward mobility. For the multitudes in the working class, however,
conditions in the factories and at home remained deplorable. The difficulties they faced led many workers
to question an industrial order in which a handful of wealthy Americans built their fortunes on the backs
of workers.
WORKING-CLASS LIFE
Between the end of the Civil War and the turn of the century, the American workforce underwent a
transformative shift. In 1865, nearly 60 percent of Americans still lived and worked on farms; by the early
1900s, that number had reversed itself, and only 40 percent still lived in rural areas, with the remainder
living and working in urban and early suburban areas. A significant number of these urban and suburban
dwellers earned their wages in factories. Advances in farm machinery allowed for greater production with
less manual labor, thus leading many Americans to seek job opportunities in the burgeoning factories in
the cities. Not surprisingly, there was a concurrent trend of a decrease in American workers being self-
employed and an increase of those working for others and being dependent on a factory wage system for
their living.
Yet factory wages were, for the most part, very low. In 1900, the average factory wage was approximately
twenty cents per hour, for an annual salary of barely six hundred dollars. According to some historical
estimates, that wage left approximately 20 percent of the population in industrialized cities at, or below,
the poverty level. An average factory work week was sixty hours, ten hours per day, six days per week,
although in steel mills, the workers put in twelve hours per day, seven days a week. Factory owners had
little concern for workers’ safety. According to one of the few available accurate measures, as late as 1913,
nearly 25,000 Americans lost their lives on the job, while another 700,000 workers suffered from injuries
that resulted in at least one missed month of work. Another element of hardship for workers was the
increasingly dehumanizing nature of their work. Factory workers executed repetitive tasks throughout the

long hours of their shifts, seldom interacting with coworkers or supervisors. This solitary and repetitive
work style was a difficult adjustment for those used to more collaborative and skill-based work, whether
on farms or in crafts shops. Managers embraced Fredrick Taylor’s principles of scientific management,
also called “stop-watch management,” where he used stop-watch studies to divide manufacturing tasks
into short, repetitive segments. A mechanical engineer by training, Taylor encouraged factory owners to
seek efficiency and profitability over any benefits of personal interaction. Owners adopted this model,
effectively making workers cogs in a well-oiled machine.
One result of the new breakdown of work processes was that factory owners were able to hire women
and children to perform many of the tasks. From 1870 through 1900, the number of women working
outside the home tripled. By the end of this period, five million American women were wage earners, with
one-quarter of them working factory jobs. Most were young, under twenty-five, and either immigrants
themselves or the daughters of immigrants. Their foray into the working world was not seen as a step
towards empowerment or equality, but rather a hardship born of financial necessity. Women’s factory
work tended to be in clothing or textile factories, where their appearance was less offensive to men who
felt that heavy industry was their purview. Other women in the workforce worked in clerical positions as
bookkeepers and secretaries, and as salesclerks. Not surprisingly, women were paid less than men, under
the pretense that they should be under the care of a man and did not require a living wage.
Factory owners used the same rationale for the exceedingly low wages they paid to children. Children
were small enough to fit easily among the machines and could be hired for simple work for a fraction of an
adult man’s pay. The image below (Figure 18.10) shows children working the night shift in a glass factory.
From 1870 through 1900, child labor in factories tripled. Growing concerns among progressive reformers
over the safety of women and children in the workplace would eventually result in the development
of political lobby groups. Several states passed legislative efforts to ensure a safe workplace, and the
lobby groups pressured Congress to pass protective legislation. However, such legislation would not be
forthcoming until well into the twentieth century. In the meantime, many working-class immigrants still
desired the additional wages that child and women labor produced, regardless of the harsh working
conditions.
Figure 18.10 A photographer took this image of children working in a New York glass factory at midnight. There, as
in countless other factories around the country, children worked around the clock in difficult and dangerous
conditions.
WORKER PROTESTS AND VIOLENCE

Workers were well aware of the vast discrepancy between their lives and the wealth of the factory
owners. Lacking the assets and legal protection needed to organize, and deeply frustrated, some working
communities erupted in spontaneous violence. The coal mines of eastern Pennsylvania and the railroad
yards of western Pennsylvania, central to both respective industries and home to large, immigrant,
working enclaves, saw the brunt of these outbursts. The combination of violence, along with several other
factors, blunted any significant efforts to organize workers until well into the twentieth century.
Business owners viewed organization efforts with great mistrust, capitalizing upon widespread anti-union
sentiment among the general public to crush unions through open shops, the use of strikebreakers, yellow-
dog contracts (in which the employee agrees to not join a union as a pre-condition of employment), and
other means. Workers also faced obstacles to organization associated with race and ethnicity, as questions
arose on how to address the increasing number of low-paid African American workers, in addition to
the language and cultural barriers introduced by the large wave of southeastern European immigration
to the United States. But in large part, the greatest obstacle to effective unionization was the general
public’s continued belief in a strong work ethic and that an individual work ethic—not organizing into
radical collectives—would reap its own rewards. As violence erupted, such events seemed only to confirm
widespread popular sentiment that radical, un-American elements were behind all union efforts.
In the 1870s, Irish coal miners in eastern Pennsylvania formed a secret organization known as the Molly
Maguires, named for the famous Irish patriot. Through a series of scare tactics that included kidnappings,
beatings, and even murder, the Molly Maguires sought to bring attention to the miners’ plight, as well as
to cause enough damage and concern to the mine owners that the owners would pay attention to their
concerns. Owners paid attention, but not in the way that the protesters had hoped. They hired detectives
to pose as miners and mingle among the workers to obtain the names of the Molly Maguires. By 1875,
they had acquired the names of twenty-four suspected Maguires, who were subsequently convicted of
murder and violence against property. All were convicted and ten were hanged in 1876, at a public “Day
of the Rope.” This harsh reprisal quickly crushed the remaining Molly Maguires movement. The only
substantial gain the workers had from this episode was the knowledge that, lacking labor organization,
sporadic violent protest would be met by escalated violence.
Public opinion was not sympathetic towards labor’s violent methods as displayed by the Molly Maguires.
But the public was further shocked by some of the harsh practices employed by government agents to
crush the labor movement, as seen the following year in the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. After incurring
a significant pay cut earlier that year, railroad workers in West Virginia spontaneously went on strike
and blocked the tracks (Figure 18.11). As word spread of the event, railroad workers across the country
joined in sympathy, leaving their jobs and committing acts of vandalism to show their frustration with the
ownership. Local citizens, who in many instances were relatives and friends, were largely sympathetic to
the railroad workers’ demands.

Figure 18.11 This engraving of the “Blockade of Engines at Martinsburg, West Virginia” appeared on the front cover
of Harper’s Weekly on August 11, 1877, while the Great Railroad Strike was still underway.
The most significant violent outbreak of the railroad strike occurred in Pittsburgh, beginning on July
19. The governor ordered militiamen from Philadelphia to the Pittsburgh roundhouse to protect railroad
property. The militia opened fire to disperse the angry crowd and killed twenty individuals while
wounding another twenty-nine. A riot erupted, resulting in twenty-four hours of looting, violence, fire,
and mayhem, and did not die down until the rioters wore out in the hot summer weather. In a subsequent
skirmish with strikers while trying to escape the roundhouse, militiamen killed another twenty
individuals. Violence erupted in Maryland and Illinois as well, and President Hayes eventually sent
federal troops into major cities to restore order. This move, along with the impending return of cooler
weather that brought with it the need for food and fuel, resulted in striking workers nationwide returning
to the railroad. The strike had lasted for forty-five days, and they had gained nothing but a reputation
for violence and aggression that left the public less sympathetic than ever. Dissatisfied laborers began to
realize that there would be no substantial improvement in their quality of life until they found a way to
better organize themselves.
WORKER ORGANIZATION AND THE STRUGGLES OF UNIONS

Prior to the Civil War, there were limited efforts to create an organized labor movement on any large scale.
With the majority of workers in the country working independently in rural settings, the idea of organized
labor was not largely understood. But, as economic conditions changed, people became more aware of
the inequities facing factory wage workers. By the early 1880s, even farmers began to fully recognize the
strength of unity behind a common cause.
Models of Organizing: The Knights of Labor and American Federation of Labor

In 1866, seventy-seven delegates representing a variety of different occupations met in Baltimore to
form the National Labor Union (NLU). The NLU had ambitious ideas about equal rights for African
Americans and women, currency reform, and a legally mandated eight-hour workday. The organization
was successful in convincing Congress to adopt the eight-hour workday for federal employees, but their
reach did not progress much further. The Panic of 1873 and the economic recession that followed as a
result of overspeculation on railroads and the subsequent closing of several banks—during which workers
actively sought any employment regardless of the conditions or wages—as well as the death of the NLU’s
founder, led to a decline in their efforts.
A combination of factors contributed to the debilitating Panic of 1873, which triggered what the public
referred to at the time as the “Great Depression” of the 1870s. Most notably, the railroad boom that had
occurred from 1840 to 1870 was rapidly coming to a close. Overinvestment in the industry had extended
many investors’ capital resources in the form of railroad bonds. However, when several economic
developments in Europe affected the value of silver in America, which in turn led to a de facto gold
standard that shrunk the U.S. monetary supply, the amount of cash capital available for railroad
investments rapidly declined. Several large business enterprises were left holding their wealth in all but
worthless railroad bonds. When Jay Cooke & Company, a leader in the American banking industry,
declared bankruptcy on the eve of their plans to finance the construction of a new transcontinental
railroad, the panic truly began. A chain reaction of bank failures culminated with the New York Stock
Exchange suspending all trading for ten days at the end of September 1873. Within a year, over one
hundred railroad enterprises had failed; within two years, nearly twenty thousand businesses had failed.
The loss of jobs and wages sent workers throughout the United States seeking solutions and clamoring for
scapegoats.
Although the NLU proved to be the wrong effort at the wrong time, in the wake of the Panic of 1873
and the subsequent frustration exhibited in the failed Molly Maguires uprising and the national railroad
strike, another, more significant, labor organization emerged. The Knights of Labor (KOL) was more able
to attract a sympathetic following than the Molly Maguires and others by widening its base and appealing
to more members. Philadelphia tailor Uriah Stephens grew the KOL from a small presence during the
Panic of 1873 to an organization of national importance by 1878. That was the year the KOL held their
first general assembly, where they adopted a broad reform platform, including a renewed call for an
eight-hour workday, equal pay regardless of gender, the elimination of convict labor, and the creation
of greater cooperative enterprises with worker ownership of businesses. Much of the KOL’s strength
came from its concept of “One Big Union”—the idea that it welcomed all wage workers, regardless of
occupation, with the exception of doctors, lawyers, and bankers. It welcomed women, African Americans,
Native Americans, and immigrants, of all trades and skill levels. This was a notable break from the earlier
tradition of craft unions, which were highly specialized and limited to a particular group. In 1879, a
new leader, Terence V. Powderly, joined the organization, and he gained even more followers due to his
marketing and promotional efforts. Although largely opposed to strikes as effective tactics, through their
sheer size, the Knights claimed victories in several railroad strikes in 1884–1885, including one against
notorious “robber baron” Jay Gould, and their popularity consequently rose among workers. By 1886, the
KOL had a membership in excess of 700,000.
In one night, however, the KOL’s popularity—and indeed the momentum of the labor movement as a
whole—plummeted due to an event known as the Haymarket affair, which occurred on May 4, 1886,
in Chicago’s Haymarket Square (Figure 18.12). There, an anarchist group had gathered in response to a
death at an earlier nationwide demonstration for the eight-hour workday. At the earlier demonstration,
clashes between police and strikers at the International Harvester Company of Chicago led to the death of
a striking worker. The anarchist group decided to hold a protest the following night in Haymarket Square,
and, although the protest was quiet, the police arrived armed for conflict. Someone in the crowd threw a
bomb at the police, killing one officer and injuring another. The seven anarchists speaking at the protest
were arrested and charged with murder. They were sentenced to death, though two were later pardoned
and one committed suicide in prison before his execution.

Figure 18.12 The Haymarket affair, as it was known, began as a rally for the eight-hour workday. But when police
broke it up, someone threw a bomb into the crowd, causing mayhem. The organizers of the rally, although not
responsible, were sentenced to death. The affair and subsequent hangings struck a harsh blow against organized
labor.
The press immediately blamed the KOL as well as Powderly for the Haymarket affair, despite the fact that
neither the organization nor Powderly had anything to do with the demonstration. Combined with the
American public’s lukewarm reception to organized labor as a whole, the damage was done. The KOL
saw its membership decline to barely 100,000 by the end of 1886. Nonetheless, during its brief success, the
Knights illustrated the potential for success with their model of “industrial unionism,” which welcomed
workers from all trades.
AMERICANA
The Haymarket Rally
On May 1, 1886, recognized internationally as a day for labor celebration, labor organizations around
the country engaged in a national rally for the eight-hour workday. While the number of striking workers
varied around the country, estimates are that between 300,000 and 500,000 workers protested in New
York, Detroit, Chicago, and beyond. In Chicago, clashes between police and protesters led the police to
fire into the crowd, resulting in fatalities. Afterward, angry at the deaths of the striking workers, organizers
quickly organized a “mass meeting,” per the poster below (Figure 18.13).
Figure 18.13 This poster invited workers to a meeting denouncing the violence at the labor rally earlier
in the week. Note that the invitation is written in both English and German, evidence of the large role
that the immigrant population played in the labor movement.
While the meeting was intended to be peaceful, a large police presence made itself known, prompting
one of the event organizers to state in his speech, “There seems to prevail the opinion in some quarters
that this meeting has been called for the purpose of inaugurating a riot, hence these warlike preparations
on the part of so-called ‘law and order.’ However, let me tell you at the beginning that this meeting has
not been called for any such purpose. The object of this meeting is to explain the general situation of
the eight-hour movement and to throw light upon various incidents in connection with it.” The mayor
of Chicago later corroborated accounts of the meeting, noted that it was a peaceful rally, but as it was
winding down, the police marched into the crowd, demanding they disperse. Someone in the crowd
threw a bomb, killing one policeman immediately and wounding many others, some of whom died later.
Despite the aggressive actions of the police, public opinion was strongly against the striking laborers.
The New York Times, after the events played out, reported on it with the headline “Rioting and Bloodshed
in the Streets of Chicago: Police Mowed Down with Dynamite.” Other papers echoed the tone and often
exaggerated the chaos, undermining organized labor’s efforts and leading to the ultimate conviction and
hanging of the rally organizers. Labor activists considered those hanged after the Haymarket affair to be
martyrs for the cause and created an informal memorial at their gravesides in Park Forest, Illinois.

Click and Explore
This article about the “Rioting and Bloodshed in the Streets of Chicago”
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/haymarket) reveals how the New York Times reported
on the Haymarket affair. Assess whether the article gives evidence of the information it
lays out. Consider how it portrays the events, and how different, more sympathetic
coverage might have changed the response of the general public towards immigrant
workers and labor unions.
During the effort to establish industrial unionism in the form of the KOL, craft unions had continued to
operate. In 1886, twenty different craft unions met to organize a national federation of autonomous craft
unions. This group became the American Federation of Labor (AFL), led by Samuel Gompers from its
inception until his death in 1924. More so than any of its predecessors, the AFL focused almost all of its
efforts on economic gains for its members, seldom straying into political issues other than those that had a
direct impact upon working conditions. The AFL also kept a strict policy of not interfering in each union’s
individual business. Rather, Gompers often settled disputes between unions, using the AFL to represent
all unions of matters of federal legislation that could affect all workers, such as the eight-hour workday.
By 1900, the AFL had 500,000 members; by 1914, its numbers had risen to one million, and by 1920 they
claimed four million working members. Still, as a federation of craft unions, it excluded many factory
workers and thus, even at its height, represented only 15 percent of the nonfarm workers in the country.
As a result, even as the country moved towards an increasingly industrial age, the majority of American
workers still lacked support, protection from ownership, and access to upward mobility.
The Decline of Labor: The Homestead and Pullman Strikes

While workers struggled to find the right organizational structure to support a union movement in a
society that was highly critical of such worker organization, there came two final violent events at the close
of the nineteenth century. These events, the Homestead Steel Strike of 1892 and the Pullman Strike of 1894,
all but crushed the labor movement for the next forty years, leaving public opinion of labor strikes lower
than ever and workers unprotected.
At the Homestead factory of the Carnegie Steel Company, workers represented by the Amalgamated
Association of Iron and Steel Workers enjoyed relatively good relations with management until Henry
C. Frick became the factory manager in 1889. When the union contract was up for renewal in 1892,
Carnegie—long a champion of living wages for his employees—had left for Scotland and trusted
Frick—noted for his strong anti-union stance—to manage the negotiations. When no settlement was
reached by June 29, Frick ordered a lockout of the workers and hired three hundred Pinkerton detectives to
protect company property. On July 6, as the Pinkertons arrived on barges on the river, union workers along
the shore engaged them in a gunfight that resulted in the deaths of three Pinkertons and six workers. One
week later, the Pennsylvania militia arrived to escort strike-breakers into the factory to resume production.
Although the lockout continued until November, it ended with the union defeated and individual workers
asking for their jobs back. A subsequent failed assassination attempt by anarchist Alexander Berkman on
Frick further strengthened public animosity towards the union.
Two years later, in 1894, the Pullman Strike was another disaster for unionized labor. The crisis began in
the company town of Pullman, Illinois, where Pullman “sleeper” cars were manufactured for America’s
railroads. When the depression of 1893 unfolded in the wake of the failure of several northeastern railroad
companies, mostly due to overconstruction and poor financing, company owner George Pullman fired
three thousand of the factory’s six thousand employees, cut the remaining workers’ wages by an average
of 25 percent, and then continued to charge the same high rents and prices in the company homes and
store where workers were required to live and shop. Workers began the strike on May 11, when Eugene
V. Debs, the president of the American Railway Union, ordered rail workers throughout the country to
stop handling any trains that had Pullman cars on them. In practicality, almost all of the trains fell into
this category, and, therefore, the strike created a nationwide train stoppage, right on the heels of the
depression of 1893. Seeking justification for sending in federal troops, President Grover Cleveland turned
to his attorney general, who came up with a solution: Attach a mail car to every train and then send
in troops to ensure the delivery of the mail. The government also ordered the strike to end; when Debs
refused, he was arrested and imprisoned for his interference with the delivery of U.S. mail. The image
below (Figure 18.14) shows the standoff between federal troops and the workers. The troops protected
the hiring of new workers, thus rendering the strike tactic largely ineffective. The strike ended abruptly on
July 13, with no labor gains and much lost in the way of public opinion.
Figure 18.14 In this photo of the Pullman Strike of 1894, the Illinois National Guard and striking workers face off in
front of a railroad building.

MY STORY
George Estes on the Order of Railroad Telegraphers
The following excerpt is a reflection from George Estes, an organizer and member of the Order of
Railroad Telegraphers, a labor organization at the end of the nineteenth century. His perspective on the
ways that labor and management related to each other illustrates the difficulties at the heart of their
negotiations. He notes that, in this era, the two groups saw each other as enemies and that any gain by
one was automatically a loss by the other.
I have always noticed that things usually have to get pretty bad before they get any better.
When inequities pile up so high that the burden is more than the underdog can bear, he
gets his dander up and things begin to happen. It was that way with the telegraphers’
problem. These exploited individuals were determined to get for themselves better working
conditions—higher pay, shorter hours, less work which might not properly be classed as
telegraphy, and the high and mighty Mr. Fillmore [railroad company president] was not going
to stop them. It was a bitter fight. At the outset, Mr. Fillmore let it be known, by his actions and
comments, that he held the telegraphers in the utmost contempt.
With the papers crammed each day with news of labor strife—and with two great labor
factions at each other’s throats, I am reminded of a parallel in my own early and more active
career. Shortly before the turn of the century, in 1898 and 1899 to be more specific, I occupied
a position with regard to a certain class of skilled labor, comparable to that held by the Lewises
and Greens of today. I refer, of course, to the telegraphers and station agents. These hard-
working gentlemen—servants of the public—had no regular hours, performed a multiplicity
of duties, and, considering the service they rendered, were sorely and inadequately paid. A
telegrapher’s day included a considerable number of chores that present-day telegraphers
probably never did or will do in the course of a day’s work. He used to clean and fill lanterns,
block lights, etc. Used to do the janitor work around the small town depot, stoke the pot-bellied
stove of the waiting-room, sweep the floors, picking up papers and waiting-room litter. . . .
Today, capital and labor seem to understand each other better than they did a generation or
so ago. Capital is out to make money. So is labor—and each is willing to grant the other a
certain amount of tolerant leeway, just so he doesn’t go too far. In the old days there was
a breach as wide as the Pacific separating capital and labor. It wasn’t money altogether
in those days, it was a matter of principle. Capital and labor couldn’t see eye to eye on a
single point. Every gain that either made was at the expense of the other, and was fought
tooth and nail. No difference seemed ever possible of amicable settlement. Strikes were riots.
Murder and mayhem was common. Railroad labor troubles were frequent. The railroads, in
the nineties, were the country’s largest employers. They were so big, so powerful, so perfectly
organized themselves—I mean so in accord among themselves as to what treatment they felt
like offering the man who worked for them—that it was extremely difficult for labor to gain a
single advantage in the struggle for better conditions.
—George Estes, interview with Andrew Sherbert, 1938

• Describe the characteristics of the new consumer culture that emerged at the end of the
nineteenth century
Despite the challenges workers faced in their new roles as wage earners, the rise of industry in the United
States allowed people to access and consume goods as never before. The rise of big business had turned
America into a culture of consumers desperate for time-saving and leisure commodities, where people
could expect to find everything they wanted in shops or by mail order. Gone were the days where the small
general store was the only option for shoppers; at the end of the nineteenth century, people could take a
train to the city and shop in large department stores like Macy’s in New York, Gimbel’s in Philadelphia,
and Marshall Fields in Chicago. Chain stores, like A&P and Woolworth’s, both of which opened in the
1870s, offered options to those who lived farther from major urban areas and clearly catered to classes
other than the wealthy elite. Industrial advancements contributed to this proliferation, as new construction
techniques permitted the building of stores with higher ceilings for larger displays, and the production of
larger sheets of plate glass lent themselves to the development of larger store windows, glass countertops,
and display cases where shoppers could observe a variety of goods at a glance. L. Frank Baum, of Wizard of
Oz fame, later founded the National Association of Window Trimmers in 1898, and began publishing The
Store Window journal to advise businesses on space usage and promotion.
Even families in rural America had new opportunities to purchase a greater variety of products than ever
before, at ever decreasing prices. Those far from chain stores could benefit from the newly developed
business of mail-order catalogs, placing orders by telephone. Aaron Montgomery Ward established the
first significant mail-order business in 1872, with Sears, Roebuck & Company following in 1886. Sears
distributed over 300,000 catalogs annually by 1897, and later broke the one million annual mark in 1907.
Sears in particular understood that farmers and rural Americans sought alternatives to the higher prices
and credit purchases they were forced to endure at small-town country stores. By clearly stating the
prices in his catalog, Richard Sears steadily increased his company’s image of their catalog serving as “the
consumer’s bible.” In the process, Sears, Roebuck & Company supplied much of America’s hinterland with
products ranging from farm supplies to bicycles, toilet paper to automobiles, as seen below in a page from
the catalog (Figure 18.15).
Figure 18.15 This page from the Sears, Roebuck & Co. catalog illustrates how luxuries that would only belong to
wealthy city dwellers were now available by mail order to those all around the country.

The tremendous variety of goods available for sale required businesses to compete for customers in ways
they had never before imagined. Suddenly, instead of a single option for clothing or shoes, customers
were faced with dozens, whether ordered by mail, found at the local chain store, or lined up in massive
rows at department stores. This new level of competition made advertising a vital component of all
businesses. By 1900, American businesses were spending almost $100 million annually on advertising.
Competitors offered “new and improved” models as frequently as possible in order to generate interest.
From toothpaste and mouthwash to books on entertaining guests, new goods were constantly offered.
Newspapers accommodated the demand for advertising by shifting their production to include full-page
advertisements, as opposed to the traditional column width, agate-type advertisements that dominated
mid-nineteenth century newspapers (similar to classified advertisements in today’s publications).
Likewise, professional advertising agencies began to emerge in the 1880s, with experts in consumer
demand bidding for accounts with major firms.
It may seem strange that, at a time when wages were so low, people began buying readily; however, the
slow emergence of a middle class by the end of the century, combined with the growing practice of buying
on credit, presented more opportunities to take part in the new consumer culture. Stores allowed people
to open accounts and purchase on credit, thus securing business and allowing consumers to buy without
ready cash. Then, as today, the risks of buying on credit led many into debt. As advertising expert Roland
Marchand described in his Parable on the Democracy of Goods, in an era when access to products became
more important than access to the means of production, Americans quickly accepted the notion that they
could live a better lifestyle by purchasing the right clothes, the best hair cream, and the shiniest shoes,
regardless of their class. For better or worse, American consumerism had begun.
AMERICANA
Advertising in the Industrial Age: Credit, Luxury, and the
Advent of “New and Improved”
Before the industrial revolution, most household goods were either made at home or purchased locally,
with limited choices. By the end of the nineteenth century, factors such as the population’s move towards
urban centers and the expansion of the railroad changed how Americans shopped for, and perceived,
consumer goods. As mentioned above, advertising took off, as businesses competed for customers.
Many of the elements used widely in nineteenth-century advertisements are familiar. Companies sought
to sell luxury, safety, and, as the ad for the typewriter below shows (Figure 18.16), the allure of the
new-and-improved model. One advertising tactic that truly took off in this era was the option to purchase
on credit. For the first time, mail order and mass production meant that the aspiring middle class could
purchase items that could only be owned previously by the wealthy. While there was a societal stigma
for buying everyday goods on credit, certain items, such as fine furniture or pianos, were considered an
investment in the move toward entry into the middle class.
Figure 18.16 This typewriter advertisement, like others of the era, tried to lure customers by offering a
new model.
Additionally, farmers and housewives purchased farm equipment and sewing machines on credit,
considering these items investments rather than luxuries. For women, the purchase of a sewing machine
meant that a shirt could be made in one hour, instead of fourteen. The Singer Sewing Machine Company
was one of the most aggressive at pushing purchase on credit. They advertised widely, and their “Dollar
Down, Dollar a Week” campaign made them one of the fastest-growing companies in the country.
For workers earning lower wages, these easy credit terms meant that the middle-class lifestyle was
within their reach. Of course, it also meant they were in debt, and changes in wages, illness, or other
unexpected expenses could wreak havoc on a household’s tenuous finances. Still, the opportunity to own
new and luxurious products was one that many Americans, aspiring to improve their place in society,
could not resist.

Key Terms
Haymarket affair the rally and subsequent riot in which several policemen were killed when a bomb
was thrown at a peaceful workers rights rally in Chicago in 1866
holding company a central corporate entity that controls the operations of multiple companies by
holding the majority of stock for each enterprise
horizontal integration method of growth wherein a company grows through mergers and acquisitions
of similar companies
Molly Maguires a secret organization made up of Pennsylvania coal miners, named for the famous Irish
patriot, which worked through a series of scare tactics to bring the plight of the miners to public attention
monopoly the ownership or control of all enterprises comprising an entire industry
robber baron a negative term for the big businessmen who made their fortunes in the massive railroad
boom of the late nineteenth century
scientific management mechanical engineer Fredrick Taylor’s management style, also called “stop-
watch management,” which divided manufacturing tasks into short, repetitive segments and encouraged
factory owners to seek efficiency and profitability over any benefits of personal interaction
social Darwinism Herbert Spencer’s theory, based upon Charles Darwin’s scientific theory, which held
that society developed much like plant or animal life through a process of evolution in which the most fit
and capable enjoyed the greatest material and social success
trust a legal arrangement where a small group of trustees have legal ownership of a business that they
operate for the benefit of other investors
vertical integration a method of growth where a company acquires other companies that include all
aspects of a product’s lifecycle from the creation of the raw materials through the production process to
the delivery of the final product
Summary
Inventors in the late nineteenth century flooded the market with new technological advances. Encouraged
by Great Britain’s Industrial Revolution, and eager for economic development in the wake of the Civil
War, business investors sought the latest ideas upon which they could capitalize, both to transform the
nation as well as to make a personal profit. These inventions were a key piece of the massive shift towards
industrialization that followed. For both families and businesses, these inventions eventually represented
a fundamental change in their way of life. Although the technology spread slowly, it did spread across
the country. Whether it was a company that could now produce ten times more products with new
factories, or a household that could communicate with distant relations, the old way of doing things was
disappearing.
Communication technologies, electric power production, and steel production were perhaps the three
most significant developments of the time. While the first two affected both personal lives and business
development, the latter influenced business growth first and foremost, as the ability to produce large steel
elements efficiently and cost-effectively led to permanently changes in the direction of industrial growth.

As the three tycoons profiled in this section illustrate, the end of the nineteenth century was a period
in history that offered tremendous financial rewards to those who had the right combination of skill,
ambition, and luck. Whether self-made millionaires like Carnegie or Rockefeller, or born to wealth like
Morgan, these men were the lynchpins that turned inventors’ ideas into industrial growth. Steel
production, in particular, but also oil refining techniques and countless other inventions, changed how
industries in the country could operate, allowing them to grow in scale and scope like never before.
It is also critical to note how these different men managed their businesses and ambition. Where Carnegie
felt strongly that it was the job of the wealthy to give back in their lifetime to the greater community,
his fellow tycoons did not necessarily agree. Although he contributed to many philanthropic efforts,
Rockefeller’s financial success was built on the backs of ruined and bankrupt companies, and he came
to be condemned by progressive reformers who questioned the impact on the working class as well as
the dangers of consolidating too much power and wealth into one individual’s hands. Morgan sought
wealth strictly through the investment in, and subsequent purchase of, others’ hard work. Along the way,
the models of management they adopted—horizontal and vertical integration, trusts, holding companies,
and investment brokerages—became commonplace in American businesses. Very quickly, large business
enterprises fell under the control of fewer and fewer individuals and trusts. In sum, their ruthlessness,
their ambition, their generosity, and their management made up the workings of America’s industrial age.

After the Civil War, as more and more people crowded into urban areas and joined the ranks of wage
earners, the landscape of American labor changed. For the first time, the majority of workers were
employed by others in factories and offices in the cities. Factory workers, in particular, suffered from the
inequity of their positions. Owners had no legal restrictions on exploiting employees with long hours in
dehumanizing and poorly paid work. Women and children were hired for the lowest possible wages, but
even men’s wages were barely enough upon which to live.
Poor working conditions, combined with few substantial options for relief, led workers to frustration and
sporadic acts of protest and violence, acts that rarely, if ever, gained them any lasting, positive effects.
Workers realized that change would require organization, and thus began early labor unions that sought
to win rights for all workers through political advocacy and owner engagement. Groups like the National
Labor Union and Knights of Labor both opened their membership to any and all wage earners, male or
female, black or white, regardless of skill. Their approach was a departure from the craft unions of the
very early nineteenth century, which were unique to their individual industries. While these organizations
gained members for a time, they both ultimately failed when public reaction to violent labor strikes turned
opinion against them. The American Federation of Labor, a loose affiliation of different unions, grew in
the wake of these universal organizations, although negative publicity impeded their work as well. In all,
the century ended with the vast majority of American laborers unrepresented by any collective or union,
leaving them vulnerable to the power wielded by factory ownership.

While tensions between owners and workers continued to grow, and wage earners struggled with the
challenges of industrial work, the culture of American consumerism was changing. Greater choice, easier
access, and improved goods at lower prices meant that even lower-income Americans, whether rural and
shopping via mail order, or urban and shopping in large department stores, had more options. These
increased options led to a rise in advertising, as businesses competed for customers. Furthermore, the
opportunity to buy on credit meant that Americans could have their goods, even without ready cash. The
result was a population that had a better standard of living than ever before, even as they went into debt
or worked long factory hours to pay for it.

Review Questions
1. Which of these was not a successful invention 7. What differentiated a “robber baron” from
of the era? other “captains of industry” in late nineteenth-
A. high-powered sewing machines century America?
B. movies with sound
C. frozen foods 8. What was one of the key goals for which
D. typewriters striking workers fought in the late nineteenth
century?
2. What was the major advantage of A. health insurance
Westinghouse’s “alternating current” power B. disability pay
invention? C. an eight-hour workday
A. It was less prone to fire. D. women’s right to hold factory jobs
B. It cost less to produce.
C. It allowed machines to be farther from the 9. Which of the following was not a key goal of
power source. the Knights of Labor?
D. It was not under Edison’s control. A. an end to convict labor
B. a graduated income tax on personal wealth
3. How did the burst of new inventions during C. equal pay regardless of gender
this era fuel the process of urbanization? D. the creation of cooperative business
enterprises
4. Which of the following “robber barons” was
notable for the exploitative way he made his 10. What were the core differences in the
fortune in railroads? methods and agendas of the Knights of Labor and
A. Jay Gould the American Federation of Labor?
B. Cornelius Vanderbilt
C. Andrew Carnegie 11. Which of the following did not contribute to
D. J. Pierpont Morgan the growth of a consumer culture in the United
States at the close of the nineteenth century?
5. Which of the following does not represent one A. personal credit
of the management strategies that John D. B. advertising
Rockefeller used in building his empire? C. greater disposable income
A. horizontal integration D. mail-order catalogs
B. vertical integration
C. social Darwinism 12. Briefly explain Roland Marchand’s argument
D. the holding company model in the Parable of the Democracy of Goods.
6. Why was Rockefeller’s use of horizontal

integration such an effective business tool at this
time? Were his choices legal? Why or why not?

13. Consider the fact that the light bulb and the telephone were invented only three years apart. Although
it took many more years for such devices to find their way into common household use, they eventually
wrought major changes in a relatively brief period of time. What effects did these inventions have on the
lives of those who used them? Are there contemporary analogies in your lifetime of significant changes
due to inventions or technological innovations?
14. Industrialization, immigration, and urbanization all took place on an unprecedented scale during this
era. What were the relationships of these processes to one another? How did each process serve to catalyze
and fuel the others?
15. Describe the various attempts at labor organization in this era, from the Molly Maguires to the Knights
of Labor and American Federation of Labor. How were the goals, philosophies, and tactics of these groups
similar and different? How did their agendas represent the concerns and grievances of their members and
of workers more generally?
16. Describe the various violent clashes between labor and management that occurred during this era.
What do these events reveal about how each group had come to view the other?
17. How did the new industrial order represent both new opportunities and new limitations for rural and
working-class urban Americans?
18. How did the emergent consumer culture change what it meant to be “American” at the turn of the
century?

Chapter 19 The Growing Pains of Urbanization, 1870-1900 545
CHAPTER 19
The Growing Pains of Urbanization,

1870-1900
Figure 19.1 For the millions of immigrants arriving by ship in New York City’s harbor, the sight of the Statue of
Liberty, as in Unveiling the Statue of Liberty (1886) by Edward Moran, stood as a physical representation of the new
freedoms and economic opportunities they hoped to find.
Chapter Outline
19.1 Urbanization and Its Challenges
19.2 The African American “Great Migration” and New European Immigration
19.3 Relief from the Chaos of Urban Life
19.4 Change Reflected in Thought and Writing
Introduction
“We saw the big woman with spikes on her head.” So begins Sadie Frowne’s first memory of arriving in
the United States. Many Americans experienced in their new home what the thirteen-year-old Polish girl
had seen in the silhouette of the Statue of Liberty (Figure 19.1): a wondrous world of new opportunities
fraught with dangers. Sadie and her mother, for instance, had left Poland after her father’s death. Her
mother died shortly thereafter, and Sadie had to find her own way in New York, working in factories and
slowly assimilating to life in a vast multinational metropolis. Her story is similar to millions of others, as
people came to the United States seeking a better future than the one they had at home.
The future they found, however, was often grim. While many believed in the land of opportunity,
the reality of urban life in the United States was more chaotic and difficult than people expected. In
addition to the challenges of language, class, race, and ethnicity, these new arrivals dealt with low wages,
overcrowded buildings, poor sanitation, and widespread disease. The land of opportunity, it seemed, did
not always deliver on its promises.
546 Chapter 19 The Growing Pains of Urbanization, 1870-1900

• Explain the growth of American cities in the late nineteenth century
• Identify the key challenges that Americans faced due to urbanization, as well as some
of the possible solutions to those challenges
Urbanization occurred rapidly in the second half of the nineteenth century in the United States for a
number of reasons. The new technologies of the time led to a massive leap in industrialization, requiring
large numbers of workers. New electric lights and powerful machinery allowed factories to run twenty-
four hours a day, seven days a week. Workers were forced into grueling twelve-hour shifts, requiring them
to live close to the factories.
While the work was dangerous and difficult, many Americans were willing to leave behind the declining
prospects of preindustrial agriculture in the hope of better wages in industrial labor. Furthermore,
problems ranging from famine to religious persecution led a new wave of immigrants to arrive from
central, eastern, and southern Europe, many of whom settled and found work near the cities where they
first arrived. Immigrants sought solace and comfort among others who shared the same language and
customs, and the nation’s cities became an invaluable economic and cultural resource.
Although cities such as Philadelphia, Boston, and New York sprang up from the initial days of colonial
settlement, the explosion in urban population growth did not occur until the mid-nineteenth century
(Figure 19.3). At this time, the attractions of city life, and in particular, employment opportunities,
grew exponentially due to rapid changes in industrialization. Before the mid-1800s, factories, such as the
early textile mills, had to be located near rivers and seaports, both for the transport of goods and the
necessary water power. Production became dependent upon seasonal water flow, with cold, icy winters
all but stopping river transportation entirely. The development of the steam engine transformed this need,
allowing businesses to locate their factories near urban centers. These factories encouraged more and more
Figure 19.2

people to move to urban areas where jobs were plentiful, but hourly wages were often low and the work
was routine and grindingly monotonous.
Figure 19.3 As these panels illustrate, the population of the United States grew rapidly in the late 1800s (a). Much of
this new growth took place in urban areas (defined by the census as twenty-five hundred people or more), and this
urban population, particularly that of major cities (b), dealt with challenges and opportunities that were unknown in
previous generations.
Eventually, cities developed their own unique characters based on the core industry that spurred their
growth. In Pittsburgh, it was steel; in Chicago, it was meat packing; in New York, the garment and
financial industries dominated; and Detroit, by the mid-twentieth century, was defined by the automobiles
it built. But all cities at this time, regardless of their industry, suffered from the universal problems that
rapid expansion brought with it, including concerns over housing and living conditions, transportation,
and communication. These issues were almost always rooted in deep class inequalities, shaped by racial
divisions, religious differences, and ethnic strife, and distorted by corrupt local politics.
Click and Explore
This 1884 Bureau of Labor Statistics report (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

clothingfact) from Boston looks in detail at the wages, living conditions, and moral
code of the girls who worked in the clothing factories there.
THE KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL URBANIZATION

As the country grew, certain elements led some towns to morph into large urban centers, while others
did not. The following four innovations proved critical in shaping urbanization at the turn of the century:
electric lighting, communication improvements, intracity transportation, and the rise of skyscrapers. As
people migrated for the new jobs, they often struggled with the absence of basic urban infrastructures,
such as better transportation, adequate housing, means of communication, and efficient sources of light
and energy. Even the basic necessities, such as fresh water and proper sanitation—often taken for granted
in the countryside—presented a greater challenge in urban life.
Electric Lighting
Thomas Edison patented the incandescent light bulb in 1879. This development quickly became common
in homes as well as factories, transforming how even lower- and middle-class Americans lived. Although
slow to arrive in rural areas of the country, electric power became readily available in cities when the
first commercial power plants began to open in 1882. When Nikola Tesla subsequently developed the AC
(alternating current) system for the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company, power supplies for
lights and other factory equipment could extend for miles from the power source. AC power transformed
the use of electricity, allowing urban centers to physically cover greater areas. In the factories, electric
lights permitted operations to run twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. This increase in production
required additional workers, and this demand brought more people to cities.
Gradually, cities began to illuminate the streets with electric lamps to allow the city to remain alight
throughout the night. No longer did the pace of life and economic activity slow substantially at sunset, the
way it had in smaller towns. The cities, following the factories that drew people there, stayed open all the
time.
Communications Improvements
The telephone, patented in 1876, greatly transformed communication both regionally and nationally.
The telephone rapidly supplanted the telegraph as the preferred form of communication; by 1900, over
1.5 million telephones were in use around the nation, whether as private lines in the homes of some
middle- and upper-class Americans, or jointly used “party lines” in many rural areas. By allowing instant
communication over larger distances at any given time, growing telephone networks made urban sprawl
possible.
In the same way that electric lights spurred greater factory production and economic growth, the telephone
increased business through the more rapid pace of demand. Now, orders could come constantly via
telephone, rather than via mail-order. More orders generated greater production, which in turn required
still more workers. This demand for additional labor played a key role in urban growth, as expanding
companies sought workers to handle the increasing consumer demand for their products.
Intracity Transportation
As cities grew and sprawled outward, a major challenge was efficient travel within the city—from home
to factories or shops, and then back again. Most transportation infrastructure was used to connect cities to
each other, typically by rail or canal. Prior to the 1880s, the most common form of transportation within
cities was the omnibus. This was a large, horse-drawn carriage, often placed on iron or steel tracks to
provide a smoother ride. While omnibuses worked adequately in smaller, less congested cities, they were
not equipped to handle the larger crowds that developed at the close of the century. The horses had to stop
and rest, and horse manure became an ongoing problem.
In 1887, Frank Sprague invented the electric trolley, which worked along the same concept as the omnibus,
with a large wagon on tracks, but was powered by electricity rather than horses. The electric trolley
could run throughout the day and night, like the factories and the workers who fueled them. But it also
modernized less important industrial centers, such as the southern city of Richmond, Virginia. As early as
1873, San Francisco engineers adopted pulley technology from the mining industry to introduce cable cars
and turn the city’s steep hills into elegant middle-class communities. However, as crowds continued to
grow in the largest cities, such as Chicago and New York, trolleys were unable to move efficiently through

the crowds of pedestrians (Figure 19.4). To avoid this challenge, city planners elevated the trolley lines
above the streets, creating elevated trains, or L-trains, as early as 1868 in New York City, and quickly
spreading to Boston in 1887 and Chicago in 1892. Finally, as skyscrapers began to dominate the air,
transportation evolved one step further to move underground as subways. Boston’s subway system began
operating in 1897, and was quickly followed by New York and other cities.
Figure 19.4 Although trolleys were far more efficient than horse-drawn carriages, populous cities such as New York
experienced frequent accidents, as depicted in this 1895 illustration from Leslie’s Weekly (a). To avoid overcrowded
streets, trolleys soon went underground, as at the Public Gardens Portal in Boston (b), where three different lines met
to enter the Tremont Street Subway, the oldest subway tunnel in the United States, opening on September 1, 1897.
The Rise of Skyscrapers

The last limitation that large cities had to overcome was the ever-increasing need for space. Eastern cities,
unlike their midwestern counterparts, could not continue to grow outward, as the land surrounding them
was already settled. Geographic limitations such as rivers or the coast also hampered sprawl. And in all
cities, citizens needed to be close enough to urban centers to conveniently access work, shops, and other
core institutions of urban life. The increasing cost of real estate made upward growth attractive, and so
did the prestige that towering buildings carried for the businesses that occupied them. Workers completed
the first skyscraper in Chicago, the ten-story Home Insurance Building, in 1885 (Figure 19.5). Although
engineers had the capability to go higher, thanks to new steel construction techniques, they required
another vital invention in order to make taller buildings viable: the elevator. In 1889, the Otis Elevator
Company, led by inventor James Otis, installed the first electric elevator. This began the skyscraper craze,
allowing developers in eastern cities to build and market prestigious real estate in the hearts of crowded
eastern metropoles.
Figure 19.5 While the technology existed to engineer tall buildings, it was not until the invention of the electric
elevator in 1889 that skyscrapers began to take over the urban landscape. Shown here is the Home Insurance
Building in Chicago, considered the first modern skyscraper.

DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Jacob Riis and the Window into “How the Other Half Lives”
Jacob Riis was a Danish immigrant who moved to New York in the late nineteenth century and, after
experiencing poverty and joblessness first-hand, ultimately built a career as a police reporter. In the
course of his work, he spent much of his time in the slums and tenements of New York’s working poor.
Appalled by what he found there, Riis began documenting these scenes of squalor and sharing them
through lectures and ultimately through the publication of his book, How the Other Half Lives, in 1890
(Figure 19.6).
Figure 19.6 In photographs such as Bandit’s Roost (1888), taken on Mulberry Street in the infamous
Five Points neighborhood of Manhattan’s Lower East Side, Jacob Riis documented the plight of New
York City slums in the late nineteenth century.
By most contemporary accounts, Riis was an effective storyteller, using drama and racial stereotypes
to tell his stories of the ethnic slums he encountered. But while his racial thinking was very much a
product of his time, he was also a reformer; he felt strongly that upper and middle-class Americans could
and should care about the living conditions of the poor. In his book and lectures, he argued against the
immoral landlords and useless laws that allowed dangerous living conditions and high rents. He also
suggested remodeling existing tenements or building new ones. He was not alone in his concern for the
plight of the poor; other reporters and activists had already brought the issue into the public eye, and
Riis’s photographs added a new element to the story.
To tell his stories, Riis used a series of deeply compelling photographs. Riis and his group of amateur
photographers moved through the various slums of New York, laboriously setting up their tripods and
explosive chemicals to create enough light to take the photographs. His photos and writings shocked
the public, made Riis a well-known figure both in his day and beyond, and eventually led to new state
legislation curbing abuses in tenements.
THE IMMEDIATE CHALLENGES OF URBAN LIFE

Congestion, pollution, crime, and disease were prevalent problems in all urban centers; city planners and
inhabitants alike sought new solutions to the problems caused by rapid urban growth. Living conditions
for most working-class urban dwellers were atrocious. They lived in crowded tenement houses and
cramped apartments with terrible ventilation and substandard plumbing and sanitation. As a result,
disease ran rampant, with typhoid and cholera common. Memphis, Tennessee, experienced waves of
cholera (1873) followed by yellow fever (1878 and 1879) that resulted in the loss of over ten thousand
lives. By the late 1880s, New York City, Baltimore, Chicago, and New Orleans had all introduced sewage
pumping systems to provide efficient waste management. Many cities were also serious fire hazards.
An average working-class family of six, with two adults and four children, had at best a two-bedroom
tenement. By one 1900 estimate, in the New York City borough of Manhattan alone, there were nearly fifty
thousand tenement houses. The photographs of these tenement houses are seen in Jacob Riis’s book, How
the Other Half Lives, discussed in the feature above. Citing a study by the New York State Assembly at
this time, Riis found New York to be the most densely populated city in the world, with as many as eight
hundred residents per square acre in the Lower East Side working-class slums, comprising the Eleventh
and Thirteenth Wards.
Click and Explore
Visit New York City, Tenement Life (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/tenement) to get

an impression of the everyday life of tenement dwellers on Manhattan’s Lower East
Side.
Churches and civic organizations provided some relief to the challenges of working-class city life.
Churches were moved to intervene through their belief in the concept of the social gospel. This philosophy
stated that all Christians, whether they were church leaders or social reformers, should be as concerned
about the conditions of life in the secular world as the afterlife, and the Reverend Washington Gladden
was a major advocate. Rather than preaching sermons on heaven and hell, Gladden talked about social
changes of the time, urging other preachers to follow his lead. He advocated for improvements in daily
life and encouraged Americans of all classes to work together for the betterment of society. His sermons
included the message to “love thy neighbor” and held that all Americans had to work together to help the
masses. As a result of his influence, churches began to include gymnasiums and libraries as well as offer
evening classes on hygiene and health care. Other religious organizations like the Salvation Army and the
Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) expanded their reach in American cities at this time as well.
Beginning in the 1870s, these organizations began providing community services and other benefits to the
urban poor.
In the secular sphere, the settlement house movement of the 1890s provided additional relief. Pioneering
women such as Jane Addams in Chicago and Lillian Wald in New York led this early progressive reform
movement in the United States, building upon ideas originally fashioned by social reformers in England.
With no particular religious bent, they worked to create settlement houses in urban centers where they
could help the working class, and in particular, working-class women, find aid. Their help included child
daycare, evening classes, libraries, gym facilities, and free health care. Addams opened her now-famous
Hull House (Figure 19.7) in Chicago in 1889, and Wald’s Henry Street Settlement opened in New York six
years later. The movement spread quickly to other cities, where they not only provided relief to working-

class women but also offered employment opportunities for women graduating college in the growing
field of social work. Oftentimes, living in the settlement houses among the women they helped, these
college graduates experienced the equivalent of living social classrooms in which to practice their skills,
which also frequently caused friction with immigrant women who had their own ideas of reform and self-
improvement.
Figure 19.7 Jane Addams opened Hull House in Chicago in 1889, offering services and support to the city’s working
poor.
The success of the settlement house movement later became the basis of a political agenda that included
pressure for housing laws, child labor laws, and worker’s compensation laws, among others. Florence
Kelley, who originally worked with Addams in Chicago, later joined Wald’s efforts in New York; together,
they created the National Child Labor Committee and advocated for the subsequent creation of the
Children’s Bureau in the U.S. Department of Labor in 1912. Julia Lathrop—herself a former resident of Hull
House—became the first woman to head a federal government agency, when President William Howard
Taft appointed her to run the bureau. Settlement house workers also became influential leaders in the
women’s suffrage movement as well as the antiwar movement during World War I.
MY STORY
Jane Addams Reflects on the Settlement House Movement
Jane Addams was a social activist whose work took many forms. She is perhaps best known as the
founder of Hull House in Chicago, which later became a model for settlement houses throughout the
country. Here, she reflects on the role that the settlement played.
Life in the Settlement discovers above all what has been called ‘the extraordinary pliability
of human nature,’ and it seems impossible to set any bounds to the moral capabilities
which might unfold under ideal civic and educational conditions. But in order to obtain these
conditions, the Settlement recognizes the need of cooperation, both with the radical and the
conservative, and from the very nature of the case the Settlement cannot limit its friends to
any one political party or economic school.
The Settlement casts side none of those things which cultivated men have come to consider
reasonable and goodly, but it insists that those belong as well to that great body of people
who, because of toilsome and underpaid labor, are unable to procure them for themselves.
Added to this is a profound conviction that the common stock of intellectual enjoyment should
not be difficult of access because of the economic position of him who would approach it, that
those ‘best results of civilization’ upon which depend the finer and freer aspects of living must
be incorporated into our common life and have free mobility through all elements of society if
we would have our democracy endure.
The educational activities of a Settlement, as well its philanthropic, civic, and social
undertakings, are but differing manifestations of the attempt to socialize democracy, as is the
very existence of the Settlement itself.
In addition to her pioneering work in the settlement house movement, Addams also was active in the
women’s suffrage movement as well as an outspoken proponent for international peace efforts. She was
instrumental in the relief effort after World War I, a commitment that led to her winning the Nobel Peace
Prize in 1931.
19.2 The African American “Great Migration” and New European

Immigration

• Identify the factors that prompted African American and European immigration to
American cities in the late nineteenth century
• Explain the discrimination and anti-immigration legislation that immigrants faced in
the late nineteenth century
New cities were populated with diverse waves of new arrivals, who came to the cities to seek work in
the businesses and factories there. While a small percentage of these newcomers were white Americans
seeking jobs, most were made up of two groups that had not previously been factors in the urbanization
movement: African Americans fleeing the racism of the farms and former plantations in the South, and
southern and eastern European immigrants. These new immigrants supplanted the previous waves of
northern and western European immigrants, who had tended to move west to purchase land. Unlike
their predecessors, the newer immigrants lacked the funds to strike out to the western lands and instead
remained in the urban centers where they arrived, seeking any work that would keep them alive.

THE AFRICAN AMERICAN “GREAT MIGRATION”

Between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the Great Depression, nearly two million African
Americans fled the rural South to seek new opportunities elsewhere. While some moved west, the vast
majority of this Great Migration, as the large exodus of African Americans leaving the South in the
early twentieth century was called, traveled to the Northeast and Upper Midwest. The following cities
were the primary destinations for these African Americans: New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis,
Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Indianapolis. These eight cities accounted for over two-thirds of the
total population of the African American migration.
A combination of both “push” and “pull” factors played a role in this movement. Despite the end of
the Civil War and the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution (ensuring freedom, the right to vote regardless of race, and equal protection under the law,
respectively), African Americans were still subjected to intense racial hatred. The rise of the Ku Klux
Klan in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War led to increased death threats, violence, and a wave
of lynchings. Even after the formal dismantling of the Klan in the late 1870s, racially motivated violence
continued. According to researchers at the Tuskegee Institute, there were thirty-five hundred racially
motivated lynchings and other murders committed in the South between 1865 and 1900. For African
Americans fleeing this culture of violence, northern and midwestern cities offered an opportunity to
escape the dangers of the South.
In addition to this “push” out of the South, African Americans were also “pulled” to the cities by factors
that attracted them, including job opportunities, where they could earn a wage rather than be tied to a
landlord, and the chance to vote (for men, at least), supposedly free from the threat of violence. Although
many lacked the funds to move themselves north, factory owners and other businesses that sought cheap
labor assisted the migration. Often, the men moved first then sent for their families once they were
ensconced in their new city life. Racism and a lack of formal education relegated these African American
workers to many of the lower-paying unskilled or semi-skilled occupations. More than 80 percent of
African American men worked menial jobs in steel mills, mines, construction, and meat packing. In the
railroad industry, they were often employed as porters or servants (Figure 19.8). In other businesses, they
worked as janitors, waiters, or cooks. African American women, who faced discrimination due to both
their race and gender, found a few job opportunities in the garment industry or laundries, but were more
often employed as maids and domestic servants. Regardless of the status of their jobs, however, African
Americans earned higher wages in the North than they did for the same occupations in the South, and
typically found housing to be more available.
Figure 19.8 African American men who moved north as part of the Great Migration were often consigned to menial
employment, such as working in construction or as porters on the railways (a), such as in the celebrated Pullman
dining and sleeping cars (b).
However, such economic gains were offset by the higher cost of living in the North, especially in terms
of rent, food costs, and other essentials. As a result, African Americans often found themselves living
in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions, much like the tenement slums in which European immigrants
lived in the cities. For newly arrived African Americans, even those who sought out the cities for the
opportunities they provided, life in these urban centers was exceedingly difficult. They quickly learned
that racial discrimination did not end at the Mason-Dixon Line, but continued to flourish in the North as
well as the South. European immigrants, also seeking a better life in the cities of the United States, resented
the arrival of the African Americans, whom they feared would compete for the same jobs or offer to work
at lower wages. Landlords frequently discriminated against them; their rapid influx into the cities created
severe housing shortages and even more overcrowded tenements. Homeowners in traditionally white
neighborhoods later entered into covenants in which they agreed not to sell to African American buyers;
they also often fled neighborhoods into which African Americans had gained successful entry. In addition,
some bankers practiced mortgage discrimination, later known as “redlining,” in order to deny home loans
to qualified buyers. Such pervasive discrimination led to a concentration of African Americans in some of
the worst slum areas of most major metropolitan cities, a problem that remained ongoing throughout most
of the twentieth century.
So why move to the North, given that the economic challenges they faced were similar to those that
African Americans encountered in the South? The answer lies in noneconomic gains. Greater educational
opportunities and more expansive personal freedoms mattered greatly to the African Americans who
made the trek northward during the Great Migration. State legislatures and local school districts allocated
more funds for the education of both blacks and whites in the North, and also enforced compulsory
school attendance laws more rigorously. Similarly, unlike the South where a simple gesture (or lack of a
deferential one) could result in physical harm to the African American who committed it, life in larger,
crowded northern urban centers permitted a degree of anonymity—and with it, personal freedom—that
enabled African Americans to move, work, and speak without deferring to every white person with whom
they crossed paths. Psychologically, these gains more than offset the continued economic challenges that
black migrants faced.

THE CHANGING NATURE OF EUROPEAN IMMIGRATION

Immigrants also shifted the demographics of the rapidly growing cities. Although immigration had always
been a force of change in the United States, it took on a new character in the late nineteenth century.
Beginning in the 1880s, the arrival of immigrants from mostly southern and eastern European countries
rapidly increased while the flow from northern and western Europe remained relatively constant (Table
19.1).
Table 19.1 Cumulative Total of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States,
1870–1910 (by major country of birth and European region)
Region Country 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910
Northern and Western Europe 4,845,679 5,499,889 7,288,917 7,204,649 7,306,325
Germany 1,690,533 1,966,742 2,784,894 2,663,418 2,311,237
Ireland 1,855,827 1,854,571 1,871,509 1,615,459 1,352,251
England 550,924 662,676 908,141 840,513 877,719
Sweden 97,332 194,337 478,041 582,014 665,207
Austria 30,508 38,663 123,271 275,907 626,341
Norway 114,246 181,729 322,665 336,388 403,877
Scotland 140,835 170,136 242,231 233,524 261,076
Southern and Eastern Europe 93,824 248,620 728,851 1,674,648 4,500,932
Italy 17,157 44,230 182,580 484,027 1,343,125
Russia 4,644 35,722 182,644 423,726 1,184,412
Poland 14,436 48,557 147,440 383,407 937,884
Hungary 3,737 11,526 62,435 145,714 495,609
Czechoslovakia 40,289 85,361 118,106 156,891 219,214
The previous waves of immigrants from northern and western Europe, particularly Germany, Great
Britain, and the Nordic countries, were relatively well off, arriving in the country with some funds and
often moving to the newly settled western territories. In contrast, the newer immigrants from southern and
eastern European countries, including Italy, Greece, and several Slavic countries including Russia, came
over due to “push” and “pull” factors similar to those that influenced the African Americans arriving from
the South. Many were “pushed” from their countries by a series of ongoing famines, by the need to escape
religious, political, or racial persecution, or by the desire to avoid compulsory military service. They were
also “pulled” by the promise of consistent, wage-earning work.
Whatever the reason, these immigrants arrived without the education and finances of the earlier waves
of immigrants, and settled more readily in the port towns where they arrived, rather than setting out to
seek their fortunes in the West. By 1890, over 80 percent of the population of New York would be either
foreign-born or children of foreign-born parentage. Other cities saw huge spikes in foreign populations as
well, though not to the same degree, due in large part to Ellis Island in New York City being the primary
port of entry for most European immigrants arriving in the United States.
The number of immigrants peaked between 1900 and 1910, when over nine million people arrived in the
United States. To assist in the processing and management of this massive wave of immigrants, the Bureau
of Immigration in New York City, which had become the official port of entry, opened Ellis Island in 1892.
Today, nearly half of all Americans have ancestors who, at some point in time, entered the country through
the portal at Ellis Island. Doctors or nurses inspected the immigrants upon arrival, looking for any signs
of infectious diseases (Figure 19.9). Most immigrants were admitted to the country with only a cursory
glance at any other paperwork. Roughly 2 percent of the arriving immigrants were denied entry due to a
medical condition or criminal history. The rest would enter the country by way of the streets of New York,
many unable to speak English and totally reliant on finding those who spoke their native tongue.
Figure 19.9 This photo shows newly arrived immigrants at Ellis Island in New York. Inspectors are examining them
for contagious health problems, which could require them to be sent back. (credit: NIAID)
Seeking comfort in a strange land, as well as a common language, many immigrants sought out relatives,
friends, former neighbors, townspeople, and countrymen who had already settled in American cities. This
led to a rise in ethnic enclaves within the larger city. Little Italy, Chinatown, and many other communities
developed in which immigrant groups could find everything to remind them of home, from local language
newspapers to ethnic food stores. While these enclaves provided a sense of community to their members,
they added to the problems of urban congestion, particularly in the poorest slums where immigrants could
afford housing.
Click and Explore
This Library of Congress exhibit on the history of Jewish immigration

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/jewishimmig) to the United States illustrates the
ongoing challenge immigrants felt between the ties to their old land and a love for
America.
The demographic shift at the turn of the century was later confirmed by the Dillingham Commission,
created by Congress in 1907 to report on the nature of immigration in America; the commission reinforced
this ethnic identification of immigrants and their simultaneous discrimination. The report put it simply:

These newer immigrants looked and acted differently. They had darker skin tone, spoke languages with
which most Americans were unfamiliar, and practiced unfamiliar religions, specifically Judaism and
Catholicism. Even the foods they sought out at butchers and grocery stores set immigrants apart. Because
of these easily identifiable differences, new immigrants became easy targets for hatred and discrimination.
If jobs were hard to find, or if housing was overcrowded, it became easy to blame the immigrants. Like
African Americans, immigrants in cities were blamed for the problems of the day.
Growing numbers of Americans resented the waves of new immigrants, resulting in a backlash. The
Reverend Josiah Strong fueled the hatred and discrimination in his bestselling book, Our Country: Its
Possible Future and Its Present Crisis, published in 1885. In a revised edition that reflected the 1890 census
records, he clearly identified undesirable immigrants—those from southern and eastern European
countries—as a key threat to the moral fiber of the country, and urged all good Americans to face the
challenge. Several thousand Americans answered his call by forming the American Protective Association,
the chief political activist group to promote legislation curbing immigration into the United States. The
group successfully lobbied Congress to adopt both an English language literacy test for immigrants, which
eventually passed in 1917, and the Chinese Exclusion Act (discussed in a previous chapter). The group’s
political lobbying also laid the groundwork for the subsequent Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the
Immigration Act of 1924, as well as the National Origins Act.
Click and Explore
The global timeline of immigration (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/immig1) at the

Library of Congress offers a summary of immigration policies and the groups affected
by it, as well as a compelling overview of different ethnic groups’ immigration stories.
Browse through to see how different ethnic groups made their way in the United
States.

• Identify how each class of Americans—working class, middle class, and upper
class—responded to the challenges associated with urban life
• Explain the process of machine politics and how it brought relief to working-class
Americans
Settlement houses and religious and civic organizations attempted to provide some support to working-
class city dwellers through free health care, education, and leisure opportunities. Still, for urban citizens,
life in the city was chaotic and challenging. But how that chaos manifested and how relief was sought
differed greatly, depending on where people were in the social caste—the working class, the upper
class, or the newly emerging professional middle class—in addition to the aforementioned issues of
race and ethnicity. While many communities found life in the largest American cities disorganized and
overwhelming, the ways they answered these challenges were as diverse as the people who lived there.
Broad solutions emerged that were typically class specific: The rise of machine politics and popular culture
provided relief to the working class, higher education opportunities and suburbanization benefitted
the professional middle class, and reminders of their elite status gave comfort to the upper class. And
everyone, no matter where they fell in the class system, benefited from the efforts to improve the physical
landscapes of the fast-growing urban environment.
THE LIFE AND STRUGGLES OF THE URBAN WORKING CLASS

For the working-class residents of America’s cities, one practical way of coping with the challenges of
urban life was to take advantage of the system of machine politics, while another was to seek relief in the
variety of popular culture and entertainment found in and around cities. Although neither of these forms
of relief was restricted to the working class, they were the ones who relied most heavily on them.
Machine Politics
The primary form of relief for working-class urban Americans, and particularly immigrants, came in the
form of machine politics. This phrase referred to the process by which every citizen of the city, no matter
their ethnicity or race, was a ward resident with an alderman who spoke on their behalf at city hall. When
everyday challenges arose, whether sanitation problems or the need for a sidewalk along a muddy road,
citizens would approach their alderman to find a solution. The aldermen knew that, rather than work
through the long bureaucratic process associated with city hall, they could work within the “machine” of
local politics to find a speedy, mutually beneficial solution. In machine politics, favors were exchanged for
votes, votes were given in exchange for fast solutions, and the price of the solutions included a kickback
to the boss. In the short term, everyone got what they needed, but the process was neither transparent nor
democratic, and it was an inefficient way of conducting the city’s business.
One example of a machine political system was the Democratic political machine Tammany Hall in New
York, run by machine boss William Tweed with assistance from George Washington Plunkitt (Figure
19.10). There, citizens knew their immediate problems would be addressed in return for their promise
of political support in future elections. In this way, machines provided timely solutions for citizens and
votes for the politicians. For example, if in Little Italy there was a desperate need for sidewalks in order
to improve traffic to the stores on a particular street, the request would likely get bogged down in the
bureaucratic red tape at city hall. Instead, store owners would approach the machine. A district captain
would approach the “boss” and make him aware of the problem. The boss would contact city politicians
and strongly urge them to appropriate the needed funds for the sidewalk in exchange for the promise that
the boss would direct votes in their favor in the upcoming election. The boss then used the funds to pay one
of his friends for the sidewalk construction, typically at an exorbitant cost, with a financial kickback to the
boss, which was known as graft. The sidewalk was built more quickly than anyone hoped, in exchange for
the citizens’ promises to vote for machine-supported candidates in the next elections. Despite its corrupt
nature, Tammany Hall essentially ran New York politics from the 1850s until the 1930s. Other large cities,
including Boston, Philadelphia, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Kansas City, made use of political machines as
well.

Figure 19.10 This political cartoon depicts the control of Boss Tweed, of Tammany Hall, over the election process in
New York. Why were people willing to accept the corruption involved in machine politics?
Popular Culture and Entertainment

Working-class residents also found relief in the diverse and omnipresent offerings of popular culture
and entertainment in and around cities. These offerings provided an immediate escape from the squalor
and difficulties of everyday life. As improved means of internal transportation developed, working-class
residents could escape the city and experience one of the popular new forms of entertainment—the
amusement park. For example, Coney Island on the Brooklyn shoreline consisted of several different
amusement parks, the first of which opened in 1895 (Figure 19.11). At these parks, New Yorkers enjoyed
wild rides, animal attractions, and large stage productions designed to help them forget the struggles of
their working-day lives. Freak “side” shows fed the public’s curiosity about physical deviance. For a mere
ten cents, spectators could watch a high-diving horse, take a ride to the moon to watch moon maidens eat
green cheese, or witness the electrocution of an elephant, a spectacle that fascinated the public both with
technological marvels and exotic wildlife. The treatment of animals in many acts at Coney Island and other
public amusement parks drew the attention of middle-class reformers such as the American Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Despite questions regarding the propriety of many of the acts, other
cities quickly followed New York’s lead with similar, if smaller, versions of Coney Island’s attractions.
Figure 19.11 The Dreamland Amusement Park tower was just one of Coney Island’s amusements.
Click and Explore
The American Experience Timeline of Coney Island (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

coney) shows a timeline, photo gallery, and other elements of Coney Island. Look to
see what elements of American culture, from the hot dog to the roller coaster, debuted
there.
Another common form of popular entertainment was vaudeville—large stage variety shows that included
everything from singing, dancing, and comedy acts to live animals and magic. The vaudeville circuit
gave rise to several prominent performers, including magician Harry Houdini, who began his career in
these variety shows before his fame propelled him to solo acts. In addition to live theater shows, it was
primarily working-class citizens who enjoyed the advent of the nickelodeon, a forerunner to the movie
theater. The first nickelodeon opened in Pittsburgh in 1905, where nearly one hundred visitors packed into
a storefront theater to see a traditional vaudeville show interspersed with one-minute film clips. Several
theaters initially used the films as “chasers” to indicate the end of the show to the live audience so they
would clear the auditorium. However, a vaudeville performers’ strike generated even greater interest in
the films, eventually resulting in the rise of modern movie theaters by 1910.
One other major form of entertainment for the working class was professional baseball (Figure 19.12).
Club teams transformed into professional baseball teams with the Cincinnati Red Stockings, now the
Cincinnati Reds, in 1869. Soon, professional teams sprang up in several major American cities. Baseball
games provided an inexpensive form of entertainment, where for less than a dollar, a person could
enjoy a double-header, two hot dogs, and a beer. But more importantly, the teams became a way for
newly relocated Americans and immigrants of diverse backgrounds to develop a unified civic identity, all
cheering for one team. By 1876, the National League had formed, and soon after, cathedral-style ballparks
began to spring up in many cities. Fenway Park in Boston (1912), Forbes Field in Pittsburgh (1909), and the
Polo Grounds in New York (1890) all became touch points where working-class Americans came together
to support a common cause.

Figure 19.12 Boston’s Fenway Park opened in 1912 and was a popular site for working-class Bostonians to spend
their leisure time. The “Green Monster,” the iconic, left field wall, makes it one of the most recognizable stadiums in
baseball today.
Other popular sports included prize-fighting, which attracted a predominantly male, working- and
middle-class audience who lived vicariously through the triumphs of the boxers during a time where
opportunities for individual success were rapidly shrinking, and college football, which paralleled a
modern corporation in its team hierarchy, divisions of duties, and emphasis on time management.
THE UPPER CLASS IN THE CITIES

The American financial elite did not need to crowd into cities to find work, like their working-class
counterparts. But as urban centers were vital business cores, where multi-million-dollar financial deals
were made daily, those who worked in that world wished to remain close to the action. The rich chose to
be in the midst of the chaos of the cities, but they were also able to provide significant measures of comfort,
convenience, and luxury for themselves.
Wealthy citizens seldom attended what they considered the crass entertainment of the working class.
Instead of amusement parks and baseball games, urban elites sought out more refined pastimes that
underscored their knowledge of art and culture, preferring classical music concerts, fine art collections,
and social gatherings with their peers. In New York, Andrew Carnegie built Carnegie Hall in 1891,
which quickly became the center of classical music performances in the country. Nearby, the Metropolitan
Museum of Art opened its doors in 1872 and still remains one of the largest collections of fine art in the
world. Other cities followed suit, and these cultural pursuits became a way for the upper class to remind
themselves of their elevated place amid urban squalor.
As new opportunities for the middle class threatened the austerity of upper-class citizens, including the
newer forms of transportation that allowed middle-class Americans to travel with greater ease, wealthier
Americans sought unique ways to further set themselves apart in society. These included more expensive
excursions, such as vacations in Newport, Rhode Island, winter relocation to sunny Florida, and frequent
trips aboard steamships to Europe. For those who were not of the highly respected “old money,” but only
recently obtained their riches through business ventures, the relief they sought came in the form of one
book—the annual Social Register. First published in 1886 by Louis Keller in New York City, the register
became a directory of the wealthy socialites who populated the city. Keller updated it annually, and people
would watch with varying degrees of anxiety or complacency to see their names appear in print. Also
called the Blue Book, the register was instrumental in the planning of society dinners, balls, and other
social events. For those of newer wealth, there was relief found simply in the notion that they and others
witnessed their wealth through the publication of their names in the register.
A NEW MIDDLE CLASS

While the working class were confined to tenement houses in the cities by their need to be close to their
work and the lack of funds to find anyplace better, and the wealthy class chose to remain in the cities
to stay close to the action of big business transactions, the emerging middle class responded to urban
challenges with their own solutions. This group included the managers, salesmen, engineers, doctors,
accountants, and other salaried professionals who still worked for a living, but were significantly better
educated and compensated than the working-class poor. For this new middle class, relief from the trials of
the cities came through education and suburbanization.
In large part, the middle class responded to the challenges of the city by physically escaping it. As
transportation improved and outlying communities connected to urban centers, the middle class embraced
a new type of community—the suburbs. It became possible for those with adequate means to work in the
city and escape each evening, by way of a train or trolley, to a house in the suburbs. As the number of
people moving to the suburbs grew, there also grew a perception among the middle class that the farther
one lived from the city and the more amenities one had, the more affluence one had achieved.
Although a few suburbs existed in the United States prior to the 1880s (such as Llewellyn Park, New
Jersey), the introduction of the electric railway generated greater interest and growth during the last
decade of the century. The ability to travel from home to work on a relatively quick and cheap mode of
transportation encouraged more Americans of modest means to consider living away from the chaos of
the city. Eventually, Henry Ford’s popularization of the automobile, specifically in terms of a lower price,
permitted more families to own cars and thus consider suburban life. Later in the twentieth century, both
the advent of the interstate highway system, along with federal legislation designed to allow families to
construct homes with low-interest loans, further sparked the suburban phenomenon.
New Roles for Middle-Class Women

Social norms of the day encouraged middle-class women to take great pride in creating a positive home
environment for their working husbands and school-age children, which reinforced the business and
educational principles that they practiced on the job or in school. It was at this time that the magazines
Ladies Home Journal and Good Housekeeping began distribution, to tremendous popularity (Figure 19.13).
Figure 19.13 The middle-class family of the late nineteenth century largely embraced a separation of gendered
spheres that had first emerged during the market revolution of the antebellum years. Whereas the husband earned
money for the family outside the home, the wife oversaw domestic chores, raised the children, and tended to the
family’s spiritual, social, and cultural needs. The magazine Good Housekeeping, launched in 1885, capitalized on the
middle-class woman’s focus on maintaining a pride-worthy home.

While the vast majority of middle-class women took on the expected role of housewife and homemaker,
some women were finding paths to college. A small number of men’s colleges began to open their doors to
women in the mid-1800s, and co-education became an option. Some of the most elite universities created
affiliated women’s colleges, such as Radcliffe College with Harvard, and Pembroke College with Brown
University. But more importantly, the first women’s colleges opened at this time. Mount Holyoke, Vassar,
Smith, and Wellesley Colleges, still some of the best known women’s schools, opened their doors between
1865 and 1880, and, although enrollment was low (initial class sizes ranged from sixty-one students at
Vassar to seventy at Wellesley, seventy-one at Smith, and up to eighty-eight at Mount Holyoke), the
opportunity for a higher education, and even a career, began to emerge for young women. These schools
offered a unique, all-women environment in which professors and a community of education-seeking
young women came together. While most college-educated young women still married, their education
offered them new opportunities to work outside the home, most frequently as teachers, professors, or in
the aforementioned settlement house environments created by Jane Addams and others.
Education and the Middle Class

Since the children of the professional class did not have to leave school and find work to support their
families, they had opportunities for education and advancement that would solidify their position in
the middle class. They also benefited from the presence of stay-at-home mothers, unlike working-class
children, whose mothers typically worked the same long hours as their fathers. Public school enrollment
exploded at this time, with the number of students attending public school tripling from seven million in
1870 to twenty-one million in 1920. Unlike the old-fashioned one-room schoolhouses, larger schools slowly
began the practice of employing different teachers for each grade, and some even began hiring discipline-
specific instructors. High schools also grew at this time, from one hundred high schools nationally in 1860
to over six thousand by 1900.
The federal government supported the growth of higher education with the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890.
These laws set aside public land and federal funds to create land-grant colleges that were affordable to
middle-class families, offering courses and degrees useful in the professions, but also in trade, commerce,
industry, and agriculture (Figure 19.14). Land-grant colleges stood in contrast to the expensive, private
Ivy League universities such as Harvard and Yale, which still catered to the elite. Iowa became the first
state to accept the provisions of the original Morrill Act, creating what later became Iowa State University.
Other states soon followed suit, and the availability of an affordable college education encouraged a boost
in enrollment, from 50,000 students nationwide in 1870 to over 600,000 students by 1920.
Figure 19.14 This rendering of Kansas State University in 1878 shows an early land-grant college, created by the
Morrill Act. These newly created schools allowed many more students to attend college than the elite Ivy League
system, and focused more on preparing them for professional careers in business, medicine, and law, as well as
business, agriculture, and other trades.
College curricula also changed at this time. Students grew less likely to take traditional liberal arts
classes in rhetoric, philosophy, and foreign language, and instead focused on preparing for the modern
work world. Professional schools for the study of medicine, law, and business also developed. In short,
education for the children of middle-class parents catered to class-specific interests and helped ensure that
parents could establish their children comfortably in the middle class as well.
“CITY BEAUTIFUL”
While the working poor lived in the worst of it and the wealthy elite sought to avoid it, all city dwellers
at the time had to deal with the harsh realities of urban sprawl. Skyscrapers rose and filled the air, streets
were crowded with pedestrians of all sorts, and, as developers worked to meet the always-increasing
demand for space, the few remaining green spaces in the city quickly disappeared. As the U.S. population
became increasingly centered in urban areas while the century drew to a close, questions about the
quality of city life—particularly with regard to issues of aesthetics, crime, and poverty—quickly consumed
many reformers’ minds. Those middle-class and wealthier urbanites who enjoyed the costlier amenities
presented by city life—including theaters, restaurants, and shopping—were free to escape to the suburbs,
leaving behind the poorer working classes living in squalor and unsanitary conditions. Through the City
Beautiful movement, leaders such as Frederick Law Olmsted and Daniel Burnham sought to champion
middle- and upper-class progressive reforms. They improved the quality of life for city dwellers, but also
cultivated middle-class-dominated urban spaces in which Americans of different ethnicities, racial origins,
and classes worked and lived.
Olmsted, one of the earliest and most influential designers of urban green space, and the original designer
of Central Park in New York, worked with Burnham to introduce the idea of the City Beautiful movement
at the Columbian Exposition in 1893. There, they helped to design and construct the “White City”—so
named for the plaster of Paris construction of several buildings that were subsequently painted a bright
white—an example of landscaping and architecture that shone as an example of perfect city planning.
From wide-open green spaces to brightly painted white buildings, connected with modern transportation
services and appropriate sanitation, the “White City” set the stage for American urban city planning for
the next generation, beginning in 1901 with the modernization of Washington, DC. This model encouraged
city planners to consider three principal tenets: First, create larger park areas inside cities; second, build
wider boulevards to decrease traffic congestion and allow for lines of trees and other greenery between
lanes; and third, add more suburbs in order to mitigate congested living in the city itself (Figure 19.15).
As each city adapted these principles in various ways, the City Beautiful movement became a cornerstone
of urban development well into the twentieth century.

Figure 19.15 This blueprint shows Burnham’s vision for Chicago, an example of the City Beautiful movement. His
goal was to preserve much of the green space along the city’s lakefront, and to ensure that all city dwellers had
access to green space.

• Explain how American writers, both fiction and nonfiction, helped Americans to better
understand the changes they faced in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
• Identify some of the influential women and African American writers of the era
In the late nineteenth century, Americans were living in a world characterized by rapid change. Western
expansion, dramatic new technologies, and the rise of big business drastically influenced society in a
matter of a few decades. For those living in the fast-growing urban areas, the pace of change was even
faster and harder to ignore. One result of this time of transformation was the emergence of a series
of notable authors, who, whether writing fiction or nonfiction, offered a lens through which to better
understand the shifts in American society.
UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL PROGRESS

One key idea of the nineteenth century that moved from the realm of science to the murkier ground of
social and economic success was Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Darwin was a British naturalist
who, in his 1859 work On the Origin of Species, made the case that species develop and evolve through
natural selection, not through divine intervention. The idea quickly drew fire from the Anglican Church
(although a liberal branch of Anglicans embraced the notion of natural selection being part of God’s plan)
and later from many others, both in England and abroad, who felt that the theory directly contradicted the
role of God in the earth’s creation. Although biologists, botanists, and most of the scientific establishment
widely accepted the theory of evolution at the time of Darwin’s publication, which they felt synthesized
much of the previous work in the field, the theory remained controversial in the public realm for decades.
Political philosopher Herbert Spencer took Darwin’s theory of evolution further, coining the actual phrase
“survival of the fittest,” and later helping to popularize the phrase social Darwinism to posit that society
evolved much like a natural organism, wherein some individuals will succeed due to racially and
ethnically inherent traits, and their ability to adapt. This model allowed that a collection of traits and
skills, which could include intelligence, inherited wealth, and so on, mixed with the ability to adapt, would
let all Americans rise or fall of their own accord, so long as the road to success was accessible to all.
William Graham Sumner, a sociologist at Yale, became the most vocal proponent of social Darwinism.
Not surprisingly, this ideology, which Darwin himself would have rejected as a gross misreading of his
scientific discoveries, drew great praise from those who made their wealth at this time. They saw their
success as proof of biological fitness, although critics of this theory were quick to point out that those who
did not succeed often did not have the same opportunities or equal playing field that the ideology of social
Darwinism purported. Eventually, the concept fell into disrepute in the 1930s and 1940s, as eugenicists
began to utilize it in conjunction with their racial theories of genetic superiority.
Other thinkers of the day took Charles Darwin’s theories in a more nuanced direction, focusing on
different theories of realism that sought to understand the truth underlying the changes in the United
States. These thinkers believed that ideas and social constructs must be proven to work before they could
be accepted. Philosopher William James was one of the key proponents of the closely related concept
of pragmatism, which held that Americans needed to experiment with different ideas and perspectives
to find the truth about American society, rather than assuming that there was truth in old, previously
accepted models. Only by tying ideas, thoughts, and statements to actual objects and occurrences could
one begin to identify a coherent truth, according to James. His work strongly influenced the subsequent
avant-garde and modernist movements in literature and art, especially in understanding the role of the
observer, artist, or writer in shaping the society they attempted to observe. John Dewey built on the idea of
pragmatism to create a theory of instrumentalism, which advocated the use of education in the search for
truth. Dewey believed that education, specifically observation and change through the scientific method,
was the best tool by which to reform and improve American society as it continued to grow ever more
complex. To that end, Dewey strongly encouraged educational reforms designed to create an informed
American citizenry that could then form the basis for other, much-needed progressive reforms in society.
In addition to the new medium of photography, popularized by Riis, novelists and other artists also
embraced realism in their work. They sought to portray vignettes from real life in their stories, partly
in response to the more sentimental works of their predecessors. Visual artists such as George Bellows,
Edward Hopper, and Robert Henri, among others, formed the Ashcan School of Art, which was interested
primarily in depicting the urban lifestyle that was quickly gripping the United States at the turn of
the century. Their works typically focused on working-class city life, including the slums and tenement
houses, as well as working-class forms of leisure and entertainment (Figure 19.16).

Figure 19.16 Like most examples of works by Ashcan artists, The Cliff Dwellers, by George Wesley Bellows, depicts
the crowd of urban life realistically. (credit: Los Angeles County Museum of Art)
Novelists and journalists also popularized realism in literary works. Authors such as Stephen Crane, who
wrote stark stories about life in the slums or during the Civil War, and Rebecca Harding Davis, who in
1861 published Life in the Iron Mills, embodied this popular style. Mark Twain also sought realism in his
books, whether it was the reality of the pioneer spirit, seen in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, published
in 1884, or the issue of corruption in The Gilded Age, co-authored with Charles Dudley Warner in 1873.
The narratives and visual arts of these realists could nonetheless be highly stylized, crafted, and even
fabricated, since their goal was the effective portrayal of social realities they thought required reform.
Some authors, such as Jack London, who wrote Call of the Wild, embraced a school of thought called
naturalism, which concluded that the laws of nature and the natural world were the only truly relevant
laws governing humanity (Figure 19.17).
Figure 19.17 Jack London poses with his dog Rollo in 1885 (a). The cover of Jack London’s Call of the Wild (b)
shows the dogs in the brutal environment of the Klondike. The book tells the story of Buck, a dog living happily in
California until he is sold to be a sled dog in Canada. There, he must survive harsh conditions and brutal behavior,
but his innate animal nature takes over and he prevails. The story clarifies the struggle between humanity’s nature
versus the nurturing forces of society.
Kate Chopin, widely regarded as the foremost woman short story writer and novelist of her day, sought
to portray a realistic view of women’s lives in late nineteenth-century America, thus paving the way
for more explicit feminist literature in generations to come. Although Chopin never described herself as
a feminist per se, her reflective works on her experiences as a southern woman introduced a form of
creative nonfiction that captured the struggles of women in the United States through their own individual
experiences. She also was among the first authors to openly address the race issue of miscegenation. In her
work Desiree’s Baby, Chopin specifically explores the Creole community of her native Louisiana in depths
that exposed the reality of racism in a manner seldom seen in literature of the time.
African American poet, playwright, and novelist of the realist period, Paul Laurence Dunbar dealt with
issues of race at a time when most reform-minded Americans preferred to focus on other issues. Through
his combination of writing in both standard English and black dialect, Dunbar delighted readers with his
rich portrayals of the successes and struggles associated with African American life. Although he initially
struggled to find the patronage and financial support required to develop a full-time literary career,
Dunbar’s subsequent professional relationship with literary critic and Atlantic Monthly editor William
Dean Howells helped to firmly cement his literary credentials as the foremost African American writer
of his generation. As with Chopin and Harding, Dunbar’s writing highlighted parts of the American
experience that were not well understood by the dominant demographic of the country. In their work,
these authors provided readers with insights into a world that was not necessarily familiar to them and
also gave hidden communities—be it iron mill workers, southern women, or African American men—a
sense of voice.

Click and Explore
Mark Twain’s lampoon of author Horatio Alger (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

twain1) demonstrates Twain’s commitment to realism by mocking the myth set out by
Alger, whose stories followed a common theme in which a poor but honest boy goes
from rags to riches through a combination of “luck and pluck.” See how Twain twists
Alger’s hugely popular storyline in this piece of satire.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Kate Chopin: An Awakening in an Unpopular Time
Author Kate Chopin grew up in the American South and later moved to St. Louis, where she began
writing stories to make a living after the death of her husband. She published her works throughout the
late 1890s, with stories appearing in literary magazines and local papers. It was her second novel, The
Awakening, which gained her notoriety and criticism in her lifetime, and ongoing literary fame after her
death (Figure 19.18).
Figure 19.18 Critics railed against Kate Chopin, the author of the 1899 novel The Awakening,
criticizing its stark portrayal of a woman struggling with societal confines and her own desires. In the
twentieth century, scholars rediscovered Chopin’s work and The Awakening is now considered part of
the canon of American literature.
The Awakening, set in the New Orleans society that Chopin knew well, tells the story of a woman
struggling with the constraints of marriage who ultimately seeks her own fulfillment over the needs of her
family. The book deals far more openly than most novels of the day with questions of women’s sexual
desires. It also flouted nineteenth-century conventions by looking at the protagonist’s struggles with the
traditional role expected of women.
While a few contemporary reviewers saw merit in the book, most criticized it as immoral and unseemly.
It was censored, called “pure poison,” and critics railed against Chopin herself. While Chopin wrote
squarely in the tradition of realism that was popular at this time, her work covered ground that was
considered “too real” for comfort. After the negative reception of the novel, Chopin retreated from public
life and discontinued writing. She died five years after its publication. After her death, Chopin’s work was
largely ignored, until scholars rediscovered it in the late twentieth century, and her books and stories
came back into print. The Awakening in particular has been recognized as vital to the earliest edges of
the modern feminist movement.

Click and Explore
Excerpts from interviews (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/katechopin) with David

Chopin, Kate Chopin’s grandson, and a scholar who studies her work provide
interesting perspectives on the author and her views.
CRITICS OF MODERN AMERICA

While many Americans at this time, both everyday working people and theorists, felt the changes of the
era would lead to improvements and opportunities, there were critics of the emerging social shifts as well.
Although less popular than Twain and London, authors such as Edward Bellamy, Henry George, and
Thorstein Veblen were also influential in spreading critiques of the industrial age. While their critiques
were quite distinct from each other, all three believed that the industrial age was a step in the wrong
direction for the country.
In the 1888 novel Looking Backward, 2000-1887, Edward Bellamy portrays a utopian America in the year
2000, with the country living in peace and harmony after abandoning the capitalist model and moving to
a socialist state. In the book, Bellamy predicts the future advent of credit cards, cable entertainment, and
“super-store” cooperatives that resemble a modern day Wal-Mart. Looking Backward proved to be a popular
bestseller (third only to Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Ben Hur among late nineteenth-century publications) and
appealed to those who felt the industrial age of big business was sending the country in the wrong
direction. Eugene Debs, who led the national Pullman Railroad Strike in 1894, later commented on how
Bellamy’s work influenced him to adopt socialism as the answer to the exploitative industrial capitalist
model. In addition, Bellamy’s work spurred the publication of no fewer than thirty-six additional books
or articles by other writers, either supporting Bellamy’s outlook or directly criticizing it. In 1897, Bellamy
felt compelled to publish a sequel, entitled Equality, in which he further explained ideas he had previously
introduced concerning educational reform and women’s equality, as well as a world of vegetarians who
speak a universal language.
Another author whose work illustrated the criticisms of the day was nonfiction writer Henry George, an
economist best known for his 1879 work Progress and Poverty, which criticized the inequality found in
an industrial economy. He suggested that, while people should own that which they create, all land and
natural resources should belong to all equally, and should be taxed through a “single land tax” in order to
disincentivize private land ownership. His thoughts influenced many economic progressive reformers, as
well as led directly to the creation of the now-popular board game, Monopoly.
Another critique of late nineteenth-century American capitalism was Thorstein Veblen, who lamented
in The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899) that capitalism created a middle class more preoccupied with its
own comfort and consumption than with maximizing production. In coining the phrase “conspicuous
consumption,” Veblen identified the means by which one class of nonproducers exploited the working
class that produced the goods for their consumption. Such practices, including the creation of business
trusts, served only to create a greater divide between the haves and have-nots in American society, and
resulted in economic inefficiencies that required correction or reform.
Key Terms
City Beautiful a movement begun by Daniel Burnham and Fredrick Law Olmsted, who believed that
cities should be built with three core tenets in mind: the inclusion of parks within city limits, the creation
of wide boulevards, and the expansion of more suburbs
graft the financial kickback provided to city bosses in exchange for political favors
Great Migration the name for the large wave of African Americans who left the South after the Civil
War, mostly moving to cities in the Northeast and Upper Midwest
instrumentalism a theory promoted by John Dewey, who believed that education was key to the search
for the truth about ideals and institutions
machine politics the process by which citizens of a city used their local ward alderman to work the
“machine” of local politics to meet local needs within a neighborhood
naturalism a theory of realism that states that the laws of nature and the natural world were the only
relevant laws governing humanity
pragmatism a doctrine supported by philosopher William James, which held that Americans needed to
experiment and find the truth behind underlying institutions, religions, and ideas in American life, rather
than accepting them on faith
realism a collection of theories and ideas that sought to understand the underlying changes in the United
States during the late nineteenth century
settlement house movement an early progressive reform movement, largely spearheaded by women,
which sought to offer services such as childcare and free healthcare to help the working poor
social gospel the belief that the church should be as concerned about the conditions of people in the
secular world as it was with their afterlife
Social Register a de facto directory of the wealthy socialites in each city, first published by Louis Keller
in 1886
Tammany Hall a political machine in New York, run by machine boss William Tweed with assistance
from George Washington Plunkitt
Summary
Urbanization spread rapidly in the mid-nineteenth century due to a confluence of factors. New
technologies, such as electricity and steam engines, transformed factory work, allowing factories to move
closer to urban centers and away from the rivers that had previously been vital sources of both water
power and transportation. The growth of factories—as well as innovations such as electric lighting, which
allowed them to run at all hours of the day and night—created a massive need for workers, who poured
in from both rural areas of the United States and from eastern and southern Europe. As cities grew, they
were unable to cope with this rapid influx of workers, and the living conditions for the working class
were terrible. Tight living quarters, with inadequate plumbing and sanitation, led to widespread illness.
Churches, civic organizations, and the secular settlement house movement all sought to provide some
relief to the urban working class, but conditions remained brutal for many new city dwellers.

19.2 The African American “Great Migration” and New European Immigration
For both African Americans migrating from the postwar South and immigrants arriving from southeastern
Europe, a combination of “push” and “pull” factors influenced their migration to America’s urban centers.
African Americans moved away from the racial violence and limited opportunities that existed in the rural
South, seeking wages and steady work, as well as the opportunity to vote safely as free men; however,
they quickly learned that racial discrimination and violence were not limited to the South. For European
immigrants, famine and persecution led them to seek a new life in the United States, where, the stories
said, the streets were paved in gold. Of course, in northeastern and midwestern cities, both groups found
a more challenging welcome than they had anticipated. City residents blamed recent arrivals for the ills of
the cities, from overcrowding to a rise in crime. Activist groups pushed for anti-immigration legislation,
seeking to limit the waves of immigrants that sought a better future in the United States.

The burgeoning cities brought together both rich and poor, working class and upper class; however,
the realities of urban dwellers’ lives varied dramatically based on where they fell in the social chain.
Entertainment and leisure-time activities were heavily dependent on one’s status and wealth. For the
working poor, amusement parks and baseball games offered inexpensive entertainment and a brief break
from the squalor of the tenements. For the emerging middle class of salaried professionals, an escape to
the suburbs kept them removed from the city’s chaos outside of working hours. And for the wealthy,
immersion in arts and culture, as well as inclusion in the Social Register, allowed them to socialize
exclusively with those they felt were of the same social status. The City Beautiful movement benefitted all
city dwellers, with its emphasis on public green spaces, and more beautiful and practical city boulevards.
In all, these different opportunities for leisure and pleasure made city life manageable for the citizens who
lived there.

Americans were overwhelmed by the rapid pace and scale of change at the close of the nineteenth century.
Authors and thinkers tried to assess the meaning of the country’s seismic shifts in culture and society
through their work. Fiction writers often used realism in an attempt to paint an accurate portrait of how
people were living at the time. Proponents of economic developments and cultural changes cited social
Darwinism as an acceptable model to explain why some people succeeded and others failed, whereas other
philosophers looked more closely at Darwin’s work and sought to apply a model of proof and pragmatism
to all ideas and institutions. Other sociologists and philosophers criticized the changes of the era, citing the
inequities found in the new industrial economy and its negative effects on workers.
Review Questions
1. Which of the following four elements was not B. job opportunities
essential for creating massive urban growth in late C. political advocacy
nineteenth-century America? D. relocation services
A. electric lighting
B. communication improvements 3. What technological and economic factors
C. skyscrapers combined to lead to the explosive growth of
D. settlement houses American cities at this time?
2. Which of the following did the settlement 4. Why did African Americans consider moving
house movement offer as a means of relief for from the rural South to the urban North following
working-class women? the Civil War?
A. childcare A. to be able to buy land
B. to avoid slavery B. Taxpayers ultimately paid higher city taxes

C. to find wage-earning work due to graft.
D. to further their education C. Only wealthy parts of the city received
timely responses.
5. Which of the following is true of late D. Citizens who voiced complaints were at
nineteenth-century southern and eastern risk for their safety.
European immigrants, as opposed to their western
and northern European predecessors? 9. In what way did education play a crucial role
A. Southern and eastern European immigrants in the emergence of the middle class?
tended to be wealthier.
B. Southern and eastern European immigrants 10. Which of the following statements accurately
were, on the whole, more skilled and able represents Thorstein Veblen’s argument in The
to find better paying employment. Theory of the Leisure Class?
C. Many southern and eastern European A. All citizens of an industrial society would
immigrants acquired land in the West, rise or fall based on their own innate merits.
while western and northern European B. The tenets of naturalism were the only laws
immigrants tended to remain in urban through which society should be governed.
centers. C. The middle class was overly focused on its
D. Ellis Island was the first destination for own comfort and consumption.
most southern and eastern Europeans. D. Land and natural resources should belong
equally to all citizens.
6. What made recent European immigrants the
ready targets of more established city dwellers? 11. Which of the following was not an element of
What was the result of this discrimination? realism?
A. social Darwinism
7. Which of the following was a popular pastime B. instrumentalism
for working-class urban dwellers? C. naturalism
A. football games D. pragmatism
B. opera
C. museums 12. In what ways did writers, photographers, and
D. amusement parks visual artists begin to embrace more realistic
subjects in their work? How were these responses
8. Which of the following was a disadvantage of to the advent of the industrial age and the rise of
machine politics? cities?
A. Immigrants did not have a voice.

13. What triumphs did the late nineteenth century witness in the realms of industrial growth,
urbanization, and technological innovation? What challenges did these developments pose for urban
dwellers, workers, and recent immigrants? How did city officials and everyday citizens respond to these
challenges?
14. What were the effects of urbanization on the working, middle, and elite classes of American society?
Conversely, how did the different social classes and their activities change the scope, character, and use of
urban spaces?
15. How do you think that different classes of city dwellers would have viewed the City Beautiful
movement? What potential benefits and drawbacks of this new direction in urban planning might
members of each class have cited?

16. How was Darwin’s work on the evolution of species exploited by proponents of the industrial age?
Why might they have latched on to this idea in particular?
17. Historians often mine the arts for clues to the social, cultural, political, and intellectual shifts that
characterized a given era. How do the many works of visual art, literature, and social philosophy that
emerged from this period reflect the massive changes that were taking place? How were Americans—both
those who created these works and those who read or viewed them—struggling to understand the new
reality through art, literature, and scholarship?

Chapter 20 Politics in the Gilded Age, 1870-1900 579
CHAPTER 20
Politics in the Gilded Age, 1870-1900
Figure 20.1 L. Frank Baum's story of a Kansas girl and the magical land of Oz has become a classic of both film
and screen, but it may have originated in part as an allegory of late nineteenth-century politics and the rise of the
Populist movement.
Chapter Outline
20.1 Political Corruption in Postbellum America
20.2 The Key Political Issues: Patronage, Tariffs, and Gold
20.3 Farmers Revolt in the Populist Era
20.4 Social and Labor Unrest in the 1890s
Introduction
L. Frank Baum was a journalist who rose to prominence at the end of the nineteenth century. Baum's most
famous story, The Wizard of Oz (Figure 20.1), was published in 1900, but “Oz” first came into being years
earlier, when he told a story to a group of schoolchildren visiting his newspaper office in South Dakota.
He made up a tale of a wonderful land, and, searching for a name, he allegedly glanced down at his file
cabinet, where the bottom drawer was labeled “O-Z.” Thus was born the world of Oz, where a girl from
struggling Kansas hoped to get help from a “wonderful wizard” who proved to be a fraud. Since then,
many have speculated that the story reflected Baum's political sympathies for the Populist Party, which
galvanized midwestern and southern farmers' demands for federal reform. Whether he intended the story
to act as an allegory for the plight of farmers and workers in late nineteenth-century America, or whether
he simply wanted to write an “American fairy tale” set in the heartland, Populists looked for answers
much like Dorothy did. And the government in Washington proved to be meek rather than magical.
580 Chapter 20 Politics in the Gilded Age, 1870-1900

• Discuss the national political scene during the Gilded Age
• Analyze why many critics considered the Gilded Age a period of ineffective national
leadership
The challenges Americans faced in the post-Civil War era extended far beyond the issue of Reconstruction
and the challenge of an economy without slavery. Political and social repair of the nation was paramount,
as was the correlative question of race relations in the wake of slavery. In addition, farmers faced the task
of cultivating arid western soils and selling crops in an increasingly global commodities market, while
workers in urban industries suffered long hours and hazardous conditions at stagnant wages.
Farmers, who still composed the largest percentage of the U.S. population, faced mounting debts as
agricultural prices spiraled downward. These lower prices were due in large part to the cultivation of more
acreage using more productive farming tools and machinery, global market competition, as well as price
manipulation by commodity traders, exorbitant railroad freight rates, and costly loans upon which farmers
depended. For many, their hard work resulted merely in a continuing decline in prices and even greater
debt. These farmers, and others who sought leaders to heal the wounds left from the Civil War, organized
in different states, and eventually into a national third-party challenge, only to find that, with the end of
Reconstruction, federal political power was stuck in a permanent partisan stalemate, and corruption was
widespread at both the state and federal levels.
As the Gilded Age unfolded, presidents had very little power, due in large part to highly contested
elections in which relative popular majorities were razor-thin. Two presidents won the Electoral College
without a popular majority. Further undermining their efficacy was a Congress comprising mostly
politicians operating on the principle of political patronage. Eventually, frustrated by the lack of leadership
in Washington, some Americans began to develop their own solutions, including the establishment of
Figure 20.2

new political parties and organizations to directly address the problems they faced. Out of the frustration
wrought by war and presidential political impotence, as well as an overwhelming pace of industrial
change, farmers and workers formed a new grassroots reform movement that, at the end of the century,
was eclipsed by an even larger, mostly middle-class, Progressive movement. These reform efforts did bring
about change—but not without a fight.
THE GILDED AGE

Mark Twain coined the phrase “Gilded Age” in a book he co-authored with Charles Dudley Warner in
1873, The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today. The book satirized the corruption of post-Civil War society and
politics. Indeed, popular excitement over national growth and industrialization only thinly glossed over
the stark economic inequalities and various degrees of corruption of the era (Figure 20.3). Politicians of the
time largely catered to business interests in exchange for political support and wealth. Many participated
in graft and bribery, often justifying their actions with the excuse that corruption was too widespread for
a successful politician to resist. The machine politics of the cities, specifically Tammany Hall in New York,
illustrate the kind of corrupt, but effective, local and national politics that dominated the era.
Figure 20.3 Pages from Mark Twain’s The Gilded Age, published in 1873. The illustrations in this chapter reveal the
cost of doing business in Washington in this new age of materialism and corruption, with the cost of obtaining a
female lobbyist’s support set at $10,000, while that of a male lobbyist or a “high moral” senator can be had for $3,000.
Nationally, between 1872 and 1896, the lack of clear popular mandates made presidents reluctant to
venture beyond the interests of their traditional supporters. As a result, for nearly a quarter of a century,
presidents had a weak hold on power, and legislators were reluctant to tie their political agendas to such
weak leaders. On the contrary, weakened presidents were more susceptible to support various legislators’
and lobbyists’ agendas, as they owed tremendous favors to their political parties, as well as to key financial
contributors, who helped them garner just enough votes to squeak into office through the Electoral
College. As a result of this relationship, the rare pieces of legislation passed were largely responses to the
desires of businessmen and industrialists whose support helped build politicians’ careers.
What was the result of this political malaise? Not surprisingly, almost nothing was accomplished on
the federal level. However, problems associated with the tremendous economic growth during this time
continued to mount. More Americans were moving to urban centers, which were unable to accommodate
the massive numbers of working poor. Tenement houses with inadequate sanitation led to widespread
illness. In rural parts of the country, people fared no better. Farmers were unable to cope with the
challenges of low prices for their crops and exorbitant costs for everyday goods. All around the country,
Americans in need of solutions turned further away from the federal government for help, leading to the
rise of fractured and corrupt political groups.

DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Mark Twain and the Gilded Age
Mark Twain (Figure 20.4) wrote The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today with his neighbor, Charles Dudley
Warner, as a satire about the corrupt politics and lust for power that he felt characterized American
society at the time. The book, the only novel Twain ever co-authored, tells of the characters’ desire to sell
their land to the federal government and become rich. It takes aim at both the government in Washington
and those Americans, in the South and elsewhere, whose lust for money and status among the newly
rich in the nation’s capital leads them to corrupt and foolish choices.
Figure 20.4 Mark Twain was a noted humorist, recognized by most Americans as the greatest writer of
his day. He co-wrote the novel The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today with Charles Dudley Warner in 1873.
In the following conversation from Chapter Fifty-One of the book, Colonel Sellers instructs young
Washington Hawkins on the routine practices of Congress:
“Now let’s figure up a little on, the preliminaries. I think Congress always tries to do as near
right as it can, according to its lights. A man can’t ask any fairer than that. The first preliminary
it always starts out on, is to clean itself, so to speak. It will arraign two or three dozen of its
members, or maybe four or five dozen, for taking bribes to vote for this and that and the other
bill last winter.”
“It goes up into the dozens, does it?”
“Well, yes; in a free country likes ours, where any man can run for Congress and anybody can
vote for him, you can’t expect immortal purity all the time—it ain’t in nature. Sixty or eighty or
a hundred and fifty people are bound to get in who are not angels in disguise, as young Hicks
the correspondent says; but still it is a very good average; very good indeed. . . . Well, after
they have finished the bribery cases, they will take up cases of members who have bought
their seats with money. That will take another four weeks.”
“Very good; go on. You have accounted for two-thirds of the session.”
“Next they will try each other for various smaller irregularities, like the sale of appointments to
West Point cadetships, and that sort of thing— . . . ”
“How long does it take to disinfect itself of these minor impurities?”
“Well, about two weeks, generally.”
“So Congress always lies helpless in quarantine ten weeks of a session. That’s encouraging.”
The book was a success, in part because it amused people even as it excoriated the politics of the day.
For this humor, as well as its astute analysis, Twain and Warner’s book still offers entertainment and
insight today.
Click and Explore
Visit the PBS Scrap Book (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/gage) for information on

Mark Twain’s life and marriage at the time he wrote The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today.
THE ELECTION OF 1876 SETS THE TONE

In many ways, the presidential election of 1876 foreshadowed the politics of the era, in that it resulted
in one of the most controversial results in all of presidential history. The country was in the middle
of the economic downturn caused by the Panic of 1873, a downturn that would ultimately last until
1879, all but assuring that Republican incumbent Ulysses S. Grant would not be reelected. Instead,
the Republican Party nominated a three-time governor from Ohio, Rutherford B. Hayes. Hayes was
a popular candidate who advocated for both “hard money”—an economy based upon gold currency
transactions—to protect against inflationary pressures and civil service reform, that is, recruitment based
upon merit and qualifications, which was to replace the practice of handing out government jobs as
“spoils.” Most importantly, he had no significant political scandals in his past, unlike his predecessor
Grant, who suffered through the Crédit Mobilier of America scandal. In this most notorious example of
Gilded Age corruption, several congressmen accepted cash and stock bribes in return for appropriating
inflated federal funds for the construction of the transcontinental railroad.
The Democrats likewise sought a candidate who could champion reform against growing political
corruption. They found their man in Samuel J. Tilden, governor of New York and a self-made millionaire,
who had made a successful political career fighting corruption in New York City, including spearheading
the prosecution against Tammany Hall Boss William Tweed, who was later jailed. Both parties tapped into
the popular mood of the day, each claiming to champion reform and promising an end to the corruption
that had become rampant in Washington (Figure 20.5). Likewise, both parties promised an end to post-
Civil War Reconstruction.

Figure 20.5 These campaign posters for Rutherford B. Hayes (a) and Samuel Tilden (b) underscore the tactics of
each party, which remained largely unchanged, regardless of the candidates. The Republican placard highlights the
party’s role in preserving “liberty and union” in the wake of the Civil War, hoping to tap into the northern voters’ pride
in victory over secession. The Democratic poster addresses the economic turmoil and corruption of the day,
specifically that of the Grant administration, promising “honesty, reform, and prosperity” for all.
The campaign was a typical one for the era: Democrats shone a spotlight on earlier Republican scandals,
such as the Crédit Mobilier affair, and Republicans relied upon the bloody shirt campaign, reminding the
nation of the terrible human toll of the war against southern confederates who now reappeared in national
politics under the mantle of the Democratic Party. President Grant previously had great success with the
“bloody shirt” strategy in the 1868 election, when Republican supporters attacked Democratic candidate
Horatio Seymour for his sympathy with New York City draft rioters during the war. In 1876, true to the
campaign style of the day, neither Tilden nor Hayes actively campaigned for office, instead relying upon
supporters and other groups to promote their causes.
Fearing a significant African American and white Republican voter turnout in the South, particularly in
the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which further empowered African Americans with protection
in terms of public accommodations, Democrats relied upon white supremacist terror organizations to
intimidate blacks and Republicans, including physically assaulting many while they attempted to vote.
The Redshirts, based in Mississippi and the Carolinas, and the White League in Louisiana, relied upon
intimidation tactics similar to the Ku Klux Klan but operated in a more open and organized fashion with
the sole goal of restoring Democrats to political predominance in the South. In several instances, Redshirts
would attack freedmen who attempted to vote, whipping them openly in the streets while simultaneously
hosting barbecues to attract Democratic voters to the polls. Women throughout South Carolina began to
sew red flannel shirts for the men to wear as a sign of their political views; women themselves began
wearing red ribbons in their hair and bows about their waists.
The result of the presidential election, ultimately, was close. Tilden won the popular vote by nearly 300,000
votes; however, he had only 184 electoral votes, with 185 needed to proclaim formal victory. Three states,
Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, were in dispute due to widespread charges of voter fraud and
miscounting. Questions regarding the validity of one of the three electors in Oregon cast further doubt
on the final vote; however, that state subsequently presented evidence to Congress confirming all three
electoral votes for Hayes.
As a result of the disputed election, the House of Representatives established a special electoral
commission to determine which candidate won the challenged electoral votes of these three states. In what
later became known as the Compromise of 1877, Republican Party leaders offered southern Democrats an
enticing deal. The offer was that if the commission found in favor of a Hayes victory, Hayes would order
the withdrawal of the remaining U.S. troops from those three southern states, thus allowing the collapse
of the radical Reconstruction governments of the immediate post-Civil War era. This move would permit
southern Democrats to end federal intervention and control their own states’ fates in the wake of the end
of slavery (Figure 20.6).
Figure 20.6 Titled “A Truce not a Compromise,” this cartoon suggests the lack of consensus after the election of
1876 could have ended in another civil war.
After weeks of deliberation, the electoral commission voted eight to seven along straight party lines,
declaring Hayes the victor in each of the three disputed states. As a result, Hayes defeated Tilden in
the electoral vote by a count of 185–184 and became the next president. By April of that year, radical
Reconstruction ended as promised, with the removal of federal troops from the final two Reconstruction
states, South Carolina and Louisiana. Within a year, Redeemers—largely Southern Democrats—had
regained control of the political and social fabric of the South.
Although unpopular among the voting electorate, especially among African Americans who referred to it
as “The Great Betrayal,” the compromise exposed the willingness of the two major political parties to avoid
a “stand-off” via a southern Democrat filibuster, which would have greatly prolonged the final decision
regarding the election. Democrats were largely satisfied to end Reconstruction and maintain “home rule”
in the South in exchange for control over the White House. Likewise, most realized that Hayes would likely
be a one-term president at best and prove to be as ineffectual as his pre-Civil War predecessors.
Perhaps most surprising was the lack of even greater public outrage over such a transparent compromise,
indicative of the little that Americans expected of their national government. In an era where voter turnout
remained relatively high, the two major political parties remained largely indistinguishable in their
agendas as well as their propensity for questionable tactics and backroom deals. Likewise, a growing belief
in laissez-faire principles as opposed to reforms and government intervention (which many Americans
believed contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War) led even more Americans to accept the nature of an
inactive federal government (Figure 20.7).

Figure 20.7 Powerful Republican Party leader Roscoe Conkling is shown here as the devil. Hayes walks off with the
prize of the 1876 election, the South, personified as a woman. The cartoon, drawn by Joseph Keppler, has a caption
that quotes Goethe: “Unto that Power he doth belong Which only doeth Right while ever willing Wrong.”

• Explain the difference between the spoils system and civil service, and discuss the
importance of this issue in the period from 1872 to 1896
• Recognize the ways in which the issue of tariffs impacted different sectors of the
economy in late nineteenth-century America
• Explain why Americans were split on the issue of a national gold standard versus free
coinage of silver
• Explain why political patronage was a key issue for political parties in the late
nineteenth century
Although Hayes’ questionable ascendancy to the presidency did not create political corruption in the
nation’s capital, it did set the stage for politically motivated agendas and widespread inefficiency in the
White House for the next twenty-four years. Weak president after weak president took office, and, as
mentioned above, not one incumbent was reelected. The populace, it seemed, preferred the devil they
didn’t know to the one they did. Once elected, presidents had barely enough power to repay the political
favors they owed to the individuals who ensured their narrow victories in cities and regions around the
country. Their four years in office were spent repaying favors and managing the powerful relationships
that put them in the White House. Everyday Americans were largely left on their own. Among the few
political issues that presidents routinely addressed during this era were ones of patronage, tariffs, and the
nation’s monetary system.
PATRONAGE: THE SPOILS SYSTEM VS CIVIL SERVICE

At the heart of each president’s administration was the protection of the spoils system, that is, the power
of the president to practice widespread political patronage. Patronage, in this case, took the form of the
president naming his friends and supporters to various political posts. Given the close calls in presidential
elections during the era, the maintenance of political machinery and repaying favors with patronage was
important to all presidents, regardless of party affiliation. This had been the case since the advent of a
two-party political system and universal male suffrage in the Jacksonian era. For example, upon assuming
office in March 1829, President Jackson immediately swept employees from over nine hundred political
offices, amounting to 10 percent of all federal appointments. Among the hardest-hit was the U.S. Postal
Service, which saw Jackson appoint his supporters and closest friends to over four hundred positions in
the service (Figure 20.8).
Figure 20.8 This political cartoon shows Andrew Jackson riding a pig, which is walking over “fraud,” “bribery,” and
“spoils,” and feeding on “plunder.”
As can be seen in the table below (Table 20.1), every single president elected from 1876 through 1892 won
despite receiving less than 50 percent of the popular vote. This established a repetitive cycle of relatively
weak presidents who owed many political favors, which could be repaid through one prerogative power:
patronage. As a result, the spoils system allowed those with political influence to ascend to powerful
positions within the government, regardless of their level of experience or skill, thus compounding both
the inefficiency of government as well as enhancing the opportunities for corruption.
Table 20.1 U.S. Presidential Election Results (1876–1896)
Year Candidates Popular Vote Percentage Electoral Vote
1876 Rutherford B. Hayes 4,034,132 47.9% 185
Samuel Tilden 4,286,808 50.9% 184
Others 97,709 1.2% 0
1880 James Garfield 4,453,337 48.3% 214

Table 20.1 U.S. Presidential Election Results (1876–1896)
Year Candidates Popular Vote Percentage Electoral Vote
Winfield Hancock 4,444,267 48.2% 155
Others 319,806 3.5% 0
1884 Grover Cleveland 4,914,482 48.8% 219
James Blaine 4,856,903 48.3% 182
Others 288,660 2.9% 0
1888 Benjamin Harrison 5,443,663 47.8% 233
Grover Cleveland 5,538,163 48.6% 168
Others 407,050 3.6% 0
1892 Grover Cleveland 5,553,898 46.0% 277
Benjamin Harrison 5,190,799 43.0% 145
Others 1,323,330 11.0% 22
1896 William McKinley 7,112,138 51.0% 271
William Jennings Bryan 6,510,807 46.7% 176
Others 315,729 2.3% 0
At the same time, a movement emerged in support of reforming the practice of political appointments. As
early as 1872, civil service reformers gathered to create the Liberal Republican Party in an effort to unseat
incumbent President Grant. Led by several midwestern Republican leaders and newspaper editors, this
party provided the impetus for other reform-minded Republicans to break free from the party and actually
join the Democratic Party ranks. With newspaper editor Horace Greeley as their candidate, the party called
for a “thorough reform of the civil service as one the most pressing necessities” facing the nation. Although
easily defeated in the election that followed, the work of the Liberal Republican Party set the stage for an
even stronger push for patronage reform.
Clearly owing favors to his Republican handlers for his surprise compromise victory by the slimmest of
margins in 1876, President Hayes was ill-prepared to heed those cries for reform, despite his own stated
preference for a new civil service system. In fact, he accomplished little during his four years in office
other than granting favors, as dictated by Republic Party handlers. Two powerful Republican leaders
attempted to control the president. The first was Roscoe Conkling, Republican senator from New York
and leader of the Stalwarts, a group that strongly supported continuation of the current spoils system
(Figure 20.9). Long supporting former President Grant, Conkling had no sympathy for some of Hayes’
early appeals for civil service reform. The other was James G. Blaine, Republican senator from Maine
and leader of the Half-Breeds. The Half-Breeds, who received their derogatory nickname from Stalwart
supporters who considered Blaine’s group to be only “half-Republican,” advocated for some measure of
civil service reform.
Figure 20.9 This cartoon shows Roscoe Conkling playing a popular puzzle game of the day with the heads of
potential Republican presidential candidates, illustrating his control over the picks of the party.
With his efforts towards ensuring African American civil rights stymied by a Democratic Congress, and
his decision to halt the coinage of silver merely adding to the pressures of the economic Panic of 1873,
Hayes failed to achieve any significant legislation during his presidency. However, he did make a few
overtures towards civil service reform. First, he adopted a new patronage rule, which held that a person
appointed to an office could be dismissed only in the interest of efficient government operation but not
for overtly political reasons. Second, he declared that party leaders could have no official say in political
appointments, although Conkling sought to continue his influence. Finally, he decided that government
appointees were ineligible to manage campaign elections. Although not sweeping reforms, these were
steps in a civil service direction.
Hayes’ first target in his meager reform effort was to remove Chester A. Arthur, a strong Conkling man,
from his post as head of the New York City Customs House. Arthur had been notorious for using his
post as customs collector to gain political favors for Conkling. When Hayes forcibly removed him from
the position, even Half-Breeds questioned the wisdom of the move and began to distance themselves
from Hayes. The loss of his meager public support due to the Compromise of 1877 and the declining
Congressional faction together sealed Hayes fate and made his reelection impossible.
AN ASSASSIN’S BULLET SETS THE STAGE FOR CIVIL SERVICE REFORM

In the wake of President Hayes’ failure, Republicans began to battle over a successor for the 1880
presidential election. Initially, Stalwarts favored Grant’s return to the White House, while Half-Breeds
promoted their leader, James Blaine. Following an expected convention deadlock, both factions agreed
to a compromise presidential candidate, Senator James A. Garfield of Ohio, with Chester Arthur as his
vice-presidential running mate. The Democratic Party turned to Winfield Scott Hancock, a former Union
commander who was a hero of the Battle of Gettysburg, as their candidate.
Garfield won a narrow victory over Hancock by forty thousand votes, although he still did not win a
majority of the popular vote. But less than four months into his presidency, events pushed civil service
reform on the fast track. On July 2, 1881, Charles Guiteau shot and killed Garfield (Figure 20.10), allegedly
uttering at the time, “I am a Stalwart of Stalwarts!” Guiteau himself had wanted to be rewarded for his
political support—he had written a speech for the Garfield campaign—with an ambassadorship to France.
His actions at the time were largely blamed on the spoils system, prompting more urgent cries for change.

Figure 20.10 Garfield’s shooting and the subsequent capture of the assassin, Charles Guiteau, are depicted in this
illustration for a newspaper of the day. The president clung to life for another two months after the assassination.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
The Assassination of a President
I executed
the Divine command.
And Garfield did remove,
To save my party,
and my country
From the bitter fate of War.
—Charles Guiteau
Charles Guiteau was a lawyer and supporter of the Republican Party, although not particularly well known
in either area. But he gave a few speeches, to modest crowds, in support of the Republican nominee
James Garfield, and ultimately deluded himself that his speeches influenced the country enough to cause
Garfield’s victory. After the election, Guiteau immediately began pressuring the new president, requesting
a post as ambassador. When his queries went unanswered, Guiteau, out of money and angry that his
supposed help had been ignored, planned to kill the president.
He spent significant time planning his attack and considered weapons as diverse as dynamite and a
stiletto before deciding on a gun, stating, “I wanted it done in an American manner.” He followed the
president around the Capitol and let several opportunities pass, unwilling to kill Garfield in front of his wife
or son. Frustrated with himself, Guiteau recommitted to the plan and wrote a letter to the White House,
explaining how this act would “unite the Republican Party and save the Republic.”
Guiteau shot the president from behind and continued to shoot until police grabbed him and hauled him
away. He went to jail, and, the following November after Garfield had died, he stood trial for murder. His
poor mental health, which had been evident for some time, led to eccentric courtroom behavior that the
newspapers eagerly reported and the public loved. He defended his case with a poem that used religious
imagery and suggested that God had ordered him to commit the murder. He defended himself in court
by saying, “The doctors killed Garfield, I just shot him.” While this in fact was true, it did not save him.
Guiteau was convicted and hanged in the summer of 1882.
Click and Explore
Take a look at America’s Story (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/guiteau) from the

Library of Congress, which highlights the fact that Guiteau in fact did not kill the
president, but rather infection from his medical treatment did.
Surprising both his party and the Democrats when he assumed the office of president, Chester Arthur
immediately distanced himself from the Stalwarts. Although previously a loyal party man, Arthur
understood that he owed his current position to no particular faction or favor. He was in the unique
position to usher in a wave a civil service reform unlike any other political candidate, and he chose to
do just that. In 1883, he signed into law the Pendleton Civil Service Act, the first significant piece of
antipatronage legislation. This law created the Civil Service Commission, which listed all government
patronage jobs and then set aside 15 percent of the list as appointments to be determined through a
competitive civil service examination process. Furthermore, to prevent future presidents from undoing
this reform, the law declared that future presidents could enlarge the list but could never shrink it by
moving a civil service job back into the patronage column.
TARIFFS IN THE GILDED AGE

In addition to civil service, President Arthur also carried the reformist spirit into the realm of tariffs, or
taxes on international imports to the United States. Tariffs had long been a controversial topic in the United
States, especially as the nineteenth century came to a close. Legislators appeared to be bending to the
will of big businessmen who desired higher tariffs in order to force Americans to buy their domestically
produced goods rather than higher-priced imports. Lower tariffs, on the other hand, would reduce prices
and lower the average American’s cost of living, and were therefore favored by many working-class
families and farmers, to the extent that any of them fully understood such economic forces beyond the
prices they paid at stores. Out of growing concern for the latter group, Arthur created the U.S. Tariff
Commission in 1882 to investigate the propriety of increasingly high tariffs. Despite his concern, along
with the commission’s recommendation for a 25 percent rollback in most tariffs, the most Arthur could
accomplish was the “Mongrel Tariff” of 1883, which lowered tariff rates by barely 5 percent.
Such bold attempts at reform further convinced Republican Party leaders, as the 1884 election approached,
that Arthur was not their best option to continue in the White House. Arthur quickly found himself a
man without a party. As the 1884 election neared, the Republican Party again searched their ranks for a
candidate who could restore some semblance of the spoils system while maintaining a reformist image.
Unable to find such a man, the predominant Half-Breeds again turned to their own leader, Senator Blaine.
However, when news of his many personal corrupt bargains began to surface, a significant portion of the
party chose to break from the traditional Stalwarts-versus-Half-Breeds debate and form their own faction,
the Mugwumps, a name taken from the Algonquin phrase for “great chief.”
Anxious to capitalize on the disarray within the Republican Party, as well as to return to the White
House for the first time in nearly thirty years, the Democratic Party chose to court the Mugwump vote
by nominating Grover Cleveland, the reform governor from New York who had built a reputation by
attacking machine politics in New York City. Despite several personal charges against him for having
fathered a child out of wedlock, Cleveland managed to hold on for a close victory with a margin of less
than thirty thousand votes.

Cleveland’s record on civil service reform added little to the initial blows struck by President Arthur.
After electing the first Democratic president since 1856, the Democrats could actually make great use of
the spoils system. Cleveland was, however, a notable reform president in terms of business regulation
and tariffs. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1886 that individual states could not regulate interstate
transportation, Cleveland urged Congress to pass the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. Among several
other powers, this law created the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to oversee railroad prices and
ensure that they remained reasonable to all customers. This was an important shift. In the past, railroads
had granted special rebates to big businesses, such as John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, while charging
small farmers with little economic muscle exorbitant rates. Although the act eventually provided for real
regulation of the railroad industry, initial progress was slow due to the lack of enforcement power held
by the ICC. Despite its early efforts to regulate railroad rates, the U.S. Supreme Court undermined the
commission in Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, New Orleans, and Texas Pacific Railway Cos. in
1897. Rate regulations were limits on profits that, in the opinion of a majority of the justices, violated the
Fourteenth Amendment protection against depriving persons of their property without due process of the
law.
As for tariff reform, Cleveland agreed with Arthur’s position that tariffs remained far too high and
were clearly designed to protect big domestic industries at the expense of average consumers who could
benefit from international competition. While the general public applauded Cleveland’s efforts at both
civil service and tariff reform, influential businessmen and industrialists remained adamant that the next
president must restore the protective tariffs at all costs.
To counter the Democrats’ re-nomination of Cleveland, the Republican Party turned to Benjamin Harrison,
grandson of former president William Henry Harrison. Although Cleveland narrowly won the overall
popular vote, Harrison rode the influential coattails of several businessmen and party bosses to win the
key electoral states of New York and New Jersey, where party officials stressed Harrison’s support for a
higher tariff, and thus secure the White House. Not surprisingly, after Harrison’s victory, the United States
witnessed a brief return to higher tariffs and a strengthening of the spoils system. In fact, the McKinley
Tariff raised some rates as much as 50 percent, which was the highest tariff in American history to date.
Some of Harrison’s policies were intended to offer relief to average Americans struggling with high costs
and low wages, but remained largely ineffective. First, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 sought to
prohibit business monopolies as “conspiracies in restraint of trade,” but it was seldom enforced during
the first decade of its existence. Second, the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of the same year required the
U.S. Treasury to mint over four million ounces of silver into coins each month to circulate more cash into
the economy, raise prices for farm goods, and help farmers pay their way out of debt. But the measure
could not undo the previous “hard money” policies that had deflated prices and pulled farmers into well-
entrenched cycles of debt. Other measures proposed by Harrison intended to support African Americans,
including a Force Bill to protect voters in the South, as well as an Education Bill designed to support public
education and improve literacy rates among African Americans, also met with defeat.
MONETARY POLICIES AND THE ISSUE OF GOLD VS SILVER

Although political corruption, the spoils system, and the question of tariff rates were popular discussions
of the day, none were more relevant to working-class Americans and farmers than the issue of the nation’s
monetary policy and the ongoing debate of gold versus silver (Figure 20.11). There had been frequent
attempts to establish a bimetallic standard, which in turn would have created inflationary pressures and
placed more money into circulation that could have subsequently benefitted farmers. But the government
remained committed to the gold standard, including the official demonetizing of silver altogether in 1873.
Such a stance greatly benefitted prominent businessmen engaged in foreign trade while forcing more
farmers and working-class Americans into greater debt.
Figure 20.11 This cartoon illustrates the potential benefits of a bimetal system, but the benefits did not actually
extend to big business, which preferred the gold standard and worked to keep it.
As farmers and working-class Americans sought the means by which to pay their bills and other living
expenses, especially in the wake of increased tariffs as the century came to a close, many saw adherence
to a strict gold standard as their most pressing problem. With limited gold reserves, the money supply
remained constrained. At a minimum, a return to a bimetallic policy that would include the production of
silver dollars would provide some relief. However, the aforementioned Sherman Silver Purchase Act was
largely ineffective to combat the growing debts that many Americans faced. Under the law, the federal
government purchased 4.5 million ounces of silver on a monthly basis in order to mint silver dollars.
However, many investors exchanged the bank notes with which the government purchased the silver
for gold, thus severely depleting the nation’s gold reserve. Fearing the latter, President Grover Cleveland
signed the act’s repeal in 1893. This lack of meaningful monetary measures from the federal government
would lead one group in particular who required such assistance—American farmers—to attempt to take
control over the political process itself.

• Understand how the economic and political climate of the day promoted the formation
of the farmers’ protest movement in the latter half of the nineteenth century
• Explain how the farmers’ revolt moved from protest to politics
The challenges that many American farmers faced in the last quarter of the nineteenth century were
significant. They contended with economic hardships born out of rapidly declining farm prices,
prohibitively high tariffs on items they needed to purchase, and foreign competition. One of the largest
challenges they faced was overproduction, where the glut of their products in the marketplace drove the
price lower and lower.
Overproduction of crops occurred in part due to the westward expansion of homestead farms and in part
because industrialization led to new farm tools that dramatically increased crop yields. As farmers fell
deeper into debt, whether it be to the local stores where they bought supplies or to the railroads that
shipped their produce, their response was to increase crop production each year in the hope of earning

more money with which to pay back their debt. The more they produced, the lower prices dropped. To
a hard-working farmer, the notion that their own overproduction was the greatest contributing factor to
their debt was a completely foreign concept (Figure 20.12).
Figure 20.12 This North Dakota sod hut, built by a homesteading farmer for his family, was photographed in 1898,
two years after it was built. While the country was quickly industrializing, many farmers still lived in rough, rural
conditions.
In addition to the cycle of overproduction, tariffs were a serious problem for farmers. Rising tariffs on
industrial products made purchased items more expensive, yet tariffs were not being used to keep farm
prices artificially high as well. Therefore, farmers were paying inflated prices but not receiving them.
Finally, the issue of gold versus silver as the basis of U.S. currency was a very real problem to many
farmers. Farmers needed more money in circulation, whether it was paper or silver, in order to create
inflationary pressure. Inflationary pressure would allow farm prices to increase, thus allowing them to
earn more money that they could then spend on the higher-priced goods in stores. However, in 1878,
federal law set the amount of paper money in circulation, and, as mentioned above, Harrison’s Sherman
Silver Act, intended to increase the amount of silver coinage, was too modest to do any real good,
especially in light of the unintended consequence of depleting the nation’s gold reserve. In short, farmers
had a big stack of bills and wanted a big stack of money—be it paper or silver—to pay them. Neither was
forthcoming from a government that cared more about issues of patronage and how to stay in the White
House for more than four years at a time.
FARMERS BEGIN TO ORGANIZE

The initial response by increasingly frustrated and angry farmers was to organize into groups that
were similar to early labor unions. Taking note of how the industrial labor movement had unfolded
in the last quarter of the century, farmers began to understand that a collective voice could create
significant pressure among political leaders and produce substantive change. While farmers had their own
challenges, including that of geography and diverse needs among different types of famers, they believed
this model to be useful to their cause.
One of the first efforts to organize farmers came in 1867 with Oliver Hudson Kelly’s creation of the Patrons
of Husbandry, more popularly known as the Grange. In the wake of the Civil War, the Grangers quickly
grew to over 1.5 million members in less than a decade (Figure 20.13). Kelly believed that farmers could
best help themselves by creating farmers’ cooperatives in which they could pool resources and obtain
better shipping rates, as well as prices on seeds, fertilizer, machinery, and other necessary inputs. These
cooperatives, he believed, would let them self-regulate production as well as collectively obtain better rates
from railroad companies and other businesses.
Figure 20.13 This print from the early 1870s, with scenes of farm life, was a promotional poster for the Grangers,
one of the earliest farmer reform groups.
At the state level, specifically in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, and Iowa, the Patrons of Husbandry
did briefly succeed in urging the passage of Granger Laws, which regulated some railroad rates along
with the prices charged by grain elevator operators. The movement also created a political party—the
Greenback Party, so named for its support of print currency (or “greenbacks”) not based upon a gold
standard—which saw brief success with the election of fifteen congressmen. However, such successes
were short-lived and had little impact on the lives of everyday farmers. In the Wabash case of 1886,
brought by the Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against
the State of Illinois for passing Granger Laws controlling railroad rates; the court found such laws to
be unconstitutional. Their argument held that states did not have the authority to control interstate
commerce. As for the Greenback Party, when only seven delegates appeared at an 1888 national
convention of the group, the party faded from existence.
Click and Explore
Explore Rural Life in the Late Nineteenth Century (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

rurallife) to study photographs, firsthand reports, and other information about how
farmers lived and struggled at the end of the nineteenth century.
The Farmers’ Alliance, a conglomeration of three regional alliances formed in the mid-1880s, took root in
the wake of the Grange movement. In 1890, Dr. Charles Macune, who led the Southern Alliance, which was
based in Texas and had over 100,000 members by 1886, urged the creation of a national alliance between his
organization, the Northwest Alliance, and the Colored Alliance, the largest African American organization
in the United States. Led by Tom Watson, the Colored Alliance, which was founded in Texas but quickly
spread throughout the Old South, counted over one million members. Although they originally advocated
for self-help, African Americans in the group soon understood the benefits of political organization and a
unified voice to improve their plight, regardless of race. While racism kept the alliance splintered among

the three component branches, they still managed to craft a national agenda that appealed to their large
membership. All told, the Farmers’ Alliance brought together over 2.5 million members, 1.5 million white
and 1 million black (Figure 20.14).
Figure 20.14 The Farmers’ Alliance flag displays the motto: “The most good for the most PEOPLE,” clearly a
sentiment they hoped that others would believe.
The alliance movement, and the subsequent political party that emerged from it, also featured prominent
roles for women. Nearly 250,000 women joined the movement due to their shared interest in the farmers’
worsening situation as well as the promise of being a full partner with political rights within the group,
which they saw as an important step towards advocacy for women’s suffrage on a national level. The
ability to vote and stand for office within the organization encouraged many women who sought similar
rights on the larger American political scene. Prominent alliance spokeswoman, Mary Elizabeth Lease of
Kansas, often spoke of membership in the Farmers’ Alliance as an opportunity to “raise less corn and more
hell!”
Click and Explore
The Conner Prairie Interactive History Park (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

ruralwomen) discusses the role of women in rural America and how it changed
throughout the end of the nineteenth century.
The alliance movement had several goals similar to those of the original Grange, including greater
regulation of railroad prices and the creation of an inflationary national monetary policy. However, most
creative among the solutions promoted by the Farmers’ Alliance was the call for a subtreasury plan. Under
this plan, the federal government would store farmers’ crops in government warehouses for a brief period
of time, during which the government would provide loans to farmers worth 80 percent of the current
crop prices. Thus, farmers would have immediate cash on hand with which to settle debts and purchase
goods, while their crops sat in warehouses and farm prices increased due to this control over supply at the
market. When market prices rose sufficiently high enough, the farmer could withdraw his crops, sell at the
higher price, repay the government loan, and still have profit remaining.
Economists of the day thought the plan had some merit; in fact, a greatly altered version would
subsequently be adopted during the Great Depression of the 1930s, in the form of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act. However, the federal government never seriously considered the plan, as congressmen
questioned the propriety of the government serving as a rural creditor making loans to farmers with no
assurance that production controls would result in higher commodity prices. The government’s refusal to
act on the proposal left many farmers wondering what it would take to find solutions to their growing
indebtedness.
FROM ORGANIZATION TO POLITICAL PARTY

Angry at the federal government’s continued unwillingness to substantively address the plight of the
average farmer, Charles Macune and the Farmers’ Alliance chose to create a political party whose
representatives—if elected—could enact real change. Put simply, if the government would not address the
problem, then it was time to change those elected to power.
In 1891, the alliance formed the Populist Party, or People’s Party, as it was more widely known. Beginning
with nonpresidential-year elections, the Populist Party had modest success, particularly in Kansas,
Nebraska, and the Dakotas, where they succeeded in electing several state legislators, one governor, and
a handful of congressmen. As the 1892 presidential election approached, the Populists chose to model
themselves after the Democratic and Republican Parties in the hope that they could shock the country with
a “third-party” victory.
At their national convention that summer in Omaha, Nebraska, they wrote the Omaha Platform to more
fully explain to all Americans the goals of the new party (Figure 20.15). Written by Ignatius Donnelly,
the platform statement vilified railroad owners, bankers, and big businessmen as all being part of a
widespread conspiracy to control farmers. As for policy changes, the platform called for adoption of the
subtreasury plan, government control over railroads, an end to the national bank system, the creation of a
federal income tax, the direct election of U.S. senators, and several other measures, all of which aimed at a
more proactive federal government that would support the economic and social welfare of all Americans.
At the close of the convention, the party nominated James B. Weaver as its presidential candidate.
Figure 20.15 The People’s Party gathered for its nominating convention in Nebraska, where they wrote the Omaha
Platform to state their concerns and goals.

In a rematch of the 1888 election, the Democrats again nominated Grover Cleveland, while Republicans
went with Benjamin Harrison. Despite the presence of a third-party challenger, Cleveland won another
close popular vote to become the first U.S. president to be elected to nonconsecutive terms. Although
he finished a distant third, Populist candidate Weaver polled a respectable one million votes. Rather
than being disappointed, several Populists applauded their showing—especially for a third party with
barely two years of national political experience under its belt. They anxiously awaited the 1896 election,
believing that if the rest of the country, in particular industrial workers, experienced hardships similar to
those that farmers already faced, a powerful alliance among the two groups could carry the Populists to
victory.

• Explain how the Depression of 1893 helped the Populist Party to grow in popularity in
the 1890s
• Understand the forces that contributed to the Populist Party’s decline following the
1896 presidential election
Insofar as farmers wanted the rest of the country to share their plight, they got their wish. Soon after
Cleveland’s election, the nation catapulted into the worst economic depression in its history to date. As the
government continued to fail in its efforts to address the growing problems, more and more Americans
sought relief outside of the traditional two-party system. To many industrial workers, the Populist Party
began to seem like a viable solution.
FROM FARMERS’ HARDSHIPS TO A NATIONAL DEPRESSION

The late 1880s and early 1890s saw the American economy slide precipitously. As mentioned above,
farmers were already struggling with economic woes, and the rest of the country followed quickly.
Following a brief rebound from the speculation-induced Panic of 1873, in which bank investments in
railroad bonds spread the nation’s financial resources too thin—a rebound due in large part to the
protective tariffs of the 1880s—a greater economic catastrophe hit the nation, as the decade of the 1890s
began to unfold.
The causes of the Depression of 1893 were manifold, but one major element was the speculation in
railroads over the previous decades. The rapid proliferation of railroad lines created a false impression of
growth for the economy as a whole. Banks and investors fed the growth of the railroads with fast-paced
investment in industry and related businesses, not realizing that the growth they were following was built
on a bubble. When the railroads began to fail due to expenses outpacing returns on their construction, the
supporting businesses, from banks to steel mills, failed also.
Beginning with the closure of the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad Company in 1893, several railroads
ceased their operations as a result of investors cashing in their bonds, thus creating a ripple effect
throughout the economy. In a single year, from 1893 to 1894, unemployment estimates increased from
3 percent to nearly 19 percent of all working-class Americans. In some states, the unemployment rate
soared even higher: over 35 percent in New York State and 43 percent in Michigan. At the height of this
depression, over three million American workers were unemployed. By 1895, Americans living in cities
grew accustomed to seeing the homeless on the streets or lining up at soup kitchens.
Immediately following the economic downturn, people sought relief through their elected federal
government. Just as quickly, they learned what farmers had been taught in the preceding decades: A weak,
inefficient government interested solely in patronage and the spoils system in order to maintain its power
was in no position to help the American people face this challenge. The federal government had little in
place to support those looking for work or to provide direct aid to those in need. Of course, to be fair, the
government had seldom faced these questions before. Americans had to look elsewhere.
A notable example of the government’s failure to act was the story of Coxey’s Army. In the spring of 1894,
businessman Jacob Coxey led a march of unemployed Ohioans from Cincinnati to Washington, DC, where
leaders of the group urged Congress to pass public works legislation for the federal government to hire
unemployed workers to build roads and other public projects. From the original one hundred protesters,
the march grew five hundred strong as others joined along the route to the nation’s capital. Upon their
arrival, not only were their cries for federal relief ignored, but Coxey and several other marchers were
arrested for trespassing on the grass outside the U.S. Capitol. Frustration over the event led many angry
works to consider supporting the Populist Party in subsequent elections.

AMERICANA
L. Frank Baum: Did Coxey’s Army inspire Dorothy and the
Wizard of Oz?
Scholars, historians, and economists have long argued inconclusively that L. Frank Baum intended the
story of The Wizard of Oz as an allegory for the politics of the day. Whether that actually was Baum’s
intention is up for debate, but certainly the story could be read as support for the Populist Party’s crusade
on behalf of American farmers. In 1894, Baum witnessed Coxey’s Army’s march firsthand, and some feel
it may have influenced the story (Figure 20.16).
Figure 20.16 This image of Coxey’s Army marching on Washington to ask for jobs may have helped
inspire L. Frank Baum’s story of Dorothy and her friends seeking help from the Wizard of Oz.
According to this theory, the Scarecrow represents the American farmer, the Tin Woodman is the
industrial worker, and the Cowardly Lion is William Jennings Bryan, a prominent “Silverite” (strong
supporters of the Populist Party who advocated for the free coinage of silver) who, in 1900 when the book
was published, was largely criticized by the Republicans as being cowardly and indecisive. In the story,
the characters march towards Oz, much as Coxey’s Army marched to Washington. Like Dorothy and her
companions, Coxey’s Army gets in trouble, before being turned away with no help.
Following this reading, the seemingly powerful but ultimately impotent Wizard of Oz is a representation
of the president, and Dorothy only finds happiness by wearing the silver slippers—they only became
ruby slippers in the later movie version—along the Yellow Brick Road, a reference to the need for the
country to move from the gold standard to a two-metal silver and gold plan. While no literary theorists
or historians have proven this connection to be true, it is possible that Coxey’s Army inspired Baum to
create Dorothy’s journey on the yellow brick road.
Several strikes also punctuated the growing depression, including a number of violent uprisings in the
coal regions of Ohio and Pennsylvania. But the infamous Pullman Strike of 1894 was most notable for its
nationwide impact, as it all but shut down the nation’s railroad system in the middle of the depression. The
strike began immediately on the heels of the Coxey’s Army march when, in the summer of 1894, company
owner George Pullman fired over two thousand employees at Pullman Co.—which made railroad cars,
such as Pullman sleeper cars—and reduced the wages of the remaining three thousand workers. Since
the factory operated in the company town of Pullman, Illinois, where workers rented homes from George
Pullman and shopped at the company store owned by him as well, unemployment also meant eviction.
Facing such harsh treatment, all of the Pullman workers went on strike to protest the decisions. Eugene V.
Debs, head of the American Railway Union, led the strike.
In order to bring the plight of Pullman, Illinois, to Americans all around the country, Debs adopted the
strike strategy of ordering all American Railroad Union members to refuse to handle any train that had
Pullman cars on it. Since virtually every train in the United States operated with Pullman cars, the strike
truly brought the transportation industry to its knees. Fearful of his ability to end the economic depression
with such a vital piece of the economy at a standstill, President Cleveland turned to his attorney general
for the answer. The attorney general proposed a solution: use federal troops to operate the trains under
the pretense of protecting the delivery of the U.S. mail that was typically found on all trains. When Debs
and the American Railway Union refused to obey the court injunction prohibiting interference with the
mail, the troops began operating the trains, and the strike quickly ended. Debs himself was arrested,
tried, convicted, and sentenced to six months in prison for disobeying the court injunction. The American
Railway Union was destroyed, leaving workers even less empowered than before, and Debs was in prison,
contemplating alternatives to a capitalist-based national economy. The Depression of 1893 left the country
limping towards the next presidential election with few solutions in sight.

As the final presidential election of the nineteenth century unfolded, all signs pointed to a possible Populist
victory. Not only had the ongoing economic depression convinced many Americans—farmers and factory
workers alike—of the inability of either major political party to address the situation, but also the Populist
Party, since the last election, benefited from four more years of experience and numerous local victories.
As they prepared for their convention in St. Louis that summer, the Populists watched with keen interest
as the Republicans and Democrats hosted their own conventions.
The Republicans remained steadfast in their defense of a gold-based standard for the American economy,
as well as high protective tariffs. They turned to William McKinley, former congressman and current
governor of Ohio, as their candidate. At their convention, the Democrats turned to William Jennings
Bryan—a congressman from Nebraska. Bryan defended the importance of a silver-based monetary system
and urged the government to coin more silver. Furthermore, being from farm country, he was very
familiar with the farmers’ plight and saw some merit in the subtreasury system proposal. In short, Bryan
could have been the ideal Populist candidate, but the Democrats got to him first. The Populist Party
subsequently endorsed Bryan as well, with their party’s nomination three weeks later (Figure 20.17).

Figure 20.17 Republicans portrayed presidential candidate Bryan as a grasping politician whose Populist leanings
could swallow the Democratic Party. Bryan was in fact not a Populist at all, but a Democrat whose views aligned with
the Populists on some issues. He was formally nominated by the Democratic Party, the Populist Party, and the Silver
Republican Party for the 1896 presidential election.
Click and Explore
Browse through the cartoons and commentary at 1896 (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

1896election) at Vassar College, a site that contains a wealth of information about the
major players and themes of the presidential election of 1896.
As the Populist convention unfolded, the delegates had an important decision to make: either locate
another candidate, even though Bryan would have been an excellent choice, or join the Democrats and
support Bryan as the best candidate but risk losing their identity as a third political party as a result. The
Populist Party chose the latter and endorsed Bryan’s candidacy. However, they also nominated their own
vice-presidential candidate, Georgia Senator Tom Watson, as opposed to the Democratic nominee, Arthur
Sewall, presumably in an attempt to maintain some semblance of a separate identity.
The race was a heated one, with McKinley running a typical nineteenth-century style “front porch”
campaign, during which he espoused the long-held Republican Party principles to visitors who would call
on him at his Ohio home. Bryan, to the contrary, delivered speeches all throughout the country, bringing
his message to the people that Republicans “shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold.”
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
William Jennings Bryan and the “Cross of Gold”
William Jennings Bryan was a politician and speechmaker in the late nineteenth century, and he
was particularly well known for his impassioned argument that the country move to a bimetal or
silver standard. He received the Democratic presidential nomination in 1896, and, at the nominating
convention, he gave his most famous speech. He sought to argue against Republicans who stated that
the gold standard was the only way to ensure stability and prosperity for American businesses. In the
speech he said:
We say to you that you have made the definition of a business man too limited in its
application. The man who is employed for wages is as much a business man as his employer;
the attorney in a country town is as much a business man as the corporation counsel in a
great metropolis; the merchant at the cross-roads store is as much a business man as the
merchant of New York; the farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day, who begins
in spring and toils all summer, and who by the application of brain and muscle to the natural
resources of the country creates wealth, is as much a business man as the man who goes
upon the Board of Trade and bets upon the price of grain; . . . We come to speak of this
broader class of business men.
This defense of working Americans as critical to the prosperity of the country resonated with his listeners,
as did his passionate ending when he stated, “Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and
the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we
will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: ‘You shall not press down upon the brow
of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.’”
The speech was an enormous success and played a role in convincing the Populist Party that he was
the candidate for them.
The result was a close election that finally saw a U.S. president win a majority of the popular vote for the
first time in twenty-four years. McKinley defeated Bryan by a popular vote of 7.1 million to 6.5 million.
Bryan’s showing was impressive by any standard, as his popular vote total exceeded that of any other
presidential candidate in American history to that date—winner or loser. He polled nearly one million
more votes than did the previous Democratic victor, Grover Cleveland; however, his campaign also served
to split the Democratic vote, as some party members remained convinced of the propriety of the gold
standard and supported McKinley in the election.
Amid a growing national depression where Americans truly recognized the importance of a strong leader
with sound economic policies, McKinley garnered nearly two million more votes than his Republican
predecessor Benjamin Harrison. Put simply, the American electorate was energized to elect a strong
candidate who could adequately address the country’s economic woes. Voter turnout was the largest in
American history to that date; while both candidates benefitted, McKinley did more so than Bryan (Figure
20.18).

Figure 20.18 The electoral vote map of the 1896 election illustrates the stark divide in the country between the
industry-rich coasts and the rural middle.
In the aftermath, it is easy to say that it was Bryan’s defeat that all but ended the rise of the Populist
Party. Populists had thrown their support to the Democrats who shared similar ideas for the economic
rebound of the country and lost. In choosing principle over distinct party identity, the Populists aligned
themselves to the growing two-party American political system and would have difficulty maintaining
party autonomy afterwards. Future efforts to establish a separate party identity would be met with ridicule
by critics who would say that Populists were merely “Democrats in sheep’s clothing.”
But other factors also contributed to the decline of Populism at the close of the century. First, the discovery
of vast gold deposits in Alaska during the Klondike Gold Rush of 1896–1899 (also known as the “Yukon
Gold Rush”) shored up the nation’s weakening economy and made it possible to thrive on a gold standard.
Second, the impending Spanish-American War, which began in 1898, further fueled the economy and
increased demand for American farm products. Still, the Populist spirit remained, although it lost some
momentum at the close of the nineteenth century. As will be seen in a subsequent chapter, the reformist
zeal took on new forms as the twentieth century unfolded.
Key Terms
bloody shirt campaign the strategy of Republican candidates to stress the sacrifices that the nation had
to endure in its Civil War against Democratic southern secessionists
civil service the contrast to the spoils system, where political appointments were based on merit, not
favoritism
Coxey’s Army an 1894 protest, led by businessman Jacob Coxey, to advocate for public works jobs for
the unemployed by marching on Washington, DC
Farmers’ Alliance a national conglomeration of different regional farmers’ alliances that joined together
in 1890 with the goal of furthering farmers’ concerns in politics
Gilded Age the period in American history during which materialism, a quest for personal gain, and
corruption dominated both politics and society
Grange a farmers’ organization, launched in 1867, which grew to over 1.5 million members in less than a
decade
Half-Breeds the group of Republicans led by James G. Blaine, named because they supported some
measure of civil service reform and were thus considered to be only “half Republican”
Mugwumps a portion of the Republican Party that broke away from the Stalwart-versus-Half-Breed
debate due to disgust with their candidate’s corruption
Populist Party a political party formed in 1890 that sought to represent the rights of primarily farmers
but eventually all workers in regional and federal elections
Stalwarts the group of Republicans led by Roscoe Conkling who strongly supported the continuation of
the patronage system
subtreasury plan a plan that called for storing crops in government warehouses for a brief period of
time, during which the federal government would provide loans to farmers worth 80 percent of the
current crop prices, releasing the crops for sale when prices rose
Summary
In the years following the Civil War, American politics were disjointed, corrupt, and, at the federal
level, largely ineffective in terms of addressing the challenges that Americans faced. Local and regional
politics, and the bosses who ran the political machines, dominated through systematic graft and bribery.
Americans around the country recognized that solutions to the mounting problems they faced would not
come from Washington, DC, but from their local political leaders. Thus, the cycle of federal ineffectiveness
and machine politics continued through the remainder of the century relatively unabated.
Meanwhile, in the Compromise of 1877, an electoral commission declared Rutherford B. Hayes the winner
of the contested presidential election in exchange for the withdrawal of federal troops from South Carolina,
Louisiana, and Florida. As a result, Southern Democrats were able to reestablish control over their home
governments, which would have a tremendous impact on the direction of southern politics and society in
the decades to come.


All told, from 1872 through 1892, Gilded Age politics were little more than political showmanship. The
political issues of the day, including the spoils system versus civil service reform, high tariffs versus low,
and business regulation, all influenced politicians more than the country at large. Very few measures
offered direct assistance to Americans who continued to struggle with the transformation into an industrial
society; the inefficiency of a patronage-driven federal government, combined with a growing laissez-faire
attitude among the American public, made the passage of effective legislation difficult. Some of Harrison’s
policies, such as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, aimed to provide relief
but remained largely ineffective.

Factors such as overproduction and high tariffs left the country’s farmers in increasingly desperate straits,
and the federal government’s inability to address their concerns left them disillusioned and worried.
Uneven responses from state governments had many farmers seeking an alternative solution to their
problems. Taking note of the labor movements growing in industrial cities around the country, farmers
began to organize into alliances similar to workers’ unions; these were models of cooperation where larger
numbers could offer more bargaining power with major players such as railroads. Ultimately, the alliances
were unable to initiate widespread change for their benefit. Still, drawing from the cohesion of purpose,
farmers sought to create change from the inside: through politics. They hoped the creation of the Populist
Party in 1891 would lead to a president who put the people—and in particular the farmers—first.

As the economy worsened, more Americans suffered; as the federal government continued to offer
few solutions, the Populist movement began to grow. Populist groups approached the 1896 election
anticipating that the mass of struggling Americans would support their movement for change. When
Democrats chose William Jennings Bryan for their candidate, however, they chose a politician who largely
fit the mold of the Populist platform—from his birthplace of Nebraska to his advocacy of the silver
standard that most farmers desired. Throwing their support behind Bryan as well, Populists hoped to
see a candidate in the White House who would embody the Populist goals, if not the party name. When
Bryan lost to Republican William McKinley, the Populist Party lost much of its momentum. As the country
climbed out of the depression, the interest in a third party faded away, although the reformist movement
remained intact.
Review Questions
1. Mark Twain’s Gilded Age is a reference to C. It encouraged southern states to support
________. Hayes.
A. conditions in the South in the pre-Civil War D. It gave the federal government new
era powers.
B. the corrupt politics of the post-Civil War
era 3. What accounted for the relative weakness of
C. the populist movement the federal government during this era?
D. the Republican Party
4. A Mugwump is ________.
2. How did the Great Compromise of 1877 A. a supporter of the spoils system
influence the election? B. a liberal Democrat
A. It allowed a bilateral government C. a former member of the Republican Party
agreement. D. a moderate Stalwart
B. It gave new power to northern Republicans.
5. Which president made significant steps C. overproduction

towards civil service reform? D. inadequate supply
A. Chester A. Arthur
B. Benjamin Harrison 9. What were women’s roles within the Farmer’s
C. Grover Cleveland Alliance?
D. Roscoe Conkling
10. How were members of Coxey’s Army
6. Why were U.S. presidents (with few received when they arrived in Washington?
exceptions) so adamant about protecting the spoils A. They were given an audience with the
system of patronage during the late nineteenth president.
century? B. They were given an audience with
members of Congress.
7. Which of the following was not a vehicle for C. They were ignored.
the farmers’ protest? D. They were arrested.
A. the Mugwumps
B. the Grange 11. Which of the following does not represent one
C. the Farmers’ Alliance of the ways in which William Jennings Bryan
D. the People’s Party appealed to Populists?
A. He came from farm country.
8. Which of the following contributed directly to B. He supported free silver.
the plight of farmers? C. He supported the subtreasury system.
A. machine politics D. He advocated for higher tariffs.
B. labor unions

12. How does the term “Gilded Age” characterize American society in the late nineteenth century? In
what ways is this characterization accurate or inaccurate?
13. With farmers still representing a significant segment of American society, why did government
officials—Democrats and Republicans alike—prove unwilling to help find solutions to farmers’ problems?
14. Upon reflection, did the Populist Party make a wise decision in choosing to support the Democratic
Party’s candidate in the 1896 presidential election? Why or why not?
15. Despite its relative weakness during this period, the federal government made several efforts to
provide a measure of relief for struggling Americans. What were these initiatives? In what ways were they
more or less successful?

Chapter 21 Leading the Way: The Progressive Movement, 1890-1920 609
CHAPTER 21
Leading the Way: The Progressive

Movement, 1890-1920
Figure 21.1 The western states were the first to allow women the right to vote, a freedom that grew out of the less
deeply entrenched gendered spheres in the region. This illustration, from 1915, shows a suffragist holding a torch
over the western states and inviting the beckoning women from the rest of the country to join her.
Chapter Outline
21.1 The Origins of the Progressive Spirit in America
21.2 Progressivism at the Grassroots Level
21.3 New Voices for Women and African Americans
21.4 Progressivism in the White House
Introduction
Women’s suffrage was one of many causes that emerged in the Progressive Era, as Americans confronted
the numerous challenges of the late nineteenth century. Starting in the late 1800s, women increasingly were
working outside the home—a task almost always done for money, not empowerment—as well as pursuing
higher education, both at universities that were beginning to allow women to enroll and at female-only
schools. Often, it was educated middle-class women with more time and resources that took up causes
such as child labor and family health. As more women led new organizations or institutions, such as the
settlement houses, they grew to have a greater voice on issues of social change. By the turn of the century, a
strong movement had formed to advocate for a woman’s right to vote. For three decades, suffragist groups
pushed for legislation to give women the right to vote in every state. As the illustration above shows
(Figure 21.1), the western states were the first to grant women the right to vote; it would not be until 1920
that the nation would extend that right to all women.
610 Chapter 21 Leading the Way: The Progressive Movement, 1890-1920

• Describe the role that muckrakers played in catalyzing the Progressive Era
• Explain the main features of Progressivism
The Progressive Era was a time of wide-ranging causes and varied movements, where activists and
reformers from diverse backgrounds and with very different agendas pursued their goals of a better
America. These reformers were reacting to the challenges that faced the country at the end of the
nineteenth century: rapid urban sprawl, immigration, corruption, industrial working conditions, the
growth of large corporations, women’s rights, and surging anti-black violence and white supremacy in
the South. Investigative journalists of the day uncovered social inequality and encouraged Americans to
take action. The campaigns of the Progressives were often grassroots in their origin. While different causes
shared some underlying elements, each movement largely focused on its own goals, be it the right of
women to vote, the removal of alcohol from communities, or the desire for a more democratic voting
process.
THE MUCKRAKERS
A group of journalists and writers collectively known as muckrakers provided an important spark
that ignited the Progressive movement. Unlike the “yellow journalists” who were interested only in
sensationalized articles designed to sell newspapers, muckrakers exposed problems in American society
and urged the public to identify solutions. Whether those problems were associated with corrupt machine
politics, poor working conditions in factories, or the questionable living conditions of the working class
(among others), muckrakers shined a light on the problem and provoked outraged responses from
Americans. President Theodore Roosevelt knew many of these investigative journalists well and
considered himself a Progressive. Yet, unhappy with the way they forced agendas into national politics,
Figure 21.2

he was the one who first gave them the disparaging nickname “muckrakers,” invoking an ill-spirited
character obsessed with filth from The Pilgrim’s Progress, a 1678 Christian allegory written by John Bunyan.
Beginning in the second half of the nineteenth century, these Progressive journalists sought to expose
critical social problems and exhort the public to take action. In his book, How the Other Half Lives (1890),
journalist and photographer Jacob Riis used photojournalism to capture the dismal and dangerous living
conditions in working-class tenements in New York City (Figure 21.3). Ida Tarbell, perhaps the most
well-known female muckraker, wrote a series of articles on the dangers of John D. Rockefeller’s powerful
monopoly, Standard Oil. Her articles followed Henry Demarest Lloyd’s book, Wealth Against
Commonwealth, published in 1894, which examined the excesses of Standard Oil. Other writers, like Lincoln
Steffens, explored corruption in city politics, or, like Ray Standard Baker, researched unsafe working
conditions and low pay in the coal mines.
Figure 21.3 Jacob Riis’s images of New York City slums in the late nineteenth century, such as this 1890
photograph of children sleeping in Mulberry Street, exposed Americans all over the country to the living conditions of
the urban poor.
The work of the muckrakers not only revealed serious problems in American society, but also agitated,
often successfully, for change. Their articles, in magazines such as McClure’s, as well as books garnered
attention for issues such as child labor, anti-trust, big business break-ups, and health and safety.
Progressive activists took up these causes and lobbied for legislation to address some of the ills troubling
industrial America.
Click and Explore
To learn more about one of the most influential muckrakers of the late nineteenth
century, peruse the photographs, writings, and more at the Ida M. Tarbell archives
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/tarbell) that are housed at Tarbell’s alma mater,
Allegheny College, where she matriculated in 1876 as the only woman in her class.
THE FEATURES OF PROGRESSIVISM

Muckrakers drew public attention to some of the most glaring inequities and scandals that grew out of
the social ills of the Gilded Age and the hands-off approach of the federal government since the end
of Reconstruction. These writers by and large addressed a white, middle-class and elite, native-born
audience, even though Progressive movements and organizations involved a diverse range of Americans.
What united these Progressives beyond their different backgrounds and causes was a set of uniting
principles, however. Most strove for a perfection of democracy, which required the expansion of suffrage
to worthy citizens and the restriction of political participation for those considered “unfit” on account of
health, education, or race. Progressives also agreed that democracy had to be balanced with an emphasis
on efficiency, a reliance on science and technology, and deference to the expertise of professionals. They
repudiated party politics but looked to government to regulate the modern market economy. And they
saw themselves as the agents of social justice and reform, as well as the stewards and guides of workers
and the urban poor. Often, reformers’ convictions and faith in their own expertise led them to dismiss the
voices of the very people they sought to help.
The expressions of these Progressive principles developed at the grassroots level. It was not until Theodore
Roosevelt unexpectedly became president in 1901 that the federal government would engage in
Progressive reforms. Before then, Progressivism was work done by the people, for the people. What knit
Progressives together was the feeling that the country was moving at a dangerous pace in a dangerous
direction and required the efforts of everyday Americans to help put it back on track.

• Identify specific examples of grassroots Progressivism relating to the spread of
democracy, efficiency in government, and social justice
• Describe the more radical movements associated with the Progressive Era
A wide variety of causes fell under the Progressive label. For example, Wisconsin’s Robert M. (“Fighting
Bob”) La Follette, one of the most Progressive politicians of his day, fought hard to curb the power of
special interests in politics and reform the democratic process at state and local levels. Others sought out
safer working conditions for factory workers. Different groups prioritized banning the sale of alcohol,
which, they believed, was the root of much of the trouble for the working poor. No matter what the
cause, Progressive campaigns often started with issues brought to the public’s attention by muckraking
journalists.
EXPANDING DEMOCRACY
One of the key ideals that Progressives considered vital to the growth and health of the country was the
concept of a perfected democracy. They felt, quite simply, that Americans needed to exert more control
over their government. This shift, they believed, would ultimately lead to a system of government that
was better able to address the needs of its citizens. Grassroots Progressives pushed forward their agenda
of direct democracy through the passage of three state-level reforms.
The first law involved the creation of the direct primary. Prior to this time, the only people who had a
hand in selecting candidates for elections were delegates at conventions. Direct primaries allowed party
members to vote directly for a candidate, with the nomination going to the one with the most votes. This
was the beginning of the current system of holding a primary election before a general election. South
Carolina adopted this system for statewide elections in 1896; in 1901, Florida became the first state to use

the direct primary in nominations for the presidency. It is the method currently used in three-quarters of
U.S. states.
Another series of reforms pushed forward by Progressives that sought to sidestep the power of special
interests in state legislatures and restore the democratic political process were three election
innovations—the initiative, referendum, and recall. The first permitted voters to enact legislation by
petitioning to place an idea, or initiative, on the ballot. In 1898, South Dakota became the first state to allow
initiatives to appear on a ballot. By 1920, twenty states had adopted the procedure. The second innovation
allowed voters to counteract legislation by holding a referendum—that is, putting an existing law on the
ballot for voters to either affirm or reject. Currently twenty-four states allow some form of initiative and
referendum. The third element of this direct democracy agenda was the recall. The recall permitted citizens
to remove a public official from office through a process of petition and vote, similar to the initiative and
referendum. While this measure was not as widely adopted as the others, Oregon, in 1910, became the
first state to allow recalls. By 1920, twelve states had adopted this tool. It has only been used successfully
a handful of times on the statewide level, for example, to remove the governor of North Dakota in 1921,
and, more recently, the governor of California in 2003.
Progressives also pushed for democratic reform that affected the federal government. In an effort to
achieve a fairer representation of state constituencies in the U.S. Congress, they lobbied for approval of
the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which mandated the direct election of U.S. senators.
The Seventeenth Amendment replaced the previous system of having state legislatures choose senators.
William Jennings Bryan, the 1896 Democratic presidential candidate who received significant support
from the Populist Party, was among the leading Progressives who championed this cause.
EXPERTISE AND EFFICIENCY

In addition to making government more directly accountable to the voters, Progressives also fought to rid
politics of inefficiency, waste, and corruption. Progressives in large cities were particularly frustrated with
the corruption and favoritism of machine politics, which wasted enormous sums of taxpayer money and
ultimately stalled the progress of cities for the sake of entrenched politicians, like the notorious Democratic
Party Boss William Tweed in New York’s Tammany Hall. Progressives sought to change this corrupt
system and had success in places like Galveston, Texas, where, in 1901, they pushed the city to adopt
a commission system. A hurricane the previous year (Figure 21.4) had led to the collapse of the old
city government, which had proved incapable of leading the city through the natural disaster. The storm
claimed over eight thousand lives—the highest death toll from a natural disaster in the history of the
country—and afterwards, the community had no faith that the existing government could rebuild. The
commission system involved the election of a number of commissioners, each responsible for one specific
operation of the city, with titles like water commissioner, fire commissioner, police commissioner, and so
on. With no single political “boss” in charge, the prevalence of graft and corruption greatly decreased. The
commissioner system is widely used in modern cities throughout the United States.
Figure 21.4 The 1900 hurricane in Galveston, Texas, claimed more lives than any other natural disaster in American
history. In its wake, fearing that the existing corrupt and inefficient government was not up to the job of rebuilding, the
remaining residents of the town adopted the commission system of local government.
Another model of municipal government reform took shape in Staunton, Virginia, in 1908, where the
citizens switched to the city manager form of government. Designed to avoid the corruption inherent
in political machines, the city manager system separated the daily operations of the city from both the
electoral process and political parties. In this system, citizens elected city councilors who would pass laws
and handle all legislative issues. However, their first job was to hire a city manager to deal with the daily
management operation of the city. This person, unlike the politicians, was an engineer or businessman
who understood the practical elements of city operations and oversaw city workers. Currently, over thirty-
seven hundred cities have adopted the city manager system, including some of the largest cities in the
country, such as Austin, Dallas, and Phoenix.
At the state level, perhaps the greatest advocate of Progressive government was Robert La Follette (Figure
21.5). During his time as governor, from 1901 through 1906, La Follette introduced the Wisconsin Idea,
wherein he hired experts to research and advise him in drafting legislation to improve conditions in
his state. “Fighting Bob” supported numerous Progressive ideas while governor: He signed into law the
first workman’s compensation system, approved a minimum wage law, developed a progressive tax law,
adopted the direct election of U.S. senators before the subsequent constitutional amendment made it
mandatory, and advocated for women’s suffrage. La Follette subsequently served as a popular U.S. senator
from Wisconsin from 1906 through 1925, and ran for president on the Progressive Party ticket in 1924.

Figure 21.5 An energetic speaker and tireless Progressive, Governor Robert “Fighting Bob” La Follette turned the
state of Wisconsin into a flagship for democratic reform.
Click and Explore
Read how Robert La Follette’s legacy (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/follette) still

inspires progressives in Wisconsin.
Many Progressive reformers were also committed to the principle of efficiency in business as well as in
government. The growth of large corporations at the time fostered the emergence of a class of professional
managers. Fredrick Winslow Taylor, arguably the first American management consultant, laid out his
argument of increased industrial efficiency through improvements in human productivity in his book
The Principles of Scientific Management (1911). Through time-motion studies and the principles of
standardization, Taylor sought to place workers in the most efficient positions of the industrial process.
Management, he argued, should determine the work routine, leaving workers to simply execute the task
at hand. The image below (Figure 21.6) shows a machinist in a factory where Taylor had consulted; he is
alone and focused solely on his job. Progressive in its emphasis on efficiency, the use of science, and the
reliance on experts, Taylorism, as scientific management became known, was not widely popular among
workers who resented managerial authority and the loss of autonomy over their work. Many workers
went on strikes in response, although some favored Taylor’s methods, since their pay was directly linked
to the productivity increases that his methods achieved and since increased efficiency allowed companies
to charge consumers lower prices.
Figure 21.6 This machinist works alone in a factory that adopted Taylorism, the scientific time management principle
that sought to bring ultimate efficiency to factories. Many workers found the focus on repetitive tasks to be
dehumanizing and unpleasant.
SOCIAL JUSTICE
The Progressives’ work towards social justice took many forms. In some cases, it was focused on those
who suffered due to pervasive inequality, such as African Americans, other ethnic groups, and women.
In others, the goal was to help those who were in desperate need due to circumstance, such as poor
immigrants from southern and eastern Europe who often suffered severe discrimination, the working
poor, and those with ill health. Women were in the vanguard of social justice reform. Jane Addams, Lillian
Wald, and Ellen Gates Starr, for example, led the settlement house movement of the 1880s (discussed in
a previous chapter). Their work to provide social services, education, and health care to working-class
women and their children was among the earliest Progressive grassroots efforts in the country.
Building on the successes of the settlement houses, social justice reformers took on other, related
challenges. The National Child Labor Committee (NCLC), formed in 1904, urged the passage of labor
legislation to ban child labor in the industrial sector. In 1900, U.S. census records indicated that one out of
every six children between the ages of five and ten were working, a 50-percent increase over the previous
decade. If the sheer numbers alone were not enough to spur action, the fact that managers paid child
workers noticeably less for their labor gave additional fuel to the NCLC’s efforts to radically curtail child
labor. The committee employed photographer Lewis Hine to engage in a decade-long pictorial campaign
to educate Americans on the plight of children working in factories (Figure 21.7).

Figure 21.7 As part of the National Child Labor Committee’s campaign to raise awareness about the plight of child
laborers, Lewis Hine photographed dozens of children in factories around the country, including Addie Card (a), a
twelve-year-old spinner working in a mill in Vermont in 1910, and these young boys working at Bibb Mill No. 1 in
Macon, Georgia in 1909 (b). Working ten- to twelve-hour shifts, children often worked large machines where they
could reach into gaps and remove lint and other debris, a practice that caused plenty of injuries. (credit a/b:
modification of work by Library of Congress)
Although low-wage industries fiercely opposed any federal restriction on child labor, the NCLC did
succeed in 1912, urging President William Howard Taft to sign into law the creation of the U.S. Children’s
Bureau. As a branch of the Department of Labor, the bureau worked closely with the NCLC to bring
greater awareness to the issue of child labor. In 1916, the pressure from the NCLC and the general public
resulted in the passage of the Keating-Owen Act, which prohibited the interstate trade of any goods
produced with child labor. Although the U.S. Supreme Court later declared the law unconstitutional,
Keating-Owen reflected a significant shift in the public perception of child labor. Finally, in 1938, the
passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act signaled the victory of supporters of Keating-Owen. This new law
outlawed the interstate trade of any products produced by children under the age of sixteen.
Florence Kelley, a Progressive supporter of the NCLC, championed other social justice causes as well. As
the first general secretary of the National Consumers League, which was founded in 1899 by Jane Addams
and others, Kelley led one of the original battles to try and secure safety in factory working conditions. She
particularly opposed sweatshop labor and urged the passage of an eight-hour-workday law in order to
specifically protect women in the workplace. Kelley’s efforts were initially met with strong resistance from
factory owners who exploited women’s labor and were unwilling to give up the long hours and low wages
they paid in order to offer the cheapest possible product to consumers. But in 1911, a tragedy turned the
tide of public opinion in favor of Kelley’s cause. On March 25 of that year, a fire broke out at the Triangle
Shirtwaist Company on the eighth floor of the Asch building in New York City, resulting in the deaths of
146 garment workers, most of them young, immigrant women (Figure 21.8). Management had previously
blockaded doors and fire escapes in an effort to control workers and keep out union organizers; in the
blaze, many died due to the crush of bodies trying to evacuate the building. Others died when they fell off
the flimsy fire escape or jumped to their deaths to escape the flames. This tragedy provided the National
Consumers League with the moral argument to convince politicians of the need to pass workplace safety
laws and codes.
Figure 21.8 On March 25, 1911, a fire broke out at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York City. Despite the
efforts of firefighters, 146 workers died in the fire, mostly because the owners had trapped them on the sweatshop
floors.

MY STORY
William Shepherd on the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire
The tragedy of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire was a painful wake-up call to a country that was largely
ignoring issues of poor working conditions and worker health and safety. While this fire was far from the
only instance of worker death, the sheer number of people killed—almost one hundred fifty—and the fact
they were all young women, made a strong impression. Furthering the power of this tragedy was the
first-hand account shared by William Shepherd, a United Press reporter who was on the scene, giving
his eyewitness account over a telephone. His account appeared, just two days later, in the Milwaukee
Journal, and word of the tragedy spread from there. Public outrage over their deaths was enough to give
the National Consumers League the power it needed to push politicians to get involved.
I saw every feature of the tragedy visible from outside the building. I learned a new sound—a
more horrible sound than description can picture. It was the thud of a speeding, living body
on a stone sidewalk.
Thud-dead, thud-dead, thud-dead, thud-dead.Sixty-two thud-deads. I call them that, because
the sound and the thought of death came to me each time, at the same instant. There was
plenty of chance to watch them as they came down. The height was eighty feet.
The first ten thud-deads shocked me. I looked up—saw that there were scores of girls at the
windows. The flames from the floor below were beating in their faces. Somehow I knew that
they, too, must come down. . . .
A policeman later went about with tags, which he fastened with wires to the wrists of the dead
girls, numbering each with a lead pencil, and I saw him fasten tag no. 54 to the wrist of a girl
who wore an engagement ring. A fireman who came downstairs from the building told me that
there were at least fifty bodies in the big room on the seventh floor. Another fireman told me
that more girls had jumped down an air shaft in the rear of the building. I went back there, into
the narrow court, and saw a heap of dead girls. . . .
The floods of water from the firemen’s hose that ran into the gutter were actually stained red
with blood. I looked upon the heap of dead bodies and I remembered these girls were the
shirtwaist makers. I remembered their great strike of last year in which these same girls had
demanded more sanitary conditions and more safety precautions in the shops. These dead
bodies were the answer.
What do you think about William Shepherd’s description? What effect do you think it had on newspaper
readers in the Midwest?
Another cause that garnered support from a key group of Progressives was the prohibition of liquor.
This crusade, which gained followers through the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) and
the Anti-Saloon League, directly linked Progressivism with morality and Christian reform initiatives, and
saw in alcohol both a moral vice and a practical concern, as workingmen spent their wages on liquor
and saloons, often turning violent towards each other or their families at home. The WCTU and Anti-
Saloon League moved the efforts to eliminate the sale of alcohol from a bar-to-bar public opinion campaign
to one of city-to-city and state-by-state votes (Figure 21.9). Through local option votes and subsequent
statewide initiatives and referendums, the Anti-Saloon League succeeded in urging 40 percent of the
nation’s counties to “go dry” by 1906, and a full dozen states to do the same by 1909. Their political
pressure culminated in the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1919,
which prohibited the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages nationwide.
Figure 21.9 This John R. Chapin illustration shows the women of the temperance movement holding an open-air
prayer meeting outside an Ohio saloon. (credit: Library of Congress)
RADICAL PROGRESSIVES
The Progressive Era also witnessed a wave of radicalism, with leaders who believed that America was
beyond reform and that only a complete revolution of sorts would bring about the necessary changes.
The radicals had early roots in the labor and political movements of the mid-nineteenth century but
soon grew to feel that the more moderate Progressive ideals were inadequate. Conversely, one reason
mainstream why Progressives felt the need to succeed on issues of social inequity was because radicals
offered remedies that middle-class Americans considered far more dangerous. The two most prominent
radical movements to emerge at the beginning of the century were the Socialist Party of America (SPA),
founded in 1901, and the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), founded in 1905, whose emphasis on
worker empowerment deviated from the more paternalistic approach of Progressive reformers.
Labor leader Eugene Debs, disenchanted with the failures of the labor movement, was a founding member
and prominent leader of the SPA (Figure 21.10). Advocating for change via the ballot box, the SPA sought
to elect Socialists to positions at the local, state, and federal levels in order to initiate change from within.
Between 1901 and 1918, the SPA enjoyed tremendous success, electing over seventy Socialist mayors, over
thirty state legislators, and two U.S. congressmen, Victor Berger from Wisconsin and Meyer London from
New York. Debs himself ran for president as the SPA candidate in five elections between 1900 and 1920,
twice earning nearly one million votes.

Figure 21.10 This image of Eugene Debs speaking to a crowd in Canton, Ohio, in 1918, illustrates the passion and
intensity that made him such a compelling figure to the more radical Progressives.
As had been true for the Populist and Progressive movements, the radical movement suffered numerous
fissures. Although Debs established a tenuous relationship with Samuel Gompers and the American
Federation of Labor, some within the Socialist Party favored a more radical political stance than Debs’s
craft union structure. As a result, William “Big Bill” Haywood formed the more radical IWW, or Wobblies,
in 1905. Although he remained an active member of the Socialist Party until 1919, Haywood appreciated
the outcry of the more radical arm of the party that desired an industrial union approach to labor
organization. The IWW advocated for direct action and, in particular, the general strike, as the most
effective revolutionary method to overthrow the capitalist system. By 1912, the Wobblies had played a
significant role in a number of major strikes, including the Paterson Silk Strike, the Lawrence Textile
Strike, and the Mesabi Range Iron Strike. The government viewed the Wobblies as a significant threat,
and in a response far greater than their actions warranted, targeted them with arrests, tar-and-featherings,
shootings, and lynchings.
Both the Socialist Party and the IWW reflected elements of the Progressive desire for democracy and social
justice. The difference was simply that for this small but vocal minority in the United States, the corruption
of government at all levels meant that the desire for a better life required a different approach. What they
sought mirrored the work of all grassroots Progressives, differing only in degree and strategy.

• Understand the origins and growth of the women’s rights movement
• Identify the different strands of the early African American civil rights movement
The Progressive drive for a more perfect democracy and social justice also fostered the growth of two
new movements that attacked the oldest and most long-standing betrayals of the American promise of
equal opportunity and citizenship—the disfranchisement of women and civil rights for African Americans.
African Americans across the nation identified an agenda for civil rights and economic opportunity during
the Progressive Era, but they disagreed strongly on how to meet these goals in the face of universal
discrimination and disfranchisement, segregation, and racial violence in the South. And beginning in the
late nineteenth century, the women’s movement cultivated a cadre of new leaders, national organizations,
and competing rationales for women’s rights—especially the right to vote.
LEADERS EMERGE IN THE WOMEN’S MOVEMENT

Women like Jane Addams and Florence Kelley were instrumental in the early Progressive settlement house
movement, and female leaders dominated organizations such as the WCTU and the Anti-Saloon League.
From these earlier efforts came new leaders who, in their turn, focused their efforts on the key goal of the
Progressive Era as it pertained to women: the right to vote.
Women had first formulated their demand for the right to vote in the Declaration of Sentiments at a
convention in Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848, and saw their first opportunity of securing suffrage during
Reconstruction when legislators—driven by racial animosity—sought to enfranchise women to counter the
votes of black men following the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment. By 1900, the western frontier
states of Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming had already responded to women’s movements with the
right to vote in state and local elections, regardless of gender. They conceded to the suffragists’ demands,
partly in order to attract more women to these male-dominated regions. But women’s lives in the West also
rarely fit with the nineteenth-century ideology of “separate spheres” that had legitimized the exclusion of
women from the rough-and-tumble party competitions of public politics. In 1890, the National American
Women’s Suffrage Association (NAWSA) organized several hundred state and local chapters to urge the
passage of a federal amendment to guarantee a woman’s right to vote. Its leaders, Elizabeth Cady Stanton
and Susan B. Anthony, were veterans of the women’s suffrage movement and had formulated the first
demand for the right to vote at Seneca Falls in 1848 (Figure 21.11). Under the subsequent leadership
of Carrie Chapman Catt, beginning in 1900, the group decided to make suffrage its first priority. Soon,
its membership began to grow. Using modern marketing efforts like celebrity endorsements to attract
a younger audience, the NAWSA became a significant political pressure group for the passage of an
amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Figure 21.11 Women suffragists in Ohio sought to educate and convince men that they should support a woman’s
rights to vote. As the feature below on the backlash against suffragists illustrates, it was a far from simple task.
For some in the NAWSA, however, the pace of change was too slow. Frustrated with the lack of response
by state and national legislators, Alice Paul, who joined the organization in 1912, sought to expand the
scope of the organization as well as to adopt more direct protest tactics to draw greater media attention.
When others in the group were unwilling to move in her direction, Paul split from the NAWSA to
create the Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage, later renamed the National Woman’s Party, in 1913.
Known as the Silent Sentinels (Figure 21.12), Paul and her group picketed outside the White House

for nearly two years, starting in 1917. In the latter stages of their protests, many women, including
Paul, were arrested and thrown in jail, where they staged a hunger strike as self-proclaimed political
prisoners. Prison guards ultimately force-fed Paul to keep her alive. At a time—during World War
I—when women volunteered as army nurses, worked in vital defense industries, and supported Wilson’s
campaign to “make the world safe for democracy,” the scandalous mistreatment of Paul embarrassed
President Woodrow Wilson. Enlightened to the injustice toward all American women, he changed his
position in support of a woman’s constitutional right to vote.
Figure 21.12 Alice Paul and her Silent Sentinels picketed outside the White House for almost two years, and, when
arrested, went on hunger strike until they were force-fed in order to save their lives.
While Catt and Paul used different strategies, their combined efforts brought enough pressure to bear for
Congress to pass the Nineteenth Amendment, which prohibited voter discrimination on the basis of sex,
during a special session in the summer of 1919. Subsequently, the required thirty-six states approved its
adoption, with Tennessee doing so in August of 1920, in time for that year’s presidential election.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
The Anti-Suffragist Movement
The early suffragists may have believed that the right to vote was a universal one, but they faced waves of
discrimination and ridicule from both men and women. The image below (Figure 21.13) shows one of the
organizations pushing back against the suffragist movement, but much of the anti-suffrage campaign was
carried out through ridiculing postcards and signs that showed suffragists as sexually wanton, grasping,
irresponsible, or impossibly ugly. Men in anti-suffragist posters were depicted as henpecked, crouching
to clean the floor, while their suffragist wives marched out the door to campaign for the vote. They also
showed cartoons of women gambling, drinking, and smoking cigars, that is, taking on men’s vices, once
they gained voting rights.
Figure 21.13 The anti-suffrage group used ridicule and embarrassment to try and sway the public
away from supporting a woman’s right to vote.
Other anti-suffragists believed that women could better influence the country from outside the realm
of party politics, through their clubs, petitions, and churches. Many women also opposed women’s
suffrage because they thought the dirty world of politics was a morass to which ladies should not be
exposed. The National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage formed in 1911; around the country,
state representatives used the organization’s speakers, funds, and literature to promote the anti-suffragist
cause. As the link below illustrates, the suffragists endured much prejudice and backlash in their push for
equal rights.
Click and Explore
Browse this collection of anti-suffragist cartoons (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

postcard) to see examples of the stereotypes and fear-mongering that the anti-
suffragist campaign promoted.

LEADERS EMERGE IN THE EARLY CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Racial mob violence against African Americans permeated much of the “New South”—and, to a lesser
extent, the West, where Mexican Americans and other immigrant groups also suffered severe
discrimination and violence—by the late nineteenth century. The Ku Klux Klan and a system of Jim Crow
laws governed much of the South (discussed in a previous chapter). White middle-class reformers were
appalled at the violence of race relations in the nation but typically shared the belief in racial characteristics
and the superiority of Anglo-Saxon whites over African Americans, Asians, “ethnic” Europeans, Indians,
and Latin American populations. Southern reformers considered segregation a Progressive solution to
racial violence; across the nation, educated middle-class Americans enthusiastically followed the work of
eugenicists who identified virtually all human behavior as inheritable traits and issued awards at county
fairs to families and individuals for their “racial fitness.” It was against this tide that African American
leaders developed their own voice in the Progressive Era, working along diverse paths to improve the lives
and conditions of African Americans throughout the country.
Born into slavery in Virginia in 1856, Booker T. Washington became an influential African American leader
at the outset of the Progressive Era. In 1881, he became the first principal for the Tuskegee Normal and
Industrial Institute in Alabama, a position he held until he died in 1915. Tuskegee was an all-black “normal
school”—an old term for a teachers’ college—teaching African Americans a curriculum geared towards
practical skills such as cooking, farming, and housekeeping. Graduates would often then travel through
the South, teaching new farming and industrial techniques to rural communities. Washington extolled
the school’s graduates to focus on the black community’s self-improvement and prove that they were
productive members of society even in freedom—something white Americans throughout the nation had
always doubted.
In a speech delivered at the Cotton States and International Exposition in Atlanta in 1895, which was meant
to promote the economy of a “New South,” Washington proposed what came to be known as the Atlanta
Compromise (Figure 21.14). Speaking to a racially mixed audience, Washington called upon African
Americans to work diligently for their own uplift and prosperity rather than preoccupy themselves with
political and civil rights. Their success and hard work, he implied, would eventually convince southern
whites to grant these rights. Not surprisingly, most whites liked Washington’s model of race relations,
since it placed the burden of change on blacks and required nothing of them. Wealthy industrialists
such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller provided funding for many of Washington’s self-help
programs, as did Sears, Roebuck & Co. co-founder Julius Rosenwald, and Washington was the first African
American invited to the White House by President Roosevelt in 1901. At the same time, his message also
appealed to many in the black community, and some attribute this widespread popularity to his consistent
message that social and economic growth, even within a segregated society, would do more for African
Americans than an all-out agitation for equal rights on all fronts.
Figure 21.14 In Booker T. Washington’s speech at the Cotton States and International Exposition in Atlanta, he
urged his audience to “cast down your bucket where you are” and make friends with the people around them.
Click and Explore
Visit George Mason University’s History Matters website for the text and audio of
Booker T. Washington’s famous Atlanta Compromise (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/
booker) speech.
Yet, many African Americans disagreed with Washington’s approach. Much in the same manner that
Alice Paul felt the pace of the struggle for women’s rights was moving too slowly under the NAWSA,
some within the African American community felt that immediate agitation for the rights guaranteed
under the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, established during the immediate aftermath
of the Civil War, was necessary. In 1905, a group of prominent civil rights leaders, led by W. E. B. Du
Bois, met in a small hotel on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls—where segregation laws did not bar
them from hotel accommodations—to discuss what immediate steps were needed for equal rights (Figure
21.15). Du Bois, a professor at the all-black Atlanta University and the first African American with a
doctorate from Harvard, emerged as the prominent spokesperson for what would later be dubbed the
Niagara Movement. By 1905, he had grown wary of Booker T. Washington’s calls for African Americans
to accommodate white racism and focus solely on self-improvement. Du Bois, and others alongside him,
wished to carve a more direct path towards equality that drew on the political leadership and litigation
skills of the black, educated elite, which he termed the “talented tenth.”

Figure 21.15 This photo of the Niagara Movement shows W. E. B. Du Bois seated in the second row, center, in the
white hat. The proud and self-confident postures of this group stood in marked contrast to the humility that Booker T.
Washington urged of blacks.
At the meeting, Du Bois led the others in drafting the “Declaration of Principles,” which called for
immediate political, economic, and social equality for African Americans. These rights included universal
suffrage, compulsory education, and the elimination of the convict lease system in which tens of thousands
of blacks had endured slavery-like conditions in southern road construction, mines, prisons, and penal
farms since the end of Reconstruction. Within a year, Niagara chapters had sprung up in twenty-one states
across the country. By 1908, internal fights over the role of women in the fight for African American equal
rights lessened the interest in the Niagara Movement. But the movement laid the groundwork for the
creation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), founded in 1909.
Du Bois served as the influential director of publications for the NAACP from its inception until 1933. As
the editor of the journal The Crisis, Du Bois had a platform to express his views on a variety of issues facing
African Americans in the later Progressive Era, as well as during World War I and its aftermath.
In both Washington and Du Bois, African Americans found leaders to push forward the fight for their
place in the new century, each with a very different strategy. Both men cultivated ground for a new
generation of African American spokespeople and leaders who would then pave the road to the modern
civil rights movement after World War II.

• Explain the key features of Theodore Roosevelt’s “Square Deal”
• Explain the key features of William Howard Taft’s Progressive agenda
• Identify the main pieces of legislation that Woodrow Wilson’s “New Freedom” agenda
comprised
Progressive groups made tremendous strides on issues involving democracy, efficiency, and social justice.
But they found that their grassroots approach was ill-equipped to push back against the most powerful
beneficiaries of growing inequality, economic concentration, and corruption—big business. In their fight
against the trusts, Progressives needed the leadership of the federal government, and they found it in
Theodore Roosevelt in 1901, through an accident of history.
In 1900, a sound economic recovery, a unifying victory in the Spanish-American War, and the annexation
of the Philippines had helped President William McKinley secure his reelection with the first solid popular
majority since 1872. His new vice president was former New York Governor and Assistant Secretary of
the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt. But when an assassin shot and killed President McKinley in 1901 (Figure
21.16) at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York, Theodore Roosevelt unexpectedly became
the youngest president in the nation’s history. More importantly, it ushered in a new era of progressive
national politics and changed the role of the presidency for the twentieth century.
Figure 21.16 President William McKinley’s assassination (a) at the hands of an anarchist made Theodore Roosevelt
(b) the country’s youngest president.
BUSTING THE TRUSTS

Roosevelt’s early career showed him to be a dynamic leader with a Progressive agenda. Many Republican
Party leaders disliked Roosevelt’s Progressive ideas and popular appeal and hoped to end his career with
a nomination to the vice presidency—long considered a dead end in politics. When an assassin’s bullet
toppled this scheme, Mark Hanna, a prominent Republican senator and party leader, lamented, “Now
look! That damned cowboy is now president!”
As the new president, however, Roosevelt moved cautiously with his agenda while he finished out
McKinley’s term. Roosevelt kept much of McKinley’s cabinet intact, and his initial message to Congress
gave only one overriding Progressive goal for his presidency: to eliminate business trusts. In the three
years prior to Roosevelt’s presidency, the nation had witnessed a wave of mergers and the creation of
mega-corporations. To counter this trend, Roosevelt created the Department of Commerce and Labor in
1903, which included the Bureau of Corporations, whose job it was to investigate trusts. He also asked
the Department of Justice to resume prosecutions under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Intended to
empower federal prosecutors to ban monopolies as conspiracies against interstate trade, the law had run
afoul of a conservative Supreme Court.
In 1902, Roosevelt launched his administration’s first antitrust suit against the Northern Securities Trust
Company, which included powerful businessmen, like John D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan, and
controlled many of the large midwestern railroads. The suit wound through the judicial system, all the
way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1904, the highest court in the land ultimately affirmed the ruling
to break up the trust in a narrow five-to-four vote. For Roosevelt, that was enough of a mandate;

he immediately moved against other corporations as well, including the American Tobacco Company
and—most significantly—Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company.
Although Roosevelt enjoyed the nickname “the Trustbuster,” he did not consider all trusts dangerous
to the public welfare. The “good trusts,” Roosevelt reasoned, used their power in the marketplace and
economies of scale to deliver goods and services to customers more cheaply. For example, he allowed
Morgan’s U.S. Steel Corporation to continue its operations and let it take over smaller steel companies. At
the same time, Roosevelt used the presidency as a “bully pulpit” to publicly denounce “bad trusts”—those
corporations that exploited their market positions for short-term gains—before he ordered prosecutions by
the Justice Department. In total, Roosevelt initiated over two dozen successful anti-trust suits, more than
any president before him.
Roosevelt also showed in other contexts that he dared to face the power of corporations. When an
anthracite coal strike gripped the nation for much of the year in 1902, Roosevelt directly intervened in the
dispute and invited both sides to the White House to negotiate a deal that included minor wage increases
and a slight improvement in working hours. For Roosevelt, his intervention in the matter symbolized
his belief that the federal government should adopt a more proactive role and serve as a steward of all
Americans (Figure 21.17). This stood in contrast to his predecessors, who had time and again bolstered
industrialists in their fight against workers’ rights with the deployment of federal troops.
Figure 21.17 This cartoon shows President Roosevelt disciplining coal barons like J. P. Morgan, threatening to beat
them with a stick labeled “Federal Authority.” It illustrates Roosevelt’s new approach to business.
THE SQUARE DEAL

Roosevelt won his second term in 1904 with an overwhelming 57 percent of the popular vote. After the
election, he moved quickly to enact his own brand of Progressivism, which he called a Square Deal for
the American people. Early in his second term, Roosevelt read muckraker Upton Sinclair’s 1905 novel and
exposé on the meatpacking industry, The Jungle. Although Roosevelt initially questioned the book due
to Sinclair’s professed Socialist leanings, a subsequent presidential commission investigated the industry
and corroborated the deplorable conditions under which Chicago’s meatpackers processed meats for
American consumers. Alarmed by the results and under pressure from an outraged public disgusted with
the revelations, Roosevelt moved quickly to protect public health. He urged the passage of two laws to
do so. The first, the Meat Inspection Act of 1906, established a system of government inspection for meat
products, including grading the meat based on its quality. This standard was also used for imported
meats. The second was the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which required labels on all food and
drug products that clearly stated the materials in the product. The law also prohibited any “adulterated”
products, a measure aimed at some specific, unhealthy food preservatives. For Sinclair, this outcome
was a disappointment nonetheless, since he had sought to draw attention to the plight of workers in the
slaughterhouses, not the poor quality of the meat products. “I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident
I hit it in the stomach,” he concluded with frustration.
Another key element of Roosevelt’s Progressivism was the protection of public land (Figure 21.18).
Roosevelt was a longtime outdoorsman, with an interest that went back to his childhood and college
days, as well as his time cattle ranching in the West, and he chose to appoint his good friend Gifford
Pinchot as the country’s first chief of the newly created U.S. Forestry Service. Under Pinchot’s supervision,
the department carved out several nature habitats on federal land in order to preserve the nation’s
environmental beauty and protect it from development or commercial use. Apart from national parks like
Oregon’s Crater Lake or Colorado’s Mesa Verde, and monuments designed for preservation, Roosevelt
conserved public land for regulated use for future generations. To this day, the 150 national forests created
under Roosevelt’s stewardship carry the slogan “land of many uses.” In all, Roosevelt established eighteen
national monuments, fifty-one federal bird preserves, five national parks, and over one hundred fifty
national forests, which amounted to about 230 million acres of public land.
Figure 21.18 Theodore Roosevelt’s interest in the protection of public lands was encouraged by conservationists
such as John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, with whom he toured Yosemite National Park in California, ca. 1906.
In his second term in office, Roosevelt signed legislation on Progressive issues such as factory inspections,
child labor, and business regulation. He urged the passage of the Elkins Act of 1903 and the Hepburn
Act of 1906, both of which strengthened the position of the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate
railroad prices. These laws also extended the Commission’s authority to regulate interstate transportation
on bridges, ferries, and even oil pipelines.
As the 1908 election approached, Roosevelt was at the height of popularity among the American public,
if not among the big businesses and conservative leaders of his own Republican Party. Nonetheless, he
promised on the night of his reelection in 1904 that he would not seek a third term. Roosevelt stepped
aside as the election approached, but he did hand-pick a successor—Secretary of War and former Governor
General of the Philippines William Howard Taft of Ohio—a personal friend who, he assured the American
public, would continue the path of the “Square Deal” (Figure 21.19). With such a ringing endorsement,
Taft easily won the 1908 presidential election, defeating three-time Democratic presidential nominee
William Jennings Bryan, whose ideas on taxes and corporate regulations reminded voters of the more far-
reaching Populist platforms of Bryan’s past candidacies.

Figure 21.19 This photograph (a) of Theodore Roosevelt (left) and his hand-picked successor William Howard Taft
(right) just before Taft’s inauguration in 1909, was echoed in a Puck magazine cartoon (b) where “cowboy” Roosevelt
hands off his “Policies” baby to “nurse-maid” Taft. Taft was seen, initially at least, as being a president who would
continue Roosevelt’s same policies.
Click and Explore
Explore American Experience: TR (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/TR) at PBS for a

wealth of information on Theodore Roosevelt, including details of his early life before
the presidency and transcripts from several of his speeches.
THE TAFT PRESIDENCY

Although six feet tall and nearly 340 pounds, as Roosevelt’s successor, Taft had big shoes to fill. The public
expected much from Roosevelt’s hand-picked replacement, as did Roosevelt himself, who kept a watchful
eye over Taft’s presidency.
The new president’s background suggested he would be a strong administrator. He had previously served
as the governor of the Philippines following the Spanish-American War, had a distinguished judicial
career, and served as Roosevelt’s Secretary of War from 1904 to 1908. Republican leaders, however, were
anxious to reestablish tighter control over the party after Roosevelt’s departure, and they left Taft little
room to maneuver. He stayed the course of his predecessor by signing the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910,
which extended the authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission over telephones and telegraphs.
Additionally, during his tenure, Congress proposed constitutional amendments to authorize a federal
income tax and mandate the direct election of U.S. senators. But even though Taft initiated twice as many
antitrust suits against big business as Roosevelt, he lacked the political negotiating skills and focus on the
public good of his predecessor, who felt betrayed when Taft took J.P. Morgan’s U.S. Steel Corporation to
court over an acquisition that Roosevelt had promised Morgan would not result in a prosecution.
Political infighting within his own party exposed the limitations of Taft’s presidential authority, especially
on the issue of protective tariffs. When House Republicans passed a measure to significantly reduce tariffs
on several imported goods, Taft endorsed the Senate version, later known as the Payne-Aldrich Act of
1909, which raised tariff rates on over eight hundred products in the original bill. Taft also angered
Progressives in his own party when he created the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1912, viewed by many as
an attempt to offset the growing influence of the labor union movement at the time. The rift between Taft
and his party’s Progressives widened when the president supported conservative party candidates for the
1910 House and Senate elections.
Taft’s biggest political blunder came in the area of land conservation. In 1909, Taft’s Secretary of the
Interior, Richard Ballinger, approved the sale of millions of acres of federal land to a company for which
he had previously worked over Gifford Pinchot’s objections. Pinchot publicly criticized the secretary for
violating the principle of conservation and for his conflict of interest—a charge that in the public debate
also reflected on the president. Taft fired Pinchot, a move that widened the gap between him and the
former president. Upon his return from Africa, Roosevelt appeared primed to attack. He referred to the
sitting president as a “fathead” and a “puzzlewit,” and announced his intention to “throw my hat in the
ring for the 1912 presidential election.”
THE 1912 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Although not as flamboyant or outwardly progressive as Roosevelt, Taft’s organizational skills and
generally solid performance as president aligned with the party leadership’s concerns over another
Roosevelt presidency and secured for him the Republican Party’s nomination. Angry over this snub,
in 1912, Roosevelt and the other Progressive Republicans bolted the Republican Party and formed the
Progressive Party. His popularity had him hoping to win the presidential race as a third-party candidate.
When he survived an assassination attempt in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in October 1912—the assassin’s
bullet hit his eyeglass case and only injured him superficially—he turned the near-death experience into
a political opportunity. Insisting upon delivering the speech before seeking medical attention, he told the
crowd, “It takes more than a bullet to kill a bull moose!” The moniker stuck, and Roosevelt’s Progressive
Party would be known as the Bull Moose Party for the remainder of the campaign (Figure 21.20).
Figure 21.20 Theodore Roosevelt, now running as the Progressive Party, or Bull Moose Party, candidate, created
an unprecedented moment in the country’s history, where a former president was running against both an incumbent
president and a future president.

The Democrats realized that a split Republican Party gave them a good chance of regaining the White
House for the first time since 1896. They found their candidate in the Progressive governor of New
Jersey, Woodrow Wilson. A former history professor and president at Princeton University, Wilson had an
academic demeanor that appealed to many Progressive reformers. Many Democrats also viewed Wilson
as a Washington outsider who had made far fewer political enemies than Roosevelt and Taft.
Taft never truly campaigned for the post, did not deliver a single speech, and did not seem like a
serious contender. In their campaigns, Roosevelt and Wilson formulated competing Progressive platforms.
Wilson described his more moderate approach as one of New Freedom, which stood for a smaller federal
government to protect public interests from the evils associated with big businesses and banks. Roosevelt
campaigned on the promise of New Nationalism, a charge that he said required a vigorous and powerful
federal government to protect public interests. He sought to capitalize on the stewardship approach that
he had made famous during his previous administration.
Wilson won the 1912 election with over six million votes, with four million votes going to Roosevelt and
three and one-half million for Taft. The internal split among Republicans not only cost them the White
House but control of the Senate as well—and Democrats had already won a House majority in 1910.
Wilson won the presidency with just 42 percent of the popular vote, which meant that he would have to
sway a large number of voters should he have any aspirations for a second term.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
The Unprecedented Election of 1912
In his 2002 article on the 1912 election, historian Sidney M. Milkis writes,
The Progressive Party’s “compromise” with public opinion in the United States points to its
legacy for American politics and government. Arguably, the failure of the 1912 experiment and
the Progressive Party’s demise underscore the incoherence of the Progressive movement.
Nevertheless, it was neither the Democrats, nor the Republicans, nor the Socialists who set
the tone of the 1912 campaign. It was the Progressives. Beyond the 1912 election, their
program of political and social reform has been an enduring feature of American political
discourse and electoral struggle. The Progressive Party forged a path of reform that left both
social democracy and conservatism—Taft’s constitutional sobriety—behind. Similarly, T.R.’s
celebrity, and the popularity of the Progressive doctrine of the people’s right to rule, tended
to subordinate the more populist to the more plebiscitary schemes in the platform, such as
the initiative, the referendum, and the direct primary, which exalted not the “grass roots”
but mass opinion. Indeed, in the wake of the excitement aroused by the Progressive Party,
Wilson, whose New Freedom campaign was far more sympathetic to the decentralized state
of courts and parties than T.R.’s, felt compelled, as president, to govern as a New Nationalist
Progressive.
It is interesting to think of how this most unusual election—one with three major candidates that pitted a
former president against an incumbent and a major party contender—related to the larger Progressive
movement. The cartoon below is only one of many cartoons of that era that sought to point out the
differences between the candidates (Figure 21.21). While Roosevelt and the Progressive Party ultimately
lost the election, they required the dialogue of the campaign to remain on the goals of Progressivism,
particularly around more direct democracy and business regulation. The American public responded with
fervor to Roosevelt’s campaign, partly because of his immense popularity, but partly also because he
espoused a kind of direct democracy that gave people a voice in federal politics. Although Wilson and his
New Freedom platform won the election, his presidency undertook a more activist role than his campaign
suggested. The American public had made clear that, no matter who sat in the White House, they were
seeking a more progressive America.
Figure 21.21 This cartoon, from the 1912 election, parodies how the voters might perceive the three
major candidates. As can be seen, Taft was never a serious contender.

WILSON’S NEW FREEDOM

When Wilson took office in March 1913, he immediately met with Congress to outline his New Freedom
agenda for how progressive interests could be best preserved. His plan was simple: regulate the banks
and big businesses, and lower tariff rates to increase international trade, increasing competition in the
interest of consumers. Wilson took the unusual step of calling a special session of Congress in April 1913 to
tackle the tariff question, which resulted in the Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Underwood Tariff
Act. This legislation lowered tariff rates across the board by approximately 15 percent and completely
eliminated tariffs on several imports, including steel, iron ore, woolen products, and farm tools. To offset
the potential loss of federal revenue, this new law reinstituted the federal income tax, which followed the
ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. This first income tax required married couples who earned $4000
or more, and single people who earned $3000 or more, to pay a 1-percent, graduated income tax, with the
tax rate getting progressively higher for those who earned more.
Late in 1913, Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act to regulate the banking industry and establish a
federal banking system (Figure 21.22). Designed to remove power over interest rates from the hands of
private bankers, the new system created twelve privately owned regional reserve banks regulated by a
presidentially appointed Federal Reserve Board. The Board, known informally as the Fed, regulated the
interest rate at which reserve banks loaned or distributed money to other banks around the country. Thus,
when economic times were challenging, such as during a recession, the Fed could lower this “discount
rate” and encourage more borrowing, which put more currency in circulation for people to spend or
invest. Conversely, the Fed could curb inflationary trends with interest hikes that discouraged borrowing.
This system is still the basis for the country’s modern banking model.
Figure 21.22 With the creation of the Federal Reserve Board, President Wilson set the stage for the modern
banking system (a). This restructuring of the American financial system, which included the authorization of a federal
income tax, was supported in large part by an influential Republican senator from Rhode Island, Nelson Aldrich (b),
co-author of the Payne-Aldrich Act of 1909.
Click and Explore
The history of the Federal Reserve Act (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Fedreserve)

is explored in The Washington Post, reflecting back on the act one hundred years later.
In early 1914, Wilson completed his New Freedom agenda with the passage of the Clayton Antitrust Act.
This law expanded the power of the original Sherman Antitrust Act in order to allow the investigation
and dismantling of more monopolies. The new act also took on the “interlocking directorates”—competing
companies that still operated together in a form of oligopoly or conspiracy to restrain trade. His New
Freedom agenda complete, Wilson turned his attention to foreign affairs, as war was quickly
encompassing Europe.
THE FINAL VESTIGES OF PROGRESSIVISM

As the 1916 election approached, Wilson’s focus on foreign affairs, as well as the natural effect of his
small government agenda, left the 60 percent of the American public who had not voted for him the first
time disinclined to change their minds and keep him in office. Realizing this, Wilson began a flurry of
new Progressive reforms that impressed the voting public and ultimately proved to be the last wave of
the Progressive Era. Some of the important measures that Wilson undertook to pass included the Federal
Farm Act, which provided oversight of low-interest loans to millions of farmers in need of debt relief;
the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act, which, although later deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme
Court, prohibited the interstate distribution of products by child workers under the age of fourteen;
and the Adamson Act, which put in place the first federally mandated eight-hour workday for railroad
workers.
Wilson also gained significant support from Jewish voters with his 1916 appointment of the first Jewish
U.S. Supreme Court justice, Louis D. Brandeis. Popular among social justice Progressives, Brandeis went
on to become one of the most renowned justices on the court for his defense of freedom of speech and
right to privacy issues. Finally, Wilson gained the support of many working-class voters with his defense
of labor and union rights during a violent coal strike in Ludlow, Colorado, as well as his actions to forestall
a potential railroad strike with the passage of the aforementioned Adamson Act.
Wilson’s actions in 1916 proved enough, but barely. In a close presidential election, he secured a second
term by defeating former New York governor Charles Evans Hughes by a scant twenty-three electoral
votes, and less than 600,000 popular votes. Influential states like Minnesota and New Hampshire were
decided by less than four hundred votes.
Despite the fact that he ran for reelection with the slogan, “He Kept Us Out of the War,” Wilson could not
avoid the reach of World War I much longer. For Wilson and the American public, the Progressive Era
was rapidly winding down. Although a few Progressive achievements were still to come in the areas of
women’s suffrage and prohibition, the country would soon be gripped by the war that Wilson had tried to
avoid during his first term in office. When he took the oath for his second term, on March 4, 1917, Wilson
was barely five weeks away from leading the United States in declaring war on Germany, a move that
would put an end to the Progressive Era.

Key Terms
Atlanta Compromise Booker T. Washington’s speech, given at the Atlanta Exposition in 1895, where he
urged African Americans to work hard and get along with others in their white communities, so as to
earn the goodwill of the country
direct primary a political reform that allowed for the nomination of candidates through a direct vote by
party members, rather than by the choice of delegates at conventions; in the South, this strengthened all-
white solidarity within the Democratic Party
initiative a proposed law, or initiative, placed on the ballot by public petition
muckrakers investigative journalists and authors who wrote about social ills, from child labor to the
corrupt business practices of big businesses, and urged the public to take action
NAACP the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a civil rights organization
formed in 1909 by an interracial coalition including W. E. B. Du Bois and Florence Kelley
New Freedom Woodrow Wilson’s campaign platform for the 1912 election that called for a small federal
government to protect public interests from the evils associated with bad businesses
New Nationalism Theodore Roosevelt’s 1912 campaign platform, which called for a powerful federal
government to protect the American public
Niagara Movement a campaign led by W. E. B. Du Bois and other prominent African American
reformers that departed from Booker T. Washington's model of accommodation and advocated for a
“Declaration of Principles” that called for immediate political, social, and economic equality for African
Americans
Progressive Party a political party started by Roosevelt and other Progressive Republicans who were
unhappy with Taft and wanted Roosevelt to run for a nonconsecutive third term in 1912
Progressivism a broad movement between 1896 and 1916 led by white, middle-class professionals for
legal, scientific, managerial, and institutional solutions to the ills of urbanization, industrialization, and
corruption
recall to remove a public official from office by virtue of a petition and vote process
referendum a process that allows voters to counteract legislation by putting an existing law on the ballot
for voters to either affirm or reject
Silent Sentinels women protesters who picketed the White House for years to protest for women’s right
to vote; they went on a hunger strike after their arrest, and their force-feeding became a national scandal
Square Deal Theodore Roosevelt’s name for the kind of involved, hands-on government he felt the
country needed
Taylorism a system named for Fredrick Winslow Taylor, aimed at improving factory efficiency rates
through the principle of standardization; Taylor’s model limited workers to repetitive tasks, reducing
human contact and opportunities to think or collaborate
Wisconsin Idea a political system created by Robert La Follette, governor of Wisconsin, that embodied
many progressive ideals; La Follette hired experts to advise him on improving conditions in his state
Wobblies a nickname for the Industrial Workers of the World, a radical Progressive group that grew out
of the earlier labor movement and desired an industrial union model of labor organization
Summary
In its first decade, the Progressive Era was a grassroots effort that ushered in reforms at state and
local levels. At the beginning of the twentieth century, however, Progressive endeavors captured the
attention of the federal government. The challenges of the late nineteenth century were manifold: fast-
growing cities that were ill-equipped to house the working poor, hands-off politicians shackled into
impotence by their system of political favors, and rural Americans struggling to keep their farms afloat.
The muckraking journalists of the era published books and articles highlighting the social inequities of
the day and extolling everyday Americans to help find solutions. Educated, middle-class, Anglo-Saxon
Protestants dominated the movement, but Progressives were not a homogenous group: The movement
counted African Americans, both women and men, and urban as well as rural dwellers among its ranks.
Progressive causes ranged from anti-liquor campaigns to fair pay. Together, Progressives sought to
advance the spread of democracy, improve efficiency in government and industry, and promote social
justice.

Progressive campaigns stretched from the hurricane-ruined townships of Texas to the slums of New York,
from the factory floor to the saloon door. But what tied together these disparate causes and groups was the
belief that the country was in dire need of reform, and that answers were to be found within the activism
and expertise of predominantly middle-class Americans on behalf of troubled communities. Some efforts,
such as the National Child Labor Committee, pushed for federal legislation; however, most Progressive
initiatives took place at the state and local levels, as Progressives sought to harness public support to place
pressure on politicians.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, a more radical, revolutionary breed of Progressivism began to
evolve. While these radical Progressives generally shared the goals of their more mainstream counterparts,
their strategies differed significantly. Mainstream Progressives and many middle-class Americans feared
groups such as the Socialist Party of America and the Industrial Workers of the World, which emphasized
workers’ empowerment and direct action.

The Progressive commitment to promoting democracy and social justice created an environment within
which the movements for women’s and African American rights grew and flourished. Emergent leaders
such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Carrie Chapman Catt, and Alice Paul spread the
cause of woman suffrage, drawing in other activists and making the case for a constitutional amendment
ensuring a woman’s right to vote. African Americans—guided by leaders such as Booker T. Washington
and W. E. B. Du Bois—strove for civil rights and economic opportunity, although their philosophies
and strategies differed significantly. In the women’s and civil rights movements alike, activists both
advanced their own causes and paved the way for later efforts aimed at expanding equal opportunity and
citizenship.

Theodore Roosevelt became president only by historical accident, but his activism in the executive branch
spoke to the Progressive spirit in the nation and transformed the president’s office for the twentieth

century. The courage he displayed in his confrontation of big business and willingness to side with
workers in capital-labor disputes, as well as his commitment to the preservation of federal lands, set an
agenda his successors had to match. Like Roosevelt, William Howard Taft pushed antitrust rulings and
expanded federal oversight of interstate commerce. But estrangement from his predecessor and mentor
left Taft in a difficult position for reelection. Roosevelt’s third-party challenge as a Progressive split the
Republican vote and handed Woodrow Wilson the presidency in 1912.
A Progressive like his predecessors, Wilson was also a political creature who understood the need to do
more in order to ensure his reelection. He, too, sought to limit the power of big businesses and stabilize the
economy, and he ushered in a wave of Progressive legislation that grassroots Progressives had long called
for. The nation’s entanglement in World War I, however, soon shunted the Progressive goals of democracy,
efficiency, regulation, and social justice to the back burner. The nation’s new priorities included national
security and making the world “safe for democracy.”
Review Questions
1. Ida Tarbell wrote publicly about 6. Which of the following was not a feature of
A. the need for better housing in rural Booker T. Washington’s strategy to improve the
America lives of African Americans?
B. the sinister business practices of Standard A. self-help
Oil B. accommodating/tolerating white racism
C. the need for a national temperance C. immediate protests for equal rights
movement D. learning new trades/skills
D. the women’s suffrage cause in the
American West 7. Who were the “Silent Sentinels”?
A. a group of progressive African Americans
2. Which of the following was not a key area of who drafted the Declaration of Principles
focus for the Progressives? B. anti-suffrage women
A. land reform C. an offshoot of the Industrial Workers of the
B. democracy World
C. business regulation D. suffragists who protested outside the White
D. social justice House
3. How did muckrakers help initiate the 8. Describe the philosophy and strategies of the
Progressive Era? Niagara Movement. How did it differ from
Washington’s way of thinking?
4. What system did the direct primary replace?
A. candidate selection by secret ballots 9. How did Roosevelt intercede in the Anthracite
B. candidate selection by machine bosses Coal Strike of 1902?
C. candidate selection by convention delegates A. He invited strikers and workers to the
D. an indirect primary White House.
B. He urged the owners to negotiate a deal.
5. Which of the following is not an example of C. He threatened to send in the army to work
social justice Progressivism? the mines.
A. anti-liquor campaigns D. He ordered the National Guard to protect
B. referendums the strikers.
C. workplace safety initiatives
D. improvements in education 10. Which of the following was a key Progressive
item passed by Taft?
A. the Pure Food and Drug Act
B. the U.S. Forestry Service
C. the Mann-Elkins Act D. It established a federal banking system to

D. the Payne-Aldrich Act oversee tariffs.
11. Which of the following was not an outcome of 12. Explain the fundamental differences between
the Underwood Tariff Act? Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism” and Wilson’s
A. It reduced tariffs 15 percent across all “New Freedom.”
imports.
B. It eliminated tariffs for steel. 13. Why did Wilson’s “New Freedom” agenda
C. It eliminated tariffs for iron ore. come in two distinct phases (1913 and 1916)?

14. Which of the primary features of grassroots Progressivism was the most essential to the continued
growth and success of the reformist movement? Why?
15. Describe the multiple groups and leaders that emerged in the fight for the Progressive agenda,
including women’s rights, African American rights, and workers’ rights. How were the philosophies,
agendas, strategies, and approaches of these leaders and organizations similar and different? What made
it difficult for all Progressive activists to present a united front?
16. How did President Theodore Roosevelt’s “Square Deal” epitomize the notion that the federal
government should serve as a steward protecting the public’s interests?
17. How did the goals and reform agenda of the Progressive Era manifest themselves during the
presidential administrations of Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson?
18. What vestiges of Progressivism can we see in our modern lives—politically, economically, and
socially? Which of our present-day political processes, laws, institutions, and attitudes have roots in this
era? Why have they had such staying power?

Chapter 22 Age of Empire: American Foreign Policy, 1890-1914 641
CHAPTER 22
Age of Empire: American Foreign

Policy, 1890-1914
Figure 22.1 This poster advertises a minstrel show wherein an actor playing Theodore Roosevelt reenacts his
leadership of the Rough Riders in the Spanish-American War and illustrates the American public’s zeal for tales of
American expansionist glory.
Chapter Outline
22.1 Turner, Mahan, and the Roots of Empire
22.2 The Spanish-American War and Overseas Empire
22.3 Economic Imperialism in East Asia
22.4 Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” Foreign Policy
22.5 Taft’s “Dollar Diplomacy”
Introduction
As he approached the rostrum to speak before historians gathered in Chicago in 1893, Frederick Jackson
Turner appeared nervous. He was presenting a conclusion that would alarm all who believed that
westward expansion had fostered the nation’s principles of democracy. His conclusion: The frontier—the
encounter between European traditions and the native wilderness—had played a fundamental role in
shaping American character, but the American frontier no longer existed. Turner’s statement raised
questions. How would Americans maintain their unique political culture and innovative spirit in the
absence of the frontier? How would the nation expand its economy if it could no longer expand its
territory?
Later historians would see Turner’s Frontier Thesis as deeply flawed, a gross mischaracterization of
the West. But the young historian’s work greatly influenced politicians and thinkers of the day. Like a
muckraker, Turner exposed the problem; others found a solution by seeking out new frontiers in the
creation of an American empire. The above advertisement for a theater reenactment of the Spanish-
American War (Figure 22.1) shows the American appetite for expansion. Many Americans felt that it was
time for their nation to offer its own brand of international leadership and dominance as an alternative to
the land-grabbing empires of Europe.
642 Chapter 22 Age of Empire: American Foreign Policy, 1890-1914

• Explain the evolution of American interest in foreign affairs from the end of the Civil
War through the early 1890s
• Identify the contributions of Frederick Jackson Turner and Alfred Thayer Mahan to the
conscious creation of an American empire
During the time of Reconstruction, the U.S. government showed no significant initiative in foreign affairs.
Western expansion and the goal of Manifest Destiny still held the country’s attention, and American
missionaries proselytized as far abroad as China, India, the Korean Peninsula, and Africa, but
reconstruction efforts took up most of the nation’s resources. As the century came to a close, however,
a variety of factors, from the closing of the American frontier to the country’s increased industrial
production, led the United States to look beyond its borders. Countries in Europe were building their
empires through global power and trade, and the United States did not want to be left behind.
AMERICA’S LIMITED BUT AGGRESSIVE PUSH OUTWARD

On the eve of the Civil War, the country lacked the means to establish a strong position in international
diplomacy. As of 1865, the U.S. State Department had barely sixty employees and no ambassadors
representing American interests abroad. Instead, only two dozen American foreign ministers were located
in key countries, and those often gained their positions not through diplomatic skills or expertise in foreign
affairs but through bribes. Further limiting American potential for foreign impact was the fact that a strong
international presence required a strong military—specifically a navy—which the United States, after the
Civil War, was in no position to maintain. Additionally, as late as 1890, with the U.S. Navy significantly
reduced in size, a majority of vessels were classified as “Old Navy,” meaning a mixture of iron hulled and
Figure 22.2

wholly wooden ships. While the navy had introduced the first all-steel, triple-hulled steam engine vessels
seven years earlier, they had only thirteen of them in operation by 1890.
Despite such widespread isolationist impulses and the sheer inability to maintain a strong international
position, the United States moved ahead sporadically with a modest foreign policy agenda in the three
decades following the Civil War. Secretary of State William Seward, who held that position from 1861
through 1869, sought to extend American political and commercial influence in both Asia and Latin
America. He pursued these goals through a variety of actions. A treaty with Nicaragua set the early course
for the future construction of a canal across Central America. He also pushed through the annexation of the
Midway Islands in the Pacific Ocean, which subsequently opened a more stable route to Asian markets. In
frequent conversations with President Lincoln, among others, Seward openly spoke of his desire to obtain
British Columbia, the Hawaiian Islands, portions of the Dominican Republic, Cuba, and other territories.
He explained his motives to a Boston audience in 1867, when he professed his intention to give the United
States “control of the world.”
Most notably, in 1867, Seward obtained the Alaskan Territory from Russia for a purchase price of $7.2
million. Fearing future loss of the territory through military conflict, as well as desiring to create challenges
for Great Britain (which they had fought in the Crimean War), Russia had happily accepted the American
purchase offer. In the United States, several newspaper editors openly questioned the purchase and
labeled it “Seward’s Folly” (Figure 22.3). They highlighted the lack of Americans to populate the vast
region and lamented the challenges in attempting to govern the native peoples in that territory. Only
if gold were to be found, the editors decried, would the secretive purchase be justified. That is exactly
what happened. Seward’s purchase added an enormous territory to the country—nearly 600,000 square
miles—and also gave the United States access to the rich mineral resources of the region, including the
gold that trigged the Klondike Gold Rush at the close of the century. As was the case elsewhere in the
American borderlands, Alaska’s industrial development wreaked havoc on the region’s indigenous and
Russian cultures.
Figure 22.3 Although mocked in the press at the time as “Seward’s Folly,” Secretary of State William Seward’s
acquisition of Alaska from Russia was a strategic boon to the United States.
Seward’s successor as Secretary of State, Hamilton Fish, held the position from 1869 through 1877. Fish
spent much of his time settling international disputes involving American interests, including claims that
British assistance to the Confederates prolonged the Civil War for about two years. In these so-called
Alabama claims, a U.S. senator charged that the Confederacy won a number of crucial battles with the
help of one British cruiser and demanded $2 billion in British reparations. Alternatively, the United States
would settle for the rights to Canada. A joint commission representing both countries eventually settled
on a British payment of $15 million to the United States. In the negotiations, Fish also suggested adding
the Dominican Republic as a territorial possession with a path towards statehood, as well as discussing
the construction of a transoceanic canal with Columbia. Although neither negotiation ended in the desired
result, they both expressed Fish’s intent to cautiously build an American empire without creating any
unnecessary military entanglements in the wake of the Civil War.
BUSINESS, RELIGIOUS, AND SOCIAL INTERESTS SET THE STAGE FOR EMPIRE
While the United States slowly pushed outward and sought to absorb the borderlands (and the indigenous
cultures that lived there), the country was also changing how it functioned. As a new industrial United
States began to emerge in the 1870s, economic interests began to lead the country toward a more
expansionist foreign policy. By forging new and stronger ties overseas, the United States would gain access
to international markets for export, as well as better deals on the raw materials needed domestically. The
concerns raised by the economic depression of the early 1890s further convinced business owners that they
needed to tap into new markets, even at the risk of foreign entanglements.
As a result of these growing economic pressures, American exports to other nations skyrocketed in the
years following the Civil War, from $234 million in 1865 to $605 million in 1875. By 1898, on the eve of
the Spanish-American War, American exports had reached a height of $1.3 billion annually. Imports over
the same period also increased substantially, from $238 million in 1865 to $616 million in 1898. Such an
increased investment in overseas markets in turn strengthened Americans’ interest in foreign affairs.
Businesses were not the only ones seeking to expand. Religious leaders and Progressive reformers joined
businesses in their growing interest in American expansion, as both sought to increase the democratic
and Christian influences of the United States abroad. Imperialism and Progressivism were compatible in
the minds of many reformers who thought the Progressive impulses for democracy at home translated
overseas as well. Editors of such magazines as Century, Outlook, and Harper’s supported an imperialistic
stance as the democratic responsibility of the United States. Several Protestant faiths formed missionary
societies in the years after the Civil War, seeking to expand their reach, particularly in Asia. Influenced
by such works as Reverend Josiah Strong’s Our Country: Its Possible Future and Its Present Crisis (1885),
missionaries sought to spread the gospel throughout the country and abroad. Led by the American
Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, among several other organizations, missionaries conflated
Christian ethics with American virtues, and began to spread both gospels with zeal. This was particularly
true among women missionaries, who composed over 60 percent of the overall missionary force. By 1870,
missionaries abroad spent as much time advocating for the American version of a modern civilization as
they did teaching the Bible.
Social reformers of the early Progressive Era also performed work abroad that mirrored the missionaries.
Many were influenced by recent scholarship on race-based intelligence and embraced the implications
of social Darwinist theory that alleged inferior races were destined to poverty on account of their lower
evolutionary status. While certainly not all reformers espoused a racist view of intelligence and
civilization, many of these reformers believed that the Anglo-Saxon race was mentally superior to others
and owed the presumed less evolved populations their stewardship and social uplift—a service the British
writer Rudyard Kipling termed “the white man’s burden.”
By trying to help people in less industrialized countries achieve a higher standard of living and a better
understanding of the principles of democracy, reformers hoped to contribute to a noble cause, but their
approach suffered from the same paternalism that hampered Progressive reforms at home. Whether
reformers and missionaries worked with native communities in the borderlands such as New Mexico; in
the inner cities, like the Salvation Army; or overseas, their approaches had much in common. Their good
intentions and willingness to work in difficult conditions shone through in the letters and articles they
wrote from the field. Often in their writing, it was clear that they felt divinely empowered to change the
lives of other, less fortunate, and presumably, less enlightened, people. Whether oversees or in the urban
slums, they benefitted from the same passions but expressed the same paternalism.

MY STORY
Lottie Moon, Missionary
Lottie Moon was a Southern Baptist missionary who spent more than forty years living and working in
China. She began in 1873 when she joined her sister in China as a missionary, teaching in a school
for Chinese women. Her true passion, however, was to evangelize and minister, and she undertook a
campaign to urge the Southern Baptist missionaries to allow women to work beyond the classroom.
Her letter campaign back to the head of the Mission Board provided a vivid picture of life in China and
exhorted the Southern Baptist women to give more generously of their money and their time. Her letters
appeared frequently in religious publications, and it was her suggestion—that the week before Christmas
be established as a time to donate to foreign missions—that led to the annual Christmas giving tradition.
Lottie’s rhetoric caught on, and still today, the annual Christmas offering is done in her name.
We had the best possible voyage over the water—good weather, no headwinds, scarcely any
rolling or pitching—in short, all that reasonable people could ask. . . . I spent a week here last
fall and of course feel very natural to be here again. I do so love the East and eastern life!
Japan fascinated my heart and fancy four years ago, but now I honestly believe I love China
the best, and actually, which is stranger still, like the Chinese best.
—Charlotte “Lottie” Moon, 1877
Lottie remained in China through famines, the Boxer Rebellion, and other hardships. She fought against
foot binding, a cultural tradition where girls’ feet were tightly bound to keep them from growing, and
shared her personal food and money when those around her were suffering. But her primary goal was
to evangelize her Christian beliefs to the people in China. She won the right to minister and personally
converted hundreds of Chinese to Christianity. Lottie’s combination of moral certainty and selfless service
was emblematic of the missionary zeal of the early American empire.
TURNER, MAHAN, AND THE PLAN FOR EMPIRE

The initial work of businesses, missionaries, and reformers set the stage by the early 1890s for advocates of
an expanded foreign policy and a vision of an American empire. Following decades of an official stance of
isolationism combined with relatively weak presidents who lacked the popular mandate or congressional
support to undertake substantial overseas commitments, a new cadre of American leaders—many of
whom were too young to fully comprehend the damage inflicted by the Civil War—assumed leadership
roles. Eager to be tested in international conflict, these new leaders hoped to prove America’s might on
a global stage. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt, was one of these leaders who
sought to expand American influence globally, and he advocated for the expansion of the U.S. Navy,
which at the turn of the century was the only weapons system suitable for securing overseas expansion.
Turner (Figure 22.4) and naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan were instrumental in the country’s move
toward foreign expansion, and writer Brooks Adams further dramatized the consequences of the nation’s
loss of its frontier in his The Law of Civilization and Decay in 1895. As mentioned in the chapter opening,
Turner announced his Frontier Thesis—that American democracy was largely formed by the American
frontier—at the Chicago World’s Colombian Exposition. He noted that “for nearly three centuries the
dominant fact in American life has been expansion.” He continued: “American energy will continually
demand a wider field for its exercise.”
Figure 22.4 Historian Fredrick Jackson Turner’s Frontier Thesis stated explicitly that the existence of the western
frontier forged the very basis of the American identity.
Although there was no more room for these forces to proceed domestically, they would continue to find
an outlet on the international stage. Turner concluded that “the demands for a vigorous foreign policy,
for an interoceanic canal, for a revival of our power upon our seas, and for the extension of American
influence to outlying islands and adjoining countries are indications that the forces [of expansion] will
continue.” Such policies would permit Americans to find new markets. Also mindful of the mitigating
influence of a frontier—in terms of easing pressure from increased immigration and population expansion
in the eastern and midwestern United States—he encouraged new outlets for further population growth,
whether as lands for further American settlement or to accommodate more immigrants. Turner’s thesis
was enormously influential at the time but has subsequently been widely criticized by historians.
Specifically, the thesis underscores the pervasive racism and disregard for the indigenous communities,
cultures, and individuals in the American borderlands and beyond.
Click and Explore
Explore the controversy associated with Turner’s Frontier Thesis

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/conquest) at U.S. History Scene.
While Turner provided the idea for an empire, Mahan provided the more practical guide. In his 1890 work,
The Influence of Seapower upon History, he suggested three strategies that would assist the United States in
both constructing and maintaining an empire. First, noting the sad state of the U.S. Navy, he called for the
government to build a stronger, more powerful version. Second, he suggested establishing a network of
naval bases to fuel this expanding fleet. Seward’s previous acquisition of the Midway Islands served this
purpose by providing an essential naval coaling station, which was vital, as the limited reach of steamships
and their dependence on coal made naval coaling stations imperative for increasing the navy’s geographic
reach. Future acquisitions in the Pacific and Caribbean increased this naval supply network (Figure 22.5).

Finally, Mahan urged the future construction of a canal across the isthmus of Central America, which
would decrease by two-thirds the time and power required to move the new navy from the Pacific to the
Atlantic oceans. Heeding Mahan’s advice, the government moved quickly, passing the Naval Act of 1890,
which set production levels for a new, modern fleet. By 1898, the government had succeeded in increasing
the size of the U.S. Navy to an active fleet of 160 vessels, of which 114 were newly built of steel. In addition,
the fleet now included six battleships, compared to zero in the previous decade. As a naval power, the
country catapulted to the third strongest in world rankings by military experts, trailing only Spain and
Great Britain.
Figure 22.5 American imperial acquisitions as of the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898. Note how the
spread of island acquisitions across the Pacific Ocean fulfills Alfred Mahan’s call for more naval bases in order to
support a larger and more effective U.S. Navy rather than mere territorial expansion.
The United States also began to expand its influence to other Pacific Islands, most notably Samoa and
Hawaii. With regard to the latter, American businessmen were most interested in the lucrative sugar
industry that lay at the heart of the Hawaiian Islands’ economy. By 1890, through a series of reciprocal
trade agreements, Hawaiians exported nearly all of their sugar production to the United States, tariff-
free. When Queen Liliuokalani tapped into a strong anti-American resentment among native Hawaiians
over the economic and political power of exploitative American sugar companies between 1891 and 1893,
worried businessmen worked with the American minister to Hawaii, John Stevens, to stage a quick, armed
revolt to counter her efforts and seize the islands as an American protectorate (Figure 22.6). Following five
more years of political wrangling, the United States annexed Hawaii in 1898, during the Spanish-American
War.
Figure 22.6 Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii (a) was unhappy with the one-sided trade agreement Hawaii held with the
United States (b), but protests were squashed by an American-armed revolt.
The United States had similar strategic interests in the Samoan Islands of the South Pacific, most notably,
access to the naval refueling station at Pago Pago where American merchant vessels as well as naval ships
could take on food, fuel, and supplies. In 1899, in an effort to mitigate other foreign interests and still
protect their own, the United States joined Great Britain and Germany in a three-party protectorate over
the islands, which assured American access to the strategic ports located there.

• Explain the origins and events of the Spanish-American War
• Analyze the different American opinions on empire at the conclusion of the Spanish-
American War
• Describe how the Spanish-American War intersected with other American expansions
to solidify the nation’s new position as an empire
The Spanish-American War was the first significant international military conflict for the United States
since its war against Mexico in 1846; it came to represent a critical milestone in the country’s development
as an empire. Ostensibly about the rights of Cuban rebels to fight for freedom from Spain, the war had, for
the United States at least, a far greater importance in the country’s desire to expand its global reach.
The Spanish-American War was notable not only because the United States succeeded in seizing territory
from another empire, but also because it caused the global community to recognize that the United States
was a formidable military power. In what Secretary of State John Hay called “a splendid little war,” the
United States significantly altered the balance of world power, just as the twentieth century began to
unfold (Figure 22.7).

Figure 22.7 Whereas Americans thought of the Spanish colonial regime in Cuba as a typical example of European
imperialism, this 1896 Spanish cartoon depicts the United States as a land-grabbing empire. The caption, written in
Catalan, states “Keep the island so it won’t get lost.”
THE CHALLENGE OF DECLARING WAR

Despite its name, the Spanish-American War had less to do with the foreign affairs between the United
States and Spain than Spanish control over Cuba and its possessions in the Far East. Spain had dominated
Central and South America since the late fifteenth century. But, by 1890, the only Spanish colonies that had
not yet acquired their independence were Cuba and Puerto Rico. On several occasions prior to the war,
Cuban independence fighters in the Cuba Libre movement had attempted unsuccessfully to end Spanish
control of their lands. In 1895, a similar revolt for independence erupted in Cuba; again, Spanish forces
under the command of General Valeriano Weyler repressed the insurrection. Particularly notorious was
their policy of re-concentration in which Spanish troops forced rebels from the countryside into military-
controlled camps in the cities, where many died from harsh conditions.
As with previous uprisings, Americans were largely sympathetic to the Cuban rebels’ cause, especially
as the Spanish response was notably brutal. Evoking the same rhetoric of independence with which they
fought the British during the American Revolution, several people quickly rallied to the Cuban fight
for freedom. Shippers and other businessmen, particularly in the sugar industry, supported American
intervention to safeguard their own interests in the region. Likewise, the “Cuba Libre” movement founded
by José Martí, who quickly established offices in New York and Florida, further stirred American interest
in the liberation cause. The difference in this uprising, however, was that supporters saw in the renewed
U.S. Navy a force that could be a strong ally for Cuba. Additionally, the late 1890s saw the height of yellow
journalism, in which newspapers such as the New York Journal, led by William Randolph Hearst, and the
New York World, published by Joseph Pulitzer, competed for readership with sensationalistic stories. These
publishers, and many others who printed news stories for maximum drama and effect, knew that war
would provide sensational copy.
However, even as sensationalist news stories fanned the public’s desire to try out their new navy while
supporting freedom, one key figure remained unmoved. President William McKinley, despite
commanding a new, powerful navy, also recognized that the new fleet—and soldiers—were untested.
Preparing for a reelection bid in 1900, McKinley did not see a potential war with Spain, acknowledged to
be the most powerful naval force in the world, as a good bet. McKinley did publicly admonish Spain for its
actions against the rebels, and urged Spain to find a peaceful solution in Cuba, but he remained resistant
to public pressure for American military intervention.
McKinley’s reticence to involve the United States changed in February 1898. He had ordered one of
the newest navy battleships, the USS Maine, to drop anchor off the coast of Cuba in order to observe
the situation, and to prepare to evacuate American citizens from Cuba if necessary. Just days after it
arrived, on February 15, an explosion destroyed the Maine, killing over 250 American sailors (Figure 22.8).
Immediately, yellow journalists jumped on the headline that the explosion was the result of a Spanish
attack, and that all Americans should rally to war. The newspaper battle cry quickly emerged, “Remember
the Maine!” Recent examinations of the evidence of that time have led many historians to conclude that
the explosion was likely an accident due to the storage of gun powder close to the very hot boilers. But in
1898, without ready evidence, the newspapers called for a war that would sell papers, and the American
public rallied behind the cry.
Figure 22.8 Although later reports would suggest the explosion was due to loose gunpowder onboard the ship, the
press treated the explosion of the USS Maine as high drama. Note the lower headline citing that the ship was
destroyed by a mine, despite the lack of evidence.
Click and Explore
Visit U.S. History Scene to understand different perspectives on the role of yellow
journalism (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/yellowjourn) in the Spanish-American War.
McKinley made one final effort to avoid war, when late in March, he called on Spain to end its policy
of concentrating the native population in military camps in Cuba, and to formally declare Cuba’s
independence. Spain refused, leaving McKinley little choice but to request a declaration of war from

Congress. Congress received McKinley’s war message, and on April 19, 1898, they officially recognized
Cuba’s independence and authorized McKinley to use military force to remove Spain from the island.
Equally important, Congress passed the Teller Amendment to the resolution, which stated that the United
States would not annex Cuba following the war.
WAR: BRIEF AND DECISIVE

The Spanish-American War lasted approximately ten weeks, and the outcome was clear: The United States
triumphed in its goal of helping liberate Cuba from Spanish control. Despite the positive result, the conflict
did present significant challenges to the United States military. Although the new navy was powerful,
the ships were, as McKinley feared, largely untested. Similarly untested were the American soldiers. The
country had fewer than thirty thousand soldiers and sailors, many of whom were unprepared to do
battle with a formidable opponent. But volunteers sought to make up the difference. Over one million
American men—many lacking a uniform and coming equipped with their own guns—quickly answered
McKinley’s call for able-bodied men. Nearly ten thousand African American men also volunteered for
service, despite the segregated conditions and additional hardships they faced, including violent uprisings
at a few American bases before they departed for Cuba. The government, although grateful for the
volunteer effort, was still unprepared to feed and supply such a force, and many suffered malnutrition and
malaria for their sacrifice.
To the surprise of the Spanish forces who saw the conflict as a clear war over Cuba, American military
strategists prepared for it as a war for empire. More so than simply the liberation of Cuba and the
protection of American interests in the Caribbean, military strategists sought to further Mahan’s vision of
additional naval bases in the Pacific Ocean, reaching as far as mainland Asia. Such a strategy would also
benefit American industrialists who sought to expand their markets into China. Just before leaving his post
for volunteer service as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. cavalry, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore
Roosevelt ordered navy ships to attack the Spanish fleet in the Philippines, another island chain under
Spanish control. As a result, the first significant military confrontation took place not in Cuba but halfway
around the world in the Philippines. Commodore George Dewey led the U.S. Navy in a decisive victory,
sinking all of the Spanish ships while taking almost no American losses. Within a month, the U.S. Army
landed a force to take the islands from Spain, which it succeeded in doing by mid-August 1899.
The victory in Cuba took a little longer. In June, seventeen thousand American troops landed in Cuba.
Although they initially met with little Spanish resistance, by early July, fierce battles ensued near the
Spanish stronghold in Santiago. Most famously, Theodore Roosevelt led his Rough Riders, an all-
volunteer cavalry unit made up of adventure-seeking college graduates, and veterans and cowboys from
the Southwest, in a charge up Kettle Hill, next to San Juan Hill, which resulted in American forces
surrounding Santiago. The victories of the Rough Riders are the best known part of the battles, but in fact,
several African American regiments, made up of veteran soldiers, were instrumental to their success. The
Spanish fleet made a last-ditch effort to escape to the sea but ran into an American naval blockade that
resulted in total destruction, with every Spanish vessel sunk. Lacking any naval support, Spain quickly
lost control of Puerto Rico as well, offering virtually no resistance to advancing American forces. By the
end of July, the fighting had ended and the war was over. Despite its short duration and limited number
of casualties—fewer than 350 soldiers died in combat, about 1,600 were wounded, while almost 3,000 men
died from disease—the war carried enormous significance for Americans who celebrated the victory as a
reconciliation between North and South.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
“Smoked Yankees”: Black Soldiers in the Spanish-American
War
The most popular image of the Spanish-American War is of Theodore Roosevelt and his Rough
Riders, charging up San Juan Hill. But less well known is that the Rough Riders struggled mightily in
several battles and would have sustained far more serious casualties, if not for the experienced black
veterans—over twenty-five hundred of them—who joined them in battle (Figure 22.9). These soldiers,
who had been fighting the Indian wars on the American frontier for many years, were instrumental in the
U.S. victory in Cuba.
Figure 22.9 The decision to fight or not was debated in the black community, as some felt they owed
little to a country that still granted them citizenship in name only, while others believed that proving their
patriotism would enhance their opportunities. (credit: Library of Congress)
The choice to serve in the Spanish-American War was not a simple one. Within the black community,
many spoke out both for and against involvement in the war. Many black Americans felt that because
they were not offered the true rights of citizenship it was not their burden to volunteer for war. Others,
in contrast, argued that participation in the war offered an opportunity for black Americans to prove
themselves to the rest of the country. While their presence was welcomed by the military which
desperately needed experienced soldiers, the black regiments suffered racism and harsh treatment while
training in the southern states before shipping off to battle.
Once in Cuba, however, the “Smoked Yankees,” as the Cubans called the black American soldiers,
fought side-by-side with Roosevelt’s Rough Riders, providing crucial tactical support to some of the most
important battles of the war. After the Battle of San Juan, five black soldiers received the Medal of Honor
and twenty-five others were awarded a certificate of merit. One reporter wrote that “if it had not been for
the Negro cavalry, the Rough Riders would have been exterminated.” He went on to state that, having
grown up in the South, he had never been fond of black people before witnessing the battle. For some of
the soldiers, their recognition made the sacrifice worthwhile. Others, however, struggled with American
oppression of Cubans and Puerto Ricans, feeling kinship with the black residents of these countries now
under American rule.

ESTABLISHING PEACE AND CREATING AN EMPIRE

As the war closed, Spanish and American diplomats made arrangements for a peace conference in Paris.
They met in October 1898, with the Spanish government committed to regaining control of the Philippines,
which they felt were unjustly taken in a war that was solely about Cuban independence. While the Teller
Amendment ensured freedom for Cuba, President McKinley was reluctant to relinquish the strategically
useful prize of the Philippines. He certainly did not want to give the islands back to Spain, nor did he
want another European power to step in to seize them. Neither the Spanish nor the Americans considered
giving the islands their independence, since, with the pervasive racism and cultural stereotyping of the
day, they believed the Filipino people were not capable of governing themselves. William Howard Taft,
the first American governor-general to oversee the administration of the new U.S. possession, accurately
captured American sentiments with his frequent reference to Filipinos as “our little brown brothers.”
As the peace negotiations unfolded, Spain agreed to recognize Cuba’s independence, as well as recognize
American control of Puerto Rico and Guam. McKinley insisted that the United States maintain control
over the Philippines as an annexation, in return for a $20 million payment to Spain. Although Spain was
reluctant, they were in no position militarily to deny the American demand. The two sides finalized the
Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. With it came the international recognition that there was a new
American empire that included the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The American press quickly
glorified the nation’s new reach, as expressed in the cartoon below, depicting the glory of the American
eagle reaching from the Philippines to the Caribbean (Figure 22.10).
Figure 22.10 This cartoon from the Philadelphia Press, showed the reach of the new American empire, from Puerto
Rico to the Philippines.
Domestically, the country was neither unified in their support of the treaty nor in the idea of the United
States building an empire at all. Many prominent Americans, including Jane Addams, former President
Grover Cleveland, Andrew Carnegie, Mark Twain, and Samuel Gompers, felt strongly that the country
should not be pursuing an empire, and, in 1898, they formed the Anti-Imperialist League to oppose
this expansionism. The reasons for their opposition were varied: Some felt that empire building went
against the principles of democracy and freedom upon which the country was founded, some worried
about competition from foreign workers, and some held the xenophobic viewpoint that the assimilation
of other races would hurt the country. Regardless of their reasons, the group, taken together, presented
a formidable challenge. As foreign treaties require a two-thirds majority in the U.S. Senate to pass, the
Anti-Imperialist League’s pressure led them to a clear split, with the possibility of defeat of the treaty
seeming imminent. Less than a week before the scheduled vote, however, news of a Filipino uprising
against American forces reached the United States. Undecided senators were convinced of the need to
maintain an American presence in the region and preempt the intervention of another European power,
and the Senate formally ratified the treaty on February 6, 1899.
The newly formed American empire was not immediately secure, as Filipino rebels, led by Emilio
Aguinaldo (Figure 22.11), fought back against American forces stationed there. The Filipinos’ war for
independence lasted three years, with over four thousand American and twenty thousand Filipino
combatant deaths; the civilian death toll is estimated as high as 250,000. Finally, in 1901, President
McKinley appointed William Howard Taft as the civil governor of the Philippines in an effort to disengage
the American military from direct confrontations with the Filipino people. Under Taft’s leadership,
Americans built a new transportation infrastructure, hospitals, and schools, hoping to win over the local
population. The rebels quickly lost influence, and Aguinaldo was captured by American forces and forced
to swear allegiance to the United States. The Taft Commission, as it became known, continued to introduce
reforms to modernize and improve daily life for the country despite pockets of resistance that continued
to fight through the spring of 1902. Much of the commission’s rule centered on legislative reforms to local
government structure and national agencies, with the commission offering appointments to resistance
leaders in exchange for their support. The Philippines continued under American rule until they became
self-governing in 1946.
Figure 22.11 Philippine president Emilio Aguinaldo was captured after three years of fighting with U.S. troops. He is
seen here boarding the USS Vicksburg after taking an oath of loyalty to the United States in 1901.
After the conclusion of the Spanish-American War and the successful passage of the peace treaty with
Spain, the United States continued to acquire other territories. Seeking an expanded international presence,
as well as control of maritime routes and naval stations, the United States grew to include Hawaii, which
was granted territorial status in 1900, and Alaska, which, although purchased from Russia decades earlier,
only became a recognized territory in 1912. In both cases, their status as territories granted U.S. citizenship
to their residents. The Foraker Act of 1900 established Puerto Rico as an American territory with its own
civil government. It was not until 1917 that Puerto Ricans were granted American citizenship. Guam and
Samoa, which had been taken as part of the war, remained under the control of the U.S. Navy. Cuba,
which after the war was technically a free country, adopted a constitution based on the U.S. Constitution.
While the Teller Amendment had prohibited the United States from annexing the country, a subsequent
amendment, the Platt Amendment, secured the right of the United States to interfere in Cuban affairs if
threats to a stable government emerged. The Platt Amendment also guaranteed the United States its own
naval and coaling station on the island’s southern Guantanamo Bay and prohibited Cuba from making
treaties with other countries that might eventually threaten their independence. While Cuba remained
an independent nation on paper, in all practicality the United States governed Cuba’s foreign policy and
economic agreements.

Click and Explore
Explore the resources at U.S. History Scene to better understand the long and
involved history of Hawaii (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/createHawaii) with respect
to its intersection with the United States.

• Explain how economic power helped to expand America’s empire in China
• Describe how the foreign partitioning of China in the last decade of the nineteenth
century influenced American policy
While American forays into empire building began with military action, the country concurrently grew its
scope and influence through other methods as well. In particular, the United States used its economic and
industrial capacity to add to its empire, as can be seen in a study of the China market and the “Open Door
notes” discussed below.
WHY CHINA?
Since the days of Christopher Columbus’s westward journey to seek a new route to the East Indies
(essentially India and China, but loosely defined as all of Southeast Asia), many westerners have dreamt
of the elusive “China Market.” With the defeat of the Spanish navy in the Atlantic and Pacific, and
specifically with the addition of the Philippines as a base for American ports and coaling stations, the
United States was ready to try and make the myth a reality. Although China originally accounted for only
a small percentage of American foreign trade, captains of American industry dreamed of a vast market
of Asian customers desperate for manufactured goods they could not yet produce in large quantities for
themselves.
American businesses were not alone in seeing the opportunities. Other countries—including Japan, Russia,
Great Britain, France, and Germany—also hoped to make inroads in China. Previous treaties between
Great Britain and China in 1842 and 1844 during the Opium Wars, when the British Empire militarily
coerced the Chinese empire to accept the import of Indian opium in exchange for its tea, had forced an
“open door” policy on China, in which all foreign nations had free and equal access to Chinese ports. This
was at a time when Great Britain maintained the strongest economic relationship with China; however,
other western nations used the new arrangement to send Christian missionaries, who began to work
across inland China. Following the Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895 over China’s claims to Korea, western
countries hoped to exercise even greater influence in the region. By 1897, Germany had obtained exclusive
mining rights in northern coastal China as reparations for the murder of two German missionaries. In
1898, Russia obtained permission to build a railroad across northeastern Manchuria. One by one, each
country carved out their own sphere of influence, where they could control markets through tariffs and
transportation, and thus ensure their share of the Chinese market.
Alarmed by the pace at which foreign powers further divided China into pseudo-territories, and worried
that they had no significant piece for themselves, the United States government intervened. In contrast to
European nations, however, American businesses wanted the whole market, not just a share of it. They
wanted to do business in China with no artificially constructed spheres or boundaries to limit the extent
of their trade, but without the territorial entanglements or legislative responsibilities that anti-imperialists
opposed. With the blessing and assistance of Secretary of State John Hay, several American businessmen
created the American Asiatic Association in 1896 to pursue greater trade opportunities in China.
THE OPEN DOOR NOTES

In 1899, Secretary of State Hay made a bold move to acquire China’s vast markets for American access
by introducing Open Door notes, a series of circular notes that Hay himself drafted as an expression
of U.S. interests in the region and sent to the other competing powers (Figure 22.12). These notes, if
agreed to by the other five nations maintaining spheres of influences in China, would erase all spheres and
essentially open all doors to free trade, with no special tariffs or transportation controls that would give
unfair advantages to one country over another. Specifically, the notes required that all countries agree to
maintain free access to all treaty ports in China, to pay railroad charges and harbor fees (with no special
access), and that only China would be permitted to collect any taxes on trade within its borders. While
on paper, the Open Door notes would offer equal access to all, the reality was that it greatly favored the
United States. Free trade in China would give American businesses the ultimate advantage, as American
companies were producing higher-quality goods than other countries, and were doing so more efficiently
and less expensively. The “open doors” would flood the Chinese market with American goods, virtually
squeezing other countries out of the market.
Figure 22.12 This political cartoon shows Uncle Sam standing on a map of China, while Europe’s imperialist nations
(from left to right: Germany, Spain, Great Britain, Russia, and France) try to cut out their “sphere of influence.”
Although the foreign ministers of the other five nations sent half-hearted replies on behalf of their
respective governments, with some outright denying the viability of the notes, Hay proclaimed them the
new official policy on China, and American goods were unleashed throughout the nation. China was quite
welcoming of the notes, as they also stressed the U.S. commitment to preserving the Chinese government
and territorial integrity.
The notes were invoked barely a year later, when a group of Chinese insurgents, the Righteous and
Harmonious Fists—also known as the Boxer Rebellion—fought to expel all western nations and their

influences from China (Figure 22.13). The United States, along with Great Britain and Germany, sent
over two thousand troops to withstand the rebellion. The troops signified American commitment to the
territorial integrity of China, albeit one flooded with American products. Despite subsequent efforts, by
Japan in particular, to undermine Chinese authority in 1915 and again during the Manchurian crisis of
1931, the United States remained resolute in defense of the open door principles through World War II.
Only when China turned to communism in 1949 following an intense civil war did the principle become
relatively meaningless. However, for nearly half a century, U.S. military involvement and a continued
relationship with the Chinese government cemented their roles as preferred trading partners, illustrating
how the country used economic power, as well as military might, to grow its empire.
Figure 22.13 The Boxer Rebellion in China sought to expel all western influences, including Christian missionaries
and trade partners. The Chinese government appreciated the American, British, and German troops that helped
suppress the rebellion.
Click and Explore
Browse the U.S. State Department’s Milestones: 1899—1913

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/haychina) to learn more about Secretary of State John
Hay and the strategy and thinking behind the Open Door notes.

• Explain the meaning of “big stick” foreign policy
• Describe Theodore Roosevelt’s use of the “big stick” to construct the Panama Canal
• Explain the role of the United States in ending the Russo-Japanese War
While President McKinley ushered in the era of the American empire through military strength and
economic coercion, his successor, Theodore Roosevelt, established a new foreign policy approach,
allegedly based on a favorite African proverb, “speak softly, and carry a big stick, and you will go far”
(Figure 22.14). At the crux of his foreign policy was a thinly veiled threat. Roosevelt believed that in
light of the country’s recent military successes, it was unnecessary to use force to achieve foreign policy
goals, so long as the military could threaten force. This rationale also rested on the young president’s
philosophy, which he termed the “strenuous life,” and that prized challenges overseas as opportunities to
instill American men with the resolve and vigor they allegedly had once acquired in the Trans-Mississippi
West.
Figure 22.14 Roosevelt was often depicted in cartoons wielding his “big stick” and pushing the U.S. foreign agenda,
often through the power of the U.S. Navy.
Roosevelt believed that while the coercive power wielded by the United States could be harmful in the
wrong hands, the Western Hemisphere’s best interests were also the best interests of the United States. He
felt, in short, that the United States had the right and the obligation to be the policeman of the hemisphere.
This belief, and his strategy of “speaking softly and carrying a big stick,” shaped much of Roosevelt’s
foreign policy.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PANAMA CANAL

As early as the mid-sixteenth century, interest in a canal across the Central American isthmus began to
take root, primarily out of trade interests. The subsequent discovery of gold in California in 1848 further
spurred interest in connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and led to the construction of the Panama
Railway, which began operations in 1855. Several attempts by France to construct a canal between 1881
and 1894 failed due to a combination of financial crises and health hazards, including malaria and yellow
fever, which led to the deaths of thousands of French workers.

Upon becoming president in 1901, Roosevelt was determined to succeed where others had failed.
Following the advice that Mahan set forth in his book The Influence of Seapower upon History, he sought
to achieve the construction of a canal across Central America, primarily for military reasons associated
with empire, but also for international trade considerations. The most strategic point for the construction
was across the fifty-mile isthmus of Panama, which, at the turn of the century, was part of the nation
of Colombia. Roosevelt negotiated with the government of Colombia, sometimes threatening to take
the project away and build through Nicaragua, until Colombia agreed to a treaty that would grant
the United States a lease on the land across Panama in exchange for a payment of $10 million and an
additional $250,000 annual rental fee. The matter was far from settled, however. The Colombian people
were outraged over the loss of their land to the United States, and saw the payment as far too low.
Influenced by the public outcry, the Colombian Senate rejected the treaty and informed Roosevelt there
would be no canal.
Undaunted, Roosevelt chose to now wield the “big stick.” In comments to journalists, he made it clear
that the United States would strongly support the Panamanian people should they choose to revolt
against Colombia and form their own nation. In November 1903, he even sent American battleships to
the coast of Colombia, ostensibly for practice maneuvers, as the Panamanian revolution unfolded. The
warships effectively blocked Colombia from moving additional troops into the region to quell the growing
Panamanian uprising. Within a week, Roosevelt immediately recognized the new country of Panama,
welcoming them to the world community and offering them the same terms—$10 million plus the annual
$250,000 rental fee—he had previously offered Colombia. Following the successful revolution, Panama
became an American protectorate, and remained so until 1939.
Once the Panamanian victory was secured, with American support, construction on the canal began in
May 1904. For the first year of operations, the United States worked primarily to build adequate housing,
cafeterias, warehouses, machine shops, and other elements of infrastructure that previous French efforts
had failed to consider. Most importantly, the introduction of fumigation systems and mosquito nets
following Dr. Walter Reed’s discovery of the role of mosquitoes in the spread of malaria and yellow fever
reduced the death rate and restored the fledgling morale among workers and American-born supervisors.
At the same time, a new wave of American engineers planned for the construction of the canal. Even
though they decided to build a lock-system rather than a sea-level canal, workers still had to excavate over
170 million cubic yards of earth with the use of over one hundred new rail-mounted steam shovels (Figure
22.15). Excited by the work, Roosevelt became the first sitting U.S. president to leave the country while in
office. He traveled to Panama where he visited the construction site, taking a turn at the steam shovel and
removing dirt. The canal opened in 1914, permanently changing world trade and military defense patterns.
Figure 22.15 Recurring landslides made the excavation of the Culebra Cut one of the most technically challenging
elements in the construction of the Panama Canal.
Click and Explore
This timeline of the Panama Canal (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Panama)

illustrates the efforts involved in both the French and U.S. canal projects.
THE ROOSEVELT COROLLARY

With the construction of the canal now underway, Roosevelt next wanted to send a clear message to the
rest of the world—and in particular to his European counterparts—that the colonization of the Western
Hemisphere had now ended, and their interference in the countries there would no longer be tolerated.
At the same time, he sent a message to his counterparts in Central and South America, should the United
States see problems erupt in the region, that it would intervene in order to maintain peace and stability
throughout the hemisphere.
Roosevelt articulated this seeming double standard in a 1904 address before Congress, in a speech that
became known as the Roosevelt Corollary. The Roosevelt Corollary was based on the original Monroe
Doctrine of the early nineteenth century, which warned European nations of the consequences of their
interference in the Caribbean. In this addition, Roosevelt states that the United States would use military
force “as an international police power” to correct any “chronic wrongdoing” by any Latin American
nation that might threaten stability in the region. Unlike the Monroe Doctrine, which proclaimed an
American policy of noninterference with its neighbors’ affairs, the Roosevelt Corollary loudly proclaimed
the right and obligation of the United States to involve itself whenever necessary.
Roosevelt immediately began to put the new corollary to work. He used it to establish protectorates over
Cuba and Panama, as well as to direct the United States to manage the Dominican Republic’s custom
service revenues. Despite growing resentment from neighboring countries over American intervention
in their internal affairs, as well as European concerns from afar, knowledge of Roosevelt’s previous

actions in Colombia concerning acquisition of land upon which to build the Panama Canal left many
fearful of American reprisals should they resist. Eventually, Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin
Roosevelt softened American rhetoric regarding U.S. domination of the Western Hemisphere, with the
latter proclaiming a new “Good Neighbor Policy” that renounced American intervention in other nations’
affairs. However, subsequent presidents would continue to reference aspects of the Roosevelt Corollary
to justify American involvement in Haiti, Nicaragua, and other nations throughout the twentieth century.
The map below (Figure 22.16) shows the widespread effects of Roosevelt’s policies throughout Latin
America.
Figure 22.16 From underwriting a revolution in Panama with the goal of building a canal to putting troops in Cuba,
Roosevelt vastly increased the U.S. impact in Latin America.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
The Roosevelt Corollary and Its Impact
In 1904, Roosevelt put the United States in the role of the “police power” of the Western Hemisphere and
set a course for the U.S. relationship with Central and Latin America that played out over the next several
decades. He did so with the Roosevelt Corollary, in which he stated:
It is not true that the United States feels any land hunger or entertains any projects as regards
the other nations of the Western Hemisphere save as such are for their welfare. All that
this country desires is to see the neighboring countries stable, orderly, and prosperous. Any
country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship. . .
. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of
civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, require intervention by some civilized nation,
and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine
may force the United States, however, reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or
impotence, to the exercise of an international police power.”
In the twenty years after he made this statement, the United States would use military force in Latin
America over a dozen times. The Roosevelt Corollary was used as a rationale for American involvement
in the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Haiti, and other Latin American countries, straining relations
between Central America and its dominant neighbor to the north throughout the twentieth century.
AMERICAN INTERVENTION IN THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR

Although he supported the Open Door notes as an excellent economic policy in China, Roosevelt lamented
the fact that the United States had no strong military presence in the region to enforce it. Clearly, without
a military presence there, he could not as easily use his “big stick” threat credibly to achieve his foreign
policy goals. As a result, when conflicts did arise on the other side of the Pacific, Roosevelt adopted a
policy of maintaining a balance of power among the nations there. This was particularly evident when the
Russo-Japanese War erupted in 1904.
In 1904, angered by the massing of Russian troops along the Manchurian border, and the threat it
represented to the region, Japan launched a surprise naval attack upon the Russian fleet. Initially,
Roosevelt supported the Japanese position. However, when the Japanese fleet quickly achieved victory
after victory, Roosevelt grew concerned over the growth of Japanese influence in the region and the
continued threat that it represented to China and American access to those markets (Figure 22.17).
Wishing to maintain the aforementioned balance of power, in 1905, Roosevelt arranged for diplomats
from both nations to attend a secret peace conference in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The resultant
negotiations secured peace in the region, with Japan gaining control over Korea, several former Russian
bases in Manchuria, and the southern half of Sakhalin Island. These negotiations also garnered the Nobel
Peace Prize for Roosevelt, the first American to receive the award.
Figure 22.17 Japan’s defense against Russia was supported by President Roosevelt, but when Japan’s ongoing
victories put the United States’ own Asian interests at risk, he stepped in.
When Japan later exercised its authority over its gains by forcing American business interests out of
Manchuria in 1906–1907, Roosevelt felt he needed to invoke his “big stick” foreign policy, even though the
distance was great. He did so by sending the U.S. Great White Fleet on maneuvers in the western Pacific
Ocean as a show of force from December 1907 through February 1909. Publicly described as a goodwill
tour, the message to the Japanese government regarding American interests was equally clear. Subsequent
negotiations reinforced the Open Door policy throughout China and the rest of Asia. Roosevelt had, by
both the judicious use of the “big stick” and his strategy of maintaining a balance of power, kept U.S.
interests in Asia well protected.

Click and Explore
Browse the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

RooseveltIcon) to follow Theodore Roosevelt from Rough Rider to president and
beyond.

• Explain how William Howard Taft used American economic power to protect the
nation’s interests in its new empire
When William Howard Taft became president in 1909, he chose to adapt Roosevelt’s foreign policy
philosophy to one that reflected American economic power at the time. In what became known as “dollar
diplomacy,” Taft announced his decision to “substitute dollars for bullets” in an effort to use foreign policy
to secure markets and opportunities for American businessmen (Figure 22.18). Not unlike Roosevelt’s
threat of force, Taft used the threat of American economic clout to coerce countries into agreements to
benefit the United States.
Figure 22.18 Although William Howard Taft was Theodore Roosevelt’s hand-picked successor to the presidency, he
was less inclined to use Roosevelt’s “big stick,” choosing instead to use the economic might of the United States to
influence foreign affairs.
Of key interest to Taft was the debt that several Central American nations still owed to various countries in
Europe. Fearing that the debt holders might use the monies owed as leverage to use military intervention
in the Western Hemisphere, Taft moved quickly to pay off these debts with U.S. dollars. Of course,
this move made the Central American countries indebted to the United States, a situation that not all
nations wanted. When a Central American nation resisted this arrangement, however, Taft responded with
military force to achieve the objective. This occurred in Nicaragua when the country refused to accept
American loans to pay off its debt to Great Britain. Taft sent a warship with marines to the region to
pressure the government to agree. Similarly, when Mexico considered the idea of allowing a Japanese
corporation to gain significant land and economic advantages in its country, Taft urged Congress to pass
the Lodge Corollary, an addendum to the Roosevelt Corollary, stating that no foreign corporation—other
than American ones—could obtain strategic lands in the Western Hemisphere.
In Asia, Taft’s policies also followed those of Theodore Roosevelt. He attempted to bolster China’s ability
to withstand Japanese interference and thereby maintain a balance of power in the region. Initially, he
experienced tremendous success in working with the Chinese government to further develop the railroad
industry in that country through arranging international financing. However, efforts to expand the Open
Door policy deeper into Manchuria met with resistance from Russia and Japan, exposing the limits of
the American government’s influence and knowledge about the intricacies of diplomacy. As a result, he
reorganized the U.S. State Department to create geographical divisions (such as the Far East Division, the
Latin American Division, etc.) in order to develop greater foreign policy expertise in each area.
Taft’s policies, although not as based on military aggression as his predecessors, did create difficulties
for the United States, both at the time and in the future. Central America’s indebtedness would create
economic concerns for decades to come, as well as foster nationalist movements in countries resentful
of American’s interference. In Asia, Taft’s efforts to mediate between China and Japan served only to
heighten tensions between Japan and the United States. Furthermore, it did not succeed in creating a
balance of power, as Japan’s reaction was to further consolidate its power and reach throughout the region.
As Taft’s presidency came to a close in early 1913, the United States was firmly entrenched on its
path towards empire. The world perceived the United States as the predominant power of the Western
Hemisphere—a perception that few nations would challenge until the Soviet Union during the Cold War
era. Likewise, the United States had clearly marked its interests in Asia, although it was still searching for
an adequate approach to guard and foster them. The development of an American empire had introduced
with it several new approaches to American foreign policy, from military intervention to economic
coercion to the mere threat of force.
The playing field would change one year later in 1914 when the United States witnessed the unfolding
of World War I, or “the Great War.” A new president would attempt to adopt a new approach to
diplomacy—one that was well-intentioned but at times impractical. Despite Woodrow Wilson’s best
efforts to the contrary, the United States would be drawn into the conflict and subsequently attempt to
reshape the world order as a result.
Click and Explore
Read this brief biography of President Taft (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Taft) to

understand his foreign policy in the context of his presidency.

Key Terms
Anti-Imperialist League a group of diverse and prominent Americans who banded together in 1898 to
protest the idea of American empire building
dollar diplomacy Taft’s foreign policy, which involved using American economic power to push for
favorable foreign policies
Frontier Thesis an idea proposed by Fredrick Jackson Turner, which stated that the encounter of
European traditions and a native wilderness was integral to the development of American democracy,
individualism, and innovative character
Open Door notes the circular notes sent by Secretary of State Hay claiming that there should be “open
doors” in China, allowing all countries equal and total access to all markets, ports, and railroads without
any special considerations from the Chinese authorities; while ostensibly leveling the playing field, this
strategy greatly benefited the United States
Roosevelt Corollary a statement by Theodore Roosevelt that the United States would use military force
to act as an international police power and correct any chronic wrongdoing by any Latin American nation
threatening the stability of the region
Rough Riders Theodore Roosevelt’s cavalry unit, which fought in Cuba during the Spanish-American
War
Seward’s Folly the pejorative name given by the press to Secretary of State Seward’s acquisition of
Alaska in 1867
sphere of influence the goal of foreign countries such as Japan, Russia, France, and Germany to carve
out an area of the Chinese market that they could exploit through tariff and transportation agreements
yellow journalism sensationalist newspapers who sought to manufacture news stories in order to sell
more papers
Summary
In the last decades of the nineteenth century, after the Civil War, the United States pivoted from a
profoundly isolationist approach to a distinct zeal for American expansion. The nation’s earlier
isolationism originated from the deep scars left by the Civil War and its need to recover both economically
and mentally from that event. But as the industrial revolution changed the way the country worked
and the American West reached its farthest point, American attitudes toward foreign expansion shifted.
Businesses sought new markets to export their factory-built goods, oil, and tobacco products, as well as
generous trade agreements to secure access to raw materials. Early social reformers saw opportunities to
spread Christian gospel and the benefits of American life to those in less developed nations. With the
rhetoric of Fredrick J. Turner and the strategies of Alfred Mahan underpinning the desire for expansion
abroad, the country moved quickly to ready itself for the creation of an American empire.

In the wake of the Civil War, American economic growth combined with the efforts of Evangelist
missionaries to push for greater international influence and overseas presence. By confronting Spain over
its imperial rule in Cuba, the United States took control of valuable territories in Central America and the
Pacific. For the United States, the first step toward becoming an empire was a decisive military one. By
engaging with Spain, the United States was able to gain valuable territories in Latin America and Asia, as
well as send a message to other global powers. The untested U.S. Navy proved superior to the Spanish
fleet, and the military strategists who planned the war in the broader context of empire caught the Spanish
by surprise. The annexation of the former Spanish colonies of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines,
combined with the acquisition of Hawaii, Samoa, and Wake Island, positioned the United States as the
predominant world power in the South Pacific and the Caribbean. While some prominent figures in the
United States vehemently disagreed with the idea of American empire building, their concerns were
overruled by an American public—and a government—that understood American power overseas as a
form of prestige, prosperity, and progress.

The United States shifted from isolationism to empire building with its involvement—and victory—in the
Spanish-American War. But at the same time, the country sought to expand its reach through another
powerful tool: its economic clout. The Industrial Revolution gave American businesses an edge in
delivering high-quality products at lowered costs, and the pursuit of an “open door” policy with China
opened new markets to American goods. This trade agreement allowed the United States to continue to
build power through economic advantage.

When Roosevelt succeeded McKinley as president, he implemented a key strategy for building an
American empire: the threat, rather than the outright use, of military force. McKinley had engaged the
U.S. military in several successful skirmishes and then used the country’s superior industrial power to
negotiate beneficial foreign trade agreements. Roosevelt, with his “big stick” policy, was able to keep
the United States out of military conflicts by employing the legitimate threat of force. Nonetheless, as
negotiations with Japan illustrated, the maintenance of an empire was fraught with complexity. Changing
alliances, shifting economic needs, and power politics all meant that the United States would need to tread
carefully to maintain its status as a world power.

All around the globe, Taft sought to use U.S. economic might as a lever in foreign policy. He relied less
on military action, or the threat of such action, than McKinley or Roosevelt before him; however, he both
threatened and used military force when economic coercion proved unsuccessful, as it did in his bid to
pay off Central America’s debts with U.S. dollars. In Asia, Taft tried to continue to support the balance of
power, but his efforts backfired and alienated Japan. Increasing tensions between the United States and
Japan would finally explode nearly thirty years later, with the outbreak of World War II.
Review Questions
1. Why did the United States express limited A. a navy
interest in overseas expansion in the 1860s and B. military bases around the world
1870s? C. the reopening of the American frontier
A. fear of attacks on their borders D. a canal through Central America
B. post-Civil War reconstruction
C. the Anti-Imperialist League 3. Why were the Midway Islands important to
D. Manifest Destiny American expansion?
2. Which of the following did Mahan not believe

was needed to build an American empire?

4. Which is not one of the reasons the Anti- A. They preferred to build such a canal
Imperial League gave for opposing the creation of themselves.
an American empire? B. They preferred that no canal be built at all.
A. fear of competition from foreign workers C. They agreed to sell land to the United States
B. fear that the United States would suffer a to build the canal, but in a less
foreign invasion advantageous location than the
C. concerns about the integration of other Panamanians.
races D. They felt that Roosevelt’s deal offered too
D. concerns that empire building ran counter little money.
to American democratic principles
11. With the Roosevelt Corollary, Roosevelt
5. What was the role of the Taft Commission? sought to establish ________.
A. the consequences for any European nation
6. What challenges did the U.S. military have to that involved itself in Latin American
overcome in the Spanish-American War? What affairs
accounted for the nation’s eventual victory? B. the right of the United States to involve
itself in Latin American affairs whenever
7. How did Hay’s suggestion of an open door necessary
policy in China benefit the United States over C. the idea that Latin America was free and
other nations? independent from foreign intervention
A. The United States produced goods of better D. the need for further colonization efforts in
quality and lower cost than other countries. the Western Hemisphere
B. The United States enjoyed a historically
stronger relationship with the Chinese 12. Compare Roosevelt’s foreign policy in Latin
government. America and Asia. Why did he employ these
C. The United States was the only nation different methods?
granted permission to collect taxes on the
goods it traded within China’s borders. 13. Why did some Central American nations
D. The United States controlled more foreign object to Taft’s paying off their debt to Europe
ports than other countries. with U.S. dollars?
A. because American currency wasn’t worth
8. How did the Boxer Rebellion strengthen as much as local currencies
American ties with China? B. because they felt it gave the United States
A. The United States supported the rebels and too much leverage
gained their support. C. because they were forced to give land
B. The United States provided troops to fight grants to the United States in return
the rebels. D. because they wanted Asian countries to pay
C. The United States sent arms and financial off their debts instead
support to the Chinese government.
D. The United States thwarted attempts by 14. What two countries were engaged in a
Great Britain and Germany to fortify the negotiation that the Lodge Corollary disallowed?
rebels. A. Mexico and Japan
B. Nicaragua and France
9. How does the “Open Door notes” episode C. Colombia and Japan
represent a new, nonmilitary tactic in the D. Mexico and Spain
expansion of the American empire?
15. What problems did Taft’s foreign policy
10. How did Colombia react to the United States’ create for the United States?
proposal to construct a canal through Central
America?

16. Describe the United States’ movement from isolationism to expansion-mindedness in the final decades
of the nineteenth century. What ideas and philosophies underpinned this transformation?
17. What specific forces or interests transformed the relationship between the United States and the rest
of the world between 1865 and 1890?
18. How did Taft’s “dollar diplomacy” differ from Roosevelt’s “big stick” policy? Was one approach more
or less successful than the other? How so?
19. What economic and political conditions had to exist for Taft’s “dollar diplomacy” to be effective?
20. What factors conspired to propel the United States to emerge as a military and economic powerhouse
prior to World War II?

Chapter 23 Americans and the Great War, 1914-1919 669
CHAPTER 23
Americans and the Great War,

1914-1919
Figure 23.1 Return of the Useless (1918), by George Bellows, is an example of a kind of artistic imagery used to
galvanize reluctant Americans into joining World War I. The scene shows German soldiers unloading and mistreating
imprisoned civilians after their return home to Belgium from German forced-labor camps.
Chapter Outline
23.1 American Isolationism and the European Origins of War
23.2 The United States Prepares for War
23.3 A New Home Front
23.4 From War to Peace
23.5 Demobilization and Its Difficult Aftermath
Introduction
On the eve of World War I, the U.S. government under President Woodrow Wilson opposed any
entanglement in international military conflicts. But as the war engulfed Europe and the belligerents’
total war strategies targeted commerce and travel across the Atlantic, it became clear that the United
States would not be able to maintain its position of neutrality. Still, the American public was of mixed
opinion; many resisted the idea of American intervention and American lives lost, no matter how bad the
circumstances.
In 1918, artist George Bellows created a series of paintings intended to strengthen public support for
the war effort. His paintings depicted German war atrocities in explicit and expertly captured detail,
from children run through with bayonets to torturers happily resting while their victims suffered. The
image above, entitled Return of the Useless (Figure 23.1), shows Germans unloading sick or disabled labor
camp prisoners from a boxcar. These paintings, while not regarded as Bellows’ most important artistic
work, were typical for anti-German propaganda at the time. The U.S. government sponsored much of this
propaganda out of concern that many American immigrants sympathized with the Central powers and
would not support the U.S. war effort.
670 Chapter 23 Americans and the Great War, 1914-1919

• Explain Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy and the difficulties of maintaining American
neutrality at the outset of World War I
• Identify the key factors that led to the U.S. declaration of war on Germany in April 1917
Unlike his immediate predecessors, President Woodrow Wilson had planned to shrink the role of the
United States in foreign affairs. He believed that the nation needed to intervene in international events
only when there was a moral imperative to do so. But as Europe’s political situation grew dire, it
became increasingly difficult for Wilson to insist that the conflict growing overseas was not America’s
responsibility. Germany’s war tactics struck most observers as morally reprehensible, while also putting
American free trade with the Entente at risk. Despite campaign promises and diplomatic efforts, Wilson
could only postpone American involvement in the war.
WOODROW WILSON’S NEW FREEDOM

When Woodrow Wilson took over the White House in March 1913, he promised a less expansionist
approach to American foreign policy than Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft had pursued.
Wilson did share the commonly held view that American values were superior to those of the rest of the
world, that democracy was the best system to promote peace and stability, and that the United States
should continue to actively pursue economic markets abroad. But he proposed an idealistic foreign policy
based on morality, rather than American self-interest, and felt that American interference in another
nation’s affairs should occur only when the circumstances rose to the level of a moral imperative.
Wilson appointed former presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, a noted anti-imperialist and
proponent of world peace, as his Secretary of State. Bryan undertook his new assignment with great
vigor, encouraging nations around the world to sign “cooling off treaties,” under which they agreed to
resolve international disputes through talks, not war, and to submit any grievances to an international
Figure 23.2

commission. Bryan also negotiated friendly relations with Colombia, including a $25 million apology for
Roosevelt’s actions during the Panamanian Revolution, and worked to establish effective self-government
in the Philippines in preparation for the eventual American withdrawal. Even with Bryan’s support,
however, Wilson found that it was much harder than he anticipated to keep the United States out of world
affairs (Figure 23.3). In reality, the United States was interventionist in areas where its interests—direct or
indirect—were threatened.
Figure 23.3 While Wilson strove to be less of an interventionist, he found that to be more difficult in practice than in
theory. Here, a political cartoon depicts him as a rather hapless cowboy, unclear on how to harness a foreign
challenge, in this case, Mexico.
Wilson’s greatest break from his predecessors occurred in Asia, where he abandoned Taft’s “dollar
diplomacy,” a foreign policy that essentially used the power of U.S. economic dominance as a threat
to gain favorable terms. Instead, Wilson revived diplomatic efforts to keep Japanese interference there
at a minimum. But as World War I, also known as the Great War, began to unfold, and European
nations largely abandoned their imperialistic interests in order to marshal their forces for self-defense,
Japan demanded that China succumb to a Japanese protectorate over their entire nation. In 1917, William
Jennings Bryan’s successor as Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, signed the Lansing-Ishii Agreement,
which recognized Japanese control over the Manchurian region of China in exchange for Japan’s promise
not to exploit the war to gain a greater foothold in the rest of the country.
Furthering his goal of reducing overseas interventions, Wilson had promised not to rely on the Roosevelt
Corollary, Theodore Roosevelt’s explicit policy that the United States could involve itself in Latin
American politics whenever it felt that the countries in the Western Hemisphere needed policing. Once
president, however, Wilson again found that it was more difficult to avoid American interventionism
in practice than in rhetoric. Indeed, Wilson intervened more in Western Hemisphere affairs than either
Taft or Roosevelt. In 1915, when a revolution in Haiti resulted in the murder of the Haitian president
and threatened the safety of New York banking interests in the country, Wilson sent over three hundred
U.S. Marines to establish order. Subsequently, the United States assumed control over the island’s foreign
policy as well as its financial administration. One year later, in 1916, Wilson again sent marines to
Hispaniola, this time to the Dominican Republic, to ensure prompt payment of a debt that nation owed.
In 1917, Wilson sent troops to Cuba to protect American-owned sugar plantations from attacks by Cuban
rebels; this time, the troops remained for four years.
Wilson’s most noted foreign policy foray prior to World War I focused on Mexico, where rebel general
Victoriano Huerta had seized control from a previous rebel government just weeks before Wilson’s
inauguration. Wilson refused to recognize Huerta’s government, instead choosing to make an example of
Mexico by demanding that they hold democratic elections and establish laws based on the moral principles
he espoused. Officially, Wilson supported Venustiano Carranza, who opposed Huerta’s military control of
the country. When American intelligence learned of a German ship allegedly preparing to deliver weapons
to Huerta’s forces, Wilson ordered the U.S. Navy to land forces at Veracruz to stop the shipment.
On April 22, 1914, a fight erupted between the U.S. Navy and Mexican troops, resulting in nearly 150
deaths, nineteen of them American. Although Carranza’s faction managed to overthrow Huerta in the
summer of 1914, most Mexicans—including Carranza—had come to resent American intervention in
their affairs. Carranza refused to work with Wilson and the U.S. government, and instead threatened to
defend Mexico’s mineral rights against all American oil companies established there. Wilson then turned
to support rebel forces who opposed Carranza, most notably Pancho Villa (Figure 23.4). However, Villa
lacked the strength in number or weapons to overtake Carranza; in 1915, Wilson reluctantly authorized
official U.S. recognition of Carranza’s government.
Figure 23.4 Pancho Villa, a Mexican rebel who Wilson supported, then ultimately turned from, attempted an attack
on the United States in retaliation. Wilson’s actions in Mexico were emblematic of how difficult it was to truly set the
United States on a course of moral leadership.
As a postscript, an irate Pancho Villa turned against Wilson, and on March 9, 1916, led a fifteen-hundred-
man force across the border into New Mexico, where they attacked and burned the town of Columbus.
Over one hundred people died in the attack, seventeen of them American. Wilson responded by sending
General John Pershing into Mexico to capture Villa and return him to the United States for trial. With over
eleven thousand troops at his disposal, Pershing marched three hundred miles into Mexico before an angry
Carranza ordered U.S. troops to withdraw from the nation. Although reelected in 1916, Wilson reluctantly
ordered the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Mexico in 1917, avoiding war with Mexico and enabling
preparations for American intervention in Europe. Again, as in China, Wilson’s attempt to impose a moral
foreign policy had failed in light of economic and political realities.
WAR ERUPTS IN EUROPE

When a Serbian nationalist murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian Empire
on June 29, 1914, the underlying forces that led to World War I had already long been in motion and
seemed, at first, to have little to do with the United States. At the time, the events that pushed Europe from
ongoing tensions into war seemed very far away from U.S. interests. For nearly a century, nations had
negotiated a series of mutual defense alliance treaties to secure themselves against their imperialistic rivals.
Among the largest European powers, the Triple Entente included an alliance of France, Great Britain, and
Russia. Opposite them, the Central powers, also known as the Triple Alliance, included Germany, Austria-
Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and initially Italy. A series of “side treaties” likewise entangled the larger
European powers to protect several smaller ones should war break out.

At the same time that European nations committed each other to defense pacts, they jockeyed for power
over empires overseas and invested heavily in large, modern militaries. Dreams of empire and military
supremacy fueled an era of nationalism that was particularly pronounced in the newer nations of Germany
and Italy, but also provoked separatist movements among Europeans. The Irish rose up in rebellion
against British rule, for example. And in Bosnia’s capital of Sarajevo, Gavrilo Princip and his accomplices
assassinated the Austro-Hungarian archduke in their fight for a pan-Slavic nation. Thus, when Serbia
failed to accede to Austro-Hungarian demands in the wake of the archduke’s murder, Austria-Hungary
declared war on Serbia with the confidence that it had the backing of Germany. This action, in turn,
brought Russia into the conflict, due to a treaty in which they had agreed to defend Serbia. Germany
followed suit by declaring war on Russia, fearing that Russia and France would seize this opportunity to
move on Germany if it did not take the offensive. The eventual German invasion of Belgium drew Great
Britain into the war, followed by the attack of the Ottoman Empire on Russia. By the end of August 1914,
it seemed as if Europe had dragged the entire world into war.
The Great War was unlike any war that came before it. Whereas in previous European conflicts, troops
typically faced each other on open battlefields, World War I saw new military technologies that turned war
into a conflict of prolonged trench warfare. Both sides used new artillery, tanks, airplanes, machine guns,
barbed wire, and, eventually, poison gas: weapons that strengthened defenses and turned each military
offense into barbarous sacrifices of thousands of lives with minimal territorial advances in return. By the
end of the war, the total military death toll was ten million, as well as another million civilian deaths
attributed to military action, and another six million civilian deaths caused by famine, disease, or other
related factors.
One terrifying new piece of technological warfare was the German unterseeboot—an “undersea boat” or
U-boat. By early 1915, in an effort to break the British naval blockade of Germany and turn the tide of
the war, the Germans dispatched a fleet of these submarines around Great Britain to attack both merchant
and military ships. The U-boats acted in direct violation of international law, attacking without warning
from beneath the water instead of surfacing and permitting the surrender of civilians or crew. By 1918,
German U-boats had sunk nearly five thousand vessels. Of greatest historical note was the attack on the
British passenger ship, RMS Lusitania, on its way from New York to Liverpool on May 7, 1915. The German
Embassy in the United States had announced that this ship would be subject to attack for its cargo of
ammunition: an allegation that later proved accurate. Nonetheless, almost 1,200 civilians died in the attack,
including 128 Americans. The attack horrified the world, galvanizing support in England and beyond for
the war (Figure 23.5). This attack, more than any other event, would test President Wilson’s desire to stay
out of what had been a largely European conflict.
Figure 23.5 The torpedoing and sinking of the Lusitania, depicted in the English drawing above (a), resulted in the
death over twelve hundred civilians and was an international incident that shifted American sentiment as to their
potential role in the war, as illustrated in a British recruiting poster (b).
THE CHALLENGE OF NEUTRALITY

Despite the loss of American lives on the Lusitania, President Wilson stuck to his path of neutrality in
Europe’s escalating war: in part out of moral principle, in part as a matter of practical necessity, and in part
for political reasons. Few Americans wished to participate in the devastating battles that ravaged Europe,
and Wilson did not want to risk losing his reelection by ordering an unpopular military intervention.
Wilson’s “neutrality” did not mean isolation from all warring factions, but rather open markets for the
United States and continued commercial ties with all belligerents. For Wilson, the conflict did not reach the
threshold of a moral imperative for U.S. involvement; it was largely a European affair involving numerous
countries with whom the United States wished to maintain working relations. In his message to Congress
in 1914, the president noted that “Every man who really loves America will act and speak in the true spirit
of neutrality, which is the spirit of impartiality and fairness and friendliness to all concerned.”
Wilson understood that he was already looking at a difficult reelection bid. He had only won the 1912
election with 42 percent of the popular vote, and likely would not have been elected at all had Roosevelt
not come back as a third-party candidate to run against his former protégée Taft. Wilson felt pressure
from all different political constituents to take a position on the war, yet he knew that elections were
seldom won with a campaign promise of “If elected, I will send your sons to war!” Facing pressure from
some businessmen and other government officials who felt that the protection of America’s best interests
required a stronger position in defense of the Allied forces, Wilson agreed to a “preparedness campaign”
in the year prior to the election. This campaign included the passage of the National Defense Act of 1916,
which more than doubled the size of the army to nearly 225,000, and the Naval Appropriations Act of 1916,
which called for the expansion of the U.S. fleet, including battleships, destroyers, submarines, and other
ships.
As the 1916 election approached, the Republican Party hoped to capitalize on the fact that Wilson was
making promises that he would not be able to keep. They nominated Charles Evans Hughes, a former
governor of New York and sitting U.S. Supreme Court justice at the time of his nomination. Hughes
focused his campaign on what he considered Wilson’s foreign policy failures, but even as he did so,
he himself tried to walk a fine line between neutrality and belligerence, depending on his audience.
In contrast, Wilson and the Democrats capitalized on neutrality and campaigned under the slogan
“Wilson—he kept us out of war.” The election itself remained too close to call on election night. Only
when a tight race in California was decided two days later could Wilson claim victory in his reelection bid,
again with less than 50 percent of the popular vote. Despite his victory based upon a policy of neutrality,
Wilson would find true neutrality a difficult challenge. Several different factors pushed Wilson, however
reluctantly, toward the inevitability of American involvement.
A key factor driving U.S. engagement was economics. Great Britain was the country’s most important
trading partner, and the Allies as a whole relied heavily on American imports from the earliest days of the
war forward. Specifically, the value of all exports to the Allies quadrupled from $750 million to $3 billion in
the first two years of the war. At the same time, the British naval blockade meant that exports to Germany
all but ended, dropping from $350 million to $30 million. Likewise, numerous private banks in the United
States made extensive loans—in excess of $500 million—to England. J. P. Morgan’s banking interests were
among the largest lenders, due to his family’s connection to the country.
Another key factor in the decision to go to war were the deep ethnic divisions between native-born
Americans and more recent immigrants. For those of Anglo-Saxon descent, the nation’s historic and
ongoing relationship with Great Britain was paramount, but many Irish-Americans resented British rule
over their place of birth and opposed support for the world’s most expansive empire. Millions of Jewish
immigrants had fled anti-Semitic pogroms in Tsarist Russia and would have supported any nation fighting
that authoritarian state. German Americans saw their nation of origin as a victim of British and Russian
aggression and a French desire to settle old scores, whereas emigrants from Austria-Hungary and the
Ottoman Empire were mixed in their sympathies for the old monarchies or ethnic communities that these
empires suppressed. For interventionists, this lack of support for Great Britain and its allies among recent
immigrants only strengthened their conviction.

Germany’s use of submarine warfare also played a role in challenging U.S. neutrality. After the sinking
of the Lusitania, and the subsequent August 30 sinking of another British liner, the Arabic, Germany had
promised to restrict their use of submarine warfare. Specifically, they promised to surface and visually
identify any ship before they fired, as well as permit civilians to evacuate targeted ships. Instead, in
February 1917, Germany intensified their use of submarines in an effort to end the war quickly before
Great Britain’s naval blockade starved them out of food and supplies.
The German high command wanted to continue unrestricted warfare on all Atlantic traffic, including
unarmed American freighters, in order to cripple the British economy and secure a quick and decisive
victory. Their goal: to bring an end to the war before the United States could intervene and tip the balance
in this grueling war of attrition. In February 1917, a German U-boat sank the American merchant ship,
the Laconia, killing two passengers, and, in late March, quickly sunk four more American ships. These
attacks increased pressure on Wilson from all sides, as government officials, the general public, and both
Democrats and Republicans urged him to declare war.
The final element that led to American involvement in World War I was the so-called Zimmermann
telegram. British intelligence intercepted and decoded a top-secret telegram from German foreign minister
Arthur Zimmermann to the German ambassador to Mexico, instructing the latter to invite Mexico to join
the war effort on the German side, should the United States declare war on Germany. It further went on
to encourage Mexico to invade the United States if such a declaration came to pass, as Mexico’s invasion
would create a diversion and permit Germany a clear path to victory. In exchange, Zimmermann offered
to return to Mexico land that was previously lost to the United States in the Mexican-American War,
including Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas (Figure 23.6).
Figure 23.6 “The Temptation,” which appeared in the Dallas Morning News on March 2, 1917, shows Germany as
the Devil, tempting Mexico to join their war effort against the United States in exchange for the return of land formerly
belonging to Mexico. The prospect of such a move made it all but impossible for Wilson to avoid war. (credit: Library
of Congress)
The likelihood that Mexico, weakened and torn by its own revolution and civil war, could wage war
against the United States and recover territory lost in the Mexican-American war with Germany’s help
was remote at best. But combined with Germany’s unrestricted use of submarine warfare and the sinking
of American ships, the Zimmermann telegram made a powerful argument for a declaration of war. The
outbreak of the Russian Revolution in February and abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in March raised the
prospect of democracy in the Eurasian empire and removed an important moral objection to entering
the war on the side of the Allies. On April 2, 1917, Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany.
Congress debated for four days, and several senators and congressmen expressed their concerns that the
war was being fought over U.S. economic interests more than strategic need or democratic ideals. When
Congress voted on April 6, fifty-six voted against the resolution, including the first woman ever elected
to Congress, Representative Jeannette Rankin. This was the largest “no” vote against a war resolution in
American history.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Wilson’s Peace without Victory Speech
Wilson’s last-ditch effort to avoid bringing the United States into World War I is captured in a speech he
gave before the U.S. Senate on January 22, 1917. This speech, known as the “Peace without Victory”
speech, extolled the country to be patient, as the countries involved in the war were nearing a peace.
Wilson stated:
It must be a peace without victory. It is not pleasant to say this. I beg that I may be
permitted to put my own interpretation upon it and that it may be understood that no other
interpretation was in my thought. I am seeking only to face realities and to face them without
soft concealments. Victory would mean peace forced upon the loser, a victor’s terms imposed
upon the vanquished. It would be accepted in humiliation, under duress, at an intolerable
sacrifice, and would leave a sting, a resentment, a bitter memory upon which terms of peace
would rest, not permanently, but only as upon quicksand. Only a peace between equals can
last, only a peace the very principle of which is equality and a common participation in a
common benefit.
Not surprisingly, this speech was not well received by either side fighting the war. England resisted being
put on the same moral ground as Germany, and France, whose country had been battered by years of
warfare, had no desire to end the war without victory and its spoils. Still, the speech as a whole illustrates
Wilson’s idealistic, if failed, attempt to create a more benign and high-minded foreign policy role for the
United States. Unfortunately, the Zimmermann telegram and the sinking of the American merchant ships
proved too provocative for Wilson to remain neutral. Little more than two months after this speech, he
asked Congress to declare war on Germany.
Click and Explore
Read the full transcript of the Peace without Victory speech

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15WWilson) that clearly shows Wilson’s desire to
remain out of the war, even when it seemed inevitable.

• Identify the steps taken by the U.S. government to secure enough men, money, food,
and supplies to prosecute World War I
• Explain how the U.S. government attempted to sway popular opinion in favor of the
war effort

Wilson knew that the key to America’s success in war lay largely in its preparation. With both the Allied
and enemy forces entrenched in battles of attrition, and supplies running low on both sides, the United
States needed, first and foremost, to secure enough men, money, food, and supplies to be successful. The
country needed to first supply the basic requirements to fight a war, and then work to ensure military
leadership, public support, and strategic planning.
THE INGREDIENTS OF WAR

The First World War was, in many ways, a war of attrition, and the United States needed a large army to
help the Allies. In 1917, when the United States declared war on Germany, the U.S. Army ranked seventh
in the world in terms of size, with an estimated 200,000 enlisted men. In contrast, at the outset of the war in
1914, the German force included 4.5 million men, and the country ultimately mobilized over eleven million
soldiers over the course of the entire war.
To compose a fighting force, Congress passed the Selective Service Act in 1917, which initially required all
men aged twenty-one through thirty to register for the draft (Figure 23.7). In 1918, the act was expanded
to include all men between eighteen and forty-five. Through a campaign of patriotic appeals, as well as
an administrative system that allowed men to register at their local draft boards rather than directly with
the federal government, over ten million men registered for the draft on the very first day. By the war’s
end, twenty-two million men had registered for the U.S. Army draft. Five million of these men were
actually drafted, another 1.5 million volunteered, and over 500,000 additional men signed up for the navy
or marines. In all, two million men participated in combat operations overseas. Among the volunteers were
also twenty thousand women, a quarter of whom went to France to serve as nurses or in clerical positions.
But the draft also provoked opposition, and almost 350,000 eligible Americans refused to register for
military service. About 65,000 of these defied the conscription law as conscientious objectors, mostly on
the grounds of their deeply held religious beliefs. Such opposition was not without risks, and whereas
most objectors were never prosecuted, those who were found guilty at military hearings received stiff
punishments: Courts handed down over two hundred prison sentences of twenty years or more, and
seventeen death sentences.
Figure 23.7 While many young men were eager to join the war effort, there were a sizable number who did not want
to join, either due to a moral objection or simply because they did not want to fight in a war that seemed far from
American interests. (credit: Library of Congress)
With the size of the army growing, the U.S. government next needed to ensure that there were adequate
supplies—in particular food and fuel—for both the soldiers and the home front. Concerns over shortages
led to the passage of the Lever Food and Fuel Control Act, which empowered the president to control
the production, distribution, and price of all food products during the war effort. Using this law, Wilson
created both a Fuel Administration and a Food Administration. The Fuel Administration, run by Harry
Garfield, created the concept of “fuel holidays,” encouraging civilian Americans to do their part for
the war effort by rationing fuel on certain days. Garfield also implemented “daylight saving time” for
the first time in American history, shifting the clocks to allow more productive daylight hours. Herbert
Hoover coordinated the Food Administration, and he too encouraged volunteer rationing by invoking
patriotism. With the slogan “food will win the war,” Hoover encouraged “Meatless Mondays,” “Wheatless
Wednesdays,” and other similar reductions, with the hope of rationing food for military use (Figure 23.8).
Figure 23.8 With massive propaganda campaigns linking rationing and frugality to patriotism, the government
sought to ensure adequate supplies to fight the war.
Wilson also created the War Industries Board, run by Bernard Baruch, to ensure adequate military
supplies. The War Industries Board had the power to direct shipments of raw materials, as well as to
control government contracts with private producers. Baruch used lucrative contracts with guaranteed
profits to encourage several private firms to shift their production over to wartime materials. For those
firms that refused to cooperate, Baruch’s government control over raw materials provided him with the
necessary leverage to convince them to join the war effort, willingly or not.
As a way to move all the personnel and supplies around the country efficiently, Congress created the U.S.
Railroad Administration. Logistical problems had led trains bound for the East Coast to get stranded as
far away as Chicago. To prevent these problems, Wilson appointed William McAdoo, the Secretary of the
Treasury, to lead this agency, which had extraordinary war powers to control the entire railroad industry,
including traffic, terminals, rates, and wages.
Almost all the practical steps were in place for the United States to fight a successful war. The only step
remaining was to figure out how to pay for it. The war effort was costly—with an eventual price tag in
excess of $32 billion by 1920—and the government needed to finance it. The Liberty Loan Act allowed
the federal government to sell liberty bonds to the American public, extolling citizens to “do their part”
to help the war effort and bring the troops home. The government ultimately raised $23 billion through
liberty bonds. Additional monies came from the government’s use of federal income tax revenue, which
was made possible by the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1913. With the
financing, transportation, equipment, food, and men in place, the United States was ready to enter the war.
The next piece the country needed was public support.

CONTROLLING DISSENT
Although all the physical pieces required to fight a war fell quickly into place, the question of national
unity was another concern. The American public was strongly divided on the subject of entering the war.
While many felt it was the only choice, others protested strongly, feeling it was not America’s war to fight.
Wilson needed to ensure that a nation of diverse immigrants, with ties to both sides of the conflict, thought
of themselves as American first, and their home country’s nationality second. To do this, he initiated a
propaganda campaign, pushing the “America First” message, which sought to convince Americans that
they should do everything in their power to ensure an American victory, even if that meant silencing their
own criticisms.
AMERICANA
American First, American Above All
At the outset of the war, one of the greatest challenges for Wilson was the lack of national unity. The
country, after all, was made up of immigrants, some recently arrived and some well established, but all
with ties to their home countries. These home countries included Germany and Russia, as well as Great
Britain and France. In an effort to ensure that Americans eventually supported the war, the government
pro-war propaganda campaign focused on driving home that message. The posters below, shown in both
English and Yiddish, prompted immigrants to remember what they owed to America (Figure 23.9).
Figure 23.9 These posters clearly illustrate the pressure exerted on immigrants to quell any dissent
they might feel about the United States at war.
Regardless of how patriotic immigrants might feel and act, however, an anti-German xenophobia
overtook the country. German Americans were persecuted and their businesses shunned, whether or not
they voiced any objection to the war. Some cities changed the names of the streets and buildings if they
were German. Libraries withdrew German-language books from the shelves, and German Americans
began to avoid speaking German for fear of reprisal. For some immigrants, the war was fought on two
fronts: on the battlefields of France and again at home.
The Wilson administration created the Committee of Public Information under director George Creel, a
former journalist, just days after the United States declared war on Germany. Creel employed artists,
speakers, writers, and filmmakers to develop a propaganda machine. The goal was to encourage all
Americans to make sacrifices during the war and, equally importantly, to hate all things German (Figure
23.10). Through efforts such as the establishment of “loyalty leagues” in ethnic immigrant communities,
Creel largely succeeded in molding an anti-German sentiment around the country. The result? Some
schools banned the teaching of the German language and some restaurants refused to serve frankfurters,
sauerkraut, or hamburgers, instead serving “liberty dogs with liberty cabbage” and “liberty sandwiches.”
Symphonies refused to perform music written by German composers. The hatred of Germans grew so
widespread that, at one point, at a circus, audience members cheered when, in an act gone horribly wrong,
a Russian bear mauled a German animal trainer (whose ethnicity was more a part of the act than reality).
Figure 23.10 Creel’s propaganda campaign embodied a strongly anti-German message. The depiction of Germans
as brutal apes, stepping on the nation’s shores with their crude weapon of “Kultur” (culture), stood in marked contrast
to the idealized rendition of the nation’s virtue as a fair beauty whose clothes had been ripped off her.
In addition to its propaganda campaign, the U.S. government also tried to secure broad support for the
war effort with repressive legislation. The Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 prohibited individual trade
with an enemy nation and banned the use of the postal service for disseminating any literature deemed
treasonous by the postmaster general. That same year, the Espionage Act prohibited giving aid to the
enemy by spying, or espionage, as well as any public comments that opposed the American war effort.
Under this act, the government could impose fines and imprisonment of up to twenty years. The Sedition
Act, passed in 1918, prohibited any criticism or disloyal language against the federal government and
its policies, the U.S. Constitution, the military uniform, or the American flag. More than two thousand
persons were charged with violating these laws, and many received prison sentences of up to twenty years.
Immigrants faced deportation as punishment for their dissent. Not since the Alien and Sedition Acts of
1798 had the federal government so infringed on the freedom of speech of loyal American citizens.

Click and Explore
For a sense of the response and pushback that antiwar sentiments incited, read this
newspaper article (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15antiDraft) from 1917, discussing
the dissemination of 100,000 antidraft flyers by the No Conscription League.
In the months and years after these laws came into being, over one thousand people were convicted for
their violation, primarily under the Espionage and Sedition Acts. More importantly, many more war critics
were frightened into silence. One notable prosecution was that of Socialist Party leader Eugene Debs, who
received a ten-year prison sentence for encouraging draft resistance, which, under the Espionage Act, was
considered “giving aid to the enemy.” Prominent Socialist Victor Berger was also prosecuted under the
Espionage Act and subsequently twice denied his seat in Congress, to which he had been properly elected
by the citizens of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. One of the more outrageous prosecutions was that of a film
producer who released a film about the American Revolution: Prosecutors found the film seditious, and
a court convicted the producer to ten years in prison for portraying the British, who were now American
allies, as the obedient soldiers of a monarchical empire.
State and local officials, as well as private citizens, aided the government’s efforts to investigate, identify,
and crush subversion. Over 180,000 communities created local “councils of defense,” which encouraged
members to report any antiwar comments to local authorities. This mandate encouraged spying on
neighbors, teachers, local newspapers, and other individuals. In addition, a larger national
organization—the American Protective League—received support from the Department of Justice to spy
on prominent dissenters, as well as open their mail and physically assault draft evaders.
Understandably, opposition to such repression began mounting. In 1917, Roger Baldwin formed the
National Civil Liberties Bureau—a forerunner to the American Civil Liberties Union, which was founded
in 1920—to challenge the government’s policies against wartime dissent and conscientious objection. In
1919, the case of Schenck v. United States went to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality
of the Espionage and Sedition Acts. The case concerned Charles Schenck, a leader in the Socialist Party of
Philadelphia, who had distributed fifteen thousand leaflets, encouraging young men to avoid conscription.
The court ruled that during a time of war, the federal government was justified in passing such laws to
quiet dissenters. The decision was unanimous, and in the court’s opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
wrote that such dissent presented a “clear and present danger” to the safety of the United States and
the military, and was therefore justified. He further explained how the First Amendment right of free
speech did not protect such dissent, in the same manner that a citizen could not be freely permitted to
yell “fire!” in a crowded theater, due to the danger it presented. Congress ultimately repealed most of the
Espionage and Sedition Acts in 1921, and several who were imprisoned for violation of those acts were
then quickly released. But the Supreme Court’s deference to the federal government’s restrictions on civil
liberties remained a volatile topic in future wars.

• Explain how the status of organized labor changed during the First World War
• Describe how the lives of women and African Americans changed as a result of
American participation in World War I
• Explain how America’s participation in World War I allowed for the passage of
prohibition and women’s suffrage
The lives of all Americans, whether they went abroad to fight or stayed on the home front, changed
dramatically during the war. Restrictive laws censored dissent at home, and the armed forces demanded
unconditional loyalty from millions of volunteers and conscripted soldiers. For organized labor, women,
and African Americans in particular, the war brought changes to the prewar status quo. Some white
women worked outside of the home for the first time, whereas others, like African American men, found
that they were eligible for jobs that had previously been reserved for white men. African American
women, too, were able to seek employment beyond the domestic servant jobs that had been their primary
opportunity. These new options and freedoms were not easily erased after the war ended.
NEW OPPORTUNITIES BORN FROM WAR

After decades of limited involvement in the challenges between management and organized labor, the
need for peaceful and productive industrial relations prompted the federal government during wartime
to invite organized labor to the negotiating table. Samuel Gompers, head of the American Federation of
Labor (AFL), sought to capitalize on these circumstances to better organize workers and secure for them
better wages and working conditions. His efforts also solidified his own base of power. The increase in
production that the war required exposed severe labor shortages in many states, a condition that was
further exacerbated by the draft, which pulled millions of young men from the active labor force.
Wilson only briefly investigated the longstanding animosity between labor and management before
ordering the creation of the National Labor War Board in April 1918. Quick negotiations with Gompers
and the AFL resulted in a promise: Organized labor would make a “no-strike pledge” for the duration
of the war, in exchange for the U.S. government’s protection of workers’ rights to organize and bargain
collectively. The federal government kept its promise and promoted the adoption of an eight-hour
workday (which had first been adopted by government employees in 1868), a living wage for all workers,
and union membership. As a result, union membership skyrocketed during the war, from 2.6 million
members in 1916 to 4.1 million in 1919. In short, American workers received better working conditions
and wages, as a result of the country’s participation in the war. However, their economic gains were
limited. While prosperity overall went up during the war, it was enjoyed more by business owners and
corporations than by the workers themselves. Even though wages increased, inflation offset most of the
gains. Prices in the United States increased an average of 15–20 percent annually between 1917 and 1920.
Individual purchasing power actually declined during the war due to the substantially higher cost of
living. Business profits, in contrast, increased by nearly a third during the war.
Women in Wartime
For women, the economic situation was complicated by the war, with the departure of wage-earning men
and the higher cost of living pushing many toward less comfortable lives. At the same time, however,
wartime presented new opportunities for women in the workplace. More than one million women entered
the workforce for the first time as a result of the war, while more than eight million working women
found higher paying jobs, often in industry. Many women also found employment in what were typically

considered male occupations, such as on the railroads (Figure 23.11), where the number of women tripled,
and on assembly lines. After the war ended and men returned home and searched for work, women were
fired from their jobs, and expected to return home and care for their families. Furthermore, even when
they were doing men’s jobs, women were typically paid lower wages than male workers, and unions were
ambivalent at best—and hostile at worst—to women workers. Even under these circumstances, wartime
employment familiarized women with an alternative to a life in domesticity and dependency, making a
life of employment, even a career, plausible for women. When, a generation later, World War II arrived,
this trend would increase dramatically.
Figure 23.11 The war brought new opportunities to women, such as the training offered to those who joined the
Land Army (a) or the opening up of traditionally male occupations. In 1918, Eva Abbott (b) was one of many new
women workers on the Erie Railroad. However, once the war ended and veterans returned home, these opportunities
largely disappeared. (credit b: modification of work by U.S. Department of Labor)
One notable group of women who exploited these new opportunities was the Women’s Land Army of
America. First during World War I, then again in World War II, these women stepped up to run farms and
other agricultural enterprises, as men left for the armed forces (Figure 23.11). Known as Farmerettes, some
twenty thousand women—mostly college educated and from larger urban areas—served in this capacity.
Their reasons for joining were manifold. For some, it was a way to serve their country during a time of
war. Others hoped to capitalize on the efforts to further the fight for women’s suffrage.
Also of special note were the approximately thirty thousand American women who served in the military,
as well as a variety of humanitarian organizations, such as the Red Cross and YMCA, during the war. In
addition to serving as military nurses (without rank), American women also served as telephone operators
in France. Of this latter group, 230 of them, known as “Hello Girls,” were bilingual and stationed in
combat areas. Over eighteen thousand American women served as Red Cross nurses, providing much of
the medical support available to American troops in France. Close to three hundred nurses died during
service. Many of those who returned home continued to work in hospitals and home healthcare, helping
wounded veterans heal both emotionally and physically from the scars of war.
African Americans in the Crusade for Democracy

African Americans also found that the war brought upheaval and opportunity. Blacks composed 13
percent of the enlisted military, with 350,000 men serving. Colonel Charles Young of the Tenth Cavalry
division served as the highest-ranking African American officer. Blacks served in segregated units and
suffered from widespread racism in the military hierarchy, often serving in menial or support roles.
Some troops saw combat, however, and were commended for serving with valor. The 369th Infantry, for
example, known as the Harlem Hellfighters, served on the frontline of France for six months, longer than
any other American unit. One hundred seventy-one men from that regiment received the Legion of Merit
for meritorious service in combat. The regiment marched in a homecoming parade in New York City, was
remembered in paintings (Figure 23.12), and was celebrated for bravery and leadership. The accolades
given to them, however, in no way extended to the bulk of African Americans fighting in the war.
Figure 23.12 African American soldiers suffered under segregation and second-class treatment in the military. Still,
the 369th Infantry earned recognition and reward for its valor in service both in France and the United States.
On the home front, African Americans, like American women, saw economic opportunities increase
during the war. During the so-called Great Migration (discussed in a previous chapter), nearly 350,000
African Americans had fled the post-Civil War South for opportunities in northern urban areas. From
1910–1920, they moved north and found work in the steel, mining, shipbuilding, and automotive
industries, among others. African American women also sought better employment opportunities beyond
their traditional roles as domestic servants. By 1920, over 100,000 women had found work in diverse
manufacturing industries, up from 70,000 in 1910. Despite such opportunities, racism continued to be
a major force in both the North and South. Worried about the large influx of black Americans into
their cities, several municipalities passed residential codes designed to prohibit African Americans from
settling in certain neighborhoods. Race riots also increased in frequency: In 1917 alone, there were race
riots in twenty-five cities, including East Saint Louis, where thirty-nine blacks were killed. In the South,
white business and plantation owners feared that their cheap workforce was fleeing the region, and used
violence to intimidate blacks into staying. According to NAACP statistics, recorded incidences of lynching
increased from thirty-eight in 1917 to eighty-three in 1919. These numbers did not start to decrease until
1923, when the number of annual lynchings dropped below thirty-five for the first time since the Civil
War.
Click and Explore
Explore photographs and a written overview of the African American experience

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Africana) both at home and on the front line during
World War I.

THE LAST VESTIGES OF PROGRESSIVISM

Across the United States, the war intersected with the last lingering efforts of the Progressives who sought
to use the war as motivation for their final push for change. It was in large part due to the war’s influence
that Progressives were able to lobby for the passage of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Amendments to
the U.S. Constitution. The Eighteenth Amendment, prohibiting alcohol, and the Nineteenth Amendment,
giving women the right to vote, received their final impetus due to the war effort.
Prohibition, as the anti-alcohol movement became known, had been a goal of many Progressives for
decades. Organizations such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League
linked alcohol consumption with any number of societal problems, and they had worked tirelessly with
municipalities and counties to limit or prohibit alcohol on a local scale. But with the war, prohibitionists
saw an opportunity for federal action. One factor that helped their cause was the strong anti-German
sentiment that gripped the country, which turned sympathy away from the largely German-descended
immigrants who ran the breweries. Furthermore, the public cry to ration food and grain—the latter being
a key ingredient in both beer and hard alcohol—made prohibition even more patriotic. Congress ratified
the Eighteenth Amendment in January 1919, with provisions to take effect one year later. Specifically,
the amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors. It did not
prohibit the drinking of alcohol, as there was a widespread feeling that such language would be viewed
as too intrusive on personal rights. However, by eliminating the manufacture, sale, and transport of
such beverages, drinking was effectively outlawed. Shortly thereafter, Congress passed the Volstead
Act, translating the Eighteenth Amendment into an enforceable ban on the consumption of alcoholic
beverages, and regulating the scientific and industrial uses of alcohol. The act also specifically excluded
from prohibition the use of alcohol for religious rituals (Figure 23.13).
Figure 23.13 Surrounded by prominent “dry workers,” Governor James P. Goodrich of Indiana signs a statewide bill
to prohibit alcohol.
Unfortunately for proponents of the amendment, the ban on alcohol did not take effect until one full
year following the end of the war. Almost immediately following the war, the general public began to
oppose—and clearly violate—the law, making it very difficult to enforce. Doctors and druggists, who
could prescribe whisky for medicinal purposes, found themselves inundated with requests. In the 1920s,
organized crime and gangsters like Al Capone would capitalize on the persistent demand for liquor,
making fortunes in the illegal trade. A lack of enforcement, compounded by an overwhelming desire by
the public to obtain alcohol at all costs, eventually resulted in the repeal of the law in 1933.
The First World War also provided the impetus for another longstanding goal of some reformers: universal
suffrage. Supporters of equal rights for women pointed to Wilson’s rallying cry of a war “to make
the world safe for democracy,” as hypocritical, saying he was sending American boys to die for such
principles while simultaneously denying American women their democratic right to vote (Figure 23.14).
Carrie Chapman Catt, president of the National American Women Suffrage Movement, capitalized on the
growing patriotic fervor to point out that every woman who gained the vote could exercise that right in
a show of loyalty to the nation, thus offsetting the dangers of draft-dodgers or naturalized Germans who
already had the right to vote.
Alice Paul, of the National Women’s Party, organized more radical tactics, bringing national attention to
the issue of women’s suffrage by organizing protests outside the White House and, later, hunger strikes
among arrested protesters. By the end of the war, the abusive treatment of suffragist hunger-strikers in
prison, women’s important contribution to the war effort, and the arguments of his suffragist daughter
Jessie Woodrow Wilson Sayre moved President Wilson to understand women’s right to vote as an ethical
mandate for a true democracy. He began urging congressmen and senators to adopt the legislation.
The amendment finally passed in June 1919, and the states ratified it by August 1920. Specifically, the
Nineteenth Amendment prohibited all efforts to deny the right to vote on the basis of sex. It took effect in
time for American women to vote in the presidential election of 1920.
Figure 23.14 Suffragists picketed the White House in 1917, leveraging the war and America’s stance on democracy
to urge Woodrow Wilson to support an amendment giving women the right to vote.

• Identify the role that the United States played at the end of World War I
• Describe Woodrow Wilson’s vision for the postwar world
• Explain why the United States never formally approved the Treaty of Versailles nor
joined the League of Nations
The American role in World War I was brief but decisive. While millions of soldiers went overseas, and
many thousands paid with their lives, the country’s involvement was limited to the very end of the war. In
fact, the peace process, with the international conference and subsequent ratification process, took longer
than the time U.S. soldiers were “in country” in France. For the Allies, American reinforcements came at
a decisive moment in their defense of the western front, where a final offensive had exhausted German
forces. For the United States, and for Wilson’s vision of a peaceful future, the fighting was faster and more
successful than what was to follow.

WINNING THE WAR

When the United States declared war on Germany in April 1917, the Allied forces were close to exhaustion.
Great Britain and France had already indebted themselves heavily in the procurement of vital American
military supplies. Now, facing near-certain defeat, a British delegation to Washington, DC, requested
immediate troop reinforcements to boost Allied spirits and help crush German fighting morale, which was
already weakened by short supplies on the frontlines and hunger on the home front. Wilson agreed and
immediately sent 200,000 American troops in June 1917. These soldiers were placed in “quiet zones” while
they trained and prepared for combat.
By March 1918, the Germans had won the war on the eastern front. The Russian Revolution of the previous
year had not only toppled the hated regime of Tsar Nicholas II but also ushered in a civil war from which
the Bolshevik faction of Communist revolutionaries under the leadership of Vladimir Lenin emerged
victorious. Weakened by war and internal strife, and eager to build a new Soviet Union, Russian delegates
agreed to a generous peace treaty with Germany. Thus emboldened, Germany quickly moved upon the
Allied lines, causing both the French and British to ask Wilson to forestall extensive training to U.S.
troops and instead commit them to the front immediately. Although wary of the move, Wilson complied,
ordering the commander of the American Expeditionary Force, General John “Blackjack” Pershing, to offer
U.S. troops as replacements for the Allied units in need of relief. By May 1918, Americans were fully
engaged in the war (Figure 23.15).
Figure 23.15 U.S. soldiers run past fallen Germans on their way to a bunker. In World War I, for the first time,
photographs of the battles brought the war vividly to life for those at home.
In a series of battles along the front that took place from May 28 through August 6, 1918, including
the battles of Cantigny, Chateau Thierry, Belleau Wood, and the Second Battle of the Marne, American
forces alongside the British and French armies succeeded in repelling the German offensive. The Battle of
Cantigny, on May 28, was the first American offensive in the war: In less than two hours that morning,
American troops overran the German headquarters in the village, thus convincing the French commanders
of their ability to fight against the German line advancing towards Paris. The subsequent battles of Chateau
Thierry and Belleau Wood proved to be the bloodiest of the war for American troops. At the latter, faced
with a German onslaught of mustard gas, artillery fire, and mortar fire, U.S. Marines attacked German
units in the woods on six occasions—at times meeting them in hand-to-hand and bayonet combat—before
finally repelling the advance. The U.S. forces suffered 10,000 casualties in the three-week battle, with
almost 2,000 killed in total and 1,087 on a single day. Brutal as they were, they amounted to small losses
compared to the casualties suffered by France and Great Britain. Still, these summer battles turned the tide
of the war, with the Germans in full retreat by the end of July 1918 (Figure 23.16).
Figure 23.16 This map shows the western front at the end of the war, as the Allied Forces decisively break the
German line.

MY STORY
Sgt. Charles Leon Boucher: Life and Death in the Trenches of
France
Wounded in his shoulder by enemy forces, George, a machine gunner posted on the right end of the
American platoon, was taken prisoner at the Battle of Seicheprey in 1918. However, as darkness set in
that evening, another American soldier, Charlie, heard a noise from a gully beside the trench in which he
had hunkered down. “I figured it must be the enemy mop-up patrol,” Charlie later said.
I only had a couple of bullets left in the chamber of my forty-five. The noise stopped and
a head popped into sight. When I was about to fire, I gave another look and a white and
distorted face proved to be that of George, so I grabbed his shoulders and pulled him down
into our trench beside me. He must have had about twenty bullet holes in him but not one of
them was well placed enough to kill him. He made an effort to speak so I told him to keep
quiet and conserve his energy. I had a few malted milk tablets left and, I forced them into his
mouth. I also poured the last of the water I had left in my canteen into his mouth.
Following a harrowing night, they began to crawl along the road back to their platoon. As they crawled,
George explained how he survived being captured. Charlie later told how George “was taken to an enemy
First Aid Station where his wounds were dressed. Then the doctor motioned to have him taken to the
rear of their lines. But, the Sergeant Major pushed him towards our side and ‘No Mans Land,’ pulled out
his Luger Automatic and shot him down. Then, he began to crawl towards our lines little by little, being
shot at consistently by the enemy snipers till, finally, he arrived in our position.”
The story of Charlie and George, related later in life by Sgt. Charles Leon Boucher to his grandson, was
one replayed many times over in various forms during the American Expeditionary Force’s involvement
in World War I. The industrial scale of death and destruction was as new to American soldiers as to their
European counterparts, and the survivors brought home physical and psychological scars that influenced
the United States long after the war was won (Figure 23.17).
Figure 23.17 This photograph of U.S. soldiers in a trench hardly begins to capture the brutal conditions
of trench warfare, where disease, rats, mud, and hunger plagued the men.
By the end of September 1918, over one million U.S. soldiers staged a full offensive into the Argonne
Forest. By November—after nearly forty days of intense fighting—the German lines were broken, and
their military command reported to German Emperor Kaiser Wilhelm II of the desperate need to end the
war and enter into peace negotiations. Facing civil unrest from the German people in Berlin, as well as
the loss of support from his military high command, Kaiser Wilhelm abdicated his throne on November 9,
1918, and immediately fled by train to the Netherlands. Two days later, on November 11, 1918, Germany
and the Allies declared an immediate armistice, thus bring the fighting to a stop and signaling the
beginning of the peace process.
When the armistice was declared, a total of 117,000 American soldiers had been killed and 206,000
wounded. The Allies as a whole suffered over 5.7 million military deaths, primarily Russian, British, and
French men. The Central powers suffered four million military deaths, with half of them German soldiers.
The total cost of the war to the United States alone was in excess of $32 billion, with interest expenses and
veterans’ benefits eventually bringing the cost to well over $100 billion. Economically, emotionally, and
geopolitically, the war had taken an enormous toll.
Click and Explore
This Smithsonian interactive exhibit (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15PriceFree)

offers a fascinating perspective on World War I.
THE BATTLE FOR PEACE

While Wilson had been loath to involve the United States in the war, he saw the country’s eventual
participation as justification for America’s involvement in developing a moral foreign policy for the entire
world. The “new world order” he wished to create from the outset of his presidency was now within
his grasp. The United States emerged from the war as the predominant world power. Wilson sought to
capitalize on that influence and impose his moral foreign policy on all the nations of the world.
The Paris Peace Conference

As early as January 1918—a full five months before U.S. military forces fired their first shot in the war,
and eleven months before the actual armistice—Wilson announced his postwar peace plan before a joint
session of Congress. Referring to what became known as the Fourteen Points, Wilson called for openness
in all matters of diplomacy and trade, specifically, free trade, freedom of the seas, an end to secret treaties
and negotiations, promotion of self-determination of all nations, and more. In addition, he called for the
creation of a League of Nations to promote the new world order and preserve territorial integrity through
open discussions in place of intimidation and war.
As the war concluded, Wilson announced, to the surprise of many, that he would attend the Paris Peace
Conference himself, rather than ceding to the tradition of sending professional diplomats to represent
the country (Figure 23.18). His decision influenced other nations to follow suit, and the Paris conference
became the largest meeting of world leaders to date in history. For six months, beginning in December
1918, Wilson remained in Paris to personally conduct peace negotiations. Although the French public
greeted Wilson with overwhelming enthusiasm, other delegates at the conference had deep misgivings
about the American president’s plans for a “peace without victory.” Specifically, Great Britain, France,
and Italy sought to obtain some measure of revenge against Germany for drawing them into the war,
to secure themselves against possible future aggressions from that nation, and also to maintain or even
strengthen their own colonial possessions. Great Britain and France in particular sought substantial
monetary reparations, as well as territorial gains, at Germany’s expense. Japan also desired concessions in
Asia, whereas Italy sought new territory in Europe. Finally, the threat posed by a Bolshevik Russia under
Vladimir Lenin, and more importantly, the danger of revolutions elsewhere, further spurred on these allies
to use the treaty negotiations to expand their territories and secure their strategic interests, rather than
strive towards world peace.

Figure 23.18 The Paris Peace Conference held the largest number of world leaders in one place to date. The
photograph shows (from left to right) Prime Minister David Lloyd George of Great Britain; Vittorio Emanuele Orlando,
prime minister of Italy; Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France; and President Woodrow Wilson discussing
the terms of the peace.
In the end, the Treaty of Versailles that officially concluded World War I resembled little of Wilson’s
original Fourteen Points. The Japanese, French, and British succeeded in carving up many of Germany’s
colonial holdings in Africa and Asia. The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire created new nations under
the quasi-colonial rule of France and Great Britain, such as Iraq and Palestine. France gained much of
the disputed territory along their border with Germany, as well as passage of a “war guilt clause” that
demanded Germany take public responsibility for starting and prosecuting the war that led to so much
death and destruction. Great Britain led the charge that resulted in Germany agreeing to pay reparations in
excess of $33 billion to the Allies. As for Bolshevik Russia, Wilson had agreed to send American troops to
their northern region to protect Allied supplies and holdings there, while also participating in an economic
blockade designed to undermine Lenin’s power. This move would ultimately have the opposite effect of
galvanizing popular support for the Bolsheviks.
The sole piece of the original Fourteen Points that Wilson successfully fought to keep intact was the
creation of a League of Nations. At a covenant agreed to at the conference, all member nations in the
League would agree to defend all other member nations against military threats. Known as Article X, this
agreement would basically render each nation equal in terms of power, as no member nation would be
able to use its military might against a weaker member nation. Ironically, this article would prove to be the
undoing of Wilson’s dream of a new world order.
Ratification of the Treaty of Versailles

Although the other nations agreed to the final terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Wilson’s greatest battle
lay in the ratification debate that awaited him upon his return. As with all treaties, this one would require
two-thirds approval by the U.S. Senate for final ratification, something Wilson knew would be difficult to
achieve. Even before Wilson’s return to Washington, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee that oversaw ratification proceedings, issued a list of fourteen reservations
he had regarding the treaty, most of which centered on the creation of a League of Nations. An isolationist
in foreign policy issues, Cabot feared that Article X would require extensive American intervention, as
more countries would seek her protection in all controversial affairs. But on the other side of the political
spectrum, interventionists argued that Article X would impede the United States from using her rightfully
attained military power to secure and protect America’s international interests.
Wilson’s greatest fight was with the Senate, where most Republicans opposed the treaty due to the clauses
surrounding the creation of the League of Nations. Some Republicans, known as Irreconcilables, opposed
the treaty on all grounds, whereas others, called Reservationists, would support the treaty if sufficient
amendments were introduced that could eliminate Article X. In an effort to turn public support into a
weapon against those in opposition, Wilson embarked on a cross-country railway speaking tour. He began
travelling in September 1919, and the grueling pace, after the stress of the six months in Paris, proved
too much. Wilson fainted following a public event on September 25, 1919, and immediately returned to
Washington. There he suffered a debilitating stroke, leaving his second wife Edith Wilson in charge as de
facto president for a period of about six months.
Frustrated that his dream of a new world order was slipping away—a frustration that was compounded
by the fact that, now an invalid, he was unable to speak his own thoughts coherently—Wilson urged
Democrats in the Senate to reject any effort to compromise on the treaty. As a result, Congress voted
on, and defeated, the originally worded treaty in November. When the treaty was introduced with
“reservations,” or amendments, in March 1920, it again fell short of the necessary margin for ratification.
As a result, the United States never became an official signatory of the Treaty of Versailles. Nor did the
country join the League of Nations, which shattered the international authority and significance of the
organization. Although Wilson received the Nobel Peace Prize in October 1919 for his efforts to create a
model of world peace, he remained personally embarrassed and angry at his country’s refusal to be a part
of that model. As a result of its rejection of the treaty, the United States technically remained at war with
Germany until July 21, 1921, when it formally came to a close with Congress’s quiet passage of the Knox-
Porter Resolution.
Click and Explore
Read about the Treaty of Versailles (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Versailles)

here, particularly how it sowed the seeds for Hitler’s rise to power and World War II.

• Identify the challenges that the United States faced following the conclusion of World
War I
• Explain Warren G. Harding’s landslide victory in the 1920 presidential election
As world leaders debated the terms of the peace, the American public faced its own challenges at the
conclusion of the First World War. Several unrelated factors intersected to create a chaotic and difficult
time, just as massive numbers of troops rapidly demobilized and came home. Racial tensions, a terrifying
flu epidemic, anticommunist hysteria, and economic uncertainty all combined to leave many Americans
wondering what, exactly, they had won in the war. Adding to these problems was the absence of President
Wilson, who remained in Paris for six months, leaving the country leaderless. The result of these factors
was that, rather than a celebratory transition from wartime to peace and prosperity, and ultimately the
Jazz Age of the 1920s, 1919 was a tumultuous year that threatened to tear the country apart.

DISORDER AND FEAR IN AMERICA

After the war ended, U.S. troops were demobilized and rapidly sent home. One unanticipated and
unwanted effect of their return was the emergence of a new strain of influenza that medical professionals
had never before encountered. Within months of the war’s end, over twenty million Americans fell ill from
the flu (Figure 23.19). Eventually, 675,000 Americans died before the disease mysteriously ran its course
in the spring of 1919. Worldwide, recent estimates suggest that 500 million people suffered from this flu
strain, with as many as fifty million people dying. Throughout the United States, from the fall of 1918 to
the spring of 1919, fear of the flu gripped the country. Americans avoided public gatherings, children wore
surgical masks to school, and undertakers ran out of coffins and burial plots in cemeteries. Hysteria grew
as well, and instead of welcoming soldiers home with a postwar celebration, people hunkered down and
hoped to avoid contagion.
Figure 23.19 The flu pandemic that came home with the returning troops swept through the United States, as
evidenced by this overcrowded flu ward at Camp Funstun, Kansas, adding another trauma onto the recovering
postwar psyche.
Another element that greatly influenced the challenges of immediate postwar life was economic upheaval.
As discussed above, wartime production had led to steady inflation; the rising cost of living meant that
few Americans could comfortably afford to live off their wages. When the government’s wartime control
over the economy ended, businesses slowly recalibrated from the wartime production of guns and ships
to the peacetime production of toasters and cars. Public demand quickly outpaced the slow production,
leading to notable shortages of domestic goods. As a result, inflation skyrocketed in 1919. By the end of the
year, the cost of living in the United States was nearly double what it had been in 1916. Workers, facing a
shortage in wages to buy more expensive goods, and no longer bound by the no-strike pledge they made
for the National War Labor Board, initiated a series of strikes for better hours and wages. In 1919 alone,
more than four million workers participated in a total of nearly three thousand strikes: both records within
all of American history.
In addition to labor clashes, race riots shattered the peace at the home front. The sporadic race riots that
had begun during the Great Migration only grew in postwar America. White soldiers returned home to
find black workers in their former jobs and neighborhoods, and were committed to restoring their position
of white supremacy. Black soldiers returned home with a renewed sense of justice and strength, and were
determined to assert their rights as men and as citizens. Meanwhile, southern lynchings continued to
escalate, with white mobs burning African Americans at the stake. During the “Red Summer” of 1919,
northern cities recorded twenty-five bloody race riots that killed over 250 people. Among these was the
Chicago Race Riot of 1919, where a white mob stoned a young black boy to death because he swam too
close to the “white beach” on Lake Michigan. Police at the scene did not arrest the perpetrator who threw
the rock. This crime prompted a week-long riot that left twenty-three blacks and fifteen whites dead,
as well as millions of dollars’ worth of damage to the city (Figure 23.20). Riots in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in
1921, turned out even more deadly, with estimates of black fatalities ranging from fifty to three hundred.
Americans thus entered the new decade with a profound sense of disillusionment over the prospects of
peaceful race relations.
Figure 23.20 Riots broke out in Chicago in the wake of the stoning of a black boy. After two weeks, thirty-eight more
people had died, some were stoned (a), and many had to abandon their vandalized homes (b).
Click and Explore
Read a Chicago newspaper report (http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4976) of the

race riot, as well as a commentary on how the different newspapers—those written for
the black community as well as those written by the mainstream press—sought to
sensationalize the story.
While illness, economic hardship, and racial tensions all came from within, another destabilizing factor
arrived from overseas. As revolutionary rhetoric emanating from Bolshevik Russia intensified in 1918 and
1919, a Red Scare erupted in the United States over fear that Communist infiltrators sought to overthrow
the American government as part of an international revolution (Figure 23.21). When investigators
uncovered a collection of thirty-six letter bombs at a New York City post office, with recipients that
included several federal, state, and local public officials, as well as industrial leaders such as John D.
Rockefeller, fears grew significantly. And when eight additional bombs actually exploded simultaneously
on June 2, 1919, including one that destroyed the entrance to U.S. attorney general A. Mitchell Palmer’s
house in Washington, the country was convinced that all radicals, no matter what ilk, were to blame.
Socialists, Communists, members of the Industrial Workers of the World (Wobblies), and anarchists: They
were all threats to be taken down.

Figure 23.21 Some Americans feared that labor strikes were the first step on a path that led ultimately to Bolshevik
revolutions and chaos. This political cartoon depicts that fear.
Private citizens who considered themselves upstanding and loyal Americans, joined by discharged
soldiers and sailors, raided radical meeting houses in many major cities, attacking any alleged radicals
they found inside. By November 1919, Palmer’s new assistant in charge of the Bureau of Investigation, J.
Edgar Hoover, organized nationwide raids on radical headquarters in twelve cities around the country.
Subsequent “Palmer raids” resulted in the arrests of four thousand alleged American radicals who were
detained for weeks in overcrowded cells. Almost 250 of those arrested were subsequently deported on
board a ship dubbed “the Soviet Ark” (Figure 23.22).
Figure 23.22 This cartoon advocates for a restrictive immigration policy, recommending the United States “close the
gate” on undesirable (and presumably dangerous) immigrants.
A RETURN TO NORMALCY
By 1920, Americans had failed their great expectations to make the world safer and more democratic. The
flu epidemic had demonstrated the limits of science and technology in making Americans less vulnerable.
The Red Scare signified Americans’ fear of revolutionary politics and the persistence of violent capital-
labor conflicts. And race riots made it clear that the nation was no closer to peaceful race relations
either. After a long era of Progressive initiatives and new government agencies, followed by a costly
war that did not end in a better world, most of the public sought to focus on economic progress and
success in their private lives instead. As the presidential election of 1920 unfolded, the extent of just
how tired Americans were of an interventionist government—whether in terms of Progressive reform or
international involvement—became exceedingly clear. Republicans, anxious to return to the White House
after eight years of Wilson idealism, capitalized on this growing American sentiment to find the candidate
who would promise a return to normalcy.
The Republicans found their man in Senator Warren G. Harding from Ohio. Although not the most
energetic candidate for the White House, Harding offered what party handlers desired—a candidate
around whom they could mold their policies of low taxes, immigration restriction, and noninterference in
world affairs. He also provided Americans with what they desired: a candidate who could look and act
presidential, and yet leave them alone to live their lives as they wished.
Click and Explore
Learn more about President Harding’s campaign promise of a return to normalcy

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Readjustment) by listening to an audio recording or
reading the text of his promise.
Democratic leaders realized they had little chance at victory. Wilson remained adamant that the election
be a referendum over his League of Nations, yet after his stroke, he was in no physical condition to run for
a third term. Political in-fighting among his cabinet, most notably between A. Mitchell Palmer and William
McAdoo, threatened to split the party convention until a compromise candidate could be found in Ohio
governor James Cox. Cox chose, for his vice presidential running mate, the young Assistant Secretary of
the Navy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
At a time when Americans wanted prosperity and normalcy, rather than continued interference in their
lives, Harding won in an overwhelming landslide, with 404 votes to 127 in the Electoral College, and 60
percent of the popular vote. With the war, the flu epidemic, the Red Scare, and other issues behind them,
American looked forward to Harding’s inauguration in 1921, and to an era of personal freedoms and
hedonism that would come to be known as the Jazz Age.

Key Terms
clear and present danger the expression used by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the
case of Schenck v. United States to characterize public dissent during wartime, akin to shouting “fire!” in a
crowded theater
Fourteen Points Woodrow Wilson’s postwar peace plan, which called for openness in all matters of
diplomacy, including free trade, freedom of the seas, and an end to secret treaties and negotiations,
among others
Harlem Hellfighters a nickname for the decorated, all-black 369th Infantry, which served on the
frontlines of France for six months, longer than any other American unit
Irreconcilables Republicans who opposed the Treaty of Versailles on all grounds
League of Nations Woodrow Wilson’s idea for a group of countries that would promote a new world
order and territorial integrity through open discussions, rather than intimidation and war
liberty bonds the name for the war bonds that the U.S. government sold, and strongly encouraged
Americans to buy, as a way of raising money for the war effort
neutrality Woodrow Wilson’s policy of maintaining commercial ties with all belligerents and insisting
on open markets throughout Europe during World War I
prohibition the campaign for a ban on the sale and manufacturing of alcoholic beverages, which came to
fruition during the war, bolstered by anti-German sentiment and a call to preserve resources for the war
effort
Red Scare the term used to describe the fear that Americans felt about the possibility of a Bolshevik
revolution in the United States; fear over Communist infiltrators led Americans to restrict and
discriminate against any forms of radical dissent, whether Communist or not
Red Summer the summer of 1919, when numerous northern cities experienced bloody race riots that
killed over 250 persons, including the Chicago race riot of 1919
Reservationists Republicans who would support the Treaty of Versailles if sufficient amendments were
introduced that could eliminate Article X
Zimmermann telegram the telegram sent from German foreign minister Arthur Zimmermann to the
German ambassador in Mexico, which invited Mexico to fight alongside Germany should the United
States enter World War I on the side of the Allies
Summary
President Wilson had no desire to embroil the United States in the bloody and lengthy war that was
devastating Europe. His foreign policy, through his first term and his campaign for reelection, focused
on keeping the United States out of the war and involving the country in international affairs only when
there was a moral imperative to do so. After his 1916 reelection, however, the free trade associated with
neutrality proved impossible to secure against the total war strategies of the belligerents, particularly
Germany’s submarine warfare. Ethnic ties to Europe meant that much of the general public was more than
happy to remain neutral. Wilson’s reluctance to go to war was mirrored in Congress, where fifty-six voted
against the war resolution. The measure still passed, however, and the United States went to war against
the wishes of many of its citizens.

Wilson might have entered the war unwillingly, but once it became inevitable, he quickly moved to use
federal legislation and government oversight to put into place the conditions for the nation’s success.
First, he sought to ensure that all logistical needs—from fighting men to raw materials for wartime
production—were in place and within government reach. From legislating rail service to encouraging
Americans to buy liberty loans and “bring the boys home sooner,” the government worked to make
sure that the conditions for success were in place. Then came the more nuanced challenge of ensuring
that a country of immigrants from both sides of the conflict fell in line as Americans, first and foremost.
Aggressive propaganda campaigns, combined with a series of restrictive laws to silence dissenters,
ensured that Americans would either support the war or at least stay silent. While some conscientious
objectors and others spoke out, the government efforts were largely successful in silencing those who had
favored neutrality.

The First World War remade the world for all Americans, whether they served abroad or stayed at home.
For some groups, such as women and blacks, the war provided opportunities for advancement. As soldiers
went to war, women and African Americans took on jobs that had previously been reserved for white
men. In return for a no-strike pledge, workers gained the right to organize. Many of these shifts were
temporary, however, and the end of the war came with a cultural expectation that the old social order
would be reinstated.
Some reform efforts also proved short-lived. President Wilson’s wartime agencies managed the wartime
economy effectively but closed immediately with the end of the war (although they reappeared a short
while later with the New Deal). While patriotic fervor allowed Progressives to pass prohibition, the
strong demand for alcohol made the law unsustainable. Women’s suffrage, however, was a Progressive
movement that came to fruition in part because of the circumstances of the war, and unlike prohibition, it
remained.

American involvement in World War I came late. Compared to the incredible carnage endured by Europe,
the United States’ battles were brief and successful, although the appalling fighting conditions and
significant casualties made it feel otherwise to Americans, both at war and at home. For Wilson, victory
in the fields of France was not followed by triumphs in Versailles or Washington, DC, where his vision
of a new world order was summarily rejected by his allied counterparts and then by the U.S. Congress.
Wilson had hoped that America’s political influence could steer the world to a place of more open and
tempered international negotiations. His influence did lead to the creation of the League of Nations, but
concerns at home impeded the process so completely that the United States never signed the treaty that
Wilson worked so hard to create.

The end of a successful war did not bring the kind of celebration the country craved or anticipated. The
flu pandemic, economic troubles, and racial and ideological tensions combined to make the immediate
postwar experience in the United States one of anxiety and discontent. As the 1920 presidential election
neared, Americans made it clear that they were seeking a break from the harsh realities that the country
had been forced to face through the previous years of Progressive mandates and war. By voting in
President Warren G. Harding in a landslide election, Americans indicated their desire for a government
that would leave them alone, keep taxes low, and limit social Progressivism and international intervention.

Review Questions
1. In order to pursue his goal of using American C. because workers had no bargaining power
influence overseas only when it was a moral due to the “no-strike pledge”
imperative, Wilson put which man in the position D. because women and African American men
of Secretary of State? were paid less for the same work
A. Charles Hughes
B. Theodore Roosevelt 8. Which of the following did not influence the
C. William Jennings Bryan eventual passage of the Nineteenth Amendment?
D. John Pershing A. women’s contributions to the war effort
B. the dramatic tactics and harsh treatment of
2. Why was the German use of the unterseeboot radical suffragists
considered to defy international law? C. the passage of the Volstead Act
A. because other countries did not have D. the arguments of President Wilson’s
similar technology daughter
B. because they refused to warn their targets
before firing 9. Why was prohibition’s success short-lived?
C. because they constituted cruel and unusual
methods 10. What was Article X in the Treaty of
D. because no international consensus existed Versailles?
to employ submarine technology A. the “war guilt clause” that France required
B. the agreement that all nations in the League
3. To what extent were Woodrow Wilson’s actual of Nations would be rendered equal
foreign policy decisions consistent with his foreign C. the Allies’ division of Germany’s holdings
policy philosophy or vision? in Asia
D. the refusal to allow Bolshevik Russia
4. Which of the following was not enacted in membership in the League of Nations
order to secure men and materials for the war
effort? 11. Which of the following was not included in
A. the Food Administration the Treaty of Versailles?
B. the Selective Service Act A. extensive German reparations to be paid to
C. the War Industries Board the Allies
D. the Sedition Act B. a curtailment of German immigration to
Allied nations
5. What of the following was not used to control C. France’s acquisition of disputed territory
American dissent against the war effort? along the French-German border
A. propaganda campaigns D. a mandate for Germany to accept
B. repressive legislation responsibility for the war publicly
C. National Civil Liberties Bureau
D. loyalty leagues 12. What barriers did Wilson face in his efforts to
ratify the Treaty of Versailles? What objections did
6. How did the government work to ensure unity those opposed to the treaty voice?
on the home front, and why did Wilson feel that
this was so important? 13. Which of the following was not a destabilizing
factor immediately following the end of the war?
7. Why did the war not increase overall A. a flu pandemic
prosperity? B. a women’s liberation movement
A. because inflation made the cost of living C. high inflation and economic uncertainty
higher D. political paranoia
B. because wages were lowered due to the
war effort
14. What was the inciting event that led to the D. the assault of a white man on a streetcar by
Chicago Race Riot of 1919? black youths
A. a strike at a local factory
B. a protest march of black activists 15. How did postwar conditions explain Warren
C. the murder of a black boy who swam too Harding’s landslide victory in the 1920
close to a white beach presidential election?

16. Why was preparation crucial to ensuring U.S. victory in World War I?
17. Why was the peace process at the war’s end so lengthy? What complications did Wilson encounter in
his attempts to promote the process and realize his postwar vision?
18. What changes did the war bring to the everyday lives of Americans? How lasting were these changes?
19. What role did propaganda play in World War I? How might the absence of propaganda have changed
the circumstances or the outcome of the war?
20. What new opportunities did the war present for women and African Americans? What limitations did
these groups continue to face in spite of these opportunities?

Chapter 24 The Jazz Age: Redefining the Nation, 1919-1929 701
CHAPTER 24
The Jazz Age: Redefining the

Nation, 1919-1929
Figure 24.1 The illustrations for F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Tales of the Jazz Age, drawn by John Held, Jr., epitomized the
carefree flapper era of the 1920s.
Chapter Outline
24.1 Prosperity and the Production of Popular Entertainment
24.2 Transformation and Backlash
24.3 A New Generation
24.4 Republican Ascendancy: Politics in the 1920s
Introduction
Following the hardships of the immediate postwar era, the United States embarked upon one of the most
prosperous decades in history. Mass production, especially of the automobile, increased mobility and
fostered new industries. Unemployment plummeted as businesses grew to meet this increased demand.
Cities continued to grow and, according to the 1920 census, a majority of the population lived in urban
areas of twenty-five hundred or more residents.
Jazz music, movies, speakeasies, and new dances dominated the urban evening scene. Recent immigrants
from southern and eastern Europe, many of them Catholic, now participated in the political system. This
challenged rural Protestant fundamentalism, even as quota laws sought to limit new immigration patterns.
The Ku Klux Klan rose to greater power, as they protested not only the changing role of African Americans
but also the growing population of immigrant, Catholic, and Jewish Americans.
This mixture of social, political, economic, and cultural change and conflict gave the decade the nickname
the “Roaring Twenties” or the “Jazz Age.” The above illustration (Figure 24.1), which graced the cover of
F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Tales of the Jazz Age, embodies the popular view of the 1920s as a nonstop party, replete
with dancing, music, flappers, and illegal drinking.
702 Chapter 24 The Jazz Age: Redefining the Nation, 1919-1929

• Discuss the role of movies in the evolution of American culture
• Explain the rise of sports as a dominant social force
• Analyze the ways in which the automobile, especially the Model T, transformed
American life
In the 1920s, prosperity manifested itself in many forms, most notably in advancements in entertainment
and technology that led to new patterns of leisure and consumption. Movies and sports became
increasingly popular and buying on credit or “carrying” the debt allowed for the sale of more consumer
goods and put automobiles within reach of average Americans. Advertising became a central institution in
this new consumer economy, and commercial radio and magazines turned athletes and actors into national
icons.
MOVIES
The increased prosperity of the 1920s gave many Americans more disposable income to spend on
entertainment. As the popularity of “moving pictures” grew in the early part of the decade, “movie
palaces,” capable of seating thousands, sprang up in major cities. A ticket for a double feature and a
live show cost twenty-five cents; for a quarter, Americans could escape from their problems and lose
themselves in another era or world. People of all ages attended the movies with far more regularity than
today, often going more than once per week. By the end of the decade, weekly movie attendance swelled
to ninety million people.
The silent movies of the early 1920s gave rise to the first generation of movie stars. Rudolph Valentino,
the lothario with the bedroom eyes, and Clara Bow, the “It Girl” with sex appeal, filled the imagination of
millions of American moviegoers. However, no star captured the attention of the American viewing public
Figure 24.2

more than Charlie Chaplin. This sad-eyed tramp with a moustache, baggy pants, and a cane was the top
box office attraction of his time (Figure 24.3).
Figure 24.3 Charlie Chaplin’s nickname “The Tramp” came from the recurring character he played in many of his
silent films, such as 1921’s The Kid, which starred Jackie Coogan in the title role.
In 1927, the world of the silent movie began to wane with the New York release of the first “talkie”: The
Jazz Singer. The plot of this film, which starred Al Jolson, told a distinctively American story of the 1920s.
It follows the life of a Jewish man from his boyhood days of being groomed to be the cantor at the local
synagogue to his life as a famous and “Americanized” jazz singer. Both the story and the new sound
technology used to present it were popular with audiences around the country. It quickly became a huge
hit for Warner Brothers, one of the “big five” motion picture studios in Hollywood along with Twentieth
Century Fox, RKO Pictures, Paramount Pictures, and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
Southern California in the 1920s, however, had only recently become the center of the American film
industry. Film production was originally based in and around New York, where Thomas Edison first
debuted the kinetoscope in 1893. But in the 1910s, as major filmmakers like D. W. Griffith looked to escape
the cost of Edison’s patents on camera equipment, this began to change. When Griffith filmed In Old
California (1910), the first movie ever shot in Hollywood, California, the small town north of Los Angeles
was little more than a village. As moviemakers flocked to southern California, not least because of its
favorable climate and predictable sunshine, Hollywood swelled with moviemaking activity. By the 1920s,
the once-sleepy village was home to a majorly profitable innovative industry in the United States.
AUTOMOBILES AND AIRPLANES: AMERICANS ON THE MOVE

Cinema was not the only major industry to make great technological strides in this decade. The 1920s
opened up new possibilities of mobility for a large percentage of the U.S. population, as automobile
manufacturers began to mass produce what had once been a luxury item, and daring aviators both
demonstrated and drove advancements in aircraft technology. The most significant innovation of this era
was Henry Ford’s Model T Ford, which made car ownership available to the average American.
Ford did not invent the automobile—the Duryea brothers in Massachusetts as well as Gottlieb W. Daimler
and Karl Friedrich Benz in Germany were early pioneers. By the early twentieth century, hundreds of car
manufacturers existed. However, they all made products that were too expensive for most Americans.
Ford’s innovation lay in his focus on using mass production to manufacture automobiles; he
revolutionized industrial work by perfecting the assembly line, which enabled him to lower the Model
T’s price from $850 in 1908 to $300 in 1924, making car ownership a real possibility for a large share
of the population (Figure 24.4). As prices dropped, more and more people could afford to own a car.
Soon, people could buy used Model Ts for as little as five dollars, allowing students and others with low
incomes to enjoy the freedom and mobility of car ownership. By 1929, there were over twenty-three million
automobiles on American roads.
Figure 24.4 This advertisement for Ford’s Model T ran in the New Orleans Times Picayune in 1911. Note that the
prices have not yet dropped far from their initial high of $850.
The assembly line helped Ford reduce labor costs within the production process by moving the product
from one team of workers to the next, each of them completing a step so simple they had to be, in Ford’s
words, “no smarter than an ox” (Figure 24.5). Ford’s reliance on the moving assembly line, scientific
management, and time-motion studies added to his emphasis on efficiency over craftsmanship.
Figure 24.5 In this image from a 1928 Literary Digest interview with Henry Ford, workers on an assembly line
produce new models of Ford automobiles.
Ford’s emphasis on cheap mass production brought both benefits and disadvantages to its workers. Ford
would not allow his workers to unionize, and the boring, repetitive nature of the assembly line work
generated a high turnover rate. However, he doubled workers’ pay to five dollars a day and standardized
the workday to eight hours (a reduction from the norm). Ford’s assembly line also offered greater equality
than most opportunities of the time, as he paid white and black workers equally. Seeking these wages,
many African Americans from the South moved to Detroit and other large northern cities to work in
factories.

Ford even bought a plot of land in the Amazonian jungle twice the size of Delaware to build a factory
town he called Fordlandia. Workers there rejected his midwestern Puritanism even more than his factory
discipline, and the project ended in an epic failure. In the United States, however, Ford shaped the nation’s
mode of industrialism—one that relied on paying decent wages so that workers could afford to be the
consumers of their own products.
The automobile changed the face of America, both economically and socially. Industries like glass, steel,
and rubber processing expanded to keep up with auto production. The oil industry in California,
Oklahoma, and Texas expanded, as Americans’ reliance on oil increased and the nation transitioned from
a coal-based economy to one driven by petroleum. The need for public roadways required local and state
governments to fund a dramatic expansion of infrastructure, which permitted motels and restaurants to
spring up and offer new services to millions of newly mobile Americans with cash to spend. With this new
infrastructure, new shopping and living patterns emerged, and streetcar suburbs gave way to automobile
suburbs as private automobile traffic on public roads began to replace mass transit on trains and trolleys.
The 1920s not only witnessed a transformation in ground transportation but also major changes in air
travel. By the mid-1920s, men—as well as some pioneering women like the African American stunt pilot
Bessie Coleman (Figure 24.6)—had been flying for two decades. But there remained doubts about the
suitability of airplanes for long-distance travel. Orville Wright, one of the pioneers of airplane technology
in the United States, once famously declared, “No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris
[because] no known motor can run at the requisite speed for four days without stopping.” However, in
1927, this skepticism was finally put to rest when Charles Lindbergh became the first person to fly solo
across the Atlantic Ocean, flying from New York to Paris in thirty-three hours (Figure 24.6).
Figure 24.6 Aviator Charles Lindbergh stands in front of the Spirit of St Louis (a), the plane in which he flew from
New York to Paris, France, in 1927. Because American flight schools barred black students, stunt pilot Bessie
Coleman (b), the daughter of Texas sharecroppers, taught herself French to earn her pilot’s license overseas.
Lindbergh’s flight made him an international hero: the best-known American in the world. On his return,
Americans greeted him with a ticker-tape parade—a celebration in which shredded paper thrown from
surrounding buildings creates a festive, flurry effect. His flight, which he completed in the monoplane
Spirit of St. Louis, seemed like a triumph of individualism in modern mass society and exemplified
Americans’ ability to conquer the air with new technology. Following his success, the small airline
industry began to blossom, fully coming into its own in the 1930s, as companies like Boeing and Ford
developed airplanes designed specifically for passenger air transport. As technologies in engine and
passenger compartment design improved, air travel became more popular. In 1934, the number of U.S.
domestic air passengers was just over 450,000 annually. By the end of the decade, that number had
increased to nearly two million.
Technological innovation influenced more than just transportation. As access to electricity became more
common and the electric motor was made more efficient, inventors began to churn out new and more
complex household appliances. Newly developed innovations like radios, phonographs, vacuum cleaners,
washing machines, and refrigerators emerged on the market during this period. While expensive, new
consumer-purchasing innovations like store credit and installment plans made them available to a larger
segment of the population. Many of these devices promised to give women—who continued to have
primary responsibility for housework—more opportunities to step out of the home and expand their
horizons. Ironically, however, these labor-saving devices tended to increase the workload for women by
raising the standards of domestic work. With the aid of these tools, women ended up cleaning more
frequently, washing more often, and cooking more elaborate meals rather than gaining spare time.
Despite the fact that the promise of more leisure time went largely unfulfilled, the lure of technology as
the gateway to a more relaxed lifestyle endured. This enduring dream was a testament to the influence
of another growing industry: advertising. The mass consumption of cars, household appliances, ready-
to-wear clothing, and processed foods depended heavily on the work of advertisers. Magazines like
Ladies’ Home Journal and The Saturday Evening Post became vehicles to connect advertisers with middle-
class consumers. Colorful and occasionally provocative print advertisements decorated the pages of these
publications and became a staple in American popular culture (Figure 24.7).
Figure 24.7 This advertisement for Palmolive soap, which appeared in Ladies’ Home Journal in 1922, claimed that
the soap’s “moderate price is due to popularity, to the enormous demand which keeps Palmolive factories working
day and night” and so “the old-time luxury of the few may now be enjoyed the world over.”
The form of the advertisements, however, was not new. These colorful print ads were merely the modern
incarnations of an advertising strategy that went back to the nineteenth century. The new medium for
advertisers in the 1920s, the one that would reach out to consumers in radically new and innovative ways,
was radio.
THE POWER OF RADIO AND THE WORLD OF SPORTS

After being introduced during World War I, radios became a common feature in American homes of the
1920s. Hundreds of radio stations popped up over the decade. These stations developed and broadcasted
news, serial stories, and political speeches. Much like print media, advertising space was interspersed with
entertainment. Yet, unlike magazines and newspapers, advertisers did not have to depend on the active
participation of consumers: Advertisers could reach out to anyone within listening distance of the radio.
On the other hand, their broader audience meant that they had to be more conservative and careful not to
offend anyone.

Click and Explore
Listen to a recording of a broadcast (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Showboat) of

the “WLS Showboat: “The Floating Palace of Wonder,” a variety show from WLS
Chicago, a radio station run by Sears Roebuck and Co. What does the clip tell you
about the entertainment of the 1920s?
The power of radio further sped up the processes of nationalization and homogenization that were
previously begun with the wide distribution of newspapers made possible by railroads and telegraphs. Far
more effectively than these print media, however, radio created and pumped out American culture onto
the airwaves and into the homes of families around the country. Syndicated radio programs like Amos ‘n’
Andy, which began in the late 1920s, entertained listeners around the country—in the case of the popular
Amos ‘n’ Andy, it did so with racial stereotypes about African Americans familiar from minstrel shows of
the previous century. No longer were small corners of the country separated by their access to information.
With the radio, Americans from coast to coast could listen to exactly the same programming. This had the
effect of smoothing out regional differences in dialect, language, music, and even consumer taste.
Radio also transformed how Americans enjoyed sports. The introduction of play-by-play descriptions of
sporting events broadcast over the radio brought sports entertainment right into the homes of millions.
Radio also helped to popularize sports figures and their accomplishments. Jim Thorpe, who grew up in
the Sac and Fox Nation in Oklahoma, was known as one of the best athletes in the world: He medaled
in the 1912 Olympic Games, played Major League Baseball, and was one of the founding members of
the National Football League. Other sports superstars were soon household names. In 1926, Gertrude
Ederle became the first woman to swim the English Channel. Helen Wills dominated women’s tennis,
winning Wimbledon eight times in the late 1920s (Figure 24.8), whereas “Big Bill” Tilden won the national
singles title every year from 1920 to 1925. In football, Harold “Red” Grange played for the University of
Illinois, averaging over ten yards per carry during his college career. The biggest star of all was the “Sultan
of Swat,” Babe Ruth, who became America’s first baseball hero (Figure 24.8). He changed the game of
baseball from a low-scoring one dominated by pitchers to one where his hitting became famous. By 1923,
most pitchers intentionally walked him. In 1924, he hit sixty homeruns.
Figure 24.8 Babe Ruth (a) led the New York Yankees to four World Series championships. In this 1921 photograph,
he stands outside of the New York Yankees dugout. Helen Wills (b) won a total of thirty-one Grand Slam titles in her
career, including eight singles titles at Wimbledon from 1927 to 1938. (credit a: modification of work by Library of
Congress)

• Define nativism and analyze the ways in which it affected the politics and society of the
1920s
• Describe the conflict between urban Americans and rural fundamentalists
• Explain the issues in question in the Scopes trial
While prosperous, middle-class Americans found much to celebrate about the new era of leisure and
consumption, many Americans—often those in rural areas—disagreed on the meaning of a “good life”
and how to achieve it. They reacted to the rapid social changes of modern urban society with a vigorous
defense of religious values and a fearful rejection of cultural diversity and equality.
NATIVISM
Beginning at the end of the nineteenth century, immigration into the United States rocketed to never-
before-seen heights. Many of these new immigrants were coming from eastern and southern Europe and,
for many English-speaking, native-born Americans of northern European descent, the growing diversity of
new languages, customs, and religions triggered anxiety and racial animosity. In reaction, some embraced
nativism, prizing white Americans with older family trees over more recent immigrants, and rejecting
outside influences in favor of their own local customs. Nativists also stoked a sense of fear over the
perceived foreign threat, pointing to the anarchist assassinations of the Spanish prime minister in 1897,
the Italian king in 1900, and even President William McKinley in 1901 as proof. Following the Bolshevik
Revolution in Russia in November 1917, the sense of an inevitable foreign or communist threat only grew
among those already predisposed to distrust immigrants.

The sense of fear and anxiety over the rising tide of immigration came to a head with the trial of Nicola
Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti (Figure 24.9). Sacco and Vanzetti were Italian immigrants who were
accused of being part of a robbery and murder in Braintree, Massachusetts, in 1920. There was no direct
evidence linking them to the crime, but (in addition to being immigrants) both men were anarchists who
favored the destruction of the American market-based, capitalistic society through violence. At their trial,
the district attorney emphasized Sacco and Vanzetti’s radical views, and the jury found them guilty on
July 14, 1921. Despite subsequent motions and appeals based on ballistics testing, recanted testimony, and
an ex-convict’s confession, both men were executed on August 23, 1927.
Figure 24.9 Bartolomeo Vanzetti and Nicola Sacco (a) sit in handcuffs at Dedham Superior Court in Massachusetts
in 1923. After the verdict in 1921, protesters demonstrated (b) in London, England, hoping to save Sacco and
Vanzetti from execution.
Opinions on the trial and judgment tended to divide along nativist-immigrant lines, with immigrants
supporting the innocence of the condemned pair. The verdict sparked protests from Italian and other
immigrant groups, as well as from noted intellectuals such as writer John Dos Passos, satirist Dorothy
Parker, and famed physicist Albert Einstein. Muckraker Upton Sinclair based his indictment of the
American justice system, the “documentary novel” Boston, on Sacco and Vanzetti’s trial, which he
considered a gross miscarriage of justice. As the execution neared, the radical labor union Industrial
Workers of the World called for a three-day nationwide walkout, leading to the Great Colorado Coal Strike
of 1927. Protests occurred worldwide from Tokyo to Buenos Aires to London (Figure 24.9).
One of the most articulate critics of the trial was then-Harvard Law School professor Felix Frankfurter,
who would go on to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939. In 1927,
six years after the trial, he wrote in The Atlantic, “By systematic exploitation of the defendants’ alien blood,
their imperfect knowledge of English, their unpopular social views, and their opposition to the war, the
District Attorney invoked against them a riot of political passion and patriotic sentiment; and the trial
judge connived at—one had almost written, cooperated in—the process.”
To “preserve the ideal of American homogeneity,” the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921 introduced
numerical limits on European immigration for the first time in U.S. history. These limits were based on
a quota system that restricted annual immigration from any given country to 3 percent of the residents
from that same country as counted in the 1910 census. The National Origins Act of 1924 went even further,
lowering the level to 2 percent of the 1890 census, significantly reducing the share of eligible southern and
eastern Europeans, since they had only begun to arrive in the United States in large numbers in the 1890s.
Although New York congressmen Fiorello LaGuardia and Emanuel Celler spoke out against the act, there
was minimal opposition in Congress, and both labor unions and the Ku Klux Klan supported the bill.
When President Coolidge signed it into law, he declared, “America must be kept American.”
Click and Explore
The Library of Congress’s immigration collection (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

15Immigration) contains information on different immigrant groups, the timelines of
their immigration, maps of their settlement routes, and the reasons they came. Click
the images on the left navigation bar to learn about each group.
THE KU KLUX KLAN

The concern that a white, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon United States was under siege by throngs of
undesirables was not exclusively directed at foreigners. The sense that the country was also facing a threat
from within its borders and its own citizenry was also prevalent. This sense was clearly reflected in the
popularity of the 1915 motion picture, D. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation (Figure 24.10). Based on The
Clansman, a 1915 novel by Thomas Dixon, the film offers a racist, white-centric view of the Reconstruction
Era. The film depicts noble white southerners made helpless by northern carpetbaggers who empower
freed slaves to abuse white men and violate women. The heroes of the film were the Ku Klux Klan, who
saved the whites, the South, and the nation. While the film was reviled by many African Americans and the
NAACP for its historical inaccuracies and its maligning of freed slaves, it was celebrated by many whites
who accepted the historical revisionism as an accurate portrayal of Reconstruction Era oppression. After
viewing the film, President Wilson reportedly remarked, “It is like writing history with lightning, and my
only regret is that it is all so terribly true.”
Figure 24.10 A theatrical release poster for The Birth of a Nation, in 1915. The film glorified the role of the Ku Klux
Klan in quelling the threat of black power during Reconstruction.

DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Artistic License and the Censor
In a letter dated April 17, 1915, Mary Childs Nerney, a secretary of the NAACP, wrote to a local censor to
request that certain scenes be cut from The Birth of a Nation.
My dear Mr. Packard:
I am utterly disgusted with the situation in regard to “The Birth of a Nation.” As you will read in
the next number of the Crisis, we have fought it at every possible point. In spite of the promise
of the Mayor [of Chicago] to cut out the two objectionable scenes in the second part, which
show a white girl committing suicide to escape from a Negro pursuer, and a mulatto politician
trying to force marriage upon the daughter of his white benefactor, these two scenes still form
the motif of the really unimportant incidents, of which I enclose a list. I have seen the thing
four times and am positive that nothing more will be done about it. Jane Addams saw it when
it was in its worst form in New York. I know of no one else from Chicago who saw it. I enclose
Miss Addam’s opinion.
When we took the thing before the Police Magistrate he told us that he could do nothing
about it unless it [led] to a breach of the peace. Some kind of demonstration began in the
Liberty Theatre Wednesday night but the colored people took absolutely no part in it, and the
only man arrested was a white man. This, of course, is exactly what Littleton, counsel for the
producer, Griffith, held in the Magistrates’ Court when we have our hearing and claimed that
it might lead to a breach of the peace.
Frankly, I do not think you can do one single thing. It has been to me a most liberal education
and I purposely am through. The harm it is doing the colored people cannot be estimated. I
hear echoes of it wherever I go and have no doubt that this was in the mind of the people
who are producing it. Their profits here are something like $14,000 a day and their expenses
about $400. I have ceased to worry about it, and if I seem disinterested, kindly remember that
we have put six weeks of constant effort of this thing and have gotten nowhere.
Sincerely yours,
—Mary Childs Nerney, Secretary, NAACP
On what grounds does Nerney request censorship? What efforts to get the movie shut down did she
describe?
The Ku Klux Klan, which had been dormant since the end of Reconstruction in 1877, experienced a
resurgence of attention following the popularity of the film. Just months after the film’s release, a second
incarnation of the Klan was established at Stone Mountain, Georgia, under the leadership of William
Simmons. This new Klan now publicly eschewed violence and received mainstream support. Its embrace
of Protestantism, anti-Catholicism, and anti-Semitism, and its appeals for stricter immigration policies,
gained the group a level of acceptance by nativists with similar prejudices. The group was not merely
a male organization: The ranks of the Klan also included many women, with chapters of its women’s
auxiliary in locations across the country. These women’s groups were active in a number of reform-minded
activities, such as advocating for prohibition and the distribution of Bibles at public schools. But they also
participated in more expressly Klan activities like burning crosses and the public denunciation of Catholics
and Jews (Figure 24.11). By 1924, this Second Ku Klux Klan had six million members in the South, West,
and, particularly, the Midwest—more Americans than there were in the nation’s labor unions at the time.
While the organization publicly abstained from violence, its member continued to employ intimidation,
violence, and terrorism against its victims, particularly in the South.
Figure 24.11 In this 1921 image from the Denver News, three Ku Klux Klan members (two women and one man)
stand in front of a burning cross.
The Klan’s newfound popularity proved to be fairly short-lived. Several states effectively combatted the
power and influence of the Klan through anti-masking legislation, that is, laws that barred the wearing of
masks publicly. As the organization faced a series of public scandals, such as when the Grand Dragon of
Indiana was convicted of murdering a white schoolteacher, prominent citizens became less likely to openly
express their support for the group without a shield of anonymity. More importantly, influential people
and citizen groups explicitly condemned the Klan. Reinhold Niebuhr, a popular Protestant minister and
conservative intellectual in Detroit, admonished the group for its ostensibly Protestant zealotry and anti-
Catholicism. Jewish organizations, especially the Anti-Defamation League, which had been founded just
a couple of years before the reemergence of the Klan, amplified Jewish discontent at being the focus of
Klan attention. And the NAACP, which had actively sought to ban the film The Birth of a Nation, worked
to lobby congress and educate the public on lynchings. Ultimately, however, it was the Great Depression
that put an end to the Klan. As dues-paying members dwindled, the Klan lost its organizational power
and sunk into irrelevance until the 1950s.
FAITH, FUNDAMENTALISM, AND SCIENCE

The sense of degeneration that the Klan and anxiety over mass immigration prompted in the minds
of many Americans was in part a response to the process of postwar urbanization. Cities were swiftly
becoming centers of opportunity, but the growth of cities, especially the growth of immigrant populations
in those cities, sharpened rural discontent over the perception of rapid cultural change. As more of the
population flocked to cities for jobs and quality of life, many left behind in rural areas felt that their way of
life was being threatened. To rural Americans, the ways of the city seemed sinful and profligate. Urbanites,
for their part, viewed rural Americans as hayseeds who were hopelessly behind the times.
In this urban/rural conflict, Tennessee lawmakers drew a battle line over the issue of evolution and its
contradiction of the accepted, biblical explanation of history. Charles Darwin had first published his theory
of natural selection in 1859, and by the 1920s, many standard textbooks contained information about
Darwin’s theory of evolution. Fundamentalist Protestants targeted evolution as representative of all that
was wrong with urban society. Tennessee’s Butler Act made it illegal “to teach any theory that denies the
story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended
from a lower order of animals.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) hoped to challenge the Butler Act as an infringement of the
freedom of speech. As a defendant, the ACLU enlisted teacher and coach John Scopes, who suggested

that he may have taught evolution while substituting for an ill biology teacher. Town leaders in Dayton,
Tennessee, for their part, sensed an opportunity to promote their town, which had lost more than one-third
of its population, and welcomed the ACLU to stage a test case against the Butler Act. The ACLU and the
town got their wish as the Scopes Monkey Trial, as the newspapers publicized it, quickly turned into a
carnival that captured the attention of the country and epitomized the nation’s urban/rural divide (Figure
24.12).
Figure 24.12 During the Scopes Monkey Trial, supporters of the Butler Act read literature at the headquarters of the
Anti-Evolution League in Dayton, Tennessee.
Fundamentalist champion William Jennings Bryan argued the case for the prosecution. Bryan was a three-
time presidential candidate and Woodrow Wilson’s Secretary of State until 1915, at which point he began
preaching across the country about the spread of secularism and the declining role of religion in education.
He was known for offering $100 to anyone who would admit to being descended from an ape. Clarence
Darrow, a prominent lawyer and outspoken agnostic, led the defense team. His statement that, “Scopes
isn’t on trial, civilization is on trial. No man’s belief will be safe if they win,” struck a chord in society.
The outcome of the trial, in which Scopes was found guilty and fined $100, was never really in question, as
Scopes himself had confessed to violating the law. Nevertheless, the trial itself proved to be high drama.
The drama only escalated when Darrow made the unusual choice of calling Bryan as an expert witness
on the Bible. Knowing of Bryan’s convictions of a literal interpretation of the Bible, Darrow peppered
him with a series of questions designed to ridicule such a belief. The result was that those who approved
of the teaching of evolution saw Bryan as foolish, whereas many rural Americans considered the cross-
examination an attack on the Bible and their faith.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
H. L. Mencken on the Scopes Trial
H. L. Mencken covered the trial for Baltimore’s The Evening Sun. One of most popular writers of social
satire of his age, Mencken was very critical of the South, the trial, and especially Bryan. He coined the
terms “monkey trial “and “Bible belt.” In the excerpt below, Mencken reflects on the trial’s outcome and
its overall importance for the United States.
The Scopes trial, from the start, has been carried on in a manner exactly fitted to the anti-
evolution law and the simian imbecility under it. There hasn’t been the slightest pretense to
decorum. The rustic judge, a candidate for re-election, has postured the yokels like a clown
in a ten-cent side show, and almost every word he has uttered has been an undisguised
appeal to their prejudices and superstitions. The chief prosecuting attorney, beginning like a
competent lawyer and a man of self-respect, ended like a convert at a Billy Sunday revival.
It fell to him, finally, to make a clear and astounding statement of theory of justice prevailing
under fundamentalism. What he said, in brief, was that a man accused of infidelity had no
rights whatever under Tennessee law. . . .
Darrow has lost this case. It was lost long before he came to Dayton. But it seems to me that
he has nevertheless performed a great public service by fighting it to a finish and in a perfectly
serious way. Let no one mistake it for comedy, farcical though it may be in all its details. It
serves notice on the country that Neanderthal man is organizing in these forlorn backwaters
of the land, led by a fanatic, rid of sense and devoid of conscience. Tennessee, challenging
him too timorously and too late, now sees its courts converted into camp meetings and its Bill
of Rights made a mock of by its sworn officers of the law. There are other States that had
better look to their arsenals before the Hun is at their gates.
—H. L. Mencken, The Evening Sun, July 18, 1925
How does Mencken characterize Judge Raulston? About what threat is Mencken warning America?
Indicative of the revival of Protestant fundamentalism and the rejection of evolution among rural and
white Americans was the rise of Billy Sunday. As a young man, Sunday had gained fame as a baseball
player with exceptional skill and speed. Later, he found even more celebrity as the nation’s most revered
evangelist, drawing huge crowds at camp meetings around the country. He was one of the most influential
evangelists of the time and had access to some of the wealthiest and most powerful families in the country
(Figure 24.13). Sunday rallied many Americans around “old-time” fundamentalist religion and garnered
support for prohibition. Recognizing Sunday’s popular appeal, Bryan attempted to bring him to Dayton
for the Scopes trial, although Sunday politely refused.

Figure 24.13 Billy Sunday, one of the most influential evangelists of his day, leaves the White House on February
20, 1922 (a). Aimee Semple McPherson, shown here preaching at the Angelus Temple in 1923 (b), founded the
Foursquare Church. (credit a: modification of work by Library of Congress)
Even more spectacular than the rise of Billy Sunday was the popularity of Aimee Semple McPherson, a
Canadian Pentecostal preacher whose Foursquare Church in Los Angeles catered to the large community
of midwestern transplants and newcomers to California (Figure 24.13). Although her message promoted
the fundamental truths of the Bible, her style was anything but old fashioned. Dressed in tight-fitting
clothes and wearing makeup, she held radio-broadcast services in large venues that resembled concert
halls and staged spectacular faith-healing performances. Blending Hollywood style and modern
technology with a message of fundamentalist Christianity, McPherson exemplified the contradictions of
the decade well before public revelations about her scandalous love affair cost her much of her status and
following.

• Explain the factors that shaped the new morality and the changing role of women in the
United States during the 1920s
• Describe the “new Negro” and the influence of the Harlem Renaissance
• Analyze the effects of prohibition on American society and culture
• Describe the character and main authors of the Lost Generation
The 1920s was a time of dramatic change in the United States. Many young people, especially those
living in big cities, embraced a new morality that was much more permissive than that of previous
generations. They listened to jazz music, especially in the nightclubs of Harlem. Although prohibition
outlawed alcohol, criminal bootlegging and importing businesses thrived. The decade was not a pleasure
cruise for everyone, however; in the wake of the Great War, many were left awaiting the promise of a new
generation.
A NEW MORALITY
Many Americans were disillusioned in the post-World War I era, and their reactions took many forms.
Rebellious American youth, in particular, adjusted to the changes by embracing a new morality that was
far more permissive than the social mores of their parents. Many young women of the era shed their
mother’s morality and adopted the dress and mannerisms of a flapper, the Jazz Age female stereotype,
seeking the endless party. Flappers wore shorter skirts, shorter hair, and more makeup, and they drank
and smoked with the boys (Figure 24.14). Flappers’ dresses emphasized straight lines from the shoulders
to the knees, minimizing breasts and curves while highlighting legs and ankles. The male equivalent of a
flapper was a “sheik,” although that term has not remained as strong in the American vernacular. At the
time, however, many of these fads became a type of conformity, especially among college-aged youths,
with the signature bob haircut of the flapper becoming almost universal—in both the United States and
overseas.
Figure 24.14 The flapper look, seen here in “Flapper” by Ellen Pyle for the cover of The Saturday Evening Post in
February 1922, was a national craze in American cities during the 1920s.
As men and women pushed social and cultural boundaries in the Jazz Age, sexual mores changed and
social customs grew more permissive. “Petting parties” or “necking parties” became the rage on college
campuses. Psychologist Sigmund Freud and British “sexologist” Havelock Ellis emphasized that sex
was a natural and pleasurable part of the human experience. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned
Parenthood, launched an information campaign on birth control to give women a choice in the realm
in which suffrage had changed little—the family. The popularization of contraception and the private
space that the automobile offered to teenagers and unwed couples also contributed to changes in sexual
behavior.
Flappers and sheiks also took their cues from the high-flying romances they saw on movie screens and
confessions in movie magazines of immorality on movie sets. Movie posters promised: “Brilliant men,
beautiful jazz babies, champagne baths, midnight revels, petting parties in the purple dawn, all ending
in one terrific smashing climax that makes you gasp.” And “neckers, petters, white kisses, red kisses,
pleasure-mad daughters, sensation-craving mothers . . . the truth: bold, naked, sensational.”

Click and Explore
Could you go “on a toot” with flappers and sheiks? Improve your chances with this
collection (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15JazzSlang) of Jazz Age slang.
New dances and new music—especially jazz—also characterized the Jazz Age. Born out of the African
American community, jazz was a uniquely American music. The innovative sound emerged from a
number of different communities and from a number of different musical traditions such as blues and
ragtime. By the 1920s, jazz had spread from African American clubs in New Orleans and Chicago to reach
greater popularity in New York and abroad. One New York jazz establishment, the Cotton Club, became
particularly famous and attracted large audiences of hip, young, and white flappers and sheiks to see black
entertainers play jazz (Figure 24.15).
Figure 24.15 Black jazz bands such as the King and Carter Jazzing Orchestra, photographed in 1921 by Robert
Runyon, were immensely popular among white urbanites in the 1920s.
THE “NEW WOMAN”

The Jazz Age and the proliferation of the flapper lifestyle of the 1920s should not be seen merely as the
product of postwar disillusionment and newfound prosperity. Rather, the search for new styles of dress
and new forms of entertainment like jazz was part of a larger women’s rights movement. The early 1920s,
especially with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment guaranteeing full voting rights to women,
was a period that witnessed the expansion of women’s political power. The public flaunting of social
and sexual norms by flappers represented an attempt to match gains in political equality with gains in
the social sphere. Women were increasingly leaving the Victorian era norms of the previous generation
behind, as they broadened the concept of women’s liberation to include new forms of social expression
such as dance, fashion, women’s clubs, and forays into college and the professions.
Nor did the struggle for women’s rights through the promotion and passage of legislation cease in the
1920s. In 1921, Congress passed the Promotion of the Welfare and Hygiene of Maternity and Infancy
Act, also known as the Sheppard-Towner Act, which earmarked $1.25 million for well-baby clinics and
educational programs, as well as nursing. This funding dramatically reduced the rate of infant mortality.
Two years later, in 1923, Alice Paul drafted and promoted an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) that
promised to end all sex discrimination by guaranteeing that “Men and women shall have equal rights
throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction.”
Yet, ironically, at precisely the time when the Progressive movement was achieving its long-sought-after
goals, the movement itself was losing steam and the Progressive Era was coming to a close. As the heat
of Progressive politics grew less intense, voter participation from both sexes declined over the course
of the 1920s. After the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, many women believed that they had
accomplished their goals and dropped out of the movement. As a result, the proposed ERA stalled (the
ERA eventually passed Congress almost fifty years later in 1972, but then failed to win ratification by a
sufficient number of states), and, by the end of the 1920s, Congress even allowed funding for the Sheppard-
Towner Act to lapse.
The growing lethargy toward women’s rights was happening at a time when an increasing number
of women were working for wages in the U.S. economy—not only in domestic service, but in retail,
healthcare and education, offices, and manufacturing. Beginning in the 1920s, women’s participation in
the labor force increased steadily. However, most were paid less than men for the same type of work
based on the rationale that they did not have to support a family. While the employment of single and
unmarried women had largely won social acceptance, married women often suffered the stigma that they
were working for pin money—frivolous additional discretionary income.
THE HARLEM RENAISSANCE AND THE NEW NEGRO

It wasn’t only women who found new forms of expression in the 1920s. African Americans were also
expanding their horizons and embracing the concept of the “new Negro.” The decade witnessed the
continued Great Migration of African Americans to the North, with over half a million fleeing the strict Jim
Crow laws of the South. Life in the northern states, as many African Americans discovered, was hardly
free of discrimination and segregation. Even without Jim Crow, businesses, property owners, employers,
and private citizens typically practiced de facto segregation, which could be quite stifling and oppressive.
Nonetheless, many southern blacks continued to move north into segregated neighborhoods that were
already bursting at the seams, because the North, at the very least, offered two tickets toward black
progress: schools and the vote. The black population of New York City doubled during the decade. As
a result, Harlem, a neighborhood at the northern end of Manhattan, became a center for Afro-centric art,
music, poetry, and politics. Political expression in the Harlem of the 1920s ran the gamut, as some leaders
advocated a return to Africa, while others fought for inclusion and integration.
Revived by the wartime migration and fired up by the white violence of the postwar riots, urban blacks
developed a strong cultural expression in the 1920s that came to be known as the Harlem Renaissance.
In this rediscovery of black culture, African American artists and writers formulated an independent
black culture and encouraged racial pride, rejecting any emulation of white American culture. Claude
McKay’s poem “If We Must Die” called on African Americans to start fighting back in the wake of the Red
Summer riots of 1919 (discussed in a previous chapter, Figure 24.16). Langston Hughes, often nicknamed
the “poet laureate” of the movement, invoked sacrifice and the just cause of civil rights in “The Colored
Soldier,” while another author of the movement, Zora Neale Hurston, celebrated the life and dialect of
rural blacks in a fictional, all-black town in Florida. Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God was only
published posthumously in 1937.

Figure 24.16 The Jamaican-born poet and novelist Claude McKay articulated the new sense of self and urban
community of African Americans during the Harlem Renaissance. Although centered in the Harlem neighborhood of
Manhattan, this cultural movement emerged in urban centers throughout the Northeast and Midwest.
The new Negro found political expression in a political ideology that celebrated African Americans
distinct national identity. This Negro nationalism, as some referred to it, proposed that African Americans
had a distinct and separate national heritage that should inspire pride and a sense of community. An
early proponent of such nationalism was W. E. B. Du Bois. One of the founders of the NAACP, a
brilliant writer and scholar, and the first African American to earn a Ph.D. from Harvard, Du Bois openly
rejected assumptions of white supremacy. His conception of Negro nationalism encouraged Africans to
work together in support of their own interests, promoted the elevation of black literature and cultural
expression, and, most famously, embraced the African continent as the true homeland of all ethnic
Africans—a concept known as Pan-Africanism.
Taking Negro nationalism to a new level was Marcus Garvey. Like many black Americans, the Jamaican
immigrant had become utterly disillusioned with the prospect of overcoming white racism in the United
States in the wake of the postwar riots and promoted a “Back to Africa” movement. To return African
Americans to a presumably more welcoming home in Africa, Garvey founded the Black Star Steamship
Line. He also started the United Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), which attracted thousands
of primarily lower-income working people. UNIA members wore colorful uniforms and promoted the
doctrine of a “negritude” that reversed the color hierarchy of white supremacy, prizing blackness and
identifying light skin as a mark of inferiority. Intellectual leaders like Du Bois, whose lighter skin put him
low on Garvey’s social order, considered the UNIA leader a charlatan. Garvey was eventually imprisoned
for mail fraud and then deported, but his legacy set the stage for Malcolm X and the Black Power
movement of the 1960s.
PROHIBITION
At precisely the same time that African Americans and women were experimenting with new forms of
social expression, the country as a whole was undergoing a process of austere and dramatic social reform
in the form of alcohol prohibition. After decades of organizing to reduce or end the consumption of
alcohol in the United States, temperance groups and the Anti-Saloon League finally succeeded in pushing
through the Eighteenth Amendment in 1919, which banned the manufacture, sale, and transportation of
intoxicating liquors (Figure 24.17). The law proved difficult to enforce, as illegal alcohol soon poured in
from Canada and the Caribbean, and rural Americans resorted to home-brewed “moonshine.” The result
was an eroding of respect for law and order, as many people continued to drink illegal liquor. Rather than
bringing about an age of sobriety, as Progressive reformers had hoped, it gave rise to a new subculture
that included illegal importers, interstate smuggling (or bootlegging), clandestine saloons referred to as
“speakeasies,” hipflasks, cocktail parties, and the organized crime of trafficking liquor.
Figure 24.17 While forces of law and order confiscated and discarded alcohol when they found it (a), consumers
found ingenious ways of hiding liquor during prohibition, such as this cane that served as a flask (b).
Prohibition also revealed deep political divisions in the nation. The Democratic Party found itself deeply
divided between urban, northern “wets” who hated the idea of abstinence, and rural, southern “dries”
who favored the amendment. This divided the party and opened the door for the Republican Party to gain
ascendancy in the 1920s. All politicians, including Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Robert La Follette,
and Franklin D. Roosevelt, equivocated in their support for the law. Publicly, they catered to the Anti-
Saloon League; however, they failed to provide funding for enforcement.
Prohibition sparked a rise in organized crime. “Scarface” Al Capone (Figure 24.18) ran an extensive
bootlegging and criminal operation known as the Chicago Outfit or Chicago mafia. By 1927, Capone’s
organization included a number of illegal activities including bootlegging, prostitution, gambling, loan
sharking, and even murder. His operation was earning him more than $100 million annually, and many
local police were on his payroll. Although he did not have a monopoly on crime, his organizational
structure was better than many other criminals of his era. His liquor trafficking business and his Chicago
soup kitchens during the Great Depression led some Americans to liken Capone to a modern-day Robin
Hood. Still, Capone was eventually imprisoned for eleven years for tax evasion, including a stint in
California’s notorious Alcatraz prison.

Figure 24.18 Al Capone, pictured here in his U.S. Department of Justice mug shot, was convicted of tax fraud and
sent to prison in 1931.
THE LOST GENERATION

As the country struggled with the effects and side-effects of prohibition, many young intellectuals
endeavored to come to grips with a lingering sense of disillusionment. World War I, fundamentalism,
and the Red Scare—a pervasive American fear of Communist infiltrators prompted by the success of the
Bolshevik Revolution—all left their mark on these intellectuals. Known as the Lost Generation, writers
like F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Sinclair Lewis, Edith Wharton, and John Dos Passos expressed
their hopelessness and despair by skewering the middle class in their work. They felt alienated from
society, so they tried to escape (some literally) to criticize it. Many lived an expatriate life in Paris for the
decade, although others went to Rome or Berlin.
The Lost Generation writer that best exemplifies the mood of the 1920s was F. Scott Fitzgerald, now
considered one of the most influential writers of the twentieth century. His debut novel, This Side of
Paradise, describes a generation of youth “grown up to find all gods dead, all wars fought, all faith in man
shaken.” The Great Gatsby, published in 1925, exposed the doom that always follows the fun, fast-lived life.
Fitzgerald depicted the modern millionaire Jay Gatsby living a profligate life: unscrupulous, coarse, and
in love with another man’s wife. Both Fitzgerald and his wife Zelda lived this life as well, squandering the
money he made from his writing.
MY STORY
F. Scott Fitzgerald on the 1920s
In the 1920s, Fitzgerald was one of the most celebrated authors of his day, publishing This Side of
Paradise, The Beautiful and Damned, and The Great Gatsby in quick succession. However, his profligate
lifestyle with his wife Zelda sapped their funds, and Fitzgerald had to struggle to maintain their lavish
lifestyle. Below is an excerpt from “The Crack-Up,” a personal essay by Fitzgerald originally published in
Esquire in which he describes his “good life” during the 1920s.
It seemed a romantic business to be a successful literary man—you were not ever going to
be as famous as a movie star but what note you had was probably longer-lived; you were
never going to have the power of a man of strong political or religious convictions but you
were certainly more independent. Of course within the practice of your trade you were forever
unsatisfied—but I, for one, would not have chosen any other.
As the Twenties passed, with my own twenties marching a little ahead of them, my two
juvenile regrets—at not being big enough (or good enough) to play football in college, and
at not getting overseas during the war—resolved themselves into childish waking dreams
of imaginary heroism that were good enough to go to sleep on in restless nights. The big
problems of life seemed to solve themselves, and if the business of fixing them was difficult,
it made one too tired to think of more general problems.
—F. Scott Fitzgerald, “The Crack-Up,” 1936
How does Fitzgerald describe his life in the 1920s? How did his interpretation reflect the reality of the
decade?
Equally idiosyncratic and disillusioned was writer Ernest Hemingway (Figure 24.19). He lived a
peripatetic and adventurous lifestyle in Europe, Cuba, and Africa, working as an ambulance driver in Italy
during World War I and traveling to Spain in the 1930s to cover the civil war there. His experiences of war
and tragedy stuck with him, emerging in colorful scenes in his novels The Sun Also Rises (1926), A Farewell
to Arms (1929), and For Whom the Bell Tolls (1940). In 1952, his novella, The Old Man and the Sea, won the
Pulitzer Prize. Two years later, he won the Nobel Prize in Literature for this book and his overall influence
on contemporary style.
Figure 24.19 Ernest Hemingway was one of the most prominent members of the Lost Generation who went to live
as expatriates in Europe during the 1920s.

Click and Explore
Listen to an audio (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Hemingway) of Hemingway’s

Nobel Prize acceptance speech.
Not all Lost Generation writers were like Fitzgerald or Hemingway. The writing of Sinclair Lewis, rather
than expressing a defined disillusionment, was more influenced by the Progressivism of the previous
generation. In Babbitt (1922), he examined the “sheep following the herd” mentality that conformity
promoted. He satirized American middle-class life as pleasure seeking and mindless. Similarly, writer
Edith Wharton celebrated life in old New York, a vanished society, in The Age of Innocence, in 1920.
Wharton came from a very wealthy, socialite family in New York, where she was educated by tutors and
never attended college. She lived for many years in Europe; during the Great War, she worked in Paris
helping women establish businesses.

• Discuss Warren G. Harding’s strengths and weaknesses as president
• Explain how Calvin Coolidge was able to defeat the Democratic Party
• Explain what Calvin Coolidge meant by “the business of America is business”
The election of 1920 saw the weakening of the Democratic Party. The death of Theodore Roosevelt and
Woodrow Wilson’s ill health meant the passing of a generation of Progressive leaders. The waning of the
Red Scare took with it the last vestiges of Progressive zeal, and Wilson’s support of the League of Nations
turned Irish and German immigrants against the Democrats. Americans were tired of reform, tired of
witch hunts, and were more than ready for a return to “normalcy.”
Above all, the 1920s signaled a return to a pro-business government—almost a return to the laissez-faire
politics of the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century. Calvin Coolidge’s statement that “the chief
business of the American people is business,” often rendered as “the business of America is business”
became the dominant attitude.
WARREN HARDING AND THE RETURN TO NORMALCY

In the election of 1920, professional Republicans were eager to nominate a man whom they could manage
and control. Warren G. Harding, a senator from Ohio, represented just such a man (Figure 24.20). Before
his nomination, Harding stated, “America’s present need is not heroics but healing; not nostrums but
normalcy; not revolution but restoration.” Harding was genial and affable, but not everyone appreciated
his speeches; Democratic presidential-hopeful William Gibbs McAdoo described Harding’s speeches as
“an army of pompous phrases moving across the landscape in search of an idea.” H. L. Mencken, the great
social critic of the 1920s, wrote of Harding’s speaking, “It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and
crawls insanely up to the top-most pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is
balder and dash.”
Harding was known for enjoying golf, alcohol, and poker (not necessarily in that order). Although his
critics depicted him as weak, lazy, or incompetent, he was actually quite shrewd and politically astute.
Together with his running mate, Calvin Coolidge, the governor of Massachusetts, they attracted the votes
of many Americans who sought Harding’s promised return to normalcy. In the election, Harding defeated
Governor James Cox of Ohio by the greatest majority in the history of two-party politics: 61 percent of the
popular vote.
Figure 24.20 Warren Harding (a) poses on the campaign trail in 1920. His running mate, Calvin Coolidge (b), would
go on to become president in 1923, when Harding died suddenly while touring the United States.
Harding’s cabinet reflected his pro-business agenda. Herbert Hoover, a millionaire mechanical engineer
and miner, became his Secretary of Commerce. Hoover had served as head of the relief effort for Belgium
during World War I and helped to feed those in Russia and Germany after the war ended. He was a
very effective administrator, seeking to limit inefficiency in the government and promoting partnerships
between government and businesses. Harding’s Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon, was also a
pro-business multimillionaire with a fortune built in banking and aluminum. Even more so than Hoover,
Mellon entered public service with a strong sense that government should run as efficiently as any
business, famously writing that “the Government is just a business, and can and should be run on business
principles.”
Consistent with his principles of running government with business-like efficiency, Harding proposed
and signed into law tax rate cuts as well as the country’s first formal budgeting process, which created a
presidential budget director and required that the president submit an annual budget to Congress. These
policies helped to reduce the debt that the United States had incurred during World War I. However, as
Europe began to recover, U.S. exports to the continent dwindled. In an effort to protect U.S. agriculture
and other businesses threatened by lower-priced imports, Harding pushed through the Emergency Tariff
of 1921. This defensive tariff had the effect of increasing American purchasing power, although it also
inflated the prices of many goods.
In the area of foreign policy, Harding worked to preserve the peace through international cooperation
and the reduction of armaments around the world. Despite the refusal of the U.S. Senate to ratify the
Treaty of Versailles, Harding was able to work with Germany and Austria to secure a formal peace. He
convened a conference in Washington that brought world leaders together to agree on reducing the threat
of future wars by reducing armaments. Out of these negotiations came a number of treaties designed to

foster cooperation in the Far East, reduce the size of navies around the world, and establish guidelines for
submarine usage. These agreements ultimately fell apart in the 1930s, as the world descended into war
again. But, at the time, they were seen as a promising path to maintaining the peace.
Despite these developments, the Harding administration has gone down in history as one that was
especially ridden with scandal. While Harding was personally honest, he surrounded himself with
politicians who weren’t. Harding made the mistake of often turning to unscrupulous advisors or even
his “Ohio Gang” of drinking and poker buddies for advice and guidance. And, as he himself recognized,
this group tended to cause him grief. “I have no trouble with my enemies,” he once commented. “I can
take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they’re the ones who keep me
walking the floor at nights!”
The scandals mounted quickly. From 1920 to 1923, Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall was involved in
a scam that became known as the Teapot Dome scandal. Fall had leased navy reserves in Teapot Dome,
Wyoming, and two other sites in California to private oil companies without opening the bidding to other
companies. In exchange, the companies gave him $300,000 in cash and bonds, as well as a herd of cattle
for his ranch. Fall was convicted of accepting bribes from the oil companies; he was fined $100,000 and
sentenced to a year in prison. It was the first time that a cabinet official had received such a sentence.
In 1923, Harding also learned that the head of the Veterans’ Bureau, Colonel Charles Forbes, had
absconded with most of the $250 million set aside for extravagant bureau functions. Harding allowed
Forbes to resign and leave the country; however, after the president died, Forbes returned and was tried,
convicted, and sentenced to two years in Leavenworth prison.
Although the Harding presidency had a number of large successes and variety of dark scandals, it ended
before the first term was up. In July 1923, while traveling in Seattle, the president suffered a heart attack.
On August 2, in his weakened condition, he suffered a stroke and died in San Francisco, leaving the
presidency to his vice president, Calvin Coolidge. As for Harding, few presidents were so deeply mourned
by the populace. His kindly nature and ability to poke fun at himself endeared him to the public.
Click and Explore
Listen to some of Harding’s speeches (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Harding) at

The University of Virginia’s Miller Center’s website.
A MAN OF FEW WORDS

Coolidge ended the scandals, but did little beyond that. Walter Lippman wrote in 1926 that “Mr.
Coolidge’s genius for inactivity is developed to a very high point. It is a grim, determined, alert inactivity,
which keeps Mr. Coolidge occupied constantly.”
Coolidge had a strong belief in the Puritan work ethic: Work hard, save your money, keep your mouth
shut and listen, and good things will happen to you. Known as “Silent Cal,” his clean image seemed
capable of cleaning up scandals left by Harding. Republicans—and the nation—now had a president who
combined a preference for normalcy with the respectability and honesty that was absent from the Harding
administration.
Coolidge’s first term was devoted to eliminating the taint of scandal that Harding had brought to the White
House. Domestically, Coolidge adhered to the creed: “The business of America is business.” He stood
in awe of Andrew Mellon and followed his fiscal policies, which made him the only president to turn a
legitimate profit in the White House. Coolidge believed the rich were worthy of their property and that
poverty was the wage of sin. Most importantly, Coolidge believed that since only the rich best understood
their own interests, the government should let businessmen handle their own affairs with as little federal
intervention as possible. Coolidge was quoted as saying, “The man who builds a factory builds a temple.
The man who works there worships there.”
Thus, silence and inactivity became the dominant characteristics of the Coolidge presidency. Coolidge’s
legendary reserve was famous in Washington society. Contemporaries told a possibly apocryphal story of
how, at a dinner party at the White House, a woman bet her friends that she could get Coolidge to say
more than three words. He looked at her and said, “you lose.”
The 1924 election saw Coolidge win easily over the divided Democrats, who fought over their nomination.
Southerners wanted to nominate pro-prohibition, pro-Klan, anti-immigrant candidate William G.
McAdoo. The eastern establishment wanted Alfred E. Smith, a Catholic, urban, and anti-prohibition
candidate. After many battles, they compromised on corporation lawyer John W. Davis. Midwesterner
Robert M. La Follette, promoted by farmers, socialists, and labor unions, attempted to resurrect the
Progressive Party. Coolidge easily beat both candidates.

This cultural battle between the forces of reaction and rebellion appeared to culminate with the election
of 1928, the height of Republican ascendancy. On August 2, 1927, Coolidge announced that he would not
be participating in the 1928 election; “I choose not to run,” was his comment (Figure 24.21). Republicans
promoted the heir apparent, Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover. The Democrats nominated Governor
Alfred E. Smith of New York. Smith represented everything that small-town, rural America hated: He was
Irish, Catholic, anti-prohibition, and a big-city politician. He was very flamboyant and outspoken, which
also did not go over well with many Americans.
Figure 24.21 In this cartoon, Clifford Berryman lampoons Coolidge’s laid-back attitude as he chooses “not to run” in
1928.
Republican prosperity carried the day once again, and Hoover won easily with twenty-one million votes
over Al Smith’s fifteen million. The stock market continued to rise, and prosperity was the watchword

of the day. Many Americans who had not done so before invested in the market, believing that the
prosperous times would continue.
As Hoover came into office, Americans had every reason to believe that prosperity would continue
forever. In less than a year, however, the bubble would burst, and a harsh reality would take its place.
Key Terms
bootlegging a nineteenth-century term for the illegal transport of alcoholic beverages that became
popular during prohibition
expatriate someone who lives outside of their home country
flapper a young, modern woman who embraced the new morality and fashions of the Jazz Age
Hollywood a small town north of Los Angeles, California, whose reliable sunshine and cheaper
production costs attracted filmmakers and producers starting in the 1910s; by the 1920s, Hollywood was
the center of American movie production with five movie studios dominating the industry
Lost Generation a group of writers who came of age during World War I and expressed their
disillusionment with the era
Model T the first car produced by the Ford Motor Company that took advantage of the economies of
scale provided by assembly-line production and was therefore affordable to a large segment of the
population
moving assembly line a manufacturing process that allowed workers to stay in one place as the work
came to them
nativism the rejection of outside influences in favor of local or native customs
Negro nationalism the notion that African Americans had a distinct and separate national heritage that
should inspire pride and a sense of community
new morality the more permissive mores adopted my many young people in the 1920s
return to normalcy the campaign promise made by Warren Harding in the presidential election of 1920
Scopes Monkey Trial the 1925 trial of John Scopes for teaching evolution in a public school; the trial
highlighted the conflict between rural traditionalists and modern urbanites
Second Ku Klux Klan unlike the secret terror group of the Reconstruction Era, the Second Ku Klux Klan
was a nationwide movement that expressed racism, nativism, anti-Semitism, and anti-Catholicism
Teapot Dome scandal the bribery scandal involving Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall in 1923
Summary
For many middle-class Americans, the 1920s was a decade of unprecedented prosperity. Rising earnings
generated more disposable income for the consumption of entertainment, leisure, and consumer goods.
This new wealth coincided with and fueled technological innovations, resulting in the booming popularity
of entertainments like movies, sports, and radio programs. Henry Ford’s advances in assembly-line
efficiency created a truly affordable automobile, making car ownership a possibility for many Americans.
Advertising became as big an industry as the manufactured goods that advertisers represented, and many
families relied on new forms of credit to increase their consumption levels and strive for a new American
standard of living.


The old and the new came into sharp conflict in the 1920s. In many cases, this divide was geographic as
well as philosophical; city dwellers tended to embrace the cultural changes of the era, whereas those who
lived in rural towns clung to traditional norms. The Sacco and Vanzetti trial in Massachusetts, as well as
the Scopes trial in Tennessee, revealed many Americans’ fears and suspicions about immigrants, radical
politics, and the ways in which new scientific theories might challenge traditional Christian beliefs. Some
reacted more zealously than others, leading to the inception of nativist and fundamentalist philosophies,
and the rise of terror groups such as the Second Ku Klux Klan.

Different groups reacted to the upheavals of the 1920s in different ways. Some people, especially young
urbanites, embraced the new amusements and social venues of the decade. Women found new
opportunities for professional and political advancement, as well as new models of sexual liberation;
however, the women’s rights movement began to wane with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment.
For black artists of the Harlem Renaissance, the decade was marked less by leisure and consumption than
by creativity and purpose. African American leaders like Marcus Garvey and W. E. B. Du Bois responded
to the retrenched racism of the time with different campaigns for civil rights and black empowerment.
Others, like the writers of the Lost Generation, reveled in exposing the hypocrisies and shallowness of
mainstream middle-class culture. Meanwhile, the passage of prohibition served to increase the illegal
production of alcohol and led to a rise in organized crime.

After World War I, Americans were ready for “a return to normalcy,” and Republican Warren Harding
offered them just that. Under the guidance of his big-business backers, Harding’s policies supported
businesses at home and isolation from foreign affairs. His administration was wracked by scandals, and
after he died in 1923, Calvin Coolidge continued his policy legacy in much the same vein. Herbert Hoover,
elected as Coolidge’s heir apparent, planned for more of the same until the stock market crash ended a
decade of Republican ascendancy.
Review Questions
1. Which of the following films released in 1927 C. Charlie Chaplin
was the first successful talking motion picture? D. Charles Lindbergh
A. The Clansman
B. The Great Gatsby 4. How did Henry Ford transform the automobile
C. The Jazz Singer industry?
D. The Birth of a Nation
5. The Scopes Monkey Trial revolved around a
2. The popularization of ________ expanded the law that banned teaching about ________ in public
communications and sports industries. schools.
A. radios A. the Bible
B. talkies B. Darwinism
C. the Model T C. primates
D. airplanes D. Protestantism
3. Who was the first person to fly solo across the 6. Which man was both a professional baseball
Atlantic Ocean? player and an influential evangelist during the
A. Orville Wright 1920s?
B. Jim Thorpe
A. Babe Ruth 11. Why did the prohibition amendment fail after
B. H. L. Mencken its adoption in 1919?
C. Jim Thorpe
D. Billy Sunday 12. What was the Harlem Renaissance, and who
were some of the most famous participants?
7. What was the platform of the Second Ku Klux
Klan, and in what activities did they engage to 13. Who was the Republican presidential
promote it? nominee for the 1920 election?
A. Calvin Coolidge
8. The popularization of which psychologist’s B. Woodrow Wilson
ideas encouraged the new morality of the 1920s? C. Warren Harding
A. Sigmund Freud D. James Cox
B. Alice Paul
C. W. E. B. Du Bois 14. In 1929, Albert Fall was convicted of bribery
D. Margaret Sanger while holding the position of ________.
A. Secretary of the Interior
9. Which amendment did Alice Paul promote to B. head of the Veterans’ Bureau
end gender discrimination? C. Secretary of the Treasury
A. Prohibition Amendment D. Secretary of Commerce
B. Equal Rights Amendment
C. Sheppard-Towner Amendment 15. Coolidge’s presidency was characterized by
D. Free Exercise Amendment ________.
A. scandal and dishonesty
10. Which novel of the era satirized the B. silence and inactivity
conformity of the American middle class? C. flamboyancy and extravagance
A. This Side of Paradise D. ambition and greed
B. The Sun Also Rises
C. A Farewell to Arms 16. What was the economic outlook of the
D. Babbitt average American when Herbert Hoover took
office in 1929?

17. Explain how the 1920s was a decade of contradictions. What does the relationship between mass
immigration and the rise of the Second Ku Klux Klan tell us about American attitudes? How might we
reconcile the decade as the period of both the flapper and prohibition?
18. What new opportunities did the 1920s provide for women and African Americans? What new
limitations did this era impose?
19. Discuss what the concept of “modernity” meant in the 1920s. How did art and innovation in the
decade reflect the new mood of the postwar era?
20. Explain how technology took American culture in new and different directions. What role did motion
pictures and radio play in shaping cultural attitudes in the United States?
21. Discuss how politics of the 1920s reflected the new postwar mood of the country. What did the
Harding administration’s policies attempt to achieve, and how?

Chapter 25 Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? The Great Depression, 1929-1932 731
CHAPTER 25
Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?

The Great Depression, 1929-1932
Figure 25.1 In 1935, American photographer Berenice Abbott photographed these shanties, which the unemployed
in Lower Manhattan built during the depths of the Great Depression. (credit: modification of work by Works Progress
Administration)
Chapter Outline
25.1 The Stock Market Crash of 1929
25.2 President Hoover’s Response
25.3 The Depths of the Great Depression
25.4 Assessing the Hoover Years on the Eve of the New Deal
Introduction
On March 4, 1929, at his presidential inauguration, Herbert Hoover stated, “I have no fears for the
future of our country. It is bright with hope.” Most Americans shared his optimism. They believed
that the prosperity of the 1920s would continue, and that the country was moving closer to a land of
abundance for all. Little could Hoover imagine that barely a year into his presidency, shantytowns known
as “Hoovervilles” would emerge on the fringes of most major cities (Figure 25.1), newspapers covering
the homeless would be called “Hoover blankets,” and pants pockets, turned inside-out to show their
emptiness, would become “Hoover flags.”
The stock market crash of October 1929 set the Great Depression into motion, but other factors were at
the root of the problem, propelled onward by a series of both human-made and natural catastrophes.
Anticipating a short downturn and living under an ethos of free enterprise and individualism, Americans
suffered mightily in the first years of the Depression. As conditions worsened and the government failed
to act, they grew increasingly desperate for change. While Hoover could not be blamed for the Great
Depression, his failure to address the nation’s hardships would remain his legacy.
732 Chapter 25 Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? The Great Depression, 1929-1932

• Identify the causes of the stock market crash of 1929
• Assess the underlying weaknesses in the economy that resulted in America’s spiraling
from prosperity to depression so quickly
• Explain how a stock market crash might contribute to a nationwide economic disaster
Herbert Hoover became president at a time of ongoing prosperity in the country. Americans hoped he
would continue to lead the country through still more economic growth, and neither he nor the country
was ready for the unraveling that followed. But Hoover’s moderate policies, based upon a strongly held
belief in the spirit of American individualism, were not enough to stem the ever-growing problems, and
the economy slipped further and further into the Great Depression.
While it is misleading to view the stock market crash of 1929 as the sole cause of the Great Depression,
the dramatic events of that October did play a role in the downward spiral of the American economy. The
crash, which took place less than a year after Hoover was inaugurated, was the most extreme sign of the
economy’s weakness. Multiple factors contributed to the crash, which in turn caused a consumer panic
that drove the economy even further downhill, in ways that neither Hoover nor the financial industry was
able to restrain. Hoover, like many others at the time, thought and hoped that the country would right
itself with limited government intervention. This was not the case, however, and millions of Americans
sank into grinding poverty.
Figure 25.2 (credit "courthouse": modification of work by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

THE EARLY DAYS OF HOOVER’S PRESIDENCY

Upon his inauguration, President Hoover set forth an agenda that he hoped would continue the “Coolidge
prosperity” of the previous administration. While accepting the Republican Party’s presidential
nomination in 1928, Hoover commented, “Given the chance to go forward with the policies of the last
eight years, we shall soon with the help of God be in sight of the day when poverty will be banished
from this nation forever.” In the spirit of normalcy that defined the Republican ascendancy of the 1920s,
Hoover planned to immediately overhaul federal regulations with the intention of allowing the nation’s
economy to grow unfettered by any controls. The role of the government, he contended, should be to create
a partnership with the American people, in which the latter would rise (or fall) on their own merits and
abilities. He felt the less government intervention in their lives, the better.
Yet, to listen to Hoover’s later reflections on Franklin Roosevelt’s first term in office, one could easily
mistake his vision for America for the one held by his successor. Speaking in 1936 before an audience in
Denver, Colorado, he acknowledged that it was always his intent as president to ensure “a nation built
of home owners and farm owners. We want to see more and more of them insured against death and
accident, unemployment and old age,” he declared. “We want them all secure.” [1] Such humanitarianism
was not uncommon to Hoover. Throughout his early career in public service, he was committed to
relief for people around the world. In 1900, he coordinated relief efforts for foreign nationals trapped
in China during the Boxer Rebellion. At the outset of World War I, he led the food relief effort in
Europe, specifically helping millions of Belgians who faced German forces. President Woodrow Wilson
subsequently appointed him head of the U.S. Food Administration to coordinate rationing efforts in
America as well as to secure essential food items for the Allied forces and citizens in Europe.
Hoover’s first months in office hinted at the reformist, humanitarian spirit that he had displayed
throughout his career. He continued the civil service reform of the early twentieth century by expanding
opportunities for employment throughout the federal government. In response to the Teapot Dome Affair,
which had occurred during the Harding administration, he invalidated several private oil leases on public
lands. He directed the Department of Justice, through its Bureau of Investigation, to crack down on
organized crime, resulting in the arrest and imprisonment of Al Capone. By the summer of 1929, he had
signed into law the creation of a Federal Farm Board to help farmers with government price supports,
expanded tax cuts across all income classes, and set aside federal funds to clean up slums in major
American cities. To directly assist several overlooked populations, he created the Veterans Administration
and expanded veterans’ hospitals, established the Federal Bureau of Prisons to oversee incarceration
conditions nationwide, and reorganized the Bureau of Indian Affairs to further protect Native Americans.
Just prior to the stock market crash, he even proposed the creation of an old-age pension program,
promising fifty dollars monthly to all Americans over the age of sixty-five—a proposal remarkably similar
to the social security benefit that would become a hallmark of Roosevelt’s subsequent New Deal programs.
As the summer of 1929 came to a close, Hoover remained a popular successor to Calvin “Silent Cal”
Coolidge, and all signs pointed to a highly successful administration.
THE GREAT CRASH

The promise of the Hoover administration was cut short when the stock market lost almost one-half its
value in the fall of 1929, plunging many Americans into financial ruin. However, as a singular event, the
stock market crash itself did not cause the Great Depression that followed. In fact, only approximately 10
percent of American households held stock investments and speculated in the market; yet nearly a third
would lose their lifelong savings and jobs in the ensuing depression. The connection between the crash
and the subsequent decade of hardship was complex, involving underlying weaknesses in the economy
that many policymakers had long ignored.
1. Herbert Hoover, address delivered in Denver, Colorado, 30 October 1936, compiled in Hoover,
Addresses Upon the American Road, 1933-1938 (New York, 1938), p. 216. This particular quotation is
frequently misidentified as part of Hoover’s inaugural address in 1932.
What Was the Crash?

To understand the crash, it is useful to address the decade that preceded it. The prosperous 1920s ushered
in a feeling of euphoria among middle-class and wealthy Americans, and people began to speculate on
wilder investments. The government was a willing partner in this endeavor: The Federal Reserve followed
a brief postwar recession in 1920–1921 with a policy of setting interest rates artificially low, as well as
easing the reserve requirements on the nation’s largest banks. As a result, the money supply in the
U.S. increased by nearly 60 percent, which convinced even more Americans of the safety of investing in
questionable schemes. They felt that prosperity was boundless and that extreme risks were likely tickets to
wealth. Named for Charles Ponzi, the original “Ponzi schemes” emerged early in the 1920s to encourage
novice investors to divert funds to unfounded ventures, which in reality simply used new investors’ funds
to pay off older investors as the schemes grew in size. Speculation, where investors purchased into high-
risk schemes that they hoped would pay off quickly, became the norm. Several banks, including deposit
institutions that originally avoided investment loans, began to offer easy credit, allowing people to invest,
even when they lacked the money to do so. An example of this mindset was the Florida land boom of the
1920s: Real estate developers touted Florida as a tropical paradise and investors went all in, buying land
they had never seen with money they didn’t have and selling it for even higher prices.

AMERICANA
Selling Optimism and Risk
Advertising offers a useful window into the popular perceptions and beliefs of an era. By seeing how
businesses were presenting their goods to consumers, it is possible to sense the hopes and aspirations
of people at that moment in history. Maybe companies are selling patriotism or pride in technological
advances. Maybe they are pushing idealized views of parenthood or safety. In the 1920s, advertisers
were selling opportunity and euphoria, further feeding the notions of many Americans that prosperity
would never end.
In the decade before the Great Depression, the optimism of the American public was seemingly
boundless. Advertisements from that era show large new cars, timesaving labor devices, and, of course,
land. This advertisement for California real estate illustrates how realtors in the West, much like the
ongoing Florida land boom, used a combination of the hard sell and easy credit (Figure 25.3). “Buy now!!”
the ad shouts. “You are sure to make money on these.” In great numbers, people did. With easy access
to credit and hard-pushing advertisements like this one, many felt that they could not afford to miss out
on such an opportunity. Unfortunately, overspeculation in California and hurricanes along the Gulf Coast
and in Florida conspired to burst this land bubble, and would-be millionaires were left with nothing but the
ads that once pulled them in.
Figure 25.3 This real estate advertisement from Los Angeles illustrates the hard-sell techniques and
easy credit offered to those who wished to buy in. Unfortunately, the opportunities being promoted with
these techniques were of little value, and many lost their investments. (credit: "army.arch"/Flickr)
The Florida land boom went bust in 1925–1926. A combination of negative press about the speculative
nature of the boom, IRS investigations into the questionable financial practices of several land brokers,
and a railroad embargo that limited the delivery of construction supplies into the region significantly
hampered investor interest. The subsequent Great Miami Hurricane of 1926 drove most land developers
into outright bankruptcy. However, speculation continued throughout the decade, this time in the stock
market. Buyers purchased stock “on margin”—buying for a small down payment with borrowed money,
with the intention of quickly selling at a much higher price before the remaining payment came
due—which worked well as long as prices continued to rise. Speculators were aided by retail stock
brokerage firms, which catered to average investors anxious to play the market but lacking direct ties to
investment banking houses or larger brokerage firms. When prices began to fluctuate in the summer of
1929, investors sought excuses to continue their speculation. When fluctuations turned to outright and
steady losses, everyone started to sell. As September began to unfold, the Dow Jones Industrial Average
peaked at a value of 381 points, or roughly ten times the stock market’s value, at the start of the 1920s.
Several warning signs portended the impending crash but went unheeded by Americans still giddy over
the potential fortunes that speculation might promise. A brief downturn in the market on September 18,
1929, raised questions among more-seasoned investment bankers, leading some to predict an end to high
stock values, but did little to stem the tide of investment. Even the collapse of the London Stock Exchange
on September 20 failed to fully curtail the optimism of American investors. However, when the New York
Stock Exchange lost 11 percent of its value on October 24—often referred to as “Black Thursday”—key
American investors sat up and took notice. In an effort to forestall a much-feared panic, leading banks,
including Chase National, National City, J.P. Morgan, and others, conspired to purchase large amounts of
blue chip stocks (including U.S. Steel) in order to keep the prices artificially high. Even that effort failed
in the growing wave of stock sales. Nevertheless, Hoover delivered a radio address on Friday in which he
assured the American people, “The fundamental business of the country . . . is on a sound and prosperous
basis.”
As newspapers across the country began to cover the story in earnest, investors anxiously awaited the
start of the following week. When the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost another 13 percent of its value
on Monday morning, many knew the end of stock market speculation was near. The evening before the
infamous crash was ominous. Jonathan Leonard, a newspaper reporter who regularly covered the stock
market beat, wrote of how Wall Street “lit up like a Christmas tree.” Brokers and businessmen who feared
the worst the next day crowded into restaurants and speakeasies (a place where alcoholic beverages were
illegally sold). After a night of heavy drinking, they retreated to nearby hotels or flop-houses (cheap
boarding houses), all of which were overbooked, and awaited sunrise. Children from nearby slums and
tenement districts played stickball in the streets of the financial district, using wads of ticker tape for
balls. Although they all awoke to newspapers filled with predictions of a financial turnaround, as well as
technical reasons why the decline might be short-lived, the crash on Tuesday morning, October 29, caught
few by surprise.
No one even heard the opening bell on Wall Street that day, as shouts of “Sell! Sell!” drowned it out. In the
first three minutes alone, nearly three million shares of stock, accounting for $2 million of wealth, changed
hands. The volume of Western Union telegrams tripled, and telephone lines could not meet the demand,
as investors sought any means available to dump their stock immediately. Rumors spread of investors
jumping from their office windows. Fistfights broke out on the trading floor, where one broker fainted
from physical exhaustion. Stock trades happened at such a furious pace that runners had nowhere to store
the trade slips, and so they resorted to stuffing them into trash cans. Although the stock exchange’s board
of governors briefly considered closing the exchange early, they subsequently chose to let the market run
its course, lest the American public panic even further at the thought of closure. When the final bell rang,
errand boys spent hours sweeping up tons of paper, tickertape, and sales slips. Among the more curious
finds in the rubbish were torn suit coats, crumpled eyeglasses, and one broker’s artificial leg. Outside a
nearby brokerage house, a policeman allegedly found a discarded birdcage with a live parrot squawking,
“More margin! More margin!”
On Black Tuesday, October 29, stock holders traded over sixteen million shares and lost over $14 billion
in wealth in a single day. To put this in context, a trading day of three million shares was considered a
busy day on the stock market. People unloaded their stock as quickly as they could, never minding the
loss. Banks, facing debt and seeking to protect their own assets, demanded payment for the loans they had
provided to individual investors. Those individuals who could not afford to pay found their stocks sold
immediately and their life savings wiped out in minutes, yet their debt to the bank still remained (Figure
25.4).

Figure 25.4 October 29, 1929, or Black Tuesday, witnessed thousands of people racing to Wall Street discount
brokerages and markets to sell their stocks. Prices plummeted throughout the day, eventually leading to a complete
stock market crash.
The financial outcome of the crash was devastating. Between September 1 and November 30, 1929, the
stock market lost over one-half its value, dropping from $64 billion to approximately $30 billion. Any
effort to stem the tide was, as one historian noted, tantamount to bailing Niagara Falls with a bucket.
The crash affected many more than the relatively few Americans who invested in the stock market. While
only 10 percent of households had investments, over 90 percent of all banks had invested in the stock
market. Many banks failed due to their dwindling cash reserves. This was in part due to the Federal
Reserve lowering the limits of cash reserves that banks were traditionally required to hold in their vaults,
as well as the fact that many banks invested in the stock market themselves. Eventually, thousands of
banks closed their doors after losing all of their assets, leaving their customers penniless. While a few
savvy investors got out at the right time and eventually made fortunes buying up discarded stock, those
success stories were rare. Housewives who speculated with grocery money, bookkeepers who embezzled
company funds hoping to strike it rich and pay the funds back before getting caught, and bankers who
used customer deposits to follow speculative trends all lost. While the stock market crash was the trigger,
the lack of appropriate economic and banking safeguards, along with a public psyche that pursued wealth
and prosperity at all costs, allowed this event to spiral downward into a depression.
Click and Explore
The National Humanities Center (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/crash) has brought

together a selection of newspaper commentary from the 1920s, from before the crash
to its aftermath. Read through to see what journalists and financial analysts thought of
the situation at the time.
Causes of the Crash

The crash of 1929 did not occur in a vacuum, nor did it cause the Great Depression. Rather, it was
a tipping point where the underlying weaknesses in the economy, specifically in the nation’s banking
system, came to the fore. It also represented both the end of an era characterized by blind faith in American
exceptionalism and the beginning of one in which citizens began increasingly to question some long-
held American values. A number of factors played a role in bringing the stock market to this point and
contributed to the downward trend in the market, which continued well into the 1930s. In addition to
the Federal Reserve’s questionable policies and misguided banking practices, three primary reasons for
the collapse of the stock market were international economic woes, poor income distribution, and the
psychology of public confidence.
After World War I, both America’s allies and the defeated nations of Germany and Austria contended
with disastrous economies. The Allies owed large amounts of money to U.S. banks, which had advanced
them money during the war effort. Unable to repay these debts, the Allies looked to reparations from
Germany and Austria to help. The economies of those countries, however, were struggling badly, and they
could not pay their reparations, despite the loans that the U.S. provided to assist with their payments. The
U.S. government refused to forgive these loans, and American banks were in the position of extending
additional private loans to foreign governments, who used them to repay their debts to the U.S.
government, essentially shifting their obligations to private banks. When other countries began to default
on this second wave of private bank loans, still more strain was placed on U.S. banks, which soon sought
to liquidate these loans at the first sign of a stock market crisis.
Poor income distribution among Americans compounded the problem. A strong stock market relies on
today’s buyers becoming tomorrow’s sellers, and therefore it must always have an influx of new buyers.
In the 1920s, this was not the case. Eighty percent of American families had virtually no savings, and only
one-half to 1 percent of Americans controlled over a third of the wealth. This scenario meant that there
were no new buyers coming into the marketplace, and nowhere for sellers to unload their stock as the
speculation came to a close. In addition, the vast majority of Americans with limited savings lost their
accounts as local banks closed, and likewise lost their jobs as investment in business and industry came to
a screeching halt.
Finally, one of the most important factors in the crash was the contagion effect of panic. For much of the
1920s, the public felt confident that prosperity would continue forever, and therefore, in a self-fulfilling
cycle, the market continued to grow. But once the panic began, it spread quickly and with the same cyclical
results; people were worried that the market was going down, they sold their stock, and the market
continued to drop. This was partly due to Americans’ inability to weather market volatility, given the
limited cash surpluses they had on hand, as well as their psychological concern that economic recovery
might never happen.
IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE CRASH

After the crash, Hoover announced that the economy was “fundamentally sound.” On the last day of
trading in 1929, the New York Stock Exchange held its annual wild and lavish party, complete with
confetti, musicians, and illegal alcohol. The U.S. Department of Labor predicted that 1930 would be
“a splendid employment year.” These sentiments were not as baseless as it may seem in hindsight.
Historically, markets cycled up and down, and periods of growth were often followed by downturns that
corrected themselves. But this time, there was no market correction; rather, the abrupt shock of the crash
was followed by an even more devastating depression. Investors, along with the general public, withdrew
their money from banks by the thousands, fearing the banks would go under. The more people pulled out
their money in bank runs, the closer the banks came to insolvency (Figure 25.5).

Figure 25.5 As the financial markets collapsed, hurting the banks that had gambled with their holdings, people
began to fear that the money they had in the bank would be lost. This began bank runs across the country, a period
of still more panic, where people pulled their money out of banks to keep it hidden at home.
The contagion effect of the crash grew quickly. With investors losing billions of dollars, they invested
very little in new or expanded businesses. At this time, two industries had the greatest impact on the
country’s economic future in terms of investment, potential growth, and employment: automotive and
construction. After the crash, both were hit hard. In November 1929, fewer cars were built than in any
other month since November 1919. Even before the crash, widespread saturation of the market meant
that few Americans bought them, leading to a slowdown. Afterward, very few could afford them. By
1933, Stutz, Locomobile, Durant, Franklin, Deusenberg, and Pierce-Arrow automobiles, all luxury models,
were largely unavailable; production had ground to a halt. They would not be made again until 1949. In
construction, the drop-off was even more dramatic. It would be another thirty years before a new hotel or
theater was built in New York City. The Empire State Building itself stood half empty for years after being
completed in 1931.
The damage to major industries led to, and reflected, limited purchasing by both consumers and
businesses. Even those Americans who continued to make a modest income during the Great Depression
lost the drive for conspicuous consumption that they exhibited in the 1920s. People with less money to
buy goods could not help businesses grow; in turn, businesses with no market for their products could
not hire workers or purchase raw materials. Employers began to lay off workers. The country’s gross
national product declined by over 25 percent within a year, and wages and salaries declined by $4 billion.
Unemployment tripled, from 1.5 million at the end of 1929 to 4.5 million by the end of 1930. By mid-1930,
the slide into economic chaos had begun but was nowhere near complete.
THE NEW REALITY FOR AMERICANS

For most Americans, the crash affected daily life in myriad ways. In the immediate aftermath, there was
a run on the banks, where citizens took their money out, if they could get it, and hid their savings under
mattresses, in bookshelves, or anywhere else they felt was safe. Some went so far as to exchange their
dollars for gold and ship it out of the country. A number of banks failed outright, and others, in their
attempts to stay solvent, called in loans that people could not afford to repay. Working-class Americans
saw their wages drop: Even Henry Ford, the champion of a high minimum wage, began lowering wages by
as much as a dollar a day. Southern cotton planters paid workers only twenty cents for every one hundred
pounds of cotton picked, meaning that the strongest picker might earn sixty cents for a fourteen-hour day
of work. Cities struggled to collect property taxes and subsequently laid off teachers and police.
The new hardships that people faced were not always immediately apparent; many communities felt the
changes but could not necessarily look out their windows and see anything different. Men who lost their
jobs didn’t stand on street corners begging; they disappeared. They might be found keeping warm by
a trashcan bonfire or picking through garbage at dawn, but mostly, they stayed out of public view. As
the effects of the crash continued, however, the results became more evident. Those living in cities grew
accustomed to seeing long breadlines of unemployed men waiting for a meal (Figure 25.6). Companies
fired workers and tore down employee housing to avoid paying property taxes. The landscape of the
country had changed.
Figure 25.6 As the Great Depression set in, thousands of unemployed men lined up in cities around the country,
waiting for a free meal or a hot cup of coffee.
The hardships of the Great Depression threw family life into disarray. Both marriage and birth rates
declined in the decade after the crash. The most vulnerable members of society—children, women,
minorities, and the working class—struggled the most. Parents often sent children out to beg for food at
restaurants and stores to save themselves from the disgrace of begging. Many children dropped out of
school, and even fewer went to college. Childhood, as it had existed in the prosperous twenties, was over.
And yet, for many children living in rural areas where the affluence of the previous decade was not fully
developed, the Depression was not viewed as a great challenge. School continued. Play was simple and
enjoyed. Families adapted by growing more in gardens, canning, and preserving, wasting little food if any.
Home-sewn clothing became the norm as the decade progressed, as did creative methods of shoe repair
with cardboard soles. Yet, one always knew of stories of the “other” families who suffered more, including
those living in cardboard boxes or caves. By one estimate, as many as 200,000 children moved about the
country as vagrants due to familial disintegration.
Women’s lives, too, were profoundly affected. Some wives and mothers sought employment to make ends
meet, an undertaking that was often met with strong resistance from husbands and potential employers.
Many men derided and criticized women who worked, feeling that jobs should go to unemployed men.
Some campaigned to keep companies from hiring married women, and an increasing number of school
districts expanded the long-held practice of banning the hiring of married female teachers. Despite the
pushback, women entered the workforce in increasing numbers, from ten million at the start of the
Depression to nearly thirteen million by the end of the 1930s. This increase took place in spite of the
twenty-six states that passed a variety of laws to prohibit the employment of married women. Several
women found employment in the emerging pink collar occupations, viewed as traditional women’s work,
including jobs as telephone operators, social workers, and secretaries. Others took jobs as maids and
housecleaners, working for those fortunate few who had maintained their wealth.

White women’s forays into domestic service came at the expense of minority women, who had even fewer
employment options. Unsurprisingly, African American men and women experienced unemployment,
and the grinding poverty that followed, at double and triple the rates of their white counterparts. By
1932, unemployment among African Americans reached near 50 percent. In rural areas, where large
numbers of African Americans continued to live despite the Great Migration of 1910–1930, depression-
era life represented an intensified version of the poverty that they traditionally experienced. Subsistence
farming allowed many African Americans who lost either their land or jobs working for white landholders
to survive, but their hardships increased. Life for African Americans in urban settings was equally
trying, with blacks and working-class whites living in close proximity and competing for scarce jobs and
resources.
Life for all rural Americans was difficult. Farmers largely did not experience the widespread prosperity
of the 1920s. Although continued advancements in farming techniques and agricultural machinery led to
increased agricultural production, decreasing demand (particularly in the previous markets created by
World War I) steadily drove down commodity prices. As a result, farmers could barely pay the debt they
owed on machinery and land mortgages, and even then could do so only as a result of generous lines of
credit from banks. While factory workers may have lost their jobs and savings in the crash, many farmers
also lost their homes, due to the thousands of farm foreclosures sought by desperate bankers. Between
1930 and 1935, nearly 750,000 family farms disappeared through foreclosure or bankruptcy. Even for those
who managed to keep their farms, there was little market for their crops. Unemployed workers had less
money to spend on food, and when they did purchase goods, the market excess had driven prices so low
that farmers could barely piece together a living. A now-famous example of the farmer’s plight is that,
when the price of coal began to exceed that of corn, farmers would simply burn corn to stay warm in the
winter.
As the effects of the Great Depression worsened, wealthier Americans had particular concern for “the
deserving poor”—those who had lost all of their money due to no fault of their own. This concept gained
greater attention beginning in the Progressive Era of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
when early social reformers sought to improve the quality of life for all Americans by addressing the
poverty that was becoming more prevalent, particularly in emerging urban areas. By the time of the
Great Depression, social reformers and humanitarian agencies had determined that the “deserving poor”
belonged to a different category from those who had speculated and lost. However, the sheer volume of
Americans who fell into this group meant that charitable assistance could not begin to reach them all.
Some fifteen million “deserving poor,” or a full one-third of the labor force, were struggling by 1932. The
country had no mechanism or system in place to help so many; however, Hoover remained adamant that
such relief should rest in the hands of private agencies, not with the federal government (Figure 25.7).
Figure 25.7 In the early 1930s, without significant government relief programs, many people in urban centers relied
on private agencies for assistance. In New York City, St. Peter’s Mission distributed bread, soup, and canned goods
to large numbers of the unemployed and others in need.
Unable to receive aid from the government, Americans thus turned to private charities; churches,
synagogues, and other religious organizations; and state aid. But these organizations were not prepared
to deal with the scope of the problem. Private aid organizations showed declining assets as well during
the Depression, with fewer Americans possessing the ability to donate to such charities. Likewise, state
governments were particularly ill-equipped. Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first to institute a
Department of Welfare in New York in 1929. City governments had equally little to offer. In New York
City in 1932, family allowances were $2.39 per week, and only one-half of the families who qualified
actually received them. In Detroit, allowances fell to fifteen cents a day per person, and eventually ran out
completely. In most cases, relief was only in the form of food and fuel; organizations provided nothing in
the way of rent, shelter, medical care, clothing, or other necessities. There was no infrastructure to support
the elderly, who were the most vulnerable, and this population largely depended on their adult children
to support them, adding to families’ burdens (Figure 25.8).

Figure 25.8 Because there was no infrastructure to support them should they become unemployed or destitute, the
elderly were extremely vulnerable during the Great Depression. As the depression continued, the results of this
tenuous situation became more evident, as shown in this photo of a vacant storefront in San Francisco, captured by
Dorothea Lange in 1935.
During this time, local community groups, such as police and teachers, worked to help the neediest. New
York City police, for example, began contributing 1 percent of their salaries to start a food fund that was
geared to help those found starving on the streets. In 1932, New York City schoolteachers also joined forces
to try to help; they contributed as much as $250,000 per month from their own salaries to help needy
children. Chicago teachers did the same, feeding some eleven thousand students out of their own pockets
in 1931, despite the fact that many of them had not been paid a salary in months. These noble efforts,
however, failed to fully address the level of desperation that the American public was facing.

• Explain Herbert Hoover’s responses to the Great Depression and how they reflected his
political philosophy
• Identify the local, city, and state efforts to combat the Great Depression
• Analyze the frustration and anger that a majority of Americans directed at Herbert
Hoover
President Hoover was unprepared for the scope of the depression crisis, and his limited response did not
begin to help the millions of Americans in need. The steps he took were very much in keeping with his
philosophy of limited government, a philosophy that many had shared with him until the upheavals of
the Great Depression made it clear that a more direct government response was required. But Hoover
was stubborn in his refusal to give “handouts,” as he saw direct government aid. He called for a spirit
of volunteerism among America’s businesses, asking them to keep workers employed, and he exhorted
the American people to tighten their belts and make do in the spirit of “rugged individualism.” While
Hoover’s philosophy and his appeal to the country were very much in keeping with his character, it was
not enough to keep the economy from plummeting further into economic chaos.
The steps Hoover did ultimately take were too little, too late. He created programs for putting people back
to work and helping beleaguered local and state charities with aid. But the programs were small in scale
and highly specific as to who could benefit, and they only touched a small percentage of those in need. As
the situation worsened, the public grew increasingly unhappy with Hoover. He left office with one of the
lowest approval ratings of any president in history.
THE INITIAL REACTION

In the immediate aftermath of Black Tuesday, Hoover sought to reassure Americans that all was well.
Reading his words after the fact, it is easy to find fault. In 1929 he said, “Any lack of confidence in the
economic future or the strength of business in the United States is foolish.” In 1930, he stated, “The worst is
behind us.” In 1931, he pledged federal aid should he ever witness starvation in the country; but as of that
date, he had yet to see such need in America, despite the very real evidence that children and the elderly
were starving to death. Yet Hoover was neither intentionally blind nor unsympathetic. He simply held fast
to a belief system that did not change as the realities of the Great Depression set in.
Hoover believed strongly in the ethos of American individualism: that hard work brought its own
rewards. His life story testified to that belief. Hoover was born into poverty, made his way through
college at Stanford University, and eventually made his fortune as an engineer. This experience, as well
as his extensive travels in China and throughout Europe, shaped his fundamental conviction that the very
existence of American civilization depended upon the moral fiber of its citizens, as evidenced by their
ability to overcome all hardships through individual effort and resolve. The idea of government handouts
to Americans was repellant to him. Whereas Europeans might need assistance, such as his hunger relief
work in Belgium during and after World War I, he believed the American character to be different. In a
1931 radio address, he said, “The spread of government destroys initiative and thus destroys character.”
Likewise, Hoover was not completely unaware of the potential harm that wild stock speculation might
create if left unchecked. As secretary of commerce, Hoover often warned President Coolidge of the dangers
that such speculation engendered. In the weeks before his inauguration, he offered many interviews
to newspapers and magazines, urging Americans to curtail their rampant stock investments, and even
encouraged the Federal Reserve to raise the discount rate to make it more costly for local banks to lend
money to potential speculators. However, fearful of creating a panic, Hoover never issued a stern warning
to discourage Americans from such investments. Neither Hoover, nor any other politician of that day, ever
gave serious thought to outright government regulation of the stock market. This was even true in his
personal choices, as Hoover often lamented poor stock advice he had once offered to a friend. When the
stock nose-dived, Hoover bought the shares from his friend to assuage his guilt, vowing never again to
advise anyone on matters of investment.
In keeping with these principles, Hoover’s response to the crash focused on two very common American
traditions: He asked individuals to tighten their belts and work harder, and he asked the business
community to voluntarily help sustain the economy by retaining workers and continuing production. He
immediately summoned a conference of leading industrialists to meet in Washington, DC, urging them
to maintain their current wages while America rode out this brief economic panic. The crash, he assured
business leaders, was not part of a greater downturn; they had nothing to worry about. Similar meetings
with utility companies and railroad executives elicited promises for billions of dollars in new construction
projects, while labor leaders agreed to withhold demands for wage increases and workers continued to
labor. Hoover also persuaded Congress to pass a $160 million tax cut to bolster American incomes, leading
many to conclude that the president was doing all he could to stem the tide of the panic. In April 1930, the
New York Times editorial board concluded that “No one in his place could have done more.”
However, these modest steps were not enough. By late 1931, when it became clear that the economy would
not improve on its own, Hoover recognized the need for some government intervention. He created the

President’s Emergency Committee for Employment (PECE), later renamed the President’s Organization
of Unemployment Relief (POUR). In keeping with Hoover’s distaste of what he viewed as handouts,
this organization did not provide direct federal relief to people in need. Instead, it assisted state and
private relief agencies, such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, YMCA, and Community Chest. Hoover also
strongly urged people of means to donate funds to help the poor, and he himself gave significant private
donations to worthy causes. But these private efforts could not alleviate the widespread effects of poverty.
Congress pushed for a more direct government response to the hardship. In 1930–1931, it attempted to
pass a $60 million bill to provide relief to drought victims by allowing them access to food, fertilizer, and
animal feed. Hoover stood fast in his refusal to provide food, resisting any element of direct relief. The final
bill of $47 million provided for everything except food but did not come close to adequately addressing the
crisis. Again in 1931, Congress proposed the Federal Emergency Relief Bill, which would have provided
$375 million to states to help provide food, clothing, and shelter to the homeless. But Hoover opposed the
bill, stating that it ruined the balance of power between states and the federal government, and in February
1932, it was defeated by fourteen votes.
However, the president’s adamant opposition to direct-relief federal government programs should not be
viewed as one of indifference or uncaring toward the suffering American people. His personal sympathy
for those in need was boundless. Hoover was one of only two presidents to reject his salary for the
office he held. Throughout the Great Depression, he donated an average of $25,000 annually to various
relief organizations to assist in their efforts. Furthermore, he helped to raise $500,000 in private funds to
support the White House Conference on Child Health and Welfare in 1930. Rather than indifference or
heartlessness, Hoover’s steadfast adherence to a philosophy of individualism as the path toward long-
term American recovery explained many of his policy decisions. “A voluntary deed,” he repeatedly
commented, “is infinitely more precious to our national ideal and spirit than a thousand-fold poured from
the Treasury.”
As conditions worsened, however, Hoover eventually relaxed his opposition to federal relief and formed
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in 1932, in part because it was an election year and Hoover
hoped to keep his office. Although not a form of direct relief to the American people in greatest need, the
RFC was much larger in scope than any preceding effort, setting aside $2 billion in taxpayer money to
rescue banks, credit unions, and insurance companies. The goal was to boost confidence in the nation’s
financial institutions by ensuring that they were on solid footing. This model was flawed on a number of
levels. First, the program only lent money to banks with sufficient collateral, which meant that most of the
aid went to large banks. In fact, of the first $61 million loaned, $41 million went to just three banks. Small
town and rural banks got almost nothing. Furthermore, at this time, confidence in financial institutions
was not the primary concern of most Americans. They needed food and jobs. Many had no money to put
into the banks, no matter how confident they were that the banks were safe.
Hoover’s other attempt at federal assistance also occurred in 1932, when he endorsed a bill by Senator
Robert Wagner of New York. This was the Emergency Relief and Construction Act. This act authorized
the RFC to expand beyond loans to financial institutions and allotted $1.5 billion to states to fund local
public works projects. This program failed to deliver the kind of help needed, however, as Hoover severely
limited the types of projects it could fund to those that were ultimately self-paying (such as toll bridges and
public housing) and those that required skilled workers. While well intended, these programs maintained
the status quo, and there was still no direct federal relief to the individuals who so desperately needed it.
PUBLIC REACTION TO HOOVER

Hoover’s steadfast resistance to government aid cost him the reelection and has placed him squarely at
the forefront of the most unpopular presidents, according to public opinion, in modern American history.
His name became synonymous with the poverty of the era: “Hoovervilles” became the common name for
homeless shantytowns (Figure 25.9) and “Hoover blankets” for the newspapers that the homeless used
to keep warm. A “Hoover flag” was a pants pocket—empty of all money—turned inside out. By the 1932
election, hitchhikers held up signs reading: “If you don’t give me a ride, I’ll vote for Hoover.” Americans
did not necessarily believe that Hoover caused the Great Depression. Their anger stemmed instead from
what appeared to be a willful refusal to help regular citizens with direct aid that might allow them to
recover from the crisis.
Figure 25.9 Hoover became one of the least popular presidents in history. “Hoovervilles,” or shantytowns, were a
negative reminder of his role in the nation’s financial crisis. This family (a) lived in a “Hooverville” in Elm Grove,
Oklahoma. This shanty (b) was one of many making up a “Hooverville” in the Portland, Oregon area. (credit:
modification of work by United States Farm Security Administration)
FRUSTRATION AND PROTEST: A BAD SITUATION GROWS WORSE FOR HOOVER

Desperation and frustration often create emotional responses, and the Great Depression was no exception.
Throughout 1931–1932, companies trying to stay afloat sharply cut worker wages, and, in response,
workers protested in increasingly bitter strikes. As the Depression unfolded, over 80 percent of automotive
workers lost their jobs. Even the typically prosperous Ford Motor Company laid off two-thirds of its
workforce.
In 1932, a major strike at the Ford Motor Company factory near Detroit resulted in over sixty injuries and
four deaths. Often referred to as the Ford Hunger March, the event unfolded as a planned demonstration
among unemployed Ford workers who, to protest their desperate situation, marched nine miles from
Detroit to the company’s River Rouge plant in Dearborn. At the Dearborn city limits, local police launched
tear gas at the roughly three thousand protestors, who responded by throwing stones and clods of dirt.
When they finally reached the gates of the plant, protestors faced more police and firemen, as well as
private security guards. As the firemen turned hoses onto the protestors, the police and security guards
opened fire. In addition to those killed and injured, police arrested fifty protestors. One week later, sixty
thousand mourners attended the public funerals of the four victims of what many protesters labeled police
brutality. The event set the tone for worsening labor relations in the U.S.
Farmers also organized and protested, often violently. The most notable example was the Farm Holiday
Association. Led by Milo Reno, this organization held significant sway among farmers in Iowa, Nebraska,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the Dakotas. Although they never comprised a majority of farmers in any of
these states, their public actions drew press attention nationwide. Among their demands, the association
sought a federal government plan to set agricultural prices artificially high enough to cover the farmers’

costs, as well as a government commitment to sell any farm surpluses on the world market. To achieve
their goals, the group called for farm holidays, during which farmers would neither sell their produce
nor purchase any other goods until the government met their demands. However, the greatest strength
of the association came from the unexpected and seldom-planned actions of its members, which included
barricading roads into markets, attacking nonmember farmers, and destroying their produce. Some
members even raided small town stores, destroying produce on the shelves. Members also engaged in
“penny auctions,” bidding pennies on foreclosed farm land and threatening any potential buyers with
bodily harm if they competed in the sale. Once they won the auction, the association returned the land
to the original owner. In Iowa, farmers threatened to hang a local judge if he signed any more farm
foreclosures. At least one death occurred as a direct result of these protests before they waned following
the election of Franklin Roosevelt.
One of the most notable protest movements occurred toward the end of Hoover’s presidency and centered
on the Bonus Expeditionary Force, or Bonus Army, in the spring of 1932. In this protest, approximately
fifteen thousand World War I veterans marched on Washington to demand early payment of their veteran
bonuses, which were not due to be paid until 1945. The group camped out in vacant federal buildings and
set up camps in Anacostia Flats near the Capitol building (Figure 25.10).
Figure 25.10 In the spring of 1932, World War I veterans marched on Washington and set up camps in Anacostia
Flats, remaining there for weeks. (credit: Library of Congress)
Many veterans remained in the city in protest for nearly two months, although the U.S. Senate officially
rejected their request in July. By the middle of that month, Hoover wanted them gone. He ordered the
police to empty the buildings and clear out the camps, and in the exchange that followed, police fired
into the crowd, killing two veterans. Fearing an armed uprising, Hoover then ordered General Douglas
MacArthur, along with his aides, Dwight Eisenhower and George Patton, to forcibly remove the veterans
from Anacostia Flats. The ensuing raid proved catastrophic, as the military burned down the shantytown
and injured dozens of people, including a twelve-week-old infant who was killed when accidentally struck
by a tear gas canister (Figure 25.11).
Figure 25.11 When the U.S. Senate denied early payment of their veteran bonuses, and Hoover ordered their
makeshift camps cleared, the Bonus Army protest turned violent, cementing Hoover’s demise as a president. (credit:
U.S. Department of Defense)
As Americans bore witness to photographs and newsreels of the U.S. Army forcibly removing veterans,
Hoover’s popularity plummeted even further. By the summer of 1932, he was largely a defeated man. His
pessimism and failure mirrored that of the nation’s citizens. America was a country in desperate need: in
need of a charismatic leader to restore public confidence as well as provide concrete solutions to pull the
economy out of the Great Depression.
Click and Explore
Whether he truly believed it or simply thought the American people wanted to hear it,
Hoover continued to state publicly that the country was getting back on track. Listen as
he speaks about the “Success of Recovery” (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/
recovery) at a campaign stop in Detroit, Michigan on October 22, 1932.

• Identify the challenges that everyday Americans faced as a result of the Great
Depression and analyze the government’s initial unwillingness to provide assistance
• Explain the particular challenges that African Americans faced during the crisis
• Identify the unique challenges that farmers in the Great Plains faced during this period
From industrial strongholds to the rural Great Plains, from factory workers to farmers, the Great
Depression affected millions. In cities, as industry slowed, then sometimes stopped altogether, workers
lost jobs and joined breadlines, or sought out other charitable efforts. With limited government relief
efforts, private charities tried to help, but they were unable to match the pace of demand. In rural areas,

farmers suffered still more. In some parts of the country, prices for crops dropped so precipitously that
farmers could not earn enough to pay their mortgages, losing their farms to foreclosure. In the Great Plains,
one of the worst droughts in history left the land barren and unfit for growing even minimal food to live
on.
The country’s most vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly, and those subject to
discrimination, like African Americans, were the hardest hit. Most white Americans felt entitled to what
few jobs were available, leaving African Americans unable to find work, even in the jobs once considered
their domain. In all, the economic misery was unprecedented in the country’s history.
STARVING TO DEATH
By the end of 1932, the Great Depression had affected some sixty million people, most of whom wealthier
Americans perceived as the “deserving poor.” Yet, at the time, federal efforts to help those in need were
extremely limited, and national charities had neither the capacity nor the will to elicit the large-scale
response required to address the problem. The American Red Cross did exist, but Chairman John Barton
Payne contended that unemployment was not an “Act of God” but rather an “Act of Man,” and therefore
refused to get involved in widespread direct relief efforts. Clubs like the Elks tried to provide food, as did
small groups of individually organized college students. Religious organizations remained on the front
lines, offering food and shelter. In larger cities, breadlines and soup lines became a common sight. At one
count in 1932, there were as many as eighty-two breadlines in New York City.
Despite these efforts, however, people were destitute and ultimately starving. Families would first run
through any savings, if they were lucky enough to have any. Then, the few who had insurance would
cash out their policies. Cash surrender payments of individual insurance policies tripled in the first three
years of the Great Depression, with insurance companies issuing total payments in excess of $1.2 billion
in 1932 alone. When those funds were depleted, people would borrow from family and friends, and when
they could get no more, they would simply stop paying rent or mortgage payments. When evicted, they
would move in with relatives, whose own situation was likely only a step or two behind. The added
burden of additional people would speed along that family’s demise, and the cycle would continue. This
situation spiraled downward, and did so quickly. Even as late as 1939, over 60 percent of rural households,
and 82 percent of farm families, were classified as “impoverished.” In larger urban areas, unemployment
levels exceeded the national average, with over half a million unemployed workers in Chicago, and nearly
a million in New York City. Breadlines and soup kitchens were packed, serving as many as eighty-five
thousand meals daily in New York City alone. Over fifty thousand New York citizens were homeless by
the end of 1932.
Children, in particular, felt the brunt of poverty. Many in coastal cities would roam the docks in search
of spoiled vegetables to bring home. Elsewhere, children begged at the doors of more well-off neighbors,
hoping for stale bread, table scraps, or raw potato peelings. Said one childhood survivor of the Great
Depression, “You get used to hunger. After the first few days it doesn’t even hurt; you just get weak.” In
1931 alone, there were at least twenty documented cases of starvation; in 1934, that number grew to 110.
In rural areas where such documentation was lacking, the number was likely far higher. And while the
middle class did not suffer from starvation, they experienced hunger as well.
By the time Hoover left office in 1933, the poor survived not on relief efforts, but because they had learned
to be poor. A family with little food would stay in bed to save fuel and avoid burning calories. People
began eating parts of animals that had normally been considered waste. They scavenged for scrap wood
to burn in the furnace, and when electricity was turned off, it was not uncommon to try and tap into a
neighbor’s wire. Family members swapped clothes; sisters might take turns going to church in the one
dress they owned. As one girl in a mountain town told her teacher, who had said to go home and get food,
“I can’t. It’s my sister’s turn to eat.”
Click and Explore
For his book on the Great Depression, Hard Times, author Studs Terkel interviewed
hundreds of Americans from across the country. He subsequently selected over
seventy interviews to air on a radio show that was based in Chicago. Visit Studs
Terkel: Conversations with America (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/hardtimes) to
listen to those interviews, during which participants reflect on their personal hardships
as well as on national events during the Great Depression.
BLACK AND POOR: AFRICAN AMERICANS AND THE GREAT DEPRESSION

Most African Americans did not participate in the land boom and stock market speculation that preceded
the crash, but that did not stop the effects of the Great Depression from hitting them particularly hard.
Subject to continuing racial discrimination, blacks nationwide fared even worse than their hard-hit white
counterparts. As the prices for cotton and other agricultural products plummeted, farm owners paid
workers less or simply laid them off. Landlords evicted sharecroppers, and even those who owned their
land outright had to abandon it when there was no way to earn any income.
In cities, African Americans fared no better. Unemployment was rampant, and many whites felt that any
available jobs belonged to whites first. In some Northern cities, whites would conspire to have African
American workers fired to allow white workers access to their jobs. Even jobs traditionally held by black
workers, such as household servants or janitors, were now going to whites. By 1932, approximately one-
half of all black Americans were unemployed. Racial violence also began to rise. In the South, lynching
became more common again, with twenty-eight documented lynchings in 1933, compared to eight in 1932.
Since communities were preoccupied with their own hardships, and organizing civil rights efforts was a
long, difficult process, many resigned themselves to, or even ignored, this culture of racism and violence.
Occasionally, however, an incident was notorious enough to gain national attention.
One such incident was the case of the Scottsboro Boys (Figure 25.12). In 1931, nine black boys, who had
been riding the rails, were arrested for vagrancy and disorderly conduct after an altercation with some
white travelers on the train. Two young white women, who had been dressed as boys and traveling with
a group of white boys, came forward and said that the black boys had raped them. The case, which was
tried in Scottsboro, Alabama, reignited decades of racial hatred and illustrated the injustice of the court
system. Despite significant evidence that the women had not been raped at all, along with one of the
women subsequently recanting her testimony, the all-white jury quickly convicted the boys and sentenced
all but one of them to death. The verdict broke through the veil of indifference toward the plight of African
Americans, and protests erupted among newspaper editors, academics, and social reformers in the North.
The Communist Party of the United States offered to handle the case and sought retrial; the NAACP later
joined in this effort. In all, the case was tried three separate times. The series of trials and retrials, appeals,
and overturned convictions shone a spotlight on a system that provided poor legal counsel and relied
on all-white juries. In October 1932, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the Communist Party’s defense
attorneys that the defendants had been denied adequate legal representation at the original trial, and that
due process as provided by the Fourteenth Amendment had been denied as a result of the exclusion of
any potential black jurors. Eventually, most of the accused received lengthy prison terms and subsequent
parole, but avoided the death penalty. The Scottsboro case ultimately laid some of the early groundwork
for the modern American civil rights movement. Alabama granted posthumous pardons to all defendants
in 2013.

Figure 25.12 The trial and conviction of nine African American boys in Scottsboro, Alabama, illustrated the
numerous injustices of the American court system. Despite being falsely accused, the boys received lengthy prison
terms and were not officially pardoned by the State of Alabama until 2013.
Click and Explore
Read Voices from Scottsboro (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/scottsboro) for the

perspectives of both participants and spectators in the Scottsboro case, from the initial
trial to the moment, in 1976, when one of the women sued for slander.
ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHE MEETS ECONOMIC HARDSHIP: THE DUST BOWL

Despite the widely held belief that rural Americans suffered less in the Great Depression due to their
ability to at least grow their own food, this was not the case. Farmers, ranchers, and their families suffered
more than any group other than African Americans during the Depression.
From the turn of the century through much of World War I, farmers in the Great Plains experienced
prosperity due to unusually good growing conditions, high commodity prices, and generous government
farming policies that led to a rush for land. As the federal government continued to purchase all excess
produce for the war effort, farmers and ranchers fell into several bad practices, including mortgaging
their farms and borrowing money against future production in order to expand. However, after the
war, prosperity rapidly dwindled, particularly during the recession of 1921. Seeking to recoup their
losses through economies of scale in which they would expand their production even further to take full
advantage of their available land and machinery, farmers plowed under native grasses to plant acre after
acre of wheat, with little regard for the long-term repercussions to the soil. Regardless of these misguided
efforts, commodity prices continued to drop, finally plummeting in 1929, when the price of wheat dropped
from two dollars to forty cents per bushel.
Exacerbating the problem was a massive drought that began in 1931 and lasted for eight terrible years.
Dust storms roiled through the Great Plains, creating huge, choking clouds that piled up in doorways
and filtered into homes through closed windows. Even more quickly than it had boomed, the land of
agricultural opportunity went bust, due to widespread overproduction and overuse of the land, as well as
to the harsh weather conditions that followed, resulting in the creation of the Dust Bowl (Figure 25.13).
Figure 25.13 The dust storms that blew through the Great Plains were epic in scale. Drifts of dirt piled up against
doors and windows. People wore goggles and tied rags over their mouths to keep the dust out. (credit: U.S. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
Livestock died, or had to be sold, as there was no money for feed. Crops intended to feed the family
withered and died in the drought. Terrifying dust storms became more and more frequent, as “black
blizzards” of dirt blew across the landscape and created a new illness known as “dust pneumonia.” In 1935
alone, over 850 million tons of topsoil blew away. To put this number in perspective, geologists estimate
that it takes the earth five hundred years to naturally regenerate one inch of topsoil; yet, just one significant
dust storm could destroy a similar amount. In their desperation to get more from the land, farmers had
stripped it of the delicate balance that kept it healthy. Unaware of the consequences, they had moved away
from such traditional practices as crop rotation and allowing land to regain its strength by permitting it to
lie fallow between plantings, working the land to death.
For farmers, the results were catastrophic. Unlike most factory workers in the cities, in most cases, farmers
lost their homes when they lost their livelihood. Most farms and ranches were originally mortgaged to
small country banks that understood the dynamics of farming, but as these banks failed, they often sold
rural mortgages to larger eastern banks that were less concerned with the specifics of farm life. With the
effects of the drought and low commodity prices, farmers could not pay their local banks, which in turn
lacked funds to pay the large urban banks. Ultimately, the large banks foreclosed on the farms, often
swallowing up the small country banks in the process. It is worth noting that of the five thousand banks
that closed between 1930 and 1932, over 75 percent were country banks in locations with populations
under 2,500. Given this dynamic, it is easy to see why farmers in the Great Plains remained wary of big
city bankers.
For farmers who survived the initial crash, the situation worsened, particularly in the Great Plains where
years of overproduction and rapidly declining commodity prices took their toll. Prices continued to
decline, and as farmers tried to stay afloat, they produced still more crops, which drove prices even
lower. Farms failed at an astounding rate, and farmers sold out at rock-bottom prices. One farm in Shelby,
Nebraska was mortgaged at $4,100 and sold for $49.50. One-fourth of the entire state of Mississippi was
auctioned off in a single day at a foreclosure auction in April 1932.
Not all farmers tried to keep their land. Many, especially those who had arrived only recently, in an
attempt to capitalize on the earlier prosperity, simply walked away (Figure 25.14). In hard-hit Oklahoma,
thousands of farmers packed up what they could and walked or drove away from the land they thought
would be their future. They, along with other displaced farmers from throughout the Great Plains, became

known as Okies. Okies were an emblem of the failure of the American breadbasket to deliver on its
promise, and their story was made famous in John Steinbeck’s novel, The Grapes of Wrath.
Figure 25.14 As the Dust Bowl continued in the Great Plains, many had to abandon their land and equipment, as
captured in this image from 1936, taken in Dallas, South Dakota. (credit: United States Department of Agriculture)
Click and Explore
Experience the Interactive Dust Bowl (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/dustbowl1) to

see how decisions compounded to create peoples’ destiny. Click through to see what
choices you would make and where that would take you.
MY STORY
Caroline Henderson on the Dust Bowl
Now we are facing a fourth year of failure. There can be no wheat for us in 1935 in spite of
all our careful and expensive work in preparing ground, sowing and re-sowing our allocated
acreage. Native grass pastures are permanently damaged, in many cases hopelessly ruined,
smothered under by drifted sand. Fences are buried under banks of thistles and hard packed
earth or undermined by the eroding action of the wind and lying flat on the ground. Less
traveled roads are impassable, covered deep under by sand or the finer silt-like loam.
Orchards, groves and hedge-rows cultivated for many years with patient care are dead or
dying . . . Impossible it seems not to grieve that the work of hands should prove so perishable.
—Caroline Henderson, Shelton, Oklahoma, 1935
Much like other farm families whose livelihoods were destroyed by the Dust Bowl, Caroline Henderson
describes a level of hardship that many Americans living in Depression-ravaged cities could never
understand. Despite their hard work, millions of Americans were losing both their produce and their
homes, sometimes in as little as forty-eight hours, to environmental catastrophes. Lacking any other
explanation, many began to question what they had done to incur God’s wrath. Note in particular
Henderson’s references to “dead,” “dying,” and “perishable,” and contrast those terms with her depiction
of the “careful and expensive work” undertaken by their own hands. Many simply could not understand
how such a catastrophe could have occurred.
CHANGING VALUES, CHANGING CULTURE

In the decades before the Great Depression, and particularly in the 1920s, American culture largely
reflected the values of individualism, self-reliance, and material success through competition. Novels like
F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby and Sinclair Lewis’s Babbit portrayed wealth and the self-made man
in America, albeit in a critical fashion. In film, many silent movies, such as Charlie Chaplin’s The Gold Rush,
depicted the rags-to-riches fable that Americans so loved. With the shift in U.S. fortunes, however, came
a shift in values, and with it, a new cultural reflection. The arts revealed a new emphasis on the welfare
of the whole and the importance of community in preserving family life. While box office sales briefly
declined at the beginning of the Depression, they quickly rebounded. Movies offered a way for Americans
to think of better times, and people were willing to pay twenty-five cents for a chance to escape, at least for
a few hours.
Even more than escapism, other films at the close of the decade reflected on the sense of community and
family values that Americans struggled to maintain throughout the entire Depression. John Ford’s screen
version of Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath came out in 1940, portraying the haunting story of the Joad
family’s exodus from their Oklahoma farm to California in search of a better life. Their journey leads them
to realize that they need to join a larger social movement—communism—dedicated to bettering the lives
of all people. Tom Joad says, “Well, maybe it's like Casy says, a fella ain’t got a soul of his own, but on’y
a piece of a soul—the one big soul that belongs to ever’body.” The greater lesson learned was one of the
strength of community in the face of individual adversity.
Another trope was that of the hard-working everyman against greedy banks and corporations. This was
perhaps best portrayed in the movies of Frank Capra, whose Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was emblematic
of his work. In this 1939 film, Jimmy Stewart plays a legislator sent to Washington to finish out the term
of a deceased senator. While there, he fights corruption to ensure the construction of a boy’s camp in his
hometown rather than a dam project that would only serve to line the pockets of a few. He ultimately
engages in a two-day filibuster, standing up to the power players to do what’s right. The Depression era
was a favorite of Capra’s to depict in his films, including It’s a Wonderful Life, released in 1946. In this film,
Jimmy Stewart runs a family-owned savings and loan, which at one point faces a bank run similar to those
seen in 1929–1930. In the end, community support helps Stewart retain his business and home against the
unscrupulous actions of a wealthy banker who sought to bring ruin to his family.

AMERICANA
“Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?”
They used to tell me I was building a dream, and so I followed the mob
When there was earth to plow or guns to bear, I was always there, right on the job
They used to tell me I was building a dream, with peace and glory ahead
Why should I be standing in line, just waiting for bread?
Once I built a railroad, I made it run, made it race against time
Once I built a railroad, now it’s done, Brother, can you spare a dime?
Once I built a tower up to the sun, brick and rivet and lime
Once I built a tower, now it’s done, Brother, can you spare a dime?
—Jay Gorney and “Yip” Harburg
“Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?” first appeared in 1932, written for the Broadway musical New
Americana by Jay Gorney, a composer who based the song’s music on a Russian lullaby, and Edgar
Yipsel “Yip” Harburg, a lyricist who would go on to win an Academy Award for the song “Over the
Rainbow” from The Wizard of Oz (1939).
With its lyrics speaking to the plight of the common man during the Great Depression and the refrain
appealing to the same sense of community later found in the films of Frank Capra, “Brother, Can You
Spare a Dime?” quickly became the de facto anthem of the Great Depression. Recordings by Bing
Crosby, Al Jolson, and Rudy Vallee all enjoyed tremendous popularity in the 1930s.
Click and Explore
For more on “Brother Can You Spare a Dime?” and the Great Depression, visit
ArtsEdge (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/sparedime) to explore the Kennedy Center’s
digital resources and learn the “Story Behind the Song.”
Finally, there was a great deal of pure escapism in the popular culture of the Depression. Even the songs
found in films reminded many viewers of the bygone days of prosperity and happiness, from Al Dubin
and Henry Warren’s hit “We’re in the Money” to the popular “Happy Days are Here Again.” The latter
eventually became the theme song of Franklin Roosevelt’s 1932 presidential campaign. People wanted
to forget their worries and enjoy the madcap antics of the Marx Brothers, the youthful charm of Shirley
Temple, the dazzling dances of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers (Figure 25.15), or the comforting morals of
the Andy Hardy series. The Hardy series—nine films in all, produced by MGM from 1936 to 1940—starred
Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney, and all followed the adventures of a small-town judge and his son. No
matter what the challenge, it was never so big that it could not be solved with a musical production put on
by the neighborhood kids, bringing together friends and family members in a warm display of community
values.
Figure 25.15 Flying Down to Rio (1933) was the first motion picture to feature the immensely popular dance duo of
Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. The pair would go on to star in nine more Hollywood musicals throughout the 1930s
and 1940s.
All of these movies reinforced traditional American values, which suffered during these hard times, in part
due to declining marriage and birth rates, and increased domestic violence. At the same time, however,
they reflected an increased interest in sex and sexuality. While the birth rate was dropping, surveys in
Fortune magazine in 1936–1937 found that two-thirds of college students favored birth control, and that 50
percent of men and 25 percent of women admitted to premarital sex, continuing a trend among younger
Americans that had begun to emerge in the 1920s. Contraceptive sales soared during the decade, and
again, culture reflected this shift. Blonde bombshell Mae West was famous for her sexual innuendoes, and
her flirtatious persona was hugely popular, although it got her banned on radio broadcasts throughout
the Midwest. Whether West or Garland, Chaplin or Stewart, American film continued to be a barometer of
American values, and their challenges, through the decade.

• Identify the successes and failures of Herbert Hoover’s presidency
• Determine the fairness and accuracy of assessments of Hoover’s presidency
As so much of the Hoover presidency is circumscribed by the onset of the Great Depression, one must
be careful in assessing his successes and failures, so as not to attribute all blame to Hoover. Given the
suffering that many Americans endured between the fall of 1929 and Franklin Roosevelt’s inauguration in
the spring of 1933, it is easy to lay much of the blame at Hoover’s doorstep (Figure 25.16). However, the
extent to which Hoover was constrained by the economic circumstances unfolding well before he assumed
office offers a few mitigating factors. Put simply, Hoover did not cause the stock market crash. However,
his stubborn adherence to a questionable belief in “American individualism,” despite mounting evidence
that people were starving, requires that some blame be attributed to his policies (or lack thereof) for the
depth and length of the Depression. Yet, Hoover’s presidency was much more than simply combating the
Depression. To assess the extent of his inability to provide meaningful national leadership through the
darkest months of the Depression, his other policies require consideration.

Figure 25.16 Herbert Hoover (left) had the misfortune to be a president elected in prosperity and subsequently
tasked with leading the country through the Great Depression. His unwillingness to face the harsh realities of
widespread unemployment, farm foreclosures, business failures, and bank closings made him a deeply unpopular
president, and he lost the 1932 election in a landslide to Franklin D. Roosevelt (right). (credit: Architect of the Capitol)
HOOVER’S FOREIGN POLICY

Although it was a relatively quiet period for U.S. diplomacy, Hoover did help to usher in a period of
positive relations, specifically with several Latin American neighbors. This would establish the basis for
Franklin Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbor” policy. Following a goodwill tour of Central American countries
immediately following his election in 1928, Hoover shaped the subsequent Clark Memorandum—released
in 1930—which largely repudiated the previous Roosevelt Corollary, establishing a basis for unlimited
American military intervention throughout Latin America. To the contrary, through the memorandum,
Hoover asserted that greater emphasis should be placed upon the older Monroe Doctrine, in which the
U.S. pledged assistance to her Latin American neighbors should any European powers interfere in Western
Hemisphere affairs. Hoover further strengthened relations to the south by withdrawing American troops
from Haiti and Nicaragua. Additionally, he outlined with Secretary of State Henry Stimson the Hoover-
Stimson Doctrine, which announced that the United States would never recognize claims to territories
seized by force (a direct response to the recent Japanese invasion of Manchuria).
Other diplomatic overtures met with less success for Hoover. Most notably, in an effort to support
the American economy during the early stages of the Depression, the president signed into law the
Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930. The law, which raised tariffs on thousands of imports, was intended to
increase sales of American-made goods, but predictably angered foreign trade partners who in turn raised
their tariffs on American imports, thus shrinking international trade and closing additional markets to
desperate American manufacturers. As a result, the global depression worsened further. A similar attempt
to spur the world economy, known as the Hoover Moratorium, likewise met with great opposition and
little economic benefit. Issued in 1931, the moratorium called for a halt to World War I reparations to be
paid by Germany to France, as well as forgiveness of Allied war debts to the U.S.
HOOVER AND CIVIL RIGHTS

Holding true to his belief in individualism, Hoover saw little need for significant civil rights legislation
during his presidency, including any overtures from the NAACP to endorse federal anti-lynching
legislation. He felt African Americans would benefit more from education and assimilation than from
federal legislation or programs; yet he failed to recognize that, at this time in history, federal legislation
and programs were required to ensure equal opportunities.
Hoover did give special attention to the improvement of Native American conditions, beginning with his
selection of Charles Curtis as his vice-presidential running mate in the 1928 election. Curtis, of the Kaw
Tribe, became the country’s first Native American to hold so high an elected office. Hoover subsequently
appointed Charles Rhoads as the new commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and advocated, with
Rhoads’ assistance, for Native American self-sufficiency and full assimilation as Americans under the
Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. During Hoover’s presidency, federal expenditures for Native American
schools and health care doubled.
Click and Explore
Cartoons, especially political cartoons, provide a window into the frustrations and
worries of an age. Browse the political cartoons at The Changing Face of Herbert
Hoover (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/hoover) to better understand the historical
context of Herbert Hoover’s presidency.
A FINAL ASSESSMENT
Herbert Hoover’s presidency, embarked upon with much promise following his election in November
1928, produced a legacy of mixed reactions. Some Americans blamed him for all of the economic and social
woes from which they suffered for the next decade; all blamed him for simply not responding to their
needs. As contemporary commentator and actor Will Rogers said at the time, “If an American was lucky
enough to find an apple to eat in the Depression and bit into it only to find a worm, they would blame
Hoover for the worm.” Likewise, subsequent public opinion polls of presidential popularity, as well as
polls of professional historians, routinely rate Hoover in the bottom seven of all U.S. presidents in terms of
overall success.
However, Hoover the president was a product of his time. Americans sought a president in 1928 who
would continue the policies of normalcy with which many associated the prosperity they enjoyed. They
wanted a president who would forego government interference and allow industrial capitalism to grow
unfettered. Hoover, from his days as the secretary of commerce, was the ideal candidate. In fact, he
was too ideal when the Great Depression actually hit. Holding steadfast to his philosophy of “American
individualism,” Hoover proved largely incapable of shifting into economic crisis mode when Americans
came to realize that prosperity could not last forever. Desperate to help, but unwilling to compromise on
his philosophy, Hoover could not manage a comprehensive solution to the worldwide depression that
few foresaw. Only when reelection was less than a year away did a reluctant Hoover initiate significant
policies, but even then, they did not provide direct relief. By the start of 1932, unemployment hovered near
25 percent, and thousands of banks and factories were closing their doors. Combined with Hoover’s ill-
timed response to the Bonus Army crisis, his political fate was sealed. Americans would look to the next
president for a solution. “Democracy is a harsh employer,” Hoover concluded, as he awaited all but certain
defeat in the November election of 1932 (Figure 25.17).

Figure 25.17 By the election of 1932, Hoover (left) knew that he was beaten. In photos from this time, he tends to
appear grim-faced and downtrodden.
Key Terms
American individualism the belief, strongly held by Herbert Hoover and others, that hard work and
individual effort, absent government interference, comprised the formula for success in the U.S.
bank run the withdrawal by a large number of individuals or investors of money from a bank due to
fears of the bank’s instability, with the ironic effect of increasing the bank’s vulnerability to failure
Black Tuesday October 29, 1929, when a mass panic caused a crash in the stock market and stockholders
divested over sixteen million shares, causing the overall value of the stock market to drop precipitously
Bonus Army a group of World War I veterans and affiliated groups who marched to Washington in 1932
to demand their war bonuses early, only to be refused and forcibly removed by the U.S. Army
Clark Memorandum Hoover’s repudiation of the Roosevelt Corollary that justified American military
intervention in Latin American affairs; this memorandum improved relations with America’s neighbors
by reasserting that intervention would occur only in the event of European interference in the Western
Hemisphere
Dust Bowl the area in the middle of the country that had been badly overfarmed in the 1920s and
suffered from a terrible drought that coincided with the Great Depression; the name came from the
“black blizzard” of topsoil and dust that blew through the area
Scottsboro Boys a reference to the infamous trial in Scottsboro, Alabama in 1931, where nine African
American boys were falsely accused of raping two white women and sentenced to death; the extreme
injustice of the trial, particularly given the age of the boys and the inadequacy of the testimony against
them, garnered national and international attention
Smoot-Hawley Tariff the tariff approved by Hoover to raise the tax on thousands of imported goods in
the hope that it would encourage people to buy American-made products; the unintended result was that
other nations raised their tariffs, further hurting American exports and exacerbating the global financial
crisis
speculation the practice of investing in risky financial opportunities in the hopes of a fast payout due to
market fluctuations
Summary
The prosperous decade leading up to the stock market crash of 1929, with easy access to credit and a
culture that encouraged speculation and risk-taking, put into place the conditions for the country’s fall.
The stock market, which had been growing for years, began to decline in the summer and early fall of 1929,
precipitating a panic that led to a massive stock sell-off in late October. In one month, the market lost close
to 40 percent of its value. Although only a small percentage of Americans had invested in the stock market,
the crash affected everyone. Banks lost millions and, in response, foreclosed on business and personal
loans, which in turn pressured customers to pay back their loans, whether or not they had the cash. As the
pressure mounted on individuals, the effects of the crash continued to spread. The state of the international
economy, the inequitable income distribution in the United States, and, perhaps most importantly, the
contagion effect of panic all played roles in the continued downward spiral of the economy.
In the immediate aftermath of the crash, the government was confident that the economy would rebound.
But several factors led it to worsen instead. One significant issue was the integral role of automobiles and
construction in American industry. With the crash, there was no money for either auto purchases or major
construction projects; these industries therefore suffered, laying off workers, cutting wages, and reducing

benefits. Affluent Americans considered the deserving poor—those who lost their money due to no fault of
their own—to be especially in need of help. But at the outset of the Great Depression, there were few social
safety nets in place to provide them with the necessary relief. While some families retained their wealth
and middle-class lifestyle, many more were plunged quite suddenly into poverty and often homelessness.
Children dropped out of school, mothers and wives went into domestic service, and the fabric of American
society changed inexorably.

President Hoover’s deeply held philosophy of American individualism, which he maintained despite
extraordinary economic circumstances, made him particularly unsuited to deal with the crisis of the
Great Depression. He greatly resisted government intervention, considering it a path to the downfall of
American greatness. His initial response of asking Americans to find their own paths to recovery and
seeking voluntary business measures to stimulate the economy could not stem the tide of the Depression.
Ultimately, Hoover did create some federal relief programs, such as the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation (RFC), which sought to boost public confidence in financial institutions by ensuring that
they were on solid footing. When this measure did little to help impoverished individuals, he signed the
Emergency Relief Act, which allowed the RFC to invest in local public works projects. But even this was
too little, too late. The severe limits on the types of projects funded and type of workers used meant that
most Americans saw no benefit.
The American public ultimately responded with anger and protest to Hoover’s apparent inability to create
solutions. Protests ranged from factory strikes to farm riots, culminating in the notorious Bonus Army
protest in the spring of 1932. Veterans from World War I lobbied to receive their bonuses immediately,
rather than waiting until 1945. The government denied them, and in the ensuing chaos, Hoover called in
the military to disrupt the protest. The violence of this act was the final blow for Hoover, whose popularity
was already at an all-time low.

The Great Depression affected huge segments of the American population—sixty million people by one
estimate. But certain groups were hit harder than the rest. African Americans faced discrimination in
finding employment, as white workers sought even low-wage jobs like housecleaning. Southern blacks
moved away from their farms as crop prices failed, migrating en masse to Northern cities, which had little
to offer them. Rural Americans were also badly hit. The eight-year drought that began shortly after the
stock market crash exacerbated farmers’ and ranchers’ problems. The cultivation of greater amounts of
acreage in the preceding decades meant that land was badly overworked, and the drought led to massive
and terrible dust storms, creating the region’s nickname, the Dust Bowl. Some farmers tried to remain and
buy up more land as neighbors went broke; others simply fled their failed farms and moved away, often to
the large-scale migrant farms found in California, to search for a better life that few ever found. Maltreated
by Californians who wished to avoid the unwanted competition for jobs that these “Okies” represented,
many of the Dust Bowl farmers were left wandering as a result.
There was very little in the way of public assistance to help the poor. While private charities did what they
could, the scale of the problem was too large for them to have any lasting effects. People learned to survive
as best they could by sending their children out to beg, sharing clothing, and scrounging wood to feed
the furnace. Those who could afford it turned to motion pictures for escape. Movies and books during the
Great Depression reflected the shift in American cultural norms, away from rugged individualism toward
a more community-based lifestyle.
In Hoover, Americans got the president they had wanted, at least at first. He was third in a line of free-
market Republican presidents, elected to continue the policies that had served the economy so well. But
when the stock market crashed in 1929, and the underlying weaknesses in the economy came to the fore,
Hoover did not act with clear intentionality and speed. His record as a president will likely always bear
the taint of his unwillingness to push through substantial government aid, but, despite that failing, his
record is not without minor accomplishments. Hoover’s international policies, particularly in regard to
Latin America, served the country well. And while his attitude toward civil rights mirrored his conviction
that government intervention was a negative force, he did play a key role changing living conditions for
Native Americans. In all, it was his—and the country’s—bad luck that his presidency ultimately required
a very different philosophy than the one that had gotten him elected.
Review Questions
1. Which of the following is a cause of the stock C. churches and synagogues
market crash of 1929? D. wealthy individuals
A. too many people invested in the market
B. investors made risky investments with 6. What attempts did Hoover make to offer
borrowed money federal relief? How would you evaluate the
C. the federal government invested heavily in success or failure of these programs?
business stock
D. World War I created optimal conditions for 7. Which of the following hardships did African
an eventual crash Americans not typically face during the Great
Depression?
2. Which of the following groups would not be A. lower farm wages in the South
considered “the deserving poor” by social welfare B. the belief that white workers needed jobs
groups and humanitarians in the 1930s? more than their black counterparts
A. vagrant children C. white workers taking historically “black”
B. unemployed workers jobs, such as maids and janitors
C. stock speculators D. widespread race riots in large urban centers
D. single mothers
8. Which of the following was not a key factor in
3. What were Hoover’s plans when he first the conditions that led to the Dust Bowl?
entered office, and how were these reflective of A. previous overcultivation of farmland
the years that preceded the Great Depression? B. decreasing American demand for farm
produce
4. Which of the following protests was directly C. unfavorable weather conditions
related to federal policies, and thus had the D. poor farming techniques regarding proper
greatest impact in creating a negative public irrigation and acreage rotation
perception of the Hoover presidency?
A. the Farm Holiday Association 9. What did the popular movies of the
B. the Ford Motor Company labor strikes Depression reveal about American values at that
C. the Bonus Expeditionary Force time? How did these values contrast with the
D. the widespread appearance of values Americans held before the Depression?
“Hooverville” shantytowns
10. Which assessment of Herbert Hoover’s
5. Which of the following groups or bodies did presidency is most accurate?
not offer direct relief to needy people? A. Hoover’s policies caused the stock market
A. the federal government crash and subsequent depression.
B. local police and schoolteachers

B. Although he did not cause the stock market 11. Which of the following phrases best
crash, Hoover deserves criticism for his characterizes Herbert Hoover’s foreign policy
inadequate response to it. agenda?
C. Hoover pledged a great deal of direct A. interventionist, in terms of unwanted
federal aid to unemployed Americans, interference in other nations’ affairs
overtaxing the federal budget and B. militaristic, in terms of strengthening
worsening the financial crisis. American armed forces
D. Hoover disapproved of American C. isolationist, in terms of preventing
capitalism and therefore attempted to America’s interaction with other nations
forestall any concrete solutions to the D. mutual respect, in terms of being available
Depression. to support others when called upon, but not
interfering unnecessarily in their affairs

12. What were the possible causes of the Great Depression? To what extent could a stock market crash of
the intensity of 1929 occur again in America?
13. Why did people feel so confident before the stock market crash of 1929? What were some factors that
led to irrational investing?
14. Why was Herbert Hoover’s response to the initial months of the Great Depression so limited in scope?
15. How did the cultural products of the Great Depression serve to reflect, shape, and assuage Americans’
fears and concerns during this volatile period? How do our cultural products—such as books, movies, and
music—reflect and reinforce our values in our own times?
16. To what extent did the Great Depression catalyze important changes in Americans’ perceptions of
themselves, their national identity, and the role of their government? What evidence of these shifts can you
find in the politics and values of our own times?
17. Why is Herbert Hoover so often blamed for the Great Depression? To what extent is such an
assessment fair or accurate?

Chapter 26 Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932-1941 765
CHAPTER 26
Franklin Roosevelt and the New

Deal, 1932-1941
Figure 26.1 President Roosevelt’s Federal One Project allowed thousands of artists to create public art. This
initiative was a response to the Great Depression as part of the Works Project Administration, and much of the public
art in cities today date from this era. New Deal by Charles Wells can be found in the Clarkson S. Fisher Federal
Building and U.S. Courthouse in Trenton, New Jersey. (credit: modification of work by Library of Congress)
Chapter Outline
26.1 The Rise of Franklin Roosevelt
26.2 The First New Deal
26.3 The Second New Deal
Introduction
The election of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signaled both immediate relief for the American
public as well as a permanent shift in the role of the federal government in guiding the economy and
providing direct assistance to the people, albeit through expensive programs that made extensive budget
deficits commonplace. For many, the immediate relief was, at a minimum, psychological: Herbert Hoover
was gone, and the situation could not grow worse under Roosevelt. But as his New Deal unfolded,
Americans learned more about the fundamental changes their new president brought with him to the Oval
Office. In the span of little more than one hundred days, the country witnessed a wave of legislation never
seen before or since.
Roosevelt understood the need to “save the patient,” to borrow a medical phrase he often employed, as
well as to “cure the ill.” This meant both creating jobs, through such programs as the Works Progress
Administration, which provided employment to over eight million Americans (Figure 26.1), as well as
reconfiguring the structure of the American economy. In pursuit of these two goals, Americans re-elected
Roosevelt for three additional terms in the White House and became full partners in the reshaping of their
country.
766 Chapter 26 Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932-1941
By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Describe the events of the 1932 presidential election and identify the characteristics that
made Franklin Roosevelt a desirable candidate
• Explain why Congress amended the U.S. Constitution to reduce the period of time
between presidential elections and inaugurations
Franklin Roosevelt was part of the political establishment and the wealthy elite, but in the 1932 presidential
campaign, he did not want to be perceived that way. Roosevelt felt that the country needed sweeping
change, and he ran a campaign intended to convince the American people that he could deliver that
change. It was not the specifics of his campaign promises that were different; in fact, he gave very few
details and likely did not yet have a clear idea of how he would raise the country out of the Great
Depression. But he campaigned tirelessly, talking to thousands of people, appearing at his party’s national
convention, and striving to show the public that he was a different breed of politician. As Hoover grew
more morose and physically unwell in the face of the campaign, Roosevelt thrived. He was elected in a
landslide by a country ready for the change he had promised.
THE ELECTION OF FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT

By the 1932 presidential election, Hoover’s popularity was at an all-time low. Despite his efforts to address
the hardships that many Americans faced, his ineffectual response to the Great Depression left Americans
angry and ready for change. Franklin Roosevelt, though born to wealth and educated at the best schools,
offered the change people sought. His experience in politics had previously included a seat in the New
York State legislature, a vice-presidential nomination, and a stint as governor of New York. During the
Figure 26.2

latter, he introduced many state-level reforms that later formed the basis of his New Deal as well as
worked with several advisors who later formed the Brains Trust that advised his federal agenda.
Roosevelt exuded confidence, which the American public desperately wished to see in their leader (Figure
26.3). And, despite his affluence, Americans felt that he could relate to their suffering due to his own
physical hardships; he had been struck with polio a decade earlier and was essentially paralyzed from
the waist down for the remainder of his life. Roosevelt understood that the public sympathized with his
ailment; he likewise developed a genuine empathy for public suffering as a result of his illness. However,
he never wanted to be photographed in his wheelchair or appear infirm in any way, for fear that the
public’s sympathy would transform into concern over his physical ability to discharge the duties of the
Oval Office.
Figure 26.3 Franklin Roosevelt brought a new feeling of optimism and possibility to a country that was beaten down
by hardship. His enthusiasm was in counterpoint to Herbert Hoover’s discouraging last year in office.
Roosevelt also recognized the need to convey to the voting public that he was not simply another
member of the political aristocracy. At a time when the country not only faced its most severe economic
challenges to date, but Americans began to question some of the fundamental principles of capitalism
and democracy, Roosevelt sought to show that he was different—that he could defy expectations—and
through his actions could find creative solutions to address the nation’s problems while restoring public
confidence in fundamental American values. As a result, he not only was the first presidential candidate
to appear in person at a national political convention to accept his party’s nomination but also flew there
through terrible weather from New York to Chicago in order to do so—a risky venture in what was still the
early stages of flight as public transportation. At the Democratic National Convention in 1932, he coined
the famous phrase: “I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people.” The New Deal did not yet
exist, but to the American people, any positive and optimistic response to the Great Depression was a
welcome one.
Hoover assumed at first that Roosevelt would be easy to defeat, confident that he could never carry the
eastern states and the business vote. He was sorely mistaken. Everywhere he went, Hoover was met with
antagonism; anti-Hoover signs and protests were the norm. Hoover’s public persona declined rapidly.
Many news accounts reported that he seemed physically unwell, with an ashen face and shaking hands.
Often, he seemed as though he would faint, and an aide constantly remained nearby with a chair in case
he fell. In contrast, Roosevelt thrived on the campaign. He commented, “I have looked into the faces of
thousands of Americans, and they have the frightened look of lost children.”
The election results that November were never really in question: With three million more people voting
than in 1928, Roosevelt won by a popular count of twenty-three million to fifteen million. He carried all but
six states while winning over 57 percent of the popular vote. Whether they voted due to animosity towards
Hoover for his relative inactivity, or out of hope for what Roosevelt would accomplish, the American
public committed themselves to a new vision. Historians identify this election as the beginning of a new
Democratic coalition, bringing together African Americans, other ethnic minorities, and organized labor as
a voting bloc upon whom the party would rely for many of its electoral victories over the next fifty years.
Unlike some European nations where similar challenges caused democratic constitutions to crumble and
give way to radical ideologies and authoritarian governments, the Roosevelt administration changed the
nation’s economic fortunes with reforms, preserved the constitution, and expanded rather than limited the
reach of democratic principles into the market economy. As a result, radical alternatives, such as the Fascist
movement or Communist Party, remained on the margins of the nation’s political culture.
THE INTERREGNUM
After the landslide election, the country—and Hoover—had to endure the interregnum, the difficult four
months between the election and President Roosevelt’s inauguration in March 1933. Congress did not pass
a single significant piece of legislation during this period, although Hoover spent much of the time trying
to get Roosevelt to commit publicly to a legislative agenda of Hoover’s choosing. Roosevelt remained
gracious but refused to begin his administration as the incumbent’s advisor without any legal authority
necessary to change policy. Unwilling to tie himself to Hoover’s legacy of failed policies, Roosevelt kept
quiet when Hoover supported the passage of a national sales tax. Meanwhile, the country suffered from
Hoover’s inability to further drive a legislative agenda through Congress. It was the worst winter since
the beginning of the Great Depression, and the banking sector once again suffered another round of
panics. While Roosevelt kept his distance from the final tremors of the Hoover administration, the country
continued to suffer in wait. In part as a response to the challenges of this time, the U.S. Constitution was
subsequently amended to reduce the period from election to inauguration to the now-commonplace two
months.
Any ideas that Roosevelt held almost did not come to fruition, thanks to a would-be assassin’s bullet.
On February 15, 1933, after delivering a speech from his open car in Miami’s Bayfront Park, local Italian
bricklayer Giuseppe Zangara emerged from a crowd of well-wishers to fire six shots from his revolver.
Although Roosevelt emerged from the assassination attempt unscathed, Zangara wounded five
individuals that day, including Chicago Mayor Tony Cermak, who attended the speech in the hopes of
resolving any long-standing differences with the president-elect. Roosevelt and his driver immediately
rushed Cermak to the hospital where he died three days later. Roosevelt’s calm and collected response to
the event reassured many Americans of his ability to lead the nation through the challenges they faced. All
that awaited was Roosevelt’s inauguration before his ideas would unfold to the expectant public.
So what was Roosevelt’s plan? Before he took office, it seems likely that he was not entirely sure. Certain
elements were known: He believed in positive government action to solve the Depression; he believed
in federal relief, public works, social security, and unemployment insurance; he wanted to restore public
confidence in banks; he wanted stronger government regulation of the economy; and he wanted to
directly help farmers. But how to take action on these beliefs was more in question. A month before his
inauguration, he said to his advisors, “Let’s concentrate upon one thing: Save the people and the nation,
and if we have to change our minds twice every day to accomplish that end, we should do it.”
Unlike Hoover, who professed an ideology of “American individualism,” an adherence that rendered
him largely incapable of widespread action, Roosevelt remained pragmatic and open-minded to possible
solutions. To assist in formulating a variety of relief and recovery programs, Roosevelt turned to a
group of men who had previously orchestrated his election campaign and victory. Collectively known
as the “Brains Trust” (a phrase coined by a New York Times reporter to describe the multiple “brains”
on Roosevelt’s advisory team), the group most notably included Rexford Tugwell, Raymond Moley, and
Adolph Berle. Moley, credited with bringing the group into existence, was a government professor who
advocated for a new national tax policy to help the nation recover from its economic woes. Tugwell, who
eventually focused his energy on the country’s agricultural problems, saw an increased role for the federal

government in setting wages and prices across the economy. Berle was a mediating influence, who often
advised against a centrally controlled economy, but did see the role that the federal government could
play in mediating the stark cycles of prosperity and depression that, if left unchecked, could result in the
very situation in which the country presently found itself. Together, these men, along with others, advised
Roosevelt through the earliest days of the New Deal and helped to craft significant legislative programs
for congressional review and approval.
INAUGURATION DAY: A NEW BEGINNING

March 4, 1933, dawned gray and rainy. Roosevelt rode in an open car along with outgoing president
Hoover, facing the public, as he made his way to the U.S. Capitol. Hoover’s mood was somber, still
personally angry over his defeat in the general election the previous November; he refused to crack a
smile at all during the ride among the crowd, despite Roosevelt’s urging to the contrary. At the ceremony,
Roosevelt rose with the aid of leg braces equipped under his specially tailored trousers and placed his
hand on a Dutch family Bible as he took his solemn oath. At that very moment, the rain stopped and the
sun began to shine directly on the platform, and those present would later claim that it was as though God
himself was shining down on Roosevelt and the American people in that moment (Figure 26.4).
Figure 26.4 Roosevelt’s inauguration was truly a day of new beginnings for the country. The sun breaking through
the clouds as he was being sworn in became a metaphor for the hope that people felt at his presidency.
Bathed in the sunlight, Roosevelt delivered one of the most famous and oft-quoted inaugural addresses
in history. He encouraged Americans to work with him to find solutions to the nation’s problems and not
to be paralyzed by fear into inaction. Borrowing a wartime analogy provided by Moley, who served as
his speechwriter at the time, Roosevelt called upon all Americans to assemble and fight an essential battle
against the forces of economic depression. He famously stated, “The only thing we have to fear is fear
itself.” Upon hearing his inaugural address, one observer in the crowd later commented, “Any man who
can talk like that in times like these is worth every ounce of support a true American has.” To borrow the
popular song title of the day, “happy days were here again.” Foregoing the traditional inaugural parties,
the new president immediately returned to the White House to begin his work to save the nation.
Click and Explore
Visit the American Presidency Project (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/fdraug) to

listen to Roosevelt’s first inaugural speech and identify ways he conveyed optimism
and a spirit of community to his listeners.

• Identify the key pieces of legislation included in Roosevelt’s “First New Deal”
• Assess the strengths, weaknesses, and general effectiveness of the First New Deal
• Explain Roosevelt’s overall vision for addressing the structural problems in the U.S.
economy
Much like a surgeon assessing the condition of an emergency room patient, Roosevelt began his
administration with a broad, if not specific, strategy in mind: a combination of relief and recovery
programs designed to first save the patient (in this case, the American people), and then to find a long-
term cure (reform through federal regulation of the economy). What later became known as the “First
New Deal” ushered in a wave of legislative activity seldom before seen in the history of the country. By
the close of 1933, in an effort to stem the crisis, Congress had passed over fifteen significant pieces of
legislation—many of the circulated bills allegedly still wet with ink from the printing presses as members
voted upon them. Most bills could be grouped around issues of relief, recovery, and reform. At the outset
of the First New Deal, specific goals included 1) bank reform; 2) job creation; 3) economic regulation; and
4) regional planning.
REFORM: THE BANKING CRISIS

When Roosevelt took office, he faced one of the worst moments in the country’s banking history. States
were in disarray. New York and Illinois had ordered the closure of their banks in the hopes of avoiding
further “bank runs,” which occurred when hundreds (if not thousands) of individuals ran to their banks
to withdraw all of their savings. In all, over five thousand banks had been shuttered. Within forty-eight
hours of his inauguration, Roosevelt proclaimed an official bank holiday and called Congress into a
special session to address the crisis. The resulting Emergency Banking Act of 1933 was signed into law on
March 9, 1933, a scant eight hours after Congress first saw it. The law officially took the country off the
gold standard, a restrictive practice that, although conservative and traditionally viewed as safe, severely
limited the circulation of paper money. Those who held gold were told to sell it to the U.S. Treasury
for a discounted rate of a little over twenty dollars per ounce. Furthermore, dollar bills were no longer
redeemable in gold. The law also gave the comptroller of currency the power to reorganize all national
banks faced with insolvency, a level of federal oversight seldom seen prior to the Great Depression.
Between March 11 and March 14, auditors from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, the Treasury
Department, and other federal agencies swept through the country, examining each bank. By March 15, 70
percent of the banks were declared solvent and allowed to reopen.

On March 12, the day before the banks were set to reopen, Roosevelt held his first “fireside chat” (Figure
26.5). In this initial radio address to the American people, he explained what the bank examiners had
been doing over the previous week. He assured people that any bank open the next day had the federal
government’s stamp of approval. The combination of his reassuring manner and the promise that the
government was addressing the problems worked wonders in changing the popular mindset. Just as the
culture of panic had contributed to the country’s downward spiral after the crash, so did this confidence-
inducing move help to build it back up. Consumer confidence returned, and within weeks, close to $1
billion in cash and gold had been brought out from under mattresses and hidden bookshelves, and re-
deposited in the nation’s banks. The immediate crisis had been quelled, and the public was ready to believe
in their new president.
Figure 26.5 Roosevelt’s “fireside chats” provided an opportunity for him to speak directly to the American people,
and the people were happy to listen. These radio addresses, commemorated at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial
in Washington, DC, with this bronze sculpture by George Segal, contributed to Roosevelt’s tremendous popularity.
(credit: Koshy Koshy)
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
The Power of Hearth and Home
Fireside chats—Roosevelt’s weekly radio addresses—underscored Roosevelt’s savvy in understanding
how best to reach people. Using simple terms and a reassuring tone, he invoked a family patriarch sitting
by the fire, explaining to those who trusted him how he was working to help them. It is worth noting how
he explained complex financial concepts quite simply, but at the same time, complimented the American
people on their “intelligent support.” One of his fireside chats is provided below:
I recognize that the many proclamations from State capitols and from Washington, the
legislation, the Treasury regulations, etc., couched for the most part in banking and legal
terms, should be explained for the benefit of the average citizen. I owe this in particular
because of the fortitude and good temper with which everybody has accepted the
inconvenience and hardships of the banking holiday. I know that when you understand what
we in Washington have been about I shall continue to have your cooperation as fully as I have
had your sympathy and help during the past week. . . .
The success of our whole great national program depends, of course, upon the cooperation
of the public—on its intelligent support and use of a reliable system. . . . After all, there is
an element in the readjustment of our financial system more important than currency, more
important than gold, and that is the confidence of the people. Confidence and courage are
the essentials of success in carrying out our plan. You people must have faith; you must not
be stampeded by rumors or guesses. Let us unite in banishing fear. We have provided the
machinery to restore our financial system; it is up to you to support and make it work. It is your
problem no less than it is mine. Together we cannot fail.
—Franklin D. Roosevelt, March 12, 1933
A huge part of Roosevelt’s success in turning around the country can be seen in his addresses like these:
He built support and galvanized the public. Ironically, Roosevelt, the man who famously said we have
nothing to fear but fear itself, had a significant fear: fire. Being paralyzed with polio, he was very afraid
of being left near a fireplace. But he knew the power of the hearth and home, and drew on this mental
image to help the public view him the way that he hoped to be seen.
Click and Explore
Visit the American Presidency Project (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/fireside) to

listen to one of Roosevelt’s fireside chats. What kind of feeling does his language and
demeanor evoke?
In June 1933, Roosevelt replaced the Emergency Banking Act with the more permanent Glass-Steagall
Banking Act. This law prohibited commercial banks from engaging in investment banking, therefore
stopping the practice of banks speculating in the stock market with deposits. This law also created the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, which insured personal bank deposits up to $2,500.
Other measures designed to boost confidence in the overall economy beyond the banking system included
passage of the Economy Act, which fulfilled Roosevelt’s campaign pledge to reduce government spending
by reducing salaries, including his own and those of the Congress. He also signed into law the Securities
Act, which required full disclosure to the federal government from all corporations and investment banks

that wanted to market stocks and bonds. Roosevelt also sought new revenue through the Beer Tax. As
the Twenty-First Amendment, which would repeal the Eighteenth Amendment establishing Prohibition,
moved towards ratification, this law authorized the manufacture of 3.2 percent beer and levied a tax on it.
THE FIRST HUNDRED DAYS

In his first hundred days in office, the new president pushed forward an unprecedented number of new
bills, all geared towards stabilizing the economy, providing relief to individuals, creating jobs, and helping
businesses. A sympathetic Democrat-controlled Congress helped propel his agenda forward.
Relief: Employment for the Masses

Even as he worked to rebuild the economy, Roosevelt recognized that the unemployed millions required
jobs more quickly than the economy could provide. In a push to create new jobs, Roosevelt signed the
Wagner-Peyser Act, creating the United States Employment Service, which promised states matching
funds if they created local employment opportunities. He also authorized $500 million in direct grants
through the Federal Emergency Relief Act (FERA). This money went directly to states to infuse relief
agencies with the much-needed resources to help the nearly fifteen million unemployed. These two bills
illustrate Roosevelt’s dual purposes of providing short-term emergency help and building employment
opportunities that would strengthen the economy in the long term.
Roosevelt was aware of the need for immediate help, but he mostly wanted to create more jobs. FERA
overseer Harry Hopkins, who later was in charge of the Civil Works Administration (CWA), shared this
sentiment. With Hopkins at its helm, the CWA, founded in early 1933, went on to put millions of men
and women to work. At its peak, there were some four million Americans repairing bridges, building
roads and airports, and undertaking other public projects. Another work program was the Civilian
Conservation Corps Relief Act (CCC). The CCC provided government jobs for young men aged fourteen
to twenty-four who came from relief families. They would earn thirty dollars per month planting trees,
fighting forest fires, and refurbishing historic sites and parks, building an infrastructure that families
would continue to enjoy for generations to come. Within the first two months, the CCC employed its first
250,000 men and eventually established about twenty-five hundred camps (Figure 26.6).
Figure 26.6 The CCC put hundreds of thousands of men to work on environmental projects around the country.
Some call it the beginning of the modern environmentalist movement in the United States.
The various programs that made up the First New Deal are listed in the table below (Table 26.1).
Table 26.1 Key Programs from the First New Deal
Years
New Deal Legislation Brief Description
Enacted
Agricultural Adjustment 1933–1935 Farm program designed to raise process by curtailing

Administration production
Civil Works Administration 1933–1934 Temporary job relief program
Civilian Conservation Corps 1933–1942 Employed young men to work in rural areas
Farm Credit Administration 1933-today Low interest mortgages for farm owners
Federal Deposit Insurance 1933–today Insure private bank deposits

Corporation
Federal Emergency Relief 1933 Direct monetary relief to poor unemployed Americans
Act
Glass-Steagall Act 1933 Regulate investment banking
Homeowners Loan 1933–1951 Government mortgages that allowed people to keep

Corporation their homes
Indian Reorganization Act 1933 Abandoned federal policy of assimilation
National Recovery 1933–1935 Industries agree to codes of fair practice to set price,
Administration wage, production levels
Public Works 1933–1938 Large public works projects

Administration
Resettlement 1933–1935 Resettles poor tenant farmers

Administration
Securities Act of 1933 1933–today Created SEC; regulates stock transactions
Tennessee Valley Authority 1933–today Regional development program; brought

electrification to the valley
The final element of Roosevelt’s efforts to provide relief to those in desperate straits was the Home
Owners’ Refinancing Act. Created by the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC), the program rescued
homeowners from foreclosure by refinancing their mortgages. Not only did this save the homes of
countless homeowners, but it also saved many of the small banks who owned the original mortgages by
relieving them of that responsibility. Later New Deal legislation created the Federal Housing Authority,
which eventually standardized the thirty-year mortgage and promoted the housing boom of the post-
World War II era. A similar program, created through the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act and Farm Credit
Act, provided the same service for farm mortgages.

Click and Explore
In this American Experience (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Maher) interview, Neil

Maher, author of Nature’s New Deal: The Civilian Conservation Corps and Roots of the
Modern Environmental Movement, provides a comprehensive look into what the CCC
offered the country—and the president—on issues as diverse as economics, race, and
recreation.
Rescuing Farms and Factories

While much of the legislation of the first hundred days focused on immediate relief and job creation
through federal programs, Roosevelt was committed to addressing the underlying problems inherent in
the American economy. In his efforts to do so, he created two of the most significant pieces of New Deal
legislation: the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) and the National Industry Recovery Act (NIRA).
Farms around the country were suffering, but from different causes. In the Great Plains, drought
conditions meant that little was growing at all, while in the South, bumper crops and low prices meant that
farmers could not sell their goods at prices that could sustain them. The AAA offered some direct relief:
Farmers received $4.5 million through relief payments. But the larger part of the program paid southern
farmers to reduce their production: Wheat, cotton, corn, hogs, tobacco, rice, and milk farmers were all
eligible. Passed into law on May 12, 1933, it was designed to boost prices to a level that would alleviate
rural poverty and restore profitability to American agriculture. These price increases would be achieved
by encouraging farmers to limit production in order to increase demand while receiving cash payments
in return. Corn producers would receive thirty cents per bushel for corn they did not grow. Hog farmers
would get five dollars per head for hogs not raised. The program would be financed by a tax on processing
plants, passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
This was a bold attempt to help farmers address the systemic problems of overproduction and lower
commodity prices. Despite previous efforts to regulate farming through subsidies, never before had the
federal government intervened on this scale; the notion of paying farmers not to produce crops was
unheard of. One significant problem, however, was that, in some cases, there was already an excess of
crops, in particular, cotton and hogs, which clogged the marketplace. A bumper crop in 1933, combined
with the slow implementation of the AAA, led the government to order the plowing under of ten million
acres of cotton, and the butchering of six million baby pigs and 200,000 sows. Although it worked to
some degree—the price of cotton increased from six to twelve cents per pound—this move was deeply
problematic. Critics saw it as the ultimate example of corrupt capitalism: a government destroying food,
while its citizens were starving, in order to drive up prices.
Another problem plaguing this relief effort was the disparity between large commercial farms, which
received the largest payments and set the quotas, and the small family farms that felt no relief. Large farms
often cut production by laying off sharecroppers or evicting tenant farmers, making the program even
worse for them than for small farm owners. Their frustration led to the creation of the Southern Tenant
Farmers Union (STFU), an interracial organization that sought to gain government relief for these most
disenfranchised of farmers. The STFU organized, protested, and won its members some wage increases
through the mid-1930s, but the overall plight of these workers remained dismal. As a result, many of them
followed the thousands of Dust Bowl refugees to California (Figure 26.7).
Figure 26.7 Sharecroppers and tenant farmers suffered enormously during the Great Depression. The STFU was
created to help alleviate this suffering, but many farmers ending up taking to the road, along with other Dust Bowl
refugees, on their way to California.
AMERICANA
Labor Songs and the Southern Tenant Farmers Union
And if the growers get in the way, we’re gonna roll right over them
We’re gonna roll right over them, we’re gonna roll right over them
And if the growers get in the way, we’re gonna roll right over them
We’re gonna roll this union on
—John Handcox, “Roll the Union On”
“Mean Things Happening in This Land,” “Roll the Union On,” and “Strike in Arkansas” are just a few of the
folk songs written by John Handcox. A union organizer and STFU member, Handcox became the voice
of the worker’s struggle, writing dozens of songs that have continued to be sung by labor activists and
folk singers over the years. Handcox joined the STFU in 1935, and used his songs to rally others, stating,
“I found out singing was more inspiring than talking . . . to get the attention of the people.”
Racially integrated and with active women members, the STFU was ahead of its time. Although criticized
by other union leaders for its relationship with the Communist Party in creating the “Popular Front” for
labor activism in 1934, the STFU succeeded in organizing strikes and bringing national attention to
the issues that tenant farmers faced. While the programs Roosevelt put in place did not do enough to
help these farmers, the STFU—and Handcox’s music—remains a relevant part of the country’s labor
movement.
The AAA did succeed on some fronts. By the spring of 1934, farmers had formed over four thousand local
committees, with more than three million farmers agreeing to participate. They signed individual contracts
agreeing to take land out of production in return for government payments, and checks began to arrive by
the end of 1934. For some farmers, especially those with large farms, the program spelled relief.
While Roosevelt hoped the AAA would help farms and farmers, he also sought aid for the beleaguered
manufacturing sector. The Emergency Railroad Transportation Act created a national railroad office to
encourage cooperation among different railroad companies, hoping to shore up an industry essential to
the stability of the manufacturing sector, but one that had been devastated by mismanagement. More
importantly, the NIRA suspended antitrust laws and allowed businesses and industries to work together
in order to establish codes of fair competition, including issues of price setting and minimum wages.
New Deal officials believed that allowing these collaborations would help industries stabilize prices and

production levels in the face of competitive overproduction and declining profits; however, at the same
time, many felt it important to protect workers from potentially unfair agreements.
A new government agency, the National Recovery Administration (NRA), was central to this plan, and
mandated that businesses accept a code that included minimum wages and maximum work hours. In
order to protect workers from potentially unfair agreements among factory owners, every industry had
its own “code of fair practice” that included workers’ rights to organize and use collective bargaining to
ensure that wages rose with prices (Figure 26.8). Headed by General Hugh S. Johnson, the NRA worked
to create over five hundred different codes for different industries. The administration of such a complex
plan naturally created its own problems. While codes for key industries such as automotive and steel made
sense, Johnson pushed to create similar codes for dog food manufacturers, those who made shoulder pads
for women’s clothing, and even burlesque shows (regulating the number of strippers in any one show).
Figure 26.8 Consumers were encouraged to buy from companies displaying the Blue Eagle (a), the logo signifying
compliance with the new NRA regulations. With talons gripping a gear, representing industry, and lightning bolts,
representing power, the eagle (b) was intended to be a symbol of economic recovery.
The NIRA also created the Public Works Administration (PWA). The PWA set aside $3.3 billion to build
public projects such as highways, federal buildings, and military bases. Although this program suffered
from political squabbles over appropriations for projects in various congressional districts, as well as
significant underfunding of public housing projects, it ultimately offered some of the most lasting benefits
of the NIRA. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes ran the program, which completed over thirty-four
thousand projects, including the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco and the Queens-Midtown Tunnel in
New York. Between 1933 and 1939, the PWA accounted for the construction of over one-third of all new
hospitals and 70 percent of all new public schools in the country.
Another challenge faced by the NRA was that the provision granting workers the right to organize
appeared to others as a mandate to do so. In previously unorganized industries, such as oil and gas,
rubber, and service occupations, workers now sought groups that would assist in their organization,
bolstered by the encouragement they now felt from the government. The Communist Party took advantage
of the opportunity to assist in the hope of creating widespread protests against the American industrial
structure. The number of strikes nationwide doubled between 1932 and 1934, with over 1.5 million workers
going on strike in 1934 alone, often in protests that culminated in bloodshed. A strike at the Auto-Lite plant
in Toledo, Ohio, that summer resulted in ten thousand workers from other factories joining in sympathy
with their fellow workers to attack potential strike-breakers with stones and bricks. Simultaneously in
Minneapolis, a teamsters strike resulted in frequent, bloody confrontations between workers and police,
leading the governor to contemplate declaring martial law before the companies agreed to negotiate better
wages and conditions for the workers. Finally, a San Francisco strike among 14,000 longshoremen closed
the city’s waterfront and eventually led to a city-wide general strike of over 130,000 workers, essentially
paralyzing the city. Clashes between workers, and police and National Guardsmen left many strikers
bloodied, and at least two dead.
Although Roosevelt’s relief efforts provided jobs to many and benefitted communities with the
construction of several essential building projects, the violence that erupted amid clashes between
organized labor and factories backed by police and the authorities exposed a fundamental flaw in the
president’s approach. Immediate relief did not address long-existing, inherent class inequities that left
workers exposed to poor working conditions, low wages, long hours, and little protection. For many
workers, life on the job was not much better than life as an unemployed American. Employment programs
may have put men back to work and provided much needed relief, but the fundamental flaws in the
system required additional attention—attention that Roosevelt was unable to pay in the early days of the
New Deal. Critics were plentiful, and the president would be forced to address them in the years ahead.
Regional Planning
Regionally, Roosevelt’s work was most famously seen in the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) (Figure
26.9), a federal agency tasked with the job of planning and developing the area through flood control,
reforestation, and hydroelectric power. Employing several thousand Americans on a project that Roosevelt
envisioned as a template for future regional redevelopment, the TVA revitalized a river valley that
landowners had badly over-farmed, leaving behind eroded soil that lacked essential nutrients for future
farming. Under the direction of David Lilienthal, beginning in 1933, the TVA workers erected a series of
dams to harness the Tennessee River in the creation of much-needed hydroelectric power. The arrival of
both electric lighting and machinery to the region eased the lives of the people who lived there, as well
as encouraged industrial growth. The TVA also included an educational component, teaching farmers
important lessons about crop rotation, soil replenishment, fertilizing, and reforestation.
Figure 26.9 The TVA helped a struggling part of the country through the creation of jobs, and flood control and
reforestation programs. The Wilson Dam, shown here, is one of nine TVA dams on the Tennessee River. (credit:
United States Geological Survey)
The TVA was not without its critics, however, most notably among the fifteen thousand families who were
displaced due to the massive construction projects. Although eventually the project benefited farmers with
the introduction of new farming and fertilizing techniques, as well as the added benefit of electric power,

many local citizens were initially mistrustful of the TVA and the federal government’s agenda. Likewise,
as with several other New Deal programs, women did not directly benefit from these employment
opportunities, as they were explicitly excluded for the benefit of men who most Americans still considered
the family’s primary breadwinner. However, with the arrival of electricity came new industrial ventures,
including several textile mills up and down the valley, several of which offered employment to women.
Throughout his presidency, Roosevelt frequently pointed to the TVA as one of the glowing
accomplishments of the New Deal and its ability to bring together the machinery of the federal
government along with private interests to revitalize a regional economy. Just months before his death in
1945, he continued to speak of the possibility of creating other regional authorities throughout the country.
ASSESSING THE FIRST NEW DEAL

While many were pleased with the president’s bold plans, there were numerous critics of the New
Deal, discussed in the following section. The New Deal was far from perfect, but Roosevelt’s quickly
implemented policies reversed the economy’s long slide. It put new capital into ailing banks. It rescued
homeowners and farmers from foreclosure and helped people keep their homes. It offered some direct
relief to the unemployed poor. It gave new incentives to farmers and industry alike, and put people
back to work in an effort to both create jobs and boost consumer spending. The total number of working
Americans rose from twenty-four to twenty-seven million between 1933 and 1935, in contrast to the seven-
million-worker decline during the Hoover administration. Perhaps most importantly, the First New Deal
changed the pervasive pessimism that had held the country in its grip since the end of 1929. For the first
time in years, people had hope.
It was the hard work of Roosevelt’s advisors—the “Brains Trust” of scholars and thinkers from leading
universities—as well as Congress and the American public who helped the New Deal succeed as well
as it did. Ironically, it was the American people’s volunteer spirit, so extolled by Hoover, that Roosevelt
was able to harness. The first hundred days of his administration was not a master plan that Roosevelt
dreamed up and executed on his own. In fact, it was not a master plan at all, but rather a series of, at
times, disjointed efforts made from different assumptions. But after taking office and analyzing the crisis,
Roosevelt and his advisors did feel that they had a larger sense of what had caused the Great Depression
and thus attempted a variety of solutions to fix it. They believed that it was caused by abuses on the part of
a small group of bankers and businessmen, aided by Republican policies that built wealth for a few at the
expense of many. The answer, they felt, was to root out these abuses through banking reform, as well as
adjust production and consumption of both farm and industrial goods. This adjustment would come about
by increasing the purchasing power of everyday people, as well as through regulatory policies like the
NRA and AAA. While it may seem counterintuitive to raise crop prices and set prices on industrial goods,
Roosevelt’s advisors sought to halt the deflationary spiral and economic uncertainty that had prevented
businesses from committing to investments and consumers from parting with their money.

• Identify key pieces of legislation from the Second New Deal
• Assess the entire New Deal, especially in terms of its impact on women, African
Americans, and Native Americans
Roosevelt won his second term in a landslide, but that did not mean he was immune to criticism. His
critics came from both the left and the right, with conservatives deeply concerned over his expansion
of government spending and power, and liberals angered that he had not done more to help those still
struggling. Adding to Roosevelt’s challenges, the Supreme Court struck down several key elements of
the First New Deal, angering Roosevelt and spurring him to try and stack the courts in his second term.
Still, he entered his new term with the unequivocal support of the voting public, and he wasted no
time beginning the second phase of his economic plan. While the First New Deal focused largely on
stemming the immediate suffering of the American people, the Second New Deal put in place legislation
that changed America’s social safety net for good.
CHALLENGES FROM CRITICS ON ALL SIDES

While many people supported Roosevelt, especially in the first few years of his presidency, the New Deal
did receive significant criticism, both from conservatives who felt that it was a radical agenda to ruin the
country’s model of free enterprise, and from liberals who felt that it did not provide enough help to those
who needed it most (Figure 26.10).
Figure 26.10 Roosevelt used previously unheard of levels of government power in his attempt to push the country
out of the Great Depression, as artist Joseph Parrish depicts here in this 1937 Chicago Tribune cartoon. While critics
on the left felt that he had not done enough, critics on the right felt that his use of power was frighteningly close to
fascism and socialism.
Industrialists and wealthy Americans led the conservative criticism against the president. Whether
attacking his character or simply stating that he was moving away from American values toward fascism
and socialism, they sought to undermine his power and popularity. Most notably, the American Liberty
League—comprised largely of conservative Democrats who lamented the excesses of several of Roosevelt’s
New Deal programs—labeled the AAA as fascist and proclaimed later New Deal programs to be key
threats to the very nature of democracy. Additional criticism came from the National Association of
Manufacturers, which urged businessmen to outright ignore portions of the NRA that promoted collective
bargaining, as well as subsequent labor protection legislation. In 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt
the most crushing blow to Roosevelt’s vision, striking down several key pieces of the New Deal as
unconstitutional. They found that both the AAA and the NIRA overreached federal authority. The

negation of some of his most ambitious economic recovery efforts frustrated Roosevelt greatly, but he was
powerless to stop it at this juncture.
Meanwhile, others felt that Roosevelt had not done enough. Dr. Francis E. Townsend of California was one
who felt that Roosevelt had failed to adequately address the country’s tremendous problems. Townsend,
who was a retired dentist, proposed an expansive pension plan for the elderly. The Townsend Plan, as it
was known, gained a great deal of popularity: It recommended paying every citizen over sixty who retired
from work the sum of $200 per month, provided they spend it in thirty days. Another figure who gained
national attention was Father Charles Coughlin. He was a “radio priest” from Michigan who, although he
initially supported the New Deal, subsequently argued that Roosevelt stopped far too short in his defense
of labor, monetary reform, and the nationalization of key industries. The president’s plan, he proclaimed,
was inadequate. He created the National Union for Social Justice and used his weekly radio show to gain
followers.
A more direct political threat to Roosevelt came from muckraker Upton Sinclair, who pursued the
California governorship in 1934 through a campaign based upon criticism of the New Deal’s shortcomings.
In his “End Poverty in California” program, Sinclair called for a progressive income tax, a pension
program for the elderly, and state seizure of factories and farms where property taxes remained unpaid.
The state would then offer jobs to the unemployed to work those farms and factories in a cooperative
mode. Although Sinclair lost the election to his Republican opponent, he did draw local and national
attention to several of his ideas.
The biggest threat to the president, however, came from corrupt but beloved Louisiana senator Huey
“Kingfish” Long (Figure 26.11). His disapproval of Roosevelt came in part from his own ambitions for
higher office; Long stated that the president was not doing enough to help people and proposed his own
Share Our Wealth program. Under this plan, Long recommended the liquidation of all large personal
fortunes in order to fund direct payments to less fortunate Americans. He foresaw giving $5,000 to every
family, $2,500 to every worker, as well as a series of elderly pensions and education funds. Despite his
questionable math, which numerous economists quickly pointed out rendered his program unworkable,
by 1935, Long had a significant following of over four million people. If he had not been assassinated by
the son-in-law of a local political rival, he may well have been a contender against Roosevelt for the 1936
presidential nomination.
Figure 26.11 Huey P. Long was a charismatic populist and governor of Louisiana from 1928 to 1932. In 1932, he
became a member of the U.S. Senate and would have been a serious rival for Roosevelt in the 1936 presidential
election if his life had not been cut short by an assassin’s bullet.
ANSWERING THE CHALLENGE

Roosevelt recognized that some of the criticisms of the New Deal were valid. Although he was still reeling
from the Supreme Court’s invalidation of key statutes, he decided to face his re-election bid in 1936 by
unveiling another wave of legislation that he dubbed the Second New Deal. In the first week of June
1935, Roosevelt called congressional leaders into the White House and gave them a list of “must-pass”
legislation that he wanted before they adjourned for the summer. Whereas the policies of the first hundred
days may have shored up public confidence and stopped the most drastic of the problems, the second
hundred days changed the face of America for the next sixty years.
The Banking Act of 1935 was the most far-reaching revision of banking laws since the creation of the
Federal Reserve System in 1914. Previously, regional reserve banks, particularly the New York Reserve
Bank—controlled by the powerful Morgan and Rockefeller families—had dominated policy-making at
the Federal Reserve. Under the new system, there would be a seven-member board of governors to
oversee regional banks. They would have control over reserve requirements, discount rates, board member
selection, and more. Not surprisingly, this new board kept initial interest rates quite low, allowing the
federal government to borrow billions of dollars of additional cash to fund major relief and recovery
programs.
In 1935, Congress also passed the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act, which authorized the single
largest expenditure at that time in the country’s history: $4.8 billion. Almost one-third of those funds were
invested in a new relief agency, the Works Progress Administration (WPA). Harry Hopkins, formerly
head of the CWA, took on the WPA and ran it until 1943. In that time, the program provided employment
relief to over eight million Americans, or approximately 20 percent of the country’s workforce. The
WPA funded the construction of more than 2,500 hospitals, 5,900 schools, 570,000 miles of road, and
more. The WPA also created the Federal One Project, which employed approximately forty thousand
artists in theater, art, music, and writing. They produced state murals, guidebooks, concerts, and drama
performances all around the country (Figure 26.12). Additionally, the project funded the collection
of oral histories, including those of former slaves, which provided a valuable addition to the nation’s
understanding of slave life. Finally, the WPA also included the National Youth Administration (NYA),
which provided work-study jobs to over 500,000 college students and four million high school students.
Figure 26.12 Painted by artists funded by the Federal One Project, this section of Ohio, a mural located in the
Bellevue, Ohio post office, illustrates a busy industrial scene. Artists painted the communities where they lived, thus
creating visions of farms, factories, urban life, harvest celebrations, and more that still reflect the life and work of that
era. (credit: Works Progress Administration)

Click and Explore
Browse the Born in Slavery collection (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/slavery) to

examine personal accounts of former slaves, recorded between 1936 and 1938, as
part of the Federal Writers' Project of the WPA.
With the implementation of the Second New Deal, Roosevelt also created the country’s present-day social
safety net. The Social Security Act established programs intended to help the most vulnerable: the elderly,
the unemployed, the disabled, and the young. It included a pension fund for all retired people—except
domestic workers and farmers, which therefore left many women and African Americans beyond the
scope of its benefits—over the age of sixty-five, to be paid through a payroll tax on both employee and
employer. Related to this act, Congress also passed a law on unemployment insurance, to be funded by a
tax on employers, and programs for unwed mothers, as well as for those who were blind, deaf, or disabled.
It is worth noting that some elements of these reforms were pulled from Roosevelt detractors Coughlin
and Townsend; the popularity of their movements gave the president more leverage to push forward this
type of legislation.
To the benefit of industrial workers, Roosevelt signed into law the Wagner Act, also known as the National
Labor Relations Act. The protections previously afforded to workers under the NIRA were inadvertently
lost when the Supreme Court struck down the original law due to larger regulatory concerns, leaving
workers vulnerable. Roosevelt sought to salvage this important piece of labor legislation, doing so with the
Wagner Act. The act created the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to once again protect American
workers’ right to unionize and bargain collectively, as well as to provide a federal vehicle for labor
grievances to be heard. Although roundly criticized by the Republican Party and factory owners, the
Wagner Act withstood several challenges and eventually received constitutional sanction by the U.S.
Supreme Court in 1937. The law received the strong support of John L. Lewis and the Congress of
Industrial Organizations who had long sought government protection of industrial unionism, from the
time they split from the American Federation of Labor in 1935 over disputes on whether to organize
workers along craft or industrial lines. Following passage of the law, Lewis began a widespread publicity
campaign urging industrial workers to join “the president’s union.” The relationship was mutually
beneficial to Roosevelt, who subsequently received the endorsement of Lewis’s United Mine Workers
union in the 1936 presidential election, along with a sizeable $500,000 campaign contribution. The Wagner
Act permanently established government-secured workers’ rights and protections from their employers,
and it marked the beginning of labor’s political support for the Democratic Party.
The various programs that made up the Second New Deal are listed in the table below (Table 26.2).
Table 26.2 Key Programs from the Second New Deal
New Deal Legislation Years Enacted Brief Description
Fair Labor Standards Act 1938–today Established minimum wage and forty-hour
workweek
Farm Security 1935–today Provides poor farmers with education and

Administration economic support programs
Table 26.2 Key Programs from the Second New Deal
New Deal Legislation Years Enacted Brief Description
Federal Crop Insurance 1938–today Insures crops and livestock against loss of revenue
Corporation
National Labor Relations 1935–today Recognized right of workers to unionize &

Act collectively bargain
National Youth 1935–1939 (part Part-time employment for college and high school
Administration of WPA) students
Rural Electrification 1935–today Provides public utilities to rural areas

Administration
Social Security Act 1935–today Aid to retirees, unemployed, disabled
Surplus Commodities 1936–today Provides food to the poor (still exists in Food
Program Stamps program)
Works Progress 1935–1943 Jobs program (including artists and youth)

Administration
THE FINAL PIECES

Roosevelt entered the 1936 presidential election on a wave of popularity, and he beat Republican opponent
Alf Landon by a nearly unanimous Electoral College vote of 523 to 8. Believing it to be his moment of
strongest public support, Roosevelt chose to exact a measure of revenge against the U.S. Supreme Court
for challenging his programs and to pressure them against challenging his more recent Second New Deal
provisions. To this end, Roosevelt created the informally named “Supreme Court Packing Plan” and tried
to pack the court in his favor by expanding the number of justices and adding new ones who supported
his views. His plan was to add one justice for every current justice over the age of seventy who refused
to step down. This would have allowed him to add six more justices, expanding the bench from nine to
fifteen. Opposition was quick and thorough from both the Supreme Court and Congress, as well as from
his own party. The subsequent retirement of Justice Van Devanter from the court, as well as the sudden
death of Senator Joe T. Robinson, who championed Roosevelt’s plan before the Senate, all but signaled
Roosevelt’s defeat. However, although he never received the support to make these changes, Roosevelt
appeared to succeed in politically intimidating the current justices into supporting his newer programs,
and they upheld both the Wagner Act and the Social Security Act. Never again during his presidency
would the Supreme Court strike down any significant elements of his New Deal.
Roosevelt was not as successful in addressing the nation’s growing deficit. When he entered the
presidency in 1933, Roosevelt did so with traditionally held fiscal beliefs, including the importance of
a balanced budget in order to maintain public confidence in federal government operations. However,
the severe economic conditions of the depression quickly convinced the president of the importance of
government spending to create jobs and relief for the American people. As he commented to a crowd in
Pittsburgh in 1936, “To balance our budget in 1933 or 1934 or 1935 would have been a crime against the
American people. To do so . . . we should have had to set our face against human suffering with callous
indifference. When Americans suffered, we refused to pass by on the other side. Humanity came first.”
However, after his successful re-election, Roosevelt anticipated that the economy would recover enough
by late 1936 that he could curtail spending by 1937. This reduction in spending, he hoped, would curb
the deficit. As the early months of 1937 unfolded, Roosevelt’s hopes seemed supported by the most recent

economic snapshot of the country. Production, wages, and profits had all returned to pre-1929 levels, while
unemployment was at its lowest rate in the decade, down from 25 percent to 14 percent. But no sooner
did Roosevelt cut spending when a recession hit. Two million Americans were newly out of work as
unemployment quickly rose by 5 percent and industrial production declined by a third. Breadlines began
to build again, while banks prepared to close.
Historians continue to debate the causes of this recession within a depression. Some believe the fear of
increased taxes forced factory owners to curtail planned expansion; others blame the Federal Reserve
for tightening the nation’s money supply. Roosevelt, however, blamed the downturn on his decision to
significantly curtail federal government spending in job relief programs such as the WPA. Several of
his closest advisors, including Harry Hopkins, Henry Wallace, and others, urged him to adopt the new
economic theory espoused by British economic John Maynard Keynes, who argued that deficit spending
was necessary in advanced capitalist economies in order to maintain employment and stimulate consumer
spending. Convinced of the necessity of such an approach, Roosevelt asked Congress in the spring of 1938
for additional emergency relief spending. Congress immediately authorized $33 billion for PWA and WPA
work projects. Although World War II would provide the final impetus for lasting economic recovery,
Roosevelt’s willingness to adapt in 1938 avoided another disaster.
Roosevelt signed the last substantial piece of New Deal legislation in the summer of 1938. The Fair Labor
Standards Act established a federal minimum wage—at the time, forty cents per hour—a maximum
workweek of forty hours (with an opportunity for four additional hours of work at overtime wages),
and prohibited child labor for those under age sixteen. Roosevelt was unaware that the war would soon
dominate his legacy, but this proved to be his last major piece of economic legislation in a presidency that
changed the fabric of the country forever.
IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS

The legacy of the New Deal is in part seen in the vast increase in national power: The federal government
accepted responsibility for the nation’s economic stability and prosperity. In retrospect, the majority of
historians and economists judge it to have been a tremendous success. The New Deal not only established
minimum standards for wages, working conditions, and overall welfare, it also allowed millions of
Americans to hold onto their homes, farms, and savings. It laid the groundwork for an agenda of expanded
federal government influence over the economy that continued through President Harry Truman’s “Fair
Deal” in the 1950s and President Lyndon Johnson’s call for a “Great Society” in the 1960s. The New
Deal state that embraced its responsibility for the citizens’ welfare and proved willing to use its power
and resources to spread the nation’s prosperity lasted well into the 1980s, and many of its tenets persist
today. Many would also agree that the postwar economic stability of the 1950s found its roots in the
stabilizing influences introduced by social security, the job stability that union contracts provided, and
federal housing mortgage programs introduced in the New Deal. The environment of the American West
in particular, benefited from New Deal projects such as the Soil Conservation program.
Still, Roosevelt’s programs also had their critics. Following the conservative rise initiated by presidential
candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964, and most often associated with the Ronald Reagan era of the 1980s,
critics of the welfare state pointed to Roosevelt’s presidency as the start of a slippery slope towards
entitlement and the destruction of the individualist spirit upon which the United States had presumably
developed in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Although the growth of the GDP between 1934
and 1940 approached an average of 7.5 percent—higher than in any other peacetime period in U.S. history,
critics of the New Deal point out that unemployment still hovered around 15 percent in 1940. While
the New Deal resulted in some environmental improvements, it also inaugurated a number of massive
infrastructural projects, such as the Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River, that came with grave
environmental consequences. And other shortcomings of the New Deal were obvious and deliberate at the
time.
African Americans under the New Deal

Critics point out that not all Americans benefited from the New Deal. African Americans in particular
were left out, with overt discrimination in hiring practices within the federal job programs, such as the
CCC, CWA, and WPA. The NRA was oftentimes criticized as the “Negro Run Around” or “Negroes
Ruined Again” program. As well, the AAA left tenant farmers and sharecroppers, many of whom were
black, with no support. Even Social Security originally excluded domestic workers, a primary source of
employment for African American women. Facing such criticism early in his administration, Roosevelt
undertook some efforts to ensure a measure of equality in hiring practices for the relief agencies, and
opportunities began to present themselves by 1935. The WPA eventually employed 350,000 African
Americans annually, accounting for nearly 15 percent of its workforce. By the close of the CCC in 1938, this
program had employed over 300,000 African Americans, increasing the black percentage of its workforce
from 3 percent at the outset to nearly 11 percent at its close. Likewise, in 1934, the PWA began to require
that all government projects under its purview hire African Americans using a quota that reflected their
percentage of the local population being served. Additionally, among several important WPA projects,
the Federal One Project included a literacy program that eventually reached over one million African
American children, helping them learn how to read and write.
On the issue of race relations themselves, Roosevelt has a mixed legacy. Within his White House, Roosevelt
had a number of African American appointees, although most were in minor positions. Unofficially,
Roosevelt relied upon advice from the Federal Council on Negro Affairs, also known as his “Black
Cabinet.” This group included a young Harvard economist, Dr. Robert Weaver, who subsequently became
the nation’s first black cabinet secretary in 1966, as President Lyndon Johnson’s Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development. Aubrey Williams, the director of the NYA, hired more black administrators than any
other federal agency, and appointed them to oversee projects throughout the country. One key figure in
the NYA was Mary McLeod Bethune (Figure 26.13), a prominent African American educator tapped by
Roosevelt to act as the director of the NYA’s Division of Negro Affairs. Bethune had been a spokesperson
and an educator for years; with this role, she became one of the president’s foremost African American
advisors. During his presidency, Roosevelt became the first to appoint a black federal judge, as well as the
first commander-in-chief to promote an African American to brigadier general. Most notably, he became
the first president to publicly speak against lynching as a “vile form of collective murder.”
Figure 26.13 This photo of Eleanor Roosevelt and Mary McLeod Bethune (second from left) was taken at the
opening of Midway Hall, a federal building to house female African American government workers. Bethune was
sometimes criticized for working with those in power, but her willingness to build alliances contributed to success in
raising money and support for her causes.

MY STORY
Mary McLeod Bethune on Racial Justice
Democracy is for me, and for twelve million black Americans, a goal towards which our nation
is marching. It is a dream and an ideal in whose ultimate realization we have a deep and
abiding faith. For me, it is based on Christianity, in which we confidently entrust our destiny as
a people. Under God’s guidance in this great democracy, we are rising out of the darkness of
slavery into the light of freedom. Here my race has been afforded [the] opportunity to advance
from a people 80 percent illiterate to a people 80 percent literate; from abject poverty to the
ownership and operation of a million farms and 750,000 homes; from total disfranchisement
to participation in government; from the status of chattels to recognized contributors to the
American culture.
When Mary McLeod Bethune spoke these words, she spoke on behalf of a race of American citizens
for whom the Great Depression was much more than economic hardship. For African Americans, the
Depression once again exposed the racism and inequality that gripped the nation economically, socially,
and politically. Her work as a member of President Franklin Roosevelt’s unofficial “Black Cabinet” as well
as the Director of the Division of Negro Affairs for the NYA, presented her an opportunity to advance
African American causes on all fronts—but especially in the area of black literacy. As part of the larger
WPA, she also influenced employment programs in the arts and public work sectors, and routinely had
the president’s ear on matters related to racial justice.
Click and Explore
Listen to this audio clip (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/bethune) of Eleanor Roosevelt

interviewing Mary McLeod Bethune. By listening to her talking to Bethune and offering
up her support, it becomes clear how compelling the immensely popular first lady was
when speaking about programs of close personal interest to her. How do you think this
would have been received by Roosevelt’s supporters?
However, despite these efforts, Roosevelt also understood the precariousness of his political position. In
order to maintain a coalition of Democrats to support his larger relief and recovery efforts, Roosevelt could
not afford to alienate Southern Democrats who might easily bolt should he openly advocate for civil rights.
While he spoke about the importance of anti-lynching legislation, he never formally pushed Congress
to propose such a law. He did publicly support the abolition of the poll tax, which Congress eventually
accomplished in 1941. Likewise, although agency directors adopted changes to ensure job opportunities
for African Americans at the federal level, at the local level, few advancements were made, and African
Americans remained at the back of the employment lines. Despite such failures, however, Roosevelt
deserves credit for acknowledging the importance of race relations and civil rights. At the federal level,
more than any of his predecessors since the Civil War, Roosevelt remained aware of the role that the
federal government can play in initiating important discussions about civil rights, as well as encouraging
the development of a new cadre of civil rights leaders.
Although unable to bring about sweeping civil rights reforms for African Americans in the early stages of
his administration, Roosevelt was able to work with Congress to significantly improve the lives of Indians.
In 1934, he signed into law the Indian Reorganization Act (sometimes referred to as the “Indian New
Deal”). This law formally abandoned the assimilationist policies set forth in the Dawes Severalty Act of
1887. Rather than forcing Indians to adapt to American culture, the new program encouraged them to
develop forms of local self-government, as well as to preserve their artifacts and heritage. John Collier,
the Commissioner on Indian Bureau Affairs from 1933 to 1945, championed this legislation and saw it as
an opportunity to correct past injustices that land allotment and assimilation had wrought upon Indians.
Although the re-establishment of communal tribal lands would prove to be difficult, Collier used this law
to convince federal officials to return nearly two million acres of government-held land to various tribes in
order to move the process along. Although subsequent legislation later circumscribed the degree to which
tribes were allowed to self-govern on reservations, Collier’s work is still viewed as a significant step in
improving race relations with Indians and preserving their heritage.
Women and the New Deal

For women, Roosevelt’s policies and practices had a similarly mixed effect. Wage discrimination in federal
jobs programs was rampant, and relief policies encouraged women to remain home and leave jobs open
for men. This belief was well in line with the gender norms of the day. Several federal relief programs
specifically forbade husbands and wives’ both drawing jobs or relief from the same agency. The WPA
became the first specific New Deal agency to openly hire women—specifically widows, single women,
and the wives of disabled husbands. While they did not take part in construction projects, these women
did undertake sewing projects to provide blankets and clothing to hospitals and relief agencies. Likewise,
several women took part in the various Federal One art projects. Despite the obvious gender limitations,
many women strongly supported Roosevelt’s New Deal, as much for its direct relief handouts for women
as for its employment opportunities for men. One such woman was Mary (Molly) Dewson. A longtime
activist in the women’s suffrage movement, Dewson worked for women’s rights and ultimately rose to
be the Director of the Women’s Division of the Democratic Party. Dewson and Mary McLeod Bethune,
the national champion of African American education and literacy who rose to the level of Director
of the Division of Negro Affairs for the NYA, understood the limitations of the New Deal, but also
the opportunities for advancement it presented during very trying times. Rather than lamenting what
Roosevelt could not or would not do, they felt, and perhaps rightly so, that Roosevelt would do more than
most to help women and African Americans achieve a piece of the new America he was building.
Among the few, but notable, women who directly impacted Roosevelt’s policies was Frances Perkins,
who as Secretary of Labor was the first female member of any presidential cabinet, and First Lady
Eleanor Roosevelt, who was a strong and public advocate for social causes. Perkins, one of only two
original Cabinet members to stay with Roosevelt for his entire presidency, was directly involved in the
administration of the CCC, PWA, NRA, and the Social Security Act. Among several important measures,
she took greatest pleasure in championing minimum wage statutes as well as the penultimate piece of New
Deal legislation, the Fair Labor Standards Act. Roosevelt came to trust Perkins’ advice with few questions
or concerns, and steadfastly supported her work through the end of his life (Figure 26_03_Perkins).

Figure 26.14 After leaving her post as head of the Women’s Division of the Democratic Party, Molly Dewson (a)
later accepted an appointment to the Social Security Board, working with fellow board members Arthur J. Altmeyer
and George E. Bigge, shown here in 1937. Another influential advisor to President Franklin Roosevelt was Frances
Perkins (b), who, as U.S. Secretary of Labor, graced the cover of Time magazine on August 14, 1933.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Molly Dewson and Women Democrats
In her effort to get President Roosevelt re-elected in 1936, Dewson commented, “We don’t make the old-
fashioned plea to the women that our nominee is charming, and all that. We appeal to the intelligence of
the country’s women. Ours were economic issues and we found the women ready to listen.”
As head of the Women’s Division of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 1932, Molly Dewson
proved to be an influential supporter of President Franklin Roosevelt and one of his key advisors
regarding issues pertaining to women’s rights. Agreeing with First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt that “Women
must learn to play the games as men do,” Dewson worked diligently in her position with the DNC to
ensure that women could serve as delegates and alternates to the national conventions. Her approach,
and her realization that women were intelligent enough to make rational choices, greatly appealed
to Roosevelt. Her methods were perhaps not too different from his own, as he spoke to the public
through his fireside chats. Dewson’s impressive organizational skills on behalf of the party earned her the
nickname “the little general” from President Roosevelt.
However, Eleanor Roosevelt, more so than any other individual, came to represent the strongest influence
upon the president; and she used her unique position to champion several causes for women, African
Americans, and the rural poor (Figure 26.15). She married Franklin Roosevelt, who was her fifth cousin,
in 1905 and subsequently had six children, one of whom died at only seven months old. A strong supporter
of her husband’s political ambitions, Eleanor campaigned by his side through the failed vice-presidential
bid in 1920 and on his behalf after he was diagnosed with polio in 1921. When she discovered letters of
her husband’s affair with her social secretary, Lucy Mercer, the marriage became less one of romance and
more one of a political partnership that would continue—strained at times—until the president’s death in
1945.
Figure 26.15 Eleanor Roosevelt travelled the country to promote New Deal programs. Here she visits a WPA
nursery school in Des Moines, Iowa, on June 8, 1936. (credit: FDR Presidential Library & Museum)
Historians agree that the first lady used her presence in the White House, in addition to the leverage of
her failed marriage and knowledge of her husband’s infidelities, to her advantage. She promoted several
causes that the president himself would have had difficulty championing at the time. From newspaper
and magazine articles she authored, to a busy travel schedule that saw her regularly cross the country, the
first lady sought to remind Americans that their plight was foremost on the minds of all working in the
White House. Eleanor was so active in her public appearances that, by 1940, she began holding regular
press conferences to answer reporters’ questions. Among her first substantial projects was the creation of
Arthurdale—a resettlement community for displaced coal miners in West Virginia. Although the planned
community became less of an administration priority as the years progressed (eventually folding in 1940),
for seven years, Eleanor remained committed to its success as a model of assistance for the rural poor.
Exposed to issues of racial segregation in the Arthurdale experiment, Eleanor subsequently supported
many civil rights causes through the remainder of the Roosevelt presidency. When it further became
clear that racial discrimination was rampant in the administration of virtually all New Deal job
programs—especially in the southern states—she continued to pressure her husband for remedies. In 1934,
she openly lobbied for passage of the federal anti-lynching bill that the president privately supported
but could not politically endorse. Despite the subsequent failure of the Senate to pass such legislation,
Eleanor succeeded in arranging a meeting between her husband and then-NAACP president Walter White
to discuss anti-lynching and other pertinent calls for civil rights legislation.
White was only one of Eleanor’s African American guests to the White House. Breaking with precedent,
and much to the disdain of many White House officials, the first lady routinely invited prominent African
Americans to dine with her and the president. Most notably, when the Daughters of the American
Revolution (DAR) refused to permit internationally renowned black opera contralto Marian Anderson to
sing in Constitution Hall, Eleanor resigned her membership in the DAR and arranged for Anderson to sing
at a public concert on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, followed by her appearance at a state dinner at
the White House in honor of the king and queen of England. With regard to race relations in particular,
Eleanor Roosevelt was able to accomplish what her husband—for delicate political reasons—could not:
become the administration’s face for civil rights.

Key Terms
Brains Trust an unofficial advisory cabinet to President Franklin Roosevelt, originally gathered while he
was governor of New York, to present possible solutions to the nations’ problems; among its prominent
members were Rexford Tugwell, Raymond Moley, and Adolph Berle
Civilian Conservation Corps a public program for unemployed young men from relief families who
were put to work on conservation and land management projects around the country
interregnum the period between the election and the inauguration of a new president; when economic
conditions worsened significantly during the four-month lag between Roosevelt’s win and his move into
the Oval Office, Congress amended the Constitution to limit this period to two months
Social Security a series of programs designed to help the population’s most vulnerable—the
unemployed, those over age sixty-five, unwed mothers, and the disabled—through various pension,
insurance, and aid programs
Supreme Court Packing Plan Roosevelt’s plan, after being reelected, to pack the Supreme Court with an
additional six justices, one for every justice over seventy who refused to step down
Tennessee Valley Authority a federal agency tasked with the job of planning and developing the area
through flood control, reforestation, and hydroelectric power projects
Works Progress Administration a program run by Harry Hopkins that provided jobs for over eight
million Americans from its inception to its closure in 1943
Summary
Franklin Roosevelt was a wealthy, well-educated, and popular politician whose history of polio made him
a more sympathetic figure to the public. He did not share any specifics of his plan to bring the country out
of the Great Depression, but his attitude of optimism and possibility contrasted strongly with Hoover’s
defeated misery. The 1932 election was never really in question, and Roosevelt won in a landslide. During
the four-month interregnum, however, Americans continued to endure President Hoover’s failed policies,
which led the winter of 1932–1933 to be the worst of the Depression, with unemployment rising to record
levels.
When Roosevelt took office in March 1933, he infused the country with a sense of optimism. He still did
not have a formal plan but rather invited the American people to join him in the spirit of experimentation.
Roosevelt did bring certain beliefs to office: the belief in an active government that would take direct
action on federal relief, public works, social services, and direct aid to farmers. But as much as his policies,
Roosevelt’s own personality and engaging manner helped the country feel that they were going to get back
on track.

After assuming the presidency, Roosevelt lost no time in taking bold steps to fight back against the poverty
and unemployment plaguing the country. He immediately created a bank holiday and used the time to
bring before Congress legislation known as the Emergency Banking Act, which allowed federal agencies
to examine all banks before they reopened, thus restoring consumer confidence. He then went on, in
his historic first hundred days, to sign numerous other significant pieces of legislation that were geared
towards creating jobs, shoring up industry and agriculture, and providing relief to individuals through
both refinancing options and direct handouts. Not all of his programs were effective, and many generated
significant criticism. Overall, however, these programs helped to stabilize the economy, restore confidence,
and change the pessimistic mindset that had overrun the country.

Despite his popularity, Roosevelt had significant critics at the end of the First New Deal. Some on the right
felt that he had moved the country in a dangerous direction towards socialism and fascism, whereas others
on the left felt that he had not gone far enough to help the still-struggling American people. Reeling after
the Supreme Court struck down two key pieces of New Deal legislation, the AAA and NIRA, Roosevelt
pushed Congress to pass a new wave of bills to provide jobs, banking reforms, and a social safety net.
The laws that emerged—the Banking Act, the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act, and the Social Security
Act—still define our country today.
Roosevelt won his second term in a landslide and continued to push for legislation that would help the
economy. The jobs programs employed over eight million people and, while systematic discrimination
hurt both women and African American workers, these programs were still successful in getting people
back to work. The last major piece of New Deal legislation that Roosevelt passed was the Fair Labor
Standards Act, which set a minimum wage, established a maximum-hour workweek, and forbade child
labor. This law, as well as Social Security, still provides much of the social safety net in the United States
today.
While critics and historians continue to debate whether the New Deal ushered in a permanent change
to the political culture of the country, from one of individualism to the creation of a welfare state, none
deny the fact that Roosevelt’s presidency expanded the role of the federal government in all people’s
lives, generally for the better. Even if the most conservative of presidential successors would question
this commitment, the notion of some level of government involvement in economic regulation and social
welfare had largely been settled by 1941. Future debates would be about the extent and degree of that
involvement.
Review Questions
1. Which of the following best describes 3. What was the purpose of Roosevelt’s “Brains
Roosevelt’s attempts to push his political agenda Trust?”
in the last months of Hoover’s presidency?
A. Roosevelt spoke publicly on the issue of 4. Which of the following was not a policy
direct relief. undertaken by the NIRA?
B. Roosevelt met privately with Hoover to A. agreement among industries to set prices
convince him to institute certain policy B. agreement among industries to reinvest
shifts before his presidency ended. profits into their firms
C. Roosevelt awaited his inauguration before C. agreement among industries to set
introducing any plans. production levels
D. Roosevelt met secretly with members of D. recognition of the right of workers to form
Congress to attempt to win their favor. unions
2. Which of the following policies did Roosevelt 5. What type of help did the CWA provide?
not include among his early ideas for a New Deal? A. direct relief
A. public works B. farm refinancing
B. government regulation of the economy C. bank reform
C. elimination of the gold standard D. employment opportunities
D. aid to farmers

6. In what ways did the New Deal both provide 9. The Social Security Act borrowed some ideas
direct relief and create new jobs? Which programs from which of the following?
served each of these goals? A. the Townsend Plan
B. the Division of Negro Affairs
7. How did the NRA seek to protect workers? C. the Education Trust
What difficulties did this agency face? D. the NIRA
8. Which of the following statements accurately 10. What was the first New Deal agency to hire
describes Mary McLeod Bethune? women openly?
A. She was a prominent supporter of the A. the NRA
Townsend Plan. B. the WPA
B. She was a key figure in the NYA. C. the AAA
C. She was Eleanor Roosevelt’s personal D. the TVA
secretary.
D. She was a labor organizer. 11. What were the major goals and
accomplishments of the Indian New Deal?

12. To what extent was Franklin Roosevelt’s overwhelming victory in the 1932 presidential election a
reflection of his own ideas for change? To what extent did it represent public discontent with Herbert
Hoover’s lack of answers?
13. Whom did the New Deal help the least? What hardships did these individuals continue to suffer?
Why were Roosevelt’s programs unsuccessful in the alleviation of their adversities?
14. Was Franklin Roosevelt successful at combatting the Great Depression? How did the New Deal affect
future generations of Americans?
15. What were the key differences between the First New Deal and the Second New Deal? On the whole,
what did each New Deal set out to accomplish?
16. What challenges did Roosevelt face in his work on behalf of African Americans? What impact did the
New Deal have ultimately on race relations?

Chapter 27 Fighting the Good Fight in World War II, 1941-1945 795
CHAPTER 27
Fighting the Good Fight in World

War II, 1941-1945
Figure 27.1 During World War II, American propaganda was used to drum up patriotism and support for the war
effort. This poster shows the grit and determination of infantrymen in the face of enemy fire.
Chapter Outline
27.1 The Origins of War: Europe, Asia, and the United States
27.2 The Home Front
27.3 Victory in the European Theater
27.4 The Pacific Theater and the Atomic Bomb
Introduction
World War II awakened the sleeping giant of the United States from the lingering effects of the Great
Depression. Although the country had not entirely disengaged itself from foreign affairs following World
War I, it had remained largely divorced from events occurring in Europe until the late 1930s. World War
II forced the United States to involve itself once again in European affairs. It also helped to relieve the
unemployment of the 1930s and stir industrial growth. The propaganda poster above (Figure 27.1) was
part of a concerted effort to get Americans to see themselves as citizens of a strong, unified country,
dedicated to the protection of freedom and democracy. However, the war that unified many Americans
also brought to the fore many of the nation’s racial and ethnic divisions, both on the frontlines—where
military units, such as the one depicted in this poster, were segregated by race—and on the home front.
Yet, the war also created new opportunities for ethnic minorities and women, which, in postwar America,
would contribute to their demand for greater rights.
796 Chapter 27 Fighting the Good Fight in World War II, 1941-1945

• Explain the factors in Europe that gave rise to Fascism and Nazism
• Discuss the events in Europe and Asia that led to the start of the war
• Identify the early steps taken by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to increase American
aid to nations fighting totalitarianism while maintaining neutrality
The years between the First and Second World Wars were politically and economically tumultuous for the
United States and especially for the world. The Russian Revolution of 1917, Germany’s defeat in World
War I, and the subsequent Treaty of Versailles had broken up the Austro-Hungarian, German, and Russian
empires and significantly redrew the map of Europe. President Woodrow Wilson had wished to make
World War I the “war to end all wars” and hoped that his new paradigm of “collective security” in
international relations, as actualized through the League of Nations, would limit power struggles among
the nations of the world. However, during the next two decades, America’s attention turned away from
global politics and toward its own needs. At the same time, much of the world was dealing with economic
and political crises, and different types of totalitarian regimes began to take hold in Europe. In Asia,
an ascendant Japan began to expand its borders. Although the United States remained focused on the
economic challenges of the Great Depression as World War II approached, ultimately it became clear that
American involvement in the fight against Nazi Germany and Japan was in the nation’s interest.
ISOLATION
While during the 1920s and 1930s there were Americans who favored active engagement in Europe, most
Americans, including many prominent politicians, were leery of getting too involved in European affairs
or accepting commitments to other nations that might restrict America’s ability to act independently,
keeping with the isolationist tradition. Although the United States continued to intervene in the affairs
Figure 27.2

of countries in the Western Hemisphere during this period, the general mood in America was to avoid
becoming involved in any crises that might lead the nation into another global conflict.
Despite its largely noninterventionist foreign policy, the United States did nevertheless take steps to try to
lessen the chances of war and cut its defense spending at the same time. President Warren G. Harding’s
administration participated in the Washington Naval Conference of 1921–1922, which reduced the size of
the navies of the nine signatory nations. In addition, the Four Power Treaty, signed by the United States,
Great Britain, France, and Japan in 1921, committed the signatories to eschewing any territorial expansion
in Asia. In 1928, the United States and fourteen other nations signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact, declaring
war an international crime. Despite hopes that such agreements would lead to a more peaceful world—far
more nations signed on to the agreement in later years—they failed because none of them committed any
of the nations to take action in the event of treaty violations.
THE MARCH TOWARD WAR

While the United States focused on domestic issues, economic depression and political instability were
growing in Europe. During the 1920s, the international financial system was propped up largely by
American loans to foreign countries. The crash of 1929, when the U.S. stock market plummeted and
American capital dried up, set in motion a series of financial chain reactions that contributed significantly
to a global downward economic spiral. Around the world, industrialized economies faced significant
problems of economic depression and worker unemployment.
Totalitarianism in Europe
Many European countries had been suffering even before the Great Depression began. A postwar
recession and the continuation of wartime inflation had hurt many economies, as did a decrease in
agricultural prices, which made it harder for farmers to buy manufactured goods or pay off loans to banks.
In such an unstable environment, Benito Mussolini capitalized on the frustrations of the Italian people who
felt betrayed by the Versailles Treaty. In 1919, Mussolini created the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento (Italian
Combat Squadron). The organization’s main tenets of Fascism called for a totalitarian form of government
and a heightened focus on national unity, militarism, social Darwinism, and loyalty to the state. With
the support of major Italian industrialists and the king, who saw Fascism as a bulwark against growing
Socialist and Communist movements, Mussolini became prime minister in 1922. Between 1925 and 1927,
Mussolini transformed the nation into a single party state and removed all restraints on his power.
In Germany, a similar pattern led to the rise of the totalitarian National Socialist Party. Political
fragmentation through the 1920s accentuated the severe economic problems facing the country. As a result,
the German Communist Party began to grow in strength, frightening many wealthy and middle-class
Germans. In addition, the terms of the Treaty of Versailles had given rise to a deep-seated resentment of
the victorious Allies. It was in such an environment that Adolf Hitler’s anti-Communist National Socialist
Party—the Nazis—was born.
The Nazis gained numerous followers during the Great Depression, which hurt Germany tremendously,
plunging it further into economic crisis. By 1932, nearly 30 percent of the German labor force was
unemployed. Not surprisingly, the political mood was angry and sullen. Hitler, a World War I veteran,
promised to return Germany to greatness. By the beginning of 1933, the Nazis had become the largest party
in the German legislature. Germany’s president, Paul von Hindenburg, at the urging of large industrialists
who feared a Communist uprising, appointed Hitler to the position of chancellor in January 1933. In the
elections that took place in early March 1933, the Nazis gained the political power to pass the Enabling Act
later that same month, which gave Hitler the power to make all laws for the next four years. Hitler thus
effectively became the dictator of Germany and remained so long after the four-year term passed. Like
Italy, Germany had become a one-party totalitarian state (Figure 27.3). Nazi Germany was an anti-Semitic
nation, and in 1935, the Nuremberg Laws deprived Jews, whom Hitler blamed for Germany’s downfall, of
German citizenship and the rights thereof.
Figure 27.3 Italian Fascists under the dictatorial leadership of Benito Mussolini (a, center) and German National
Socialist Party leader and dictator Adolf Hitler (b) systematically dismantled democratic institutions and pushed
military buildups, racial supremacy, and an aggressive nationalism in the 1920s and early 1930s.
Once in power, Hitler began to rebuild German military might. He commenced his program by
withdrawing Germany from the League of Nations in October 1933. In 1936, in accordance with his
promise to restore German greatness, Hitler dispatched military units into the Rhineland, on the border
with France, which was an act contrary to the provisions of the Versailles Treaty. In March 1938, claiming
that he sought only to reunite ethnic Germans within the borders of one country, Hitler invaded Austria.
At a conference in Munich later that year, Great Britain’s prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, and
France’s prime minister, Édouard Daladier, agreed to the partial dismemberment of Czechoslovakia
and the occupation of the Sudetenland (a region with a sizable German population) by German troops
(Figure 27.4). This Munich Pact offered a policy of appeasement, in the hope that German expansionist
appetites could be satisfied without war. But not long after the agreement, Germany occupied the rest of
Czechoslovakia as well.
Figure 27.4 Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain arrives home in England bearing the Munich Pact agreement. The
jubilant Chamberlain proclaimed that the agreement meant “peace in our time.”
In the Soviet Union, Premier Joseph Stalin, observing Hitler’s actions and listening to his public
pronouncements, realized that Poland, part of which had once belonged to Germany and was home to
people of German ancestry, was most likely next. Although fiercely opposed to Hitler, Stalin, sobered

by the French and British betrayal of Czechoslovakia and unprepared for a major war, decided the best
way to protect the Soviet Union, and gain additional territory, was to come to some accommodation with
the German dictator. In August 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union essentially agreed to divide Poland
between them and not make war upon one another.
Japan
Militaristic politicians also took control of Japan in the 1930s. The Japanese had worked assiduously for
decades to modernize, build their strength, and become a prosperous, respected nation. The sentiment
in Japan was decidedly pro-capitalist, and the Japanese militarists were fiercely supportive of a capitalist
economy. They viewed with great concern the rise of Communism in the Soviet Union and in particular
China, where the issue was fueling a civil war, and feared that the Soviet Union would make inroads in
Asia by assisting China’s Communists. The Japanese militarists thus found a common ideological enemy
with Fascism and National Socialism, which had based their rise to power on anti-Communist sentiments.
In 1936, Japan and Germany signed the Anti-Comintern Pact, pledging mutual assistance in defending
themselves against the Comintern, the international agency created by the Soviet Union to promote
worldwide Communist revolution. In 1937, Italy joined the pact, essentially creating the foundation of
what became the military alliance of the Axis powers.
Like its European allies, Japan was intent upon creating an empire for itself. In 1931, it created a new
nation, a puppet state called Manchukuo, which had been cobbled together from the three northernmost
provinces of China. Although the League of Nations formally protested Japan’s seizure of Chinese territory
in 1931 and 1932, it did nothing else. In 1937, a clash between Japanese and Chinese troops, known as the
Marco Polo Bridge Incident, led to a full-scale invasion of China by the Japanese. By the end of the year,
the Chinese had suffered some serious defeats. In Nanjing, then called Nanking by Westerners, Japanese
soldiers systematically raped Chinese women and massacred hundreds of thousands of civilians, leading
to international outcry. Public sentiment against Japan in the United States reached new heights. Members
of Protestant churches that were involved in missionary work in China were particularly outraged, as were
Chinese Americans. A troop of Chinese American Boy Scouts in New York City’s Chinatown defied Boy
Scout policy and marched in protest against Japanese aggression.
FROM NEUTRALITY TO ENGAGEMENT

President Franklin Roosevelt was aware of the challenges facing the targets of Nazi aggression in Europe
and Japanese aggression in Asia. Although he hoped to offer U.S. support, Congress’s commitment to
nonintervention was difficult to overcome. Such a policy in regards to Europe was strongly encouraged
by Senator Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota. Nye claimed that the United States had been tricked into
participating in World War I by a group of industrialists and bankers who sought to gain from the
country’s participation in the war. The United States, Nye urged, should not be drawn again into an
international dispute over matters that did not concern it. His sentiments were shared by other
noninterventionists in Congress (Figure 27.5).
Figure 27.5 This protest sign shows the unwillingness of many Americans to become involved in a foreign war. A
reluctance to intervene in events outside of the Western Hemisphere had characterized American foreign policy since
the administration of George Washington. World War I had been an exception that many American politicians
regretted making.
Roosevelt’s willingness to accede to the demands of the noninterventionists led him even to refuse
assistance to those fleeing Nazi Germany. Although Roosevelt was aware of Nazi persecution of the Jews,
he did little to aid them. In a symbolic act of support, he withdrew the American ambassador to Germany
in 1938. He did not press for a relaxation of immigration quotas that would have allowed more refugees
to enter the country, however. In 1939, he refused to support a bill that would have admitted twenty
thousand Jewish refugee children to the United States. Again in 1939, when German refugees aboard the
SS St. Louis, most of them Jews, were refused permission to land in Cuba and turned to the United States
for help, the U.S. State Department informed them that immigration quotas for Germany had already been
filled. Once again, Roosevelt did not intervene, because he feared that nativists in Congress might smear
him as a friend of Jews.
To ensure that the United States did not get drawn into another war, Congress passed a series of Neutrality
Acts in the second half of the 1930s. The Neutrality Act of 1935 banned the sale of armaments to warring
nations. The following year, another Neutrality Act prohibited loaning money to belligerent countries. The
last piece of legislation, the Neutrality Act of 1937, forbade the transportation of weapons or passengers
to belligerent nations on board American ships and also prohibited American citizens from traveling on
board the ships of nations at war.
Once all-out war began between Japan and China in 1937, Roosevelt sought ways to help the Chinese
that did not violate U.S. law. Since Japan did not formally declare war on China, a state of belligerency
did not technically exist. Therefore, under the terms of the Neutrality Acts, America was not prevented
from transporting goods to China. In 1940, the president of China, Chiang Kai-shek, was able to prevail
upon Roosevelt to ship to China one hundred P-40 fighter planes and to allow American volunteers, who
technically became members of the Chinese Air Force, to fly them.
War Begins in Europe

In 1938, the agreement reached at the Munich Conference failed to satisfy Hitler—in fact, the refusal of
Britain and France to go to war over the issue infuriated the German dictator. In May of the next year,
Germany and Italy formalized their military alliance with the “Pact of Steel.” On September 1, 1939,
Hitler unleashed his Blitzkrieg, or “lightning war,” against Poland, using swift, surprise attacks combining
infantry, tanks, and aircraft to quickly overwhelm the enemy. Britain and France had already learned from
Munich that Hitler could not be trusted and that his territorial demands were insatiable. On September
3, 1939, they declared war on Germany, and the European phase of World War II began. Responding to
the German invasion of Poland, Roosevelt worked with Congress to alter the Neutrality Laws to permit

a policy of “Cash and Carry” in munitions for Britain and France. The legislation, passed and signed by
Roosevelt in November 1939, permitted belligerents to purchase war materiel if they could pay cash for it
and arrange for its transportation on board their own ships.
When the Germans commenced their spring offensive in 1940, they defeated France in six weeks with
a highly mobile and quick invasion of France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. In the Far
East, Japan took advantage of France’s surrender to Germany to occupy French Indochina. In response,
beginning with the Export Control Act in July 1940, the United States began to embargo the shipment of
various materials to Japan, starting first with aviation gasoline and machine tools, and proceeding to scrap
iron and steel.
The Atlantic Charter

Following the surrender of France, the Battle of Britain began, as Germany proceeded to try to bomb
England into submission. As the battle raged in the skies over Great Britain throughout the summer and
autumn of 1940 (Figure 27.6), Roosevelt became increasingly concerned over England’s ability to hold out
against the German juggernaut. In June 1941, Hitler broke the nonaggression pact with the Soviet Union
that had given him the backing to ravage Poland and marched his armies deep into Soviet territory, where
they would kill Red Army regulars and civilians by the millions until their advances were stalled and
ultimately reversed by the devastating battle of Stalingrad, which took place from August 23, 1942 until
February 2, 1943 when, surrounded and out of ammunition, the German 6th army surrendered.
Click and Explore
Listen to the BBC’s archived reports (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15BattleBrit) of

the Battle of Britain, including Winston Churchill’s “Finest Hour” speech.
In August 1941, Roosevelt met with the British prime minister, Winston Churchill, off the coast of
Newfoundland, Canada. At this meeting, the two leaders drafted the Atlantic Charter, the blueprint of
Anglo-American cooperation during World War II. The charter stated that the United States and Britain
sought no territory from the conflict. It proclaimed that citizens of all countries should be given the right of
self-determination, self-government should be restored in places where it had been eliminated, and trade
barriers should be lowered. Further, the charter mandated freedom of the seas, renounced the use of force
to settle international disputes, and called for postwar disarmament.
Figure 27.6 London and other major British cities suffered extensive damaged from the bombing raids of the Battle
of Britain. Over one million London houses were destroyed or damaged during “The Blitz” and almost twenty
thousand Londoners were killed.
In March 1941, concerns over Britain’s ability to defend itself also influenced Congress to authorize a
policy of Lend Lease, a practice by which the United States could sell, lease, or transfer armaments to any
nation deemed important to the defense of the United States. Lend Lease effectively ended the policy of
nonintervention and dissolved America’s pretense of being a neutral nation. The program ran from 1941 to
1945, and distributed some $45 billion worth of weaponry and supplies to Britain, the Soviet Union, China,
and other allies.
A Date Which Will Live in Infamy

By the second half of 1941, Japan was feeling the pressure of the American embargo. As it could no longer
buy strategic material from the United States, the Japanese were determined to obtain a sufficient supply
of oil by taking control of the Dutch East Indies. However, they realized that such an action might increase
the possibility of American intervention, since the Philippines, a U.S. territory, lay on the direct route that
oil tankers would have to take to reach Japan from Indonesia. Japanese leaders thus attempted to secure
a diplomatic solution by negotiating with the United States while also authorizing the navy to plan for
war. The Japanese government also decided that if no peaceful resolution could be reached by the end of
November 1941, then the nation would have to go to war against the United States.
The American final counterproposal to various offers by Japan was for the Japanese to completely
withdraw, without any conditions, from China and enter into nonaggression pacts with all the Pacific
powers. Japan found that proposal unacceptable but delayed its rejection for as long as possible. Then, at
7:48 a.m. on Sunday, December 7, the Japanese attacked the U.S. Pacific fleet at anchor in Pearl Harbor,
Hawaii (Figure 27.7). They launched two waves of attacks from six aircraft carriers that had snuck into
the central Pacific without being detected. The attacks brought some 353 fighters, bombers, and torpedo
bombers down on the unprepared fleet. The Japanese hit all eight battleships in the harbor and sank
four of them. They also damaged several cruisers and destroyers. On the ground, nearly two hundred
aircraft were destroyed, and twenty-four hundred servicemen were killed. Another eleven hundred were
wounded. Japanese losses were minimal. The strike was part of a more concerted campaign by the
Japanese to gain territory. They subsequently attacked Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Guam, Wake
Island, and the Philippines.

Figure 27.7 This famous shot captured the explosion of the USS Shaw after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
While American losses were significant, the Japanese lost only twenty-nine planes and five miniature submarines.
Whatever reluctance to engage in conflict the American people had had before December 7, 1941, quickly
evaporated. Americans’ incredulity that Japan would take such a radical step quickly turned to a fiery
anger, especially as the attack took place while Japanese diplomats in Washington were still negotiating
a possible settlement. President Roosevelt, referring to the day of the attack as “a date which will live
in infamy,” asked Congress for a declaration of war, which it delivered to Japan on December 8. On
December 11, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States in accordance with their alliance with
Japan. Against its wishes, the United States had become part of the European conflict.
Click and Explore
You can listen to Franklin Roosevelt’s speech to Congress

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15FDRWar) seeking a Declaration of War at this
archive of presidential recordings.
27.2 The Home Front

• Describe the steps taken by the United States to prepare for war
• Describe how the war changed employment patterns in the United States
• Discuss the contributions of civilians on the home front, especially women, to the war
effort
• Analyze how the war affected race relations in the United States
The impact of the war on the United States was nowhere near as devastating as it was in Europe and
the Pacific, where the battles were waged, but it still profoundly changed everyday life for all Americans.
On the positive side, the war effort finally and definitively ended the economic depression that had been
plaguing the country since 1929. It also called upon Americans to unite behind the war effort and give of
their money, their time, and their effort, as they sacrificed at home to assure success abroad. The upheaval
caused by white men leaving for war meant that for many disenfranchised groups, such as women and
African Americans, there were new opportunities in employment and wage earning. Still, fear and racism
drove cracks in the nation’s unified facade.
MOBILIZING A NATION
Although the United States had sought to avoid armed conflict, the country was not entirely unprepared
for war. Production of armaments had increased since 1939, when, as a result of Congress’s authorization
of the Cash and Carry policy, contracts for weapons had begun to trickle into American factories. War
production increased further following the passage of Lend Lease in 1941. However, when the United
States entered the war, the majority of American factories were still engaged in civilian production, and
many doubted that American businesses would be sufficiently motivated to convert their factories to
wartime production.
Just a few years earlier, Roosevelt had been frustrated and impatient with business leaders when they
failed to fully support the New Deal, but enlisting industrialists in the nation’s crusade was necessary
if the United States was to produce enough armaments to win the war. To encourage cooperation, the
government agreed to assume all costs of development and production, and also guarantee a profit on
the sale of what was produced. This arrangement resulted in 233 to 350 percent increases in profits over
what the same businesses had been able to achieve from 1937 to 1940. In terms of dollars earned, corporate
profits rose from $6.4 billion in 1940 to nearly $11 billion in 1944. As the country switched to wartime
production, the top one hundred U.S. corporations received approximately 70 percent of government
contracts; big businesses prospered.
In addition to gearing up industry to fight the war, the country also needed to build an army. A peacetime
draft, the first in American history, had been established in September 1940, but the initial draftees were to
serve for only one year, a length of time that was later extended. Furthermore, Congress had specified that
no more than 900,000 men could receive military training at any one time. By December 1941, the United
States had only one division completely ready to be deployed. Military planners estimated that it might
take nine million men to secure victory. A massive draft program was required to expand the nation’s
military forces. Over the course of the war, approximately fifty million men registered for the draft; ten
million were subsequently inducted into the service.
Approximately 2.5 million African Americans registered for the draft, and 1 million of them subsequently
served. Initially, African American soldiers, who served in segregated units, had been used as support
troops and not been sent into combat. By the end of the war, however, manpower needs resulted in
African American recruits serving in the infantry and flying planes. The Tuskegee Institute in Alabama
had instituted a civilian pilot training program for aspiring African American pilots. When the war
began, the Department of War absorbed the program and adapted it to train combat pilots. First Lady
Eleanor Roosevelt demonstrated both her commitment to African Americans and the war effort by visiting
Tuskegee in 1941, shortly after the unit had been organized. To encourage the military to give the airmen
a chance to serve in actual combat, she insisted on taking a ride in a plane flown by an African American
pilot to demonstrate the Tuskegee Airmen’s skill (Figure 27.8). When the Tuskegee Airmen did get their
opportunity to serve in combat, they did so with distinction.

Figure 27.8 First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt insisted on flying with an African American pilot to help fight racism in the
military. The First Lady was famous for her support of civil rights.
In addition, forty-four thousand Native Americans served in all theaters of the war. In some of the Pacific
campaigns, Native Americans made distinct and unique contributions to Allied victories. Navajo marines
served in communications units, exchanging information over radios using codes based on their native
language, which the Japanese were unable to comprehend or to crack. They became known as code
talkers and participated in the battles of Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Peleliu, and Tarawa. A smaller number of
Comanche code talkers performed a similar function in the European theater.
While millions of Americans heeded the rallying cry for patriotism and service, there were those who,
for various reasons, did not accept the call. Before the war began, American Peace Mobilization had
campaigned against American involvement in the European conflict as had the noninterventionist
America First organization. Both groups ended their opposition, however, at the time of the German
invasion of the Soviet Union and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, respectively. Nevertheless, during
the war, some seventy-two thousand men registered as conscientious objectors (COs), and fifty-two
thousand were granted that status. Of that fifty-two thousand, some accepted noncombat roles in the
military, whereas others accepted unpaid work in civilian work camps. Many belonged to pacifist religious
sects such as the Quakers or Mennonites. They were willing to serve their country, but they refused to
kill. COs suffered public condemnation for disloyalty, and family members often turned against them.
Strangers assaulted them. A portion of the town of Plymouth, NH, was destroyed by fire because the
residents did not want to call upon the services of the COs trained as firemen at a nearby camp. Only a
very small number of men evaded the draft completely.
Most Americans, however, were willing to serve, and they required a competent officer corps. The very
same day that Germany invaded Poland in 1939, President Roosevelt promoted George C. Marshall, a
veteran of World War I and an expert at training officers, from a one-star general to a four-star general, and
gave him the responsibility of serving as Army Chief of Staff. The desire to create a command staff that
could win the army’s confidence no doubt contributed to the rather meteoric rise of Dwight D. Eisenhower
(Figure 27.9). During World War I, Eisenhower had been assigned to organize America’s new tank corps,
and, although he never saw combat during the war, he demonstrated excellent organizational skills. When
the United States entered World War II, Eisenhower was appointed commander of the General European
Theater of Operations in June 1942.
Figure 27.9 Dwight D. Eisenhower rose quickly through the ranks to become commander of the European Theater
of Operations by June 1942.

MY STORY
General Eisenhower on Winning a War
Promoted to the level of one-star general just before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Dwight D. Eisenhower
had never held an active command position above the level of a battalion and was not considered a
potential commander of major military operations. However, after he was assigned to the General Staff in
Washington, DC, he quickly rose through the ranks and, by late 1942, was appointed commander of the
North African campaign.
Excerpts from General Eisenhower’s diary reveal his dedication to the war effort. He continued to work
despite suffering a great personal loss.
March 9, 1942
General McNaughton (commanding Canadians in Britain) came to see me. He believes
in attacking in Europe (thank God). He’s over here in an effort to speed up landing craft
production and cargo ships. Has some d___ good ideas. Sent him to see Somervell and
Admiral Land. How I hope he can do something on landing craft.
March 10, 1942
Father dies this morning. Nothing I can do but send a wire.
One thing that might help win this war is to get someone to shoot [Admiral] King. He’s the
antithesis of cooperation, a deliberately rude person, which means he’s a mental bully. He
became Commander in Chief of the fleet some time ago. Today he takes over, also Stark’s
job as chief of naval operations. It’s a good thing to get rid of the double head in the navy, and
of course Stark was just a nice old lady, but this fellow is going to cause a blow-up sooner or
later, I’ll bet a cookie.
Gradually some of the people with whom I have to deal are coming to agree with me that
there are just three “musts” for the Allies this year: hold open the line to England and support
her as necessary, keep Russia in the war as an active participant; hold the India-Middle East
buttress between Japs and Germans. All this assumes the safety from major attack of North
America, Hawaii, and Caribbean area.
We lost eight cargo ships yesterday. That we must stop, because any effort we make depends
upon sea communication.
March 11, 1942
I have felt terribly. I should like so much to be with my Mother these few days. But we’re
at war. And war is not soft, it has no time to indulge even the deepest and most sacred
emotions. I loved my Dad. I think my Mother the finest person I’ve ever known. She has been
the inspiration for Dad’s life and a true helpmeet in every sense of the word.
I’m quitting work now, 7:30 p.m. I haven’t the heart to go on tonight.
—Dwight D. Eisenhower, The Eisenhower Diaries
What does Eisenhower identify as the most important steps to take to win the war?
EMPLOYMENT AND MIGRATION PATTERNS IN THE UNITED STATES

Even before the official beginning of the war, the country started to prepare. In August 1940, Congress
created the Defense Plant Corporation, which had built 344 plants in the West by 1945, and had funneled
over $1.8 billion into the economies of western states. After Pearl Harbor, as American military strategists
began to plan counterattacks and campaigns against the Axis powers, California became a training
ground. Troops trained there for tank warfare and amphibious assaults as well as desert campaigns—since
the first assault against the Axis powers was planned for North Africa.
As thousands of Americans swarmed to the West Coast to take jobs in defense plants and shipyards, cities
like Richmond, California, and nearby Oakland, expanded quickly. Richmond grew from a city of 20,000
people to 100,000 in only three years. Almost overnight, the population of California skyrocketed. African
Americans moved out of the rural South into northern or West Coast cities to provide the muscle and
skill to build the machines of war. Building on earlier waves of African American migration after the Civil
War and during World War I, the demographics of the nation changed with the growing urbanization of
the African American population. Women also relocated to either follow their husbands to military bases
or take jobs in the defense industry, as the total mobilization of the national economy began to tap into
previously underemployed populations.
Roosevelt and his administration already had experience in establishing government controls and taking
the initiative in economic matters during the Depression. In April 1941, Roosevelt created the Office of
Price Administration (OPA), and, once the United States entered the war, the OPA regulated prices and
attempted to combat inflation. The OPA ultimately had the power to set ceiling prices for all goods, except
agricultural commodities, and to ration a long list of items. During the war, major labor unions pledged not
to strike in order to prevent disruptions in production; in return, the government encouraged businesses
to recognize unions and promised to help workers bargain for better wages.
As in World War I, the government turned to bond drives to finance the war. Millions of Americans
purchased more than $185 billion worth of war bonds. Children purchased Victory Stamps and exchanged
full stamp booklets for bonds. The federal government also instituted the current tax-withholding system
to ensure collection of taxes. Finally, the government once again urged Americans to plant victory gardens,
using marketing campaigns and celebrities to promote the idea (Figure 27.10). Americans responded
eagerly, planting gardens in their backyards and vacant lots.
Figure 27.10 Wartime rationing meant that Americans had to do without many everyday items and learn to grow
their own produce in order to allow the country’s food supply to go to the troops.
The federal government also instituted rationing to ensure that America’s fighting men were well fed.
Civilians were issued ration booklets, books of coupons that enabled them to buy limited amounts of
meat, coffee, butter, sugar, and other foods. Wartime cookbooks were produced, such as the Betty Crocker
cookbook Your Share, telling housewives how to prepare tasty meals without scarce food items. Other
items were rationed as well, including shoes, liquor, cigarettes, and gasoline. With a few exceptions, such
as doctors, Americans were allowed to drive their automobiles only on certain days of the week. Most
Americans complied with these regulations, but some illegally bought and sold rationed goods on the
black market.

Click and Explore
View an excerpt from a PBS documentary on rationing

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Rationing) during World War II.
Civilians on the home front also recycled, conserved, and participated in scrap drives to collect items
needed for the production of war materiel. Housewives saved cooking fats, needed to produce explosives.
Children collected scrap metal, paper, rubber, silk, nylon, and old rags. Some children sacrificed beloved
metal toys in order to “win the war.” Civilian volunteers, trained to recognize enemy aircraft, watched the
skies along the coasts and on the borders.
WOMEN IN THE WAR: ROSIE THE RIVETER AND BEYOND

As in the previous war, the gap in the labor force created by departing soldiers meant opportunities for
women. In particular, World War II led many to take jobs in defense plants and factories around the
country. For many women, these jobs provided unprecedented opportunities to move into occupations
previously thought of as exclusive to men, especially the aircraft industry, where a majority of workers
were composed of women by 1943. Most women in the labor force did not work in the defense industry,
however. The majority took over other factory jobs that had been held by men. Many took positions in
offices as well. As white women, many of whom had been in the workforce before the war, moved into
these more highly paid positions, African American women, most of whom had previously been limited
to domestic service, took over white women’s lower-paying positions in factories; some were also hired by
defense plants, however. Although women often earned more money than ever before, it was still far less
than men received for doing the same jobs. Nevertheless, many achieved a degree of financial self-reliance
that was enticing. By 1944, as many as 33 percent of the women working in the defense industries were
mothers and worked “double-day” shifts—one at the plant and one at home.
Still, there was some resistance to women going to work in such a male-dominated environment. In order
to recruit women for factory jobs, the government created a propaganda campaign centered on a now-
iconic figure known as Rosie the Riveter (Figure 27.11). Rosie, who was a composite based on several
real women, was most famously depicted by American illustrator Norman Rockwell. Rosie was tough yet
feminine. To reassure men that the demands of war would not make women too masculine, some factories
gave female employees lessons in how to apply makeup, and cosmetics were never rationed during the
war. Elizabeth Arden even created a special red lipstick for use by women reservists in the Marine Corps.
Figure 27.11 “Rosie the Riveter” became a generic term for all women working in the defense industry. Although the
Rosie depicted on posters was white, many of the real Rosies were African American, such as this woman who
poses atop an airplane at the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation in Burbank, California (a), and Anna Bland, a worker at
the Richmond Shipyards (b).
Although many saw the entry of women into the workforce as a positive thing, they also acknowledged
that working women, especially mothers, faced great challenges. To try to address the dual role of women
as workers and mothers, Eleanor Roosevelt urged her husband to approve the first U.S. government
childcare facilities under the Community Facilities Act of 1942. Eventually, seven centers, servicing 105,000
children, were built. The First Lady also urged industry leaders like Henry Kaiser to build model childcare
facilities for their workers. Still, these efforts did not meet the full need for childcare for working mothers.
The lack of childcare facilities meant that many children had to fend for themselves after school, and some
had to assume responsibility for housework and the care of younger siblings. Some mothers took younger
children to work with them and left them locked in their cars during the workday. Police and social
workers also reported an increase in juvenile delinquency during the war. New York City saw its average
number of juvenile cases balloon from 9,500 in the prewar years to 11,200 during the war. In San Diego,
delinquency rates for girls, including sexual misbehavior, shot up by 355 percent. It is unclear whether
more juveniles were actually engaging in delinquent behavior; the police may simply have become more
vigilant during wartime and arrested youngsters for activities that would have gone overlooked before
the war. In any event, law enforcement and juvenile courts attributed the perceived increase to a lack of
supervision by working mothers.
Tens of thousands of women served in the war effort more directly. Approximately 350,000 joined the
military. They worked as nurses, drove trucks, repaired airplanes, and performed clerical work to free up
men for combat. Those who joined the Women’s Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs) flew planes from the
factories to military bases. Some of these women were killed in combat and captured as prisoners of war.
Over sixteen hundred of the women nurses received various decorations for courage under fire. Many
women also flocked to work in a variety of civil service jobs. Others worked as chemists and engineers,
developing weapons for the war. This included thousands of women who were recruited to work on the
Manhattan Project, developing the atomic bomb.
THE CULTURE OF WAR: ENTERTAINERS AND THE WAR EFFORT

During the Great Depression, movies had served as a welcome diversion from the difficulties of everyday
life, and during the war, this held still truer. By 1941, there were more movie theaters than banks in
the United States. In the 1930s, newsreels, which were shown in movie theaters before feature films,

had informed the American public of what was happening elsewhere in the world. This interest grew
once American armies began to engage the enemy. Many informational documentaries about the war
were also shown in movie theaters. The most famous were those in the Why We Fight series, filmed by
Hollywood director Frank Capra. During the war, Americans flocked to the movies not only to learn what
was happening to the troops overseas but also to be distracted from the fears and hardships of wartime by
cartoons, dramas, and comedies. By 1945, movie attendance had reached an all-time high.
Click and Explore
This link shows newsreel footage of a raid (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Tarawa)

on Tarawa Island. This footage was shown in movie theaters around the country.
Many feature films were patriotic stories that showed the day’s biggest stars as soldiers fighting the
nefarious German and Japanese enemy. During the war years, there was a consistent supply of patriotic
movies, with actors glorifying and inspiring America’s fighting men. John Wayne, who had become a star
in the 1930s, appeared in many war-themed movies, including The Fighting Seabees and Back to Bataan.
Besides appearing in patriotic movies, many male entertainers temporarily gave up their careers to serve in
the armed forces (Figure 27.12). Jimmy Stewart served in the Army Air Force and appeared in a short film
entitled Winning Your Wings that encouraged young men to enlist. Tyrone Power joined the U.S. Marines.
Female entertainers did their part as well. Rita Hayworth and Marlene Dietrich entertained the troops.
African American singer and dancer Josephine Baker entertained Allied troops in North Africa and also
carried secret messages for the French Resistance. Actress Carole Lombard was killed in a plane crash
while returning home from a rally where she had sold war bonds.
Figure 27.12 General George Marshall awards Frank Capra the Distinguished Service Cross in 1945 (a), in
recognition of the important contribution that Capra’s films made to the war effort. Jimmy Stewart was awarded
numerous commendations for his military service, including the French Croix de Guerre (b).
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
The Meaning of Democracy
E. B. White was one of the most famous writers of the twentieth century. During the 1940s, he was
known for the articles that he contributed to The New Yorker and the column that he wrote for Harper’s
Magazine. Today, he is remembered for his children’s books Stuart Little and Charlotte’s Web, and for
his collaboration with William Strunk, Jr., The Elements of Style, a guide to writing. In 1943, he wrote a
definition of democracy as an example of what Americans hoped that they were fighting for.
We received a letter from the Writer’s War Board the other day asking for a statement on ‘The
Meaning of Democracy.’ It presumably is our duty to comply with such a request, and it is
certainly our pleasure. Surely the Board knows what democracy is. It is the line that forms
on the right. It is the ‘don’t’ in don’t shove. It is the hole in the stuffed shirt through which the
sawdust slowly trickles; it is the dent in the high hat. Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that
more than half of the people are right more than half of the time. It is the feeling of privacy in
the voting booths, the feeling of communion in the libraries, the feeling of vitality everywhere.
Democracy is a letter to the editor. Democracy is the score at the beginning of the ninth. It
is an idea that hasn’t been disproved yet, a song the words of which have not gone bad. It
is the mustard on the hot dog and the cream in the rationed coffee. Democracy is a request
from a War Board, in the middle of the morning in the middle of a war, wanting to know what
democracy is.
Do you agree with this definition of democracy? Would you change anything to make it more
contemporary?
SOCIAL TENSIONS ON THE HOME FRONT

The need for Americans to come together, whether in Hollywood, the defense industries, or the military, to
support the war effort encouraged feelings of unity among the American population. However, the desire
for unity did not always mean that Americans of color were treated as equals or even tolerated, despite
their proclamations of patriotism and their willingness to join in the effort to defeat America’s enemies
in Europe and Asia. For African Americans, Mexican Americans, and especially for Japanese Americans,
feelings of patriotism and willingness to serve one’s country both at home and abroad was not enough to
guarantee equal treatment by white Americans or to prevent the U.S. government from regarding them as
the enemy.
African Americans and Double V

The African American community had, at the outset of the war, forged some promising relationships
with the Roosevelt administration through civil rights activist Mary McLeod Bethune and Roosevelt’s
“Black Cabinet” of African American advisors. Through the intervention of Eleanor Roosevelt, Bethune
was appointed to the advisory council set up by the War Department Women’s Interest Section. In this
position, Bethune was able to organize the first officer candidate school for women and enable African
American women to become officers in the Women’s Auxiliary Corps.
As the U.S. economy revived as a result of government defense contracts, African Americans wanted
to ensure that their service to the country earned them better opportunities and more equal treatment.
Accordingly, in 1942, after African American labor leader A. Philip Randolph pressured Roosevelt with a
threatened “March on Washington,” the president created, by Executive Order 8802, the Fair Employment
Practices Committee. The purpose of this committee was to see that there was no discrimination in
the defense industries. While they were effective in forcing defense contractors, such as the DuPont
Corporation, to hire African Americans, they were not able to force corporations to place African
Americans in well-paid positions. For example, at DuPont’s plutonium production plant in Hanford,

Washington, African Americans were hired as low-paid construction workers but not as laboratory
technicians.
During the war, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), founded by James Farmer in 1942, used peaceful
civil disobedience in the form of sit-ins to desegregate certain public spaces in Washington, DC, and
elsewhere, as its contribution to the war effort. Members of CORE sought support for their movement
by stating that one of their goals was to deprive the enemy of the ability to generate anti-American
propaganda by accusing the United States of racism. After all, they argued, if the United States were going
to denounce Germany and Japan for abusing human rights, the country should itself be as exemplary
as possible. Indeed, CORE’s actions were in keeping with the goals of the Double V campaign that was
begun in 1942 by the Pittsburgh Courier, the largest African American newspaper at the time (Figure
27.13). The campaign called upon African Americans to accomplish the two “Vs”: victory over America’s
foreign enemies and victory over racism in the United States.
Figure 27.13 During World War II, African Americans volunteered for government work just as white Americans did.
These Washington, DC, residents have become civil defense workers as part of the Double V campaign that called
for victory at home and abroad.
Despite the willingness of African Americans to fight for the United States, racial tensions often erupted
in violence, as the geographic relocation necessitated by the war brought African Americans into closer
contact with whites. There were race riots in Detroit, Harlem, and Beaumont, Texas, in which white
residents responded with sometimes deadly violence to their new black coworkers or neighbors. There
were also racial incidents at or near several military bases in the South. Incidents of African American
soldiers being harassed or assaulted occurred at Fort Benning, Georgia; Fort Jackson, South Carolina;
Alexandria, Louisiana; Fayetteville, Arkansas; and Tampa, Florida. African American leaders such as
James Farmer and Walter White, the executive secretary of the NAACP since 1931, were asked by General
Eisenhower to investigate complaints of the mistreatment of African American servicemen while on active
duty. They prepared a fourteen-point memorandum on how to improve conditions for African Americans
in the service, sowing some of the seeds of the postwar civil rights movement during the war years.
The Zoot Suit Riots

Mexican Americans also encountered racial prejudice. The Mexican American population in Southern
California grew during World War II due to the increased use of Mexican agricultural workers in the fields
to replace the white workers who had left for better paying jobs in the defense industries. The United States
and Mexican governments instituted the “bracero” program on August 4, 1942, which sought to address
the needs of California growers for manual labor to increase food production during wartime. The result
was the immigration of thousands of impoverished Mexicans into the United States to work as braceros, or
manual laborers.
Forced by racial discrimination to live in the barrios of East Los Angeles, many Mexican American youths
sought to create their own identity and began to adopt a distinctive style of dress known as zoot suits,
which were also popular among many young African American men. The zoot suits, which required large
amounts of cloth to produce, violated wartime regulations that restricted the amount of cloth that could be
used in civilian garments. Among the charges leveled at young Mexican Americans was that they were un-
American and unpatriotic; wearing zoot suits was seen as evidence of this. Many native-born Americans
also denounced Mexican American men for being unwilling to serve in the military, even though some
350,000 Mexican Americans either volunteered to serve or were drafted into the armed services. In the
summer of 1943, “zoot-suit riots” occurred in Los Angeles when carloads of white sailors, encouraged by
other white civilians, stripped and beat a group of young men wearing the distinctive form of dress. In
retaliation, young Mexican American men attacked and beat up sailors. The response was swift and severe,
as sailors and civilians went on a spree attacking young Mexican Americans on the streets, in bars, and in
movie theaters. More than one hundred people were injured.
Internment
Japanese Americans also suffered from discrimination. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor unleashed a
cascade of racist assumptions about Japanese immigrants and Japanese Americans in the United States that
culminated in the relocation and internment of 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry, 66 percent of whom
had been born in the United States. Executive Order 9066, signed by Roosevelt on February 19, 1942, gave
the army power to remove people from “military areas” to prevent sabotage or espionage. The army then
used this authority to relocate people of Japanese ancestry living along the Pacific coast of Washington,
Oregon, and California, as well as in parts of Arizona, to internment camps in the American interior.
Although a study commissioned earlier by Roosevelt indicated that there was little danger of disloyalty on
the part of West Coast Japanese, fears of sabotage, perhaps spurred by the attempted rescue of a Japanese
airman shot down at Pearl Harbor by Japanese living in Hawaii, and racist sentiments led Roosevelt to
act. Ironically, Japanese in Hawaii were not interned. Although characterized afterwards as America’s
worst wartime mistake by Eugene V. Rostow in the September 1945 edition of Harper’s Magazine, the
government’s actions were in keeping with decades of anti-Asian sentiment on the West Coast.
After the order went into effect, Lt. General John L. DeWitt, in charge of the Western Defense command,
ordered approximately 127,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans—roughly 90 percent of those of
Japanese ethnicity living in the United States—to assembly centers where they were transferred to hastily
prepared camps in the interior of California, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Arkansas
(Figure 27.14). Those who were sent to the camps reported that the experience was deeply traumatic.
Families were sometimes separated. People could only bring a few of their belongings and had to abandon
the rest of their possessions. The camps themselves were dismal and overcrowded. Despite the hardships,
the Japanese attempted to build communities in the camps and resume “normal” life. Adults participated
in camp government and worked at a variety of jobs. Children attended school, played basketball against
local teams, and organized Boy Scout units. Nevertheless, they were imprisoned, and minor infractions,
such as wandering too near the camp gate or barbed wire fences while on an evening stroll, could meet
with severe consequences. Some sixteen thousand Germans, including some from Latin America, and
German Americans were also placed in internment camps, as were 2,373 persons of Italian ancestry.
However, unlike the case with Japanese Americans, they represented only a tiny percentage of the
members of these ethnic groups living in the country. Most of these people were innocent of any
wrongdoing, but some Germans were members of the Nazi party. No interned Japanese Americans were
found guilty of sabotage or espionage.

Figure 27.14 Japanese Americans standing in line in front of a poster detailing internment orders in California.
Despite being singled out for special treatment, many Japanese Americans sought to enlist, but draft
boards commonly classified them as 4-C: undesirable aliens. However, as the war ground on, some were
reclassified as eligible for service. In total, nearly thirty-three thousand Japanese Americans served in the
military during the war. Of particular note was the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, nicknamed the “Go
For Broke,” which finished the war as the most decorated unit in U.S. military history given its size and
length of service. While their successes, and the successes of the African American pilots, were lauded,
the country and the military still struggled to contend with its own racial tensions, even as the soldiers in
Europe faced the brutality of Nazi Germany.
Click and Explore
This U.S. government propaganda film (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Tarawa)

attempts to explain why the Japanese were interned.

• Identify the major battles of the European theater
• Analyze the goals and results of the major wartime summit meetings
Despite the fact that a Japanese attack in the Pacific was the tripwire for America’s entrance into the war,
Roosevelt had been concerned about Great Britain since the beginning of the Battle of Britain. Roosevelt
viewed Germany as the greater threat to freedom. Hence, he leaned towards a “Europe First” strategy,
even before the United States became an active belligerent. That meant that the United States would
concentrate the majority of its resources and energies in achieving a victory over Germany first and then
focus on defeating Japan. Within Europe, Churchill and Roosevelt were committed to saving Britain and
acted with this goal in mind, often ignoring the needs of the Soviet Union. As Roosevelt imagined an
“empire-free” postwar world, in keeping with the goals of the Atlantic Charter, he could also envision the
United States becoming the preeminent world power economically, politically, and militarily.
WARTIME DIPLOMACY
Franklin Roosevelt entered World War II with an eye toward a new postwar world, one where the United
States would succeed Britain as the leader of Western capitalist democracies, replacing the old British
imperial system with one based on free trade and decolonization. The goals of the Atlantic Charter had
explicitly included self-determination, self-government, and free trade. In 1941, although Roosevelt had
yet to meet Soviet premier Joseph Stalin, he had confidence that he could forge a positive relationship
with him, a confidence that Churchill believed was born of naiveté. These allied leaders, known as the Big
Three, thrown together by the necessity to defeat common enemies, took steps towards working in concert
despite their differences.
Through a series of wartime conferences, Roosevelt and the other global leaders sought to come up
with a strategy to both defeat the Germans and bolster relationships among allies. In January 1943,
at Casablanca, Morocco, Churchill convinced Roosevelt to delay an invasion of France in favor of an
invasion of Sicily (Figure 27.15). It was also at this conference that Roosevelt enunciated the doctrine
of “unconditional surrender.” Roosevelt agreed to demand an unconditional surrender from Germany
and Japan to assure the Soviet Union that the United States would not negotiate a separate peace and
prepare the former belligerents for a thorough and permanent transformation after the war. Roosevelt
thought that announcing this as a specific war aim would discourage any nation or leader from seeking
any negotiated armistice that would hinder efforts to reform and transform the defeated nations. Stalin,
who was not at the conference, affirmed the concept of unconditional surrender when asked to do so.
However, he was dismayed over the delay in establishing a “second front” along which the Americans and
British would directly engage German forces in western Europe. A western front, brought about through
an invasion across the English Channel, which Stalin had been demanding since 1941, offered the best
means of drawing Germany away from the east. At a meeting in Tehran, Iran, also in November 1943,
Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin met to finalize plans for a cross-channel invasion.
Figure 27.15 Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Roosevelt met together multiple times during the war.
One such conference was located in Casablanca, Morocco, in January 1943.

THE INVASION OF EUROPE

Preparing to engage the Nazis in Europe, the United States landed in North Africa in 1942. The Axis
campaigns in North Africa had begun when Italy declared war on England in June 1940, and British
forces had invaded the Italian colony of Libya. The Italians had responded with a counteroffensive that
penetrated into Egypt, only to be defeated by the British again. In response, Hitler dispatched the Afrika
Korps under General Erwin Rommel, and the outcome of the situation was in doubt until shortly before
American forces joined the British.
Although the Allied campaign secured control of the southern Mediterranean and preserved Egypt and
the Suez Canal for the British, Stalin and the Soviets were still engaging hundreds of German divisions in
bitter struggles at Stalingrad and Leningrad. The invasion of North Africa did nothing to draw German
troops away from the Soviet Union. An invasion of Europe by way of Italy, which is what the British
and American campaign in North Africa laid the ground for, pulled a few German divisions away
from their Russian targets. But while Stalin urged his allies to invade France, British and American
troops pursued the defeat of Mussolini’s Italy. This choice greatly frustrated Stalin, who felt that British
interests were taking precedence over the agony that the Soviet Union was enduring at the hands of
the invading German army. However, Churchill saw Italy as the vulnerable underbelly of Europe and
believed that Italian support for Mussolini was waning, suggesting that victory there might be relatively
easy. Moreover, Churchill pointed out that if Italy were taken out of the war, then the Allies would control
the Mediterranean, offering the Allies easier shipping access to both the Soviet Union and the British Far
Eastern colonies.
D-Day
A direct assault on Nazi Germany’s “Fortress Europe” was still necessary for final victory. On June 6, 1944,
the second front became a reality when Allied forces stormed the beaches of northern France on D-day.
Beginning at 6:30 a.m., some twenty-four thousand British, Canadian, and American troops waded ashore
along a fifty-mile piece of the Normandy coast (Figure 27.16). Well over a million troops would follow
their lead. German forces on the hills and cliffs above shot at them, and once they reached the beach, they
encountered barbed wire and land mines. More than ten thousand Allied soldiers were wounded or killed
during the assault. Following the establishment of beachheads at Normandy, it took months of difficult
fighting before Paris was liberated on August 20, 1944. The invasion did succeed in diverting German
forces from the eastern front to the western front, relieving some of the pressure on Stalin’s troops. By that
time, however, Russian forces had already defeated the German army at Stalingrad, an event that many
consider the turning point of the war in Europe, and begun to push the Germans out of the Soviet Union.
Figure 27.16 U.S. troops in a military landing craft approach the beach code-named “Omaha” on June 6, 1944.
More than ten thousand soldiers were killed or wounded during the D-day assault along the coast of Normandy,
France.
Nazi Germany was not ready to surrender, however. On December 16, in a surprise move, the Germans
threw nearly a quarter-million men at the Western Allies in an attempt to divide their armies and encircle
major elements of the American forces. The struggle, known as the Battle of the Bulge, raged until the end
of January. Some ninety thousand Americans were killed, wounded, or lost in action. Nevertheless, the
Germans were turned back, and Hitler’s forces were so spent that they could never again mount offensive
operations.
Confronting the Holocaust

The Holocaust, Hitler’s plan to kill the Jews of Europe, had begun as early as 1933, with the construction
of Dachau, the first of more than forty thousand camps for incarcerating Jews, submitting them to forced
labor, or exterminating them. Eventually, six extermination camps were established between 1941 and
1945 in Polish territory. Jewish men, women, and children from throughout Europe were transported
to these camps in Germany and other areas under Nazi control. Although the majority of the people
in the camps were Jews, the Nazis sent Roma (gypsies), gays and lesbians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and
political opponents to the camps as well. Some prisoners were put to work at hard labor; many of them
subsequently died of disease or starvation. Most of those sent to the extermination camps were killed upon
arrival with poisoned gas. Ultimately, some eleven million people died in the camps. As Soviet troops
began to advance from the east and U.S. forces from the west, camp guards attempted to hide the evidence
of their crimes by destroying records and camp buildings, and marching surviving prisoners away from
the sites (Figure 27.17).
Figure 27.17 A U.S. senator, and member of a congressional committee investigating Nazi atrocities, views the
evidence first hand at Buchenwald concentration camp near Weimar, Germany, in the summer of 1945.

MY STORY
Felix L. Sparks on the Liberation of Dachau
The horrors of the concentration camps remained with the soldiers who liberated them long after the war
had ended. Below is an excerpt of the recollection of one soldier.
Our first experience with the camp came as a traumatic shock. The first evidence of the
horrors to come was a string of forty railway cars on a railway spur leading into the camp.
Each car was filled with emaciated human corpses, both men and women. A hasty search by
the stunned infantry soldiers revealed no signs of life among the hundreds of still bodies, over
two thousand in all.
It was in this atmosphere of human depravity, degradation and death that the soldiers of my
battalion then entered the camp itself. Almost all of the SS command guarding the camp
had fled before our arrival, leaving behind about two hundred lower ranking members of the
command. There was some sporadic firing of weapons. As we approached the confinement
area, the scene numbed my senses. Dante’s Inferno seemed pale compared to the real hell
of Dachau. A row of small cement structures near the prison entrance contained a coal-fired
crematorium, a gas chamber, and rooms piled high with naked and emaciated corpses. As
I turned to look over the prison yard with un-believing eyes, I saw a large number of dead
inmates lying where they has fallen in the last few hours or days before our arrival. Since all of
the bodies were in various stages of decomposition, the stench of death was overpowering.
The men of the 45th Infantry Division were hardened combat veterans. We had been in
combat almost two years at that point. While we were accustomed to death, we were not able
to comprehend the type of death that we encountered at Dachau.
—Felix L. Sparks, remarks at the U.S. Holocaust Museum, May 8, 1995
Click and Explore
Listen to the accounts of Holocaust survivors (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

15Holocaust) by clicking on “Listen Now” below the name of the person whose story
you wish to hear.
YALTA AND PREPARING FOR VICTORY

The last time the Big Three met was in early February 1945 at Yalta in the Soviet Union. Roosevelt was
sick, and Stalin’s armies were pushing the German army back towards Berlin from the east. Churchill
and Roosevelt thus had to accept a number of compromises that strengthened Stalin’s position in eastern
Europe. In particular, they agreed to allow the Communist government installed by the Soviet Union in
Poland to remain in power until free elections took place. For his part, Stalin reaffirmed his commitment,
first voiced at Tehran, to enter the war against Japan following the surrender of Germany (Figure 27.18).
He also agreed that the Soviet Union would participate in the United Nations, a new peacekeeping body
intended to replace the League of Nations. The Big Three left Yalta with many details remaining unclear,
planning to finalize plans for the treatment of Germany and the shape of postwar Europe at a later
conference. However, Roosevelt did not live to attend the next meeting. He died on April 12, 1945, and
Harry S. Truman became president.
Figure 27.18 Prime Minister Winston Churchill, President Franklin Roosevelt, and Premier Joseph Stalin made final
plans for the defeat of Nazi Germany at Yalta in February 1945.
By April 1945, Soviet forces had reached Berlin, and both the U.S. and British Allies were pushing up
against Germany’s last defenses in the western part of the nation. Hitler committed suicide on April 30,
1945. On May 8, 1945, Germany surrendered. The war in Europe was over, and the Allies and liberated
regions celebrated the end of the long ordeal. Germany was thoroughly defeated; its industries and cities
were badly damaged.
The victorious Allies set about determining what to do to rebuild Europe at the Potsdam Summit
Conference in July 1945. Attending the conference were Stalin, Truman, and Churchill, now the outgoing
prime minister, as well as the new British prime minister, Clement Atlee. Plans to divide Germany and
Austria, and their capital cities, into four zones—to be occupied by the British, French, Americans, and
Soviets—a subject discussed at Yalta, were finalized. In addition, the Allies agreed to dismantle Germany’s
heavy industry in order to make it impossible for the country to produce more armaments.

• Discuss the strategy employed against the Japanese and some of the significant battles
of the Pacific campaign
• Describe the effects of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• Analyze the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan
Japanese forces won a series of early victories against Allied forces from December 1941 to May 1942. They
seized Guam and Wake Island from the United States, and streamed through Malaysia and Thailand into
the Philippines and through the Dutch East Indies. By February 1942, they were threatening Australia.
The Allies turned the tide in May and June 1942, at the Battle of Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway. The
Battle of Midway witnessed the first Japanese naval defeat since the nineteenth century. Shortly after the
American victory, U.S. forces invaded Guadalcanal and New Guinea. Slowly, throughout 1943, the United
States engaged in a campaign of “island hopping,” gradually moving across the Pacific to Japan. In 1944,
the United States, seized Saipan and won the Battle of the Philippine Sea. Progressively, American forces
drew closer to the strategically important targets of Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

THE PACIFIC CAMPAIGN

During the 1930s, Americans had caught glimpses of Japanese armies in action and grew increasingly
sympathetic towards war-torn China. Stories of Japanese atrocities bordering on genocide and the shock
of the attack on Pearl Harbor intensified racial animosity toward the Japanese. Wartime propaganda
portrayed Japanese soldiers as uncivilized and barbaric, sometimes even inhuman (Figure 27.19), unlike
America’s German foes. Admiral William Halsey spoke for many Americans when he urged them to
“Kill Japs! Kill Japs! Kill more Japs!” Stories of the dispiriting defeats at Bataan and the Japanese capture
of the Philippines at Corregidor in 1942 revealed the Japanese cruelty and mistreatment of Americans.
The “Bataan Death March,” during which as many as 650 American and 10,000 Filipino prisoners of war
died, intensified anti-Japanese feelings. Kamikaze attacks that took place towards the end of the war were
regarded as proof of the irrationality of Japanese martial values and mindless loyalty to Emperor Hirohito.
Figure 27.19 Anti-Japanese propaganda often portrayed the Japanese as inhuman (a). In addition to emphasizing
the supposed apish features of the Japanese (b), this poster depicts the victim as a white woman, undoubtedly to
increase American horror even more.
Despite the Allies’ Europe First strategy, American forces took the resources that they could assemble and
swung into action as quickly as they could to blunt the Japanese advance. Infuriated by stories of defeat
at the hands of the allegedly racially inferior Japanese, many high-ranking American military leaders
demanded that greater attention be paid to the Pacific campaign. Rather than simply wait for the invasion
of France to begin, naval and army officers such as General Douglas MacArthur argued that American
resources should be deployed in the Pacific to reclaim territory seized by Japan.
In the Pacific, MacArthur and the Allied forces pursued an island hopping strategy that bypassed certain
island strongholds held by the Japanese that were of little or no strategic value. By seizing locations from
which Japanese communications and transportation routes could be disrupted or destroyed, the Allies
advanced towards Japan without engaging the thousands of Japanese stationed on garrisoned islands. The
goal was to advance American air strength close enough to Japan proper to achieve air superiority over
the home islands; the nation could then be bombed into submission or at least weakened in preparation
for an amphibious assault. By February 1945, American forces had reached the island of Iwo Jima (Figure
27.20). Iwo Jima was originally meant to serve as a forward air base for fighter planes, providing cover
for long-distance bombing raids on Japan. Two months later, an even larger engagement, the hardest
fought and bloodiest battle of the Pacific theater, took place as American forces invaded Okinawa. The
battle raged from April 1945 well into July 1945; the island was finally secured at the cost of seventeen
thousand American soldiers killed and thirty-six thousand wounded. Japanese forces lost over 100,000
troops. Perhaps as many as 150,000 civilians perished as well.
Figure 27.20 American forces come ashore on Iwo Jima. Their vehicles had difficulty moving on the beach’s
volcanic sands. Troops endured shelling by Japanese troops on Mount Suribachi, the mountain in the background.
DROPPING THE ATOMIC BOMB

All belligerents in World War II sought to develop powerful and devastating weaponry. As early as 1939,
German scientists had discovered how to split uranium atoms, the technology that would ultimately allow
for the creation of the atomic bomb. Albert Einstein, who had emigrated to the United States in 1933 to
escape the Nazis, urged President Roosevelt to launch an American atomic research project, and Roosevelt
agreed to do so, with reservations. In late 1941, the program received its code name: the Manhattan
Project. Located at Los Alamos, New Mexico, the Manhattan Project ultimately employed 150,000 people
and cost some $2 billion. In July 1945, the project’s scientists successfully tested the first atomic bomb.
In the spring of 1945, the military began to prepare for the possible use of an atomic bomb by choosing
appropriate targets. Suspecting that the immediate bomb blast would extend over one mile and secondary
effects would include fire damage, a compact city of significant military value with densely built frame
buildings seemed to be the best target. Eventually, the city of Hiroshima, the headquarters of the Japanese
Second Army, and the communications and supply hub for all of southern Japan, was chosen. The city
of Kokura was chosen as the primary target of the second bomb, and Nagasaki, an industrial center
producing war materiel and the largest seaport in southern Japan, was selected as a secondary target.
The Enola Gay, a B-29 bomber named after its pilot’s mother, dropped an atomic bomb known as “Little
Boy” on Hiroshima at 8:15 a.m. A huge mushroom cloud rose above the city. Survivors sitting down for
breakfast or preparing to go to school recalled seeing a bright light and then being blown across the room.
The immense heat of the blast melted stone and metal, and ignited fires throughout the city. One man later
recalled watching his mother and brother burn to death as fire consumed their home. A female survivor,
a child at the time of the attack, remembered finding the body of her mother, which had been reduced to
ashes and fell apart as she touched it. Two-thirds of the buildings in Hiroshima were destroyed. Within
an hour after the bombing, radioactive “black rain” began to fall. Approximately seventy thousand people
died in the original blast. The same number would later die of radiation poisoning. When Japan refused to
surrender, a second atomic bomb, named Fat Man, was dropped on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. At least
sixty thousand people were killed at Nagasaki. Kokura, the primary target, had been shrouded in clouds
on that morning and thus had escaped destruction. It is impossible to say with certainty how many died in
the two attacks; the heat of the bomb blasts incinerated or vaporized many of the victims (Figure 27.21).

Figure 27.21 According to estimates, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (a) together killed
anywhere from 125,000 to over 250,000 people. The so-called Genbaku (A-Bomb) Dome, now the Hiroshima Peace
Memorial, was the only building left standing near the Hiroshima bomb’s hypocenter (b).
Click and Explore
Visit the Atomic Bomb Museum site (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15ABomb) to

read the accounts of survivors Hiroshi Morishita and Shizuko Nishimoto.
The decision to use nuclear weapons is widely debated. Why exactly did the United States deploy an
atomic bomb? The fierce resistance that the Japanese forces mounted during their early campaigns led
American planners to believe that any invasion of the Japanese home islands would be exceedingly
bloody. According to some estimates, as many as 250,000 Americans might die in securing a final victory.
Such considerations undoubtedly influenced President Truman’s decision. Truman, who had not known
about the Manhattan Project until Roosevelt’s death, also may not have realized how truly destructive it
was. Indeed, some of the scientists who had built the bomb were surprised by its power. One question
that has not been fully answered is why the United States dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki. As
some scholars have noted, if Truman’s intention was to eliminate the need for a home island invasion, he
could have given Japan more time to respond after bombing Hiroshima. He did not, however. The second
bombing may have been intended to send a message to Stalin, who was becoming intransigent regarding
postwar Europe. If it is indeed true that Truman had political motivations for using the bombs, then the
destruction of Nagasaki might have been the first salvo of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. And yet,
other historians have pointed out that the war had unleashed such massive atrocities against civilians by
all belligerents—the United States included—that by the summer of 1945, the president no longer needed
any particular reason to use his entire nuclear arsenal.
THE WAR ENDS

Whatever the true reasons for their use, the bombs had the desired effect of getting Japan to surrender.
Even before the atomic attacks, the conventional bombings of Japan, the defeat of its forces in the field,
and the entry of the Soviet Union into the war had convinced the Imperial Council that they had to end
the war. They had hoped to negotiate the terms of the peace, but Emperor Hirohito intervened after the
destruction of Nagasaki and accepted unconditional surrender. Although many Japanese shuddered at the
humiliation of defeat, most were relieved that the war was over. Japan’s industries and cities had been
thoroughly destroyed, and the immediate future looked bleak as they awaited their fate at the hands of the
American occupation forces.
The victors had yet another nation to rebuild and reform, but the war was finally over. Following the
surrender, the Japanese colony of Korea was divided along the thirty-eighth parallel; the Soviet Union
was given control of the northern half and the United States was given control of the southern portion. In
Europe, as had been agreed upon at a meeting of the Allies in Potsdam in the summer of 1945, Germany
was divided into four occupation zones that would be controlled by Britain, France, the Soviet Union,
and the United States, respectively. The city of Berlin was similarly split into four. Plans were made to
prosecute war criminals in both Japan and Germany. In October 1945, the United Nations was created.
People around the world celebrated the end of the conflict, but America’s use of atomic bombs and
disagreements between the United States and the Soviet Union at Yalta and Potsdam would contribute to
ongoing instability in the postwar world.

Key Terms
Big Three the nickname given to the leaders of the three major Allied nations: Winston Churchill,
Franklin Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin
conscientious objectors those who, for religious or philosophical reasons, refuse to serve in the armed
forces
D-day June 6, 1944, the date of the invasion of Normandy, France, by British, Canadian, and American
forces, which opened a second front in Europe
Double Vcampaign a campaign by African Americans to win victory over the enemy overseas and
victory over racism at home
Enola Gay the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima
Executive Order 9066 the order given by President Roosevelt to relocate and detain people of Japanese
ancestry, including those who were American citizens
Fascism a political ideology that places a heightened focus on national unity, through dictatorial rule,
and militarism
internment the forced collection of the West Coast Japanese and Japanese American population into ten
relocation centers for the greater part of World War II
Manhattan Project the code name given to the research project that developed the atomic bomb
materiel equipment and supplies used by the military
Rosie the Riveter a symbol of female workers in the defense industries
zoot suit a flamboyant outfit favored by young African American and Mexican American men
Summary
America sought, at the end of the First World War, to create new international relationships that would
make such wars impossible in the future. But as the Great Depression hit Europe, several new leaders
rose to power under the new political ideologies of Fascism and Nazism. Mussolini in Italy and Hitler
in Germany were both proponents of Fascism, using dictatorial rule to achieve national unity. Still, the
United States remained focused on the economic challenges of its own Great Depression. Hence, there was
little interest in getting involved in Europe’s problems or even the China-Japan conflict.
It soon became clear, however, that Germany and Italy’s alliance was putting democratic countries at
risk. Roosevelt first sought to support Great Britain and China by providing economic support without
intervening directly. However, when Japan, an ally of Germany and Italy, attacked Pearl Harbor, catching
the military base unaware and claiming thousands of lives, America’s feelings toward war shifted, and the
country was quickly pulled into the global conflict.
27.2 The Home Front

The brunt of the war’s damage occurred far from United States soil, but Americans at home were still
greatly affected by the war. Women struggled to care for children with scarce resources at their disposal
and sometimes while working full time. Economically, the country surged forward, but strict rationing
for the war effort meant that Americans still went without. New employment opportunities opened up
for women and ethnic minorities, as white men enlisted or were drafted. These new opportunities were
positive for those who benefited from them, but they also created new anxieties among white men about
racial and gender equality. Race riots took place across the country, and Americans of Japanese ancestry
were relocated to internment camps. Still, there was an overwhelming sense of patriotism in the country,
which was reflected in the culture of the day.

Upon entering the war, President Roosevelt believed that the greatest threat to the long-term survival
of democracy and freedom would be a German victory. Hence, he entered into an alliance with British
prime minister Winston Churchill and Soviet premier Joseph Stalin to defeat the common enemy while
also seeking to lay the foundation for a peaceful postwar world in which the United States would play
a major and permanent role. Appeasement and nonintervention had been proven to be shortsighted and
tragic policies that failed to provide security and peace either for the United States or for the world.
With the aid of the British, the United States invaded North Africa and from there invaded Europe by
way of Italy. However, the cross-channel invasion of Europe through France that Stalin had long called
for did not come until 1944, by which time the Soviets had turned the tide of battle in eastern Europe. The
liberation of Hitler’s concentration camps forced Allied nations to confront the grisly horrors that had been
taking place as the war unfolded. The Big Three met for one last time in February 1945, at Yalta, where
Churchill and Roosevelt agreed to several conditions that strengthened Stalin’s position. They planned to
finalize their plans at a later conference, but Roosevelt died two months later.

The way in which the United States fought the war in the Pacific was fueled by fear of Japanese
imperialistic aggression, as well as anger over Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor and its mistreatment of its
enemies. It was also influenced by a long history of American racism towards Asians that dated back to the
nineteenth century. From hostile anti-Japanese propaganda to the use of two atomic bombs on Japanese
cities, America’s actions during the Pacific campaign were far more aggressive than they were in the
European theater. Using the strategy of island hopping, the United States was able to get within striking
distance of Japan. Only once they adopted this strategy were the Allied troops able to turn the tide against
what had been a series of challenging Japanese victories. The war ended with Japan’s surrender.
The combined Allied forces had successfully waged a crusade against Nazi Germany, Italy, and Japan.
The United States, forced to abandon a policy of nonintervention outside the Western Hemisphere, had
been able to mobilize itself and produce the weapons and the warriors necessary to defeat its enemies.
Following World War II, America would never again retreat from the global stage, and its early mastery
of nuclear weapons would make it the dominant force in the postwar world.
Review Questions
1. The United States Senator who led the 2. Describe Franklin Roosevelt’s efforts on behalf
noninterventionists in Congress and called for of German Jews in the 1930s. How was he able to
neutrality legislation in the 1930s was ________. help, and in what ways did his actions come up
A. Gerald P. Nye short?
B. Robert Wagner
C. George C. Marshall 3. During World War II, unionized workers
D. Neville Chamberlain agreed ________.
A. to work without pay
B. to go without vacations or days off

C. to live near the factories to save time 7. What did Roosevelt mean to achieve with his
commuting demand for Germany and Japan’s unconditional
D. to keep production going by not striking surrender?
4. The program to recruit Mexican agricultural 8. What were the phases of the Holocaust?
workers during World War II was the ________.
A. bracero program 9. Which of the following islands had to be
B. maquiladora program captured in order to provide a staging area for
C. brazzos program U.S. bombing raids against Japan?
D. campesino program A. Sakhalin
B. Iwo Jima
5. What were American women’s contributions C. Molokai
to the war effort? D. Reunion
6. Which of the following demands did the Soviet 10. What purpose did the Allied strategy of
Union make of Britain and the United States? island hopping serve?
A. the right to try all Nazi war criminals in the
Soviet Union 11. Why might President Truman have made the
B. the invasion of North Africa to help the decision to drop the second atomic bomb on
Soviet Union’s ally Iraq Nagasaki?
C. the invasion of western Europe to draw
German forces away from the Soviet Union
D. the right to place Communist Party leaders
in charge of the German government

12. Given that the Japanese war against China began in 1937 and German aggression began in Europe in
1936, why was it not until 1941 that the United States joined the war against the Axis powers? Was the
decision to stay out of the war until 1941 a wise one on the part of the United States?
13. Should the United States have done more to help European Jews during the 1930s? What could it have
done?
14. In what ways did World War II improve the status of women and African Americans in the United
States?
15. Should the U.S. government have ordered the internment of Japanese Americans? Does the fear of
espionage or sabotage justify depriving American citizens of their rights?
16. Did the United States make the right decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan?

Chapter 28 Post-War Prosperity and Cold War Fears, 1945-1960 829
CHAPTER 28
Post-War Prosperity and Cold War

Fears, 1945-1960
Figure 28.1 Is This Tomorrow? warned Americans about the potential horrors of living under a Communist
dictatorship. Postwar propaganda such as this comic book, the cover of which showed invading Russians attacking
Americans and the U.S. flag in flames, served to drum up fear during the Cold War.
Chapter Outline
28.1 The Challenges of Peacetime
28.2 The Cold War
28.3 The American Dream
28.4 Popular Culture and Mass Media
28.5 The African American Struggle for Civil Rights
Introduction
Is This Tomorrow? (Figure 28.1), a 1947 comic book, highlights one way that the federal government
and some Americans revived popular sentiment in opposition to Communism. The United States and
the Soviet Union, allies during World War II, had different visions for the postwar world. As Joseph
Stalin, premier of the Soviet Union, tightened his grip on the countries of Eastern Europe, Americans
began to fear that it was his goal to spread the Communist revolution throughout the world and make
newly independent nations puppets of the Soviet Union. To enlist as many Americans as possible in
the fight against Soviet domination, the U.S. government and purveyors of popular culture churned out
propaganda intended to convince average citizens of the dangers posed by the Soviet Union. Artwork
such as the cover of Is This Tomorrow?, which depicts Russians attacking Americans, including a struggling
woman and an African American veteran still wearing his uniform, played upon postwar fears of
Communism and of a future war with the Soviet Union. These fears dominated American life and affected
foreign policy, military strategy, urban planning, popular culture, and the civil rights movement.
830 Chapter 28 Post-War Prosperity and Cold War Fears, 1945-1960

• Identify the issues that the nation faced during demobilization
• Explain the goals and objectives of the Truman administration
• Evaluate the actions taken by the U.S. government to address the concerns of returning
veterans
The decade and a half immediately following the end of World War II was one in which middle- and
working-class Americans hoped for a better life than the one they lived before the war. These hopes were
tainted by fears of economic hardship, as many who experienced the Great Depression feared a return
to economic decline. Others clamored for the opportunity to spend the savings they had accumulated
through long hours on the job during the war when consumer goods were rarely available.
African Americans who had served in the armed forces and worked in the defense industry did not wish to
return to “normal.” Instead, they wanted the same rights and opportunities that other Americans had. Still
other citizens were less concerned with the economy or civil rights; instead, they looked with suspicion
at the Soviet presence in Eastern Europe. What would happen now that the United States and the Soviet
Union were no longer allies, and the other nations that had long helped maintain a balance of power were
left seriously damaged by the war? Harry Truman, president for less than a year when the war ended, was
charged with addressing all of these concerns and giving the American people a “fair deal.”
DEMOBILIZATION AND THE RETURN TO CIVILIAN LIFE

The most immediate task to be completed after World War II was demobilizing the military and
reintegrating the veterans into civilian life. In response to popular pressure and concerns over the budget,
the United States sought to demobilize its armed forces as quickly as possible. Many servicemen, labeled
Figure 28.2 (credit: “1953”: modification of work by Library of Congress)

the “Ohio boys” (Over the Hill in October), threatened to vote Republican if they were not home by
Christmas 1946. Understandably, this placed a great deal of pressure on the still-inexperienced president
to shrink the size of the U.S. military.
Not everyone wanted the government to reduce America’s military might, however. Secretary of the Navy
James Forrestal and Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson warned Truman in October 1945 that an overly
rapid demobilization jeopardized the nation’s strategic position in the world. While Truman agreed with
their assessment, he felt powerless to put a halt to demobilization. In response to mounting political
pressure, the government reduced the size of the U.S. military from a high of 12 million in June 1945 to
1.5 million in June 1947—still more troops than the nation ever had in arms during peacetime. Soldiers
and sailors were not the only ones dismissed from service. As the war drew to a close, millions of women
working the jobs of men who had gone off to fight were dismissed by their employers, often because the
demand for war materiel had declined and because government propaganda encouraged them to go home
to make way for the returning troops. While most women workers surveyed at the end of the war wished
to keep their jobs (75–90 percent, depending on the study), many did in fact leave them. Nevertheless,
throughout the late 1940s and the 1950s, women continued to make up approximately one-third of the U.S.
labor force.
Readjustment to postwar life was difficult for the returning troops. The U.S. Army estimated that as many
of 20 percent of its casualties were psychological. Although many eagerly awaited their return to civilian
status, others feared that they would not be able to resume a humdrum existence after the experience of
fighting on the front lines. Veterans also worried that they wouldn’t find work and that civilian defense
workers were better positioned to take advantage of the new jobs opening up in the peacetime economy.
Some felt that their wives and children would not welcome their presence, and some children did indeed
resent the return of fathers who threatened to disrupt the mother-child household. Those on the home
front worried as well. Doctors warned fiancées, wives, and mothers that soldiers might return with
psychological problems that would make them difficult to live with.
The GI Bill of Rights

Well before the end of the war, Congress had passed one of the most significant and far-reaching pieces
of legislation to ease veterans’ transition into civilian life: the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, also known
as the GI Bill (Figure 28.3). Every honorably discharged veteran who had seen active duty, but not
necessarily combat, was eligible to receive a year’s worth of unemployment compensation. This provision
not only calmed veterans’ fears regarding their ability to support themselves, but it also prevented large
numbers of men—as well as some women—from suddenly entering a job market that did not have enough
positions for them. Another way that the GI Bill averted a glut in the labor market was by giving returning
veterans the opportunity to pursue an education; it paid for tuition at a college or vocational school, and
gave them a stipend to live on while they completed their studies.
Figure 28.3 President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, or GI Bill, on June 22,
1944, just weeks after the Allied invasion of Normandy, France, and more than a year before the end of the war.
The result was a dramatic increase in the number of students—especially male ones—enrolled in American
colleges and universities. In 1940, only 5.5 percent of American men had a college degree. By 1950, that
percentage had increased to 7.3 percent, as more than two million servicemen took advantage of the
benefits offered by the GI Bill to complete college. The numbers continued to grow throughout the 1950s.
Upon graduation, these men were prepared for skilled blue-collar or white-collar jobs that paved the way
for many to enter the middle class. The creation of a well-educated, skilled labor force helped the U.S.
economy as well. Other benefits offered by the GI Bill included low-interest loans to purchase homes or
start small businesses.
However, not all veterans were able to take advantage of the GI Bill. African American veterans could
use their educational benefits only to attend schools that accepted black students. The approximately nine
thousand servicemen and women who were dishonorably discharged because they were gay or lesbian
were ineligible for GI Bill benefits. Benefits for some Mexican American veterans, mainly in Texas, were
also denied or delayed.
The Return of the Japanese

While most veterans received assistance to help in their adjustment to postwar life, others returned home
to an uncertain future without the promise of government aid to help them resume their prewar lives.
Japanese Americans from the West Coast who had been interned during the war also confronted the
task of rebuilding their lives. In December 1944, Franklin Roosevelt had declared an end to the forced
relocation of Japanese Americans, and as of January 1945, they were free to return to their homes. In many
areas, however, neighbors clung to their prejudices and denounced those of Japanese descent as disloyal
and dangerous. These feelings had been worsened by wartime propaganda, which often featured horrific
accounts of Japanese mistreatment of prisoners, and by the statements of military officers to the effect that
the Japanese were inherently savage. Facing such animosity, many Japanese American families chose to
move elsewhere. Those who did return often found that in their absence, “friends” and neighbors had sold
possessions that had been left with them for safekeeping. Many homes had been vandalized and farms
destroyed. When Japanese Americans reopened their businesses, former customers sometimes boycotted
them.

Click and Explore
For more on the experiences of Japanese Americans (http://openstaxcollege.org/

l/15JapaneseOR) after internment, read about their return to communities in Oregon
after World War II.
THE FAIR DEAL

Early in his presidency, Truman sought to build on the promises of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Besides
demobilizing the armed forces and preparing for the homecoming of servicemen and women, he also had
to guide the nation through the process of returning to a peacetime economy. To this end, he proposed
an ambitious program of social legislation that included establishing a federal minimum wage, expanding
Social Security and public housing, and prohibiting child labor. Wartime price controls were retained
for some items but removed from others, like meat. In his 1949 inaugural address, Truman referred
to his programs as the “Fair Deal,” a nod to his predecessor’s New Deal. He wanted the Fair Deal to
include Americans of color and became the first president to address the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). He also took decisive steps towards extending civil rights to
African Americans by establishing, by executive order in December 1946, a Presidential Committee on
Civil Rights to investigate racial discrimination in the United States. Truman also desegregated the armed
forces, again by executive order, in July 1948, overriding many objections that the military was no place
for social experimentation.
Congress, however, which was dominated by Republicans and southern conservative Democrats, refused
to pass more “radical” pieces of legislation, such as a bill providing for national healthcare. The American
Medical Association spent some $1.5 million to defeat Truman’s healthcare proposal, which it sought
to discredit as socialized medicine in order to appeal to Americans’ fear of Communism. The same
Congress also refused to make lynching a federal crime or outlaw the poll tax that reduced the access
of poor Americans to the ballot box. Congress also rejected a bill that would have made Roosevelt’s Fair
Employment Practices Committee, which prohibited racial discrimination by companies doing business
with the federal government, permanent. At the same time, they passed many conservative pieces of
legislation. For example, the Taft-Hartley Act, which limited the power of unions, became law despite
Truman’s veto.
28.2 The Cold War

• Explain how and why the Cold War emerged in the wake of World War II
• Describe the steps taken by the U.S. government to oppose Communist expansion in
Europe and Asia
• Discuss the government’s efforts to root out Communist influences in the United States
As World War II drew to a close, the alliance that had made the United States and the Soviet Union
partners in their defeat of the Axis powers—Germany, Italy, and Japan—began to fall apart. Both sides
realized that their visions for the future of Europe and the world were incompatible. Joseph Stalin, the
premier of the Soviet Union, wished to retain hold of Eastern Europe and establish Communist, pro-
Soviet governments there, in an effort to both expand Soviet influence and protect the Soviet Union
from future invasions. He also sought to bring Communist revolution to Asia and to developing nations
elsewhere in the world. The United States wanted to expand its influence as well by protecting or installing
democratic governments throughout the world. It sought to combat the influence of the Soviet Union
by forming alliances with Asian, African, and Latin American nations, and by helping these countries
to establish or expand prosperous, free-market economies. The end of the war left the industrialized
nations of Europe and Asia physically devastated and economically exhausted by years of invasion, battle,
and bombardment. With Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and China reduced to shadows of
their former selves, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the last two superpowers and
quickly found themselves locked in a contest for military, economic, social, technological, and ideological
supremacy.
FROM ISOLATIONISM TO ENGAGEMENT

The United States had a long history of avoiding foreign alliances that might require the commitment of
its troops abroad. However, in accepting the realities of the post-World War II world, in which traditional
powers like Great Britain or France were no longer strong enough to police the globe, the United States
realized that it would have to make a permanent change in its foreign policy, shifting from relative
isolation to active engagement.
On assuming the office of president upon the death of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman was already
troubled by Soviet actions in Europe. He disliked the concessions made by Roosevelt at Yalta, which
had allowed the Soviet Union to install a Communist government in Poland. At the Potsdam conference,
held from July 17 to August 2, 1945, Truman also opposed Stalin’s plans to demand large reparations
from Germany. He feared the burden that this would impose on Germany might lead to another cycle
of German rearmament and aggression—a fear based on that nation’s development after World War I
(Figure 28.4).
Figure 28.4 At the postwar conference in Potsdam, Germany, Harry Truman stands between Joseph Stalin (right)
and Clement Atlee (left). Atlee became prime minister of Great Britain, replacing Winston Churchill, while the
conference was taking place.
Although the United States and the Soviet Union did finally reach an agreement at Potsdam, this was
the final occasion on which they cooperated for quite some time. Each remained convinced that its
own economic and political systems were superior to the other’s, and the two superpowers quickly
found themselves drawn into conflict. The decades-long struggle between them for technological and
ideological supremacy became known as the Cold War. So called because it did not include direct military
confrontation between Soviet and U.S. troops, the Cold War was fought with a variety of other weapons:

espionage and surveillance, political assassinations, propaganda, and the formation of alliances with other
nations. It also became an arms race, as both countries competed to build the greatest stockpile of nuclear
weapons, and also competed for influence in poorer nations, supporting opposite sides in wars in some of
those nations, such as Korea and Vietnam.
CONTAINMENT ABROAD
In February 1946, George Kennan, a State Department official stationed at the U.S. embassy in Moscow,
sent an eight-thousand-word message to Washington, DC. In what became known as the “Long
Telegram,” Kennan maintained that Soviet leaders believed that the only way to protect the Soviet Union
was to destroy “rival” nations and their influence over weaker nations. According to Kennan, the Soviet
Union was not so much a revolutionary regime as a totalitarian bureaucracy that was unable to accept the
prospect of a peaceful coexistence of the United States and itself. He advised that the best way to thwart
Soviet plans for the world was to contain Soviet influence—primarily through economic policy—to those
places where it already existed and prevent its political expansion into new areas. This strategy, which
came to be known as the policy of containment, formed the basis for U.S. foreign policy and military
decision making for more than thirty years.
As Communist governments came to power elsewhere in the world, American policymakers extended
their strategy of containment to what became known as the domino theory under the Eisenhower
administration: Neighbors to Communist nations, so was the assumption, were likely to succumb to the
same allegedly dangerous and infectious ideology. Like dominos toppling one another, entire regions
would eventually be controlled by the Soviets. The demand for anti-Communist containment appeared as
early as March 1946 in a speech by Winston Churchill, in which he referred to an Iron Curtain that divided
Europe into the “free” West and the Communist East controlled by the Soviet Union.
The commitment to containing Soviet expansion made necessary the ability to mount a strong military
offense and defense. In pursuit of this goal, the U.S. military was reorganized under the National Security
Act of 1947. This act streamlined the government in matters of security by creating the National Security
Council and establishing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to conduct surveillance and espionage
in foreign nations. It also created the Department of the Air Force, which was combined with the
Departments of the Army and Navy in 1949 to form one Department of Defense.
The Truman Doctrine

In Europe, the end of World War II witnessed the rise of a number of internal struggles for control of
countries that had been occupied by Nazi Germany. Great Britain occupied Greece as the Nazi regime
there collapsed. The British aided the authoritarian government of Greece in its battles against Greek
Communists. In March 1947, Great Britain announced that it could no longer afford the cost of supporting
government military activities and withdrew from participation in the Greek civil war. Stepping into
this power vacuum, the United States announced the Truman Doctrine, which offered support to Greece
and Turkey in the form of financial assistance, weaponry, and troops to help train their militaries and
bolster their governments against Communism. Eventually, the program was expanded to include any
state trying to withstand a Communist takeover. The Truman Doctrine thus became a hallmark of U.S.
Cold War policy.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
The Truman Doctrine
In 1947, Great Britain, which had assumed responsibility for the disarming of German troops in Greece
at the end of World War II, could no longer afford to provide financial support for the authoritarian Greek
government, which was attempting to win a civil war against Greek leftist rebels. President Truman,
unwilling to allow a Communist government to come to power there, requested Congress to provide funds
for the government of Greece to continue its fight against the rebels. Truman also requested aid for the
government of Turkey to fight the forces of Communism in that country. He said:
At the present moment in world history nearly every nation must choose between alternative
ways of life. The choice is too often not a free one.
Should we fail to aid Greece and Turkey in this fateful hour, the effect will be far reaching to
the West as well as to the East.
The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by misery and want. They spread and grow in
the evil soil of poverty and strife. They reach their full growth when the hope of a people for a
better life has died. We must keep that hope alive.
The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms.
If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world—and we shall surely
endanger the welfare of our own nation.
Great responsibilities have been placed upon us by the swift movement of events.
I am confident that the Congress will face these responsibilities squarely.
What role is Truman suggesting that the United States assume in the postwar world? Does the United
States still assume this role?
The Marshall Plan

By 1946, the American economy was growing significantly. At the same time, the economic situation in
Europe was disastrous. The war had turned much of Western Europe into a battlefield, and the rebuilding
of factories, public transportation systems, and power stations progressed exceedingly slowly. Starvation
loomed as a real possibility for many. As a result of these conditions, Communism was making significant
inroads in both Italy and France. These concerns led Truman, along with Secretary of State George C.
Marshall, to propose to Congress the European Recovery Program, popularly known as the Marshall
Plan. Between its implantation in April 1948 and its termination in 1951, this program gave $13 billion in
economic aid to European nations.
Truman’s motivation was economic and political, as well as humanitarian. The plan stipulated that the
European nations had to work together in order to receive aid, thus enforcing unity through enticement,
while seeking to undercut the political popularity of French and Italian Communists and dissuading
moderates from forming coalition governments with them. Likewise, much of the money had to be spent
on American goods, boosting the postwar economy of the United States as well as the American cultural
presence in Europe. Stalin regarded the program as a form of bribery. The Soviet Union refused to accept
aid from the Marshall Plan, even though it could have done so, and forbade the Communist states of
Eastern Europe to accept U.S. funds as well. Those states that did accept aid began to experience an
economic recovery.

MY STORY
George C. Marshall and the Nobel Peace Prize
The youngest child of a Pennsylvania businessman and Democrat, George C. Marshall (Figure 28.5)
chose a military career. He attended the Virginia Military Institute, was a veteran of World War I, and spent
the rest of his life either in the military or otherwise in the service of his country, including as President
Truman’s Secretary of State. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953, the only soldier to ever
receive that honor. Below is an excerpt of his remarks as he accepted the award.
Figure 28.5 During World War II, George C. Marshall was responsible for expanding the
189,000-member U.S. Army into a modern, fighting force of eight million by 1942. As Secretary of State
under Truman, he proposed the European Recovery Program to aid European economies struggling
after the war.
There has been considerable comment over the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a
soldier. I am afraid this does not seem as remarkable to me as it quite evidently appears
to others. I know a great deal of the horrors and tragedies of war. Today, as chairman of
the American Battle Monuments Commission, it is my duty to supervise the construction
and maintenance of military cemeteries in many countries overseas, particularly in Western
Europe. The cost of war in human lives is constantly spread before me, written neatly in many
ledgers whose columns are gravestones. I am deeply moved to find some means or method
of avoiding another calamity of war. Almost daily I hear from the wives, or mothers, or families
of the fallen. The tragedy of the aftermath is almost constantly before me.
I share with you an active concern for some practical method for avoiding war. . . . A
very strong military posture is vitally necessary today. How long it must continue I am
not prepared to estimate, but I am sure that it is too narrow a basis on which to build a
dependable, long-enduring peace. The guarantee for a long continued peace will depend on
other factors in addition to a moderated military strength, and no less important. Perhaps
the most important single factor will be a spiritual regeneration to develop goodwill, faith,
and understanding among nations. Economic factors will undoubtedly play an important part.
Agreements to secure a balance of power, however disagreeable they may seem, must
likewise be considered. And with all these there must be wisdom and the will to act on that
wisdom.
What steps did Marshall recommend be taken to maintain a lasting peace? To what extent have today’s
nations heeded his advice?
Showdown in Europe
The lack of consensus with the Soviets on the future of Germany led the United States, Great Britain, and
France to support joining their respective occupation zones into a single, independent state. In December
1946, they took steps to do so, but the Soviet Union did not wish the western zones of the country to
unify under a democratic, pro-capitalist government. The Soviet Union also feared the possibility of a
unified West Berlin, located entirely within the Soviet sector. Three days after the western allies authorized
the introduction of a new currency in Western Germany—the Deutsche Mark—Stalin ordered all land
and water routes to the western zones of the city Berlin to be cut off in June 1948. Hoping to starve the
western parts of the city into submission, the Berlin blockade was also a test of the emerging U.S. policy of
containment.
Unwilling to abandon Berlin, the United States, Great Britain, and France began to deliver all needed
supplies to West Berlin by air (Figure 28.6). In April 1949, the three countries joined Canada and eight
Western European nations to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), an alliance pledging
its members to mutual defense in the event of attack. On May 12, 1949, a year and approximately two
million tons of supplies later, the Soviets admitted defeat and ended the blockade of Berlin. On May 23,
the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), consisting of the unified western zones and commonly referred
to as West Germany, was formed. The Soviets responded by creating the German Democratic Republic, or
East Germany, in October 1949.
Figure 28.6 American C-47 transport planes (a) are loaded with staged supplies at a French airport before taking off
for Berlin. Residents of Berlin wait for a U.S. plane (b) carrying needed supplies to land at Templehof Airport in the
American sector of the city.
CONTAINMENT AT HOME
In 1949, two incidents severely disrupted American confidence in the ability of the United States to contain
the spread of Communism and limit Soviet power in the world. First, on August 29, 1949, the Soviet Union
exploded its first atomic bomb—no longer did the United States have a monopoly on nuclear power. A few
months later, on October 1, 1949, Chinese Communist Party leader Mao Zedong announced the triumph
of the Chinese Communists over their Nationalist foes in a civil war that had been raging since 1927. The
Nationalist forces, under their leader Chiang Kai-shek, departed for Taiwan in December 1949.
Immediately, there were suspicions that spies had passed bomb-making secrets to the Soviets and that
Communist sympathizers in the U.S. State Department had hidden information that might have enabled
the United States to ward off the Communist victory in China. Indeed, in February 1950, Wisconsin
senator Joseph McCarthy, a Republican, charged in a speech that the State Department was filled with
Communists. Also in 1950, the imprisonment in Great Britain of Klaus Fuchs, a German-born physicist
who had worked on the Manhattan Project and was then convicted of passing nuclear secrets to the
Soviets, increased American fears. Information given by Fuchs to the British implicated a number of

American citizens as well. The most infamous trial of suspected American spies was that of Julius and
Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed in June 1953 despite a lack of evidence against them. Several decades
later, evidence was found that Julius, but not Ethel, had in fact given information to the Soviet Union.
Fears that Communists within the United States were jeopardizing the country’s security had existed even
before the victory of Mao Zedong and the arrest and conviction of the atomic spies. Roosevelt’s New
Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal were often criticized as “socialist,” which many mistakenly associated with
Communism, and Democrats were often branded Communists by Republicans. In response, on March
21, 1947, Truman signed Executive Order 9835, which provided the Federal Bureau of Investigation with
broad powers to investigate federal employees and identify potential security risks. State and municipal
governments instituted their own loyalty boards to find and dismiss potentially disloyal workers.
In addition to loyalty review boards, the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC),
established in 1938 to investigate suspected Nazi sympathizers, after World War II also sought to root
out suspected Communists in business, academia, and the media. HUAC was particularly interested
in Hollywood because it feared that Communist sympathizers might use motion pictures as pro-Soviet
propaganda. Witnesses were subpoenaed and required to testify before the committee; refusal could
result in imprisonment. Those who invoked Fifth Amendment protections, or were otherwise suspected
of Communist sympathies, often lost their jobs or found themselves on a blacklist, which prevented them
from securing employment. Notable artists who were blacklisted in the 1940s and 1950s include composer
Leonard Bernstein, novelist Dashiell Hammett, playwright and screenwriter Lillian Hellman, actor and
singer Paul Robeson, and musician Artie Shaw.
TO THE TRENCHES AGAIN

Just as the U.S. government feared the possibility of Communist infiltration of the United States, so too was
it alert for signs that Communist forces were on the move elsewhere. The Soviet Union had been granted
control of the northern half of the Korean peninsula at the end of World War II, and the United States
had control of the southern portion. The Soviets displayed little interest in extending its power into South
Korea, and Stalin did not wish to risk confrontation with the United States over Korea. North Korea’s
leaders, however, wished to reunify the peninsula under Communist rule. In April 1950, Stalin finally gave
permission to North Korea’s leader Kim Il Sung to invade South Korea and provided the North Koreans
with weapons and military advisors.
On June 25, 1950, troops of the North Korean People’s Democratic Army crossed the thirty-eighth parallel,
the border between North and South Korea. The first major test of the U.S. policy of containment in Asia
had begun, for the domino theory held that a victory by North Korea might lead to further Communist
expansion in Asia, in the virtual backyard of the United States’ chief new ally in East Asia—Japan. The
United Nations (UN), which had been established in 1945, was quick to react. On June 27, the UN Security
Council denounced North Korea’s actions and called upon UN members to help South Korea defeat the
invading forces. As a permanent member of the Security Council, the Soviet Union could have vetoed the
action, but it had boycotted UN meetings following the awarding of China’s seat on the Security Council
to Taiwan instead of to Mao Zedong’s People’s Republic of China.
On June 27, Truman ordered U.S. military forces into South Korea. They established a defensive line on
the far southern part of the Korean peninsula near the town of Pusan. A U.S.-led invasion at Inchon
on September 15 halted the North Korean advance and turned it into a retreat (Figure 28.7). As North
Korean forces moved back across the thirty-eighth parallel, UN forces under the command of U.S. General
Douglas MacArthur followed. MacArthur’s goal was not only to drive the North Korean army out of
South Korea but to destroy Communist North Korea as well. At this stage, he had the support of President
Truman; however, as UN forces approached the Yalu River, the border between China and North Korea,
MacArthur’s and Truman’s objectives diverged. Chinese premier Zhou Enlai, who had provided supplies
and military advisors for North Korea before the conflict began, sent troops into battle to support North
Korea and caught U.S. troops by surprise. Following a costly retreat from North Korea’s Chosin Reservoir,
a swift advance of Chinese and North Korean forces and another invasion of Seoul, MacArthur urged
Truman to deploy nuclear weapons against China. Truman, however, did not wish to risk a broader war
in Asia. MacArthur criticized Truman’s decision and voiced his disagreement in a letter to a Republican
congressman, who subsequently allowed the letter to become public. In April 1951, Truman accused
MacArthur of insubordination and relieved him of his command. The Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed, calling
the escalation MacArthur had called for “the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with
the wrong enemy.” Nonetheless, the public gave MacArthur a hero’s welcome in New York with the
largest ticker tape parade in the nation’s history.
Figure 28.7 After the initial invasion of South Korea by the North Korean People’s Democratic Army, the United
Nations established a defensive line in the southern part of the country. The landing at Inchon in September reversed
the tide of the war and allowed UN forces under General Douglas MacArthur to retake the city of Seoul, which had
fallen to North Korean troops in the early days of the war.
By July 1951, the UN forces had recovered from the setbacks earlier in the year and pushed North Korean
and Chinese forces back across the thirty-eighth parallel, and peace talks began. However, combat raged
on for more than two additional years. The primary source of contention was the fate of prisoners of war.
The Chinese and North Koreans insisted that their prisoners be returned to them, but many of these men
did not wish to be repatriated. Finally, an armistice agreement was signed on July 27, 1953. A border
between North and South Korea, one quite close to the original thirty-eighth parallel line, was agreed
upon. A demilitarized zone between the two nations was established, and both sides agreed that prisoners
of war would be allowed to choose whether to be returned to their homelands. Five million people died in
the three-year conflict. Of these, around 36,500 were U.S. soldiers; a majority were Korean civilians.

Click and Explore
Read firsthand accounts (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15KOWar) of U.S. soldiers

who served in Korea, including prisoners of war.
As the war in Korea came to an end, so did one of the most frightening anti-Communist campaigns in
the United States. After charging the U.S. State Department with harboring Communists, Senator Joseph
McCarthy had continued to make similar accusations against other government agencies. Prominent
Republicans like Senator Robert Taft and Congressman Richard Nixon regarded McCarthy as an asset who
targeted Democratic politicians, and they supported his actions. In 1953, as chair of the Senate Committee
on Government Operations, McCarthy investigated the Voice of America, which broadcast news and pro-
U.S. propaganda to foreign countries, and the State Department’s overseas libraries. After an aborted effort
to investigate Protestant clergy, McCarthy turned his attention to the U.S. Army. This proved to be the end
of the senator’s political career. From April to June 1954, the Army-McCarthy Hearings were televised, and
the American public, able to witness his use of intimidation and innuendo firsthand, rejected McCarthy’s
approach to rooting out Communism in the United States (Figure 28.8). In December 1954, the U.S. Senate
officially condemned his actions with a censure, ending his prospects for political leadership.
Figure 28.8 Senator Joseph McCarthy (left) consults with Roy Cohn (right) during the Army-McCarthy hearings.
Cohn, a lawyer who worked for McCarthy, was responsible for investigating State Department libraries overseas for
“subversive” books.
One particularly heinous aspect of the hunt for Communists in the United States, likened by playwright
Arthur Miller to the witch hunts of old, was its effort to root out gay men and lesbians employed by the
government. Many anti-Communists, including McCarthy, believed that gay men, referred to by Senator
Everett Dirksen as “lavender lads,” were morally weak and thus were particularly likely to betray their
country. Many also believed that lesbians and gay men were prone to being blackmailed by Soviet agents
because of their sexual orientation, which at the time was regarded by psychiatrists as a form of mental
illness.

• Describe President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s domestic and foreign policies
• Discuss gender roles in the 1950s
• Discuss the growth of the suburbs and the effect of suburbanization on American
society
Against the backdrop of the Cold War, Americans dedicated themselves to building a peaceful and
prosperous society after the deprivation and instability of the Great Depression and World War II.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, the general who led the United States to victory in Europe in 1945, proved to be
the perfect president for the new era. Lacking strong conservative positions, he steered a middle path
between conservatism and liberalism, and presided over a peacetime decade of economic growth and
social conformity. In foreign affairs, Eisenhower’s New Look policy simultaneously expanded the nation’s
nuclear arsenal and prevented the expansion of the defense budget for conventional forces.
WE LIKE IKE
After Harry Truman declined to run again for the presidency, the election of 1952 emerged as a contest
between the Democratic nominee, Illinois governor Adlai Stevenson, and Republican Dwight D.
Eisenhower, who had directed American forces in Europe during World War II (Figure 28.9). Eisenhower
campaigned largely on a promise to end the war in Korea, a conflict the public had grown weary of
fighting. He also vowed to fight Communism both at home and abroad, a commitment he demonstrated
by choosing as his running mate Richard M. Nixon, a congressman who had made a name for himself by
pursuing Communists, notably former State Department employee and suspected Soviet agent Alger Hiss.
Figure 28.9 Dwight D. Eisenhower was the perfect presidential candidate in 1952. He had never before run for
office or even cast a vote, and thus had no political record to be challenged or criticized.
In 1952, Eisenhower supporters enthusiastically proclaimed “We Like Ike,” and Eisenhower defeated
Stevenson by winning 54 percent of the popular vote and 87 percent of the electoral vote (Figure 28.10).
When he assumed office in 1953, Eisenhower employed a leadership style he had developed during
his years of military service. He was calm and willing to delegate authority regarding domestic affairs
to his cabinet members, allowing him to focus his own efforts on foreign policy. Unlike many earlier

presidents, such as Harry Truman, Eisenhower was largely nonpartisan and consistently sought a middle
ground between liberalism and conservatism. He strove to balance the federal budget, which appealed
to conservative Republicans, but retained much of the New Deal and even expanded Social Security. He
maintained high levels of defense spending but, in his farewell speech in 1961, warned about the growth
of the military-industrial complex, the matrix of relationships between officials in the Department of
Defense and executives in the defense industry who all benefited from increases in defense spending. He
disliked the tactics of Joseph McCarthy but did not oppose him directly, preferring to remain above the
fray. He saw himself as a leader called upon to do his best for his country, not as a politician engaged in a
contest for advantage over rivals.
Figure 28.10 The above map shows the resounding victory of Dwight D. Eisenhower over Adlai Stevenson in the
1952 election. Stevenson carried only the South, where whites had voted for Democratic Party candidates since the
time of the Civil War.
In keeping with his goal of a balanced budget, Eisenhower switched the emphasis in defense from larger
conventional forces to greater stockpiles of nuclear weapons. His New Look strategy embraced nuclear
“massive retaliation,” a plan for nuclear response to a first Soviet strike so devastating that the attackers
would not be able to respond. Some labeled this approach “Mutually Assured Destruction” or MAD.
Part of preparing for a possible war with the Soviet Union was informing the American public what to do
in the event of a nuclear attack. The government provided instructions for building and equipping bomb
shelters in the basement or backyard, and some cities constructed municipal shelters. Schools purchased
dog tags to help identify students in the aftermath of an attack and showed children instructional films
telling them what to do if atomic bombs were dropped on the city where they lived.
AMERICANA
“A Guide for Surviving Nuclear War”
To prepare its citizens for the possibility of nuclear war, in 1950, the U.S. government published and
distributed informative pamphlets such as “A Guide for Surviving Nuclear War” excerpted here.
Just like fire bombs and ordinary high explosives, atomic weapons cause most of their death
and damage by blast and heat. So first let’s look at a few things you can do to escape these
two dangers.
Even if you have only a second’s warning, there is one important thing you can do to lessen
your chances of injury by blast: Fall flat on your face.
More than half of all wounds are the result of being bodily tossed about or being struck by
falling and flying objects. If you lie down flat, you are least likely to be thrown about. If you
have time to pick a good spot, there is less chance of your being struck by flying glass and
other things.
If you are inside a building, the best place to flatten out is close against the cellar wall. If you
haven’t time to get down there, lie down along an inside wall, or duck under a bed or table. . .
.
If caught out-of-doors, either drop down alongside the base of a good substantial
building—avoid flimsy, wooden ones likely to be blown over on top of you—or else jump in
any handy ditch or gutter.
When you fall flat to protect yourself from a bombing, don’t look up to see what is coming.
Even during the daylight hours, the flash from a bursting A-bomb can cause several moments
of blindness, if you’re facing that way. To prevent it, bury your face in your arms and hold it
there for 10 to 12 seconds after the explosion. . . .
If you work in the open, always wear full-length, loose-fitting, light-colored clothes in time of
emergency. Never go around with your sleeves rolled up. Always wear a hat—the brim could
save you a serious face burn.
What do you think was the purpose of these directions? Do you think they could actually help people
survive an atomic bomb blast? If not, why publish such booklets?
Click and Explore
View this short instructional film (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15DuckCover)

made in 1951 that teaches elementary school children what to do in the event an
atomic bomb is dropped. Why do you think officials tried to convey the message that a
nuclear attack was survivable?
Government and industry allocated enormous amounts of money to the research and development
of more powerful weapons. This investment generated rapid strides in missile technology as well as
increasingly sensitive radar. Computers that could react more quickly than humans and thereby shoot
down speeding missiles were also investigated. Many scientists on both sides of the Cold War, including
captured Germans such as rocket engineer Werner von Braun, worked on these devices. An early success
for the West came in 1950, when Alan Turing, a British mathematician who had broken Germany’s Enigma
code during World War II, created a machine that mimicked human thought. His discoveries led scientists
to consider the possibility of developing true artificial intelligence.

However, the United States often feared that the Soviets were making greater strides in developing
technology with potential military applications. This was especially true following the Soviet Union’s
launch of Sputnik (Figure 28.11), the first manmade satellite, in October 1957. In September 1958,
Congress passed the National Defense Education Act, which pumped over $775 million into educational
programs over four years, especially those programs that focused on math and science. Congressional
appropriations to the National Science Foundation also increased by $100 million in a single year, from
$34 million in 1958 to $134 million in 1959. One consequence of this increased funding was the growth of
science and engineering programs at American universities.
Figure 28.11 The launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik frightened many in the United States, who feared that Soviet
technology had surpassed their own. To calm these fears, Americans domesticated Sputnik, creating children’s
games based on it and using its shape as a decorative motif.
In the diplomatic sphere, Eisenhower pushed Secretary of State John Foster Dulles to take a firmer stance
against the Soviets to reassure European allies of continued American support. At the same time, keenly
sensing that the stalemate in Korea had cost Truman his popularity, Eisenhower worked to avoid being
drawn into foreign wars. Thus, when the French found themselves fighting Vietnamese Communists for
control of France’s former colony of Indochina, Eisenhower provided money but not troops. Likewise, the
United States took no steps when Hungary attempted to break away from Soviet domination in 1956. The
United States also refused to be drawn in when Great Britain, France, and Israel invaded the Suez Canal
Zone following Egypt’s nationalization of the canal in 1956. Indeed, Eisenhower, wishing to avoid conflict
with the Soviet Union, threatened to impose economic sanctions on the invading countries if they did not
withdraw.
SUBURBANIZATION
Although the Eisenhower years were marked by fear of the Soviet Union and its military might, they
were also a time of peace and prosperity. Even as many Americans remained mired in poverty, many
others with limited economic opportunities, like African Americans or union workers, were better off
financially in the 1950s and rose into the ranks of the middle class. Wishing to build the secure life that the
Great Depression had deprived their parents of, young men and women married in record numbers and
purchased homes where they could start families of their own. In 1940, the rate of homeownership in the
United States was 43.6 percent. By 1960, it was almost 62 percent. Many of these newly purchased homes
had been built in the new suburban areas that began to encircle American cities after the war. Although
middle-class families had begun to move to the suburbs beginning in the nineteenth century, suburban
growth accelerated rapidly after World War II.
Several factors contributed to this development. During World War II, the United States had suffered
from a housing shortage, especially in cities with shipyards or large defense plants. Now that the war was
over, real estate developers and contractors rushed to alleviate the scarcity. Unused land on the fringes
of American cities provided the perfect place for new housing, which attracted not only the middle class,
which had long sought homes outside the crowded cities, but also blue-collar workers who took advantage
of the low-interest mortgages offered by the GI Bill.
An additional factor was the use of prefabricated construction techniques pioneered during World War II,
which allowed houses complete with plumbing, electrical wiring, and appliances to be built and painted
in a day. Employing these methods, developers built acres of inexpensive tract housing throughout the
country. One of the first developers to take advantage of this method was William Levitt, who purchased
farmland in Nassau County, Long Island, in 1947 and built thousands of prefabricated houses. The new
community was named Levittown.
Levitt’s houses cost only $8,000 and could be bought with little or no down payment. The first day
they were offered for sale, more than one thousand were purchased. Levitt went on to build similar
developments, also called Levittown, in New Jersey and Pennsylvania (Figure 28.12). As developers
around the country rushed to emulate him, the name Levittown became synonymous with suburban tract
housing, in which entire neighborhoods were built to either a single plan or a mere handful of designs.
The houses were so similar that workers told of coming home late at night and walking into the wrong
one. Levittown homes were similar in other ways as well; most were owned by white families. Levitt used
restrictive language in his agreements with potential homeowners to ensure that only whites would live in
his communities.
Figure 28.12 This aerial view of Levittown, Pennsylvania, reveals acres of standardized homes. The roads were
curved to prevent cars from speeding through the residential community that was home to many young families.
In the decade between 1950 and 1960, the suburbs grew by 46 percent. The transition from urban to
suburban life exerted profound effects on both the economy and society. For example, fifteen of the largest
U.S. cities saw their tax bases shrink significantly in the postwar period, and the apportionment of seats in
the House of Representatives shifted to the suburbs and away from urban areas.
The development of the suburbs also increased reliance on the automobile for transportation. Suburban
men drove to work in nearby cities or, when possible, were driven to commuter rail stations by their wives.
In the early years of suburban development, before schools, parks, and supermarkets were built, access to
an automobile was crucial, and the pressure on families to purchase a second one was strong. As families

rushed to purchase them, the annual production of passenger cars leaped from 2.2 million to 8 million
between 1946 and 1955, and by 1960, about 20 percent of suburban families owned two cars. The growing
number of cars on the road changed consumption patterns, and drive-in and drive-through convenience
stores, restaurants, and movie theaters began to dot the landscape. The first McDonalds opened in San
Bernardino, California, in 1954 to cater to drivers in a hurry.
As drivers jammed highways and small streets in record numbers, cities and states rushed to build
additional roadways and ease congestion. To help finance these massive construction efforts, states began
taxing gasoline, and the federal government provided hundreds of thousands of dollars for the
construction of the interstate highway system (Figure 28.13). The resulting construction projects, designed
to make it easier for suburbanites to commute to and from cities, often destroyed urban working-class
neighborhoods. Increased funding for highway construction also left less money for public transportation,
making it impossible for those who could not afford automobiles to live in the suburbs.
Figure 28.13 In the late 1940s, a network of newly constructed highways connected suburban Long Island with
Manhattan. The nation’s new road network also served a military purpose; interstate highways made it easier to
deploy troops in the event of a national emergency.
THE ORGANIZATION MAN

As the government poured money into the defense industry and into universities that conducted research
for the government, the economy boomed. The construction and automobile industries employed
thousands, as did the industries they relied upon: steel, oil and gasoline refining, rubber, and lumber. As
people moved into new homes, their purchases of appliances, carpeting, furniture, and home decorations
spurred growth in other industries. The building of miles of roads also employed thousands.
Unemployment was low, and wages for members of both the working and middle classes were high.
Following World War II, the majority of white Americans were members of the middle class, based on
such criteria as education, income, and home ownership. Even most blue-collar families could afford such
elements of a middle-class lifestyle as new cars, suburban homes, and regular vacations. Most African
Americans, however, were not members of the middle class. In 1950, the median income for white families
was $20,656, whereas for black families it was $11,203. By 1960, when the average white family earned
$28,485 a year, blacks still lagged behind at $15,786; nevertheless, this represented a more than 40 percent
increase in African American income in the space of a decade.
While working-class men found jobs in factories and on construction crews, those in the middle class often
worked for corporations that, as a result of government spending, had grown substantially during World
War II and were still getting larger. Such corporations, far too large to allow managers to form personal
relationships with all of their subordinates, valued conformity to company rules and standards above all
else. In his best-selling book The Organization Man, however, William H. Whyte criticized the notion that
conformity was the best path to success and self-fulfillment.
Conformity was still the watchword of suburban life: Many neighborhoods had rules mandating what
types of clotheslines could be used and prohibited residents from parking their cars on the street. Above
all, conforming to societal norms meant marrying young and having children. In the post-World War
II period, marriage rates rose; the average age at first marriage dropped to twenty-three for men and
twenty for women. Between 1946 and 1964, married couples also gave birth to the largest generation in
U.S. history to date; this baby boom resulted in the cohort known as the baby boomers. Conformity also
required that the wives of both working- and middle-class men stay home and raise children instead of
working for wages outside the home. Most conformed to this norm, at least while their children were
young. Nevertheless, 40 percent of women with young children and half of women with older children
sought at least part-time employment. They did so partly out of necessity and partly to pay for the new
elements of “the good life”—second cars, vacations, and college education for their children.
The children born during the baby boom were members of a more privileged generation than their
parents had been. Entire industries sprang up to cater to their need for clothing, toys, games, books,
and breakfast cereals. For the first time in U.S. history, attending high school was an experience shared
by the majority, regardless of race or region. As the baby boomers grew into adolescence, marketers
realized that they not only controlled large amounts of disposable income earned at part-time jobs, but
they exerted a great deal of influence over their parents’ purchases as well. Madison Avenue began to
appeal to teenage interests. Boys yearned for cars, and girls of all ethnicities wanted boyfriends who had
them. New fashion magazines for adolescent girls, such as Seventeen, advertised the latest clothing and
cosmetics, and teen romance magazines, like Copper Romance, a publication for young African American
women, filled drugstore racks. The music and movie industries also altered their products to appeal to
affluent adolescents who were growing tired of parental constraints.

• Describe Americans’ different responses to rock and roll music
• Discuss the way contemporary movies and television reflected postwar American
society
With a greater generational consciousness than previous generations, the baby boomers sought to define
and redefine their identities in numerous ways. Music, especially rock and roll, reflected their desire to
rebel against adult authority. Other forms of popular culture, such as movies and television, sought to
entertain, while reinforcing values such as religious faith, patriotism, and conformity to societal norms.
ROCKING AROUND THE CLOCK

In the late 1940s, some white country musicians began to experiment with the rhythms of the blues, a
decades-old musical genre of rural southern blacks. This experimentation led to the creation of a new
musical form known as rockabilly, and by the 1950s, rockabilly had developed into rock and roll. Rock and
roll music celebrated themes such as young love and freedom from the oppression of middle-class society.
It quickly grew in favor among American teens, thanks largely to the efforts of disc jockey Alan Freed,
who named and popularized the music by playing it on the radio in Cleveland, where he also organized
the first rock and roll concert, and later in New York.

The theme of rebellion against authority, present in many rock and roll songs, appealed to teens. In 1954,
Bill Haley and His Comets provided youth with an anthem for their rebellion—”Rock Around the Clock”
(Figure 28.14). The song, used in the 1955 movie Blackboard Jungle about a white teacher at a troubled
inner-city high school, seemed to be calling for teens to declare their independence from adult control.
Figure 28.14 The band Bill Haley and His Comets (a) was among the first to launch the new genre of rock and roll.
Their hit song “Rock Around the Clock” supposedly caused some teens to break into violent behavior when they
heard it. Chuck Berry (b) was a performer who combined rhythm and blues and rock and roll. He dazzled crowds with
guitar solos and electrifying performances.
Haley illustrated how white artists could take musical motifs from the African American community and
achieve mainstream success. Teen heartthrob Elvis Presley rose to stardom doing the same. Thus, besides
encouraging a feeling of youthful rebellion, rock and roll also began to tear down color barriers, as white
youths sought out African American musicians such as Chuck Berry and Little Richard (Figure 28.14).
While youth had found an outlet for their feelings and concerns, parents were much less enthused about
rock and roll and the values it seemed to promote. Many regarded the music as a threat to American
values. When Elvis Presley appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show, a popular television variety program, the
camera deliberately focused on his torso and did not show his swiveling hips or legs shaking in time to
the music. Despite adults’ dislike of the genre, or perhaps because of it, more than 68 percent of the music
played on the radio in 1956 was rock and roll.
HOLLYWOOD ON THE DEFENSIVE

At first, Hollywood encountered difficulties in adjusting to the post-World War II environment. Although
domestic audiences reached a record high in 1946 and the war’s end meant expanding international
markets too, the groundwork for the eventual dismantling of the traditional studio system was laid in 1948,
with a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Previously, film studios had owned their own movie
theater chains in which they exhibited the films they produced; however, in United States v. Paramount
Pictures, Inc., this vertical integration of the industry—the complete control by one firm of the production,
distribution, and exhibition of motion pictures—was deemed a violation of antitrust laws.
The HUAC hearings also targeted Hollywood. When Senator McCarthy called eleven “unfriendly
witnesses” to testify before Congress about Communism in the film industry in October 1947, only
playwright Bertolt Brecht answered questions. The other ten, who refused to testify, were cited for
contempt of Congress on November 24. The next day, film executives declared that the so-called
“Hollywood Ten” would no longer be employed in the industry until they had sworn they were not
Communists (Figure 28.15). Eventually, more than three hundred actors, screenwriters, directors,
musicians, and other entertainment professionals were placed on the industry blacklist. Some never
worked in Hollywood again; others directed films or wrote screenplays under assumed names.
Figure 28.15 One of the original Hollywood Ten, director Edward Dmytryk publicly announced he had once been a
Communist and, in April 1951, answered questions and “named names” before the House Committee on Un-
American Activities.
Click and Explore
Watch a 1953 episode of a popular television show (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

15ThreeLives) from the 1950s, I Led Three Lives, the highly fictionalized story of a
member of a Communist organization who is also an FBI informant.
Hollywood reacted aggressively to these various challenges. Filmmakers tried new techniques, like
CinemaScope and Cinerama, which allowed movies to be shown on large screens and in 3-D. Audiences
were drawn to movies not because of gimmicks, however, but because of the stories they told. Dramas
and romantic comedies continued to be popular fare for adults, and, to appeal to teens, studios produced
large numbers of horror films and movies starring music idols such as Elvis. Many films took espionage,
a timely topic, as their subject matter, and science fiction hits such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers, about
a small town whose inhabitants fall prey to space aliens, played on audience fears of both Communist
invasion and nuclear technology.
THE TRIUMPH OF TELEVISION

By far the greatest challenge to Hollywood, however, came from the relatively new medium of television.
Although the technology had been developed in the late 1920s, through much of the 1940s, only a fairly
small audience of the wealthy had access to it. As a result, programming was limited. With the post-World
War II economic boom, all this changed. Where there had been only 178,000 televisions in homes in 1948,
by 1955, over three-quarters of a million U.S. households, about half of all homes, had television (Figure
28.16).

Figure 28.16 An American family relaxes in front of their television set in 1958. Many gathered not only to watch the
programming but also to eat dinner. The marketing of small folding tray tables and frozen “TV dinners” encouraged
such behavior.
Various types of programs were broadcast on the handful of major networks: situation comedies, variety
programs, game shows, soap operas, talk shows, medical dramas, adventure series, cartoons, and police
procedurals. Many comedies presented an idealized image of white suburban family life: Happy
housewife mothers, wise fathers, and mischievous but not dangerously rebellious children were constants
on shows like Leave It to Beaver and Father Knows Best in the late 1950s. These shows also reinforced certain
perspectives on the values of individualism and family—values that came to be redefined as “American”
in opposition to alleged Communist collectivism. Westerns, which stressed unity in the face of danger and
the ability to survive in hostile environments, were popular too. Programming designed specifically for
children began to emerge with shows such as Captain Kangaroo, Romper Room, and The Mickey Mouse Club
designed to appeal to members of the baby boom.

• Explain how Presidents Truman and Eisenhower addressed civil rights issues
• Discuss efforts by African Americans to end discrimination and segregation
• Describe southern whites’ response to the civil rights movement
In the aftermath of World War II, African Americans began to mount organized resistance to racially
discriminatory policies in force throughout much of the United States. In the South, they used a
combination of legal challenges and grassroots activism to begin dismantling the racial segregation that
had stood for nearly a century following the end of Reconstruction. Community activists and civil rights
leaders targeted racially discriminatory housing practices, segregated transportation, and legal
requirements that African Americans and whites be educated separately. While many of these challenges
were successful, life did not necessarily improve for African Americans. Hostile whites fought these
changes in any way they could, including by resorting to violence.
EARLY VICTORIES
During World War II, many African Americans had supported the “Double-V Campaign,” which called
on them to defeat foreign enemies while simultaneously fighting against segregation and discrimination
at home. After World War II ended, many returned home to discover that, despite their sacrifices, the
United States was not willing to extend them any greater rights than they had enjoyed before the war.
Particularly rankling was the fact that although African American veterans were legally entitled to draw
benefits under the GI Bill, discriminatory practices prevented them from doing so. For example, many
banks would not give them mortgages if they wished to buy homes in predominantly African American
neighborhoods, which banks often considered too risky an investment. However, African Americans who
attempted to purchase homes in white neighborhoods often found themselves unable to do so because of
real estate covenants that prevented owners from selling their property to blacks. Indeed, when a black
family purchased a Levittown house in 1957, they were subjected to harassment and threats of violence.
Click and Explore
For a look at the experiences of an African American family

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Levittown) that tried to move to a white suburban
community, view the 1957 documentary Crisis in Levittown.
The postwar era, however, saw African Americans make greater use of the courts to defend their rights.
In 1944, an African American woman, Irene Morgan, was arrested in Virginia for refusing to give up her
seat on an interstate bus and sued to have her conviction overturned. In Morgan v. the Commonwealth of
Virginia in 1946, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the conviction should be overturned because it violated
the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. This victory emboldened some civil rights activists to
launch the Journey of Reconciliation, a bus trip taken by eight African American men and eight white men
through the states of the Upper South to test the South’s enforcement of the Morgan decision.
Other victories followed. In 1948, in Shelley v. Kraemer, the U.S. Supreme Court held that courts could not
enforce real estate covenants that restricted the purchase or sale of property based on race. In 1950, the
NAACP brought a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that they hoped would help to undermine the
concept of “separate but equal” as espoused in the 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which gave legal
sanction to segregated school systems. Sweatt v. Painter was a case brought by Herman Marion Sweatt,
who sued the University of Texas for denying him admission to its law school because state law prohibited
integrated education. Texas attempted to form a separate law school for African Americans only, but in
its decision on the case, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this solution, holding that the separate school
provided neither equal facilities nor “intangibles,” such as the ability to form relationships with other
future lawyers, that a professional school should provide.
Not all efforts to enact desegregation required the use of the courts, however. On April 15, 1947, Jackie
Robinson started for the Brooklyn Dodgers, playing first base. He was the first African American to play
baseball in the National League, breaking the color barrier. Although African Americans had their own
baseball teams in the Negro Leagues, Robinson opened the gates for them to play in direct competition
with white players in the major leagues. Other African American athletes also began to challenge the
segregation of American sports. At the 1948 Summer Olympics, Alice Coachman, an African American,
was the only American woman to take a gold medal in the games (Figure 28.17). These changes, while
symbolically significant, were mere cracks in the wall of segregation.

Figure 28.17 Baseball legend Jackie Robinson (a) was active in the civil rights movement. He served on the
NAACP’s board of directors and helped to found an African American-owned bank. Alice Coachman (b), who
competed in track and field at Tuskegee University, was the first black woman to win an Olympic gold medal.
DESEGREGATION AND INTEGRATION

Until 1954, racial segregation in education was not only legal but was required in seventeen states and
permissible in several others (Figure 28.18). Utilizing evidence provided in sociological studies conducted
by Kenneth Clark and Gunnar Myrdal, however, Thurgood Marshall, then chief counsel for the NAACP,
successfully argued the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas before the U.S. Supreme
Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren. Marshall showed that the practice of segregation in public schools
made African American students feel inferior. Even if the facilities provided were equal in nature, the
Court noted in its decision, the very fact that some students were separated from others on the basis of
their race made segregation unconstitutional.
Figure 28.18 This map shows those states in which racial segregation in public education was required by law
before the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. In 1960, four years later, fewer than 10 percent of southern
African American students attended the same schools as white students.

DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Thurgood Marshall on Fighting Racism
As a law student in 1933, Thurgood Marshall (Figure 28.19) was recruited by his mentor Charles
Hamilton Houston to assist in gathering information for the defense of a black man in Virginia accused
of killing two white women. His continued close association with Houston led Marshall to aggressively
defend blacks in the court system and to use the courts as the weapon by which equal rights might be
extracted from the U.S. Constitution and a white racist system. Houston also suggested that it would be
important to establish legal precedents regarding the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling of separate but equal.
Figure 28.19 In 1956, NAACP leaders (from left to right) Henry L. Moon, Roy Wilkins, Herbert Hill, and
Thurgood Marshall present a new poster in the campaign against southern white racism. Marshall
successfully argued the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education (1954) before the U.S. Supreme
Court and later became the court’s first African American justice.
By 1938, Marshall had become “Mr. Civil Rights” and formally organized the NAACP’s Legal Defense
and Education Fund in 1940 to garner the resources to take on cases to break the racist justice system
of America. A direct result of Marshall’s energies and commitment was his 1940 victory in a Supreme
Court case, Chambers v. Florida, which held that confessions obtained by violence and torture were
inadmissible in a court of law. His most well-known case was Brown v. Board of Education in 1954,
which held that state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students were
unconstitutional.
Later in life, Marshall reflected on his career fighting racism in a speech at Howard Law School in 1978:
Be aware of that myth, that everything is going to be all right. Don’t give in. I add that, because
it seems to me, that what we need to do today is to refocus. Back in the 30s and 40s, we
could go no place but to court. We knew then, the court was not the final solution. Many of
us knew the final solution would have to be politics, if for no other reason, politics is cheaper
than lawsuits. So now we have both. We have our legal arm, and we have our political arm.
Let’s use them both. And don’t listen to this myth that it can be solved by either or that it has
already been solved. Take it from me, it has not been solved.
When Marshall says that the problems of racism have not been solved, to what was he referring?
Plessy v. Fergusson had been overturned. The challenge now was to integrate schools. A year later, the U.S.
Supreme Court ordered southern school systems to begin desegregation “with all deliberate speed.” Some
school districts voluntarily integrated their schools. For many other districts, however, “deliberate speed”
was very, very slow.
It soon became clear that enforcing Brown v. the Board of Education would require presidential intervention.
Eisenhower did not agree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision and did not wish to force southern states
to integrate their schools. However, as president, he was responsible for doing so. In 1957, Central High
School in Little Rock, Arkansas, was forced to accept its first nine African American students, who became
known as the Little Rock Nine. In response, Arkansas governor Orval Faubus called out the state National
Guard to prevent the students from attending classes, removing the troops only after Eisenhower told him
to do so. A subsequent attempt by the nine students to attend school resulted in mob violence. Eisenhower
then placed the Arkansas National Guard under federal control and sent the U.S. Army’s 101st airborne
unit to escort the students to and from school as well as from class to class (Figure 28.20). This was the
first time since the end of Reconstruction that federal troops once more protected the rights of African
Americans in the South.
Figure 28.20 In 1957, U.S. soldiers from the 101st Airborne were called in to escort the Little Rock Nine into and
around formerly all-white Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Throughout the course of the school year, the Little Rock Nine were insulted, harassed, and physically
assaulted; nevertheless, they returned to school each day. At the end of the school year, the first African
American student graduated from Central High. At the beginning of the 1958–1959 school year, Orval
Faubus ordered all Little Rock’s public schools closed. In the opinion of white segregationists, keeping all
students out of school was preferable to having them attend integrated schools. In 1959, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that the school had to be reopened and that the process of desegregation had to proceed.
WHITE RESPONSES
Efforts to desegregate public schools led to a backlash among most southern whites. Many greeted the
Brown decision with horror; some World War II veterans questioned how the government they had fought
for could betray them in such a fashion. Some white parents promptly withdrew their children from
public schools and enrolled them in all-white private academies, many newly created for the sole purpose
of keeping white children from attending integrated schools. Often, these “academies” held classes in
neighbors’ basements or living rooms.
Other white southerners turned to state legislatures or courts to solve the problem of school integration.
Orders to integrate school districts were routinely challenged in court. When the lawsuits proved
unsuccessful, many southern school districts responded by closing all public schools, as Orval Faubus had
done after Central High School was integrated. One county in Virginia closed its public schools for five
years rather than see them integrated. Besides suing school districts, many southern segregationists filed
lawsuits against the NAACP, trying to bankrupt the organization. Many national politicians supported the
segregationist efforts. In 1956, ninety-six members of Congress signed “The Southern Manifesto,” in which
they accused the U.S. Supreme Court of misusing its power and violating the principle of states’ rights,
which maintained that states had rights equal to those of the federal government.

Unfortunately, many white southern racists, frightened by challenges to the social order, responded
with violence. When Little Rock’s Central High School desegregated, an irate Ku Klux Klansman from a
neighboring community sent a letter to the members of the city’s school board in which he denounced
them as Communists and threatened to kill them. White rage sometimes erupted into murder. In August
1955, both white and black Americans were shocked by the brutality of the murder of Emmett Till. Till,
a fourteen-year-old boy from Chicago, had been vacationing with relatives in Mississippi. While visiting
a white-owned store, he had made a remark to the white woman behind the counter. A few days later,
the husband and brother-in-law of the woman came to the home of Till’s relatives in the middle of the
night and abducted the boy. Till’s beaten and mutilated body was found in a nearby river three days later.
Till’s mother insisted on an open-casket funeral; she wished to use her son’s body to reveal the brutality of
southern racism. The murder of a child who had been guilty of no more than a casual remark captured the
nation’s attention, as did the acquittal of the two men who admitted killing him.
THE MONTGOMERY BUS BOYCOTT

One of those inspired by Till’s death was Rosa Parks, an NAACP member from Montgomery, Alabama,
who became the face of the 1955–1956 Montgomery Bus Boycott. City ordinances in Montgomery
segregated the city’s buses, forcing African American passengers to ride in the back section. They had to
enter through the rear of the bus, could not share seats with white passengers, and, if the front of the
bus was full and a white passenger requested an African American’s seat, had to relinquish their place to
the white rider. The bus company also refused to hire African American drivers even though most of the
people who rode the buses were black.
On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks refused to give her seat to a white man, and the Montgomery police
arrested her. After being bailed out of jail, she decided to fight the laws requiring segregation in court.
To support her, the Women’s Political Council, a group of African American female activists, organized a
boycott of Montgomery’s buses. News of the boycott spread through newspaper notices and by word of
mouth; ministers rallied their congregations to support the Women’s Political Council. Their efforts were
successful, and forty thousand African American riders did not take the bus on December 5, the first day
of the boycott.
Other African American leaders within the city embraced the boycott and maintained it beyond December
5, Rosa Parks’ court date. Among them was a young minister named Martin Luther King, Jr. For the next
year, black Montgomery residents avoided the city’s buses. Some organized carpools. Others paid for rides
in African American-owned taxis, whose drivers reduced their fees. Most walked to and from school,
work, and church for 381 days, the duration of the boycott. In June 1956, an Alabama federal court found
the segregation ordinance unconstitutional. The city appealed, but the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the
decision. The city’s buses were desegregated.
Key Terms
baby boom a marked increase in the U.S. birthrate during 1946–1964
blacklist a list of people suspected of having Communist sympathies who were denied work as a result
Cold War the prolonged period of tension between the United States and the Soviet Union, based on
ideological conflicts and competition for military, economic, social, and technological superiority, and
marked by surveillance and espionage, political assassinations, an arms race, attempts to secure alliances
with developing nations, and proxy wars
containment the U.S. policy that sought to limit the expansion of Communism abroad
desegregation the removal of laws and policies requiring the separation of different racial or ethnic
groups
domino theory the theory that if Communism made inroads in one nation, surrounding nations would
also succumb one by one, like a chain of dominos toppling one another
Fair Deal President Harry Truman’s program of economic and social reform
GI Bill a program that gave substantial benefits to those who served in World War II
Iron Curtain a term coined by Winston Churchill to refer to portions of Eastern Europe that the Soviet
Union had incorporated into its sphere of influence and that no longer were free to manage their own
affairs
Levittowns suburban housing developments consisting of acres of mass-produced homes
Little Rock Nine the nickname for the nine African American high school students who first integrated
Little Rock’s Central High School
Marshall Plan a program giving billions of dollars of U.S. aid to European countries to prevent them
from turning to Communism
massive retaliation a defense strategy, sometimes called “mutually assured destruction” or MAD,
adopted by Eisenhower that called for launching a large-scale nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in
response to a first Soviet strike at the United States
military-industrial complex the matrix of relationships between officials in the Defense Department and
executives in the defense industry who all benefited from increases in defense spending
rock and roll a musical form popular among the baby boomers that encompassed styles ranging from
county to blues, and embraced themes such as youthful rebellion and love
Sputnik the first manmade orbital satellite, launched by the Soviet Union in October 1957
states’ rights the political belief that states possess authority beyond federal law, which is usually seen as
the supreme law of the land, and thus can act in opposition to federal law
Summary
At the end of World War II, U.S. servicemen and women returned to civilian life, and all hoped the
prosperity of the war years would continue. The GI Bill eased many veterans’ return by providing them

with unemployment compensation, low-interest loans, and money to further their education; however,
African American, Mexican American, and gay veterans were often unable to take advantage of these
benefits fully or at all. Meanwhile, Japanese Americans faced an uphill struggle in their attempts to return
to normalcy, and many women who had made significant professional gains in wartime found themselves
dismissed from their positions. President Harry Truman attempted to extend Roosevelt’s New Deal with
his own Fair Deal, which had the goal of improving wages, housing, and healthcare, and protecting
the rights of African Americans. Confronted by a Congress dominated by Republicans and southern
Democrats, however, Truman was able to achieve only some of his goals.
28.2 The Cold War

Joy at the ending of World War II was quickly replaced by fears of conflict with the Soviet Union. The Cold
War heated up as both the United States and Soviet Union struggled for world dominance. Fearing Soviet
expansion, the United States committed itself to assisting countries whose governments faced overthrow
by Communist forces and gave billions of dollars to war-torn Europe to help it rebuild. While the United
States achieved victory in its thwarting of Soviet attempts to cut Berlin off from the West, the nation was
less successful in its attempts to prevent Communist expansion in Korea. The development of atomic
weapons by the Soviet Union and the arrest of Soviet spies in the United States and Britain roused fears
in the United States that Communist agents were seeking to destroy the nation from within. Loyalty
board investigations and hearings before House and Senate committees attempted to root out Soviet
sympathizers in the federal government and in other sectors of American society, including Hollywood
and the military.

In 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower became president of the United States. Fiscally conservative but
ideologically moderate, he sought to balance the budget while building a strong system of national
defense. This defense policy led to a greater emphasis on the possible use of nuclear weapons in any
confrontation with the Soviet Union. Committed to maintaining peace, however, Eisenhower avoided
engaging the United States in foreign conflicts; during his presidency, the economy boomed. Young
Americans married in record numbers, moved to the growing suburbs, and gave birth to the largest
generation to date in U.S. history. As middle-class adults, they conformed to the requirements of corporate
jobs and suburban life, while their privileged children enjoyed a consumer culture tailored to their desires.

Young Americans in the postwar period had more disposable income and enjoyed greater material
comfort than their forebears. These factors allowed them to devote more time and money to leisure
activities and the consumption of popular culture. Rock and roll, which drew from African American
roots in the blues, embraced themes popular among teenagers, such as young love and rebellion against
authority. At the same time, traditional forms of entertainment, such as motion pictures, came under
increasing competition from a relatively new technology, television.

After World War II, African American efforts to secure greater civil rights increased across the United
States. African American lawyers such as Thurgood Marshall championed cases intended to destroy
the Jim Crow system of segregation that had dominated the American South since Reconstruction. The
landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education prohibited segregation in public schools, but not
all school districts integrated willingly, and President Eisenhower had to use the military to desegregate
Little Rock’s Central High School. The courts and the federal government did not assist African Americans
in asserting their rights in other cases. In Montgomery, Alabama, it was the grassroots efforts of African
American citizens who boycotted the city’s bus system that brought about change. Throughout the
region, many white southerners made their opposition to these efforts known. Too often, this opposition
manifested itself in violence and tragedy, as in the murder of Emmett Till.
Review Questions
1. Truman referred to his program of economic C. Pravda
and social reform as the ________. D. Sputnik
A. New Deal
B. Square Deal 8. The first Levittown was built ________.
C. Fair Deal A. in Bucks County, Pennsylvania
D. Straight Deal B. in Nassau County, New York
C. near Newark, New Jersey
2. Which of the following pieces of Truman’s D. near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
domestic agenda was rejected by Congress?
A. the Taft-Hartley Act 9. How did suburbanization help the economy?
B. national healthcare
C. the creation of a civil rights commission 10. The disc jockey who popularized rock and
D. funding for schools roll was ________.
A. Bill Haley
3. How did the GI Bill help veterans return to B. Elvis Presley
civilian life? What were its limitations? C. Alan Freed
D. Ed Sullivan
4. What was the policy of trying to limit the
expansion of Soviet influence abroad? 11. What challenges did Hollywood face in the
A. restraint 1950s?
B. containment
C. isolationism 12. The NAACP lawyer who became known as
D. quarantine “Mr. Civil Rights” was ________.
A. Earl Warren
5. The Truman administration tried to help B. Jackie Robinson
Europe recover from the devastation of World C. OrvalFaubus
War II with the ________. D. Thurgood Marshall
A. Economic Development Bank
B. Atlantic Free Trade Zone 13. The Arkansas governor who tried to prevent
C. Byrnes Budget the integration of Little Rock High School was
D. Marshall Plan ________.
A. Charles Hamilton Houston
6. What was agreed to at the armistice talks B. Kenneth Clark
between North and South Korea? C. OrvalFaubus
D. Clark Clifford
7. The name of the first manmade satellite,
launched by the Soviet Union in 1957, was 14. What was the significance of Shelley v.
________. Kraemer?
A. Triton
B. Cosmolskaya

15. How did some Americans turn their wartime experiences into lasting personal gains (i.e. better
employment, a new home, or an education) after the war was over? Why did others miss out on these
opportunities?
16. What was the reason for the breakdown in friendly relations between the United States and the Soviet
Union after World War II? What were the results of this conflict?
17. How did fear of the Soviet Union and Communism affect American culture and society?
18. What social changes took place in the United States after World War II? What role did the war play in
those changes?
19. How did the wartime experiences of African Americans contribute to the drive for greater civil rights
after the war?

Chapter 29 Contesting Futures: America in the 1960s 863
CHAPTER 29
Contesting Futures: America in the

1960s
Figure 29.1 In Aaron Shikler’s official portrait of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1970), the president stands with arms
folded, apparently deep in thought. The portrait was painted seven years after Kennedy’s death, at the request of his
widow, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. It depicts the president with his head down, because Shikler did not wish to
paint the dead man’s eyes.
Chapter Outline
29.1 The Kennedy Promise
29.2 Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society
29.3 The Civil Rights Movement Marches On
29.4 Challenging the Status Quo
Introduction
The 1960s was a decade of hope, change, and war that witnessed an important shift in American culture.
Citizens from all walks of life sought to expand the meaning of the American promise. Their efforts
helped unravel the national consensus and laid bare a far more fragmented society. As a result, men
and women from all ethnic groups attempted to reform American society to make it more equitable. The
United States also began to take unprecedented steps to exert what it believed to be a positive influence on
the world. At the same time, the country’s role in Vietnam revealed the limits of military power and the
contradictions of U.S. foreign policy. The posthumous portrait of John F. Kennedy (Figure 29.1) captures
this mix of the era’s promise and defeat. His election encouraged many to work for a better future, for
both the middle class and the marginalized. Kennedy’s running mate, Lyndon B. Johnson, also envisioned
a country characterized by the social and economic freedoms established during the New Deal years.
Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, and the assassinations five years later of Martin Luther King, Jr. and
864 Chapter 29 Contesting Futures: America in the 1960s
Robert F. Kennedy, made it dramatically clear that not all Americans shared this vision of a more inclusive
democracy.

• Assess Kennedy’s Cold War strategy
• Describe Kennedy’s contribution to the civil rights movement
In the 1950s, President Dwight D. Eisenhower presided over a United States that prized conformity over
change. Although change naturally occurred, as it does in every era, it was slow and greeted warily. By
the 1960s, however, the pace of change had quickened and its scope broadened, as restive and energetic
waves of World War II veterans and baby boomers of both sexes and all ethnicities began to make their
influence felt politically, economically, and culturally. No one symbolized the hopes and energies of
the new decade more than John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the nation’s new, young, and seemingly healthful,
president. Kennedy had emphasized the country’s aspirations and challenges as a “new frontier” when
accepting his party’s nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, California.
THE NEW FRONTIER

The son of Joseph P. Kennedy, a wealthy Boston business owner and former ambassador to Great
Britain, John F. Kennedy graduated from Harvard University and went on to serve in the U.S. House of
Representatives in 1946. Even though he was young and inexperienced, his reputation as a war hero who
had saved the crew of his PT boat after it was destroyed by the Japanese helped him to win election over
more seasoned candidates, as did his father’s fortune. In 1952, he was elected to the U.S. Senate for the
first of two terms. For many, including Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., a historian and member of Kennedy’s
Figure 29.2

administration, Kennedy represented a bright, shining future in which the United States would lead the
way in solving the most daunting problems facing the world.
Kennedy’s popular reputation as a great politician undoubtedly owes much to the style and attitude he
personified. He and his wife Jacqueline conveyed a sense of optimism and youthfulness. “Jackie” was an
elegant first lady who wore designer dresses, served French food in the White House, and invited classical
musicians to entertain at state functions. “Jack” Kennedy, or JFK, went sailing off the coast of his family’s
Cape Cod estate and socialized with celebrities (Figure 29.3). Few knew that behind Kennedy’s healthful
and sporty image was a gravely ill man whose wartime injuries caused him daily agony.
Figure 29.3 John F. Kennedy and first lady Jacqueline, shown here in the White House in 1962 (a) and watching the
America’s Cup race that same year (b), brought youth, glamour, and optimism to Washington, DC, and the nation.
Nowhere was Kennedy’s style more evident than in the first televised presidential debate held on
September 23, 1960, between him and his Republican opponent Vice President Richard M. Nixon. Seventy
million viewers watched the debate on television; millions more heard it on the radio. Radio listeners
judged Nixon the winner, whereas those who watched the debate on television believed the more telegenic
Kennedy made the better showing.
Click and Explore
View television footage of the first Kennedy-Nixon debate

(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15JFKNixon) at the JFK Presidential Library and
Museum.
Kennedy did not appeal to all voters, however. Many feared that because he was Roman Catholic, his
decisions would be influenced by the Pope. Even traditional Democratic supporters, like the head of
the United Auto Workers, Walter Reuther, feared that a Catholic candidate would lose the support of
Protestants. Many southern Democrats also disliked Kennedy because of his liberal position on civil rights.
To shore up support for Kennedy in the South, Lyndon B. Johnson, the Protestant Texan who was Senate
majority leader, was added to the Democratic ticket as the vice presidential candidate. In the end, Kennedy
won the election by the closest margin since 1888, defeating Nixon with only 0.01 percent more of the
record sixty-seven million votes cast. His victory in the Electoral College was greater: 303 electoral votes to
Nixon’s 219. Kennedy’s win made him both the youngest man elected to the presidency and the first U.S.
president born in the twentieth century.
Kennedy dedicated his inaugural address to the theme of a new future for the United States. “Ask not what
your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country,” he challenged his fellow Americans.
His lofty goals ranged from fighting poverty to winning the space race against the Soviet Union with
a moon landing. He assembled an administration of energetic people assured of their ability to shape
the future. Dean Rusk was named secretary of state. Robert McNamara, the former president of Ford
Motor Company, became secretary of defense. Kennedy appointed his younger brother Robert as attorney
general, much to the chagrin of many who viewed the appointment as a blatant example of nepotism.
Kennedy’s domestic reform plans remained hampered, however, by his narrow victory and lack of
support from members of his own party, especially southern Democrats. As a result, he remained hesitant
to propose new civil rights legislation. His achievements came primarily in poverty relief and care for the
disabled. Unemployment benefits were expanded, the food stamps program was piloted, and the school
lunch program was extended to more students. In October 1963, the passage of the Mental Retardation
Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act increased support for public mental
health services.
KENNEDY THE COLD WARRIOR

Kennedy focused most of his energies on foreign policy, an arena in which he had been interested since
his college years and in which, like all presidents, he was less constrained by the dictates of Congress.
Kennedy, who had promised in his inaugural address to protect the interests of the “free world,” engaged
in Cold War politics on a variety of fronts. For example, in response to the lead that the Soviets had taken
in the space race when Yuri Gagarin became the first human to successfully orbit the earth, Kennedy
urged Congress to not only put a man into space (Figure 29.4) but also land an American on the moon, a
goal finally accomplished in 1969. This investment advanced a variety of military technologies, especially
the nation’s long-range missile capability, resulting in numerous profitable spin-offs for the aviation and
communication industries. It also funded a growing middle class of government workers, engineers, and
defense contractors in states ranging from California to Texas to Florida—a region that would come to
be known as the Sun Belt—becoming a symbol of American technological superiority. At the same time,
however, the use of massive federal resources for space technologies did not change the economic outlook
for low-income communities and underprivileged regions.

Figure 29.4 On May 5, 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American to travel into space, as millions across the
country watched the television coverage of his Apollo 11 mission, including Vice President Johnson, President
Kennedy, and Jacqueline Kennedy in the White House. (credit: National Archives and Records Administration)
To counter Soviet influence in the developing world, Kennedy supported a variety of measures. One of
these was the Alliance for Progress, which collaborated with the governments of Latin American countries
to promote economic growth and social stability in nations whose populations might find themselves
drawn to communism. Kennedy also established the Agency for International Development to oversee the
distribution of foreign aid, and he founded the Peace Corps, which recruited idealistic young people to
undertake humanitarian projects in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. He hoped that by augmenting the
food supply and improving healthcare and education, the U.S. government could encourage developing
nations to align themselves with the United States and reject Soviet or Chinese overtures. The first group
of Peace Corps volunteers departed for the four corners of the globe in 1961, serving as an instrument of
“soft power” in the Cold War.
Kennedy’s various aid projects, like the Peace Corps, fit closely with his administration’s flexible
response, which Robert McNamara advocated as a better alternative to the all-or-nothing defensive
strategy of mutually assured destruction favored during Eisenhower’s presidency. The plan was to
develop different strategies, tactics, and even military capabilities to respond more appropriately to small
or medium-sized insurgencies, and political or diplomatic crises. One component of flexible response was
the Green Berets, a U.S. Army Special Forces unit trained in counterinsurgency—the military suppression
of rebel and nationalist groups in foreign nations. Much of the Kennedy administration’s new approach
to defense, however, remained focused on the ability and willingness of the United States to wage both
conventional and nuclear warfare, and Kennedy continued to call for increases in the American nuclear
arsenal.
Cuba
Kennedy’s multifaceted approach to national defense is exemplified by his careful handling of the
Communist government of Fidel Castro in Cuba. In January 1959, following the overthrow of the corrupt
and dictatorial regime of Fulgencio Batista, Castro assumed leadership of the new Cuban government. The
progressive reforms he began indicated that he favored Communism, and his pro-Soviet foreign policy
frightened the Eisenhower administration, which asked the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to find a
way to remove him from power. Rather than have the U.S. military invade the small island nation, less
than one hundred miles from Florida, and risk the world’s criticism, the CIA instead trained a small force
of Cuban exiles for the job. After landing at the Bay of Pigs on the Cuban coast, these insurgents, the CIA
believed, would inspire their countrymen to rise up and topple Castro’s regime. The United States also
promised air support for the invasion.
Kennedy agreed to support the previous administration’s plans, and on April 17, 1961, approximately
fourteen hundred Cuban exiles stormed ashore at the designated spot. However, Kennedy feared domestic
criticism and worried about Soviet retaliation elsewhere in the world, such as Berlin. He cancelled the
anticipated air support, which enabled the Cuban army to easily defeat the insurgents. The hoped-for
uprising of the Cuban people also failed to occur. The surviving members of the exile army were taken
into custody.
The Bay of Pigs invasion was a major foreign policy disaster for President Kennedy and highlighted Cuba’s
military vulnerability to the Castro administration. The following year, the Soviet Union sent troops and
technicians to Cuba to strengthen its new ally against further U.S. military plots. Then, on October 14,
U.S. spy planes took aerial photographs that confirmed the presence of long-range ballistic missile sites in
Cuba. The United States was now within easy reach of Soviet nuclear warheads (Figure 29.5).
Figure 29.5 This low-level U.S. Navy photograph of San Cristobal, Cuba, clearly shows one of the sites built to
launch intermediate-range missiles at the United States (a). As the date indicates, it was taken on the last day of the
Cuban Missile Crisis. Following the crisis, Kennedy met with the reconnaissance pilots who flew the Cuban missions
(b). credit a: modification of work by National Archives and Records Administration; credit b: modification of work by
Central Intelligence Agency)
On October 22, Kennedy demanded that Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev remove the missiles. He also
ordered a naval quarantine placed around Cuba to prevent Soviet ships from approaching. Despite his use
of the word “quarantine” instead of “blockade,” for a blockade was considered an act of war, a potential
war with the Soviet Union was nevertheless on the president’s mind. As U.S. ships headed for Cuba, the
army was told to prepare for war, and Kennedy appeared on national television to declare his intention to
defend the Western Hemisphere from Soviet aggression.
The world held its breath awaiting the Soviet reply. Realizing how serious the United States was,
Khrushchev sought a peaceful solution to the crisis, overruling those in his government who urged a
harder stance. Behind the scenes, Robert Kennedy and Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin worked
toward a compromise that would allow both superpowers to back down without either side’s seeming
intimidated by the other. On October 26, Khrushchev agreed to remove the Russian missiles in exchange
for Kennedy’s promise not to invade Cuba. On October 27, Kennedy’s agreement was made public, and the
crisis ended. Not made public, but nevertheless part of the agreement, was Kennedy’s promise to remove
U.S. warheads from Turkey, as close to Soviet targets as the Cuban missiles had been to American ones.
The showdown between the United States and the Soviet Union over Cuba’s missiles had put the world on
the brink of a nuclear war. Both sides already had long-range bombers with nuclear weapons airborne or
ready for launch, and were only hours away from the first strike. In the long run, this nearly catastrophic
example of nuclear brinksmanship ended up making the world safer. A telephone “hot line” was installed,

linking Washington and Moscow to avert future crises, and in 1963, Kennedy and Khrushchev signed the
Limited Test Ban Treaty, prohibiting tests of nuclear weapons in Earth’s atmosphere.
Vietnam
Cuba was not the only arena in which the United States sought to contain the advance of Communism. In
Indochina, nationalist independence movements, most notably Vietnam’s Viet Minh under the leadership
of Ho Chi Minh, had strong Communist sympathies. President Harry S. Truman had no love for France’s
colonial regime in Southeast Asia but did not want to risk the loyalty of its Western European ally against
the Soviet Union. In 1950, the Truman administration sent a small military advisory group to Vietnam and
provided financial aid to help France defeat the Viet Minh.
In 1954, Vietnamese forces finally defeated the French, and the country was temporarily divided at
the seventeenth parallel. Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh controlled the North. In the South, the last
Vietnamese emperor and ally to France, Bao Dai, named the French-educated, anti-Communist Ngo Dinh
Diem as his prime minister. But Diem refused to abide by the Geneva Accords, the treaty ending the
conflict that called for countrywide national elections in 1956, with the victor to rule a reunified nation.
After a fraudulent election in the South in 1955, he ousted Bao Dai and proclaimed himself president of the
Republic of Vietnam. He cancelled the 1956 elections in the South and began to round up Communists and
supporters of Ho Chi Minh.
Realizing that Diem would never agree to the reunification of the country under Ho Chi Minh’s leadership,
the North Vietnamese began efforts to overthrow the government of the South by encouraging insurgents
to attack South Vietnamese officials. By 1960, North Vietnam had also created the National Liberation
Front (NLF) to resist Diem and carry out an insurgency in the South. The United States, fearing the
spread of Communism under Ho Chi Minh, supported Diem, assuming he would create a democratic,
pro-Western government in South Vietnam. However, Diem’s oppressive and corrupt government made
him a very unpopular ruler, particularly with farmers, students, and Buddhists, and many in the South
actively assisted the NLF and North Vietnam in trying to overthrow his government.
When Kennedy took office, Diem’s government was faltering. Continuing the policies of the Eisenhower
administration, Kennedy supplied Diem with money and military advisors to prop up his government
(Figure 29.6). By November 1963, there were sixteen thousand U.S. troops in Vietnam, training members
of that country’s special forces and flying air missions that dumped defoliant chemicals on the countryside
to expose North Vietnamese and NLF forces and supply routes. A few weeks before Kennedy’s own death,
Diem and his brother Nhu were assassinated by South Vietnamese military officers after U.S. officials had
indicated their support for a new regime.
Figure 29.6 Following the French retreat from Indochina, the United States stepped in to prevent what it believed
was a building Communist threat in the region. Under President Kennedy’s leadership, the United States sent
thousands of military advisors to Vietnam. (credit: Abbie Rowe)
TENTATIVE STEPS TOWARD CIVIL RIGHTS

Cold War concerns, which guided U.S. policy in Cuba and Vietnam, also motivated the Kennedy
administration’s steps toward racial equality. Realizing that legal segregation and widespread
discrimination hurt the country’s chances of gaining allies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the federal
government increased efforts to secure the civil rights of African Americans in the 1960s. During his
presidential campaign, Kennedy had intimated his support for civil rights, and his efforts to secure the
release of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., who was arrested following a demonstration, won him
the African American vote. Lacking widespread backing in Congress, however, and anxious not to offend
white southerners, Kennedy was cautious in assisting African Americans in their fight for full citizenship
rights.
His strongest focus was on securing the voting rights of African Americans. Kennedy feared the loss
of support from southern white Democrats and the impact a struggle over civil rights could have on
his foreign policy agenda as well as on his reelection in 1964. But he thought voter registration drives
far preferable to the boycotts, sit-ins, and integration marches that had generated such intense global
media coverage in previous years. Encouraged by Congress’s passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1960,
which permitted federal courts to appoint referees to guarantee that qualified persons would be registered
to vote, Kennedy focused on the passage of a constitutional amendment outlawing poll taxes, a tactic
that southern states used to disenfranchise African American voters. Originally proposed by President
Truman’s Committee on Civil Rights, the idea had been largely forgotten during Eisenhower’s time in
office. Kennedy, however, revived it and convinced Spessard Holland, a conservative Florida senator, to
introduce the proposed amendment in Congress. It passed both houses of Congress and was sent to the
states for ratification in September 1962.
Kennedy also reacted to the demands of the civil rights movement for equality in education. For example,
when African American student James Meredith, encouraged by Kennedy’s speeches, attempted to enroll
at the segregated University of Mississippi in 1962, riots broke out on campus (Figure 29.7). The president
responded by sending the U.S. Army and National Guard to Oxford, Mississippi, to support the U.S.
Marshals that his brother Robert, the attorney general, had dispatched.

Figure 29.7 Escorted by a U.S. marshal and the assistant attorney general for civil rights, James Meredith (center)
enters the University of Mississippi over the riotous protests of white southerners. Meredith later attempted a “March
against Fear” in 1966 to protest the inability of southern African Americans to vote. His walk ended when a passing
motorist shot and wounded him. (credit: Library of Congress)
Following similar violence at the University of Alabama when two African American students, Vivian
Malone and James Hood, attempted to enroll in 1963, Kennedy responded with a bill that would give
the federal government greater power to enforce school desegregation, prohibit segregation in public
accommodations, and outlaw discrimination in employment. Kennedy would not live to see his bill
enacted; it would become law during Lyndon Johnson’s administration as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
TRAGEDY IN DALLAS
Although his stance on civil rights had won him support in the African American community and his
steely performance during the Cuban Missile Crisis had led his overall popularity to surge, Kennedy
understood that he had to solidify his base in the South to secure his reelection. On November 21, 1963, he
accompanied Lyndon Johnson to Texas to rally his supporters. The next day, shots rang out as Kennedy’s
motorcade made its way through the streets of Dallas. Seriously injured, Kennedy was rushed to Parkland
Hospital and pronounced dead.
The gunfire that killed Kennedy appeared to come from the upper stories of the Texas School Book
Depository building; later that day, Lee Harvey Oswald, an employee at the depository and a trained
sniper, was arrested (Figure 29.8). Two days later, while being transferred from Dallas police
headquarters to the county jail, Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby, a local nightclub owner who
claimed he acted to avenge the president.
Figure 29.8 Lee Harvey Oswald (center) was arrested at the Texas Theatre in Dallas a few hours after shooting
President Kennedy.
Almost immediately, rumors began to circulate regarding the Kennedy assassination, and conspiracy
theorists, pointing to the unlikely coincidence of Oswald’s murder a few days after Kennedy’s, began to
propose alternate theories about the events. To quiet the rumors and allay fears that the government was
hiding evidence, Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy’s successor, appointed a fact-finding commission headed by
Earl Warren, chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, to examine all the evidence and render a verdict.
The Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone and there had been no
conspiracy. The commission’s ruling failed to satisfy many, and multiple theories have sprung up over
time. No credible evidence has ever been uncovered, however, to prove either that someone other than
Oswald murdered Kennedy or that Oswald acted with co-conspirators.

• Describe the major accomplishments of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society
• Identify the legal advances made in the area of civil rights
• Explain how Lyndon Johnson deepened the American commitment in Vietnam
On November 27, 1963, a few days after taking the oath of office, President Johnson addressed a joint
session of Congress and vowed to accomplish the goals that John F. Kennedy had set and to expand the
role of the federal government in securing economic opportunity and civil rights for all. Johnson brought
to his presidency a vision of a Great Society in which everyone could share in the opportunities for a better
life that the United States offered, and in which the words “liberty and justice for all” would have real
meaning.
THE GREAT SOCIETY

In May 1964, in a speech at the University of Michigan, Lyndon Johnson described in detail his vision of the
Great Society he planned to create (Figure 29.9). When the Eighty-Ninth Congress convened the following
January, he and his supporters began their effort to turn the promise into reality. By combatting racial
discrimination and attempting to eliminate poverty, the reforms of the Johnson administration changed
the nation.

Figure 29.9 In a speech at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor on May 22, 1964 (a), President Johnson
announced some of his goals for the Great Society. These included rebuilding cities, preserving the natural
environment, and improving education. Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in his
hometown of Johnson City, Texas, alongside his childhood schoolteacher, Kate Deadrich Loney (b). (credit a:
modification of work by Cecil Stoughton)
One of the chief pieces of legislation that Congress passed in 1965 was the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (Figure 29.9). Johnson, a former teacher, realized that a lack of education was the primary
cause of poverty and other social problems. Educational reform was thus an important pillar of the
society he hoped to build. This act provided increased federal funding to both elementary and secondary
schools, allocating more than $1 billion for the purchase of books and library materials, and the creation
of educational programs for disadvantaged children. The Higher Education Act, signed into law the same
year, provided scholarships and low-interest loans for the poor, increased federal funding for colleges and
universities, and created a corps of teachers to serve schools in impoverished areas.
Education was not the only area toward which Johnson directed his attention. Consumer protection
laws were also passed that improved the safety of meat and poultry, placed warning labels on cigarette
packages, required “truth in lending” by creditors, and set safety standards for motor vehicles. Funds
were provided to improve public transportation and to fund high-speed mass transit. To protect the
environment, the Johnson administration created laws protecting air and water quality, regulating the
disposal of solid waste, preserving wilderness areas, and protecting endangered species. All of these laws
fit within Johnson’s plan to make the United States a better place to live. Perhaps influenced by Kennedy’s
commitment to the arts, Johnson also signed legislation creating the National Endowment for the Arts
and the National Endowment for the Humanities, which provided funding for artists and scholars. The
Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 authorized the creation of the private, not-for-profit Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, which helped launch the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR)
in 1970.
In 1965, the Johnson administration also encouraged Congress to pass the Immigration and Nationality
Act, which essentially overturned legislation from the 1920s that had favored immigrants from western
and northern Europe over those from eastern and southern Europe. The law lifted severe restrictions
on immigration from Asia and gave preference to immigrants with family ties in the United States
and immigrants with desirable skills. Although the measure seemed less significant than many of the
other legislative victories of the Johnson administration at the time, it opened the door for a new era in
immigration and made possible the formation of Asian and Latin American immigrant communities in the
following decades.
While these laws touched on important aspects of the Great Society, the centerpiece of Johnson’s plan
was the eradication of poverty in the United States. The war on poverty, as he termed it, was fought on
many fronts. The 1965 Housing and Urban Development Act offered grants to improve city housing and
subsidized rents for the poor. The Model Cities program likewise provided money for urban development
projects and the building of public housing.
The Economic Opportunity Act (EOA) of 1964 established and funded a variety of programs to assist
the poor in finding jobs. The Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), first administered by President
Kennedy’s brother-in-law Sargent Shriver, coordinated programs such as the Jobs Corps and the
Neighborhood Youth Corps, which provided job training programs and work experience for the
disadvantaged. Volunteers in Service to America recruited people to offer educational programs and other
community services in poor areas, just as the Peace Corps did abroad. The Community Action Program,
also under the OEO, funded local Community Action Agencies, organizations created and managed by
residents of disadvantaged communities to improve their own lives and those of their neighbors. The Head
Start program, intended to prepare low-income children for elementary school, was also under the OEO
until it was transferred to Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1969.
The EOA fought rural poverty by providing low-interest loans to those wishing to improve their farms or
start businesses (Figure 29.10). EOA funds were also used to provide housing and education for migrant
farm workers. Other legislation created jobs in Appalachia, one of the poorest regions in the United States,
and brought programs to Indian reservations. One of EOA’s successes was the Rough Rock Demonstration
School on the Navajo Reservation that, while respecting Navajo traditions and culture, also trained people
for careers and jobs outside the reservation.
Figure 29.10 President Johnson visits a poor family in Appalachia in 1964. Government initiatives designed to
combat poverty helped rural communities like this one by providing low-interest loans and housing. (credit: Cecil
Stoughton)
The Johnson administration, realizing the nation’s elderly were among its poorest and most disadvantaged
citizens, passed the Social Security Act of 1965. The most profound change made by this act was the
creation of Medicare, a program to pay the medical expenses of those over sixty-five. Although opposed
by the American Medical Association, which feared the creation of a national healthcare system, the new
program was supported by most citizens because it would benefit all social classes, not just the poor.
The act and subsequent amendments to it also provided coverage for self-employed people in certain
occupations and expanded the number of disabled who qualified for benefits. The following year, the
Medicaid program allotted federal funds to pay for medical care for the poor.

JOHNSON’S COMMITMENT TO CIVIL RIGHTS

The eradication of poverty was matched in importance by the Great Society’s advancement of civil rights.
Indeed, the condition of the poor could not be alleviated if racial discrimination limited their access to
jobs, education, and housing. Realizing this, Johnson drove the long-awaited civil rights act, proposed
by Kennedy in June 1963 in the wake of riots at the University of Alabama, through Congress. Under
Kennedy’s leadership, the bill had passed the House of Representatives but was stalled in the Senate by a
filibuster. Johnson, a master politician, marshaled his considerable personal influence and memories of his
fallen predecessor to break the filibuster. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the most far-reaching civil rights act
yet passed by Congress, banned discrimination in public accommodations, sought to aid schools in efforts
to desegregate, and prohibited federal funding of programs that permitted racial segregation. Further, it
barred discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, or gender, and
established an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Protecting African Americans’ right to vote was as important as ending racial inequality in the United
States. In January 1964, the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, prohibiting the imposition of poll taxes on
voters, was finally ratified. Poverty would no longer serve as an obstacle to voting. Other impediments
remained, however. Attempts to register southern African American voters encountered white resistance,
and protests against this interference often met with violence. On March 7, 1965, a planned protest march
from Selma, Alabama, to the state capitol in Montgomery, turned into “Bloody Sunday” when marchers
crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge encountered a cordon of state police, wielding batons and tear gas
(Figure 29.11). Images of white brutality appeared on television screens throughout the nation and in
newspapers around the world.
Figure 29.11 African American marchers in Selma, Alabama, were attacked by state police officers in 1965, and the
resulting “Bloody Sunday” helped create support for the civil rights movement among northern whites. (credit: Library
of Congress)
Deeply disturbed by the violence in Alabama and the refusal of Governor George Wallace to address
it, Johnson introduced a bill in Congress that would remove obstacles for African American voters and
lend federal support to their cause. His proposal, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, prohibited states and
local governments from passing laws that discriminated against voters on the basis of race (Figure 29.12).
Literacy tests and other barriers to voting that had kept ethnic minorities from the polls were thus
outlawed. Following the passage of the act, a quarter of a million African Americans registered to vote,
and by 1967, the majority of African Americans had done so. Johnson’s final piece of civil rights legislation
was the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color,
national origin, or religion.
Figure 29.12 The Voting Rights Act (a) was signed into law on August 6, 1965, in the presence of major figures of
the civil rights movement, including Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. (b).
INCREASED COMMITMENT IN VIETNAM

Building the Great Society had been Lyndon Johnson’s biggest priority, and he effectively used his decades
of experience in building legislative majorities in a style that ranged from diplomacy to quid pro quo deals
to bullying. In the summer of 1964, he deployed these political skills to secure congressional approval for
a new strategy in Vietnam—with fateful consequences.
President Johnson had never been the cold warrior Kennedy was, but believed that the credibility of
the nation and his office depended on maintaining a foreign policy of containment. When, on August
2, the U.S. destroyer USS Maddox conducted an arguably provocative intelligence-gathering mission in
the gulf of Tonkin, it reported an attack by North Vietnamese torpedo boats. Two days later, the Maddox
was supposedly struck again, and a second ship, the USS Turner Joy, reported that it also had been fired
upon. The North Vietnamese denied the second attack, and Johnson himself doubted the reliability of
the crews’ report. The National Security Agency has since revealed that the August 4 attacks did not
occur. Relying on information available at the time, however, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara
reported to Congress that U.S. ships had been fired upon in international waters while conducting routine
operations. On August 7, with only two dissenting votes, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution,
and on August 10, the president signed the resolution into law. The resolution gave President Johnson the
authority to use military force in Vietnam without asking Congress for a declaration of war. It dramatically
increased the power of the U.S. president and transformed the American role in Vietnam from advisor to
combatant.
In 1965, large-scale U.S. bombing of North Vietnam began. The intent of the campaign, which lasted
three years under various names, was to force the North to end its support for the insurgency in the
South. More than 200,000 U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, were sent to South Vietnam.
At first, most of the American public supported the president’s actions in Vietnam. Support began to
ebb, however, as more troops were deployed. Frustrated by losses suffered by the South’s Army of the
Republic of Vietnam (ARVN), General William Westmoreland called for the United States to take more
responsibility for fighting the war. By April 1966, more Americans were being killed in battle than ARVN
troops. Johnson, however, maintained that the war could be won if the United States stayed the course,
and in November 1967, Westmoreland proclaimed the end was in sight.

Click and Explore
To hear one soldier’s story about his time in Vietnam, listen to Sergeant Charles G.
Richardson’s recollections (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15VietnamVet) of his
experience on the ground and his reflections on his military service.
Westmoreland’s predictions were called into question, however, when in January 1968, the North
Vietnamese launched their most aggressive assault on the South, deploying close to eighty-five thousand
troops. During the Tet Offensive, as these attacks were known, nearly one hundred cities in the South were
attacked, including the capital of Saigon (Figure 29.13). In heavy fighting, U.S. and South Vietnamese
forces recaptured all the points taken by the enemy.
Figure 29.13 During the 1968 Tet Offensive, North Vietnamese and South Communist rebel armies known as Viet
Cong attacked South Vietnamese and U.S. targets throughout Vietnam (a), with Saigon as the focus (b). Tet, the
lunar New Year, was an important holiday in Vietnam and temporary ceasefires usually took place at this time. (credit
a: modification of work by Central Intelligence Agency)
Although North Vietnamese forces suffered far more casualties than the roughly forty-one hundred U.S.
soldiers killed, public opinion in the United States, fueled by graphic images provided in unprecedented
media coverage, turned against the war. Disastrous surprise attacks like the Tet Offensive persuaded many
that the war would not be over soon and raised doubts about whether Johnson’s administration was telling
the truth about the real state of affairs. In May 1968, with over 400,000 U.S. soldiers in Vietnam, Johnson
began peace talks with the North.
It was too late to save Johnson himself, however. Many of the most outspoken critics of the war were
Democratic politicians whose opposition began to erode unity within the party. Minnesota senator Eugene
McCarthy, who had called for an end to the war and the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, received
nearly as many votes in the New Hampshire presidential primary as Johnson did, even though he had
been expected to fare very poorly. McCarthy’s success in New Hampshire encouraged Robert Kennedy to
announce his candidacy as well. Johnson, suffering health problems and realizing his actions in Vietnam
had hurt his public standing, announced that he would not seek reelection and withdrew from the 1968
presidential race.
THE END OF THE GREAT SOCIETY

Perhaps the greatest casualty of the nation’s war in Vietnam was the Great Society. As the war escalated,
the money spent to fund it also increased, leaving less to pay for the many social programs Johnson
had created to lift Americans out of poverty. Johnson knew he could not achieve his Great Society while
spending money to wage the war. He was unwilling to withdraw from Vietnam, however, for fear that
the world would perceive this action as evidence of American failure and doubt the ability of the United
States to carry out its responsibilities as a superpower.
Vietnam doomed the Great Society in other ways as well. Dreams of racial harmony suffered, as many
African Americans, angered by the failure of Johnson’s programs to alleviate severe poverty in the inner
cities, rioted in frustration. Their anger was heightened by the fact that a disproportionate number of
African Americans were fighting and dying in Vietnam. Nearly two-thirds of eligible African Americans
were drafted, whereas draft deferments for college, exemptions for skilled workers in the military
industrial complex, and officer training programs allowed white middle-class youth to either avoid the
draft or volunteer for a military branch of their choice. As a result, less than one-third of white men were
drafted.
Although the Great Society failed to eliminate suffering or increase civil rights to the extent that Johnson
wished, it made a significant difference in people’s lives. By the end of Johnson’s administration, the
percentage of people living below the poverty line had been cut nearly in half. While more people of
color than whites continued to live in poverty, the percentage of poor African Americans had decreased
dramatically. The creation of Medicare and Medicaid as well as the expansion of Social Security benefits
and welfare payments improved the lives of many, while increased federal funding for education enabled
more people to attend college than ever before. Conservative critics argued that, by expanding the
responsibilities of the federal government to care for the poor, Johnson had hurt both taxpayers and the
poor themselves. Aid to the poor, many maintained, would not only fail to solve the problem of poverty
but would also encourage people to become dependent on government “handouts” and lose their desire
and ability to care for themselves—an argument that many found intuitively compelling but which lacked
conclusive evidence. These same critics also accused Johnson of saddling the United States with a large
debt as a result of the deficit spending (funded by borrowing) in which he had engaged.

• Explain the strategies of the African American civil rights movement in the 1960s
• Discuss the rise and philosophy of Black Power
• Identify achievements of the Mexican American civil rights movement in the 1960s
During the 1960s, the federal government, encouraged by both genuine concern for the dispossessed and
the realities of the Cold War, had increased its efforts to protect civil rights and ensure equal economic
and educational opportunities for all. However, most of the credit for progress toward racial equality
in the Unites States lies with grassroots activists. Indeed, it was campaigns and demonstrations by

ordinary people that spurred the federal government to action. Although the African American civil rights
movement was the most prominent of the crusades for racial justice, other ethnic minorities also worked
to seize their piece of the American dream during the promising years of the 1960s. Many were influenced
by the African American cause and often used similar tactics.
CHANGE FROM THE BOTTOM UP

For many people inspired by the victories of Brown v. Board of Education and the Montgomery Bus Boycott,
the glacial pace of progress in the segregated South was frustrating if not intolerable. In some places,
such as Greensboro, North Carolina, local NAACP chapters had been influenced by whites who provided
financing for the organization. This aid, together with the belief that more forceful efforts at reform
would only increase white resistance, had persuaded some African American organizations to pursue a
“politics of moderation” instead of attempting to radically alter the status quo. Martin Luther King Jr.’s
inspirational appeal for peaceful change in the city of Greensboro in 1958, however, planted the seed for a
more assertive civil rights movement.
On February 1, 1960, four sophomores at the North Carolina Agricultural & Technical College in
Greensboro—Ezell Blair, Jr., Joseph McNeil, David Richmond, and Franklin McCain—entered the local
Woolworth’s and sat at the lunch counter. The lunch counter was segregated, and they were refused
service as they knew they would be. They had specifically chosen Woolworth’s, because it was a national
chain and was thus believed to be especially vulnerable to negative publicity. Over the next few days, more
protesters joined the four sophomores. Hostile whites responded with threats and taunted the students by
pouring sugar and ketchup on their heads. The successful six-month-long Greensboro sit-in initiated the
student phase of the African American civil rights movement and, within two months, the sit-in movement
had spread to fifty-four cities in nine states (Figure 29.14).
Figure 29.14 Businesses such as this one were among those that became targets of activists protesting
segregation. Segregated businesses could be found throughout the United States; this one was located in Ohio.
(credit: Library of Congress)
In the words of grassroots civil rights activist Ella Baker, the students at Woolworth’s wanted more
than a hamburger; the movement they helped launch was about empowerment. Baker pushed for a
“participatory Democracy” that built on the grassroots campaigns of active citizens instead of deferring
to the leadership of educated elites and experts. As a result of her actions, in April 1960, the Student
Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) formed to carry the battle forward. Within a year, more
than one hundred cities had desegregated at least some public accommodations in response to student-
led demonstrations. The sit-ins inspired other forms of nonviolent protest intended to desegregate public
spaces. “Sleep-ins” occupied motel lobbies, “read-ins” filled public libraries, and churches became the sites
of “pray-ins.”
Students also took part in the 1961 “freedom rides” sponsored by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)
and SNCC. The intent of the African American and white volunteers who undertook these bus rides
south was to test enforcement of a U.S. Supreme Court decision prohibiting segregation on interstate
transportation and to protest segregated waiting rooms in southern terminals. Departing Washington, DC,
on May 4, the volunteers headed south on buses that challenged the seating order of Jim Crow segregation.
Whites would ride in the back, African-Americans would sit in the front, and on other occasions, riders
of different races would share the same bench seat. The freedom riders encountered little difficulty until
they reached Rock Hill, South Carolina, where a mob severely beat John Lewis, a freedom rider who later
became chairman of SNCC (Figure 29.15). The danger increased as the riders continued through Georgia
into Alabama, where one of the two buses was firebombed outside the town of Anniston. The second
group continued to Birmingham, where the riders were attacked by the Ku Klux Klan as they attempted
to disembark at the city bus station. The remaining volunteers continued to Mississippi, where they were
arrested when they attempted to desegregate the waiting rooms in the Jackson bus terminal.
Figure 29.15 Civil rights activists Bayard Rustin, Andrew Young, Rep. William Fitts Ryan, James Farmer, and John
Lewis (l to r) in a newspaper photograph from 1965.
FREE BY ’63 (OR ’64 OR ’65)

The grassroots efforts of people like the Freedom Riders to change discriminatory laws and longstanding
racist traditions grew more widely known in the mid-1960s. The approaching centennial of Abraham
Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation spawned the slogan “Free by ’63” among civil rights activists. As
African Americans increased their calls for full rights for all Americans, many civil rights groups changed
their tactics to reflect this new urgency.
Perhaps the most famous of the civil rights-era demonstrations was the March on Washington for Jobs
and Freedom, held in August 1963, on the one hundredth anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation
Proclamation. Its purpose was to pressure President Kennedy to act on his promises regarding civil rights.
The date was the eighth anniversary of the brutal racist murder of fourteen-year-old Emmett Till in Money,
Mississippi. As the crowd gathered outside the Lincoln Memorial and spilled across the National Mall
(Figure 29.16), Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his most famous speech. In “I Have a Dream,” King
called for an end to racial injustice in the United States and envisioned a harmonious, integrated society.
The speech marked the high point of the civil rights movement and established the legitimacy of its goals.
However, it did not prevent white terrorism in the South, nor did it permanently sustain the tactics of
nonviolent civil disobedience.

Figure 29.16 During the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom (a), a huge crowd gathered on the National
Mall (b) to hear the speakers. Although thousands attended, many of the march’s organizers had hoped that enough
people would come to Washington to shut down the city.
Other gatherings of civil rights activists ended tragically, and some demonstrations were intended to
provoke a hostile response from whites and thus reveal the inhumanity of the Jim Crow laws and their
supporters. In 1963, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) led by Martin Luther King, Jr.
mounted protests in some 186 cities throughout the South. The campaign in Birmingham that began in
April and extended into the fall of 1963 attracted the most notice, however, when a peaceful protest was
met with violence by police, who attacked demonstrators, including children, with fire hoses and dogs.
The world looked on in horror as innocent people were assaulted and thousands arrested. King himself
was jailed on Easter Sunday, 1963, and, in response to the pleas of white clergymen for peace and patience,
he penned one of the most significant documents of the struggle—“Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” In the
letter, King argued that African Americans had waited patiently for more than three hundred years to be
given the rights that all human beings deserved; the time for waiting was over.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Letter from a Birmingham Jail
By 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. had become one of the most prominent leaders of the civil rights
movement, and he continued to espouse nonviolent civil disobedience as a way of registering African
American resistance against unfair, discriminatory, and racist laws and behaviors. While the campaign
in Birmingham began with an African American boycott of white businesses to end discrimination in
employment practices and public segregation, it became a fight over free speech when King was arrested
for violating a local injunction against demonstrations. King wrote his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” in
response to an op-ed by eight white Alabama clergymen who complained about the SCLC’s fiery tactics
and argued that social change needed to be pursued gradually. The letter criticizes those who did not
support the cause of civil rights:
In spite of my shattered dreams of the past, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the
white religious leadership in the community would see the justice of our cause and, with
deep moral concern, serve as the channel through which our just grievances could get to
the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have
been disappointed. I have heard numerous religious leaders of the South call upon their
worshippers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed
to hear white ministers say follow this decree because integration is morally right and the
Negro is your brother. In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have
watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and
sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and
economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, “Those are social issues with which
the Gospel has no real concern,” and I have watched so many churches commit themselves
to a completely other-worldly religion which made a strange distinction between body and
soul, the sacred and the secular.
Since its publication, the “Letter” has become one of the most cogent, impassioned, and succinct
statements of the aspirations of the civil rights movement and the frustration over the glacial pace of
progress in achieving justice and equality for all Americans.
What civil rights tactics raised the objections of the white clergymen King addressed in his letter? Why?
Some of the greatest violence during this era was aimed at those who attempted to register African
Americans to vote. In 1964, SNCC, working with other civil rights groups, initiated its Mississippi Summer
Project, also known as Freedom Summer. The purpose was to register African American voters in one
of the most racist states in the nation. Volunteers also built “freedom schools” and community centers.
SNCC invited hundreds of white middle-class students, mostly from the North, to help in the task. Many
volunteers were harassed, beaten, and arrested, and African American homes and churches were burned.
Three civil rights workers, James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman, were killed by the
Ku Klux Klan. That summer, civil rights activists Fannie Lou Hamer, Ella Baker, and Robert Parris Moses
formally organized the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) as an alternative to the all-white
Mississippi Democratic Party. The Democratic National Convention’s organizers, however, would allow
only two MFDP delegates to be seated, and they were confined to the roles of nonvoting observers.
The vision of whites and African Americans working together peacefully to end racial injustice suffered
a severe blow with the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee, in April 1968. King had
gone there to support sanitation workers trying to unionize. In the city, he found a divided civil rights
movement; older activists who supported his policy of nonviolence were being challenged by younger
African Americans who advocated a more militant approach. On April 4, King was shot and killed
while standing on the balcony of his motel. Within hours, the nation’s cities exploded with violence as
angry African Americans, shocked by his murder, burned and looted inner-city neighborhoods across the
country (Figure 29.17). While whites recoiled from news about the riots in fear and dismay, they also
criticized African Americans for destroying their own neighborhoods; they did not realize that most of the

violence was directed against businesses that were not owned by blacks and that treated African American
customers with suspicion and hostility.
Figure 29.17 Many businesses, such as those in this neighborhood at the intersection of 7th and N Streets in NW,
Washington, DC, were destroyed in riots that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
BLACK FRUSTRATION, BLACK POWER

The episodes of violence that accompanied Martin Luther King Jr.’s murder were but the latest in a string
of urban riots that had shaken the United States since the mid-1960s. Between 1964 and 1968, there were
329 riots in 257 cities across the nation. In 1964, riots broke out in Harlem and other African American
neighborhoods. In 1965, a traffic stop set in motion a chain of events that culminated in riots in Watts,
an African American neighborhood in Los Angeles. Thousands of businesses were destroyed, and, by the
time the violence ended, thirty-four people were dead, most of them African Americans killed by the Los
Angeles police and the National Guard. More riots took place in 1966 and 1967.
Frustration and anger lay at the heart of these disruptions. Despite the programs of the Great Society,
good healthcare, job opportunities, and safe housing were abysmally lacking in urban African American
neighborhoods in cities throughout the country, including in the North and West, where discrimination
was less overt but just as crippling. In the eyes of many rioters, the federal government either could not
or would not end their suffering, and most existing civil rights groups and their leaders had been unable
to achieve significant results toward racial justice and equality. Disillusioned, many African Americans
turned to those with more radical ideas about how best to obtain equality and justice.
Click and Explore
Watch “Troops Patrol L.A.” to see how the 1965 Watts Riots
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15WattsRiot) were presented in newsreel footage of
the day.
Within the chorus of voices calling for integration and legal equality were many that more stridently
demanded empowerment and thus supported Black Power. Black Power meant a variety of things. One
of the most famous users of the term was Stokely Carmichael, the chairman of SNCC, who later changed
his name to Kwame Ture. For Carmichael, Black Power was the power of African Americans to unite as a
political force and create their own institutions apart from white-dominated ones, an idea first suggested
in the 1920s by political leader and orator Marcus Garvey. Like Garvey, Carmichael became an advocate of
black separatism, arguing that African Americans should live apart from whites and solve their problems
for themselves. In keeping with this philosophy, Carmichael expelled SNCC’s white members. He left
SNCC in 1967 and later joined the Black Panthers (see below).
Long before Carmichael began to call for separatism, the Nation of Islam, founded in 1930, had advocated
the same thing. In the 1960s, its most famous member was Malcolm X, born Malcolm Little (Figure 29.18).
The Nation of Islam advocated the separation of white Americans and African Americans because of
a belief that African Americans could not thrive in an atmosphere of white racism. Indeed, in a 1963
interview, Malcolm X, discussing the teachings of the head of the Nation of Islam in America, Elijah
Muhammad, referred to white people as “devils” more than a dozen times. Rejecting the nonviolent
strategy of other civil rights activists, he maintained that violence in the face of violence was appropriate.
Figure 29.18 Stokely Carmichael (a), one of the most famous and outspoken advocates of Black Power, is
surrounded by members of the media after speaking at Michigan State University in 1967. Malcolm X (b) was raised
in a family influenced by Marcus Garvey and persecuted for its outspoken support of civil rights. While serving a stint
in prison for armed robbery, he was introduced to and committed himself to the Nation of Islam. (credit b: modification
of work by Library of Congress)
In 1964, after a trip to Africa, Malcolm X left the Nation of Islam to found the Organization of Afro-
American Unity with the goal of achieving freedom, justice, and equality “by any means necessary.” His
views regarding black-white relations changed somewhat thereafter, but he remained fiercely committed
to the cause of African American empowerment. On February 21, 1965, he was killed by members of the
Nation of Islam. Stokely Carmichael later recalled that Malcolm X had provided an intellectual basis for
Black Nationalism and given legitimacy to the use of violence in achieving the goals of Black Power.

DEFINING "AMERICAN"
The New Negro
In a roundtable conversation in October 1961, Malcolm X suggested that a “New Negro” was coming to
the fore. The term and concept of a “New Negro” arose during the Harlem Renaissance of the 1920s and
was revived during the civil rights movements of the 1960s.
“I think there is a new so-called Negro. We don’t recognize the term ‘Negro’ but I really believe
that there’s a new so-called Negro here in America. He not only is impatient. Not only is he
dissatisfied, not only is he disillusioned, but he’s getting very angry. And whereas the so-called
Negro in the past was willing to sit around and wait for someone else to change his condition
or correct his condition, there’s a growing tendency on the part of a vast number of so-called
Negroes today to take action themselves, not to sit and wait for someone else to correct the
situation. This, in my opinion, is primarily what has produced this new Negro. He is not willing
to wait. He thinks that what he wants is right, what he wants is just, and since these things are
just and right, it’s wrong to sit around and wait for someone else to correct a nasty condition
when they get ready.”
In what ways were Martin Luther King, Jr. and the members of SNCC “New Negroes?”
Unlike Stokely Carmichael and the Nation of Islam, most Black Power advocates did not believe African
Americans needed to separate themselves from white society. The Black Panther Party, founded in 1966
in Oakland, California, by Bobby Seale and Huey Newton, believed African Americans were as much the
victims of capitalism as of white racism. Accordingly, the group espoused Marxist teachings, and called
for jobs, housing, and education, as well as protection from police brutality and exemption from military
service in their Ten Point Program. The Black Panthers also patrolled the streets of African American
neighborhoods to protect residents from police brutality, yet sometimes beat and murdered those who did
not agree with their cause and tactics. Their militant attitude and advocacy of armed self-defense attracted
many young men but also led to many encounters with the police, which sometimes included arrests and
even shootouts, such as those that took place in Los Angeles, Chicago and Carbondale, Illinois.
The self-empowerment philosophy of Black Power influenced mainstream civil rights groups such as the
National Economic Growth Reconstruction Organization (NEGRO), which sold bonds and operated a
clothing factory and construction company in New York, and the Opportunities Industrialization Center in
Philadelphia, which provided job training and placement—by 1969, it had branches in seventy cities. Black
Power was also part of a much larger process of cultural change. The 1960s composed a decade not only
of Black Power but also of Black Pride. African American abolitionist John S. Rock had coined the phrase
“Black Is Beautiful” in 1858, but in the 1960s, it became an important part of efforts within the African
American community to raise self-esteem and encourage pride in African ancestry. Black Pride urged
African Americans to reclaim their African heritage and, to promote group solidarity, to substitute African
and African-inspired cultural practices, such as handshakes, hairstyles, and dress, for white practices. One
of the many cultural products of this movement was the popular television music program Soul Train,
created by Don Cornelius in 1969, which celebrated black culture and aesthetics (Figure 29.19).
Figure 29.19 When the Jackson Five appeared on Soul Train, each of the five brothers sported a large afro, a
symbol of Black Pride in the 1960s and 70s.
THE MEXICAN AMERICAN FIGHT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

The African American bid for full citizenship was surely the most visible of the battles for civil rights
taking place in the United States. However, other minority groups that had been legally discriminated
against or otherwise denied access to economic and educational opportunities began to increase efforts to
secure their rights in the 1960s. Like the African American movement, the Mexican American civil rights
movement won its earliest victories in the federal courts. In 1947, in Mendez v. Westminster, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that segregating children of Hispanic descent was unconstitutional.
In 1954, the same year as Brown v. Board of Education, Mexican Americans prevailed in Hernandez v. Texas,
when the U.S. Supreme Court extended the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment to all ethnic groups
in the United States.
The highest-profile struggle of the Mexican American civil rights movement was the fight that Caesar
Chavez (Figure 29.20) and Dolores Huerta waged in the fields of California to organize migrant farm
workers. In 1962, Chavez and Huerta founded the National Farm Workers Association (NFWA). In 1965,
when Filipino grape pickers led by Filipino American Larry Itliong went on strike to call attention to
their plight, Chavez lent his support. Workers organized by the NFWA also went on strike, and the two
organizations merged to form the United Farm Workers. When Chavez asked American consumers to
boycott grapes, politically conscious people around the country heeded his call, and many unionized
longshoremen refused to unload grape shipments. In 1966, Chavez led striking workers to the state capitol
in Sacramento, further publicizing the cause. Martin Luther King, Jr. telegraphed words of encouragement
to Chavez, whom he called a “brother.” The strike ended in 1970 when California farmers recognized the
right of farm workers to unionize. However, the farm workers did not gain all they sought, and the larger
struggle did not end.
Figure 29.20 Cesar Chavez was influenced by the nonviolent philosophy of Indian nationalist Mahatma Gandhi. In
1968, he emulated Gandhi by engaging in a hunger strike.

The equivalent of the Black Power movement among Mexican Americans was the Chicano Movement.
Proudly adopting a derogatory term for Mexican Americans, Chicano activists demanded increased
political power for Mexican Americans, education that recognized their cultural heritage, and the
restoration of lands taken from them at the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848. One of the founding
members, Rodolfo “Corky” Gonzales, launched the Crusade for Justice in Denver in 1965, to provide jobs,
legal services, and healthcare for Mexican Americans. From this movement arose La Raza Unida, a political
party that attracted many Mexican American college students. Elsewhere, Reies López Tijerina fought
for years to reclaim lost and illegally expropriated ancestral lands in New Mexico; he was one of the co-
sponsors of the Poor People’s March on Washington in 1967.

• Describe the goals and activities of SDS, the Free Speech Movement, and the antiwar
movement
• Explain the rise, goals, and activities of the women’s movement
By the 1960s, a generation of white Americans raised in prosperity and steeped in the culture of conformity
of the 1950s had come of age. However, many of these baby boomers (those born between 1946 and
1964) rejected the conformity and luxuries that their parents had provided. These young, middle-class
Americans, especially those fortunate enough to attend college when many of their working-class and
African American contemporaries were being sent to Vietnam, began to organize to fight for their own
rights and end the war that was claiming the lives of so many.
THE NEW LEFT

By 1960, about one-third of the U.S. population was living in the suburbs; during the 1960s, the average
family income rose by 33 percent. Material culture blossomed, and at the end of the decade, 70 percent
of American families owned washing machines, 83 percent had refrigerators or freezers, and almost 80
percent had at least one car. Entertainment occupied a larger part of both working- and middle-class
leisure hours. By 1960, American consumers were spending $85 billion a year on entertainment, double the
spending of the preceding decade; by 1969, about 79 percent of American households had black-and-white
televisions, and 31 percent could afford color sets. Movies and sports were regular aspects of the weekly
routine, and the family vacation became an annual custom for both the middle and working class.
Meanwhile, baby boomers, many raised in this environment of affluence, streamed into universities
across the nation in unprecedented numbers looking to “find” themselves. Instead, they found traditional
systems that forced them to take required courses, confined them to rigid programs of study, and
surrounded them with rules limiting what they could do in their free time. These young people were only
too willing to take up Kennedy’s call to action, and many did so by joining the civil rights movement. To
them, it seemed only right for the children of the “greatest generation” to help those less privileged to fight
battles for justice and equality. The more radical aligned themselves with the New Left, activists of the
1960s who rejected the staid liberalism of the Democratic Party. New Left organizations sought reform in
areas such as civil rights and women’s rights, campaigned for free speech and more liberal policies toward
drug use, and condemned the war in Vietnam.
One of the most prominent New Left groups was Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Organized in
1960, SDS held its first meeting at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Its philosophy was expressed
in its manifesto, the Port Huron Statement, written by Tom Hayden and adopted in 1962, affirming the
group’s dedication to fighting economic inequality and discrimination. It called for greater participation in
the democratic process by ordinary people, advocated civil disobedience, and rejected the anti-Communist
position held by most other groups committed to social reform in the United States.
Click and Explore
Read the full text of the Port Huron Statement (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

15PHStatement) by Tom Hayden.
SDS members demanded that universities allow more student participation in university governance
and shed their entanglements with the military-industrial complex. They sought to rouse the poor to
political action to defeat poverty and racism. In the summer of 1964, a small group of SDS members
moved into the uptown district of Chicago and tried to take on racism and poverty through community
organization. Under the umbrella of their Economic Research and Action Project, they created JOIN (Jobs
or Income Now) to address problems of urban poverty and resisted plans to displace the poor under
the guise of urban renewal. They also called for police review boards to end police brutality, organized
free breakfast programs, and started social and recreational clubs for neighborhood youth. Eventually, the
movement fissured over whether to remain a campus-based student organization or a community-based
development organization.
During the same time that SDS became active in Chicago, another student movement emerged on the West
Coast, when actions by student activists at the University of California, Berkeley, led to the formation of
Berkeley’s Free Speech Movement in 1964. University rules prohibited the solicitation of funds for political
causes by anyone other than members of the student Democratic and Republican organizations, and
restricted advocacy of political causes on campus. In October 1964, when a student handing out literature
for CORE refused to show campus police officers his student ID card, he was promptly arrested. Instantly,
the campus police car was surrounded by angry students, who refused to let the vehicle move for thirty-
two hours until the student was released. In December, students organized a massive sit-in to resolve
the issue of political activities on campus. While unsuccessful in the short term, the movement inspired
student activism on campuses throughout the country.
A target of many student groups was the war in Vietnam (Figure 29.21). In April 1965, SDS organized a
march on Washington for peace; about twenty thousand people attended. That same week, the faculty at
the University of Michigan suspended classes and conducted a 24-hour “teach-in” on the war. The idea
quickly spread, and on May 15, the first national “teach-in” was held at 122 colleges and universities across
the nation. Originally designed to be a debate on the pros and cons of the war, at Berkeley, the teach-ins
became massive antiwar rallies. By the end of that year, there had been antiwar rallies in some sixty cities.

Figure 29.21 Students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison protested the war in Vietnam in 1965. Their actions
were typical of many on college campuses across the country during the 1960s. (credit: “Yarnalgo”/Flickr)
AMERICANA
Blue Jeans: The Uniform of Nonconformist Radicalism
Overwhelmingly, young cultural warriors and social activists of the 1960s, trying to escape the shackles of
what they perceived to be limits on their freedoms, adopted blue jeans as the uniform of their generation.
Originally worn by manual laborers because of their near-indestructibility, blue jeans were commonly
associated with cowboys, the quintessential icon of American independence. During the 1930s, jeans
were adopted by a broader customer base as a result of the popularity of cowboy movies and dude ranch
vacations. After World War II, Levi Strauss, their original manufacturer, began to market them east of the
Mississippi, and competitors such as Wrangler and Lee fought for a share of the market. In the 1950s,
youths testing the limits of middle-class conformity adopted them in imitation of movie stars like James
Dean. By the 1960s, jeans became even more closely associated with youthful rebellion against tradition,
a symbol available to everyone, rich and poor, black and white, men and women.
What other styles and behaviors of the 1960s expressed nonconformity, and how?
WOMEN’S RIGHTS
On the national scene, the civil rights movement was creating a climate of protest and claiming rights
and new roles in society for people of color. Women played significant roles in organizations fighting for
civil rights like SNCC and SDS. However, they often found that those organizations, enlightened as they
might be about racial issues or the war in Vietnam, could still be influenced by patriarchal ideas of male
superiority. Two members of SNCC, Casey Hayden and Mary King, presented some of their concerns
about their organization’s treatment of women in a document entitled “On the Position of Women in
SNCC.” Stokely Carmichael responded that the appropriate position for women in SNCC was “prone.”
Just as the abolitionist movement made nineteenth-century women more aware of their lack of power
and encouraged them to form the first women’s rights movement, the protest movements of the 1960s
inspired many white and middle-class women to create their own organized movement for greater rights.
Not all were young women engaged in social protest. Many were older, married women who found the
traditional roles of housewife and mother unfulfilling. In 1963, writer and feminist Betty Friedan published
The Feminine Mystique in which she contested the post-World War II belief that it was women’s destiny to
marry and bear children. Friedan’s book was a best-seller and began to raise the consciousness of many
women who agreed that homemaking in the suburbs sapped them of their individualism and left them
unsatisfied.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color,
national origin, and religion, also prohibited, in Title VII, discrimination on the basis of sex. Ironically,
protection for women had been included at the suggestion of a Virginia congressman in an attempt to
prevent the act’s passage; his reasoning seemed to be that, while a white man might accept that African
Americans needed and deserved protection from discrimination, the idea that women deserved equality
with men would be far too radical for any of his male colleagues to contemplate. Nevertheless, the act
passed, although the struggle to achieve equal pay for equal work continues today.
Medical science also contributed a tool to assist women in their liberation. In 1960, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approved the birth control pill, freeing women from the restrictions of pregnancy and
childbearing. Women who were able to limit, delay, and prevent reproduction were freer to work, attend
college, and delay marriage. Within five years of the pill’s approval, some six million women were using
it.
The pill was the first medicine ever intended to be taken by people who were not sick. Even conservatives
saw it as a possible means of making marriages stronger by removing the fear of an unwanted pregnancy
and improving the health of women. Its opponents, however, argued that it would promote sexual
promiscuity, undermine the institutions of marriage and the family, and destroy the moral code of the
nation. By the early 1960s, thirty states had made it a criminal offense to sell contraceptive devices.
In 1966, the National Organization for Women (NOW) formed and proceeded to set an agenda for the
feminist movement (Figure 29.22). Framed by a statement of purpose written by Friedan, the agenda
began by proclaiming NOW’s goal to make possible women’s participation in all aspects of American life
and to gain for them all the rights enjoyed by men. Among the specific goals was the passage of the Equal
Rights Amendment (yet to be adopted).
Figure 29.22 Early members of NOW discuss the problems faced by American women. Betty Friedan is second
from the left. (credit: Smithsonian Institution Archives)
More radical feminists, like their colleagues in other movements, were dissatisfied with merely redressing
economic issues and devised their own brand of consciousness-raising events and symbolic attacks on
women’s oppression. The most famous of these was an event staged in September 1968 by New York
Radical Women. Protesting stereotypical notions of femininity and rejecting traditional gender
expectations, the group demonstrated at the Miss America Pageant in Atlantic City, New Jersey, to
bring attention to the contest’s—and society’s—exploitation of women. The protestors crowned a sheep
Miss America and then tossed instruments of women’s oppression, including high-heeled shoes, curlers,
girdles, and bras, into a “freedom trash can.” News accounts famously, and incorrectly, described the
protest as a “bra burning.”

Key Terms
Black Power a political ideology encouraging African Americans to create their own institutions and
develop their own economic resources independent of whites
Black Pride a cultural movement among African Americans to encourage pride in their African heritage
and to substitute African and African American art forms, behaviors, and cultural products for those of
whites
black separatism an ideology that called upon African Americans to reject integration with the white
community and, in some cases, to physically separate themselves from whites in order to create and
preserve their self-determination
counterinsurgency a new military strategy under the Kennedy administration to suppress nationalist
independence movements and rebel groups in the developing world
flexible response a military strategy that allows for the possibility of responding to threats in a variety of
ways, including counterinsurgency, conventional war, and nuclear strikes
Great Society Lyndon Johnson’s plan to eliminate poverty and racial injustice in the United States and to
improve the lives of all Americans
naval quarantine Kennedy’s use of ships to prevent Soviet access to Cuba during the Cuban Missile
Crisis
Port Huron Statement the political manifesto of Students for a Democratic Society that called for social
reform, nonviolent protest, and greater participation in the democratic process by ordinary Americans
Title VII the section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibited discrimination in employment on the
basis of gender
war on poverty Lyndon Johnson’s plan to end poverty in the Unites States through the extension of
federal benefits, job training programs, and funding for community development
Summary
The arrival of the Kennedys in the White House seemed to signal a new age of youth, optimism, and
confidence. Kennedy spoke of a “new frontier” and promoted the expansion of programs to aid the poor,
protect African Americans’ right to vote, and improve African Americans’ employment and education
opportunities. For the most part, however, Kennedy focused on foreign policy and countering the threat
of Communism—especially in Cuba, where he successfully defused the Cuban Missile Crisis, and in
Vietnam, to which he sent advisors and troops to support the South Vietnamese government. The tragedy
of Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas brought an early end to the era, leaving Americans to wonder
whether his vice president and successor, Lyndon Johnson, would bring Kennedy’s vision for the nation
to fruition.

Lyndon Johnson began his administration with dreams of fulfilling his fallen predecessor’s civil rights
initiative and accomplishing his own plans to improve lives by eradicating poverty in the United States.
His social programs, investments in education, support for the arts, and commitment to civil rights
changed the lives of countless people and transformed society in many ways. However, Johnson’s
insistence on maintaining American commitments in Vietnam, a policy begun by his predecessors, hurt
both his ability to realize his vision of the Great Society and his support among the American people.

The African American civil rights movement made significant progress in the 1960s. While Congress
played a role by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights
Act of 1968, the actions of civil rights groups such as CORE, the SCLC, and SNCC were instrumental in
forging new paths, pioneering new techniques and strategies, and achieving breakthrough successes. Civil
rights activists engaged in sit-ins, freedom rides, and protest marches, and registered African American
voters. Despite the movement’s many achievements, however, many grew frustrated with the slow pace of
change, the failure of the Great Society to alleviate poverty, and the persistence of violence against African
Americans, particularly the tragic 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Many African Americans
in the mid- to late 1960s adopted the ideology of Black Power, which promoted their work within their
own communities to redress problems without the aid of whites. The Mexican American civil rights
movement, led largely by Cesar Chavez, also made significant progress at this time. The emergence of the
Chicano Movement signaled Mexican Americans’ determination to seize their political power, celebrate
their cultural heritage, and demand their citizenship rights.

During the 1960s, many people rejected traditional roles and expectations. Influenced and inspired by the
civil rights movement, college students of the baby boomer generation and women of all ages began to
fight to secure a stronger role in American society. As members of groups like SDS and NOW asserted
their rights and strove for equality for themselves and others, they upended many accepted norms and
set groundbreaking social and legal changes in motion. Many of their successes continue to be felt today,
while other goals remain unfulfilled.
Review Questions
1. The term Kennedy chose to describe his sealing 4. ________ was Johnson’s program to provide
off of Cuba to prevent Soviet shipments of federal funding for healthcare for the poor.
weapons or supplies was ________. A. Medicare
A. interdiction B. Social Security
B. quarantine C. Medicaid
C. isolation D. AFDC
D. blockade
5. Many Americans began to doubt that the war
2. Kennedy proposed a constitutional in Vietnam could be won following ________.
amendment that would ________. A. Khe Sanh
A. provide healthcare for all Americans B. Dien Bien Phu
B. outlaw poll taxes C. the Tonkin Gulf incident
C. make English the official language of the D. the Tet Offensive
United States
D. require all American men to register for the 6. How did the actions of the Johnson
draft administration improve the lives of African
Americans?
3. What steps did Kennedy take to combat
Communism?

7. The new protest tactic against segregation used civil rights activists such as Martin Luther King,
by students in Greensboro, North Carolina, in Jr.?
1960 was the ________.
A. boycott 11. What was one of the major student
B. guerilla theater organizations engaged in organizing protests and
C. teach-in demonstrations against the Vietnam War?
D. sit-in A. Committee for American Democracy
B. Freedom Now Party
8. The African American group that advocated C. Students for a Democratic Society
the use of violence and espoused a Marxist D. Young Americans for Peace
ideology was called ________.
A. the Black Panthers 12. Which of the following was not a founding
B. the Nation of Islam goal of NOW?
C. SNCC A. to gain for women all the rights enjoyed by
D. CORE men
B. to ensure passage of the Equal Rights
9. Who founded the Crusade for Justice in Amendment
Denver, Colorado in 1965? C. to de-criminalize the use of birth control
A. Reies Lopez Tijerina D. to allow women to participate in all aspects
B. Dolores Huerta of American life
C. Larry Itliong
D. Rodolfo Gonzales 13. In what ways did the birth control pill help to
liberate women?
10. How did the message of Black Power
advocates differ from that of more mainstream

14. Describe the changing role of the federal government in the 1960s. What new roles and responsibilities
did the government assume? In your opinion, can the government effect permanent social change? Why
or why not?
15. Discuss how and why various groups of people within American society began to challenge and
criticize the nation’s way of life in the 1960s. Were their criticisms valid? What were some of the goals of
these groups, and how did they go about achieving them?
16. In your opinion, what is the most effective method for changing society—voting, challenges in the
courts, nonviolent civil disobedience, or violence? What evidence can you provide from actual events in
the 1960s to support your argument?
17. Were groups that advocated the use of violence in the 1960s justified in doing so? Why or why not?
18. Discuss how the United States became engaged in the Vietnam War. What were some of the results of
that engagement?

Chapter 30 Political Storms at Home and Abroad, 1968-1980 895
CHAPTER 30
Political Storms at Home and

Abroad, 1968-1980
Figure 30.1 Pop artist Peter Max designed this postage stamp to commemorate Expo ‘74, a world’s fair held in
Spokane, Washington. The fair’s theme was the natural environment. Unfortunately, and ironically, gasoline
shortages prevented many from attending the exposition.
Chapter Outline
30.1 Identity Politics in a Fractured Society
30.2 Coming Apart, Coming Together
30.3 Vietnam: The Downward Spiral
30.4 Watergate: Nixon’s Domestic Nightmare
30.5 Jimmy Carter in the Aftermath of the Storm
Introduction
From May 4 to November 4, 1974, a universal exposition was held in the city of Spokane, Washington.
This world’s fair, Expo ‘74, and the postage stamp issued to commemorate it, reflected many of the issues
and interests of the 1970s (Figure 30.1). The stamp features psychedelic colors, and the character of the
Cosmic Runner in the center wears bellbottoms, a popular fashion at the time. The theme of the fair was
the environment, a subject beginning to be of great concern to people in the United States, especially the
younger generation and those in the hippie counterculture. In the 1970s, the environment, social justice,
distrust of the government, and a desire to end the war in Vietnam—the concerns and attitudes of younger
people, women, gays and lesbians, and people of color—began to draw the attention of the mainstream as
well.
896 Chapter 30 Political Storms at Home and Abroad, 1968-1980

• Describe the counterculture of the 1960s
• Explain the origins of the American Indian Movement and its major activities
• Assess the significance of the gay rights and women’s liberation movements
The political divisions that plagued the United States in the 1960s were reflected in the rise of identity
politics in the 1970s. As people lost hope of reuniting as a society with common interests and goals, many
focused on issues of significance to the subgroups to which they belonged, based on culture, ethnicity,
sexual orientation, gender, and religion.
HIPPIES AND THE COUNTERCULTURE

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, many young people came to embrace a new wave of cultural dissent. The
counterculture offered an alternative to the bland homogeneity of American middle-class life, patriarchal
family structures, self-discipline, unquestioning patriotism, and the acquisition of property. In fact, there
were many alternative cultures.
“Hippies” rejected the conventions of traditional society. Men sported beards and grew their hair long;
both men and women wore clothing from non-Western cultures, defied their parents, rejected social
etiquettes and manners, and turned to music as an expression of their sense of self. Casual sex between
unmarried men and women was acceptable. Drug use, especially of marijuana and psychedelic drugs like
LSD and peyote, was common. Most hippies were also deeply attracted to the ideas of peace and freedom.
They protested the war in Vietnam and preached a doctrine of personal freedom to be and act as one
wished.
Figure 30.2

Some hippies dropped out of mainstream society altogether and expressed their disillusionment with the
cultural and spiritual limitations of American freedom. They joined communes, usually in rural areas, to
share a desire to live closer to nature, respect for the earth, a dislike of modern life, and a disdain for
wealth and material goods. Many communes grew their own organic food. Others abolished the concept
of private property, and all members shared willingly with one another. Some sought to abolish traditional
ideas regarding love and marriage, and free love was practiced openly. One of the most famous communes
was The Farm, established in Tennessee in 1971. Residents adopted a blend of Christian and Asian beliefs.
They shared housing, owned no private property except tools and clothing, advocated nonviolence, and
tried to live as one with nature, becoming vegetarians and avoiding the use of animal products. They
smoked marijuana in an effort to reach a higher state of consciousness and to achieve a feeling of oneness
and harmony.
Music, especially rock and folk music, occupied an important place in the counterculture. Concerts
provided the opportunity to form seemingly impromptu communities to celebrate youth, rebellion, and
individuality. In mid-August 1969, nearly 400,000 people attended a music festival in rural Bethel, New
York, many for free (Figure 30.3). They jammed roads throughout the state, and thousands had to be
turned around and sent home. Thirty-two acts performed for a crowd that partook freely of marijuana,
LSD, and alcohol during the rainy three-day event that became known as Woodstock (after the nearby
town) and became the cultural touchstone of a generation. No other event better symbolized the cultural
independence and freedom of Americans coming of age in the 1960s.
Figure 30.3 The crowd at Woodstock greatly exceeded the fifty thousand expected. Mark Goff covered Woodstock
as a young freelance reporter for Kaleidoscope, a Milwaukee-based alternative newspaper, and captured this image
of Swami Satchidananda, who declared music “'the celestial sound that controls the whole universe” at the opening
ceremony.
MY STORY
Glenn Weiser on Attending Woodstock
On the way to Woodstock, Glenn Weiser remembers that the crowds were so large they essentially
turned it into a free concert:
As we got closer to the site [on Thursday, August 14, 1969] we heard that so many people
had already arrived that the crowd had torn down the fences enclosing the festival grounds
(in fact they were never put up to begin with). Everyone was being allowed in for free. . . .
Early on Friday afternoon about a dozen of us got together and spread out some blankets on
the grass at a spot about a third of the way up the hill on stage right and then dropped LSD.
I took Orange Sunshine, a strong, clean dose in an orange tab that was perhaps the best
street acid ever. Underground chemists in southern California had made millions of doses,
and the nation was flooded with it that summer. We smoked some tasty black hashish to
amuse ourselves while waiting for the acid to hit, and sat back to groove along with Richie
Havens.
In two hours we were all soaring, and everything was just fine. In fact, it couldn’t have been
better—there I was with my beautiful hometown friends, higher than a church steeple and
listening to wonderful music in the cool summer weather of the Catskills. After all, the dirty
little secret of the late ‘60s was that psychedelic drugs taken in a pleasant setting could be
completely exhilarating.
—Glenn Weiser, “Woodstock 1969 Remembered”
In this account, Glenn Weiser describes both the music and his drug use. What social trends did
Woodstock reflect? How might the festival have influenced American culture and society, both
aesthetically and behaviorally?
AMERICAN INDIAN PROTEST

As the young, primarily white men and women who became hippies strove to create new identities for
themselves, they borrowed liberally from other cultures, including that of Native Americans. At the same
time, many Indians were themselves seeking to maintain their culture or retrieve elements that had been
lost. In 1968, a group of Indian activists, including Dennis Banks, George Mitchell, and Clyde Bellecourt,
convened a gathering of two hundred people in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and formed the American Indian
Movement (AIM) (Figure 30.4). The organizers were urban dwellers frustrated by decades of poverty and
discrimination. In 1970, the average life expectancy of Indians was forty-six years compared to the national
average of sixty-nine. The suicide rate was twice that of the general population, and the infant mortality
rate was the highest in the country. Half of all Indians lived on reservations, where unemployment reached
50 percent. Among those in cities, 20 percent lived below the poverty line.

Figure 30.4 This teepee was erected on the National Mall near the Washington Monument as part of an AIM
demonstration (a). Note that the AIM flag (b) combines an Indian silhouette with the peace sign, the ubiquitous
symbol of the 1960s and ‘70s.
On November 20, 1969, a small group of Indian activists landed on Alcatraz Island (the former site of a
notorious federal prison) in San Francisco Bay. They announced plans to build an American Indian cultural
center, including a history museum, an ecology center, and a spiritual sanctuary. People on the mainland
provided supplies by boat, and celebrities visited Alcatraz to publicize the cause. More people joined
the occupiers until, at one point, they numbered about four hundred. From the beginning, the federal
government negotiated with them to persuade them to leave. They were reluctant to accede, but over time,
the occupiers began to drift away of their own accord. Government forces removed the final holdouts on
June 11, 1971, nineteen months after the occupation began.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Proclamation to the Great White Father and All His People
In occupying Alcatraz Island, Indian activists sought to call attention to their grievances and expectations
about what America should mean. At the beginning of the nineteen-month occupation, Mohawk Richard
Oakes delivered the following proclamation:
We, the native Americans, re-claim the land known as Alcatraz Island in the name of all
American Indians by right of discovery.
We wish to be fair and honorable in our dealings with the Caucasian inhabitants of this land,
and hereby offer the following treaty:
We will purchase said Alcatraz Island for twenty-four dollars ($24) in glass beads and red
cloth, a precedent set by the white man’s purchase of a similar island about 300 years ago. .
..
We feel that this so-called Alcatraz Island is more than suitable for an Indian Reservation, as
determined by the white man’s own standards. By this we mean that this place resembles
most Indian reservations in that:
1. It is isolated from modern facilities, and without adequate means of transportation.
2. It has no fresh running water.
3. It has inadequate sanitation facilities.
4. There are no oil or mineral rights.
5. There is no industry and so unemployment is very great.
6. There are no health care facilities.
7. The soil is rocky and non-productive; and the land does not support game.
8. There are no educational facilities.
9. The population has always exceeded the land base.
10. The population has always been held as prisoners and kept dependent upon others.
Further, it would be fitting and symbolic that ships from all over the world, entering the Golden
Gate, would first see Indian land, and thus be reminded of the true history of this nation. This
tiny island would be a symbol of the great lands once ruled by free and noble Indians.
What does the Alcatraz Proclamation reveal about the Indian view of U.S. history?
Click and Explore
Listen to Richard Oakes, one of the leaders of the Alcatraz Island occupation, as he
reads the Alcatraz Proclamation (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15PHStatement1)
aloud.
The next major demonstration came in 1972 when AIM members and others marched on Washington,
DC—a journey they called the “Trail of Broken Treaties”—and occupied the offices of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA). The group presented a list of demands, which included improved housing, education, and

economic opportunities in Indian communities; the drafting of new treaties; the return of Indian lands; and
protections for native religions and culture.
The most dramatic event staged by AIM was the occupation of the Indian community of Wounded Knee,
South Dakota, in February 1973. Wounded Knee, on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, had historical
significance: It was the site of an 1890 massacre of members of the Lakota tribe by the U.S. Army. AIM
went to the reservation following the failure of a group of Oglala to impeach the tribal president Dick
Wilson, whom they accused of corruption and the use of strong-arm tactics to silence critics. AIM used the
occasion to criticize the U.S. government for failing to live up to its treaties with native peoples.
The federal government surrounded the area with U.S. marshals, FBI agents, and other law enforcement
forces. A siege ensued that lasted seventy-one days, with frequent gunfire from both sides, wounding a
U.S. marshal as well as an FBI agent, and killing two Indians. The government did very little to meet
the protesters’ demands. Two AIM leaders, Dennis Banks and Russell Means, were arrested, but charges
were later dismissed. The Nixon administration had already halted the federal policy of termination and
restored millions of acres to tribes. Increased funding for Indian education, healthcare, legal services,
housing, and economic development followed, along with the hiring of more Indian employees in the BIA.
GAY RIGHTS
Combined with the sexual revolution and the feminist movement of the 1960s, the counterculture helped
establish a climate that fostered the struggle for gay and lesbian rights. Many gay rights groups were
founded in Los Angeles and San Francisco, cities that were administrative centers in the network of U.S.
military installations and the places where many gay men suffered dishonorable discharges. The first
postwar organization for homosexual civil rights, the Mattachine Society, was launched in Los Angeles in
1950. The first national organization for lesbians, the Daughters of Bilitis, was founded in San Francisco
five years later. In 1966, the city became home to the world’s first organization for transsexual people, the
National Transsexual Counseling Unit, and in 1967, the Sexual Freedom League of San Francisco was born.
Through these organizations and others, gay and lesbian activists fought against the criminalization
and discrimination of their sexual identities on a number of occasions throughout the 1960s, employing
strategies of both protests and litigation. However, the most famous event in the gay rights movement
took place not in San Francisco but in New York City. Early in the morning of June 28, 1969, police raided
a Greenwich Village gay bar called the Stonewall Inn. Although such raids were common, the response of
the Stonewall patrons was anything but. As the police prepared to arrest many of the customers, especially
transsexuals and cross-dressers, who were particular targets for police harassment, a crowd began to
gather. Angered by the brutal treatment of the prisoners, the crowd attacked. Beer bottles and bricks were
thrown. The police barricaded themselves inside the bar and waited for reinforcements. The riot continued
for several hours and resumed the following night. Shortly thereafter, the Gay Liberation Front and Gay
Activists’ Alliance were formed, and began to protest discrimination, homophobia, and violence against
gay people, promoting gay liberation and gay pride.
With a call for gay men and women to “come out”—a consciousness-raising campaign that shared many
principles with the counterculture, gay and lesbian communities moved from the urban underground into
the political sphere. Gay rights activists protested strongly against the official position of the American
Psychiatric Association (APA), which categorized homosexuality as a mental illness and often resulted in
job loss, loss of custody, and other serious personal consequences. By 1974, the APA had ceased to classify
homosexuality as a form of mental illness but continued to consider it a “sexual orientation disturbance.”
Nevertheless, in 1974, Kathy Kozachenko became the first openly lesbian woman voted into office in Ann
Arbor, Michigan. In 1977, Harvey Milk became California’s first openly gay man elected to public office,
although his service on San Francisco’s board of supervisors, along with that of San Francisco mayor
George Moscone, was cut short by the bullet of disgruntled former city supervisor Dan White.
MAYBE NOT NOW

The feminist push for greater rights continued through the 1970s (Figure 30.5). The media often ridiculed
feminists as “women’s libbers” and focused on more radical organizations like W.I.T.C.H. (Women’s
International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell), a loose association of activist groups. Many reporters
stressed the most unusual goals of the most radical women—calls for the abolition of marriage and
demands that manholes be renamed “personholes.”
Figure 30.5 In 1970, supporters of equal rights for women marched in Washington, DC.
The majority of feminists, however, sought meaningful accomplishments. In the 1970s, they opened
battered women’s shelters and successfully fought for protection from employment discrimination for
pregnant women, reform of rape laws (such as the abolition of laws requiring a witness to corroborate
a woman’s report of rape), criminalization of domestic violence, and funding for schools that sought to
counter sexist stereotypes of women. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade affirmed a number
of state laws under which abortions obtained during the first three months of pregnancy were legal. This
made a nontherapeutic abortion a legal medical procedure nationwide.
Many advances in women’s rights were the result of women’s greater engagement in politics. For example,
Patsy Mink, the first Asian American woman elected to Congress, was the co-author of the Education
Amendments Act of 1972, Title IX of which prohibits sex discrimination in education. Mink had been
interested in fighting discrimination in education since her youth, when she opposed racial segregation
in campus housing while a student at the University of Nebraska. She went to law school after being
denied admission to medical school because of her gender. Like Mink, many other women sought and won
political office, many with the help of the National Women’s Political Caucus (NWPC). In 1971, the NWPC
was formed by Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem, Shirley Chisholm, and other leading feminists to encourage
women’s participation in political parties, elect women to office, and raise money for their campaigns
(Figure 30.6).

Figure 30.6 Patsy Mink (a), a Japanese American from Hawaii, was the first Asian American woman elected to the
House of Representatives. In her successful 1970 congressional campaign, Bella Abzug (b) declared, “This woman’s
place is in the House... the House of Representatives!”
The ultimate political goal of the National Organization for Women (NOW) was the passage of an Equal
Rights Amendment (ERA). The amendment passed Congress in March 1972, and was sent to the states for
ratification with a deadline of seven years for passage; if the amendment was not ratified by thirty-eight
states by 1979, it would die. Twenty-two states ratified the ERA in 1972, and eight more in 1973. In the
next two years, only four states voted for the amendment. In 1979, still four votes short, the amendment
received a brief reprieve when Congress agreed to a three-year extension, but it never passed, as the result
of the well-organized opposition of Christian and other socially conservative, grassroots organizations.

• Explain the factors responsible for Richard Nixon’s election in 1968
• Describe the splintering of the Democratic Party in 1968
• Discuss Richard Nixon’s economic policies
• Discuss the major successes of Richard Nixon’s foreign policy
The presidential election of 1968 revealed a rupture of the New Deal coalition that had come together
under Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s. The Democrats were divided by internal dissension over the
Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, and the challenges of the New Left. Meanwhile, the Republican
candidate, Richard Nixon, won voters in the South, Southwest, and northern suburbs by appealing to their
anxieties about civil rights, women’s rights, antiwar protests, and the counterculture taking place around
them. Nixon spent his first term in office pushing measures that slowed the progress of civil rights and
sought to restore economic stability. His greatest triumphs were in foreign policy. But his largest priority
throughout his first term was his reelection in 1972.
THE “NEW NIXON”

The Republicans held their 1968 national convention from August 5–8 in Miami, Florida. Richard Nixon
quickly emerged as the frontrunner for the nomination, ahead of Nelson Rockefeller and Ronald Reagan.
This success was not accidental: From 1962, when he lost his bid for the governorship of California, to
1968, Nixon had been collecting political credits by branding himself as a candidate who could appeal to
mainstream voters and by tirelessly working for other Republican candidates. In 1964, for example, he
vigorously supported Barry Goldwater’s presidential bid and thus built good relationships with the new
conservative movement in the Republican Party.
Although Goldwater lost the 1964 election, his vigorous rejection of New Deal state and social legislation,
along with his support of states’ rights, proved popular in the Deep South, which had resisted federal
efforts at racial integration. Taking a lesson from Goldwater’s experience, Nixon also employed a southern
strategy in 1968. Denouncing segregation and the denial of the vote to African Americans, he nevertheless
maintained that southern states be allowed to pursue racial equality at their own pace and criticized forced
integration. Nixon thus garnered the support of South Carolina’s senior senator and avid segregationist
Strom Thurmond, which helped him win the Republican nomination on the first ballot.
Nixon also courted northern, blue-collar workers, whom he later called the silent majority, to
acknowledge their belief that their voices were seldom heard. These voters feared the social changes taking
place in the country: Antiwar protests challenged their own sense of patriotism and civic duty, whereas
the recreational use of new drugs threatened their cherished principles of self-discipline, and urban riots
invoked the specter of a racial reckoning. Government action on behalf of the marginalized raised the
question of whether its traditional constituency—the white middle class—would lose its privileged place
in American politics. Some felt left behind as the government turned to the problems of African Americans.
Nixon’s promises of stability and his emphasis on law and order appealed to them. He portrayed himself
as a fervent patriot who would take a strong stand against racial unrest and antiwar protests. Nixon
harshly critiqued Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, and he promised a secret plan to end the war in
Vietnam honorably and bring home the troops. He also promised to reform the Supreme Court, which he
contended had gone too far in “coddling criminals.” Under Chief Justice Earl Warren, the court had used
the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to grant those accused under
state law the ability to defend themselves and secure protections against unlawful search and seizure, cruel
and unusual punishment, and self-incrimination.
Nixon had found the political capital that would ensure his victory in the suburbs, which produced more
votes than either urban or rural areas. He championed “middle America,” which was fed up with social
convulsions, and called upon the country to come together. His running mate, Spiro T. Agnew, a former
governor of Maryland, blasted the Democratic ticket as fiscally irresponsible and “soft on communism.”
Nixon and Agnew’s message thus appealed to northern middle-class and blue-collar whites as well as
southern whites who had fled to the suburbs in the wake of the Supreme Court’s pro-integration decision
in Brown v. Board of Education (Figure 30.7).

Figure 30.7 On the 1968 campaign trail, Richard Nixon flashes his famous “V for Victory” gesture (a). Nixon’s
strategy was to appeal to working- and middle-class suburbanites. This image of him in the White House bowling
alley seems calculated to appeal to his core constituency (b).
DEMOCRATS IN DISARRAY
By contrast, in early 1968, the political constituency that Lyndon Johnson had cobbled together to win
the presidency in 1964 seemed to be falling apart. When Eugene McCarthy, the Democratic senator
from Minnesota, announced that he would challenge Johnson in the primaries in an explicitly antiwar
campaign, Johnson was overwhelmingly favored by Democratic voters. But then the Tet Offensive in
Vietnam exploded on American television screens on January 31, playing out on the nightly news for
weeks. On February 27, Walter Cronkite, a highly respected television journalist, offered his opinion that
the war in Vietnam was unwinnable. When the votes were counted in New Hampshire on March 12,
McCarthy had won twenty of the state’s twenty-four delegates.
McCarthy’s popularity encouraged Robert (Bobby) Kennedy to also enter the race. Realizing that his
war policies could unleash a divisive fight within his own party for the nomination, Johnson announced
his withdrawal on March 31, fracturing the Democratic Party. One faction consisted of the traditional
party leaders who appealed to unionized, blue-collar constituents and white ethnics (Americans with
recent European immigrant backgrounds). This group fell in behind Johnson’s vice president, Hubert H.
Humphrey, who took up the mainstream party’s torch almost immediately after Johnson’s announcement.
The second group consisted of idealistic young activists who had slogged through the snows of New
Hampshire to give McCarthy a boost and saw themselves as the future of the Democratic Party. The third
group, composed of Catholics, African Americans and other minorities, and some of the young, antiwar
element, galvanized around Robert Kennedy (Figure 30.8). Finally, there were the southern Democrats,
the Dixiecrats, who opposed the advances made by the civil rights movement. Some found themselves
attracted to the Republican candidate Richard Nixon. Many others, however, supported the third-party
candidacy of segregationist George C. Wallace, the former governor of Alabama. Wallace won close to ten
million votes, which was 13.5 percent of all votes cast. He was particularly popular in the South, where he
carried five states and received forty-six Electoral College votes.
Figure 30.8 In his brother’s (John F. Kennedy’s) administration, Robert (Bobby) Kennedy had served as attorney
general and had spoken out about racial equality.
Kennedy and McCarthy fiercely contested the remaining primaries of the 1968 season. There were only
fifteen at that time. McCarthy beat Kennedy handily in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts.
Kennedy took Indiana and Nebraska before losing Oregon to McCarthy. Kennedy’s only hope was that a
strong enough showing in the California primary on June 4 might swing uncommitted delegates his way.
He did manage to beat McCarthy, winning 46 percent of the vote to McCarthy’s 42 percent, but it was a
fruitless victory. As he attempted to exit the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles after his victory speech,
Kennedy was shot; he died twenty-six hours later. His killer, Sirhan B. Sirhan, a Jordanian immigrant,
had allegedly targeted him for advocating military support for Israel in its conflict with neighboring Arab
states.
Going into the nominating convention in Chicago in 1968, Humphrey, who promised to pursue the
“Politics of Joy,” seemed clearly in command of the regular party apparatus. But the national debates
over civil rights, student protests, and the Vietnam War had made 1968 a particularly anguished year,
and many people felt anything but joyful. Some party factions hoped to make their voices heard; others
wished to disrupt the convention altogether. Among them were antiwar protestors, hippies, and
Yippies—members of the leftist, anarchistic Youth International Party organized by Jerry Rubin and
Abbie Hoffman—who called for the establishment of a new nation consisting of cooperative institutions
to replace those currently in existence. To demonstrate their contempt for “the establishment” and the
proceedings inside the hall, the Yippies nominated a pig named Pigasus for president.
A chaotic scene developed inside the convention hall and outside at Grant Park, where the protesters
camped. Chicago’s mayor, Richard J. Daley, was anxious to demonstrate that he could maintain law and
order, especially because several days of destructive rioting had followed the murder of Martin Luther
King, Jr. earlier that year. He thus let loose a force of twelve thousand police officers, six thousand
members of the Illinois National Guard, and six thousand U.S. Army soldiers. Television cameras caught
what later became known as a “police riot”: Armed officers made their way into crowds of law-abiding
protesters, clubbing anyone they encountered and setting off tear gas canisters. The protesters fought
back. Inside the convention hall, a Democratic senator from Connecticut called for adjournment, whereas
other delegates insisted on proceeding. Ironically, Hubert Humphrey received the nomination and gave an
acceptance speech in which he spoke in support of “law and order.” When the convention ended, Rubin,

Hoffman, and five other protesters (called the “Chicago Seven”) were placed on trial for inciting a riot
(Figure 30.9).
Figure 30.9 Despite facing charges following events at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Abbie
Hoffman continued to protest the war on campuses across the country, as here (a) at the University of Oklahoma.
Jerry Rubin (b) visited the campus of the University of Buffalo in March 1970, just one month after his conviction in
the Chicago Seven trial. (credit a: modification of work by Richard O. Barry)
Click and Explore
Listen to Yippie activist Jerry Rubin’s 1970 interview (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

15JerryRubin) with Cleveland news journalist Dorothy Fuldheim.
THE DOMESTIC NIXON

The images of violence and the impression of things spinning out of control seriously damaged
Humphrey’s chances for victory. Many liberals and young antiwar activists, disappointed by his selection
over McCarthy and still shocked by the death of Robert Kennedy, did not vote for Humphrey. Others
turned against him because of his failure to chastise the Chicago police for their violence. Some resented
the fact that Humphrey had received 1,759 delegates on the first ballot at the convention, nearly three times
the number won by McCarthy, even though in the primaries, he had received only 2 percent of the popular
vote. Many loyal Democratic voters at home, shocked by the violence they saw on television, turned away
from their party, which seemed to have attracted dangerous “radicals,” and began to consider Nixon’s
promises of law and order.
As the Democratic Party collapsed, Nixon successfully campaigned for the votes of both working- and
middle-class white Americans, winning the 1968 election. Although Humphrey received nearly the same
percentage of the popular vote, Nixon easily won the Electoral College, gaining 301 votes to Humphrey’s
191 and Wallace’s 46.
Once elected, Nixon began to pursue a policy of deliberate neglect of the civil rights movement and the
needs of ethnic minorities. For example, in 1969, for the first time in fifteen years, federal lawyers sided
with the state of Mississippi when it sought to slow the pace of school desegregation. Similarly, Nixon
consistently showed his opposition to busing to achieve racial desegregation. He saw that restricting
African American activity was a way of undercutting a source of votes for the Democratic Party and
sought to overhaul the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In March 1970, he commented that
he did not believe an “open” America had to be homogeneous or fully integrated, maintaining that it
was “natural” for members of ethnic groups to live together in their own enclaves. In other policy areas,
especially economic ones, Nixon was either moderate or supportive of the progress of African Americans;
for example, he expanded affirmative action, a program begun during the Johnson administration to
improve employment and educational opportunities for racial minorities.
Although Nixon always kept his eye on the political environment, the economy required attention. The
nation had enjoyed seven years of expansion since 1961, but inflation (a general rise in prices) was
threatening to constrict the purchasing power of the American consumer and therefore curtail economic
expansion. Nixon tried to appeal to fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party, reach out to disaffected
Democrats, and, at the same time, work with a Democratic Party-controlled Congress. As a result, Nixon’s
approach to the economy seemed erratic. Despite the heavy criticisms he had leveled against the Great
Society, he embraced and expanded many of its features. In 1969, he signed a tax bill that eliminated the
investment tax credit and moved some two million of the poorest people off the tax rolls altogether. He
federalized the food stamp program and established national eligibility requirements, and signed into law
the automatic adjustments for inflation of Social Security payments. On the other hand, he won the praise
of conservatives with his “New Federalism”—drastically expanding the use of federal “block grants” to
states to spend as they wished without strings attached.
By mid-1970, a recession was beginning and unemployment was 6.2 percent, twice the level under
Johnson. After earlier efforts at controlling inflation with controlled federal spending—economists
assumed that reduced federal spending and borrowing would curb the amount of money in circulation
and stabilize prices—Nixon proposed a budget with an $11 billion deficit in 1971. The hope was that more
federal funds in the economy would stimulate investment and job creation. When the unemployment rate
refused to budge the following year, he proposed a budget with a $25 billion deficit. At the same time, he
tried to fight continuing inflation by freezing wages and prices for ninety days, which proved to be only
a temporary fix. The combination of unemployment and rising prices posed an unfamiliar challenge to
economists whose fiscal policies of either expanding or contracting federal spending could only address
one side of the problem at the cost of the other. This phenomenon of “stagflation”—a term that combined
the economic conditions of stagnation and inflation—outlived the Nixon administration, enduring into the
early 1980s.
The origins of the nation’s new economic troubles were not just a matter of policy. Postwar industrial
development in Asia and Western Europe—especially in Germany and Japan—had created serious
competition to American businesses. By 1971, American appetites for imports left foreign central banks
with billions of U.S. currency, which had been fixed to gold in the international monetary and trade
agreement of Bretton Woods back in 1944. When foreign dollar holdings exceeded U.S. gold reserves
in 1971, President Nixon allowed the dollar to flow freely against the price of gold. This caused an
immediate 8 percent devaluation of the dollar, made American goods cheaper abroad, and stimulated
exports. Nixon’s move also marked the beginning of the end of the dollar’s dominance in international
trade.
The situation was made worse in October 1973, when Syria and Egypt jointly attacked Israel to recover
territory that had been lost in 1967, starting the Yom Kippur War. The Soviet Union significantly aided
its allies, Egypt and Syria, and the United States supported Israel, earning the enmity of Arab nations. In
retaliation, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) imposed an embargo on

oil shipments to the United States from October 1973 to March 1974. The ensuing shortage of oil pushed
its price from three dollars a barrel to twelve dollars a barrel. The average price of gasoline in the United
States shot from thirty-eight cents a gallon before the embargo to fifty-five cents a gallon in June 1974,
and the prices of other goods whose manufacture and transportation relied on oil or gas also rose and
did not come down. The oil embargo had a lasting impact on the economy and underscored the nation’s
interdependency with international political and economic developments.
Faced with high fuel prices, American consumers panicked. Gas stations limited the amount customers
could purchase and closed on Sundays as supplies ran low (Figure 30.10). To conserve oil, Congress
reduced the speed limit on interstate highways to fifty-five miles per hour. People were asked to turn
down their thermostats, and automobile manufacturers in Detroit explored the possibility of building
more fuel-efficient cars. Even after the embargo ended, prices continued to rise, and by the end of the
Nixon years in 1974, inflation had soared to 12.2 percent.
Figure 30.10 The oil shortage triggered a rush to purchase gasoline, and gas stations around the country were
choked with cars waiting to fill up. Eventually, fuel shortages caused gas stations to develop various ways to ration
gasoline to their customers (a), such as the “flag policy” used by gas dealers in Oregon (b).
Although Nixon’s economic and civil rights policies differed from those of his predecessors, in other areas,
he followed their lead. President Kennedy had committed the nation to putting a man on the moon before
the end of the decade. Nixon, like Johnson before him, supported significant budget allocations to the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to achieve this goal. On July 20, 1969, hundreds
of millions of people around the world watched as astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin
walked on the surface of the moon and planted the U.S. flag. Watching from the White House, President
Nixon spoke to the astronauts via satellite phone. The entire project cost the American taxpayer some $25
billion, approximately 4 percent of the nation’s gross national product, and was such a source of pride
for the nation that the Soviet Union and China refused to televise it. Coming amid all the struggles and
crises that the country was enduring, the moon landing gave citizens a sense of accomplishment that stood
in stark contrast to the foreign policy failures, growing economic challenges, and escalating divisions at
home.
NIXON THE DIPLOMAT

Despite the many domestic issues on Nixon’s agenda, he prioritized foreign policy and clearly preferred
bold and dramatic actions in that arena. Realizing that five major economic powers—the United States,
Western Europe, the Soviet Union, China, and Japan—dominated world affairs, he sought opportunities
for the United States to pit the others against each other. In 1969, he announced a new Cold War principle
known as the Nixon Doctrine, a policy whereby the United States would continue to assist its allies but
would not assume the responsibility of defending the entire non-Communist world. Other nations, like
Japan, needed to assume more of the burden of defending themselves.
Playing what was later referred to as “the China card,” Nixon abruptly reversed two decades of U.S.
diplomatic sanctions and hostility to the Communist regime in the People’s Republic of China, when he
announced, in August 1971, that he would personally travel to Beijing and meet with China’s leader,
Chairman Mao Zedong, in February 1972 (Figure 30.11). Nixon hoped that opening up to the Chinese
government would prompt its bitter rival, the Soviet Union, to compete for global influence and seek
a more productive relationship with the United States. He also hoped that establishing a friendly
relationship with China would isolate North Vietnam and ease a peace settlement, allowing the United
States to extract its troops from the war honorably. Concurring that the Soviet Union should be restrained
from making advances in Asia, Nixon and Chinese premier Zhou Enlai agreed to disagree on several
issues and ended up signing a friendship treaty. They promised to work towards establishing trade
between the two nations and to eventually establishing full diplomatic relations with each other.
Figure 30.11 President Nixon and First Lady Patricia Nixon visited the Great Wall on their 1972 trip to China. The
Chinese showed them the sights and hosted a banquet for them in the Great Hall of the People. Nixon was the first
U.S. president to visit China following the Communist victory in the civil war in 1949.
Continuing his strategy of pitting one Communist nation against another, in May 1972, Nixon made
another newsworthy trip, traveling to Moscow to meet with the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev. The two
discussed a policy of détente, a relaxation of tensions between their nations, and signed the Strategic Arms
Limitation Treaty (SALT), which limited each side to deploying only two antiballistic missile systems. It
also limited the number of nuclear missiles maintained by each country. In 1974, a protocol was signed
that reduced antiballistic missile sites to one per country, since neither country had yet begun to build its
second system. Moreover, the two sides signed agreements to allow scientific and technological exchanges,
and promised to work towards a joint space mission.


• Describe the events that fueled antiwar sentiment in the Vietnam era
• Explain Nixon’s steps to withdraw the United States from the conflict in South Vietnam
As early as 1967, critics of the war in Vietnam had begun to call for the repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution, which gave President Johnson the authority to conduct military operations in Vietnam in
defense of an ally, South Vietnam. Nixon initially opposed the repeal efforts, claiming that doing so
might have consequences that reached far beyond Vietnam. Nevertheless, by 1969, he was beginning
troop withdrawals from Vietnam while simultaneously looking for a “knockout blow” against the North
Vietnamese. In sum, the Nixon administration was in need of an exit strategy.
The escalation of the war, however, made an easy withdrawal increasingly difficult. Officially, the United
States was the ally and partner of the South Vietnamese, whose “hearts and minds” it was trying to win
through a combination of military assistance and economic development. In reality, however, U.S. soldiers,
who found themselves fighting in an inhospitable environment thousands of miles from home to protect
people who often resented their presence and aided their enemies, came to regard the Vietnamese as
backward, cowardly people and the government of South Vietnam as hopelessly inefficient and corrupt.
Instead of winning “hearts and minds,” U.S. warfare in Vietnam cost the lives and limbs of U.S. troops and
millions of Vietnamese combatants and civilians (Figure 30.12).
Figure 30.12 U.S. soldiers in Hue in 1968 at during the Tet Offensive. The frustrating experience of fighting the
seemingly unwinnable war left many soldiers, and the public in general, disillusioned with the government.
For their part, the North Vietnamese forces and the National Liberation Front in South Vietnam also
used brutal tactics to terrorize and kill their opponents or effectively control their territory. Political
assassinations and forced indoctrination were common. Captured U.S. soldiers frequently endured torture
and imprisonment.
MY LAI
Racism on the part of some U.S. soldiers and a desire to retaliate against those they perceived to be
responsible for harming U.S. troops affected the conduct of the war. A war correspondent who served in
Vietnam noted, “In motivating the GI to fight by appealing to his racist feelings, the United States military
discovered that it had liberated an emotion over which it was to lose control.” It was not unusual for U.S.
soldiers to evacuate and burn villages suspected of shielding Viet Cong fighters, both to deprive the enemy
of potential support and to enact revenge for enemy brutality. Troops shot at farmers’ water buffalo for
target practice. American and South Vietnamese use of napalm, a jellied gasoline that sticks to the objects
it burns, was common. Originally developed to burn down structures during World War II, in Vietnam, it
was directed against human beings as well, as had occurred during the Korean War.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Vietnam Veterans against the War Statement
Many U.S. soldiers disapproved of the actions of their fellow troops. Indeed, a group of Vietnam veterans
formed the organization Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Small at first, it grew to perhaps as
many as twenty thousand members. In April 1971, John Kerry, a former lieutenant in the U.S. Navy and
a member of VVAW, testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations about conditions
in Vietnam based on his personal observations:
I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit
we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly
decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not
isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of
officers at all levels of command. . . . They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in
a sense, made them do.
They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads . . .
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages . . . and generally ravaged the countryside of South
Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging
which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. . . .
We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could
not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, not the
reds [Communists], but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to
speak out.
—John Kerry, April 23, 1971
In what way did the actions of U.S. soldiers in Vietnam threaten the United States?
On March 16, 1968, men from the U.S. Army’s Twenty-Third Infantry Division committed one of the most
notorious atrocities of the war. About one hundred soldiers commanded by Captain Ernest Medina were
sent to destroy the village of My Lai, which was suspected of hiding Viet Cong fighters. Although there
was later disagreement regarding the captain’s exact words, the platoon leaders believed the order to
destroy the enemy included killing women and children. Having suffered twenty-eight casualties in the
past three months, the men of Charlie Company were under severe stress and extremely apprehensive as
they approached the village. Two platoons entered it, shooting randomly. A group of seventy to eighty
unarmed people, including children and infants, were forced into an irrigation ditch by members of the
First Platoon under the command of Lt. William L. Calley, Jr. Despite their proclamations of innocence, the
villagers were shot (Figure 30.13). Houses were set on fire, and as the inhabitants tried to flee, they were
killed with rifles, machine guns, and grenades. The U.S. troops were never fired upon, and one soldier
later testified that he did not see any man who looked like a Viet Cong fighter.

Figure 30.13 Vietnamese civilians in My Lai await their fate. They were shot a few minutes after this 1968
photograph was taken.
The precise number of civilians killed that day is unclear: The numbers range from 347 to 504. None were
armed. Although not all the soldiers in My Lai took part in the killings, no one attempted to stop the
massacre before the arrival by helicopter of Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, who, along with his crew,
attempted to evacuate women and children. Upon returning to his base, Thompson immediately reported
the events taking place at My Lai. Shortly thereafter, Medina ordered Charlie Company to cease fire.
Although Thompson’s crewmembers confirmed his account, none of the men from Charlie Company gave
a report, and a cover-up began almost immediately. The army first claimed that 150 people, the majority
of them Viet Cong, had been killed during a firefight with Charlie Company.
Hearing details from friends in Charlie Company, a helicopter gunner by the name of Ron Ridenhour
began to conduct his own investigation and, in April 1969, wrote to thirty members of Congress,
demanding an investigation. By September 1969, the army charged Lt. Calley with premeditated murder.
Many Americans were horrified at the graphic footage of the massacre; the incident confirmed their belief
that the war was unjust and not being fought on behalf of the Vietnamese people. However, nearly half
of the respondents to a Minnesota poll did not believe that the incident at My Lai had actually happened.
U.S. soldiers could not possibly do such horrible things, they felt; they were certain that American goals in
Vietnam were honorable and speculated that the antiwar movement had concocted the story to generate
sympathy for the enemy.
Calley was found guilty in March 1971, and sentenced to life in prison. Nationwide, hundreds of
thousands of Americans joined a “Free Calley” campaign. Two days later, President Nixon released him
from custody and placed him under him house arrest at Fort Benning, Georgia. In August of that same
year, Calley’s sentence was reduced to twenty years, and in September 1974, he was paroled. The only
soldier convicted in the massacre, he spent a total of three-and-a-half years under house arrest for his
crimes.
BATTLES AT HOME
As the conflict wore on and reports of brutalities increased, the antiwar movement grew in strength.
To take the political pressure off himself and his administration, and find a way to exit Vietnam “with
honor,” Nixon began the process of Vietnamization, turning more responsibility for the war over to South
Vietnamese forces by training them and providing American weaponry, while withdrawing U.S. troops
from the field. At the same time, however, Nixon authorized the bombing of neighboring Cambodia,
which had declared its neutrality, in an effort to destroy North Vietnamese and Viet Cong bases within
that country and cut off supply routes between North and South Vietnam. The bombing was kept secret
from both Congress and the American public. In April 1970, Nixon decided to follow up with an invasion
of Cambodia.
The invasion could not be kept secret, and when Nixon announced it on television on April 30, 1970,
protests sprang up across the country. The most tragic and politically damaging occurred on May 1,
1970, at Kent State University in Ohio. Violence erupted in the town of Kent after an initial student
demonstration on campus, and the next day, the mayor asked Ohio’s governor to send in the National
Guard. Troops were sent to the university’s campus, where students had set fire to the ROTC building and
were fighting off firemen and policemen trying to extinguish it. The National Guard used teargas to break
up the demonstration, and several students were arrested (Figure 30.14).
Figure 30.14 On April 30, 1970, Richard Nixon announces plans for the Cambodia Campaign (a), provoking
protests on college campuses across the country. Within days, the governor of Ohio had called in the National Guard
in response to student demonstrations at Kent State University. Bill Whitbeck, who was a student majoring in photo
illustration at Kent State University in May 1970, captured this image (b) on campus on May 3, one day before the
shootings that would result in four student deaths. (credit b: modification of work by Bill Whitbeck)
Tensions came to a head on May 4. Although campus officials had called off a planned demonstration,
some fifteen hundred to two thousand students assembled, throwing rocks at a security officer who
ordered them to leave. Seventy-seven members of the National Guard, with bayonets attached to their
rifles, approached the students. After forcing most of them to retreat, the troops seemed to depart. Then,
for reasons that are still unknown, they halted and turned; many began to fire at the students. Nine
students were wounded; four were killed. Two of the dead had simply been crossing campus on their way
to class. Peace was finally restored when a faculty member pleaded with the remaining students to leave.
Click and Explore
Read the New York Times account of the shootings at Kent State University
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15KentState) and view (under the headline) one of the
most iconic photographs in American history.

News of the Kent State shootings shocked students around the country. Millions refused to attend class, as
strikes were held at hundreds of colleges and high schools across the United States. On May 8, an antiwar
protest took place in New York City, and the next day, 100,000 protesters assembled in Washington,
DC. Not everyone sympathized with the slain students, however. Nixon had earlier referred to student
demonstrators as “bums,” and construction workers attacked the New York City protestors. A Gallup poll
revealed that most Americans blamed the students for the tragic events at Kent State.
On May 15, a similar tragedy took place at Jackson State College, an African American college in Jackson,
Mississippi. Once again, students gathered on campus to protest the invasion of Cambodia, setting
fires and throwing rocks. The police arrived to disperse the protesters, who had gathered outside a
women’s dormitory. Shortly after midnight, the police opened fire with shotguns. The dormitory windows
shattered, showering people with broken glass. Twelve were wounded, and two young men, one a student
at the college and the other a local high school student, were killed.
PULLING OUT OF THE QUAGMIRE

Ongoing protests, campus violence, and the expansion of the war into Cambodia deeply disillusioned
Americans about their role in Vietnam. Understanding the nation’s mood, Nixon dropped his opposition
to a repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964. In January 1971, he signed Congress’s revocation of
the notorious blanket military authorization. Gallup polls taken in May of that year revealed that only 28
percent of the respondents supported the war; many felt it was not only a mistake but also immoral.
Just as influential as antiwar protests and campus violence in turning people against the war was the
publication of documents the media dubbed the Pentagon Papers in June 1971. These were excerpts from a
study prepared during the Johnson administration that revealed the true nature of the conflict in Vietnam.
The public learned for the first time that the United States had been planning to oust Ngo Dinh Diem
from the South Vietnamese government, that Johnson meant to expand the U.S. role in Vietnam and bomb
North Vietnam even as he stated publicly that he had no intentions of doing so, and that his administration
had sought to deliberately provoke North Vietnamese attacks in order to justify escalating American
involvement. Copies of the study had been given to the New York Times and other newspapers by Daniel
Ellsberg, one of the military analysts who had contributed to it. To avoid setting a precedent by allowing
the press to publish confidential documents, Nixon’s attorney general, John Mitchell, sought an injunction
against the New York Times to prevent its publication of future articles based on the Pentagon Papers.
The newspaper appealed. On June 30, 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government could not
prevent the publication of the articles.
Realizing that he must end the war but reluctant to make it look as though the United States was admitting
its failure to subdue a small Asian nation, Nixon began maneuvering to secure favorable peace terms
from the North Vietnamese. Thanks to his diplomatic efforts in China and the Soviet Union, those two
nations cautioned North Vietnam to use restraint. The loss of strong support by their patrons, together
with intensive bombing of Hanoi and the mining of crucial North Vietnamese harbors by U.S. forces, made
the North Vietnamese more willing to negotiate.
Nixon’s actions had also won him popular support at home. By the 1972 election, voters again favored his
Vietnam policy by a ratio of two to one. On January 27, 1973, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger signed an
accord with Le Duc Tho, the chief negotiator for the North Vietnamese, ending American participation in
the war. The United States was given sixty days to withdraw its troops, and North Vietnam was allowed to
keep its forces in places it currently occupied. This meant that over 100,000 northern soldiers would remain
in the South—ideally situated to continue the war with South Vietnam. The United States left behind a
small number of military advisors as well as equipment, and Congress continued to approve funds for
South Vietnam, but considerably less than in earlier years. So the war continued, but it was clear the South
could not hope to defeat the North.
As the end was nearing, the United States conducted several operations to evacuate children from the
South. On the morning of April 29, 1975, as North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces moved through the
outskirts of Saigon, orders were given to evacuate Americans and South Vietnamese who had supported
the United States. Unable to use the airport, helicopters ferried Americans and Vietnamese refugees who
had fled to the American embassy to ships off the coast. North Vietnamese forces entered Saigon the next
day, and the South surrendered.
The war had cost the lives of more than 1.5 million Vietnamese combatants and civilians, as well as
over 58,000 U.S. troops. But the war had caused another, more intangible casualty: the loss of consensus,
confidence, and a sense of moral high ground in the American political culture.

• Describe the actions that Nixon and his confederates took to ensure his reelection in
1972
• Explain the significance of the Watergate crisis
• Describe Gerald Ford’s domestic policies and achievements in foreign affairs
Feeling the pressure of domestic antiwar sentiment and desiring a decisive victory, Nixon went into
the 1972 reelection season having attempted to fashion a “new majority” of moderate southerners and
northern, working-class whites. The Democrats, responding to the chaos and failings of the Chicago
convention, had instituted new rules on how delegates were chosen, which they hoped would broaden
participation and the appeal of the party. Nixon proved unbeatable, however. Even evidence that his
administration had broken the law failed to keep him from winning the White House.

Following the 1968 nominating convention in Chicago, the process of selecting delegates for the
Democratic National Convention was redesigned. The new rules, set by a commission led by George
McGovern, awarded delegates based on candidates’ performance in state primaries (Figure 30.15). As a
result, a candidate who won no primaries could not receive the party’s nomination, as Hubert Humphrey
had done in Chicago. This system gave a greater voice to people who voted in the primaries and reduced
the influence of party leaders and power brokers.

Figure 30.15 In November 1968, Shirley Chisholm (a) became the first African American woman to be elected to the
House of Representatives. In January 1972, she announced her intention to run for the Democratic presidential
nomination. The nomination eventually went to George McGovern (b), an outspoken opponent of the war in Vietnam.
It also led to a more inclusive political environment in which Shirley Chisholm received 156 votes for
the Democratic nomination on the first ballot (Figure 30.15). Eventually, the nomination went to George
McGovern, a strong opponent of the Vietnam War. Many Democrats refused to support his campaign,
however. Working- and middle-class voters turned against him too after allegations that he supported
women’s right to an abortion and the decriminalization of drug use. McGovern’s initial support of
vice presidential candidate Thomas Eagleton in the face of revelations that Eagleton had undergone
electroshock treatment for depression, followed by his withdrawal of that support and acceptance of
Eagleton’s resignation, also made McGovern look indecisive and unorganized.
Nixon and the Republicans led from the start. To increase their advantage, they attempted to paint
McGovern as a radical leftist who favored amnesty for draft dodgers. In the Electoral College, McGovern
carried only Massachusetts and Washington, DC. Nixon won a decisive victory of 520 electoral votes to
McGovern’s 17. One Democrat described his role in McGovern’s campaign as “recreation director on the
Titanic.”
HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS

Nixon’s victory over a Democratic party in disarray was the most remarkable landslide since Franklin D.
Roosevelt’s reelection in 1936. But Nixon’s victory was short-lived, however, for it was soon discovered
that he and members of his administration had routinely engaged in unethical and illegal behavior during
his first term. Following the publication of the Pentagon Papers, for instance, the “plumbers,” a group of
men used by the White House to spy on the president’s opponents and stop leaks to the press, broke into
the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist to steal Ellsberg’s file and learn information that might damage
his reputation.
During the presidential campaign, the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) decided to play “dirty
tricks” on Nixon’s opponents. Before the New Hampshire Democratic primary, a forged letter supposedly
written by Democratic-hopeful Edmund Muskie in which he insulted French Canadians, one of the state’s
largest ethnic groups, was leaked to the press. Men were assigned to spy on both McGovern and Senator
Edward Kennedy. One of them managed to masquerade as a reporter on board McGovern’s press plane.
Men pretending to work for the campaigns of Nixon’s Democratic opponents contacted vendors in various
states to rent or purchase materials for rallies; the rallies were never held, of course, and Democratic
politicians were accused of failing to pay the bills they owed.
CREEP’s most notorious operation, however, was its break-in at the offices of the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) in the Watergate office complex in Washington, DC, as well as its subsequent cover-
up. On the evening of June 17, 1972, the police arrested five men inside DNC headquarters (Figure
30.16). According to a plan originally proposed by CREEP’s general counsel and White House plumber G.
Gordon Liddy, the men were to wiretap DNC telephones. The FBI quickly discovered that two of the men
had E. Howard Hunt’s name in their address books. Hunt was a former CIA officer and also one of the
plumbers. In the following weeks, yet more connections were found between the burglars and CREEP, and
in October 1972, the FBI revealed evidence of illegal intelligence gathering by CREEP for the purpose of
sabotaging the Democratic Party. Nixon won his reelection handily in November. Had the president and
his reelection team not pursued a strategy of dirty tricks, Richard Nixon would have governed his second
term with one of the largest political leads in the twentieth century.
Figure 30.16 The Watergate hotel and office complex, located on the Potomac River next to the John F. Kennedy
Center for the Performing Arts, was the scene of the 1972 burglary and attempted wiretapping that eventually brought
down the presidency of Richard Nixon.
In the weeks following the Watergate break-in, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, reporters for The
Washington Post, received information from several anonymous sources, including one known to them
only as “Deep Throat,” that led them to realize the White House was deeply implicated in the break-in. As
the press focused on other events, Woodward and Bernstein continued to dig and publish their findings,
keeping the public’s attention on the unfolding scandal. Years later, Deep Throat was revealed to be Mark
Felt, then the FBI’s associate director.
THE WATERGATE CRISIS

Initially, Nixon was able to hide his connection to the break-in and the other wrongdoings alleged against
members of CREEP. However, by early 1973, the situation quickly began to unravel. In January, the
Watergate burglars were convicted, along with Hunt and Liddy. Trial judge John Sirica was not convinced
that all the guilty had been discovered. In February, confronted with evidence that people close to the
president were connected to the burglary, the Senate appointed the Watergate Committee to investigate.
Ten days later, in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, L. Patrick Gray, acting director of
the FBI, admitted destroying evidence taken from Hunt’s safe by John Dean, the White House counsel,
after the burglars were caught.

On March 23, 1973, Judge Sirica publicly read a letter from one of the Watergate burglars, alleging that
perjury had been committed during the trial. Less than two weeks later, Jeb Magruder, a deputy director
of CREEP, admitted lying under oath and indicated that Dean and John Mitchell, who had resigned
as attorney general to become the director of CREEP, were also involved in the break-in and its cover-
up. Dean confessed, and on April 30, Nixon fired him and requested the resignation of his aides John
Ehrlichman and H. R. Haldeman, also implicated. To defuse criticism and avoid suspicion that he was
participating in a cover-up, Nixon also announced the resignation of the current attorney general, Richard
Kleindienst, a close friend, and appointed Elliott Richardson to the position. In May 1973, Richardson
named Archibald Cox special prosecutor to investigate the Watergate affair.
Throughout the spring and the long, hot summer of 1973, Americans sat glued to their television screens,
as the major networks took turns broadcasting the Senate hearings. One by one, disgraced former members
of the administration confessed, or denied, their role in the Watergate scandal. Dean testified that Nixon
was involved in the conspiracy, allegations the president denied. In March 1974, Haldeman, Ehrlichman,
and Mitchell were indicted and charged with conspiracy.
Without evidence clearly implicating the president, the investigation might have ended if not for the
testimony of Alexander Butterfield, a low-ranking member of the administration, that a voice-activated
recording system had been installed in the Oval Office. The President’s most intimate conversations had
been caught on tape. Cox and the Senate subpoenaed them.
Click and Explore
Listen to excerpts (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15NixonTapes) from Nixon’s White

House tapes. Some of the recordings are a bit difficult to hear because of static.
Transcripts are also available at this site.
Nixon, however, refused to hand the tapes over and cited executive privilege, the right of the president
to refuse certain subpoenas. When he offered to supply summaries of the conversations, Cox refused. On
October 20, 1973, in an event that became known as the Saturday Night Massacre, Nixon ordered Attorney
General Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused and resigned, as did Deputy Attorney General William
Ruckelshaus when confronted with the same order. Control of the Justice Department then fell to Solicitor
General Robert Bork, who complied with Nixon’s order. In December, the House Judiciary Committee
began its own investigation to determine whether there was enough evidence of wrongdoing to impeach
the president.
The public was enraged by Nixon’s actions. It seemed as though the president had placed himself
above the law. Telegrams flooded the White House. The House of Representatives began to discuss
impeachment. In April 1974, when Nixon agreed to release transcripts of the tapes, it was too little, too
late (Figure 30.17). Yet, while revealing nothing about Nixon’s knowledge of Watergate, the transcripts
showed him to be coarse, dishonest, and cruel.
Figure 30.17 In April 1974, President Richard Nixon prepares to address the nation to clarify his position on
releasing the White House tapes.
At the end of its hearings, in July 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach. However,
before the full House could vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered Nixon to release the actual tapes of
his conversations, not just transcripts or summaries. One of the tapes revealed that he had in fact been
told about White House involvement in the Watergate break-in shortly after it occurred. In a speech on
August 5, 1974, Nixon, pleading a poor memory, accepted blame for the Watergate scandal. Warned by
other Republicans that he would be found guilty by the Senate and removed from office, he resigned the
presidency on August 8.
Nixon’s resignation, which took effect the next day, did not make the Watergate scandal vanish. Instead,
it fed a growing suspicion of government felt by many. The events of Vietnam had already showed that
the government could not be trusted to protect the interests of the people or tell them the truth. For many,
Watergate confirmed these beliefs, and the suffix “-gate” attached to a word has since come to mean a
political scandal.
FORD NOT A LINCOLN

When Gerald R. Ford took the oath of office on August 9, 1974, he understood that his most pressing
task was to help the country move beyond the Watergate scandal. His declaration that “Our long national
nightmare is over. . . . [O]ur great Republic is a government of laws and not of men” was met with almost
universal applause.
It was indeed an unprecedented time. Ford was the first vice president chosen under the terms of the
Twenty-Fifth Amendment, which provides for the appointment of a vice president in the event the
incumbent dies or resigns; Nixon had appointed Ford, a longtime House representative from Michigan
known for his honesty, following the resignation of embattled vice president Spiro T. Agnew over a charge
of failing to report income—a lenient charge since this income stemmed from bribes he had received as
the governor of Maryland. Ford was also the first vice president to take office after a sitting president’s
resignation, and the only chief executive never elected either president or vice president. One of his first
actions as president was to grant Richard Nixon a full pardon (Figure 30.18). Ford thus prevented Nixon’s
indictment for any crimes he may have committed in office and ended criminal investigations into his
actions. The public reacted with suspicion and outrage. Many were convinced that the extent of Nixon’s
wrongdoings would now never been known and he would never be called to account for them. When Ford
chose to run for the presidency in 1976, the pardon returned to haunt him.

Figure 30.18 In one of his first actions as president, Gerald R. Ford announced a full pardon for Richard Nixon on
September 8, 1974. Nixon had appointed Ford vice president after the resignation of Spiro Agnew.
As president, Ford confronted monumental issues, such as inflation, a depressed economy, and chronic
energy shortages. He established his policies during his first year in office, despite opposition from a
heavily Democratic Congress. In October 1974, he labeled inflation the country’s most dangerous public
enemy and sought a grassroots campaign to curtail it by encouraging people to be disciplined in their
consuming habits and increase their savings. The campaign was titled “Whip Inflation Now” and was
advertised on brightly colored “Win” buttons volunteers were to wear. When recession became the
nation’s most serious domestic problem, Ford shifted to measures aimed at stimulating the economy.
Still fearing inflation, however, he vetoed a number of nonmilitary appropriations bills that would have
increased the already-large budget deficit.
Ford’s economic policies ultimately proved unsuccessful. Because of opposition from a Democratic
Congress, his foreign policy accomplishments were also limited. When he requested money to assist the
South Vietnamese government in its effort to repel North Vietnamese forces, Congress refused. Ford was
more successful in other parts of the world. He continued Nixon’s policy of détente with the Soviet Union,
and he and Secretary of State Kissinger achieved further progress in the second round of SALT talks. In
August 1975, Ford went to Finland and signed the Helsinki Accords with Soviet premier Leonid Brezhnev.
This agreement essentially accepted the territorial boundaries that had been established at the end of
World War II in 1945. It also exacted a pledge from the signatory nations that they would protect human
rights within their countries. Many immigrants to the United States protested Ford’s actions, because it
seemed as though he had accepted the status quo and left their homelands under Soviet domination.
Others considered it a belated American acceptance of the world as it really was.

• Explain why Gerald Ford lost the election of 1976
• Describe Jimmy Carter’s domestic and foreign policy achievements
• Discuss how the Iranian hostage crisis affected the Carter presidency
At his inauguration in January 1977, President Jimmy Carter began his speech by thanking outgoing
president Gerald Ford for all he had done to “heal” the scars left by Watergate. American gratitude had
not been great enough to return Ford to the Oval Office, but enthusiasm for the new president was not
much greater in the new atmosphere of disillusionment with political leaders. Indeed, Carter won his
party’s nomination and the presidency largely because the Democratic leadership had been decimated
by assassination and the taint of Vietnam, and he had carefully positioned himself as an outsider who
could not be blamed for current policies. Ultimately, Carter’s presidency proved a lackluster one that was
marked by economic stagnation at home and humiliation overseas.

President Ford won the Republican nomination for the presidency in 1976, narrowly defeating former
California governor Ronald Reagan, but he lost the election to his Democratic opponent Jimmy Carter.
Carter ran on an “anti-Washington” ticket, making a virtue of his lack of experience in what was
increasingly seen as the corrupt politics of the nation’s capital. Accepting his party’s nomination, the
former governor of Georgia pledged to combat racism and sexism as well as overhaul the tax structure.
He openly proclaimed his faith as a born-again Christian and promised to change the welfare system
and provide comprehensive healthcare coverage for neglected citizens who deserved compassion. Most
importantly, Jimmy Carter promised that he would “never lie.”
Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon had alienated many Republicans. That, combined with the stagnant
economy, cost him votes, and Jimmy Carter, an engineer and former naval officer who portrayed himself
as a humble peanut farmer, prevailed, carrying all the southern states, except Virginia and Oklahoma
(Figure 30.19). Ford did well in the West, but Carter received 50 percent of the popular vote to Ford’s 48
percent, and 297 electoral votes to Ford’s 240.
Figure 30.19 President Gerald Ford (right) and Democratic challenger Jimmy Carter dueled in Philadelphia in 1976,
during the first televised presidential debate since that between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy in 1960.
Click and Explore
In the mid-1970s, the United States celebrated the two-hundredth anniversary of its
independence from Great Britain. Peruse the collection of patriotic bicentennial
memorabilia (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15Bicent) at the Gerald R. Ford
Presidential Library.
ON THE INSIDE
Making a virtue of his lack of political experience, especially in Washington, Jimmy Carter took office
with less practical experience in executive leadership and the workings of the national government than

any president since Calvin Coolidge. His first executive act was to fulfill a campaign pledge to grant
unconditional amnesty to young men who had evaded the draft during the Vietnam War. Despite the early
promise of his rhetoric, within a couple of years of his taking office, liberal Democrats claimed Carter was
the most conservative Democratic president since Grover Cleveland.
In trying to manage the relatively high unemployment rate of 7.5 percent and inflation that had risen
into the double digits by 1978, Carter was only marginally effective. His tax reform measure of 1977
was weak and failed to close the grossest of loopholes. His deregulation of major industries, such as
aviation and trucking, was intended to force large companies to become more competitive. Consumers
benefited in some ways: For example, airlines offered cheaper fares to beat their competitors. However,
some companies, like Pan American World Airways, instead went out of business. Carter also expanded
various social programs, improved housing for the elderly, and took steps to improve workplace safety.
Because the high cost of fuel continued to hinder economic expansion, the creation of an energy program
became a central focus of his administration. Carter stressed energy conservation, encouraging people to
insulate their houses and rewarding them with tax credits if they did so, and pushing for the use of coal,
nuclear power, and alternative energy sources such as solar power to replace oil and natural gas. To this
end, Carter created the Department of Energy.
CARTER AND A NEW DIRECTION IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Carter believed that U.S. foreign policy should be founded upon deeply held moral principles and
national values. The mission in Vietnam had failed, he argued, because American actions there were
contrary to moral values. His dedication to peace and human rights significantly changed the way that
the United States conducted its foreign affairs. He improved relations with China, ended military support
to Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, and helped arrange for the Panama Canal to be returned to
Panamanian control in 1999. He agreed to a new round of talks with the Soviet Union (SALT II) and
brought Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian president Anwar Sadat to the United
States to discuss peace between their countries. Their meetings at Camp David, the presidential retreat in
Maryland, led to the signing of the Camp David Accords in September 1978 (Figure 30.20). This in turn
resulted in the drafting of a historic peace treaty between Egypt and Israel in 1979.
Figure 30.20 President Jimmy Carter meets with Egypt’s Anwar Sadat (left) and Israel’s Menachem Begin (right) at
Camp David in 1978. Sadat was assassinated in 1981, partly because of his willingness to make peace with Israel.
Despite achieving many successes in the area of foreign policy, Carter made a more controversial decision
in response to the Soviet Union’s 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. In January 1980, he declared that if the
USSR did not withdraw its forces, the United States would boycott the 1980 Summer Olympic Games in
Moscow. The Soviets did not retreat, and the United States did not send a team to Moscow. Only about
half of the American public supported this decision, and despite Carter’s call for other countries to join the
boycott, very few did so.
HOSTAGES TO HISTORY
Carter’s biggest foreign policy problem was the Iranian hostage crisis, whose roots lay in the 1950s. In 1953,
the United States had assisted Great Britain in the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh,
a rival of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the shah of Iran. Mossadegh had sought greater Iranian control over
the nation’s oil wealth, which was claimed by British companies. Following the coup, the shah assumed
complete control of Iran’s government. He then disposed of political enemies and eliminated dissent
through the use of SAVAK, a secret police force trained by the United States. The United States also
supplied the shah’s government with billions of dollars in aid. As Iran’s oil revenue grew, especially after
the 1973 oil embargo against the United States, the pace of its economic development and the size of its
educated middle class also increased, and the country became less dependent on U.S. aid. Its population
increasingly blamed the United States for the death of Iranian democracy and faulted it for its consistent
support of Israel.
Despite the shah’s unpopularity among his own people, the result of both his brutal policies and his desire
to Westernize Iran, the United States supported his regime. In February 1979, the shah was overthrown
when revolution broke out, and a few months later, he departed for the United States for medical
treatment. The long history of U.S. support for him and its offer of refuge greatly angered Iranian
revolutionaries. On November 4, 1979, a group of Iranian students and activists, including Islamic
fundamentalists who wished to end the Westernization and secularization of Iran, invaded the American
embassy in Tehran and seized sixty-six embassy employees. The women and African Americans were
soon released, leaving fifty-three men as hostages. Negotiations failed to free them, and in April 1980, a
rescue attempt fell through when the aircraft sent to transport them crashed. Another hostage was released
when he developed serious medical problems. President Carter’s inability to free the other captives hurt
his performance in the 1980 elections. The fifty-two men still held in Iran were finally freed on January 20,
1981, the day Ronald Reagan took office as president (Figure 30.21).
Figure 30.21 The fifty-two American hostages return from Iran in January 1981. They had been held for 444 days.
Carter’s handling of the crisis appeared even less effective in the way the media portrayed it publicly. This
contributed to a growing sense of malaise, a feeling that the United States’ best days were behind it and the
country had entered a period of decline. This belief was compounded by continuing economic problems,
and the oil shortage and subsequent rise in prices that followed the Iranian Revolution. The president’s
decision to import less oil to the United States and remove price controls on oil and gasoline did not help
matters. In 1979, Carter sought to reassure the nation and the rest of the world, especially the Soviet Union,
that the United States was still able to defend its interests. To dissuade the Soviets from making additional
inroads in southwest Asia, he proposed the Carter Doctrine, which stated that the United States would

regard any attempt to interfere with its interests in the Middle East as an act of aggression to be met with
force if necessary.
Carter had failed to solve the nation’s problems. Some blamed these problems on dishonest politicians;
others blamed the problems on the Cold War obsession with fighting Communism, even in small nations
like Vietnam that had little influence on American national interests. Still others faulted American
materialism. In 1980, a small but growing group called the Moral Majority faulted Carter for betraying his
southern roots and began to seek a return to traditional values.
Key Terms
Carter Doctrine Jimmy Carter’s declaration that efforts to interfere with American interests in the
Middle East would be considered a act of aggression and be met with force if necessary
counterculture a culture that develops in opposition to the dominant culture of a society
Deep Throat the anonymous source, later revealed to be associate director of the FBI Mark Felt, who
supplied reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein with information about White House involvement
in the Watergate break-in
Dixiecrats conservative southern Democrats who opposed integration and the other goals of the African
American civil rights movement
détente the relaxation of tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union
executive privilege the right of the U.S. president to refuse subpoenas requiring him to disclose private
communications on the grounds that this might interfere with the functioning of the executive branch
identity politics political movements or actions intended to further the interests of a particular group
membership, based on culture, race, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, or sexual orientation
Pentagon Papers government documents leaked to the New York Times that revealed the true nature of
the conflict in Vietnam and turned many definitively against the war
plumbers men used by the White House to spy on and sabotage President Nixon’s opponents and stop
leaks to the press
silent majority a majority whose political will is usually not heard—in this case, northern, white, blue-
collar voters
southern strategy a political strategy that called for appealing to southern whites by resisting calls for
greater advancements in civil rights
stagflation high inflation combined with high unemployment and slow economic growth
Vietnamization the Nixon administration’s policy of turning over responsibility for the defense of South
Vietnam to Vietnamese forces
Yippies the Youth International Party, a political party formed in 1967, which called for the
establishment of a New Nation consisting of cooperative institutions that would replace those currently
in existence
Summary
In the late 1960s and 1970s, Indians, gays and lesbians, and women organized to change discriminatory
laws and pursue government support for their interests, a strategy known as identity politics. Others,
disenchanted with the status quo, distanced themselves from white, middle-class America by forming
their own countercultures centered on a desire for peace, the rejection of material goods and traditional
morality, concern for the environment, and drug use in pursuit of spiritual revelations. These groups,
whose aims and tactics posed a challenge to the existing state of affairs, often met with hostility from
individuals, local officials, and the U.S. government alike. Still, they persisted, determined to further their
goals and secure for themselves the rights and privileges to which they were entitled as American citizens.


When a new Republican constituency of moderate southerners and northern, blue-collar workers voted
Richard Nixon into the White House in 1968, many were hopeful. In the wake of antiwar and civil
rights protests, and the chaos of the 1968 Democratic National Convention, many Americans welcomed
Nixon’s promise to uphold law and order. During his first term, Nixon strode a moderate, middle path
in domestic affairs, attempting with little success to solve the problems of inflation and unemployment
through a combination of austerity and deficit spending. He made substantial progress in foreign policy,
however, establishing diplomatic relations with China for the first time since the Communist Revolution
and entering into a policy of détente with the Soviet Union.

As the war in Vietnam raged on, Americans were horrified to hear of atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers,
such as the 1968 massacre of villagers at My Lai. To try to end the conflict, Nixon escalated it by bombing
Hanoi and invading Cambodia; his actions provoked massive antiwar demonstrations in the United States
that often ended in violence, such as the tragic shooting of unarmed student protestors at Kent State
University in 1970. The 1971 release of the Pentagon Papers revealed the true nature of the war to an
increasingly disapproving and disenchanted public. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger eventually drafted
a peace treaty with North Vietnam, and, after handing over responsibility for the war to South Vietnam,
the United States withdrew its troops in 1973. South Vietnam surrendered to the North two years later.

In 1972, President Nixon faced an easy reelection against a Democratic Party in disarray. But even before
his landslide victory, evidence had surfaced that the White House was involved in the break-in at the
DNC’s headquarters at the Watergate office complex. As the investigation unfolded, the depths to which
Nixon and his advisers had sunk became clear. Some twenty-five of Nixon’s aides were indicted for
criminal activity, and he became the first president impeached since Andrew Johnson and the first to
resign from office. His successor, Gerald Ford, was unable to solve the pressing problems the United States
faced or erase the stain of Watergate.

Jimmy Carter’s administration began with great promise, but his efforts to improve the economy through
deregulation largely failed. Carter’s attempt at a foreign policy built on the principle of human rights
also prompted much criticism, as did his decision to boycott the Summer Olympics in Moscow. On the
other hand, he successfully brokered the beginnings of a historic peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.
Remaining public faith in Carter was dealt a serious blow, however, when he proved unable to free the
American hostages in Tehran.
Review Questions
1. One of the original founders of AIM was A. abortions obtained during the first three
________. months of pregnancy were legal
A. Patsy Mink B. witnesses were not required to corroborate
B. Dennis Banks a charge of rape
C. Jerry Rubin C. marriage could not be abolished
D. Glenn Weiser D. homosexuality was a mental illness
2. The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. 3. What kinds of values did hippies adopt?
Wade established that ________.
4. President Nixon took a bold diplomatic step in 10. The agreement Gerald Ford signed with the
early 1972 when he ________. leader of the Soviet Union that ended the
A. went to Vienna territorial issues remaining from World War II
B. declared the Vietnam War over was ________.
C. met with Chinese leaders in Beijing A. the Moscow Communiqué
D. signed the Glasgow Accords B. the Beijing Treaty
C. the Iceland Protocol
5. The blue-collar workers who Nixon called “the D. the Helsinki Accords
silent majority” ________.
A. fled to the suburbs to avoid integration 11. Of these figures, who was not indicted
B. wanted to replace existing social following the Watergate break-in and cover-up?
institutions with cooperatives A. John Mitchell
C. opposed the war in Vietnam B. Bob Woodward
D. believed their opinions were overlooked in C. John Ehrlichman
the political process D. H.R. Haldeman
6. What caused the rifts in the Democratic Party 12. In what types of unethical and illegal
in the 1968 election? activities did the White House plumbers and the
“dirty tricks” squad engage?
7. The demonstrations at Kent State University in
May 1970 were held to protest what event? 13. During the 1976 election campaign, Jimmy
A. the My Lai massacre Carter famously promised ________.
B. the North Vietnamese invasion of Saigon A. that he would never start a war
C. the invasion of Cambodia by U.S. forces B. that he would never be unfaithful to his
D. the signing of a peace agreement with wife
North Vietnam C. that he had never smoked marijuana
D. that he would never lie
8. Recognizing that ongoing protests and campus
violence reflected a sea change in public opinion 14. Carter deregulated several major American
about the war, in 1971 Nixon ________. industries in an effort to ensure that ________.
A. repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution A. companies would become more
B. postponed the invasion of Cambodia competitive
C. released the Pentagon Papers B. airlines would merge
D. covered up the My Lai massacre C. oil prices would rise
D. consumers would start conserving energy
9. According to John Kerry, how did many U.S.
soldiers treat Vietnamese civilians? 15. What were President Carter’s successes in the
area of foreign policy?

16. What common goals did American Indians, gay and lesbian citizens, and women share in their quests
for equal rights? How did their agendas differ? What were the differences and similarities in the tactics
they used to achieve their aims?
17. In what ways were the policies of Richard Nixon different from those of his Democratic predecessors
John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson? How were Jimmy Carter’s policies different from those of Nixon?
18. To what degree did foreign policy issues affect politics and the economy in the United States in the
late 1960s and 1970s?

19. What events caused voters to lose faith in the political system and the nation’s leaders in the late 1960s
and 1970s?
20. In what ways did the goals of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s manifest themselves in
the identity politics of the 1970s?

Chapter 31 From Cold War to Culture Wars, 1980-2000 931
CHAPTER 31
From Cold War to Culture Wars,

1980-2000
Figure 31.1 This striking piece of graffiti from the Berlin Wall, now housed in the Newseum in Washington, DC,
contains the name of the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP), a group formed in 1987 in New York City to
combat the spread of AIDS and the perception that AIDS was the product of immoral behavior.
Chapter Outline
31.1 The Reagan Revolution
31.2 Political and Cultural Fusions
31.3 A New World Order
31.4 Bill Clinton and the New Economy
Introduction
“Act up!” might be called the unofficial slogan of the 1980s. Numerous groups were concerned by what
they considered disturbing social, cultural, and political trends in the United States and lobbied for
their vision of what the nation should be. Conservative politicians cut taxes for the wealthy and shrank
programs for the poor, while conservative Christians blamed the legalization of abortion and the increased
visibility of gays and lesbians for weakening the American family. When the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control first recognized the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) in 1981, the Religious Right
regarded it as a plague sent by God to punish homosexual men for their “unnatural” behavior. Politicians,
many of whom relied on religious conservatives for their votes, largely ignored the AIDS epidemic. In
response, gay men and women formed organizations such as ACT UP to draw attention to their cause
(Figure 31.1).
Toward the end of the decade in 1989, protesters from both East and West Berlin began “acting up” and
tearing down large chunks of the Berlin Wall, essentially dismantling the Iron Curtain. This symbolic
act was the culmination of earlier demonstrations that had swept across Eastern Europe, resulting in the
collapse of Communist governments in both Central and Eastern Europe, and marking the beginning of
the end of the Cold War.
932 Chapter 31 From Cold War to Culture Wars, 1980-2000

• Explain Ronald Reagan’s attitude towards government
• Discuss the Reagan administration’s economic policies and their effects on the nation
Ronald Reagan entered the White House in 1981 with strongly conservative values but experience in
moderate politics. He appealed to moderates and conservatives anxious about social change and the
seeming loss of American power and influence on the world stage. Leading the so-called Reagan
Revolution, he appealed to voters with the promise that the principles of conservatism could halt and
revert the social and economic changes of the last generation. Reagan won the White House by citing big
government and attempts at social reform as the problem, not the solution. He was able to capture the
political capital of an unsettled national mood and, in the process, helped set an agenda and policies that
would affect his successors and the political landscape of the nation.
REAGAN’S EARLY CAREER

Although many of his movie roles and the persona he created for himself seemed to represent traditional
values, Reagan’s rise to the presidency was an unusual transition from pop cultural significance to political
success. Born and raised in the Midwest, he moved to California in 1937 to become a Hollywood actor. He
also became a reserve officer in the U.S. Army that same year, but when the country entered World War
II, he was excluded from active duty overseas because of poor eyesight and spent the war in the army’s
First Motion Picture Unit. After the war, he resumed his film career; rose to leadership in the Screen Actors
Guild, a Hollywood union; and became a spokesman for General Electric and the host of a television
series that the company sponsored. As a young man, he identified politically as a liberal Democrat, but
his distaste for communism, along with the influence of the social conservative values of his second wife,
actress Nancy Davis, edged him closer to conservative Republicanism (Figure 31.3). By 1962, he had
Figure 31.2

formally switched political parties, and in 1964, he actively campaigned for the Republican presidential
nominee Barry Goldwater.
Figure 31.3 In 1961, when Congress began to explore nationwide health insurance for the elderly under Social
Security, Reagan made a recording for the American Medical Association in which he denounced the idea—which
was later adopted as Medicare—as “socialized medicine.” Such a program, Reagan warned his listeners, was the
first step to the nation’s demise as a free society.
Reagan launched his own political career in 1966 when he successfully ran for governor of California. His
opponent was the incumbent Pat Brown, a liberal Democrat who had already served two terms. Reagan,
quite undeservedly, blamed Brown for race riots in California and student protests at the University of
California at Berkeley. He criticized the Democratic incumbent’s increases in taxes and state government,
and denounced “big government” and the inequities of taxation in favor of free enterprise. As governor,
however, he quickly learned that federal and state laws prohibited the elimination of certain programs and
that many programs benefited his constituents. He ended up approving the largest budget in the state’s
history and approved tax increases on a number of occasions. The contrast between Reagan’s rhetoric and
practice made up his political skill: capturing the public mood and catering to it, but compromising when
necessary.
REPUBLICANS BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE

After two unsuccessful Republican primary bids in 1968 and 1976, Reagan won the presidency in 1980. His
victory was the result of a combination of dissatisfaction with the presidential leadership of Gerald Ford
and Jimmy Carter in the 1970s and the growth of the New Right. This group of conservative Americans
included many very wealthy financial supporters and emerged in the wake of the social reforms and
cultural changes of the 1960s and 1970s. Many were evangelical Christians, like those who joined Jerry
Falwell’s Moral Majority, and opposed the legalization of abortion, the feminist movement, and sex
education in public schools. Reagan also attracted people, often dubbed neoconservatives, who would
not previously have voted for the same candidate as conservative Protestants did. Many were middle-
and working-class people who resented the growth of federal and state governments, especially benefit
programs, and the subsequent increase in taxes during the late 1960s and 1970s. They favored the tax
revolts that swept the nation in the late 1970s under the leadership of predominantly older, white, middle-
class Americans, which had succeeded in imposing radical reductions in local property and state income
taxes.
Voter turnout reflected this new conservative swing, which not only swept Reagan into the White House
but created a Republican majority in the Senate. Only 52 percent of eligible voters went to the polls in 1980,
the lowest turnout for a presidential election since 1948. Those who did cast a ballot were older, whiter,
and wealthier than those who did not vote (Figure 31.4). Strong support among white voters, those over
forty-five years of age, and those with incomes over $50,000 proved crucial for Reagan’s victory.
Figure 31.4 Ronald Reagan campaigns for the presidency with his wife Nancy in South Carolina in 1980. Reagan
won in all the Deep South states except Georgia, although he did not come from the South and his opponent Jimmy
Carter did.
REAGANOMICS
Reagan’s primary goal upon taking office was to stimulate the sagging economy while simultaneously
cutting both government programs and taxes. His economic policies, called Reaganomics by the press,
were based on a theory called supply-side economics, about which many economists were skeptical.
Influenced by economist Arthur Laffer of the University of Southern California, Reagan cut income
taxes for those at the top of the economic ladder, which was supposed to motivate the rich to invest in
businesses, factories, and the stock market in anticipation of high returns. According to Laffer’s argument,
this would eventually translate into more jobs further down the socioeconomic ladder. Economic growth
would also increase the total tax revenue—even at a lower tax rate. In other words, proponents of “trickle-
down economics” promised to cut taxes and balance the budget at the same time. Reaganomics also
included the deregulation of industry and higher interest rates to control inflation, but these initiatives
preceded Reagan and were conceived in the Carter administration.
Many politicians, including Republicans, were wary of Reagan’s economic program; even his eventual vice
president, George H. W. Bush, had referred to it as “voodoo economics” when competing with him for the
Republican presidential nomination. When Reagan proposed a 30 percent cut in taxes to be phased in over
his first term in office, Congress balked. Opponents argued that the tax cuts would benefit the rich and not
the poor, who needed help the most. In response, Reagan presented his plan directly to the people (Figure
31.5).

Figure 31.5 Ronald Reagan outlines his plan for tax reduction legislation in July 1981. Data suggest that the supply-
side policies of the 1980s actually produced less investment, slightly slower growth, and a greater decline in wages
than the non–supply side policies of the 1990s.
Reagan was an articulate spokesman for his political perspectives and was able to garner support for his
policies. Often called “The Great Communicator,” he was noted for his ability, honed through years as
an actor and spokesperson, to convey a mixture of folksy wisdom, empathy, and concern while taking
humorous digs at his opponents. Indeed, listening to Reagan speak often felt like hearing a favorite
uncle recall stories about the “good old days” before big government, expensive social programs, and
greedy politicians destroyed the country (Figure 31.6). Americans found this rhetorical style extremely
compelling. Public support for the plan, combined with a surge in the president’s popularity after he
survived an assassination attempt in March 1981, swayed Congress, including many Democrats. On July
29, 1981, Congress passed the Economic Recovery Tax Act, which phased in a 25 percent overall reduction
in taxes over a period of three years.
Figure 31.6 President Ronald Reagan signs economic reform legislation at his ranch in California. Note the blue
jeans, denim jacket, and cowboy boots he wears.
MY STORY
Richard V. Allen on the Assassination Attempt on Ronald
Reagan
On March 30, 1981, just months into the Reagan presidency, John Hinckley, Jr. attempted to assassinate
the president as he left a speaking engagement at the Washington Hilton Hotel. Hinckley wounded
Reagan and three others in the attempt. Here, National Security Adviser Richard V. Allen recalls what
happened the day President Reagan was shot:
By 2:52 PM I arrived at the White House and went to [Chief of Staff James] Baker’s office . . .
and we placed a call to Vice President George H. W. Bush. . . .
[W]e sent a message with the few facts we knew: the bullets had been fired and press
secretary Jim Brady had been hit, as had a Secret Service agent and a DC policeman. At first,
the President was thought to be unscathed.
Jerry Parr, the Secret Service Detail Chief, shoved the President into the limousine,
codenamed “Stagecoach,” and slammed the doors shut. The driver sped off. Headed back to
the safety of the White House, Parr noticed that the red blood at the President’s mouth was
frothy, indicating an internal injury, and suddenly switched the route to the hospital. . . . Parr
saved the President’s life. He had lost a serious quantity of blood internally and reached [the
emergency room] just in time. . . .
Though the President never lost his sense of humor throughout, and had actually walked into
the hospital under his own power before his knees buckled, his condition became grave.
Why do you think Allen mentions the president’s sense of humor and his ability to walk into the hospital
on his own? Why might the assassination attempt have helped Reagan achieve some of his political
goals, such as getting his tax cuts through Congress?
Click and Explore
The largest of the presidential libraries, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15ReaganLib) contains Reagan’s most important
speeches and pictures of Ronald and Nancy Reagan.
Reagan was successful at cutting taxes, but he failed to reduce government spending. Although he had
long warned about the dangers of big government, he created a new cabinet-level agency, the Department
of Veterans Affairs, and the number of federal employees increased during his time in office. He allocated
a smaller share of the federal budget to antipoverty programs like Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC), food stamps, rent subsidies, job training programs, and Medicaid, but Social Security
and Medicare entitlements, from which his supporters benefited, were left largely untouched except for
an increase in payroll taxes to pay for them. Indeed, in 1983, Reagan agreed to a compromise with the
Democrats in Congress on a $165 billion injection of funds to save Social Security, which included this
payroll tax increase.
But Reagan seemed less flexible when it came to deregulating industry and weakening the power of labor
unions. Banks and savings and loan associations were deregulated. Pollution control was enforced less
strictly by the Environmental Protection Agency, and restrictions on logging and drilling for oil on public
lands were relaxed. Believing the free market was self-regulating, the Reagan administration had little

use for labor unions, and in 1981, the president fired twelve thousand federal air traffic controllers who
had gone on strike to secure better working conditions (which would also have improved the public’s
safety). His action effectively destroyed the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO)
and ushered in a new era of labor relations in which, following his example, employers simply replaced
striking workers. The weakening of unions contributed to the leveling off of real wages for the average
American family during the 1980s.
Reagan’s economic policymakers succeeded in breaking the cycle of stagflation that had been plaguing the
nation, but at significant cost. In its effort to curb high inflation with dramatically increased interest rates,
the Federal Reserve also triggered a deep recession. Inflation did drop, but borrowing became expensive
and consumers spent less. In Reagan’s first years in office, bankruptcies increased and unemployment
reached about 10 percent, its highest level since the Great Depression. Homelessness became a significant
problem in cities, a fact the president made light of by suggesting that the press exaggerated the problem
and that many homeless people chose to live on the streets. Economic growth resumed in 1983 and gross
domestic product grew at an average of 4.5 percent during the rest of his presidency. By the end of
Reagan’s second term in office, unemployment had dropped to about 5.3 percent, but the nation was
nearly $3 trillion in debt. An increase in defense spending coupled with $3.6 billion in tax relief for
the 162,000 American families with incomes of $200,000 or more made a balanced budget, one of the
president’s campaign promises in 1980, impossible to achieve.
The Reagan years were a complicated era of social, economic, and political change, with many trends
operating simultaneously and sometimes at cross-purposes. While many suffered, others prospered. The
1970s had been the era of the hippie, and Newsweek magazine declared 1984 to be the “year of the Yuppie.”
Yuppies, whose name derived from “(y)oung, (u)rban (p)rofessionals,” were akin to hippies in being
young people whose interests, values, and lifestyle influenced American culture, economy, and politics,
just as the hippies’ credo had done in the late 1960s and 1970s. Unlike hippies, however, yuppies were
materialistic and obsessed with image, comfort, and economic prosperity. Although liberal on some social
issues, economically they were conservative. Ironically, some yuppies were former hippies or yippies, like
Jerry Rubin, who gave up his crusade against “the establishment” to become a businessman.
Click and Explore
Read more about yuppie culture (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15YuppieCult) and

then use the table of contents to access other information about the culture of the
1980s.

• Discuss the culture wars and political conflicts of the Reagan era
• Describe the Religious Right’s response to the issues of the Reagan era
Ronald Reagan’s victory in 1980 suggested to conservatives that the days of liberalism were over and the
liberal establishment might be dismantled. Many looked forward to the discontinuation of policies like
affirmative action. Conservative Christians sought to outlaw abortion and stop the movement for gay and
lesbian rights. Republicans, and some moderate Democrats, demanded a return to “traditional” family
values, a rhetorical ploy to suggest that male authority over women and children constituted a natural
order that women’s rights and the New Left had subverted since the 1960s. As the conservative message
regarding the evils of government permeated society, distrust of the federal government grew, inspiring
some to form organizations and communities that sought complete freedom from government control.
CREATING CONSERVATIVE POLICY

Ronald Reagan’s popularity and effectiveness as a leader drew from his reputation as a man who fought
for what he believed in. He was a very articulate spokesperson for a variety of political ideas based on
conservative principles and perspectives. Much of the intellectual meat of the Reagan Revolution came
from conservative think tanks (policy or advocacy groups) that specifically sought to shape American
political and social dialogues. The Heritage Foundation, one such group, soon became the intellectual arm
of the conservative movement.
Launched in 1973 with a $250,000 contribution from Joseph Coors (of Coors Brewing Company) and
support from a variety of corporations and conservative foundations, the Heritage Foundation sought
to counteract what conservatives believed to be Richard Nixon’s acceptance of a liberal consensus on
too many issues. In producing its policy position papers and political recommendations to conservative
candidates and politicians, it helped contribute to a sanitization of U.S. history and a nostalgic glorification
of what it deemed to be traditional values, seemingly threatened by the expansion of political and personal
freedoms. The foundation had lent considerable support and encouragement to the conservative dialogues
that helped carry Ronald Reagan into office in 1980. Just a year later, it produced a document entitled
Mandate for Leadership that catalogued some two thousand specific recommendations on how to shrink
the size and reach of the federal government and implement a more consistent conservative agenda. The
newly elected Reagan administration looked favorably on the recommendations and recruited several of
the paper’s authors to serve in the White House.
CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS AND FAMILY VALUES

Among the strongest supporters of Ronald Reagan’s campaign for president were members of the
Religious Right, including Christian groups like the Moral Majority, 61 percent of whom voted for him. By
1980, evangelical Christians had become an important political and social force in the United States (Figure
31.7). Some thirteen hundred radio stations in the country were owned and operated by evangelicals.
Christian television programs, such as Pat Robertson’s The 700 Club and Jim Bakker’s The PTL (Praise
the Lord) Club, proved enormously popular and raised millions of dollars from viewer contributions.
For some, evangelism was a business, but most conservative Christians were true believers who were
convinced that premarital and extramarital sex, abortion, drug use, homosexuality, and “irreligious” forms
of popular and high culture were responsible for a perceived decline in traditional family values that
threatened American society.

Figure 31.7 This fundraising card was used by Anita Bryant, singer and beauty pageant winner, to gather support
for Save Our Children Inc., a political coalition she formed in the late 1970s to overturn a Florida ordinance banning
discrimination based on sexual orientation. Many of the group’s strategies were soon embraced by the Moral Majority.
Despite the support he received from Christian conservative and family values voters, Reagan was hardly
an ideologue when it came to policy. Indeed, he was often quite careful in using hot button, family-value
issues to his greatest political advantage. For example, as governor of California, one of the states that
ratified the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in its first year, he positioned himself as a supporter of the
amendment. When he launched his bid for the Republican nomination in 1976, however, he withdrew his
support to gain the backing of more conservative members of his party. This move demonstrated both
political savvy and foresight. At the time he withdrew his support, the Republican National Convention
was still officially backing the amendment. However, in 1980, the party began to qualify its stance, which
dovetailed with Reagan’s candidacy for the White House.
Reagan believed the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was sufficient protection for women
against discrimination. Once in office, he took a mostly neutral position, neither supporting nor working
against the ERA. Nor did this middle position appear to hurt him at the polls; he attracted a significant
number of votes from women in 1980, and in 1984, he polled 56 percent of the women’s vote compared to
44 percent for the Democratic ticket of Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro, the first female candidate
for vice president from a major party.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Phyllis Schlafly and the STOP ERA Movement
In 1972, after a large number of states jumped to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, most observers
believed its ultimate ratification by all the necessary states was all but certain. But, a decade later, the
amendment died without ever getting the necessary votes. There are many reasons it went down in
defeat, but a major one was Phyllis Schlafly.
On the surface, Schlafly’s life might suggest that she would naturally support the ERA. After all, she was
a well-educated, professional woman who sought advancement in her field and even aspired to high
political office. Yet she is a fascinating historical character, precisely because her life and goals don’t
conform to expected norms.
Schlafly’s attack on the ERA was ingenious in its method and effectiveness. Rather than attacking the
amendment directly as a gateway to unrestrained and immoral behavior as some had, she couched her
opposition in language that was sensitive to both privilege and class. Her instrument was the STOP
ERA movement, with the acronym STOP, standing for “Stop Taking our Privileges.” Schlafly argued that
women enjoyed special privileges such as gender-specific restrooms and exemption from the military
draft. These, she claimed, would be lost should the ERA be ratified. But she also claimed to stand up for
the dignity of being a homemaker and lambasted the feminist movement as elitist. In this, she was keenly
aware of the power of class interests. Her organization suggested that privileged women could afford to
support the ERA. Working women and poor housewives, however, would ultimately bear the brunt of the
loss of protection it would bring. In the end, her tactics were successful in achieving exactly what the
movement’s name suggested; she stopped the ERA.
Reagan’s political calculations notwithstanding, his belief that traditional values were threatened by a
modern wave of immoral popular culture was genuine. He recognized that nostalgia was a powerful
force in politics, and he drew a picture for his audiences of the traditional good old days under attack by
immorality and decline. “Those of us who are over thirty-five or so years of age grew up in a different
America,” he explained in his farewell address. “We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an
American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. .
. . The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special.”
But this America, he insisted, was being washed away. “I’m warning of an eradication of the American
memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit.”
Concern over a decline in the country’s moral values welled up on both sides of the political aisle. In 1985,
anxiety over the messages of the music industry led to the founding of the Parents Music Resource Center
(PMRC), a bipartisan group formed by the wives of prominent Washington politicians including Susan
Baker, the wife of Reagan’s treasury secretary, James Baker, and Tipper Gore, the wife of then-senator Al
Gore, who later became vice president under Bill Clinton. The goal of the PMRC was to limit the ability
of children to listen to music with sexual or violent content. Its strategy was to get the recording industry
to adopt a voluntary rating system for music and recordings, similar to the Motion Picture Association of
America’s system for movies.
The organization also produced a list of particularly offensive recordings known as the “filthy fifteen.”
By August 1985, nearly twenty record companies had agreed to put labels on their recordings indicating
“explicit lyrics,” but the Senate began hearings on the issue in September (Figure 31.8). While many
parents and a number of witnesses advocated the labels, many in the music industry rejected them as
censorship. Twisted Sister’s Dee Snider and folk musician John Denver both advised Congress against the
restrictions. In the end, the recording industry suggested a voluntary generic label. Its effect on children’s
exposure to raw language is uncertain, but musicians roundly mocked the effort.

Figure 31.8 Tipper Gore, wife of then-senator (and later vice president) Al Gore, at the 1985 Senate hearings into
rating labels proposed by the PMRC, of which she was a cofounder.
Click and Explore
Listen to the testimony of Dee Snider (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15DeeSnider)

and John Denver (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15JohnDenver) to learn more about
the contours of this debate.
THE AIDS CRISIS

In the early 1980s, doctors noticed a disturbing trend: Young gay men in large cities, especially San
Francisco and New York, were being diagnosed with, and eventually dying from, a rare cancer called
Kaposi’s sarcoma. Because the disease was seen almost exclusively in male homosexuals, it was quickly
dubbed “gay cancer.” Doctors soon realized it often coincided with other symptoms, including a rare form
of pneumonia, and they renamed it “Gay Related Immune Deficiency” (GRID), although people other than
gay men, primarily intravenous drug users, were dying from the disease as well. The connection between
gay men and GRID—later renamed human immunodeficiency virus/autoimmune deficiency syndrome,
or HIV/AIDS—led heterosexuals largely to ignore the growing health crisis in the gay community,
wrongly assuming they were safe from its effects. The federal government also overlooked the disease,
and calls for more money to research and find the cure were ignored.
Even after it became apparent that heterosexuals could contract the disease through blood transfusions
and heterosexual intercourse, HIV/AIDS continued to be associated primarily with the gay community,
especially by political and religious conservatives. Indeed, the Religious Right regarded it as a form
of divine retribution meant to punish gay men for their “immoral” lifestyle. President Reagan, always
politically careful, was reluctant to speak openly about the developing crisis even as thousands faced
certain death from the disease.
With little help coming from the government, the gay community quickly began to organize its own
response. In 1982, New York City men formed the Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC), a volunteer
organization that operated an information hotline, provided counseling and legal assistance, and raised
money for people with HIV/AIDS. Larry Kramer, one of the original members, left in 1983 and formed his
own organization, the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP), in 1987. ACT UP took a more militant
approach, holding demonstrations on Wall Street, outside the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
and inside the New York Stock Exchange to call attention and shame the government into action. One of
the images adopted by the group, a pink triangle paired with the phrase “Silence = Death,” captured media
attention and quickly became the symbol of the AIDS crisis (Figure 31.9).
Figure 31.9 The pink triangle was originally used in Nazi concentration camps to identify those there for acts of
homosexuality. Reclaimed by gay activists in New York as a symbol of resistance and solidarity during the 1970s, it
was further transformed as a symbol of governmental inaction in the face of the AIDS epidemic during the 1980s.
THE WAR ON DRUGS AND THE ROAD TO MASS INCARCERATION

As Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, violent crime in the United States was reaching an all-time high.
While there were different reasons for the spike, the most important one was demographics: The primary
category of offenders, males between the ages of sixteen and thirty-six, reached an all-time peak as the
baby-boomer generation came of age. But the phenomenon that most politicians honed in on as a cause for
violent crime was the abuse of a new, cheap drug dealt illegally on city streets. Crack cocaine, a smokable
type of cocaine popular with poorer addicts, was hitting the streets in the 1980s, frightening middle-class
Americans. Reagan and other conservatives led a campaign to “get tough on crime” and promised the
nation a “war on drugs.” Initiatives like the “Just Say No” campaign led by First Lady Nancy Reagan
implied that drug addiction and drug-related crime reflected personal morality.
Nixon had first used the term in 1971, but in the 1980s the “war on drugs” took on an ominous dimension,
as politicians scrambled over each other to enact harsher sentences for drug offenses so they could market
themselves as tough on crime. State after state switched from variable to mandatory minimum sentences
that were exceedingly long and particularly harsh for street drug crimes. The federal government
supported the trend with federal sentencing guidelines and additional funds for local law enforcement
agencies. This law-and-order movement peaked in the 1990s, when California introduced a “three strikes”
law that mandated life imprisonment without parole for any third felony conviction—even nonviolent
ones. As a result, prisons became crowded, and states went deep into debt to build more. By the end
of the century, the war began to die down as the public lost interest in the problem, the costs of the
punishment binge became politically burdensome, and scholars and politicians began to advocate the
decriminalization of drug use. By this time, however, hundreds of thousands of people had been
incarcerated for drug offenses and the total number of prisoners in the nation had grown four-fold in
the last quarter of the century. Particularly glaring were the racial inequities of the new age of mass
incarceration, with African Americans being seven times more likely to be in prison (Figure 31.10).

Figure 31.10 This graph of the number of people in jail, prison, and juvenile detention by decade in the United
States shows the huge increase in incarceration during the war on drugs that began in the 1980s, during the Reagan
administration. (Prisons are long-term state or federal facilities; jails are local, short-term facilities.)

• Describe the successes and failures of Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy
• Compare the policies of Ronald Reagan with those of George H. W. Bush
• Explain the causes and results of the Persian Gulf War
• Discuss the events that constituted the end of the Cold War
In addition to reviving the economy and reducing the size of the federal government, Ronald Reagan
also wished to restore American stature in the world. He entered the White House a “cold warrior”
and referred to the Soviet Union in a 1983 speech as an “evil empire.” Dedicated to upholding even
authoritarian governments in foreign countries to keep them safe from Soviet influence, he was also
desperate to put to rest Vietnam Syndrome, the reluctance to use military force in foreign countries for
fear of embarrassing defeat, which had influenced U.S. foreign policy since the mid-1970s.
THE MIDDLE EAST AND CENTRAL AMERICA

Reagan’s desire to demonstrate U.S. readiness to use military force abroad sometimes had tragic
consequences. In 1983, he sent soldiers to Lebanon as part of a multinational force trying to restore order
following an Israeli invasion the year before. On October 23, more than two hundred troops were killed in
a barracks bombing in Beirut carried out by Iranian-trained militants known as Hezbollah (Figure 31.11).
In February 1984, Reagan announced that, given intensified fighting, U.S. troops were being withdrawn.
Figure 31.11 The suicide bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut (a) on April 18, 1983, marked the first of a number
of attacks on U.S. targets in the region. Less than six months later, a truck bomb leveled the U.S. Marine barracks at
the Beirut airport (b), part of a coordinated attack that killed 299 U.S and French members of the multinational
peacekeeping force in Lebanon.
Two days after the bombing in Beirut, Reagan and Secretary of State George P. Shultz authorized the
invasion of Grenada, a small Caribbean island nation, in an attempt to oust a Communist military junta
that had overthrown a moderate regime. Communist Cuba already had troops and technical aid workers
stationed on the island and were willing to defend the new regime, but the United States swiftly took
command of the situation, and the Cuban soldiers surrendered after two days.
Reagan’s intervention in Grenada was intended to send a message to Marxists in Central America.
Meanwhile, however, decades of political repression and economic corruption by certain Latin American
governments, sometimes generously supported by U.S. foreign aid, had sown deep seeds of revolutionary
discontent. In El Salvador, a 1979 civil-military coup had put a military junta in power that was engaged in
a civil war against left-leaning guerillas when Reagan took office. His administration supported the right-
wing government, which used death squads to silence dissent.
Neighboring Nicaragua was also governed by a largely Marxist-inspired group, the Sandinistas. This
organization, led by Daniel Ortega, had overthrown the brutal, right-wing dictatorship of Anastasio
Somoza in 1979. Reagan, however, overlooked the legitimate complaints of the Sandinistas and believed
that their rule opened the region to Cuban and Soviet influence. A year into his presidency, convinced it
was folly to allow the expansion of Soviet and Communist influence in Latin America, he authorized the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to equip and train a group of anti-Sandinista Nicaraguans known as the
Contras (contrarevolucionários or “counter-revolutionaries”) to oust Ortega.
Reagan’s desire to aid the Contras even after Congress ended its support led him, surprisingly, to Iran.
In September 1980, Iraq had invaded neighboring Iran and, by 1982, had begun to gain the upper hand.
The Iraqis needed weapons, and the Reagan administration, wishing to assist the enemy of its enemy, had
agreed to provide Iraqi president Saddam Hussein with money, arms, and military intelligence. In 1983,
however, the capture of Americans by Hezbollah forces in Lebanon changed the president’s plans. In 1985,
he authorized the sale of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Iran in exchange for help retrieving three of
the American hostages.
A year later, Reagan’s National Security Council aide, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, found a way to
sell weapons to Iran and secretly use the proceeds to support the Nicaraguan Contras—in direct violation
of a congressional ban on military aid to the anti-Communist guerillas in that Central American nation.
Eventually the Senate became aware, and North and others were indicted on various charges, which were
all dismissed, overturned on appeal, or granted presidential pardon. Reagan, known for delegating much
authority to subordinates and unable to “remember” crucial facts and meetings, escaped the scandal with
nothing more than criticism for his lax oversight. The nation was divided over the extent to which the
president could go to “protect national interests,” and the limits of Congress’s constitutional authority to
oversee the activities of the executive branch have yet to be resolved.

Click and Explore
Visit the Brown University site (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15IranContra) to learn

more about the Iran-Contra congressional hearings. Read transcripts of the testimony
and watch the video of President Reagan’s address to the nation regarding the
operation.
THE COLD WAR WAXES AND WANES

While trying to shrink the federal budget and the size of government sphere at home, Reagan led an
unprecedented military buildup in which money flowed to the Pentagon to pay for expensive new forms
of weaponry. The press drew attention to the inefficiency of the nation’s military industrial complex,
offering as examples expense bills that included $640 toilet seats and $7,400 coffee machines. One of the
most controversial aspects of Reagan’s plan was the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which he proposed
in 1983. SDI, or “Star Wars,” called for the development of a defensive shield to protect the United States
from a Soviet missile strike. Scientists argued that much of the needed technology had not yet been
developed and might never be. Others contended that the plan would violate existing treaties with the
Soviet Union and worried about the Soviet response. The system was never built, and the plan, estimated
to have cost some $7.5 billion, was finally abandoned.
Anticipating his reelection campaign in 1984, Reagan began to moderate his position toward the Soviet
Union, largely at the initiative of his new counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev. The new and comparatively
young Soviet premier did not want to commit additional funds for another arms race, especially since
the war in Afghanistan against mujahedeen—Islamic guerilla fighters—had depleted the Soviet Union’s
resources severely since its invasion of the central Asian nation in 1979. Gorbachev recognized that
economic despair at home could easily result in larger political upheavals like those in neighboring Poland,
where the Solidarity movement had taken hold. He withdrew troops from Afghanistan, introduced
political reforms and new civil liberties at home—known as perestroika and glasnost—and proposed arms
reduction talks with the United States. In 1985, Gorbachev and Reagan met in Geneva to reduce armaments
and shrink their respective military budgets. The following year, meeting in Reykjavík, Iceland, they
surprised the world by announcing that they would try to eliminate nuclear weapons by 1996. In 1987,
they agreed to eliminate a whole category of nuclear weapons when they signed the Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty at the White House (Figure 31.12). This laid the foundation for future
agreements limiting nuclear weapons.
Figure 31.12 In the East Room of the White House, President Reagan and Soviet general secretary Mikhail
Gorbachev sign the 1987 INF Treaty, eliminating one category of nuclear weapons.
Click and Explore
You can view President Reagan delivering one of his most memorable addresses
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15BerlinWall) in 1987. Standing in front of the
Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin, he called on General Secretary Gorbachev to “tear
down this wall.”
“NO NEW TAXES”

Confident they could win back the White House, Democrats mounted a campaign focused on more
effective and competent government under the leadership of Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis.
When George H. W. Bush, Reagan’s vice president and Republican nominee, found himself down in the
polls, political advisor Lee Atwater launched an aggressively negative media campaign, accusing Dukakis
of being soft on crime and connecting his liberal policies to a brutal murder in Massachusetts. More
importantly, Bush adopted a largely Reaganesque style on matters of economic policy, promising to shrink
government and keep taxes low. These tactics were successful, and the Republican Party retained the
White House.
Although he promised to carry on Reagan’s economic legacy, the problems Bush inherited made it difficult
to do so. Reagan’s policies of cutting taxes and increasing defense spending had exploded the federal
budget deficit, making it three times larger in 1989 than when Reagan took office in 1980. Bush was further
constrained by the emphatic pledge he had made at the 1988 Republican Convention—“read my lips: no
new taxes”—and found himself in the difficult position of trying to balance the budget and reduce the
deficit without breaking his promise. However, he also faced a Congress controlled by the Democrats,
who wanted to raise taxes on the rich, while Republicans thought the government should drastically
cut domestic spending. In October, after a brief government shutdown when Bush vetoed the budget
Congress delivered, he and Congress reached a compromise with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1990. The budget included measures to reduce the deficit by both cutting government expenditures
and raising taxes, effectively reneging on the “no new taxes” pledge. These economic constraints are one
reason why Bush supported a limited domestic agenda of education reform and antidrug efforts, relying

on private volunteers and community organizations, which he referred to as “a thousand points of light,”
to address most social problems.
When it came to foreign affairs, Bush’s attitude towards the Soviet Union differed little from Reagan’s.
Bush sought to ease tensions with America’s rival superpower and stressed the need for peace and
cooperation. The desire to avoid angering the Soviets led him to adopt a hands-off approach when, at the
beginning of his term, a series of pro-democracy demonstrations broke out across the Communist Eastern
Bloc.
In November 1989, the world—including foreign policy experts and espionage agencies from both sides
of the Iron Curtain—watched in surprise as peaceful protesters in East Germany marched through
checkpoints at the Berlin Wall. Within hours, people from both East and West Berlin flooded the
checkpoints and began tearing down large chunks of the wall. Months of earlier demonstrations in East
Germany had called on the government to allow citizens to leave the country. These demonstrations
were one manifestation of a larger movement sweeping across East Germany, Poland, Hungary,
Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania, which swiftly led to revolutions, most of them peaceful, resulting
in the collapse of Communist governments in Central and Eastern Europe.
In Budapest in 1956 and in Prague in 1968, the Soviet Union had restored order through a large show of
force. That this didn’t happen in 1989 was an indication to all that the Soviet Union was itself collapsing.
Bush’s refusal to gloat or declare victory helped him maintain the relationship with Gorbachev that
Reagan had established. In July 1991, Gorbachev and Bush signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty,
or START, which committed their countries to reducing their nuclear arsenals by 25 percent. A month
later, attempting to stop the changes begun by Gorbachev’s reforms, Communist Party hardliners tried to
remove him from power. Protests arose throughout the Soviet Union, and by December 1991, the nation
had collapsed. In January 1992, twelve former Soviet republics formed the Commonwealth of Independent
States to coordinate trade and security measures. The Cold War was over.
AMERICAN GLOBAL POWER IN THE WAKE OF THE COLD WAR

The dust had barely settled on the crumbling Berlin Wall when the Bush administration announced a bold
military intervention in Panama in December 1989. Claiming to act on behalf of human rights, U.S. troops
deposed the unpopular dictator and drug smuggler Manuel Noriega swiftly, but former CIA connections
between President Bush and Noriega, as well as U.S. interests in maintaining control of the Canal Zone,
prompted the United Nations and world public opinion to denounce the invasion as a power grab.
As the Soviet Union was ceasing to be a threat, the Middle East became a source of increased concern.
In the wake of its eight-year war with Iran from 1980 to 1988, Iraq had accumulated a significant amount
of foreign debt. At the same time, other Arab states had increased their oil production, forcing oil prices
down and further hurting Iraq’s economy. Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, approached these oil-producing
states for assistance, particularly Saudi Arabia and neighboring Kuwait, which Iraq felt directly benefited
from its war with Iran. When talks with these countries broke down, and Iraq found itself politically and
economically isolated, Hussein ordered the invasion of oil-rich Kuwait in August 1990. Bush faced his first
full-scale international crisis.
In response to the invasion, Bush and his foreign policy team forged an unprecedented international
coalition of thirty-four countries, including many members of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)
and the Middle Eastern countries of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Egypt, to oppose Iraqi aggression. Bush
hoped that this coalition would herald the beginning of a “new world order” in which the nations of
the world would work together to deter belligerence. A deadline was set for Iraq to withdraw from
Kuwait by January 15, or face serious consequences. Wary of not having sufficient domestic support for
combat, Bush first deployed troops to the area to build up forces in the region and defend Saudi Arabia
via Operation Desert Shield (Figure 31.13). On January 14, Bush succeeded in getting resolutions from
Congress authorizing the use of military force against Iraq, and the U.S. then orchestrated an effective air
campaign, followed by Operation Desert Storm, a one-hundred-hour land war involving over 500,000
U.S. troops and another 200,000 from twenty-seven other countries, which expelled Iraqi forces from
Kuwait by the end of February.
Figure 31.13 George H. W. Bush greets U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia on Thanksgiving Day in 1990. The
first troops were deployed there in August 1990, as part of Operation Desert Shield, which was intended to build U.S.
military strength in the area in preparation for an eventual military operation.
Click and Explore
Visit the Frontline site to read first-person accounts of U.S. soldiers’ experiences
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15GulfWar) in Operation Desert Storm and view
weapons used in battle.
Some controversy arose among Bush’s advisors regarding whether to end the war without removing
Saddam Hussein from power, but General Colin Powell, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argued that to
continue to attack a defeated army would be “un-American.” Bush agreed and troops began moving out of
the area in March 1991. Although Hussein was not removed from power, the war nevertheless suggested
that the United States no longer suffered from “Vietnam Syndrome” and would deploy massive military
resources if and when it thought necessary. In April 1991, United Nations (UN) Resolution 687 set the
terms of the peace, with long-term implications. Its concluding paragraph authorizing the UN to take such
steps as necessary to maintain the peace was later taken as the legal justification for the further use of force,
as in 1996 and 1998, when Iraq was again bombed. It was also referenced in the lead-up to the second
invasion of Iraq in 2003, when it appeared that Iraq was refusing to comply with other UN resolutions.
A CHANGING DOMESTIC LANDSCAPE

By nearly every measure, Operation Desert Storm was a resounding success. Through deft diplomatic
efforts on the international stage, Bush had ensured that many around the world saw the action as
legitimate. By making the goals of the military action both clear and limited, he also reassured an American
public still skeptical of foreign entanglements. With the Soviet Union vanishing from the world stage, and
the United States demonstrating the extent of its diplomatic influence and military potency with President
Bush at the helm, his reelection seemed all but inevitable. Indeed, in March 1991, the president had an
approval rating of 89 percent.

Despite Bush’s successes internationally, the domestic situation at home was far more complicated. Unlike
Reagan, Bush was not a natural culture warrior. Rather, he was a moderate, Connecticut-born
Episcopalian, a pragmatic politician, and a life-long civil servant. He was not adept at catering to post-
Reagan conservatives as his predecessor had been. By the same token, he appeared incapable of
capitalizing on his history of moderation and pragmatism regarding women’s rights and access to
abortion. Together with a Democratic Senate, Bush broke new ground in civil rights with his support of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, a far-reaching law that prohibited discrimination based on disability
in public accommodations and by employers.
President Bush’s weaknesses as a culture warrior were on full display during the controversy that erupted
following his nomination of a new Supreme Court judge. In 1991, Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first
African American ever to sit on the Supreme Court, opted to retire, thus opening a position on the court.
Thinking he was doing the prudent thing by appealing to multiple interests, Bush nominated Clarence
Thomas, another African American but also a strong social conservative. The decision to nominate
Thomas, however, proved to be anything but prudent. During Thomas’ confirmation hearings before the
Senate Judiciary Committee, Anita Hill, a lawyer who had worked for Thomas when he was chairman
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), came forward with allegations that he had
sexually harassed her when he was her supervisor. Thomas denied the accusations and referred to the
televised hearings as a “high tech lynching.” He survived the controversy and was appointed to the
Supreme Court by a narrow Senate vote of fifty-two to forty-eight. Hill, also African American, noted later
in frustration: “I had a gender, he had a race.” In the aftermath, however, sexual harassment of women in
the workplace gained public attention, and harassment complaints made to the EEOC increased 50 percent
by the fall of 1992. The controversy also reflected poorly on President Bush and may have hurt him with
female voters in 1992.

• Explain political partisanship, antigovernment movements, and economic
developments during the Clinton administration
• Discuss President Clinton’s foreign policy
• Explain how George W. Bush won the election of 2000
By 1992, many had come to doubt that President George H. W. Bush could solve America’s problems. He
had alienated conservative Republicans by breaking his pledge not to raise taxes, and some faulted him
for failing to remove Saddam Hussein from power during Operation Desert Storm. Furthermore, despite
living much of his adult life in Texas, he could not overcome the stereotypes associated with his privileged
New England and Ivy League background, which hurt him among working-class Reagan Democrats.
THE ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE

The contrast between George H. W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton could not have been greater. Bill
Clinton was a baby boomer born in 1946 in Hope, Arkansas. His biological father died in a car wreck three
months before he was born. When he was a boy, his mother married Roger Clinton, an alcoholic who
abused his family. However, despite a troubled home life, Clinton was an excellent student. He took an
interest in politics from an early age. On a high school trip to Washington, DC, he met his political idol,
President John F. Kennedy. As a student at Georgetown University, he supported both the civil rights and
antiwar movements and ran for student council president (Figure 31.14).
Figure 31.14 During his 1967 campaign for student council president at Georgetown University, Bill Clinton told
those who voted for him that he would invite them to the White House when he became president of the United
States. He kept his promise.
In 1968, Clinton received a prestigious Rhodes scholarship to Oxford University. From Oxford he moved
on to Yale, where he earned his law degree in 1973. He returned to Arkansas and became a professor at
the University of Arkansas’s law school. The following year, he tried his hand at state politics, running for
Congress, and was narrowly defeated. In 1977, he became attorney general of Arkansas and was elected
governor in 1978. Losing the office to his Republican opponent in 1980, he retook the governor’s mansion
in 1982 and remained governor of Arkansas until 1992, when he announced his candidacy for president.
During his campaign, Bill Clinton described himself as a New Democrat, a member of a faction of the
Democratic Party that, like the Republicans, favored free trade and deregulation. He tried to appeal to the
middle class by promising higher taxes on the rich and reform of the welfare system. Although Clinton
garnered only 43 percent of the popular vote, he easily won in the Electoral College with 370 votes to
President Bush’s 188. Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote, the best showing
by any third-party candidate since 1912. The Democrats took control of both houses of Congress.
“IT’S THE ECONOMY, STUPID”

Clinton took office towards the end of a recession. His administration’s plans for fixing the economy
included limiting spending and cutting the budget to reduce the nation’s $60 billion deficit, keeping
interest rates low to encourage private investment, and eliminating protectionist tariffs. Clinton also hoped
to improve employment opportunities by allocating more money for education. In his first term, he
expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, which lowered the tax obligations of working families who were
just above the poverty line. Addressing the budget deficit, the Democrats in Congress passed the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 without a single Republican vote. The act raised taxes for the top 1.2
percent of the American people, lowered them for fifteen million low-income families, and offered tax
breaks to 90 percent of small businesses.
Clinton also strongly supported ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a
treaty that eliminated tariffs and trade restrictions among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The
treaty had been negotiated by the Bush administration, and the leaders of all three nations had signed
it in December 1992. However, because of strong opposition from American labor unions and some in
Congress who feared the loss of jobs to Mexico, the treaty had not been ratified by the time Clinton took
office. To allay the concerns of unions, he added an agreement to protect workers and also one to protect

the environment. Congress ratified NAFTA late in 1993. The result was the creation of the world’s largest
common market in terms of population, including some 425 million people.
During Clinton’s administration, the nation began to experience the longest period of economic expansion
in its history, almost ten consecutive years. Year after year, job growth increased and the deficit shrank.
Increased tax revenue and budget cuts turned the annual national budget deficit from close to $290 billion
in 1992 to a record budget surplus of over $230 billion in 2000. Reduced government borrowing freed
up capital for private-sector use, and lower interest rates in turn fueled more growth. During the Clinton
years, more people owned homes than ever before in the country’s history (67.7 percent). Inflation dipped
to 2.3 percent and the unemployment rate declined, reaching a thirty-year low of 3.9 percent in 2000.
Much of the prosperity of the 1990s was related to technological change and the advent of new information
systems. In 1994, the Clinton administration became the first to launch an official White House website
and join the revolution of the electronically mediated world. By the 1990s, a new world of instantaneous
global exposure was at the fingertips of billions worldwide.
AMERICANA
Hope and Anxiety in the Information Age
While the roots of innovations like personal computers and the Internet go back to the 1960s and massive
Department of Defense spending, it was in the 1980s and 90s that these technologies became part of
everyday life. Like most technology-driven periods of transformation, the information age was greeted
with a mixture of hope and anxiety upon its arrival.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, computer manufacturers like Apple, Commodore, and Tandy began
offering fully assembled personal computers. (Previously, personal computing had been accessible only
to those adventurous enough to buy expensive kits that had to be assembled and programmed.) In short
order, computers became a fairly common sight in businesses and upper-middle-class homes (Figure
31.15). Soon, computer owners, even young kids, were launching their own electronic bulletin board
systems, small-scale networks that used modems and phone lines, and sharing information in ways not
dreamed of just decades before. Computers, it seemed, held out the promise of a bright, new future for
those who knew how to use them.
Figure 31.15 This ad for the Apple II appeared in Byte magazine in 1977.
Casting shadows over the bright dreams of a better tomorrow were fears that the development of
computer technology would create a dystopian future in which technology became the instrument of
society’s undoing. Film audiences watched a teenaged Matthew Broderick hacking into a government
computer and starting a nuclear war in War Games, Angelina Jolie being chased by a computer genius
bent on world domination in Hackers, and Sandra Bullock watching helplessly as her life is turned inside
out by conspirators who manipulate her virtual identity in The Net. Clearly, the idea of digital network
connections as the root of our demise resonated in this period of rapid technological change.
DOMESTIC ISSUES
In addition to shifting the Democratic Party to the moderate center on economic issues, Clinton tried to
break new ground on a number of domestic issues and make good on traditional Democratic commitments
to the disadvantaged, minority groups, and women. At the same time, he faced the challenge of domestic
terrorism when a federal building in Oklahoma City was bombed, killing 168 people and injuring
hundreds more.

Healthcare Reform
An important and popular part of Clinton’s domestic agenda was healthcare reform that would make
universal healthcare a reality. When the plan was announced in September of the president’s first year
in office, pollsters and commentators both assumed it would sail through. Many were unhappy with
the way the system worked in the United States, where the cost of health insurance seemed increasingly
unaffordable for the middle class. Clinton appointed his wife, Hillary Clinton, a Yale Law School graduate
and accomplished attorney, to head his Task Force on National Health Care Reform in 1993. The
1,342-page Health Security Act presented to Congress that year sought to offer universal coverage (Figure
31.16). All Americans were to be covered by a healthcare plan that could not reject them based on pre-
existing medical conditions. Employers would be required to provide healthcare for their employees.
Limits would be placed on the amount that people would have to pay for services; the poor would not
have to pay at all.
Figure 31.16 C. Everett Koop, who had served as surgeon general under Ronald Reagan and was a strong
advocate of healthcare reform, helped First Lady Hillary Clinton promote the Health Security Act in the fall of 1993.
The outlook for the plan looked good in 1993; it had the support of a number of institutions like the
American Medical Association and the Health Insurance Association of America. But in relatively short
order, the political winds changed. As budget battles distracted the administration and the midterm
elections of 1994 approached, Republicans began to recognize the strategic benefits of opposing reform.
Soon they were mounting fierce opposition to the bill. Moderate conservatives dubbed the reform
proposals “Hillarycare” and argued that the bill was an unwarranted expansion of the powers of the
federal government that would interfere with people’s ability to choose the healthcare provider they
wanted. Those further to the right argued that healthcare reform was part of a larger and nefarious plot to
control the public.
To rally Republican opposition to Clinton and the Democrats, Newt Gingrich and Richard “Dick” Armey,
two of the leaders of the Republican minority in the House of Representatives, prepared a document
entitled Contract with America, signed by all but two of the Republican representatives. It listed eight
specific legislative reforms or initiatives the Republicans would enact if they gained a majority in Congress
in the 1994 midterm elections.
Click and Explore
View the Contract with America (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15ContractAm) that

the Republican Party drafted to continue the conservative shift begun by Ronald
Reagan, which promised to cut waste and spend taxpayer money responsibly.
Lacking support on both sides, the healthcare bill was never passed and died in Congress. The reform
effort finally ended in September 1994. Dislike of the proposed healthcare plan on the part of conservatives
and the bold strategy laid out in the Contract with America enabled the Republican Party to win seven
Senate seats and fifty-two House seats in the November elections. The Republicans then used their power
to push for conservative reforms. One such piece of legislation was the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act, signed into law in August 1996. The act set time limits on welfare benefits
and required most recipients to begin working within two years of receiving assistance.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Although Clinton had campaigned as an economically conservative New Democrat, he was thought to
be socially liberal and, just days after his victory in the 1992 election, he promised to end the fifty-year
ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military. However, in January 1993, after taking the oath of office,
Clinton amended his promise in order to appease conservatives. Instead of lifting the longstanding ban,
the armed forces would adopt a policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Those on active duty would not be asked
their sexual orientation and, if they were gay, they were not to discuss their sexuality openly or they would
be dismissed from military service. This compromise satisfied neither conservatives seeking the exclusion
of gays nor the gay community, which argued that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, should be able to live
without fear of retribution because of their sexuality.
Clinton again proved himself willing to appease political conservatives when he signed into law the
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in September 1996, after both houses of Congress had passed it with
such wide margins that a presidential veto could easily be overridden. DOMA defined marriage as a
heterosexual union and denied federal benefits to same-sex couples. It also allowed states to refuse to
recognize same-sex marriages granted by other states. When Clinton signed the bill, he was personally
opposed to same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, he disliked DOMA and later called for its repeal. He also
later changed his position on same-sex marriage. On other social issues, however, Clinton was more
liberal. He appointed openly gay and lesbian men and women to important positions in government and
denounced discrimination against people with AIDS. He supported the idea of the ERA and believed that
women should receive pay equal to that of men doing the same work. He opposed the use of racial quotas
in employment, but he declared affirmative action programs to be necessary.
As a result of his economic successes and his moderate social policies, Clinton defeated Senator Robert
Dole in the 1996 presidential election. With 49 percent of the popular vote and 379 electoral votes, he
became the first Democrat to win reelection to the presidency since Franklin Roosevelt. Clinton’s victory
was partly due to a significant gender gap between the parties, with women tending to favor Democratic
candidates. In 1992, Clinton won 45 percent of women’s votes compared to Bush’s 38 percent, and in 1996,
he received 54 percent of women’s votes while Dole won 38 percent.

Domestic Terrorism
The fears of those who saw government as little more than a necessary evil appeared to be confirmed
in the spring of 1993, when federal and state law enforcement authorities laid siege to the compound
of a religious sect called the Branch Davidians near Waco, Texas. The group, which believed the end of
world was approaching, was suspected of weapons violations and resisted search-and-arrest warrants
with deadly force. A standoff developed that lasted nearly two months and was captured on television
each day. A final assault on the compound was made on April 19, and seventy-six men, women, and
children died in a fire probably set by members of the sect. Many others committed suicide or were killed
by fellow sect members.
During the siege, many antigovernment and militia types came to satisfy their curiosity or show support
for those inside. One was Timothy McVeigh, a former U.S. Army infantry soldier. McVeigh had served
in Operation Desert Storm in Iraq, earning a bronze star, but he became disillusioned with the military
and the government when he was deemed psychologically unfit for the Army Special Forces. He was
convinced that the Branch Davidians were victims of government terrorism, and he and his coconspirator,
Terry Nichols, determined to avenge them.
Two years later, on the anniversary of the day that the Waco compound burned to the ground, McVeigh
parked a rented truck full of explosives in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City
and blew it up (Figure 31.17). More than 600 people were injured in the attack and 168 died, including
nineteen children at the daycare center inside. McVeigh hoped that his actions would spark a revolution
against government control. He and Nichols were both arrested and tried, and McVeigh was executed
on June 11, 2001, for the worst act of terrorism committed on American soil. Just a few months later, the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 broke that dark record.
Figure 31.17 The remains of automobiles stand in front of the bombed federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995 (a).
More than three hundred nearby buildings were damaged by the blast, an attack perpetrated at least partly to avenge
the Waco siege (b) exactly two years earlier.
CLINTON AND AMERICAN HEGEMONY

For decades, the contours of the Cold War had largely determined U.S. action abroad. Strategists saw each
coup, revolution, and civil war as part of the larger struggle between the United States and the Soviet
Union. But with the Soviet Union vanquished, the United States was suddenly free of this paradigm, and
President Clinton could see international crises in the Middle East, the Balkans, and Africa on their own
terms and deal with them accordingly. He envisioned a post-Cold War role in which the United States
used its overwhelming military superiority and influence as global policing tools to preserve the peace.
This foreign policy strategy had both success and failure.
One notable success was a level of peace in the Middle East. In September 1993, at the White House,
Yitzhak Rabin, prime minister of Israel, and Yasser Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation
Organization, signed the Oslo Accords, granting some self-rule to Palestinians living in the Israeli-
occupied territories of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (Figure 31.18). A year later, the Clinton
administration helped facilitate the second settlement and normalization of relations between Israel and
Jordan.
Figure 31.18 Yitzhak Rabin (left) and Yasser Arafat (right), shown with Bill Clinton, signed the Oslo Accords at the
White House on September 13, 1993. Rabin was killed two years later by an Israeli who opposed the treaty.
As a small measure of stability was brought to the Middle East, violence erupted in the Balkans. The
Communist country of Yugoslavia consisted of six provinces: Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Slovenia, Montenegro, and Macedonia. Each was occupied by a number of ethnic groups, some of which
shared a history of hostile relations. In May 1980, the leader of Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito, died. Without
him to hold the country together, ethnic tensions increased, and this, along with the breakdown of
Communism elsewhere in Europe, led to the breakup of Yugoslavia. In 1991, Croatia, Slovenia, and
Macedonia declared their independence. In 1992, Bosnia and Herzegovina did as well. Only Serbia and
Montenegro remained united as the Serbian-dominated Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Almost immediately, ethnic tensions within Bosnia and Herzegovina escalated into war when Yugoslavian
Serbs aided Bosnian Serbs who did not wish to live in an independent Bosnia and Herzegovina. These
Bosnian Serbs proclaimed the existence of autonomous Serbian regions within the country and attacked
Bosnian Muslims and Croats. During the conflict, the Serbs engaged in genocide, described by some as
“ethnic cleansing.” The brutal conflict also gave rise to the systematic rape of “enemy” women—generally
Muslim women exploited by Serbian military or paramilitary forces. The International Criminal Tribunal
of Yugoslavia estimated that between twelve thousand and fifty thousand women were raped during the
war.
NATO eventually intervened in 1995, and Clinton agreed to U.S. participation in airstrikes against Bosnian
Serbs. That year, the Dayton Accords peace settlement was signed in Dayton, Ohio. Four years later, the
United States, acting with other NATO members, launched an air campaign against Serbian-dominated
Yugoslavia to stop it from attacking ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Although these attacks were not
sanctioned by the UN and were criticized by Russia and China, Yugoslavia withdrew its forces from
Kosovo in June 1999.
The use of force did not always bring positive results. For example, back in December 1992, George H. W.
Bush had sent a contingent of U.S. soldiers to Somalia, initially to protect and distribute relief supplies to
civilians as part of a UN mission. Without an effective Somali government, however, the warlords who
controlled different regions often stole food, and their forces endangered the lives of UN workers. In 1993,
the Clinton administration sent soldiers to capture one of the warlords, Mohammed Farah Aidid, in the

city of Mogadishu. The resulting battle proved disastrous. A Black Hawk helicopter was shot down, and
U.S. Army Rangers and members of Delta Force spent hours battling their way through the streets; eighty-
four soldiers were wounded and nineteen died. The United States withdrew, leaving Somalia to struggle
with its own anarchy.
The sting of the Somalia failure probably contributed to Clinton’s reluctance to send U.S. forces to end
the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. In the days of brutal colonial rule, Belgian administrators had given control
to Tutsi tribal chiefs, although Hutus constituted a majority of the population. Resentment over ethnic
privileges, and the discrimination that began then and continued after independence in 1962, erupted into
civil war in 1980. The Hutu majority began to slaughter the Tutsi minority and their Hutu supporters. In
1998, while visiting Rwanda, Clinton apologized for having done nothing to save the lives of the 800,000
massacred in one hundred days of genocidal slaughter.
IMPEACHMENT
Public attention was diverted from Clinton’s foreign policing actions by a series of scandals that marked
the last few years of his presidency. From the moment he entered national politics, his opponents had
attempted to tie Clinton and his First Lady to a number of loosely defined improprieties, even accusing
him of murdering his childhood friend and Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster. One accusation the
Clintons could not shake was of possible improper involvement in a failed real estate venture associated
with the Whitewater Development Corporation in Arkansas in the 1970s and 1980s. Kenneth Starr, a
former federal appeals court judge, was appointed to investigate the matter in August 1994.
While Starr was never able to prove any wrongdoing, he soon turned up other allegations and his
investigative authority was expanded. In May 1994, Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, filed
a sexual harassment lawsuit against Bill Clinton. Starr’s office began to investigate this case as well. When
a federal court dismissed Jones’s suit in 1998, her lawyers promptly appealed the decision and submitted
a list of other alleged victims of Clinton’s harassment. That list included the name of Monica Lewinsky,
a young White House intern. Both Lewinsky and Clinton denied under oath that they had had a sexual
relationship. The evidence, however, indicated otherwise, and Starr began to investigate the possibility
that Clinton had committed perjury. Again, Clinton denied any relationship and even went on national
television to assure the American people that he had never had sexual relations with Lewinsky.
However, after receiving a promise of immunity, Lewinsky turned over to Starr evidence of her affair with
Clinton, and the president admitted he had indeed had inappropriate relations with her. He nevertheless
denied that he had lied under oath. In September, Starr reported to the House of Representatives that he
believed Clinton had committed perjury. Voting along partisan lines, the Republican-dominated House
of Representatives sent articles of impeachment to the Senate, charging Clinton with lying under oath
and obstructing justice. In February 1998, the Senate voted forty-five to fifty-five on the perjury charge
and fifty-fifty on obstruction of justice (Figure 31.19). Although acquitted, Clinton did become the first
president to be found in contempt of court. Nevertheless, although he lost his law license, he remained a
popular president and left office at the end of his second term with an approval rating of 66 percent, the
highest of any U.S. president.
Figure 31.19 Floor proceedings in the U.S. Senate during the 1998 impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, who was
narrowly acquitted of both charges.

Despite Clinton’s high approval rating, his vice president and the 2000 Democratic nominee for president,
Al Gore, was eager to distance himself from scandal. Unfortunately, he also alienated Clinton loyalists
and lost some of the benefit of Clinton’s genuine popularity. Gore’s desire to emphasize his concern for
morality led him to select Connecticut senator Joseph I. Lieberman as his running mate. Lieberman had
been quick to denounce Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader
ran as the candidate of the Green Party, a party devoted to environmental issues and grassroots activism,
and Democrats feared that he would attract votes that Gore might otherwise win.
On the Republican side, where strategists promised to “restore honor and dignity” to the White House,
voters were divided between George W. Bush, governor of Texas and eldest son of former president Bush,
and John McCain, an Arizona senator and Vietnam War veteran. Bush had the robust support of both
the Christian Right and the Republican leadership. His campaign amassed large donations that it used to
defeat McCain, himself an outspoken critic of the influence of money in politics. The nomination secured,
Bush selected Dick Cheney, part of the Nixon and Ford administrations and secretary of defense under
George H. W. Bush, as his running mate.
One hundred million votes were cast in the 2000 election, and Gore topped Bush in the popular vote by
540,000 ballots, or 0.5 percent. The race was so close that news reports declared each candidate the winner
at various times during the evening. It all came down to Florida, where early returns called the election
in Bush’s favor by a mere 527 of 5,825,000 votes. Whoever won Florida would get the state’s twenty-five
electoral votes and secure the presidency (Figure 31.20).

Figure 31.20 The map shows the results of the 2000 U.S. presidential election. While Bush won in the majority of
states, Gore dominated in the more populous ones, winning the popular vote overall.
Because there seemed to be irregularities in four counties traditionally dominated by Democrats, especially
in largely African American precincts, Gore called for a recount of the ballots by hand. Florida’s secretary
of state, Katherine Harris, set a deadline for the new vote tallies to be submitted, a deadline the counties
could not meet. When the Democrats requested an extension, the Florida Supreme Court granted it, but
Harris refused to accept the new tallies unless the counties could explain why they had not met the
original deadline. When the explanations were submitted, they were rejected. Gore then asked the Florida
Supreme Court for an injunction that would prevent Harris from declaring a winner until the recount
was finished. On November 26, Harris declared Bush the winner in Florida. Gore protested that not all
votes had been recounted by hand. When the Florida Supreme Court ordered the recount to continue, the
Republicans appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided 5–4 to stop the recount. Bush received
Florida’s electoral votes and, with a total of 271 votes in the Electoral College to Gore’s 266, became the
forty-third president of the United States.
Key Terms
Contract with America a list of eight specific legislative reforms or initiatives that Republicans
representatives promised to enact if they gained a majority in Congress in the 1994 midterm elections
gender gap the statistical differences between the voting preferences of women and men, with women
favoring Democratic candidates
Green Party a political party founded in 1984 that advocates environmentalism and grassroots
democracy
Heritage Foundation a professional organization conducting research and political advocacy on behalf
of its values and perspectives
HIV/AIDS a deadly immune deficiency disorder discovered in 1981, and at first largely ignored by
politicians because of its prevalence among gay men
New Right a loose coalition of American conservatives, consisting primarily of wealthy businesspeople
and evangelical Christians, which developed in response to social changes of the 1960s and 1970s
Operation Desert Storm the U.S. name of the war waged from January to April 1991, by coalition forces
against Iraq in reaction to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990
Reaganomics Ronald Reagan’s economic policy, which suggested that lowering taxes on the upper
income brackets would stimulate investment and economic growth
START a treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union that limited the number of nuclear
warheads, ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers held by both sides
Vietnam Syndrome reluctance on the part of American politicians to actively engage U.S. forces in a
foreign war for fear of suffering a humiliating defeat
war on drugs a nationwide political campaign to implement harsh sentences for drug crimes, which
produced an explosive growth of the prison population
Summary
After decades of liberalism and social reform, Ronald Reagan changed the face of American politics by
riding a groundswell of conservatism into the White House. Reagan’s superior rhetorical skills enabled
him to gain widespread support for his plans for the nation. Implementing a series of economic policies
dubbed “Reaganomics,” the president sought to stimulate the economy while shrinking the size of the
federal government and providing relief for the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers. During his two terms in
office, he cut spending on social programs, while increasing spending on defense. While Reagan was able
to break the cycle of stagflation, his policies also triggered a recession, plunged the nation into a brief
period of significant unemployment, and made a balanced budget impossible. In the end, Reagan’s policies
diminished many Americans’ quality of life while enabling more affluent Americans—the “Yuppies” of
the 1980s—to prosper.

The political conservatism of the 1980s and 1990s was matched by the social conservatism of the period.
Conservative politicians wished to limit the size and curb the power of the federal government.

Conservative think tanks flourished, the Christian Right defeated the ERA, and bipartisan efforts to add
warning labels to explicit music lyrics were the subject of Congressional hearings. HIV/AIDS, which
became chiefly and inaccurately associated with the gay community, grew to crisis proportions, as
heterosexuals and the federal government failed to act. In response, gay men organized advocacy groups
to fight for research on HIV/AIDS. Meanwhile, the so-called war on drugs began a get-tough trend in
law enforcement that mandated lengthy sentences for drug-related offenses and hugely increased the
American prison population.

While Ronald Reagan worked to restrict the influence of the federal government in people’s lives, he
simultaneously pursued interventionist policies abroad as part of a global Cold War strategy. Eager to
cure the United States of “Vietnam Syndrome,” he increased the American stockpile of weapons and aided
anti-Communist groups in the Caribbean and Central America. The Reagan administration’s secret sales
of arms to Iran proved disastrous, however, and resulted in indictments for administration officials. With
the end of the Cold War, attention shifted to escalating tensions in the Middle East, where an international
coalition assembled by George H. W. Bush drove invading Iraqi forces from Kuwait. As Bush discovered in
the last years of his presidency, even this almost-flawless exercise in international diplomatic and military
power was not enough to calm a changing cultural and political climate at home.

Bill Clinton’s presidency and efforts at remaking the Democratic Party reflect the long-term effects of the
Reagan Revolution that preceded him. Reagan benefited from a resurgent conservatism that moved the
American political spectrum several degrees to the right. Clinton managed to remake the Democratic Party
in ways that effectively institutionalized some of the major tenets of the so-called Reagan Revolution. A
“New Democrat,” he moved the party significantly to the moderate center and supported the Republican
call for law and order, and welfare reform—all while maintaining traditional Democratic commitments
to minorities, women, and the disadvantaged, and using the government to stimulate economic growth.
Nevertheless, Clinton’s legacy was undermined by the shift in the control of Congress to the Republican
Party and the loss by his vice president Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election.
Review Questions
1. Before becoming a conservative Republican, 4. Which statement best describes Reagan’s
Ronald Reagan was ________. political style?
A. a liberal Democrat A. folksy and likeable
B. a Socialist B. conservative and inflexible
C. politically apathetic C. liberal and pragmatic
D. a Herbert Hoover Republican D. intelligent and elitist
2. The belief that cutting taxes for the rich will 5. What rationale did Phyllis Schlafly and her
eventually result in economic benefits for the poor STOP ERA movement cite when opposing the
is commonly referred to as ________. ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment?
A. socialism A. the ERA would ultimately lead to the
B. pork barrel politics legalization of abortion
C. Keynesian economics B. the ERA provided insufficient civil rights
D. trickle-down economics protections for women
C. mothers could not be feminists
3. What were the elements of Ronald Reagan’s D. the ERA would end gender-specific
plan for economic reform? privileges women enjoyed
6. What were some of the primary values of the 9. What was the Iran-Contra affair about?
Moral Majority?
10. Bill Clinton helped create a large free market
7. The group the Reagan administration among Canada, the United States, and Mexico
encouraged and supported in its fight against the with ratification of the ________ treaty.
Sandinista government in Nicaragua was known A. NAFTA
as the ________. B. NATO
A. anti-Somozas C. Organization of American States
B. Shining Path D. Alliance for Progress
C. Contras
D. Red Faction 11. The key state in the 2000 election where the
U.S. Supreme Court stopped a recount of votes
8. The country that Iraq invaded to trigger the was ________.
crisis that resulted in the Persian Gulf War was A. Florida
________. B. Texas
A. Jordan C. Georgia
B. Kuwait D. Virginia
C. Saudi Arabia
D. Iran 12. What were some of the foreign policy
successes of the Clinton administration?

13. What were some of the long-term effects of the Reagan Revolution and the rise of conservatives?
14. What events led to the end of the Cold War? What impact did the end of the Cold War have on
American politics and foreign policy concerns?
15. Which issues divided Americans most significantly during the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s?
16. In what ways was Bill Clinton a traditional Democrat in the style of Kennedy and Johnson? In what
ways was he a conservative, like Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush?
17. Describe American involvement in global affairs during this period. How did American foreign policy
change and evolve between 1980 and 2000, in both its focus and its approach?

Chapter 32 The Challenges of the Twenty-First Century 963
CHAPTER 32
The Challenges of the Twenty-First

Century
Figure 32.1 In 2001, almost three thousand people died as a result of the September 11 attacks, when members of
the terrorist group al-Qaeda hijacked four planes as part of a coordinated attack on sites in New York City and
Washington, DC.
Chapter Outline
32.1 The War on Terror
32.2 The Domestic Mission
32.3 New Century, Old Disputes
32.4 Hope and Change
Introduction
On the morning of September 11, 2001, hopes that the new century would leave behind the conflicts of
the previous one were dashed when two hijacked airliners crashed into the twin towers of New York’s
World Trade Center. When the first plane struck the north tower, many assumed that the crash was a
horrific accident. But then a second plane hit the south tower less than thirty minutes later. People on the
street watched in horror, as some of those trapped in the burning buildings jumped to their deaths and
the enormous towers collapsed into dust. In the photo above, the Statue of Liberty appears to look on
helplessly, as thick plumes of smoke obscure the Lower Manhattan skyline (Figure 32.1). The events set
in motion by the September 11 attacks would raise fundamental questions about the United States’ role in
the world, the extent to which privacy should be protected at the cost of security, the definition of exactly
who is an American, and the cost of liberty.
964 Chapter 32 The Challenges of the Twenty-First Century

• Discuss how the United States responded to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
• Explain why the United States went to war against Afghanistan and Iraq
• Describe the treatment of suspected terrorists by U.S. law enforcement agencies and the
U.S. military
As a result of the narrow decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, Republican George W. Bush
was the declared the winner of the 2000 presidential election with a majority in the Electoral College
of 271 votes to 266, although he received approximately 540,000 fewer popular votes nationally than
his Democratic opponent, Bill Clinton’s vice president, Al Gore. Bush had campaigned with a promise
of “compassionate conservatism” at home and nonintervention abroad. These platform planks were
designed to appeal to those who felt that the Clinton administration’s initiatives in the Balkans and Africa
had unnecessarily entangled the United States in the conflicts of foreign nations. Bush’s 2001 education
reform act, dubbed No Child Left Behind, had strong bipartisan support and reflected his domestic
interests. But before the president could sign the bill into law, the world changed when terrorists hijacked
four American airliners to use them in the deadliest attack on the United States since the Japanese bombing
of Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Bush’s domestic agenda quickly took a backseat, as the president
swiftly changed course from nonintervention in foreign affairs to a “war on terror.”
9/11
Shortly after takeoff on the morning of September 11, 2001, teams of hijackers from the Islamist terrorist
group al-Qaeda seized control of four American airliners. Two of the airplanes were flown into the twin
Figure 32.2 (credit “2004”: modification of work by Elaine and Priscilla Chan; credit “2013”: modification of work by
Aaron Tang; credit “2001”: modification of work by “DVIDSHUB”/Flickr)

towers of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan. Morning news programs that were filming the
moments after the first impact, then assumed to be an accident, captured and aired live footage of the
second plane, as it barreled into the other tower in a flash of fire and smoke. Less than two hours later, the
heat from the crash and the explosion of jet fuel caused the upper floors of both buildings to collapse onto
the lower floors, reducing both towers to smoldering rubble. The passengers and crew on both planes, as
well as 2,606 people in the two buildings, all died, including 343 New York City firefighters who rushed in
to save victims shortly before the towers collapsed.
The third hijacked plane was flown into the Pentagon building in northern Virginia, just outside
Washington, DC, killing everyone on board and 125 people on the ground. The fourth plane, also heading
towards Washington, crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, when passengers, aware of the
other attacks, attempted to storm the cockpit and disarm the hijackers. Everyone on board was killed
(Figure 32.3).
Figure 32.3 Three of the four airliners hijacked on September 11, 2001, reached their targets. United 93,
presumably on its way to destroy either the Capitol or the White House, was brought down in a field after a struggle
between the passengers and the hijackers.
That evening, President Bush promised the nation that those responsible for the attacks would be brought
to justice. Three days later, Congress issued a joint resolution authorizing the president to use all means
necessary against the individuals, organizations, or nations involved in the attacks. On September 20, in an
address to a joint session of Congress, Bush declared war on terrorism, blamed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin
Laden for the attacks, and demanded that the radical Islamic fundamentalists who ruled Afghanistan, the
Taliban, turn bin Laden over or face attack by the United States. This speech encapsulated what became
known as the Bush Doctrine, the belief that the United States has the right to protect itself from terrorist
acts by engaging in pre-emptive wars or ousting hostile governments in favor of friendly, preferably
democratic, regimes.
Click and Explore
Read the text of President Bush’s address (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

15Bush911) to Congress declaring a “war on terror.”
World leaders and millions of their citizens expressed support for the United States and condemned the
deadly attacks. Russian president Vladimir Putin characterized them as a bold challenge to humanity
itself. German chancellor Gerhard Schroder said the events of that day were “not only attacks on the
people in the United States, our friends in America, but also against the entire civilized world, against our
own freedom, against our own values, values which we share with the American people.” Yasser Arafat,
chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and a veteran of several bloody struggles against
Israel, was dumbfounded by the news and announced to reporters in Gaza, “We completely condemn this
very dangerous attack, and I convey my condolences to the American people, to the American president
and to the American administration.”
Click and Explore
In May 2014, a Museum dedicated to the memory of the victims was completed. Watch
this video (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15CBSstory) and learn more about the
victims and how the country seeks to remember them.
GOING TO WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

When it became clear that the mastermind behind the attack was Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi
Arabian national who ran his terror network from Afghanistan, the full attention of the United States
turned towards Central Asia and the Taliban. Bin Laden had deep roots in Afghanistan. Like many others
from around the Islamic world, he had come to the country to oust the Soviet army, which invaded
Afghanistan in 1979. Ironically, both bin Laden and the Taliban received material support from the United
States at that time. By the late 1980s, the Soviets and the Americans had both left, although bin Laden, by
that time the leader of his own terrorist organization, al-Qaeda, remained.
The Taliban refused to turn bin Laden over, and the United States began a bombing campaign in October,
allying with the Afghan Northern Alliance, a coalition of tribal leaders opposed to the Taliban. U.S. air
support was soon augmented by ground troops (Figure 32.4). By November 2001, the Taliban had been
ousted from power in Afghanistan’s capital of Kabul, but bin Laden and his followers had already escaped
across the Afghan border to mountain sanctuaries in northern Pakistan.

Figure 32.4 Marines fight against Taliban forces in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Helmand was a center of
Taliban strength. (credit: “DVIDSHUB”/Flickr)
IRAQ
At the same time that the U.S. military was taking control of Afghanistan, the Bush administration was
looking to a new and larger war with the country of Iraq. Relations between the United States and Iraq
had been strained ever since the Gulf War a decade earlier. Economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the
United Nations, and American attempts to foster internal revolts against President Saddam Hussein’s
government, had further tainted the relationship. A faction within the Bush administration, sometimes
labeled neoconservatives, believed Iraq’s recalcitrance in the face of overwhelming U.S. military
superiority represented a dangerous symbol to terrorist groups around the world, recently emboldened
by the dramatic success of the al-Qaeda attacks in the United States. Powerful members of this faction,
including Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, believed the time to
strike Iraq and solve this festering problem was right then, in the wake of 9/11. Others, like Secretary of
State Colin Powell, a highly respected veteran of the Vietnam War and former chair of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, were more cautious about initiating combat.
The more militant side won, and the argument for war was gradually laid out for the American people.
The immediate impetus to the invasion, it argued, was the fear that Hussein was stockpiling weapons
of mass destruction (WMDs): nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons capable of wreaking great havoc.
Hussein had in fact used WMDs against Iranian forces during his war with Iran in the 1980s, and against
the Kurds in northern Iraq in 1988—a time when the United States actively supported the Iraqi dictator.
Following the Gulf War, inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission and International Atomic
Energy Agency had in fact located and destroyed stockpiles of Iraqi weapons. Those arguing for a new
Iraqi invasion insisted, however, that weapons still existed. President Bush himself told the nation in
October 2002 that the United States was “facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final
proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” The head of the United
Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, Hanx Blix, dismissed these claims. Blix
argued that while Saddam Hussein was not being entirely forthright, he did not appear to be in possession
of WMDs. Despite Blix’s findings and his own earlier misgivings, Powell argued in 2003 before the United
Nations General Assembly that Hussein had violated UN resolutions. Much of his evidence relied on
secret information provided by an informant that was later proven to be false. On March 17, 2003, the
United States cut off all relations with Iraq. Two days later, in a coalition with Great Britain, Australia, and
Poland, the United States began “Operation Iraqi Freedom” with an invasion of Iraq.
Other arguments supporting the invasion noted the ease with which the operation could be accomplished.
In February 2002, some in the Department of Defense were suggesting the war would be “a cakewalk.”
In November, referencing the short and successful Gulf War of 1990–1991, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
told the American people it was absurd, as some were claiming, that the conflict would degenerate into
a long, drawn-out quagmire. “Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to
last any longer than that,” he insisted. “It won’t be a World War III.” And, just days before the start of
combat operations in 2003, Vice President Cheney announced that U.S. forces would likely “be greeted as
liberators,” and the war would be over in “weeks rather than months.”
Early in the conflict, these predictions seemed to be coming true. The march into Bagdad went fairly
smoothly. Soon Americans back home were watching on television as U.S. soldiers and the Iraqi people
worked together to topple statues of the deposed leader Hussein around the capital. The reality, however,
was far more complex. While American deaths had been few, thousands of Iraqis had died, and the seeds
of internal strife and resentment against the United States had been sown. The United States was not
prepared for a long period of occupation; it was also not prepared for the inevitable problems of law
and order, or for the violent sectarian conflicts that emerged. Thus, even though Bush proclaimed a U.S.
victory in May 2003, on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln with the banner “Mission Accomplished”
prominently displayed behind him, the celebration proved premature by more than seven years (Figure
32.5).
Figure 32.5 President Bush gives the victory symbol on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003, after
American troops had completed the capture of Iraq’s capitol Baghdad. Yet, by the time the United States finally
withdrew its forces from Iraq in 2011, nearly five thousand U.S. soldiers had died.

MY STORY
Lt. General James Conway on the Invasion of Baghdad
Lt. General James Conway, who commanded the First Marine Expeditionary Force in Iraq, answers a
reporter’s questions about civilian casualties during the 2003 invasion of Baghdad.
“As a civilian in those early days, one definitely had the sense that the high command had
expected something to happen which didn’t. Was that a correct perception?”
—We were told by our intelligence folks that the enemy is carrying civilian clothes in their
packs because, as soon as the shooting starts, they’re going put on their civilian clothes and
they’re going go home. Well, they put on their civilian clothes, but not to go home. They put
on civilian clothes to blend with the civilians and shoot back at us. . . .
“There’s been some criticism of the behavior of the Marines at the Diyala bridge [across the
Tigris River into Baghdad] in terms of civilian casualties.”
—Well, after the Third Battalion, Fourth Marines crossed, the resistance was not all gone. . .
. They had just fought to take a bridge. They were being counterattacked by enemy forces.
Some of the civilian vehicles that wound up with the bullet holes in them contained enemy
fighters in uniform with weapons, some of them did not. Again, we’re terribly sorry about
the loss of any civilian life where civilians are killed in a battlefield setting. I will guarantee
you, it was not the intent of those Marines to kill civilians. [The civilian casualties happened
because the Marines] felt threatened, [and] they were having a tough time distinguishing from
an enemy that [is violating] the laws of land warfare by going to civilian clothes, putting his
own people at risk. All of those things, I think, [had an] impact [on the behavior of the Marines],
and in the end it’s very unfortunate that civilians died.
Who in your opinion bears primary responsibility for the deaths of Iraqi civilians?
DOMESTIC SECURITY
The attacks of September 11 awakened many to the reality that the end of the Cold War did not mean
an end to foreign violent threats. Some Americans grew wary of alleged possible enemies in their midst
and hate crimes against Muslim Americans—and those thought to be Muslims—surged in the aftermath.
Fearing that terrorists might strike within the nation’s borders again, and aware of the chronic lack of
cooperation among different federal law enforcement agencies, Bush created the Office of Homeland
Security in October 2001. The next year, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act, creating the
Department of Homeland Security, which centralized control over a number of different government
functions in order to better control threats at home (Figure 32.6). The Bush administration also pushed the
USA Patriot Act through Congress, which enabled law enforcement agencies to monitor citizens’ e-mails
and phone conversations without a warrant.
Figure 32.6 The Department of Homeland Security has many duties, including guarding U.S. borders and, as this
organizational chart shows, wielding control over the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, U.S. Customs, and a multitude
of other law enforcement agencies.
The Bush administration was fiercely committed to rooting out threats to the United States wherever
they originated, and in the weeks after September 11, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) scoured the
globe, sweeping up thousands of young Muslim men. Because U.S. law prohibits the use of torture, the
CIA transferred some of these prisoners to other nations—a practice known as rendition or extraordinary
rendition—where the local authorities can use methods of interrogation not allowed in the United States.
While the CIA operates overseas, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the chief federal law
enforcement agency within U.S. national borders. Its activities are limited by, among other things, the
Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. Beginning in
2002, however, the Bush administration implemented a wide-ranging program of warrantless domestic
wiretapping, known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program, by the National Security Agency (NSA). The
shaky constitutional basis for this program was ultimately revealed in August 2006, when a federal judge
in Detroit ordered the program ended immediately.
The use of unconstitutional wire taps to prosecute the war on terrorism was only one way the new
threat challenged authorities in the United States. Another problem was deciding what to do with foreign
terrorists captured on the battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq. In traditional conflicts, where both sides are
uniformed combatants, the rules of engagement and the treatment of prisoners of war are clear. But in the
new war on terror, extracting intelligence about upcoming attacks became a top priority that superseded

human rights and constitutional concerns. For that purpose, the United States began transporting men
suspected of being members of al-Qaeda to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for questioning.
The Bush administration labeled the detainees “unlawful combatants,” in an effort to avoid affording them
the rights guaranteed to prisoners of war, such as protection from torture, by international treaties such as
the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, the Justice Department argued that the prisoners were unable to
sue for their rights in U.S. courts on the grounds that the constitution did not apply to U.S. territories. It
was only in 2006 that the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the military tribunals that tried
Guantanamo prisoners violated both U.S. federal law and the Geneva Conventions.

• Discuss the Bush administration’s economic theories and tax policies, and their effects
on the American economy
• Explain how the federal government attempted to improve the American public
education system
• Describe the federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina
• Identify the causes of the Great Recession of 2008 and its effect on the average citizen
By the time George W. Bush became president, the concept of supply-side economics had become an article
of faith within the Republican Party. The oft-repeated argument was that tax cuts for the wealthy would
allow them to invest more and create jobs for everyone else. This belief in the self-regulatory powers of
competition also served as the foundation of Bush’s education reform. But by the end of 2008, however,
Americans’ faith in the dynamics of the free market had been badly shaken. The failure of the homeland
security apparatus during Hurricane Katrina and the ongoing challenge of the Iraq War compounded the
effects of the bleak economic situation.
OPENING AND CLOSING THE GAP

The Republican Party platform for the 2000 election offered the American people an opportunity to once
again test the rosy expectations of supply-side economics. In 2001, Bush and the Republicans pushed
through a $1.35 trillion tax cut by lowering tax rates across the board but reserving the largest cuts for those
in the highest tax brackets. This was in the face of calls by Republicans for a balanced budget, which Bush
insisted would happen when the so-called job creators expanded the economy by using their increased
income to invest in business.
The cuts were controversial; the rich were getting richer while the middle and lower classes bore a
proportionally larger share of the nation’s tax burden. Between 1966 and 2001, one-half of the nation’s
income gained from increased productivity went to the top 0.01 percent of earners. By 2005, dramatic
examples of income inequity were increasing; the chief executive of Wal-Mart earned $15 million that year,
roughly 950 times what the company’s average associate made. The head of the construction company K.
B. Homes made $150 million, or four thousand times what the average construction worker earned that
same year. Even as productivity climbed, workers’ incomes stagnated; with a larger share of the wealth,
the very rich further solidified their influence on public policy. Left with a smaller share of the economic
pie, average workers had fewer resources to improve their lives or contribute to the nation’s prosperity by,
for example, educating themselves and their children.
Another gap that had been widening for years was the education gap. Some education researchers had
argued that American students were being left behind. In 1983, a commission established by Ronald
Reagan had published a sobering assessment of the American educational system entitled A Nation at
Risk. The report argued that American students were more poorly educated than their peers in other
countries, especially in areas such as math and science, and were thus unprepared to compete in the global
marketplace. Furthermore, test scores revealed serious educational achievement gaps between white
students and students of color. Touting himself as the “education president,” Bush sought to introduce
reforms that would close these gaps.
His administration offered two potential solutions to these problems. First, it sought to hold schools
accountable for raising standards and enabling students to meet them. The No Child Left Behind Act,
signed into law in January 2002, erected a system of testing to measure and ultimately improve student
performance in reading and math at all schools that received federal funds (Figure 32.7). Schools whose
students performed poorly on the tests would be labeled “in need of improvement.” If poor performance
continued, schools could face changes in curricula and teachers, or even the prospect of closure.
Figure 32.7 President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law in January 2002. The act requires school
systems to set high standards for students, place “highly qualified” teachers in the classroom, and give military
recruiters contact information for students.
The second proposed solution was to give students the opportunity to attend schools with better
performance records. Some of these might be charter schools, institutions funded by local tax monies in
much the same way as public schools, but able to accept private donations and exempt from some of
the rules public schools must follow. During the administration of George H. W. Bush, the development
of charter schools had gathered momentum, and the American Federation of Teachers welcomed them
as places to employ innovative teaching methods or offer specialized instruction in particular subjects.
President George W. Bush now encouraged states to grant educational funding vouchers to parents, who
could use them to pay for a private education for their children if they chose. These vouchers were funded
by tax revenue that would otherwise have gone to public schools.
THE 2004 ELECTION AND BUSH’S SECOND TERM

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Americans had rallied around their president in a gesture of patriotic
loyalty, giving Bush approval ratings of 90 percent. Even following the first few months of the Iraq
war, his approval rating remained historically high at approximately 70 percent. But as the 2004 election
approached, opposition to the war in Iraq began to grow. While Bush could boast of a number of
achievements at home and abroad during his first term, the narrow victory he achieved in 2000 augured
poorly for his chances for reelection in 2004 and a successful second term.
Reelection
As the 2004 campaign ramped up, the president was persistently dogged by rising criticism of the violence
of the Iraq war and the fact that his administration’s claims of WMDs had been greatly overstated. In the

end, no such weapons were ever found. These criticisms were amplified by growing international concern
over the treatment of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and widespread disgust over the
torture conducted by U.S. troops at the prison in Abu Ghraib, Iraq, which surfaced only months before the
election (Figure 32.8).
Figure 32.8 The first twenty captives were processed at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp on January 11, 2002
(a). From late 2003 to early 2004, prisoners held in Abu Ghraib, Iraq, were tortured and humiliated in a variety of
ways (b). U.S. soldiers jumped on and beat them, led them on leashes, made them pose naked, and urinated on
them. The release of photographs of the abuse raised an outcry around the world and greatly diminished the already
flagging support for American intervention in Iraq.
In March 2004, an ambush by Iraqi insurgents of a convoy of private military contractors from Blackwater
USA in the town of Fallujah west of Baghdad, and the subsequent torture and mutilation of the four
captured mercenaries, shocked the American public. But the event also highlighted the growing
insurgency against U.S. occupation, the escalating sectarian conflict between the newly empowered Shia
Muslims and the minority of the formerly ruling Sunni, and the escalating costs of a war involving a
large number of private contractors that, by conservative estimates, approached $1.7 trillion by 2013. Just
as importantly, the American campaign in Iraq had diverted resources from the war against al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan, where U.S troops were no closer to capturing Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the
9/11 attacks.
With two hot wars overseas, one of which appeared to be spiraling out of control, the Democrats
nominated a decorated Vietnam War veteran, Massachusetts senator John Kerry (Figure 32.9), to
challenge Bush for the presidency. As someone with combat experience, three Purple Hearts, and a foreign
policy background, Kerry seemed like the right challenger in a time of war. But his record of support
for the invasion of Iraq made his criticism of the incumbent less compelling and earned him the byname
“Waffler” from Republicans. The Bush campaign also sought to characterize Kerry as an elitist out of
touch with regular Americans—Kerry had studied overseas, spoke fluent French, and married a wealthy
foreign-born heiress. Republican supporters also unleashed an attack on Kerry’s Vietnam War record,
falsely claiming he had lied about his experience and fraudulently received his medals. Kerry’s reluctance
to embrace his past leadership of Vietnam Veterans Against the War weakened the enthusiasm of antiwar
Americans while opening him up to criticisms from veterans groups. This combination compromised the
impact of his challenge to the incumbent in a time of war.
Figure 32.9 John Kerry served in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam War and represented Massachusetts in the U.S.
Senate from 1985 to 2013. Here he greets sailors from the USS Sampson. Kerry was sworn in as President Obama’s
Secretary of State in 2013.
Urged by the Republican Party to “stay the course” with Bush, voters listened. Bush won another narrow
victory, and the Republican Party did well overall, picking up four seats in the Senate and increasing its
majority there to fifty-five. In the House, the Republican Party gained three seats, adding to its majority
there as well. Across the nation, most governorships also went to Republicans, and Republicans dominated
many state legislatures.
Despite a narrow win, the president made a bold declaration in his first news conference following the
election. “I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.” The policies
on which he chose to spend this political capital included the partial privatization of Social Security and
new limits on court-awarded damages in medical malpractice lawsuits. In foreign affairs, Bush promised
that the United States would work towards “ending tyranny in the world.” But at home and abroad, the
president achieved few of his second-term goals. Instead, his second term in office became associated with
the persistent challenge of pacifying Iraq, the failure of the homeland security apparatus during Hurricane
Katrina, and the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression.
A Failed Domestic Agenda

The Bush administration had planned a series of free-market reforms, but corruption, scandals, and
Democrats in Congress made these goals hard to accomplish. Plans to convert Social Security into a
private-market mechanism relied on the claim that demographic trends would eventually make the system
unaffordable for the shrinking number of young workers, but critics countered that this was easily fixed.
Privatization, on the other hand, threatened to derail the mission of the New Deal welfare agency and turn
it into a fee generator for stock brokers and Wall Street financiers. Similarly unpopular was the attempt to
abolish the estate tax. Labeled the “death tax” by its critics, its abolishment would have benefitted only the
wealthiest 1 percent. As a result of the 2003 tax cuts, the growing federal deficit did not help make the case
for Republicans.
The nation faced another policy crisis when the Republican-dominated House of Representatives
approved a bill making the undocumented status of millions of immigrants a felony and criminalizing
the act of employing or knowingly aiding illegal immigrants. In response, millions of illegal and legal
immigrants, along with other critics of the bill, took to the streets in protest. What they saw as the civil
rights challenge of their generation, conservatives read as a dangerous challenge to law and national
security. Congress eventually agreed on a massive build-up of the U.S. Border Patrol and the construction
of a seven-hundred-mile-long fence along the border with Mexico, but the deep divisions over
immigration and the status of up to twelve million undocumented immigrants remained unresolved.

Hurricane Katrina
One event highlighted the nation’s economic inequality and racial divisions, as well as the Bush
administration’s difficulty in addressing them effectively. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina came
ashore and devastated coastal stretches of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The city of New Orleans,
no stranger to hurricanes and floods, suffered heavy damage when the levees, embankments designed to
protect against flooding, failed during the storm surge, as the Army Corps of Engineers had warned they
might. The flooding killed some fifteen hundred people and so overwhelmed parts of the city that tens of
thousands more were trapped and unable to evacuate (Figure 32.10). Thousands who were elderly, ill, or
too poor to own a car followed the mayor’s directions and sought refuge at the Superdome, which lacked
adequate food, water, and sanitation. Public services collapsed under the weight of the crisis.
Figure 32.10 Large portions of the city of New Orleans were flooded during Hurricane Katrina. Although most of the
city’s population managed to evacuate in time, its poorest residents were left behind.
Click and Explore
See pictures of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/

15Katrina) and read and view accounts of survivors of the disaster.
Although the U.S. Coast Guard managed to rescue more than thirty-five thousand people from the stricken
city, the response by other federal bodies was less effective. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), an agency charged with assisting state and local governments in times of natural disaster, proved
inept at coordinating different agencies and utilizing the rescue infrastructure at its disposal. Critics
argued that FEMA was to blame and that its director, Michael D. Brown, a Bush friend and appointee
with no background in emergency management, was an example of cronyism at its worst. The failures of
FEMA were particularly harmful for an administration that had made “homeland security” its top priority.
Supporters of the president, however, argued that the scale of the disaster was such that no amount of
preparedness or competence could have allowed federal agencies to cope.
While there was plenty of blame to go around—at the city, state, and national levels—FEMA and the Bush
administration got the lion’s share. Even when the president attempted to demonstrate his concern with
a personal appearance, the tactic largely backfired. Photographs of him looking down on a flooded New
Orleans from the comfort of Air Force One only reinforced the impression of a president detached from
the problems of everyday people. Despite his attempts to give an uplifting speech from Jackson Square, he
was unable to shake this characterization, and it underscored the disappointments of his second term. On
the eve of the 2006 midterm elections, President Bush’s popularity had reached a new low, as a result of the
war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina, and a growing number of Americans feared that his party’s economic
policy benefitted the wealthy first and foremost. Young voters, non-white Americans, and women favored
the Democratic ticket by large margins. The elections handed Democrats control of the Senate and House
for the first time since 1994, and, in January 2007, California representative Nancy Pelosi became the first
female Speaker of the House in the nation’s history.
THE GREAT RECESSION

For most Americans, the millennium had started with economic woes. In March 2001, the U.S. stock market
had taken a sharp drop, and the ensuing recession triggered the loss of millions of jobs over the next two
years. In response, the Federal Reserve Board cut interest rates to historic lows to encourage consumer
spending. By 2002, the economy seemed to be stabilizing somewhat, but few of the manufacturing jobs
lost were restored to the national economy. Instead, the “outsourcing” of jobs to China and India became
an increasing concern, along with a surge in corporate scandals. After years of reaping tremendous profits
in the deregulated energy markets, Houston-based Enron imploded in 2003 over allegations of massive
accounting fraud. Its top executives, Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, received long prison sentences, but their
activities were illustrative of a larger trend in the nation’s corporate culture that embroiled reputable
companies like JP Morgan Chase and the accounting firm Arthur Anderson. In 2003, Bernard Ebbers,
the CEO of communications giant WorldCom, was discovered to have inflated his company’s assets by
as much as $11 billion, making it the largest accounting scandal in the nation’s history. Only five years
later, however, Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme would reveal even deeper cracks in the nation’s financial
economy.
Banks Gone Wild

Notwithstanding economic growth in the 1990s and steadily increasing productivity, wages had remained
largely flat relative to inflation since the end of the 1970s; despite the mild recovery, they remained so.
To compensate, many consumers were buying on credit, and with interest rates low, financial institutions
were eager to oblige them. By 2008, credit card debt had risen to over $1 trillion. More importantly, banks
were making high-risk, high-interest mortgage loans called subprime mortgages to consumers who often
misunderstood their complex terms and lacked the ability to make the required payments.
These subprime loans had a devastating impact on the larger economy. In the past, a prospective home
buyer went to a local bank for a mortgage loan. Because the bank expected to make a profit in the form
of interest charged on the loan, it carefully vetted buyers for their ability to repay. Changes in finance
and banking laws in the 1990s and early 2000s, however, allowed lending institutions to securitize their
mortgage loans and sell them as bonds, thus separating the financial interests of the lender from the ability
of the borrower to repay, and making highly risky loans more attractive to lenders. In other words, banks
could afford to make bad loans, because they could sell them and not suffer the financial consequences
when borrowers failed to repay.
Once they had purchased the loans, larger investment banks bundled them into huge packages known as
collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and sold them to investors around the world. Even though CDOs
consisted of subprime mortgages, credit card debt, and other risky investments, credit ratings agencies
had a financial incentive to rate them as very safe. Making matters worse, financial institutions created
instruments called credit default swaps, which were essentially a form of insurance on investments. If
the investment lost money, the investors would be compensated. This system, sometimes referred to as
the securitization food chain, greatly swelled the housing loan market, especially the market for subprime

mortgages, because these loans carried higher interest rates. The result was a housing bubble, in which the
value of homes rose year after year based on the ease with which people now could buy them.
Banks Gone Broke

When the real estate market stalled after reaching a peak in 2007, the house of cards built by the country’s
largest financial institutions came tumbling down. People began to default on their loans, and more than
one hundred mortgage lenders went out of business. American International Group (AIG), a multinational
insurance company that had insured many of the investments, faced collapse. Other large financial
institutions, which had once been prevented by federal regulations from engaging in risky investment
practices, found themselves in danger, as they either were besieged by demands for payment or found
their demands on their own insurers unmet. The prestigious investment firm Lehman Brothers was
completely wiped out in September 2008. Some endangered companies, like Wall Street giant Merrill
Lynch, sold themselves to other financial institutions to survive. A financial panic ensued that revealed
other fraudulent schemes built on CDOs. The biggest among them was a pyramid scheme organized by
the New York financier Bernard Madoff, who had defrauded his investors by at least $18 billion.
Realizing that the failure of major financial institutions could result in the collapse of the entire U.S.
economy, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, authorized a bailout of the Wall Street firm
Bear Stearns, although months later, the financial services firm Lehman Brothers was allowed to file for
the largest bankruptcy in the nation’s history. Members of Congress met with Bernanke and Secretary
of the Treasury Henry Paulson in September 2008, to find a way to head off the crisis. They agreed to
use $700 billion in federal funds to bail out the troubled institutions, and Congress subsequently passed
the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, creating the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). One
important element of this program was aid to the auto industry: The Bush administration responded to
their appeal with an emergency loan of $17.4 billion—to be executed by his successor after the November
election—to stave off the industry’s collapse.
The actions of the Federal Reserve, Congress, and the president prevented the complete disintegration of
the nation’s financial sector and warded off a scenario like that of the Great Depression. However, the
bailouts could not prevent a severe recession in the U.S. and world economy. As people lost faith in the
economy, stock prices fell by 45 percent. Unable to receive credit from now-wary banks, smaller businesses
found that they could not pay suppliers or employees. With houses at record prices and growing economic
uncertainty, people stopped buying new homes. As the value of homes decreased, owners were unable to
borrow against them to pay off other obligations, such as credit card debt or car loans. More importantly,
millions of homeowners who had expected to sell their houses at a profit and pay off their adjustable-rate
mortgages were now stuck in houses with values shrinking below their purchasing price and forced to
make mortgage payments they could no longer afford.
Without access to credit, consumer spending declined. Some European nations had suffered similar
speculation bubbles in housing, but all had bought into the mortgage securities market and suffered
the losses of assets, jobs, and demand as a result. International trade slowed, hurting many American
businesses. As the Great Recession of 2008 deepened, the situation of ordinary citizens became worse.
During the last four months of 2008, one million American workers lost their jobs, and during 2009,
another three million found themselves out of work. Under such circumstances, many resented the
expensive federal bailout of banks and investment firms. It seemed as if the wealthiest were being rescued
by the taxpayer from the consequences of their imprudent and even corrupt practices.

• Describe the efforts to reduce the influence of immigrants on American culture
• Describe the evolution of twenty-first-century American attitudes towards same-sex
marriage
• Explain the clash over climate change
As the United States entered the twenty-first century, old disputes continued to rear their heads. Some
revolved around what it meant to be American and the rights to full citizenship. Others arose from
religious conservatism and the influence of the Religious Right on American culture and society. Debates
over gay and lesbian rights continued, and arguments over abortion became more complex and
contentious, as science and technology advanced. The clash between faith and science also influenced
attitudes about how the government should respond to climate change, with religious conservatives
finding allies among political conservatives who favored business over potentially expensive measures to
reduce harmful emissions.
WHO IS AN AMERICAN?
There is nothing new about anxiety over immigration in the United States. For its entire history, citizens
have worried about who is entering the country and the changes that might result. Such concerns began
to flare once again beginning in the 1980s, as Americans of European ancestry started to recognize the
significant demographic changes on the horizon. The number of Americans of color and multiethnic
Americans was growing, as was the percentage of people with other than European ancestry. It was clear
the white majority would soon be a demographic minority (Figure 32.11).

Figure 32.11 This map, based on the 2000 census, indicates the dominant ethnicity in different parts of the country.
Note the heavy concentration of African Americans (dark purple) in the South, and the large numbers of those of
Mexican ancestry (pink) in California and the Southwest. Why do you think so many in the Upper South are
designated as simply American (light yellow)?
The nation’s increasing diversity prompted some social conservatives to identify American culture as
one of European heritage, including the drive to legally designate English the official language of the
United States. This movement was particularly strong in areas of the country with large Spanish-speaking
populations such as Arizona, where, in 2006, three-quarters of voters approved a proposition to make
English the official language in the state. Proponents in Arizona and elsewhere argued that these laws
were necessary, because recent immigrants, especially Hispanic newcomers, were not being sufficiently
acculturated to white, middle-class culture. Opponents countered that English was already the de facto
official language, and codifying it into law would only amount to unnecessary discrimination.
DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Arizona Bans Mexican American Studies
In 2010, Arizona passed a law barring the teaching of any class that promoted “resentment” of students
of other races or encouraged “ethnic solidarity.” The ban, to take effect on December 31 of that year,
included a popular Mexican American studies program taught at elementary, middle, and high schools in
the city of Tucson. The program, which focused on teaching students about Mexican American history
and literature, was begun in 1998, to convert high absentee rates and low academic performance among
Latino students, and proved highly successful. Public school superintendent Tom Horne objected to
the course, however, claiming it encouraged resentment of whites and of the U.S. government, and
improperly encouraged students to think of themselves as members of a race instead of as individuals.
Tucson was ordered to end its Mexican American studies program or lose 10 percent of the school
system’s funding, approximately $3 million each month. In 2012, the Tucson school board voted to end
the program. A former student and his mother filed a suit in federal court, claiming that the law, which
did not prohibit programs teaching Indian students about their culture, was discriminatory and violated
the First Amendment rights of Tucson’s students. In March 2013, the court found in favor of the state,
ruling that the law was not discriminatory, because it targeted classes, and not students or teachers, and
that preventing the teaching of Mexican studies classes did not intrude on students’ constitutional rights.
The court did, however, declare the part of the law prohibiting classes designed for members of particular
ethnic groups to be unconstitutional.
What advantages or disadvantages can you see in an ethnic studies program? How could an ethnic
studies course add to our understanding of U.S. history? Explain.
The fear that English-speaking Americans were being outnumbered by a Hispanic population that was not
forced to assimilate was sharpened by the concern that far too many were illegally emigrating from Latin
America to the United States. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act proposed by Congress in 2006
sought to simultaneously strengthen security along the U.S.-Mexico border (a task for the Department of
Homeland Security), increase the number of temporary “guest workers” allowed in the United States, and
provide a pathway for long-term U.S. residents who had entered the country illegally to gain legal status.
It also sought to establish English as a “common and unifying language” for the nation. The bill and a
similar amended version both failed to become law.
With unemployment rates soaring during the Great Recession, anxiety over illegal immigration rose, even
while the incoming flow slowed. State legislatures in Alabama and Arizona passed strict new laws that
required police and other officials to verify the immigration status of those they thought had entered the
country illegally. In Alabama, the new law made it a crime to rent housing to undocumented immigrants,
thus making it difficult for these immigrants to live within the state. Both laws have been challenged in
court, and portions have been deemed unconstitutional or otherwise blocked.
Beginning in October 2013, states along the U.S.-Mexico border faced an increase in the immigration
of children from a handful of Central American countries. Approximately fifty-two thousand children,
some unaccompanied, were taken into custody as they reached the United States. A study by the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that 58 percent of those migrants, largely from El
Salvador and Honduras, were propelled towards the United States by poverty, violence, and the potential
for exploitation in their home countries. Because of a 2008 law originally intended to protect victims of
human trafficking, these Central American children are guaranteed a court hearing. Predictably, the crisis
has served to underline the need for comprehensive immigration reform. But, as of late 2014, a 2013
Senate immigration reform bill that combines border security with a guest worker program and a path to
citizenship has yet to be enacted as law.

WHAT IS A MARRIAGE?
In the 1990s, the idea of legal, same-sex marriage seemed particularly unlikely; neither of the two main
political parties expressed support for it. Things began to change, however, following Vermont’s decision
to allow same-sex couples to form state-recognized civil unions in which they could enjoy all the legal
rights and privileges of marriage. Although it was the intention of the state to create a type of legal
relationship equivalent to marriage, it did not use the word “marriage” to describe it.
Following Vermont’s lead, several other states legalized same-sex marriages or civil unions among gay and
lesbian couples. In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring gays and lesbians
from marrying violated the state constitution. The court held that offering same-sex couples the right to
form civil unions but not marriage was an act of discrimination, and Massachusetts became the first state to
allow same-sex couples to marry. Not all states followed suit, however, and there was a backlash in several
states. Between 1998 and 2012, thirty states banned same-sex marriage either by statute or by amending
their constitutions. Other states attempted, unsuccessfully, to do the same. In 2007, the Massachusetts State
Legislature rejected a proposed amendment to the state’s constitution that would have prohibited such
marriages.
Click and Explore
Watch this detailed documentary (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15HolyWar) on the

attitudes that prevailed in Colorado in 1992, when the voters of that state approved
Amendment 2 to the state’s constitution and consequently denied gay and lesbian
Coloradans the right to claim relief from local levels of discrimination in public
accommodations, housing, or jobs.
While those in support of broadening civil rights to include same-sex marriage were optimistic, those
opposed employed new tactics. In 2008, opponents of same-sex marriage in California tried a ballot
initiative to define marriage strictly as a union between a man and a woman. Despite strong support for
broadening marriage rights, the proposition was successful. This change was just one of dozens that states
had been putting in place since the late 1990s to make same-sex marriage unconstitutional at the state
level. Like the California proposition, however, many new state constitutional amendments have faced
challenges in court (Figure 32.12). As of 2014, leaders in both political parties are more receptive than ever
before to the idea of same-sex marriage.
Figure 32.12 Supporters and protesters of same-sex marriage gather in front of San Francisco’s City Hall (a) as the
California Supreme Court decides the fate of Proposition 8, a 2008 ballet measure stating that “only marriage
between a man and a woman” would be valid in California. Following the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to legalize
same-sex marriage, supporters rally in Iowa City on April 3, 2009 (b). The banner displays the Iowa state motto: “Our
liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.” (credit a: modification of work by Jamison Wieser; credit b:
modification of work by Alan Light)
Click and Explore
Visit the Pew Research site (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/15GayMarriage) to read

more about the current status of same-sex marriage in the United States and the rest
of the world.
WHY FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE?

Even as mainstream members of both political parties moved closer together on same-sex marriage,
political divisions on scientific debates continued. One increasingly polarizing debate that baffles much of
the rest of the world is about global climate change. Despite near unanimity in the scientific community
that climate change is real and will have devastating consequences, large segments of the American
population, predominantly on the right, continue to insist that it is little more than a complex hoax and
a leftist conspiracy. Much of the Republican Party’s base denies that global warming is the result of
human activity; some deny that the earth is getting hotter at all. This popular denial has had huge global
consequences. In 1998, the United States, which produces roughly 36 percent of the greenhouse gases
like carbon dioxide that prevent the earth’s heat from escaping into space, signed the Kyoto Protocol, an
agreement among the world’s nations to reduce their emissions of these gases. President Bush objected to
the requirement that major industrialized nations limit their emissions to a greater extent than other parts
of the world and argued that doing so might hurt the American economy. He announced that the United
States would not be bound by the agreement, and it was never ratified by Congress.

Instead, the Bush administration appeared to suppress scientific reporting on climate change. In 2006,
the progressive-leaning Union of Concerned Scientists surveyed sixteen hundred climate scientists, asking
them about the state of federal climate research. Of those who responded, nearly three-fourths believed
that their research had been subjected to new administrative requirements, third-party editing to change
their conclusions, or pressure not to use terms such as “global warming.” Republican politicians, citing the
altered reports, argued that there was no unified opinion among members of the scientific community that
humans were damaging the climate.
Countering this rejection of science were the activities of many environmentalists, including Al Gore,
Clinton’s vice president and Bush’s opponent in the disputed 2000 election. As a new member of Congress
in 1976, Gore had developed what proved a steady commitment to environmental issues. In 2004, he
established Generation Investment Management, which sought to promote an environmentally
responsible system of equity analysis and investment. In 2006, a documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth,
represented his attempts to educate people about the realities and dangers of global warming, and won
the 2007 Academy Award for Best Documentary. Though some of what Gore said was in error, the film’s
main thrust is in keeping with the weight of scientific evidence. In 2007, as a result of these efforts to
“disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change,” Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize
with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

• Describe how Barack Obama’s domestic policies differed from those of George W. Bush
• Discuss the important events of the war on terror during Obama’s two administrations
• Discuss some of the specific challenges facing the United States as Obama’s second
term draws to a close
In 2008, American voters, tired of war and dispirited by the economic downturn, elected a relative
newcomer to the political scene who inspired them and made them believe that the United States could
rise above political partisanship. Barack Obama’s story resembled that of many Americans: a multicultural
background; a largely absent father; a single working mother; and care provided by maternal
grandparents. As president, Obama would face significant challenges, including managing the economic
recovery in the wake of the Great Recession, fighting the war on terror inherited from the previous
administration, and implementing the healthcare reform upon which he had campaigned.
OBAMA TAKES OFFICE

Born in Hawaii in 1961 to a Kenyan father and an American woman from Kansas, Obama excelled at
school, going on to attend Occidental College in Los Angeles, Columbia University, and finally Harvard
Law School, where he became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review. As part of
his education, he also spent time in Chicago working as a community organizer to help those displaced by
the decline of heavy industry in the early 1980s. Obama first came to national attention when he delivered
the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention while running for his first term in the
U.S. Senate. Just a couple of years later, he was running for president himself, the first African American
nominee for the office from either major political party.
Obama’s opponent in 2008 was John McCain, a Vietnam veteran and Republican senator with the
reputation of a “maverick” who had occasionally broken ranks with his party to support bipartisan
initiatives. The senator from Arizona faced a number of challenges. As the Republican nominee, he
remained closely associated with the two disastrous foreign wars initiated under the Bush administration.
His late recognition of the economic catastrophe on the eve of the election did not help matters and further
damaged the Republican brand at the polls. At seventy-one, he also had to fight accusations that he was
too old for the job, an impression made even more striking by his energetic young challenger. To minimize
this weakness, McCain chose a young but inexperienced running mate, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska.
This tactic backfired, however, when a number of poor performances in television interviews convinced
many voters that Palin was not prepared for higher office (Figure 32.13).
Figure 32.13 John McCain (on the far right) campaigns with his wife Cindy (in green), Sarah Palin (in black), and
Palin’s husband Todd. Palin was a controversial choice for running mate. The campaign never succeeded in erasing
the charges that she was ignorant of foreign policy—an impression she enforced in her own ad-lib statements. (credit:
Rachael Dickson)
Senator Obama, too, was criticized for his lack of experience with foreign policy, a deficit he remedied
by choosing experienced politician Joseph Biden as his running mate. Unlike his Republican opponent,
however, Obama offered promises of “hope and change.” By sending out voter reminders on Twitter
and connecting with supporters on Facebook, he was able to harness social media and take advantage of
grassroots enthusiasm for his candidacy. His youthful vigor drew independents and first-time voters, and
he won 95 percent of the African American vote and 44 percent of the white vote (Figure 32.14).
Figure 32.14 Barack Obama takes the oath of office as the forty-fourth president of the United States. Standing next
to him is First Lady Michelle Obama. Like her husband, she graduated from Harvard Law School.

DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Politicking in a New Century
Barack Obama’s campaign seemed to come out of nowhere to overcome the widely supported
frontrunner Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. Having won the nomination, Obama shot to the
top with an exuberant base of youthful supporters who were encouraged and inspired by his appeal to
hope and change. Behind the scenes, the Obama campaign was employing technological innovations
and advances in social media to both inform and organize its base.
The Obama campaign realized early that the key to political success in the twenty-first century was to
energize young voters by reaching them where they were: online. The organizing potential of platforms
like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter had never before been tapped—and they were free. The results
were groundbreaking. Using these social media platforms, the Obama campaign became an organizing
and fundraising machine of epic proportions. During his almost two-year-long campaign, Obama
accepted 6.5 million donations, totaling $500 million. The vast majority of online donations were less
than $100. This accomplishment stunned the political establishment, and they have been quick to adapt.
Since 2008, nearly every political campaign has followed in Obama’s footsteps, effecting a revolution in
campaigning in the United States.
ECONOMIC AND HEALTHCARE REFORMS

Barack Obama had been elected on a platform of healthcare reform and a wave of frustration over the
sinking economy. As he entered office in 2009, he set out to deal with both. Taking charge of the TARP
program instituted under George W. Bush to stabilize the country’s financial institutions, Obama oversaw
the distribution of some $7.77 trillion designed to help shore up the nation’s banking system. Recognizing
that the economic downturn also threatened major auto manufacturers in the United States, he sought and
received congressional authorization for $80 billion to help Chrysler and General Motors. The action was
controversial, and some characterized it as a government takeover of industry. The money did, however,
help the automakers earn a profit by 2011, reversing the trend of consistent losses that had hurt the
industry since 2004. It also helped prevent layoffs and wage cuts. By 2013, the automakers had repaid over
$50 billion of bailout funds. Finally, through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA),
the Obama administration pumped almost $800 billion into the economy to stimulate economic growth
and job creation.
More important for Obama supporters than his attempts to restore the economy was that he fulfill his
promise to enact comprehensive healthcare reform. Many assumed such reforms would move quickly
through Congress, since Democrats had comfortable majorities in both houses, and both Obama and
McCain had campaigned on healthcare reform. However, as had occurred years before during President
Clinton’s first term, opposition groups saw attempts at reform as an opportunity to put the political
brakes on the Obama presidency. After months of political wrangling and condemnations of the healthcare
reform plan as socialism, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Figure 32.15) was passed and
signed into law.
The act, which created the program known as Obamacare, represented the first significant overhaul of the
American healthcare system since the passage of Medicaid in 1965. Its goals were to provide all Americans
with access to affordable health insurance, to require that everyone in the United States acquire some form
of health insurance, and to lower the costs of healthcare. The plan, which made use of government funding,
created private insurance company exchanges to market various insurance packages to enrollees.
Figure 32.15 President Obama signs the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law on March 23, 2010, as
Vice President Biden, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and others look on.
(credit: Pete Souza)
Although the plan implemented the market-based reforms that they had supported for years, Republicans
refused to vote for it. Following its passage, they called numerous times for its repeal, and more than
twenty-four states sued the federal government to stop its implementation. Discontent over the Affordable
Care Act helped the Republicans capture the majority in the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterm
elections. It also helped spawn the Tea Party, a conservative movement focused primarily on limiting
government spending and the size of the federal government.

By the 2012 presidential election, the Republicans, convinced Obama was vulnerable because of opposition
to his healthcare program and a weak economy, nominated Mitt Romney, a well-known business
executive-turned politician who had earlier signed healthcare reform into state law as governor of
Massachusetts (Figure 32.16). Romney had unsuccessfully challenged McCain for the Republican
nomination in 2008, but by 2012, he had remade himself politically by moving towards the party’s right
wing and its newly created Tea Party faction, which was pulling the traditional conservative base further
to the right with its strong opposition to abortion, gun control, and immigration.
Figure 32.16 Former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney became the first member of the Mormon Church to
run for president. He claimed his experience as a member of the Mormon lay clergy had made him sympathetic to the
needs of the poor, but some of his campaign decisions contradicted this stance. (credit: Mark Taylor)

Romney appealed to a new attitude within the Republican Party. While the percentage of Democrats who
agreed that the government should help people unable to provide for themselves had remained relatively
stable from 1987 to 2012, at roughly 75 to 79 percent, the percentage of Republicans who felt the same
way had decreased from 62 to 40 percent over the same period, with the greatest decline coming after
2007. Indeed, Romney himself revealed his disdain for people on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic
ladder when, at a fundraising event attended by affluent Republicans, he remarked that he did not care
to reach the 47 percent of Americans who would always vote for Obama because of their dependence
on government assistance. In his eyes, this low-income portion of the population preferred to rely on
government social programs instead of trying to improve their own lives.
Click and Explore
Read the transcript (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/1547percent2) of “On the 47

percent,” the secretly recorded speech (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/1547percent)
given by Mitt Romney at a Republican fundraiser.
Starting out behind Obama in the polls, Romney significantly closed the gap in the first of three
presidential debates, when he moved towards more centrist positions on many issues. Obama regained
momentum in the remaining two debates and used his bailout of the auto industry to appeal to voters in
the key states of Michigan and Ohio. Romney’s remarks about the 47 percent hurt his position among both
poor Americans and those who sympathized with them. A long-time critic of FEMA who claimed that it
should be eliminated, Romney also likely lost votes in the Northeast when, a week before the election,
Hurricane Sandy devastated the New England, New York, and New Jersey coasts. Obama and the federal
government had largely rebuilt FEMA since its disastrous showing in New Orleans in 2005, and the agency
quickly swung into action to assist the 8.5 million people affected by the disaster.
Obama won the election, but the Republicans retained their hold on the House of Representatives and
the Democratic majority in the Senate grew razor-thin. Political bickering and intractable Republican
resistance, including a 70 percent increase in filibusters over the 1980s, a refusal to allow a vote on some
legislation, such as the 2012 “jobs bill,” and the glacial pace at which the Senate confirmed the President’s
judicial nominations, created political gridlock in Washington, interfering with Obama’s ability to secure
any important legislative victories.
ONGOING CHALLENGES
As Obama entered his second term in office, the economy remained stagnant in many areas. On average,
American students continued to fall behind their peers in the rest of the world, and the cost of a college
education became increasingly unaffordable for many. Problems continued overseas in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and another act of terrorism took place on American soil when bombs exploded at the
2013 Boston Marathon. At the same time, the cause of same-sex marriage made significant advances, and
Obama was able to secure greater protection for the environment. He raised fuel-efficiency standards
for automobiles to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases and required coal-burning power plants to
capture their carbon emissions.
Learning and Earning

The quality of American education remains a challenge. The global economy is dominated by those
nations with the greatest number of “knowledge workers:” people with specialized knowledge and skills
like engineers, scientists, doctors, teachers, financial analysts, and computer programmers. Furthermore,
American students’ reading, math, and critical thinking skills are less developed than those of their peers
in other industrialized nations, including small countries like Estonia.
The Obama administration sought to make higher education more accessible by increasing the amount
that students could receive under the federally funded Pell Grant Program, which, by the 2012–13
academic year, helped 9.5 million students pay for their college education. Obama also worked out a
compromise with Congress in 2013, which lowered the interest rates charged on student loans. However,
college tuition is still growing at a rate of 2 to 3 percent per year, and the debt burden has surpassed the
$1 trillion mark and is likely to increase. With debt upon graduation averaging about $29,000, students
may find their economic options limited. Instead of buying cars or paying for housing, they may have to
join the boomerang generation and return to their parents’ homes in order to make their loan payments.
Clearly, high levels of debt will affect their career choices and life decisions for the foreseeable future.
Many other Americans continue to be challenged by the state of the economy. Most economists calculate
that the Great Recession reached its lowest point in 2009, and the economy has gradually improved since
then. The stock market ended 2013 at historic highs, having experienced its biggest percentage gain since
1997. However, despite these gains, the nation struggled to maintain a modest annual growth rate of 2.5
percent after the Great Recession, and the percentage of the population living in poverty continues to
hover around 15 percent. Income has decreased (Figure 32.17), and, as late as 2011, the unemployment
rate was still high in some areas. Eight million full-time workers have been forced into part-time work,
whereas 26 million seem to have given up and left the job market.
Figure 32.17 Median household income trends reveal a steady downward spiral. The Great Recession may have
ended, but many remain worse off than they were in 2008.

LGBT Rights
During Barack Obama’s second term in office, courts began to counter efforts by conservatives to outlaw
same-sex marriage. A series of decisions declared nine states’ prohibitions against same-sex marriage to
be unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to overturn a federal court ruling to
that effect in California in June 2013. Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court also ruled that the Defense
of Marriage Act of 1996 was unconstitutional, because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. These decisions seem to allow legal challenges in all the states that persist in
trying to block same-sex unions.
The struggle against discrimination based on gender identity has also won some significant victories. In
2014, the U.S. Department of Education ruled that schools receiving federal funds may not discriminate
against transgender students, and a board within the Department of Health and Human Services decided
that Medicare should cover sexual reassignment surgery. Although very few people eligible for Medicare
are transgender, the decision is still important, because private insurance companies often base their
coverage on what Medicare considers appropriate and necessary forms of treatment for various
conditions. Undoubtedly, the fight for greater rights for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual)
individuals will continue.
Violence
Another running debate questions the easy accessibility of firearms. Between the spring of 1999, when
two teens killed twelve of their classmates, a teacher, and themselves at their high school in Columbine,
Colorado, and the early summer of 2014, fifty-two additional shootings or attempted shootings had
occurred at schools (Figure 32.18). Nearly always, the violence was perpetrated by young people with
severe mental health problems, as at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012.
After killing his mother at home, twenty-year-old Adam Lanza went to the school and fatally shot twenty
six- and seven-year-old students, along with six adult staff members, before killing himself. Advocates
of stricter gun control noted a clear relationship between access to guns and mass shootings. Gun rights
advocates, however, disagreed. They argued that access to guns is merely incidental.
Figure 32.18 A candlelight vigil at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, in the
wake of the 2007 murder of thirty-two people by a student. The incident remains the deadliest school shooting to
date. (credit: “alka3en”/Flickr)
Another shocking act of violence was the attack on the Boston Marathon. On April 15, 2013, shortly before
3:00 p.m., two bombs made from pressure cookers exploded near the finish line (Figure 32.19). Three
people were killed, and more than 250 were injured. Three days later, two suspects were identified, and a
manhunt began. Later that night, the two young men, brothers who had immigrated to the United States
from Chechnya, killed a campus security officer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, stole a car,
and fled. The older, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was killed in a fight with the police, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was
captured the next day. In his statements to the police, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev reported that he and his brother,
who he claimed had planned the attacks, had been influenced by the actions of fellow radical Islamists in
Afghanistan and Iraq, but he denied they had been affiliated with any larger terrorist group.
Figure 32.19 Bystanders at the finish line of the Boston Marathon help carry the injured to safety after the April 2013
attack. Two bombs exploded only a few seconds and a few hundred yards apart, killing three people. (credit: Aaron
Tang)
America and the World

In May 2014, President Obama announced that, for the most part, U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan
were over. Although a residual force of ninety-eight hundred soldiers will remain to continue training the
Afghan army, by 2016, all U.S. troops will have left the country, except for a small number to defend U.S.
diplomatic posts.
The years of warfare have brought the United States few rewards. In Iraq, 4,475 American soldiers died
and 32,220 were wounded. In Afghanistan, the toll through February 2013 was 2,165 dead and 18,230
wounded. By some estimates, the total monetary cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could easily
reach $4 trillion, and the Congressional Budget Office believes that the cost of providing medical care for
the veterans might climb to $8 billion by 2020.
In Iraq, the coalition led by then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was able to win 92 of the 328 seats in
parliament in May 2014, and he seemed poised to begin another term as the country’s ruler. The elections,
however, did not stem the tide of violence in the country. In June 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
(ISIS), a radical Islamist militant group consisting of mostly Sunni Muslims and once affiliated with al-
Qaeda, seized control of Sunni-dominated areas of Iraq and Syria. On June 29, 2014, it proclaimed the
formation of the Islamic State with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as caliph, the state’s political and religious
leader.

Key Terms
al-Qaeda a militant Islamist group originally founded by Osama bin Laden
boomerang generation young people who must return to their parents’ home in order to make ends
meet
Bush Doctrine the belief that the United States has the right to protect itself from terrorist acts by
engaging in pre-emptive wars or ousting hostile governments in favor of friendly, preferably democratic,
regimes
charter schools elementary and secondary schools that, although funded by taxpayer money, are
allowed to operate independently from some rules and regulations governing public schools
civil unions a civil status offered to gay and lesbian couples with the goal of securing the main privileges
of marriage without granting them equal status in marriage
credit default swaps financial instruments that pay buyers even if a purchased loan defaults; a form of
insurance for risky loans
Great Recession the economic recession that began in 2008, following the collapse of the housing boom,
and was driven by risky and misleading subprime mortgages and a deregulated bond market
greenhouse gases gases in the earth’s atmosphere, like carbon dioxide, that trap heat and prevent it from
radiating into space
Kyoto Protocol an international agreement establishing regulations designed to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by the world’s industrialized nations
Obamacare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
subprime mortgage a type of mortgage offered to borrowers with lower credit ratings; subprime loans
feature interest rates that are higher (often adjustable) than conventional mortgages to compensate the
bank for the increased risk of default
Taliban a fundamentalist Muslim group that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001
Tea Party a conservative movement focused primarily on limiting government spending and the size of
the federal government
WMDs weapons of mass destruction; a class of weapons capable of inflicting massive causalities and
physical destruction, such as nuclear bombs or biological and chemical weapons
Summary
George W. Bush’s first term in office began with al-Qaeda’s deadly attacks on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Shortly thereafter, the United States found itself at war with
Afghanistan, which was accused of harboring the 9/11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden, and his followers.
Claiming that Iraq’s president Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction, perhaps with
the intent of attacking the United States, the president sent U.S. troops to Iraq as well in 2003. Thousands
were killed, and many of the men captured by the United States were imprisoned and sometimes tortured
for information. The ease with which Hussein was deposed led the president to declare that the mission in
Iraq had been accomplished only a few months after it began. He was, however, mistaken. Meanwhile, the
establishment of the Office of Homeland Security and the passage of the Homeland Security Act and USA
Patriot Act created new means and levels of surveillance to identify potential threats.

When George W. Bush took office in January 2001, he was committed to a Republican agenda. He cut
tax rates for the rich and tried to limit the role of government in people’s lives, in part by providing
students with vouchers to attend charter and private schools, and encouraging religious organizations
to provide social services instead of the government. While his tax cuts pushed the United States into
a chronically large federal deficit, many of his supply-side economic reforms stalled during his second
term. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina underscored the limited capacities of the federal government under Bush
to assure homeland security. In combination with increasing discontent over the Iraq War, these events
handed Democrats a majority in both houses in 2006. Largely as a result of a deregulated bond market and
dubious innovations in home mortgages, the nation reached the pinnacle of a real estate boom in 2007. The
threatened collapse of the nations’ banks and investment houses required the administration to extend aid
to the financial sector. Many resented this bailout of the rich, as ordinary citizens lost jobs and homes in
the Great Recession of 2008.

The nation’s increasing diversity—and with it, the fact that white Caucasians will soon be a demographic
minority—prompted a conservative backlash that continues to manifest itself in debates about
immigration. Questions of who is an American and what constitutes a marriage continue to be debated,
although the answers are beginning to change. As some states broadened civil rights to include gays and
lesbians, groups opposed to these developments sought to impose state constitutional restrictions. From
this flurry of activity, however, a new political consensus for expanding marriage rights has begun to
emerge. On the issue of climate change, however, polarization has increased. A strong distrust of science
among Americans has divided the political parties and hampered scientific research.

Despite Republican resistance and political gridlock in Washington during his first term in office, President
Barack Obama oversaw the distribution of the TARP program’s $7.77 trillion to help shore up the nation’s
banking system, and Congress authorized $80 billion to help Chrysler and General Motors. The goals of
Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) were to provide all Americans with
access to affordable health insurance, to require that everyone in the United States had some form of
health insurance, and to lower the costs of healthcare. During his second term, the nation struggled to
grow modestly, the percentage of the population living in poverty remained around 15 percent, and
unemployment was still high in some areas. Acceptance of same-sex marriage grew, and the United States
sharply reduced its military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Review Questions
1. The prison operated by the U.S. military for the 2. Unwarranted wiretapping in the United States
detention and interrogation of terrorist suspects was conducted by ________.
and “enemy combatants” is located at ________. A. the FBI
A. Kuwait City, Kuwait B. the CIA
B. Riker’s Island, New York C. the New York Times
C. Guantanamo Bay, Cuba D. the NSA
D. Lahore, Pakistan

3. In what ways did the U.S. government attempt A. Massachusetts

to deny the rights of prisoners taken in B. New York
Afghanistan and Iraq? C. California
D. Pennsylvania
4. What investment banking firm went bankrupt
in 2008, signaling the beginning of a major 9. What was the result of the Bush
economic crisis? administration’s unwillingness to recognize that
A. CitiBank climate change is being accelerated by human
B. Wells Fargo activity?
C. Lehman Brothers
D. Price Waterhouse 10. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Defense of
Marriage Act unconstitutional in ________.
5. A subprime mortgage is ________. A. 2007
A. a high-risk, high-interest loan B. 2009
B. a federal bailout for major banks C. 2013
C. a form of insurance on investments D. 2014
D. a form of political capital
11. Which of the following is not a goal of
6. What are the pros and cons of school Obamacare (the Patient Protection and Affordable
vouchers? Care Act)?
A. to provide all Americans with access to
7. A popular Mexican American studies program affordable health insurance
was banned by the state of ________, which B. to require that everyone in the United
accused it of causing resentment of white people. States acquire some form of health
A. New Mexico insurance
B. California C. to lower the costs of healthcare
C. Arizona D. to increase employment in the healthcare
D. Texas industry
8. The first state to allow same-sex marriage was 12. What has Barack Obama done to make college
________. education more accessible?

13. What factors led to the Great Recession?
14. How have conservatives fared in their efforts to defend “American” culture against an influx of
immigrants in the twenty-first century?
15. In what ways are Barack Obama’s ideas regarding the economy, education, and the environment
similar to those of Bush, his Republican predecessor? In what ways are they different?
16. How successful has the United States been in achieving its goals in Iraq and Afghanistan?
17. In what ways has the United States become a more heterogeneous and inclusive place in the twenty-
first century? In what ways has it become more homogenous and exclusive?

Appendix A 995
APPENDIX A
The Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands
which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate
and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it
is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation
on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not
be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are
more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to
which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty,
to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the
patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their
former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated
injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these
States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended
in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to
attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people
would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable
to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository
of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on
the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the
Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the
State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions
within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for
Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the
conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary
powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and
payment of their salaries.
996 Appendix A
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and
eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and
unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the
Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an
Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit
instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms
of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in
all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death,
desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the
most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country,
to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our
frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of
all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our
repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked
by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to
time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded
them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice
and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these
usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been
deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which
denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace
Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled,
appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by
Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies

Appendix A 997
are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the
British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to
be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude
Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent
States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of
divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
998 Appendix A
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

Appendix B 999
APPENDIX B
The Constitution of the United

States
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America.
Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist
of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of
the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the
most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been
seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State
in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included
within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the
whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding
Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three
Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten
Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for
every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration
shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-
Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania
eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia
three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue
Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power
of Impeachment.
Section. 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the
Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided
as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at
the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the
third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and
if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the
Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which
shall then fill such Vacancies.
1000 Appendix B
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years
a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he
shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they
be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice
President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be
on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside:
And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the
Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment,
according to Law.
Section. 4.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed
in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such
Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in
December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Section. 5.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a
Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day
to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under
such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour,
and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such
Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on
any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more
than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section. 6.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by
Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and
Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective
Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they
shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil
Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof
shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States,
shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose
or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Appendix B 1001
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a
Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall
return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections
at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that
House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by
which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a
Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names
of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If
any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been
presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by
their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives
may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United
States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him,
shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and
Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts
and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies
throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and
Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of
Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and
Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than
two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel
Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as
may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment
of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
1002 Appendix B
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles
square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the
Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent
of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.
Section. 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit,
shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax
or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or
Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein
before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over
those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in
another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and
a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published
from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or
Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office,
or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin
Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass
any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title
of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports,
except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all
Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the
United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War
in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or
engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Article. II.
Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office
during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected,
as follows

Appendix B 1003
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal
to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:
but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States,
shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least
shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons
voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed
to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of
the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and
the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President,
if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one
who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall
immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five
highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President,
the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this
Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the
States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having
the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or
more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their
Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of
this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that
Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident
within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge
the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress
may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and
Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly,
until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be
encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive
within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and
will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia
of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion,
in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the
Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences
against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two
thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of
the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,
and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and
which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior
Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
1004 Appendix B
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate,
by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to
their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary
Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with
Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall
receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,
and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on
Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts
as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior
Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services,
a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the
Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all
Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime
Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between
two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different
States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between
a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall
be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the
supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under
such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in
the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the
Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their
Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony
of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall
work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings
of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.

Appendix B 1005
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be
found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be
delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in
Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be
delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected
within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or
Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the
Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so
construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall
protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the
Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to
this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a
Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes,
as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by
Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by
the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight
hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first
Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Article. VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as
valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law
of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws
of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures,
and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound
by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this
Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September
in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the
United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
1006 Appendix B
G. Washington
Presidt and deputy from Virginia
Delaware
Geo: Read
Gunning Bedford jun
John Dickinson
Richard Bassett
Jaco: Broom
Maryland
James McHenry
Dan of St Thos. Jenifer
Danl. Carroll
Virginia
John Blair
James Madison Jr.
North Carolina
Wm. Blount
Richd. Dobbs Spaight
Hu Williamson
South Carolina
J. Rutledge
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
Charles Pinckney
Pierce Butler
Georgia
William Few
Abr Baldwin
New Hampshire
John Langdon
Nicholas Gilman
Massachusetts
Nathaniel Gorham
Rufus King
Connecticut
Wm. Saml. Johnson
Roger Sherman
New York
Alexander Hamilton
New Jersey
Wil: Livingston
David Brearley
Wm. Paterson
Jona: Dayton
Pensylvania
B Franklin
Thomas Mifflin
Robt. Morris
Geo. Clymer
Thos. FitzSimons
Jared Ingersoll
James Wilson
Gouv Morris

Appendix B 1007
Constitutional Amendments
The U.S. Bill of Rights (Amendments 1–10)
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March,
one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed
a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive
clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best
ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress
assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the
Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any
of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and
purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by
Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original
Constitution.
Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original
form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time
of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial
jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
1008 Appendix B
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by
jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the
United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment XI
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity,
commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or
Subjects of any Foreign State.
Amendment XII
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of
whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots
the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they
shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President,
and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the
seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — the President of the
Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the
votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the
President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have
such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those
voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.
But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having
one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states,
and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not
choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March
next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional
disability of the President. —]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall
be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no
person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-
President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a
majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to
the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
*Superseded by Section 3 of the 20th amendment.
Amendment XIII
Section 1.

Appendix B 1009
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have
been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers,
counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right
to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States,
Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the
Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,*
and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other
crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such
male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President,
or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously
taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State
legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United
States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the
enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for
payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred
in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of
any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
*Changed by Section 1 of the 26th amendment.
Amendment XV
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by
any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude—
Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XVI
1010 Appendix B
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without
apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Amendment XVII
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people
thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the
qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such
State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may
empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by
election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it
becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Amendment XVIII
Section 1.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating
liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all
territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2.
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by
the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of
the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by
any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XX
Section 1.
The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the
terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms
would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Section 2.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d
day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 3.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the
Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed
for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President
elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for
the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who

Appendix B 1011
shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person
shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Section 4.
The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House
of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them,
and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President
whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
Section 5.
Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
Section 6.
the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
Amendment XXI
Section 1.
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2.
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery
or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3.
conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the
submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Amendment XXII
Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the
office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person
was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall
not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress,
and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during
the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as
President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2.
the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to
the States by the Congress.
Amendment XXIII
Section 1.
The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the
Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and
Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more
than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be
considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by
1012 Appendix B
a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of
amendment.
Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XXIV
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice
President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall
not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other
tax.
Section 2.
Amendment XXV
Section 1.
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall
become President.
Section 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice
President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,
and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be
discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or
of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and
duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of
the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers
and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the
executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days
to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written
declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon
Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If
the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in
session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of
both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President
shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers
and duties of his office.
Amendment XXVI
Section 1.

Appendix B 1013
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2.
Amendment XXVII
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect,
until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
1014 Appendix B

Appendix C 1015
APPENDIX C
Presidents of the United States of

America
Table C1 Presidents of the United States of
America
Order Election Year President
1 1788–1789 George Washington
2 1792 George Washington
3 1796 John Adams
4 1800 Thomas Jefferson
5 1804 Thomas Jefferson
6 1808 James Madison
7 1812 James Madison
8 1816 James Monroe
9 1820 James Monroe
10 1824 John Quincy Adams
11 1828 Andrew Jackson
12 1832 Andrew Jackson
13 1836 Martin Van Buren
14 1840 William Henry Harrison
15 1844 James K. Polk
16 1848 Zachary Taylor
17 1852 Franklin Pierce
18 1856 James Buchanan
19 1860 Abraham Lincoln
20 1864 Abraham Lincoln
21 1868 Ulysses S. Grant
22 1872 Ulysses S. Grant
23 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes
24 1880 James A. Garfield

1016 Appendix C

America
25 1884 Grover Cleveland
26 1888 Benjamin Harrison
27 1892 Grover Cleveland
28 1896 William McKinley
29 1900 William McKinley
30 1904 Theodore Roosevelt
31 1908 William Howard Taft
32 1912 Woodrow Wilson
33 1916 Woodrow Wilson
34 1920 Warren G. Harding
35 1924 Calvin Coolidge
36 1928 Herbert Hoover
37 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt
41 1948 Harry S. Truman
42 1952 Dwight D. Eisenhower
43 1956 Dwight D. Eisenhower
44 1960 John F. Kennedy
45 1964 Lyndon B. Johnson
46 1968 Richard Nixon
47 1972 Richard Nixon
48 1976 Jimmy Carter
49 1980 Ronald Reagan
50 1984 Ronald Reagan
51 1988 George H. W. Bush

Appendix C 1017

America
52 1992 Bill Clinton
53 1996 Bill Clinton
54 2000 George W. Bush
55 2004 George W. Bush
56 2008 Barack Obama
57 2012 Barack Obama

1018 Appendix C

Appendix D 1019
APPENDIX D
U.S. Political Map
Figure D1 (credit: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, The National Atlas of the United States
of America/nationalatlas.gov)
1020 Appendix D

Appendix E 1021
APPENDIX E
U.S. Topographical Map
Figure E1
1022 Appendix E

Appendix F 1023
APPENDIX F
United States Population Chart

Table F1 United States Population Chart[1]
Census Year Population Census Year Population
1610 350 1820 9,638,453
1620 2,302 1830 12,866,020
1630 4,646 1840 17,069,453
1640 26,634 1850 23,191,876
1650 50,368 1860 31,443,321
1660 75,058 1870 38,558,371
1670 111,935 1880 50,189,209
1680 151,507 1890 62,979,766
1690 210,372 1900 76,212,168
1700 250,888 1910 92,228,496
1710 331,711 1920 106,021,537
1720 466,185 1930 123,202,624
1730 629,445 1940 132,164,569
1740 905,563 1950 151,325,798
1750 1,170,760 1960 179,323,175
1760 1,593,625 1970 203,211,926
1770 2,148,076 1980 226,656,805
1780 2,780,369 1990 248,709,873
1790 3,929,214 2000 281,421,906
1800 5,308,483 2010 308,745,538
1810 7,239,881
1. Population figures for the decades before the first U.S. census in 1790 are estimates.
1024 Appendix F

Appendix G 1025
APPENDIX G
Further Reading
THE PRE-COLUMBIAN WORLD AND EARLY GLOBALIZATION
Alchon, Suzanne Austin. 2003. A Pest in the Land: New World Epidemics in a Global Perspective. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
Brown, Kathleen M. 1996. Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and Power in
Colonial Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Clendinnen, Inga. 1991. Aztecs: An Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, Harold John. 2007. Matters of Exchange: Commerce, Medicine, and Science in the Dutch Golden Age. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Curtin, Philip D. 1990. The Rise and Fall of the Plantation Complex: Essays in Atlantic History. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Leon, Portilla Miguel. (1992) 2006. The Broken Spears: The Aztec Account of the Conquest of Mexico. Boston:
Beacon Press.
Mann, Charles C. 2005. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. New York: Knopf.
—. 2011. 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created. New York: Knopf.
Meltzer, David J. 2009. First Peoples in a New World: Colonizing Ice Age America. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Niane, Djibril Tamsir. 1965. Sundiata: An Epic of Old Mali. Translated by G. D. Pickett. London: Longmans.
Northrup, David. 2013. Africa's Discovery of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pagden, Anthony. 1995. Lords of all the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and France c.1500–c.1800.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Prescott, William Hickling. 1936. History of the Conquest of Mexico, and History of the Conquest of Peru. New
York: Modern Library.
Seed, Patricia. 1995. Ceremonies of Possession in Europe’s Conquest of the New World, 1492–1640. Cambridge:
Taylor, Alan. 2002. American Colonies. New York: Penguin Books.
Thornton, John K. 1992. Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400–1680. Cambridge:
Wey Gómez, Nicolás. 2008. The Tropics of Empire: Why Columbus Sailed South to the Indies. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
THE COLONIAL AMERICAS

Bailyn, Bernard. 2012. The Barbarous Years: The Peopling of British North America: The Conflict of Civilizations,
1600–1675. New York: Vintage Books.
Berlin, Ira. 1998. Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press.
Calloway, Colin G. 2011. First Peoples: A Documentary Survey of American Indian History. Fourth edition,
Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press.
1026 Appendix G
Elliott, J. H. 2006. Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America, 1492–1830. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Fischer, David H. 1989. Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gaustad, Edwin S. 1982. A Documentary History of Religion in America. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Gibson, Charles. 1964. The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico,
1519–1810. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hatfield, April Lee. 2004. Atlantic Virginia: Intercolonial Relations in the Seventeenth Century. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Liss, Peggy K. 1975. Mexico Under Spain, 1521–1556: Society and the Origins of Nationality. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Morgan, Edmund S. 1958. The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop. Boston: Little, Brown.
Rediker, Marcus. 2007. The Slave Ship: A Human History. New York: Viking Books.
Richter, Daniel K. 2001. Facing East from Indian Country: A Native History of Early America. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Roberts, David. 2004. The Pueblo Revolt: The Secret Rebellion that Drove the Spaniards Out of the Southwest.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Spicer, Edward Holland. 1962. Cycles of Conquest: The Impact of Spain, Mexico, and the United States on the
Indians of the Southwest, 1533–1960. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Twinam, Ann. 1982. Miners, Merchants, and Farmers in Colonial Colombia. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Weber, David J. 1992. The Spanish Frontier in North America. New Haven: Yale University Press.
REFORM, PROTEST, AND REVOLUTION

Anderson, Fred. 2005. The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War. New York:
Viking Books.
Bailyn, Bernard. 1986. The Peopling of British North America: An Introduction. New York: Knopf Doubleday.
Breen, Timothy H. 2004. The Marketplace of Revolution: How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Butler, Jon. 2000. Becoming America: The Revolution before 1776. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Calloway, Colin G. 1995. The American Revolution in Indian Country: Crisis and Diversity in Native American
Communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, Don. 1995. The Long Fuse: How England Lost the American Colonies, 1760–1785. New York: Atlantic
Monthly Press.
Egerton, Douglas R. 2009. Death or Liberty: African Americans and Revolutionary America. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, Joseph J. 2003. Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. New York: Random House.
Fischer, David Hackett. 2004. Washington’s Crossing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fleming, Thomas J. 1997. Liberty! The American Revolution. New York: Viking Books.
Holton, Woody. 1999. Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in
Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
—. 2007. Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution. New York: Hill and Wang.
Isaac, Rhys. 1982. The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Appendix G 1027
Lovejoy, David S. 1972. The Glorious Revolution in America. New York: Harper & Row.
McCullough, David. 2005. 1776. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Middlekauff, Robert. 1982. The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Noll, Mark A. 2003. The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Norton, Mary Beth. 1980. Liberty’s Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750–1800.
Boston: Little, Brown.
Olwell, Robert. 1998. Masters, Slaves & Subjects: The Culture of Power in the South Carolina Low Country,
1740–1790. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Rakove, Jack N. 2010. Revolutionaries: A New History of the Invention of America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt.
Raphael, Ray. 2001. A People’s History of the American Revolution: How Common People Shaped the Fight for
Independence. New York: New Press.
Stout, Harry S. 1991. The Divine Dramatist: George Whitefield and the Rise of Modern Evangelicalism. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Webb, Stephen Saunders. 1995. Lord Churchill’s Coup: The Anglo-American Empire and the Glorious Revolution
Reconsidered. New York: Knopf.
Wood, Gordon S. 1992. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York: Knopf.
Young, Alfred Fabian. 1999. The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution. Boston:
Beacon Press.
THE EARLY REPUBLIC

Appleby, Joyce Oldham. 2000. Inheriting the Revolution: The First Generation of Americans. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press.
Dubois, Laurent. 2004. Avengers of the New World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press.
Ellis, Joseph J. 1997. American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson. New York: Knopf.
Ferling, John. 2004. Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hickey, Donald R. 1989. The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Kamensky, Jane. 2008. The Exchange Artist: A Tale of High-Flying Speculation and America’s First Banking
Collapse. New York: Viking Books.
Langguth, A. J. 2006. Union 1812: The Americans Who Fought the Second War of Independence. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Litwack, Leon F. 1961. North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States, 1790–1860. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Maier, Pauline. 1997. American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. New York: Knopf.
Smith, Jean Edward. 1996. John Marshall: Definer of a Nation. New York: Holt.
Taylor, Alan. 2010. The Civil War of 1812: American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels, & Indian Allies. New
York: Vintage Books.
1028 Appendix G
INDUSTRIALIZATION AND TRANSFORMATION

Blackmar, Elizabeth. 1989. Manhattan for Rent, 1785–1850. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Howe, Daniel Walker. 2007. What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Igler, David. 2013. The Great Ocean: Pacific Worlds from Captain Cook to the Gold Rush. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Johnson, Paul E. 1978. A Shopkeeper’s Millennium: Society and Revivals in Rochester, New York, 1815–1837.
New York: Hill and Wang.
Johnson, Walter. 1999. Soul by Soul: Life Inside the Antebellum Slave Market. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Marx, Leo. 1964. The Machine in the Garden: Technology and the Pastoral Ideal in America. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Rees, Jonathan. 2013. Industrialization and the Transformation of American Life: A Brief Introduction. Armonk,
NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Sandage, Scott A. 2005. Born Losers: A History of Failure in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY
Allgor, Catherine. 2000. Parlor Politics: In Which the Ladies of Washington Help Build a City and a Government.
Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Deloria, Philip Joseph. 1998. Playing Indian. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Deyle, Steven. 2005. Carry Me Back: The Domestic Slave Trade in American Life. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Dippie, Brian W. 1982. The Vanishing American: White Attitudes and U.S. Indian Policy. Middletown, CT:
Wesleyan University Press.
Feller, Daniel. 1995. The Jacksonian Promise: America, 1815–1840. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Marszalek, John F. 1997. The Petticoat Affair: Manners, Mutiny, and Sex in Andrew Jackson’s White House. New
York: Free Press.
Meacham, Jon. 2008. American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House. New York: Random House.
Mihm, Stephen. 2007. A Nation of Counterfeiters: Capitalists, Con Men, and the Making of the United States.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Saxton, Alexander. 1990. The Rise and Fall of the White Republic: Class Politics and Mass Culture in Nineteenth-
Century America. London: Verso.
Sellers, Charles. 1991. The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815–1846. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Steinberg, Theodore. 1991. Nature Incorporated: Industrialization and the Waters of New England. Cambridge:
Watson, Harry L. 1990. Liberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America. New York: Hill and Wang.
—. 1998. Andrew Jackson vs. Henry Clay: Democracy and Development in Antebellum America. Boston: Bedford/
St. Martin’s Press.
Wilentz, Sean. 2005. The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln. New York: Norton.

Appendix G 1029
THE ANTEBELLUM SOUTH

Berlin, Ira. 2003. Generations of Captivity: A History of African-American Slaves. Cambridge, MA: Belknap
Press.
Clark, Emily. 2013. The Strange History of the American Quadroon: Free Women of Color in the Revolutionary
Atlantic World. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Delfino, Susanna, and Michele Gillespie. 2002. Neither Lady nor Slave: Working Women of the Old South.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Fox-Genovese, Elizabeth. 1988. Within the Plantation Household: Black and White Women of the Old South.
Genovese, Eugene D. 1974. Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made. New York: Pantheon Books.
Hall, Gwendolyn Midlo. 1992. Africans in Colonial Louisiana: The Development of Afro-Creole Culture in the
Eighteenth Century. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Johnson, Walter. 1999. Soul by Soul: Life Inside the Antebellum Slave Market. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
McCurry, Stephanie. 1995. Masters of Small Worlds: Yeoman Households, Gender Relations, and the Political
Culture of the Antebellum South Carolina Low Country. New York: Oxford University Press.
Potter, David Morris, and Don E. Fehrenbacher. 1976. The Impending Crisis, 1848–1861. New York: Harper
& Row.
Rasmussen, Daniel. 2011. American Uprising: The Untold Story of America’s Largest Slave Revolt. New York:
HarperCollins.
Wyatt-Brown, Bertram. 1982. Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South. New York: Oxford
University Press.
REFORM AND ABOLITION

DuBois, Ellen Carol. 1978. Feminism and Suffrage: The Emergence of an Independent Women’s Movement in
America, 1848-1869. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
DuBois, Ellen Carol, and Lynn Dumenil. 2005. Through Women’s Eyes: An American History with Documents.
Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press.
Heyrman, Christine Leigh. 1997. Southern Cross: The Beginnings of the Bible Belt. New York: Knopf.
Mayer, Henry. 1998. All On Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery. New York: Bedford/St.
Martin’s Press.
Mintz, Steven. 1995. Moralists and Modernizers: America’s Pre-Civil War Reformers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Rorabaugh, W. J. 1979. The Alcoholic Republic, an American Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stewart, James Brewer. 1976. Holy Warriors: The Abolitionists and American Slavery. New York: Hill and
Wang.
CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION

Alcott, Louisa May, and Bessie Zahan Jones. 1960. Hospital Sketches. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Berlin, Ira, Joseph P. Reidy, and Leslie S. Rowland. 1998. Freedom’s Soldiers: The Black Military Experience in
the Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1030 Appendix G
Blight, David W. 2001. Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Catton, Bruce. 1962. Mr. Lincoln’s Army. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Donald, David Herbert. 1960. Charles Sumner and the Coming of the Civil War. New York: Knopf.
Earle, Jonathan Halperin. 2008. John Brown’s Raid on Harpers Ferry: A Brief History with Documents. Boston:
Bedford/St. Martin’s Press.
Egerton, Douglas R. 2014. The Wars of Reconstruction: The Brief, Violent History of America’s Most Progressive
Era. London: Bloomsbury Press.
Emberton, Carole. 2013. Beyond Redemption: Race, Violence, and the American South After the Civil War.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Faust, Drew Gilpin. 2008. This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War. New York: Knopf.
Fehrenbacher, Don E. 1978. The Dred Scott Case, Its Significance in American Law and Politics. New York:
Foner, Eric. 1970. Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War. New
York: Oxford University Press.
—. 2006. Forever Free: The Story of Emancipation and Reconstruction. New York: Vintage Books.
Gallagher, Gary W. 2011. The Union War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
—. 2013. Becoming Confederates: Paths to a New National Loyalty. Atlanta: University of Georgia Press.
Gienapp, William E. 2002. Abraham Lincoln and Civil War America: A Biography. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Goodwin, Doris Kearns. 2006. Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Guelzo, Allen C. 2013. Gettysburg: The Last Invasion. New York: Knopf
Hahn, Steven. 2003. A Nation Under Our Feet: Black Political Struggles in the Rural South, from Slavery to the
Great Migration. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Holt, Michael F. 1978. The Political Crisis of the 1850s. New York: Wiley.
LaFantasie, Glenn W. 2007. Twilight at Little Round Top: July 2, 1863—The Tide Turns at Gettysburg. New
York: Vintage Books.
Lemann, Nicholas. 2006. Redemption: The Last Battle of the Civil War. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Levine, Bruce C., and Eric Foner. 1992. Half Slave and Half Free: The Roots of Civil War. New York: Hill and
Wang.
Manning, Chanda. 2008. What this Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War. New York:
Vintage Books.
McPherson, James M. 1994. What They Fought For 1861–1865. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University
Press.
Oates, Stephen B. 1970. To Purge This Land with Blood: A Biography of John Brown. New York: Harper & Row.
Richardson, Heather Cox. 2001. The Death of Reconstruction: Race, Labor, and Politics in the Post-Civil War
North, 1865–1901. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stampp, Kenneth M. 1990. America in 1857: A Nation on the Brink. New York: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, Emory M. 1991. The Confederacy as a Revolutionary Experience. Columbia: University of South
Carolina Press.
Vorenberg, Michael. 2001. Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Appendix G 1031
Williams, Heather Andrea. 2005. Self-Taught: African American Education in Slavery and Freedom. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
WESTWARD EXPANSION
Brown, Dee. 1970. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West. New York: Holt
Rinehart Winston.
Dando-Collins, Stephen. 2008. Tycoon’s War: How Cornelius Vanderbilt Invaded a Country to Overthrow
America’s Most Famous Military Adventurer. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press.
Greenberg, Amy S. 2012. A Wicked War: Polk, Clay, Lincoln, and the 1846 U.S. Invasion of Mexico. New York:
Knopf.
Madley, Benjamin. 2012. “The Genocide of California’s Yana Indians.” In Centuries of Genocide: Essays and
Eyewitness Accounts, edited by Samuel Totten and Williams S. Parsons, 16–53. New York: Routledge.
Mahon, John K. 1967. History of the Second Seminole War, 1835–1842. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
Neihardt, John G. 1975. Black Elk Speaks: Being the Life Story of a Holy Man of the Oglala Sioux. New York:
Pocket Books.
Richardson, Heather Cox. 2008. West from Appomattox: The Reconstruction of America After the Civil War. New
Soluri, John. 2005. Banana Cultures: Agriculture, Consumption, and Environmental Change in Honduras and the
United States. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Stephanson, Anders. 1995. Manifest Destiny: American Expansionism and the Empire of Right. New York: Hill
and Wang.
White, Richard. 2011. Railroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America. New York: Norton.
FROM THE GILDED AGE TO THE PROGRESSIVE ERA

Addams, Jane, and Norah Hamilton. 1910. Twenty Years at Hull-House: With Autobiographical Notes. New
York: Macmillan.
Bederman, Gail. 1995. Manliness & Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States,
1880–1917. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Berg, A. Scott. 2013. Wilson. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Boyer, Paul S. 1978. Urban Masses and Moral Order in America, 1820–1920. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Chauncey, George. 1994. Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Makings of the Gay Male World,
1890-1940. New York: Basic Books.
Cronon, William. 1991. Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. New York: Norton.
Dalton, Kathleen. 2002. Theodore Roosevelt: A Strenuous Life. New York: Knopf.
Dewey, John. 1915. The School and Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Du Bois, W. E. B., David W. Blight, and Robert Gooding-Williams. 1997. The Souls of Black Folk. Boston:
Bedford Books.
Fitzpatrick, Ellen F., Lincoln Steffens, Ida M. Tarbell, and Ray Stannard Baker. 1994. Muckraking: Three
Landmark Articles. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press.
Gilmore, Glenda E. 1996. Gender and Jim Crow: Women and the Politics of White Supremacy in North Carolina.
1032 Appendix G
Goodwin, Doris Kearns. 2013. The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age
of Journalism. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Goodwyn, Lawrence. 1976. Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hershkowitz, Leo. 1977. Tweed’s New York: Another Look. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.
James, William. 1975. Pragmatism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kraditor, Aileen S. 1981. The Ideas of the Woman Suffrage Movement 1890–1920. New York: Norton.
Lears, T. J. Jackson. 2009. Rebirth of a Nation: The Making of Modern America, 1877–1920. New York:
HarperCollins.
Lunardini, Christine A. 1986. From Equal Suffrage to Equal Rights: Alice Paul and the National Woman’s Party,
1910–1928. New York: New York University Press.
Matthews, Jean V. 2003. The Rise of the New Woman: The Women’s Movement in America, 1875–1930. Chicago:
Dee.
Osofsky, Gilbert. 1971. Harlem: The Making of a Ghetto. Negro New York, 1890–1930. New York: Harper &
Row.
Pegram, Thomas R. 1998. Battling Demon Rum: The Struggle for a Dry America, 1800–1933. Chicago: Dee.
Peiss, Kathy Lee. 1986. Cheap Amusements: Working Women and Leisure in Turn-of-the-Century New York.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Quammen, David. 2008. Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species: The Illustrated Edition. New York: Sterling.
Riis, Jacob A. 1971. How the Other Half Lives: Studies Among the Tenements of New York. New York: Dover.
Sinclair, Upton. 1971. The Jungle. Cambridge, MA: Bentley.
Von Drehle, David. 2003. Triangle: The Fire That Changed America. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
Washington, Booker T. 1963. Up from Slavery, An Autobiography. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Wiebe, Robert H. The Search for Order, 1877–1920. New York: Hill and Wang.
Woodward, C. Vann. 1957. The Strange Career of Jim Crow. New York: Oxford University Press.
IMPERIAL EXPANSION AND THE FIRST WORLD WAR

Barry, John M. 2004. The Great Influenza: The Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History. New York: Viking
Books.
Eisenhower, John S. D. 2001. Yanks: The Epic Story of the American Army in World War I. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Fromkin, David. 2004. Europe’s Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914? New York: Knopf.
Hart, Peter. 2007. Aces Falling: War Above the Trenches, 1918. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Hoganson, Kristin L. 1998. Fighting for American Manhood: How Gender Politics Provoked the Spanish-American
and Philippine-American Wars. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kaplan, Amy. 2002. The Anarchy of Empire in the Making of U.S. Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Kennedy, David M. 1980. Over Here: The First World War and American Society. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lengel, Edward G. 2008. To Conquer Hell: The Meuse-Argonne, 1918. New York: Holt.

Appendix G 1033
Maier, Charles S. 2006. Among Empires: American Ascendancy and Its Predecessors. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
McCullough, David G. 1977. The Path between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870–1914. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Thomas, Evan. 2010. The War Lovers: Roosevelt, Lodge, Hearst, and the Rush to Empire, 1898. New York: Little,
Brown.
Tooze, J. Adam. 2014. The Deluge: The Great War and the Remaking of Global Order 1916–1931. New York:
Viking Books.
Twain, Mark. 2009. Following the Equator A Journey Around the World. Waiheke Island: Floating Press.
THE ROARING TWENTIES

Allen, Frederick Lewis. 1931. Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the Nineteen-Twenties. New York:
Harper & Bros.
Bryson, Bill. 2013. One Summer: America, 1927. New York: Anchor Books.
Davison M. Douglas. 2005. Jim Crow Moves North: The Battle over Northern School Desegregation, 1865–1954.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, Lucy. 2010. Anything Goes: A Biography of the Roaring Twenties. New York: Overlook Press.
Robinson, Thomas A., and Lanette R. Ruff. 2011. Out of the Mouths of Babes: Girl Evangelists in the Flapper
Era. New York: Oxford University Press.
Russell, Francis. 1968. The Shadow of Blooming Grove: Warren G. Harding in His Times. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Shlaes, Amity. 2013. Coolidge. New York: Harper.
Watts, Steven. 2005. The People’s Tycoon: Henry Ford and the American Century. New York: Knopf.
THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND THE NEW DEAL

Browder, Laura. 1998. Rousing the Nation Radical Culture in Depression America. Amherst: University of
Massachusetts Press.
Cohen, Lizabeth. 1990. Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919–1939. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Domhoff, G. William, and Michael J. Webber. 2011. Class and Power in the New Deal: Corporate Moderates,
Southern Democrats, and the Liberal-Labor Coalition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hamby, Alonzo L. 2004. For the Survival of Democracy: Franklin Roosevelt and the World Crisis of the 1930s.
New York: Free Press.
Hofstadter, Richard. 1955. The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. New York: Knopf.
Hurt, R. Douglas. 1984. The Dust Bowl: An Agricultural and Social History. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Katznelson, Ira. 2013. Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time. New York: Norton.
Kennedy, David M. 1999. Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929–1945. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Lumley, Darwyn H. 2009. Breaking the Banks in Motor City: The Auto Industry, the 1933 Detroit Banking Crisis
and the Start of the New Deal. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Poppendieck, Janet, and Marion Nestle. 2014. Breadlines Knee-Deep in Wheat: Food Assistance in the Great
Depression. Berkeley: University of California Press.
1034 Appendix G
Shindo, Charles J. 1997. Dust Bowl Migrants in the American Imagination. Lawrence: University of Kansas
Press.
Shlaes, Amity. 2007. The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. New York: HarperCollins.
Smith, Fred C. 2014. Trouble in Goshen: Plain Folk, Roosevelt, Jesus, and Marx in the Great Depression South.
Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.
Solomon, William. 2002. Literature, Amusement, and Technology in the Great Depression. Cambridge:
Terkel, Studs. 1970. Hard Times: An Oral History of the Great Depression. New York: Pantheon Books.
WORLD WAR, COLD WAR, AND AMERICAN PROSPERITY

Dobrynin, Anatoly. 1995. In Confidence: Moscow’s Ambassador to America’s Six Cold War Presidents. New
York: Crown.
Doenecke, Justus D., and Mark A. Stoler. 2005. Debating Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Foreign Policies, 1933–1945.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Fischer, Conan. 2003. The Ruhr Crisis, 1923–1924. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Homan, Lynn M., and Thomas Reilly. 2001. Black Knights: The Story of the Tuskegee Airmen. Gretna, LA:
Pelican.
Kessler-Harris, Alice. 1982. Out to Work: A History of Wage-Earning Women in the United States. New York:
Mitchell, Greg. 1998. Tricky Dick and the Pink Lady: Richard Nixon vs. Helen Gahagan Douglas—Sexual Politics
and the Red Scare, 1950. New York: Random House.
O’Sullivan, John. 2006. The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World. New
York: Regnery.
Overy, R. J. 1995. Why the Allies Won. New York: Norton.
Robinson, Jo Ann Gibson, and David J. Garrow. 1987. The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Women Who
Started It: The Memoir of Jo Ann Gibson Robinson. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
Schweizer, Peter. 2002. Reagan’s War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph over
Communism. New York: Doubleday.
Sone, Monica Itoi. 1979. Nisei Daughter. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Weinberg, Gerhard L. 1994. A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wyman, David S. 1998. The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust 1941–1945. New York: New
Press.
FROM CAMELOT TO CULTURE WARS

Appy, Christian G. 2003. Patriots: The Vietnam War Remembered from All Sides. New York: Viking Books.
Branch, Taylor. 1988. Parting the Waters: America in the King Years, 1954–63. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Clendinen, Dudley, and Adam Nagourney. 1999. Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement
in America. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Clinton, Bill. 2004. My Life. New York: Knopf.
Cowie, Jefferson. 2010. Stayin’ Alive: The 1970s and the Last Days of the Working Class. New York: New Press.

Appendix G 1035
Delpla, Isabelle, Xavier Bougarel, and Jean-Louis Fournel, eds. 2012. Investigating Srebrenica: Institutions,
Facts, Responsibilities. New York: Berghahn Books.
Dudziak, Mary L. 2000. Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Farber, David R. 1994. The Age of Great Dreams: America in the 1960s. New York: Hill and Wang.
Frank, Thomas. 2004. What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. New York:
Metropolitan Books.
Friedan, Betty. 1963. The Feminine Mystique. New York: Norton.
Gitlin, Todd. 1993. The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage. New York: Bantam Books.
Goodwin, Doris Kearns. 1976. Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream. New York: Harper & Row.
Karnow, Stanley. 1983. Vietnam, a History. New York: Viking Press.
King, Martin Luther. 1986. A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. Edited by
James Melvin Washington. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Levy, Ariel. 2006. Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. New York: Free Press.
McCain, John, and Mark Salter. 1999. Faith of My Fathers. New York: Random House.
Meriwether, James. 2008. “‘Worth a Lot of Negro Votes:’ Black Voters, Africa, and the 1960 Presidential
Campaign.” Journal of American History 95(3): 737–63.
Murch, Donna Jean. 2010. Living for the City: Migration, Education, and the Rise of the Black Panther Party in
Oakland, California. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Schlesinger, Arthur M. 1965. A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Selvin, Joel. 1994. Summer of Love: The Inside Story of LSD, Rock & Roll, Free Love, and High Times in the Wild
West. New York: Dutton.
Stein, Judith. 2010. Pivotal Decade: How the United States Traded Factories for Finance in the Seventies. New
Warren Commission. 1964. Report of the Warren Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
X, Malcolm. 1992. The Autobiography of Malcolm X. Edited by Alex Haley. New York: One World/Ballantine
Books.
TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY PROBLEMS
Bravin, Jess. 2013. The Terror Courts: Rough Justice at Guantanamo Bay. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Cowen, Tyler. 2001. The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got
Sick, and Will (Eventually) Feel Better. New York: Dutton.
Ehrenreich, Barbara. 2001. Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Gerges, Fawaz A. 2011. The Rise and Fall of Al-Qaeda. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gordon, Joy. 2010. Invisible War: The United States and the Iraq Sanctions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
John Cannan, 2013. “A Legislative History of the Affordable Care Act: How Legislative Procedure Shapes
Legislative History.” Law Library Journal 105(2): 132–73.
Keen, D. 2012. Useful Enemies: When Waging Wars Is More Important than Winning Them. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
1036 Appendix G
Lance, Peter. 2004. 1000 Years for Revenge: International Terrorism and the FBI. New York: Regan Books.
Lewis, Michael. 2010. The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine. New York: Norton.
Little, Douglas. 2002. American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since 1945. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
Oreskes, Naomi, and Erik M. Conway. 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the
Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
Rivoli, Pietra. 2005. The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy: An Economist Examines the Markets, Power
and Politics of World Trade. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Simon, Bryant. 2009. Everything but the Coffee: Learning About America from Starbucks. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Wright, Lawrence. 2006. The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. New York: Knopf.

Answer Key 1037
Answer Key
Chapter 1
1. A 2. C 3. B 4. North American Indians were fewer in number, more widely dispersed, and did not have the
population size or organized social structures of the Maya, Aztec, or Inca societies. The Eastern Woodland peoples, in
particular, lived in small clan groups and adapted to their singular environments. Some North American Indians lived
by hunting and gathering rather than cultivating crops. 5. A 6. D 7. A 8. In feudal society, lords owned the land, which
serfs worked and knights defended. Lords thus utilized the labor of serfs and the military service of knights, who in
turn received the protection of the lord’s castle or city walls and, sometimes, the ability to rent land on which to live
and farm. 9. It was known that the Earth was round, so Columbus’s plan seemed plausible. The distance he would
need to travel was not known, however, and he greatly underestimated the Earth’s circumference; therefore, he would
have no way of recognizing when he had arrived at his destination. 10. B 11. D
Chapter 2
1. D 2. C 3. B 4. Probanzas de méritos featured glowing descriptions of lands of plenty. The Spanish explorers hoped
to find cities of gold, so they made their discoveries sound as wonderful as possible in these letters to convince the
Spanish crown to fund more voyages. When we read them now, we need to take the descriptions with a grain of salt.
But we can also fact-check these descriptions, whereas the Spanish court could only take them at face value. 5. A 6. B
7. Luther was most concerned about indulgences, which allowed the wealthy to purchase their way to forgiveness,
and protested the Church’s taxation of ordinary Germans. Both wanted the liturgy to be given in churchgoers’ own
language, making scripture more accessible. 8. A 9. B 10. Many English colonists in Virginia were aristocrats who had
never worked and didn’t expect to start. They hoped to find gold and silver and were unprepared for the realities of
colonial life. Farther north, the English Puritan colonies were largely founded not for profit but for religious reasons.
The French and Dutch colonies were primarily trading posts. Their colonists enjoyed good relationships with many
native groups because they made alliances with and traded with them. 11. A 12. B 13. C
Chapter 3
1. C 2. B 3. As the Spanish tried to convert the Pueblo to Catholicism, the native people tried to fold Christian traditions
into their own practices. This was unacceptable to the Spanish, who insisted on complete conversion—especially of
the young, whom they took away from their families and tribes. When adaptation failed, native peoples attempted to
maintain their autonomy through outright revolt, as with the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. This revolt was successful, and for
almost twelve years the Pueblos’ lives returned to normalcy. Their autonomy was short-lived, however, as the Spanish
took advantage of continued attacks by the Pueblos’ enemies to reestablish control of the region. 4. C 5. D 6. The Dutch
allowed the most religious freedoms; they didn’t try to convert native peoples to Christianity, and they allowed Jewish
immigrants to join their colony. French Jesuit missionaries tried to convert Indians to Catholicism, but with much
more acceptance of their differences than Spanish missionaries. 7. B 8. A 9. A 10. D 11. They encouraged colonization
by offering headrights to anyone who could pay his own way to Virginia: fifty acres for each passage. They also used
the system of indenture, in which people (usually men) who didn’t have enough money to pay their own passage
could work for a set number of years and then gain their own land. Increasingly, they also turned to African slaves
as a cheap labor source. 12. C 13. A 14. European guns started an arms race among Indian groups. Tribes with ties to
Europeans had a distinct advantage in wars with other tribes because muskets were so much more effective than bows
and arrows. Guns changed the balance of power among different groups and tribes and made combat more deadly.
15. Indians didn’t have any concept of owning personal property and believed that land should be held in common,
for use by a group. They used land as they needed, often moving from area to area to follow food sources at different
times of year. Europeans saw land as something individuals could own, and they used fences and other markers to
define their property.
Chapter 4
1. C 2. A 3. Since the proprietors of the Carolina colonies were absent, English planters from Barbados moved in and
gained political power, establishing slave labor as the predominant form of labor. In Pennsylvania, where prospective
servants were offered a bounty of fifty acres of land for emigrating and finishing their term of labor, indentured
servitude abounded. 4. D 5. B 6. James II was overthrown, and William III and Mary II took his place. The 1689
Bill of Rights limited the future power of the monarchy and outlined the rights of Parliament and Englishmen.
In Massachusetts, Bostonians overthrew royal governor Edmund Andros. 7. B 8. C 9. B 10. A 11. The Freemasons
were a fraternal society that originated in London coffeehouses in the early eighteenth century. They advocated
Enlightenment principles of inquiry and tolerance. Masonic lodges soon spread throughout Europe and the British
colonies, creating a shared experience on both sides of the Atlantic and spreading Enlightenment intellectual currents
throughout the British Empire. Benjamin Franklin was a prominent Freemason. 12. C 13. D 14. Virginia planters,
pinched by stagnant tobacco prices, wanted to expand westward. However, France contested Britain’s claim to that
1038 Answer Key
land and built Fort Duquesne to defend it. The battle over this land sparked the war that eventually ended France’s
presence in North America.
Chapter 5
1. D 2. C 3. The Currency Act required colonists to pay British merchants in gold and silver instead of colonial
paper money. With gold and silver in short supply, this put a strain on colonists’ finances. The Sugar Act curtailed
smuggling, angering merchants, and imposed stricter enforcement. Many colonists feared the loss of liberty with
trials without juries as mandated by the Sugar Act. 4. D 5. B 6. B 7. D 8. Tensions between colonists and the redcoats
had been simmering for some time. British soldiers had been moonlighting as dockworkers, taking needed jobs
away from colonists. Many British colonists were also wary of standing armies during peacetime, so skirmishes were
common. Finally, the Sons of Liberty promoted tensions with their propaganda. 9. A 10. C 11. The Committees of
Correspondence provided a crucial means of communication among the colonies. They also set the foundation for a
colonial government by breaking away from royal governmental structures. Finally, they promoted a sense of colonial
unity. 12. B 13. A
Chapter 6
1. C 2. B 3. D 4. In Common Sense, Paine rejects the monarchy, calling into question both the right of any king to rule
any people and Great Britain’s right to rule America. He argues for the creation of an American republic and the
adoption of a philosophy of republicanism, which would extend to both the structure of the government—composed
of representatives, rather than a monarch—and the conduct of the Patriots, who must place the public good and
community above their own self-interest. Paine wrote his pamphlet simply, appealing to the “common sense” of
ordinary citizens, which helped to increase its popularity. 5. B 6. A 7. C 8. The British strategy in the period from
1776 to 1778 was to isolate the New England colonies, where the rebellion was concentrated. They succeeded in the
beginning by taking first New York and then Philadelphia. However, they stalled there, and after the British defeat
at Saratoga, they were not able to complete their plan to isolate New England. 9. In the eighteenth century, militaries
typically fought only in the summer months. On December 25 and 26, 1776, Washington triumphed over the Hessians
encamped at Trenton by surprising them as they celebrated Christmas. Shortly thereafter, he used this same tactic to
achieve victory at the Battle of Princeton. 10. B 11. The British southern strategy was to move the military theater to
the southern colonies where there were more Loyalist colonists. Slaves and Indian allies, the British hoped, would
also swell their ranks. This strategy worked at first, allowing the British to take Charleston. However, British fortunes
changed after Nathanael Greene took command of the southern Continental Army and scored decisive victories at the
battles of Cowpens and Guilford. This set the stage for the final American victory at Yorktown, Virginia. The southern
strategy had failed. 12. C 13. A
Chapter 7
1. A 2. C 3. Citizenship within a republic meant accepting certain rights and responsibilities as well as cultivating
virtuous behavior. This philosophy was based on the notion that the success or failure of the republic depended upon
the virtue or corruption of its citizens. 4. B 5. C 6. Although he owned hundreds of slaves in his lifetime and fathered
several children with his slave Sally Hemings, Jefferson opposed slavery. He argued that the institution should be
abolished and slaves returned to Africa, believing that blacks and whites could not live together in a free society
without the result of a race war. 7. A 8. D 9. A group of farmers in western Massachusetts, including Daniel Shays,
rebelled against the Massachusetts government, which they saw as unresponsive to their needs. Many were veterans
of the Revolutionary War and faced tremendous debts and high taxes, which they couldn’t pay with their worthless
paper money. They felt that they didn’t have a voice in the Massachusetts government, which seemed to cater to
wealthy Boston merchants. They wanted their debts to be forgiven and the Massachusetts constitution to be rewritten
to address their needs, and when these demands weren’t met, they rebelled. 10. C 11. A 12. Southern slaveholders
wanted slaves to count for the purposes of representation, while people from northern states feared that counting
slaves would give the southern states too much power. Their fears were valid; the three-fifths rule, which stated that
each slave counted as three-fifths of a white person for purposes of representation, gave the southern states the balance
of political power.
Chapter 8
1. B 2. B 3. Federalists believed in a strong federal republican government led by learned, public-spirited men of
property. They believed that too much democracy would threaten the republic. The Democratic-Republicans,
alternatively, feared too much federal government power and focused more on the rural areas of the country,
which they thought were underrepresented and underserved. Democratic-Republicans felt that the spirit of true
republicanism, which meant virtuous living for the common good, depended on farmers and agricultural areas. 4. A
5. D 6. In the United States, the French Revolution hardened differences between the Federalists and the Democratic-
Republicans. The Federalists feared the anarchy of the French Revolution and worried that Democratic-Republicanism
would bring that kind of disorder to the United States. The Democratic-Republicans supported the goals of the French
Revolution, even if they didn’t support the means, and believed that siding with Great Britain instead of France meant
a return to a system of monarchy. 7. D 8. B 9. A 10. Relations with France were strongly tied to political events in

Answer Key 1039
the United States. Whereas the Federalists had roundly condemned the French revolutionaries for their excesses, the
Democratic-Republicans applauded the rallying cries of liberty and equality. Relations with the French also led the
Federalists to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts during the Adams administration, which many saw as a violation of the
First Amendment. 11. The election was considered a revolution because, for the first time in American history, political
power passed from one party to another. Jefferson’s presidency was a departure from the Federalist administrations
of Washington and Adams, who had favored the commercial class and urban centers of the country. The Democratic-
Republican vision increased states’ rights and limited the power of the federal government, lowering taxes and
slashing the military, which Adams had built up. 12. C 13. B
Chapter 9
1. C 2. D 3. Industrialization made manufactured goods more abundant and more widely available. All but the poorest
Americans were able to equip their homes with cookstoves, parlor stoves, upholstered furniture, and decorations such
as wallpaper and window curtains. Even such formerly expensive goods as clocks were now affordable for most. 4. B
5. D 6. C 7. The federal government passed laws allowing people to sell back land they could not pay for and use the
money to pay their debt. States made it more difficult to foreclose on mortgages and tried to make it easier for people
to declare bankruptcy. 8. C 9. A 10. The Cumberland Road made transportation to the West easier for new settlers.
The Erie Canal facilitated trade with the West by connecting the Hudson River to Lake Erie. Railroads shortened
transportation times throughout the country, making it easier and less expensive to move people and goods. 11. D
12. A 13. A successful northern manufacturer and inventor, Cooper valued hard work, thrift, and simplicity. He lived
according to these values, choosing utilitarian, self-made furnishings rather than luxurious goods. Cooper’s vision
of hard work leading to respectability led him to found the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art;
admission to this college, which was dedicated to the pursuit of technology, was based solely on merit.
Chapter 10
1. B 2. D 3. A 4. Jackson and his supporters resented Speaker Henry Clay’s maneuvering in the House of
Representatives, which gave Adams the election even though Jackson had won the popular vote. When Adams, after
taking office, gave Clay the post of secretary of state, it seemed that Adams was rewarding Clay—perhaps even
fulfilling the terms of a secret bargain. 5. Northern manufacturers were expected to gain from the tariff because it made
competing goods from abroad more expensive than those they made. Southern plantation owners expected the tariff
would be costly for them, because it raised the price of goods they could only import. Southerners also feared the tariff
represented an unwelcome expansion of federal power over the states. 6. B 7. A 8. Jackson campaigned as a man of
the people, intent on sweeping away the corrupt elite by undoing the “corrupt bargain” of Adams’s election, making
new federal appointments, and elevating officials whose election actually reflected the will of the majority of voters.
9. The Petticoat affair divided those loyal to President Jackson from Washington, DC, insiders. When Washington
socialite Peggy O’Neal’s husband committed suicide and O’Neal then married John Eaton, a Tennessee senator with
whom she was reportedly unfaithful to her husband, Jackson and those loyal to him defended Peggy Eaton against
other Washington, DC, socialites and politicians. Martin Van Buren, in particular, supported the Eatons and became
an important figure in Jackson’s “Kitchen Cabinet” of select supporters and advisers. 10. C 11. A 12. Many people
saw the Second Bank of the United States, the “monster bank,” as a tool for the privileged few, not for the public
good. To Jackson, who saw himself as a spokesman for the common people against a powerful minority elite, it
represented the elites’ self-serving policies. Fighting to dismantle the bank increased his popularity among many
American voters. 13. Whigs opposed what they viewed as the tyrannical rule of Andrew Jackson. For this reason, they
named themselves after the eighteenth-century British-American Whigs, who stood in opposition to King George.
Whigs believed in an active federal government committed to internal improvements, including the establishment of a
national bank. 14. A 15. B 16. The Trail of Tears was the route of the forced removal of the Cherokee and other Indian
tribes from their ancestral lands in the southeastern United States to what is now Oklahoma. The expulsion was carried
out by the U.S. military, and thousands of Indians perished on the way. 17. D 18. B 19. Tocqueville came to believe that
democracy was an unstoppable force whose major benefit was equality before the law. However, he also described the
tyranny of the majority, which overpowers the will of minorities and individuals.
Chapter 11
1. A 2. B 3. Jefferson wanted Lewis and Clark to find an all-water route to the Pacific Ocean, strengthen U.S. claims
to the Pacific Northwest by reaching it through an overland route, explore and map the territory, make note of its
natural resources and wildlife, and make contact with Indian tribes with the intention of establishing trade with them.
4. C 5. B 6. Northern politicians disliked the terms of the Missouri Compromise because it allowed the expansion of
slavery into the lands acquired in the Louisiana Purchase. They feared this would lead to the West being dominated
by slaveholders. Southerners disliked the compromise because it prohibited people from taking their slaves into the
territory north of 36° 30' latitude, which they believed was a violation of their property rights. 7. C 8. B 9. American
slaveholders in Texas distrusted the Mexican government’s reluctant tolerance of slavery and wanted Texas to be
a new U.S. slave state. Most also disliked Mexicans’ Roman Catholicism and regarded them as dishonest, ignorant,
and backward. Belief in their own superiority inspired some Texans to try to undermine the power of the Mexican
government. 10. C 11. A 12. B 13. The Chinese were seemingly more disciplined than the majority of the white miners,
1040 Answer Key
gaining a reputation for being extremely hard-working and frugal. White miners resented the mining successes that
the Chinese earned. They believed the Chinese were unfairly depriving them of the means to earn a living. 14. C 15. B
16. At the party’s national convention in 1848, the majority of Democrats voted for a candidate who supported popular
sovereignty. A faction of the party was dismayed by this outcome; they opposed popular sovereignty and wanted to
restrict the expansion of slavery in order to protect the value of white workers’ labor. They united with antislavery
Whigs and former members of the Liberty Party to form a new political party—the Free-Soil Party—which had one
goal, to oppose the extension of slavery into the territories.
Chapter 12
1. A 2. B 3. Some southerners believed that their region’s monopoly over the lucrative cotton crop—on which both
the larger American and Atlantic markets depended—and their possession of a slave labor force allowed the South
to remain independent from the market revolution. However, the very cotton that provided the South with such
economic potency also increased its reliance on the larger U.S. and world markets, which supplied—among other
things—the food and clothes slaves needed, the furniture and other manufactured goods that defined the southern
standard of comfortable living, and the banks from which southerners borrowed needed funds. 4. C 5. Southern
whites often used paternalism to justify the institution of slavery, arguing that slaves, like children, needed the care,
feeding, discipline, and moral and religious education that they could provide. Slaves often used this misguided
notion to their advantage: By feigning ignorance and playing into slaveholders’ paternalistic perceptions of them,
slaves found opportunities to resist their condition and gain a degree of freedom and autonomy. 6. A 7. C 8. Defenders
of slavery, such as George Fitzhugh, argued that only the clever and the bright could truly benefit within a laissez-
faire economy. Premising their argument on the notion that slaves were, by nature, intellectually inferior and less
able to compete, such defenders maintained that slaves were better off in the care of paternalistic masters. While
northern workers found themselves trapped in wage slavery, they argued, southern slaves’ needs—for food, clothing,
and shelter, among other things—were met by their masters’ paternal benevolence. 9. B 10. C 11. Many slaveholding
expansionists believed that the events of the Haitian Revolution could repeat themselves in Cuba, leading to the
overthrow of slavery on the island and the creation of an independent black republic. Americans also feared that the
British would seize Cuba—which, since Britain had outlawed slavery in its colonies in 1833, would render all slaves
on the island free.
Chapter 13
1. A 2. C 3. They both emphasize the power of the individual over that of the majority. Evangelists of the Second
Great Awakening preached the power of personal spirituality, whereas transcendentalists were more concerned with
the individual soul. 4. A 5. C 6. Many reform communities were shunned, especially those that emphasized different
forms of marriage (like the Oneida Community) or a departure from mainstream Protestantism. The Mormons, in
particular, were forced to move ever further westward in their attempt to find a place to practice their religion in
peace. 7. B 8. D 9. At first, temperance reformers, who were predominantly led by Presbyterian ministers, targeted
the middle and upper classes. When the movement veered toward teetotalism instead of temperance, the movement
lost momentum. However, it was reborn with a focus on the working class in the 1840s. 10. B 11. C 12. D 13. C
14. Women’s involvement in the abolitionist movement, where they were unable to take leadership roles in traditional
male organizations, led them to create their own organizations, where they were thrust into the public sphere.
Chapter 14
1. A 2. B 3. This federal law appeared to northerners to be further proof of a “Slave Power” conspiracy and elite
slaveholders’ disproportionate influence over U.S. domestic policy. Northerners also resented being compelled to
serve as de facto slave-catchers, as the law punished people not only for helping fugitive slaves, but also for failing
to aid in efforts to return them. Finally, the law rankled many northerners for the hypocrisy that it exposed, given
southerners’ arguments in favor of states’ rights and against the federal government’s meddling in their affairs. 4. D
5. B 6. In response to proslavery forces’ destruction of the antislavery press and Free State Hotel, radical abolitionists,
including John Brown, murdered proslavery settlers at Pottawatomie. This was a turning point for Brown and many
other radical abolitionists, who—unlike their largely pacifist counterparts, such as William Lloyd Garrison—came to
believe that slavery must be extinguished by any means necessary, including open violence. 7. C 8. D 9. The Supreme
Court decided that Dred Scott had not earned freedom by virtue of having lived in a free state; thus, Scott and
his family would remain enslaved. More broadly, the Court ruled that blacks could never be citizens of the United
States and that Congress had no authority to stop or limit the spread of slavery into American territories. 10. A 11. B
12. Antislavery northerners tended to view Brown as a martyr for the antislavery cause; some saw in him a Christ-
like figure who died for his beliefs. Southerners, for their part, considered Brown a terrorist. They felt threatened by
northerners’ deification of Brown and worried about the potential for other, similar armed insurrections.
Chapter 15
1. D 2. A 3. Slavery was more deeply entrenched in the Deep South than it was in the Upper South or the border states.
The Deep South was home to larger numbers of both slaveholders and slaves. Pro-Union sentiment remained strong
in parts of the Upper South and border states, particularly those areas with smaller populations of slaveholders. 4. D

Answer Key 1041
5. D 6. In the eastern part of the Confederacy, the Army of the Potomac met with mixed success. The Union army failed
to capture Richmond and won at Antietam only because the Confederates withdrew from the field first. In the western
part of the Confederacy, the Army of the West won the Battle of Shiloh, and the Union navy captured New Orleans
and Memphis. 7. B 8. At the beginning of 1863, Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed
all slaves in areas under rebellion. This changed the war from one in which the North fought to preserve the Union
to one in which it fought to free enslaved African Americans. On the battlefield, Union forces led by Grant captured
Vicksburg, Mississippi, splitting the Confederacy in two and depriving it of a major avenue of transportation. In the
east, General Meade stopped a Confederate invasion of the North at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. 9. C 10. A
Chapter 16
1. C 2. B 3. The Thirteenth Amendment officially and permanently banned the institution of slavery in the United
States. The Emancipation Proclamation had freed only those slaves in rebellious states, leaving many slaves—most
notably, those in the border states—in bondage; furthermore, it did not alter or prohibit the institution of slavery in
general. 4. A 5. D 6. The black codes in southern states had the goal of keeping blacks impoverished and in debt. Black
codes outlawed vagrancy and required all black men to have an annual labor contract, which gave southern states an
excuse to arrest those who failed to meet these requirements and put them to hard labor. 7. B 8. D 9. The Fifteenth
Amendment granted the vote to all black men, giving freed slaves and free blacks greater political power than they
had ever had in the United States. Blacks in former Confederate states elected a handful of black U.S. congressmen and
a great many black local and state leaders who instituted ambitious reform and modernization projects in the South.
However, the Fifteenth Amendment continued to exclude women from voting. Women continued to fight for suffrage
through the NWSA and AWSA. 10. B 11. C 12. Southern blacks emerged from slavery with no money to begin their
new lives, so they had to rely on the crop-lien and sharecropping systems. These systems enabled freed people to get
tools and rent land to farm, but the high interest rate (paid in harvested crops) made it difficult for them to rise out of
poverty.
Chapter 17
1. B 2. A 3. During the first two years of the Civil War—when it appeared that the Confederacy was a formidable
opponent—President Lincoln grew concerned that a Union defeat could result in the westward expansion of slavery.
Thus, he hoped to facilitate the westward movement of white settlers who promoted the concept of free soil,
which would populate the region with allies who opposed slavery. To encourage this process, Congress passed the
Homestead Act and the Pacific Railway Act in 1862. The government also constructed and maintained forts that
assisted in the process of westward expansion. 4. C 5. Farmers who were able to invest a significant amount of capital
in starting up large farms could acquire necessary supplies with ease. They also had access to new, technologically
advanced farm machinery, which greatly improved efficiency and output. Such farmers hired migrant farmers to
work their huge amounts of land. These “bonanza farms” were often quite successful, whereas family farms—unable
to afford the supplies they needed for success, let alone take advantage of the technological innovations that would
make their farms competitive—often failed. 6. Women who settled the West were considered by their husbands to be
more equitable partners in the success or failure of the homestead. Because resources were so limited and the area so
sparsely settled, women participated in work that was typically done only by men. Due in part to these efforts, women
were able to inherit and run farms if they became widowed, rather than passing the farms along to male relations
as they would in the East. The first states to begin granting rights to women, including the right to vote, were in the
Pacific Northwest and Upper Midwest, where women homesteaders worked side by side with men to tame the land.
7. D 8. A 9. In the cases of both mining and cattle ranching, diminishing resources played a key role. In mining, the first
prospectors were able to pan for gold with crude and inexpensive materials, and therefore, almost anyone could head
west and try his luck. Similarly, the quantity of cattle and the amount of grazing land meant that cowboys and would-
be cattle barons had ample room to spread out. But as the easiest minerals were stripped away and large-scale ranchers
purchased, developed, and fenced off grazing land, opportunities diminished. It took significantly more resources to
tunnel down into a mine than it did to pan for gold; instead of individual prospectors, companies would assess a site’s
potential and then seek investment to hire workers and drill deep into the earth. Likewise, as the cattle trails were over-
grazed, ranchers needed to purchase and privatize large swaths of land to prepare their cattle for market. 10. B 11. C
12. A 13. B 14. In all three cases, white settlers felt that they were superior to these ethnic groups and morally correct
in their exploitation of the groups’ land and labor. Whether mining sacred Sioux reservation lands for gold or forcing
Chinese immigrants to pay a special fine to mine for gold, white settlers were confident that their goal of Manifest
Destiny gave them the right to do as they wished. Hispanic Americans, unlike Chinese immigrants and Indians, were
allowed citizenship rights, although racist laws and corrupt judges severely curtailed these rights. Chinese immigrants
were ultimately denied entry to the United States through the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Chapter 18
1. B 2. C 3. New inventions fueled industrial growth, and the development of commercial electricity—along with the
use of steam engines—allowed industries that had previously situated themselves close to sources of water power
to shift away from those areas and move their production into cities. Immigrants sought employment in these urban
factories and settled nearby, transforming the country’s population from mostly rural to largely urban. 4. A 5. C
1042 Answer Key
6. Horizontal integration enabled Rockefeller to gain tremendous control over the oil industry and use that power to
influence vendors and competitors. For example, he could pressure railroads into giving him lower rates because of
the volume of his products. He undercut competitors, forcing them to set their prices so low that they could barely
stay in business—at which point he could buy them out. Through horizontal integration, he was able to create a virtual
monopoly and set the terms for business. While his business model of a holding company was technically legal, it
held as much power as a monopoly and did not allow for other businesses to grow and compete. 7. “Captains of
industry” (such as Carnegie or Rockefeller) are noted for their new business models, entrepreneurial approaches, and,
to varying degrees, philanthropic efforts, all of which transformed late nineteenth-century America. “Robber barons”
(such as Gould) are noted for their self-centered drive for profit at the expense of workers and the general public, who
seldom benefitted to any great degree. The terms, however, remain a gray area, as one could characterize the ruthless
business practices of Rockefeller, or some of Carnegie’s tactics with regard to workers’ efforts to organize, as similar
to the methods of robber barons. Nevertheless, “captains of industry” are noted for contributions that fundamentally
changed and typically improved the nation, whereas “robber barons” can seldom point to such concrete contributions.
8. C 9. B 10. The Knights of Labor (KOL) had a broad and open base, inviting all types of workers, including women
and African Americans, into their ranks. The KOL also sought political gains for workers throughout the country,
regardless of their membership. In contrast, the American Federation of Labor (AFL) was a loose affiliation of separate
unions, with each group remaining intact and distinct. The AFL did not advocate for national labor issues, but
restricted its efforts to helping improve economic conditions for its members. 11. C 12. Marchand argues that in the
new era of consumerism, workers’ desire for access to consumer goods replaces their desire for access to the means
of production of those goods. So long as Americans could buy products that advertisers convinced them would make
them look and feel wealthy, they did not need to fight for access to the means of wealth.
Chapter 19
1. D 2. A 3. At the end of the nineteenth century, a confluence of events made urban life more desirable and more
possible. Technologies such as electricity and the telephone allowed factories to build and grow in cities, and
skyscrapers enabled the relatively small geographic areas to continue expanding. The new demand for workers
spurred a massive influx of job-seekers from both rural areas of the United States and from eastern and southern
Europe. Urban housing—as well as services such as transportation and sanitation—expanded accordingly, though
cities struggled to cope with the surging demand. Together, technological innovations and an exploding population
led American cities to grow as never before. 4. C 5. D 6. Newer immigrants often had different appearances, spoke
unfamiliar languages, and lived their lives—from the religions they practiced to the food they ate—in ways that were
alien to many Americans. In all of city life’s more challenging aspects, from competition for jobs to overcrowding in
scarce housing, immigrants became easy scapegoats. The Reverend Josiah Strong’s bestselling book, Our Country: Its
Possible Future and Its Present Crisis, fueled this discrimination. The American Protective Association, the chief political
activist group promoting anti-immigration legislation, formed largely in response to Strong’s call. 7. D 8. B 9. Better
public education and the explosion of high schools meant that the children of the middle class were better educated
than any previous generation. While college had previously been mostly restricted to children of the upper class, the
creation of land-grant colleges made college available on a wide scale. The curricula at these new colleges matched the
needs of the middle class, offering practical professional training rather than the liberal arts focus that the Ivy League
schools embraced. Thus, children of the emerging middle class were able to access the education and training needed
to secure their place in the professional class for generations to come. 10. C 11. A 12. The growth of the industrial
economy and the dramatic growth of cities created new, harsh realities that were often hidden from the public eye.
Writers and artists, responding both to this fact and to the sentimentalism that characterized the writing and art of their
predecessors, began to depict subjects that reflected the new truth. Photographers like Jacob Riis sought to present to
the public the realities of working-class life and labor. Novelists began to portray true-to-life vignettes in their stories.
Visual artists such as George Bellows, Edward Hopper, and Robert Henri formed the Ashcan School of Art, which
depicted the often gritty realities of working-class city life, leisure, and entertainment.
Chapter 20
1. B 2. C 3. The contested elections of the Gilded Age, in which margins were slim and two presidents were elected
without winning the popular vote, meant that incumbent presidents often had only a weak hold on their power
and were able to achieve little on the federal level. Some Americans began to establish new political parties and
organizations to address their concerns, undermining the federal government further. Meanwhile, despite the
widespread corruption that kept them running, urban political machines continued to achieve results for their
constituents and maintain political strongholds on many cities. 4. C 5. A 6. Politics of the day were fiercely fought and
won with razor-thin margins. While presidents may have wanted to see the system change, few were in a position
to effect such change. They owed their presidencies to the various party leaders and political operatives who had
gotten them there, and they were expected to repay the favors with political positions. Any candidate who spoke out
firmly against patronage virtually guaranteed that he would not receive the support of local or regional politicians, or
machine bosses. Without such support, a candidate’s chances of being elected were virtually nonexistent. Therefore,
they continued to work within the system. 7. A 8. C 9. Women were able to play key roles in the alliance movement.
The alliance provided them with political rights, including the ability to vote and hold office within the organization,

Answer Key 1043
which many women hoped would be a positive step in their struggle for national women’s rights and suffrage. In the
end, nearly 250,000 women joined the movement. 10. D 11. D
Chapter 21
1. B 2. A 3. The muckrakers played a pivotal role in initiating the Progressive Era, because they spurred everyday
Americans to action. Unlike earlier sensationalist journalists, the muckrakers told their stories with the explicit goal of
galvanizing their readers and encouraging them to take steps to address the issues. With photographs and descriptions
of real-life scenarios of which many Americans were unaware, the muckrakers brought the tribulations of child factory
workers, the urban poor, and others into the living rooms of the middle class. 4. C 5. B 6. C 7. D 8. W. E. B. Du Bois
sought to push for civil rights directly, through legal and political channels, drawing on the education and skills of
the “talented tenth” to advance the Niagara Movement’s agenda. The movement’s Declaration of Principles called
for immediate political, economic, and social equality for African Americans, including universal suffrage, education,
and an end to the convict-lease system. This represented, in many ways, a rejection of Booker T. Washington’s
advocacy of accommodation and self-improvement. 9. A 10. D 11. D 12. The major difference between Roosevelt’s
New Nationalism and Wilson’s New Freedom concerned the candidates’ beliefs about the necessary size of the federal
government. Wilson believed that a small federal government could keep bad businesses in check while allowing the
country to grow. Roosevelt, in contrast, believed that the country required a large and involved federal government
to safeguard the interests of the American people. 13. Wilson’s actions were limited by his belief in his New Freedom
platform, which promised voters a small government. Still, he took a number of steps in the first year of his presidency
to shore up the economy and push back against destructive trusts. With those goals accomplished, he largely left the
Progressive agenda alone. As the 1916 election season approached, however, Wilson realized that his hands-off policy
was not endearing him to voters, and he ended his first term in a flurry of Progressive legislation that reminded the
voting public of all he could do for them.
Chapter 22
1. B 2. C 3. The Midway Islands provided a more stable path to Asian markets and a vital naval coaling station, which
steamships needed in order to travel further afield. 4. B 5. The Taft Commission introduced reforms to modernize
and improve daily life in the Philippines. Many of these reforms were legislative in nature, impacting the structure
and composition of local governments. In exchange for the support of resistance leaders, for example, the commission
offered them political appointments. 6. The Spanish-American War posed a series of challenges to the United States’
military capacities. The new U.S. Navy, while impressive, was still untested, and no one was certain how the new
ships would perform. Further, the country had a limited army, with fewer than thirty thousand soldier and sailors.
While over one million men ultimately volunteered for service, they were untrained, and the army was ill-prepared
to house, arm, and feed them all. Eventually, American naval strength, combined with the proximity of American
supplies relative to the distance Spanish forces traveled, made the decisive difference. In a war upon the sea, the U.S.
Navy proved superior in both the Philippines and the blockade of Cuba. 7. A 8. B 9. The Open Door notes and the
American foray into China revealed the power of economic clout. Given the unprecedented technological advances
of the industrial revolution, American goods were often less expensive and of better quality than those produced in
other countries, and they were highly sought after in Asia. Therefore, when Hay derided the spheres of influence
model, wherein each country had its own room to maneuver in China, he was able to flood Chinese markets with
American trade. Through these maneuvers, the United States was able to augment its global standing considerably
without the use of its military forces. 10. D 11. B 12. Roosevelt’s strategy of “speaking softly and carrying a big stick”
worked well in Latin America, where the United States had a strong military presence and could quickly and easily
act on any threat of military action. Roosevelt’s threat of force was therefore credible in that region, and he was able
to wield it effectively. In Asia, however, the United States had less of a military presence. Instead, Roosevelt sought
to maintain a balance of power, wherein the various Asian countries kept each other in check and no single player
grew too powerful. When the power balance tipped, Roosevelt acted to broker a peace deal between Russia and Japan
as a means of restoring balance. 13. B 14. A 15. Taft’s policies created some troubles that were immediate, and others
that would not bear fruit until decades later. The tremendous debts in Central America created years of economic
instability there and fostered nationalist movements driven by resentment of America’s interference in the region.
In Asia, Taft’s efforts at China-Japan mediation heightened tensions between Japan and the United States—tensions
that would explode, ultimately, with the outbreak of World War II—and spurred Japan to consolidate its power
throughout the region.
Chapter 23
1. C 2. B 3. Wilson’s foreign policy goal was to minimize American involvement abroad and use a less imperialistic
approach than the presidents before him. Rather than being guided by America’s self-interest, he hoped to enact a
policy based on moral decisions, acting only when it was morally imperative. In practice, however, Wilson found
himself, especially in South and Central America, following the steps of other, more interventionist presidents. He
sent troops into Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba, often to ensure that America’s interests were met. In
Asia and Mexico, Wilson also found it difficult to remain outside of world affairs without jeopardizing America’s
interests. 4. D 5. C 6. The government took a number of steps to ensure that Americans supported the war effort.
1044 Answer Key
Congress passed several laws, including the Trading with the Enemy Act, the Espionage Act, the Sedition Act, and
the Alien Act, all intended to criminalize dissent against the war. The government also encouraged private citizens to
identify and report potential disloyalty among their neighbors, teachers, and others, including those who spoke out
against the war and the draft for religious reasons. Wilson believed these steps were necessary to prevent divided
loyalties, given the many recent immigrants living in the United States who maintained ties to European nations
on both sides of the conflict. 7. A 8. C 9. The ban on alcohol did not take effect until one year after the war, when
the public sentiments that had eased its passage began to wane. The law proved difficult to enforce, as ever-greater
numbers of Americans began to defy it. Organized crime’s involvement in the illegal liquor trade made enforcement
even more difficult and the procurement of alcohol more dangerous. All of these elements led to the law’s repeal in
1933. 10. B 11. B 12. In order to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, Wilson needed to ensure a two-thirds approval by the
U.S. Senate, which meant overcoming the objections of a majority of Senate Republicans. Isolationists, most notably
Henry Cabot Lodge, worried that the treaty’s Article X would oblige the United States to intervene extensively in
international affairs. Interventionists, alternatively, argued that Article X would prevent the United States from using
its military might to protect its interests abroad. Ultimately, Congress defeated both the originally worded treaty and
a later version that included amendments. As a result, the United States never officially signed the treaty nor joined
the League of Nations. 13. B 14. C 15. By the time of the 1920 election, the United States was tired and traumatized
by the events of the past year. The nation had fought a brutal war, with veterans bringing home their own scars and
troubles, and it had suffered domestically as well. Economic uncertainty and shortages, violent racial conflicts, fear
of a Communist takeover, and a deadly flu pandemic had left Americans overwhelmed and unhappy. They did not
seek new Progressive ideals, they did not want to be the world’s policeman, and they did not want to destabilize what
already felt unsteady. By choosing a reassuring-looking candidate who promised to bring things “back to normal,”
Americans squarely voted to hunker down, nurse their wounds, and try to enjoy themselves.
Chapter 24
1. C 2. A 3. D 4. Henry Ford revolutionized the automobile industry by making the car affordable to the average
person. In order to accomplish this, he refused to allow workers to unionize, instituted an eight-hour workday, raised
workers’ wages, promoted equal pay for black and white workers and for women; and used assembly lines to facilitate
production. The automobile thus became a symbol of middle-class life, rather than a luxury good available only to
the wealthy. 5. B 6. D 7. The reincarnated Ku Klux Klan championed an anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, and
anti-Jewish philosophy, and promoted the spread of Protestant beliefs. The Klan publicly denounced the groups they
despised and continued to engage in activities such as cross-burning, violence, and intimidation, despite their public
commitment to nonviolent tactics. Women’s groups within the Klan also participated in various types of reform, such
as advocating the prohibition of alcohol and distributing Bibles in public schools. 8. A 9. B 10. D 11. The prohibition
amendment failed due to its infeasibility. It lacked both public support and funds for its enforcement. It also lessened
Americans’ respect for law and order, and sparked a rise in unlawful activities, such as illegal alcohol production
and organized crime. 12. The Harlem Renaissance was a rediscovery and celebration of black culture and race pride.
Within this context, black literature and art flourished. Writers such as Claude McKay, Langston Hughes, and Zora
Neale Hurston created fiction and poetry that spoke directly to the experiences of black Americans. Meanwhile, black
scholars and political leaders, such as W. E. B. Du Bois and Marcus Garvey, created new social and political ideologies
and defined a distinct national identity for African Americans. 13. C 14. A 15. B 16. Most Americans believed that their
prosperity would continue. The stock market continued to flourish, prompting many Americans—including those
who had never done so before—to invest their savings and hope for the best.
Chapter 25
1. B 2. C 3. At the outset of his presidency, Hoover planned to establish an agenda that would promote continued
economic prosperity and eradicate poverty. He planned to eliminate federal regulations of the economy, which
he believed would allow for maximum growth. For Americans themselves, he advocated a spirit of rugged
individualism: Americans could bring about their own success or failure in partnership with the government, but
remain unhindered by unnecessary government intervention in their everyday lives. These philosophies and policies
reflected both the prosperity and optimism of the previous decade and a continuation of the postwar “return to
normalcy” championed by Hoover’s Republican predecessors. 4. C 5. A 6. Hoover formed the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation (RFC) in 1932. This represented a significant effort, although it did not provide any direct aid to needy
Americans. The RFC set aside $2 billion in taxpayer money to rescue banks, credit unions, and insurance companies,
hoping to promote Americans’ confidence in financial institutions. However, by lending money only to banks with
sufficient collateral, he ensured that most of the recipients of the aid were large banks. Additionally, most Americans
at this time did not have assets to place into banks, however confident they may have felt. In 1932, Hoover also
endorsed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, which allotted $1.5 billion to states to fund local public works
projects. Hoover’s limitations upon the types of projects that could receive funding and the types of workers who
could participate, however, limited the program’s utility. 7. D 8. B 9. American films in the 1930s served to both
assuage the fears and frustrations of many Americans suffering through the Depression and reinforce the idea that
communal efforts—town and friends working together—would help to address the hardships. Previous emphasis
upon competition and individualism slowly gave way to notions of “neighbor helping neighbor” and seeking group

Answer Key 1045
solutions to common problems. The Andy Hardy series, in particular, combined entertainment with the concept of
family coming together to solve shared problems. The themes of greed, competition, and capitalist-driven market
decisions no longer commanded a large audience among American moviegoers. 10. B 11. D
Chapter 26
1. C 2. D 3. Roosevelt recruited his “Brains Trust” to advise him in his inception of a variety of relief and recovery
programs. Among other things, the members of this group pushed for a new national tax policy; addressed the
nation’s agricultural problems; advocated an increased role for the federal government in setting wages and prices;
and believed that the federal government could temper the boom-and-bust cycles that rendered the economy unstable.
These advisors helped to craft the legislative programs that Roosevelt presented to Congress. 4. B 5. D 6. The most
prominent of Roosevelt’s job-creation programs included the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Public Works
Administration (the latter under the auspices of the National Industrial Recovery Act). Both employed millions of
Americans to work on thousands of projects. While programs such as the Tennessee Valley Authority were not
incepted solely for the purpose of generating jobs, they nevertheless created thousands of employment opportunities
in service of their greater goals. Direct relief came primarily in the form of the Federal Emergency Relief
Administration, which lent over $3 billion to states to operate direct relief programs from 1933 to 1935, as well as
undertook several employment projects. 7. The National Recovery Administration (NRA) established a “code of fair
practice” for every industry. Business owners were made to accept a set minimum wage and maximum number
of work hours, as well as to recognize workers’ rights to organize and use collective bargaining. While the NRA
established over five hundred different codes, it proved difficult to adapt this plan successfully for diverse industries
with very different characteristics and practices. 8. B 9. A 10. B 11. The Indian Reorganization Act, or Indian New Deal,
of 1934 put an end to the policies set forth in the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887. Rather than encouraging assimilation,
the new act promoted Indians’ development of local self-government and the preservation of Indian artifacts and
heritage. John Collier, the Commissioner on Indian Bureau Affairs, was able to use the law to push for federal officials’
return of nearly two million acres of government-held land to various tribes.
Chapter 27
1. A 2. Roosevelt recalled the American ambassador from Germany. However, he made no move to relax national
immigration quotas, which would have allowed persecuted German Jews to take refuge in the United States. He failed
to support legislation that would have enabled Jewish children to enter the country. He also refused to intervene when
a ship carrying German refugees, most of whom were Jewish, was turned away from Cuba and looked to the United
States for help. 3. D 4. A 5. Many American women joined the armed forces, where they served as nurses, repaired
and piloted airplanes, drove trucks, and performed clerical duties. Women in civilian life assumed occupations, often
in the defense industries, that would have gone to men in times of peace. Women who did not take on wartime
employment also contributed by recycling scarce materials, buying war bonds, planning meals using rationed foods,
and generally making do with less. 6. C 7. Roosevelt believed that his demand for an unconditional surrender from
Germany and Japan would serve several purposes: It would provide reassurance to the Soviet Union of the nation’s
loyalty, prepare the Axis nations for a complete postwar transformation, and prevent any other nations from engaging
in negotiations that would undermine the Big Three’s plans for the defeated belligerents. 8. The first prison camps
for Jews and other “enemies” of the Nazis were built in Germany in 1933. Following the invasion of eastern Europe,
more camps, including extermination camps, were built in areas conquered by the Nazis. People, primarily Jews,
were shipped to these camps from throughout Nazi-controlled Europe. 9. B 10. Allied forces intentionally avoided
Japanese-held island strongholds that did not serve them strategically, instead securing locations that allowed them
to interfere with Japanese communications and transportation routes. In this way, the Allies made their way towards
Japan with limited military engagement. The goal was to get close enough to the Japanese home islands to achieve air
superiority, paving the way for Allied assaults by air or water. 11. Truman wanted to end the war quickly and save
lives by avoiding an invasion of the Japanese home islands. However, he might have achieved this by waiting for a
definitive response from Japan following the bombing of Hiroshima. Truman may also have wanted to demonstrate
America’s power to the Soviet Union and hoped that the unleashing of his nuclear arsenal would send a strong
message to Stalin.
Chapter 28
1. C 2. B 3. The GI Bill provided returning veterans with a year of unemployment compensation, so they did not
have to worry about finding jobs immediately. It allowed them to receive low-interest loans to buy homes or start
businesses, and it paid for tuition for those who wished to attend college or vocational school. However, African
American veterans could use their educational benefits only to attend schools that accepted black students, and some
Mexican American veterans had difficulty gaining access to their benefits. Also, because those who had received
a dishonorable discharge were not eligible, thousands of gay and lesbian servicemen and women who had been
dishonorably discharged for their sexual orientation were unable to receive benefits. 4. B 5. D 6. The border between
North and South Korea was established close to the original line along the thirty-eighth parallel, with a demilitarized
zone serving as a buffer. Prisoners of war were free to decide whether they wanted to be returned home. 7. D
8. B 9. The construction of houses meant more work for people in the construction trades, including plumbers and
1046 Answer Key
electricians, and for those who worked in the lumber and appliance industries. The growth of the suburbs also led
to a boom in the manufacture and sale of automobiles, which, in turn, created jobs for those in the steel, rubber, and
oil industries. 10. C 11. Antitrust lawsuits deprived studios of their theaters, and the careers of many actors, directors,
and screenwriters were destroyed by Senator McCarthy’s blacklist of suspected Communists. Meanwhile, the new
technology of television drew audiences away from the movies by providing convenient at-home entertainment. 12. D
13. C 14. Shelley v. Kraemer held that state courts could not enforce agreements that prevented homeowners from selling
to members of particular races. The ruling made it easier for African Americans to purchase houses in neighborhoods
of their choosing.
Chapter 29
1. B 2. B 3. Kennedy’s economic development programs, supported by the Peace Corps, were intended to reduce
poverty in developing nations so their citizens would be less attracted to Communism. After the Bay of Pigs invasion
failed to overthrow the government of Fidel Castro, Kennedy demanded that the Soviet Union remove intermediate-
range missiles from Cuba. He also increased support for the anti-Communist government in South Vietnam and sent
advisors and troops to train the South Vietnamese army. 4. C 5. D 6. The social programs of the Great Society, such
as Medicaid, job training programs, and rent subsidies, helped many poor African Americans. All African American
citizens were aided by the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended discrimination in employment and
prohibited segregation in public accommodations; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibited literacy tests and
other racially discriminatory restrictions on voting; and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which outlawed discrimination
in housing. 7. D 8. A 9. D 10. King and his followers strove for racial integration and the political inclusion of
African Americans. They also urged for the use of nonviolent tactics to achieve their goals. Black Power advocates, in
contrast, believed that African Americans should seek solutions without the aid of whites. Many also promoted black
separatism and accepted the use of violence. 11. C 12. C 13. The birth control pill enabled women to prevent or delay
pregnancy, and thus marriage, and to limit the number of children they had. The freedom to control their reproduction
also allowed women more opportunity to pursue higher education and work for pay outside the home.
Chapter 30
1. B 2. A 3. Although hippie culture was not entirely homogenous, many hippies desired peace, rejected traditional
social values, and sought to live a nonmaterialistic existence close to nature. Many also used drugs both recreationally
and as a way to achieve greater spiritual insight. 4. C 5. D 6. Many Democrats disliked the fact that Hubert Humphrey
had won the Party’s nomination, even though he had done poorly in all the primaries. In November, many who
had supported antiwar candidates Eugene McCarthy and the late Robert Kennedy refused to vote. Others voted for
segregationist George Wallace. Some working-class Democrats also voted for Richard Nixon. 7. C 8. A 9. According
to John Kerry’s testimony, Vietnamese civilians were often subjected to shocking violence. Soldiers raped, mutilated,
shot at, and brutally murdered civilians. Troops also intentionally destroyed Vietnamese villages, well beyond the
destruction typically wrought by war. 10. D 11. B 12. The White House plumbers spied on Nixon’s political opponents
and engineered ways to embarrass them. They attempted to locate information with which to discredit Daniel Ellsberg
by stealing files from the office of his psychiatrist, and they broke into DNC headquarters in the Watergate complex
with the intention of wiretapping the phones. 13. D 14. A 15. Carter succeeded in improving U.S. relations with China
and engaged in talks with the Soviet Union regarding limiting nuclear weapons. He called attention to human rights
abuses on the parts of foreign governments. Finally, he helped Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat lay the groundwork
for a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.
Chapter 31
1. A 2. D 3. Reagan planned to cut taxes for the wealthy in the hope that these taxpayers would then invest their
surplus money in business; this, Reagan believed, would reduce unemployment. Reagan also sought to raise interest
rates to curb inflation, cut federal spending on social programs, and deregulate industry. Finally, Reagan hoped—but
ultimately failed—to balance the federal budget. 4. A 5. D 6. Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority believed the country was
drifting ever further toward immorality. The evidence they cited included the legalization of abortion, the feminist
movement, and sex education in public schools. 7. C 8. B 9. After Congress ended support for the Nicaraguan Contras,
President Reagan sought other sources of funding for them. Lt. Col. Oliver North then oversaw a plan by which
arms would be sold to Iran and the money received from the sales would be sent to fund the Contras. 10. A 11. A
12. Clinton helped to arrange peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and between Israel and Jordan. During
his administration, the United States participated in airstrikes that helped to end Serbian aggression in the region of
Kosovo and the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Chapter 32
1. C 2. D 3. The United States denied the rights of prisoners captured in Afghanistan and Iraq by imprisoning and
interrogating them outside of the United States, where they were not protected by U.S. law. The U.S. also classified
these prisoners as “unlawful combatants,” so that they would not be entitled to the protections of the Geneva
Conventions. 4. C 5. A 6. Giving vouchers to public school students enables them to pay to attend better-performing
charter or private schools. However, school vouchers take money and good students away from public schools,

Answer Key 1047
making it more difficult for those schools to improve. 7. C 8. A 9. The administration refused to ratify the Kyoto
Protocol, and, as a result, the United States has not been required to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile,
climate scientists have experienced interference with their work. For critics of climate change, this hampering of
scientific research and consensus has provided further evidence of the lack of agreed-upon conclusions about climate
change. 10. C 11. D 12. The Obama administration has sought to make higher education more accessible by increasing
the amount of money that students can receive under the federally funded Pell Grant Program, which helps millions
pay for college. Obama also worked out a compromise with Congress in 2013 that lowered the interest rates charged
on student loans.
1048 Answer Key

Index 1049
Index
Symbols Black Power, 883, 891 Comanche, 311
“Slave Power”, 397 Black Pride, 885, 891 Committee of Correspondence,
black separatism, 884, 891 145
A Black Tuesday, 736, 760 Committee of Public
abolitionist, 381, 387 blacklist, 839, 858 Information, 680
Abu Ghraib, 973 Bleeding Kansas, 406, 417 Committees of Correspondence,
Afghan Northern Alliance, 966 bloody shirt campaign, 585, 606 152
Age of Reason, 114 bonanza farms, 493, 510 commodification, 55, 59
agrarian society, 20 Bonus Army, 747, 760 Compromise of 1850, 326, 327,
al-Qaeda, 964, 991 boomerang generation, 988, 991 417
alcalde, 312, 327 bootlegging, 720, 728 Compromise of 1877, 478, 479
Alliance for Progress, 867 border ruffians, 404, 417 Comstock Lode, 495, 510
American Equal Rights Boston Harbor, 158 concurrent majority, 353, 359
Association, 466 Boston Massacre, 142, 152 Confederacy, 425, 449
American individualism, 744, Boxer Rebellion, 645 confiscation acts, 176, 182
760 Brains Trust, 767, 791 Connecticut Compromise, 205,
American Missionary Bucktails, 276 210
Association, 459 Bull Run Creek, 428 conscientious objectors, 805,
American Party, 407, 417 Bunker Hill, 161 825
American River, 320 Bush Doctrine, 965, 991 conservative Whigs, 187, 210
American System, 278, 297 containment, 835, 858
Americanization, 504, 510 C Continental currency, 180, 182
antebellum, 332, 359 California Gold Rush, 495, 510 contrabands, 437, 449
Anti-Federalists, 207, 210 Californios, 317, 327 Contract with America, 953,
Anti-Imperialist League, 653, Calvinism, 44, 59 960
665 carpetbagger, 479 Contras, 944
Antietam, 431 carpetbaggers, 472 Copperheads, 446, 449, 457
appeasement, 798 Carter Doctrine, 924, 926 Corps of Discovery, 303, 327
Army of the Potomac, 431, 449 cash crop, 332, 359 corrupt bargain, 277, 297
Army of the West, 432, 449 charter schools, 972, 991 cotton boom, 332, 359
Articles of Confederation, 199 chasquis, 14, 30 cotton gin, 332, 359
artisan, 269 chattel slavery, 27, 30 counterculture, 896, 926
artisans, 244 checks and balances, 197, 210 counterinsurgency, 867, 891
Atlanta Compromise, 625, 637 chinampas, 12, 30 coverture, 189, 210
circuit riders, 365 Coxey’s Army, 600, 606
B Citizen Genêt affair, 222, 240 credit default swaps, 976, 991
baby boom, 848, 858 City Beautiful, 566, 574 Crédit Mobilier of America
bank run, 760 civil service, 584, 606 scandal, 584
bank runs, 738 civil unions, 981, 991 Crittenden Compromise, 423,
Banking Act of 1935, 782 Civil Works Administration, 449
Barnburners, 324, 327 773 crop-lien system, 471, 479
Battle of New Orleans, 239 Civilian Conservation Corps, Crusades, 21, 30
Battle of Wounded Knee, 504, 773, 791 Cumberland Road, 260, 269
510 Clark Memorandum, 757, 760
Bell, 518 clear and present danger, 681, D
Beringia, 8, 30 697 D-day, 817, 825
bicameral, 205, 210 code of deference, 274, 297 Daughters of Liberty, 134, 152
Big Three, 816, 825 Coercive Acts, 147, 152 Deep Throat, 918, 926
Bill of Rights, 215, 240 Cold War, 834, 858 Defense of Marriage Act, 989
Black Cabinet, 786 collateralized debt obligations, deism, 113, 120
black codes, 460, 479 976 democracy, 187, 210
Black Death, 18, 30 colonization, 379, 387 Democratic-Republicans, 219,
Black Legend, 53, 59 Columbian Exchange, 55, 59 240
1050 Index
Depression of 1893, 599 Five Civilized Tribes, 289, 297 Hollywood, 703, 728
desegregation, 855, 858 flapper, 716, 728 Homeland Security Act, 969
deskilling, 247, 269 flexible response, 867, 891 Homestead Act, 487
détente, 910, 926 Florida land boom, 734 Hoover, 732
direct primary, 612, 637 Ford Hunger March, 746 Hoover Moratorium, 757
direct tax, 130, 152 Fordlandia, 705 horizontal integration, 525, 541
Dixiecrats, 905, 926 Fort Sumter, 426, 449 Huey “Kingfish” Long, 781
dollar diplomacy, 663, 665 forty-niners, 321, 327 hydroelectric power, 778
domestic slave trade, 336, 359 Fourteen Points, 690, 697 hydropathy, 377
Dominion of New England, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 765
103, 120 free moral agency, 266, 269 I
domino theory, 835, 858 Free-Soil Party, 324, 327, 417 identity politics, 896, 926
Double V campaign, 813 Freedmen’s Bureau, 459, 479 immediatism, 382, 387
Double Vcampaign, 825 Freemasons, 113, 120 impressment, 222, 240
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 408, 417 Freeport Doctrine, 412, 417 Inca, 55
Dunmore’s Proclamation, 162, French and Indian War, 117, indenture, 76, 91
182 120 Indian Removal Act, 290
Dust Bowl, 751, 760 Frontier Thesis, 645, 665 indirect tax, 130, 152
Dutch West India Company, 68 indulgences, 43, 59
G initiative, 613, 637
E gender gap, 954, 960 Inquisition, 23, 30
Edison, 519 general in chief, 431, 449 instrumentalism, 568, 574
Electoral College, 206, 210 Gettysburg Address, 441, 449 internment, 814, 825
Emancipation Proclamation, GI Bill, 831, 858 interregnum, 768, 791
438, 449 Gilded Age, 580, 606 Intolerable Acts, 147, 152
Embargo Act of 1807, 234 Giuseppe Zangara, 768 Iron Curtain, 835, 858
Emergency Banking Act, 770 Glass-Steagall Banking Act, 772 Ironclad Oath, 455, 479
empresario, 311, 327 globalization, 34 Irreconcilables, 692, 697
encomienda, 59 Glorious Revolution, 104, 120
encomiendas, 52 graft, 560, 574 J
Enforcement Acts, 475 Grange, 595, 606 Jackie Robinson, 852
English interregnum, 97, 120 Great Migration, 555, 574 Jesuits, 70, 91
Enlightenment, 112, 120 Great Recession, 977, 991 Jim Crow, 461
Enola Gay, 822, 825 Great Society, 872, 891 joint stock companies, 47
Erie Canal, 260, 269 Greek civil war, 835 joint stock company, 59
eugenicists, 625 Green Party, 958, 960 José Martí, 649
Executive Order 9066, 814, 825 Greenback Party, 596 K
executive privilege, 919, 926 greenbacks, 435, 449 Kamikaze, 821
exodusters, 489, 510 greenhouse gases, 982, 991 Kansas-Nebraska bill, 403
expatriate, 721, 728 Kellogg-Briand Pact, 797
H
F habeas corpus, 433, 449 Kitchen Cabinet, 282, 297
Fair Deal, 833, 858 Half-Breeds, 589, 606 Koran, 21, 30
farm holidays, 747 Harlem Hellfighters, 684, 697 Ku Klux Klan, 472, 479
Farmerettes, 683 Harpers Ferry, 413, 417 Kyoto Protocol, 982, 991
Farmers’ Alliance, 596, 606 Haymarket affair, 532, 541 L
Fascism, 797, 825 headright system, 76, 91 labor theory of value, 251, 269
federal minimum wage, 833 Heritage Foundation, 938, 960 land fever, 256
Federalists, 207, 210 Hessians, 167, 182 land offices, 253, 269
Fence Cutting War, 499, 510 Higher Education Act, 873 las Gorras Blancas, 509, 510
feudal society, 19, 30 Hillarycare, 953 League of Nations, 690, 697
filibuster, 307, 327 Hippies, 896 letters of marque, 222, 240
Fire-Eaters, 413, 417 Hispaniola, 36, 59 Levittown, 846
fireside chat, 771 HIV/AIDS, 941, 960 Levittowns, 858
First Great Awakening, 110, 120 holding company, 526, 541 liberty bonds, 678, 697

Index 1051
Liberty Party, 324, 327 mourning wars, 58, 59 paternalism, 338, 359
Little Rock Nine, 856, 858 moving assembly line, 704, 728 patroonships, 69, 91
log cabin campaign, 295, 297 muckrakers, 610, 637 Peace Corps, 867
Long Telegram, 835 Mugwumps, 592, 606 Pentagon Papers, 915, 926
Lost Generation, 721, 728 musket, 88, 91 Petticoat affair, 282
Louisiana Purchase, 232, 240 Muslim, 25 photojournalism, 611
Loyalist, 125 Mutually Assured Destruction, Phrenology, 378
Loyalists, 152 843 phrenology, 387
pietistic, 370, 387
M N Pilgrims, 48, 59
machine politics, 560, 574 NAACP, 627, 637 pink collar, 740
machine tools, 258, 269 national bank, 218 plumbers, 917, 926
majority rule, 187, 210 National Labor Relations Board, polygenism, 354, 359
malaria, 658 783 polygyny, 24, 30
Manhattan Project, 822, 825 National Organization for
polytheistic, 9
Manifest Destiny, 485, 510 Women, 903
popular sovereignty, 163, 182,
manumission, 210 National Recovery
417
manumissions, 194 Administration, 777
Populist Party, 598, 606
Marbury v. Madison, 232, 240 nativism, 708, 728
Port Huron Statement, 887, 891
maroon communities, 87, 91 naturalism, 569, 574
pragmatism, 568, 574
Marshall Plan, 836, 858 naval quarantine, 868, 891
privateers, 47, 59
Mary McLeod Bethune, 786 Navigation Acts, 102, 120
probanza de mérito, 37, 59
Massachusetts Circular, 140, Negro nationalism, 719, 728
Proclamation Line, 128, 152
152 neutrality, 674, 697
Progressive Party, 632, 637
massive retaliation, 843, 858 New Deal, 767
progressive tax, 614
materiel, 801, 825 New Freedom, 633, 637
Progressivism, 612, 637
matriarchy, 17, 30 New Jersey Plan, 205
Prohibition, 685
Mayflower, 49 new morality, 716, 728
prohibition, 697
McDonalds, 847 New Nationalism, 633, 637
proportional representation,
Mecklenburg Resolves, 162, 182 New Right, 933, 960
205, 210
mercantilism, 55, 59 New York City Draft Riots, 446
proprietary colonies, 97, 120
Mexican Cession, 319, 327, 392 Niagara Movement, 626, 637
Protestant Reformation, 42, 59
middle class, 564 No Child Left Behind Act, 972
Puritans, 44, 59
Middle Passage, 87, 91 no taxation without
putting-out system, 245, 269
military-industrial complex, representation, 133, 152
843, 858 non-importation movement, Q
millennialism, 365, 387 135, 152 Quartering Act, 132
minutemen, 160, 182 nonconformist, 105 quipu, 14, 30
miscegenation, 411, 417 nonconformists, 120
missionaries, 66 Northwest Passage, 302, 327 R
Missouri Compromise, 309, 327 nullification, 283, 297 Radical Republicans, 455, 479
mita, 14, 30 Radical Whigs, 187
O radical Whigs, 210
Model T, 703, 728
Obamacare, 985, 991 Rappites, 370
Mohawk and Hudson Railroad,
Okies, 753 Reaganomics, 934, 960
262, 269
Open Door notes, 656, 665 realism, 568, 574
Molly Maguires, 530, 541
Operation Desert Storm, 947, recall, 613, 637
Monarchy, 186
960 Reconquista, 21, 30
monarchy, 210
Ostend Manifesto, 356, 359 Reconstruction, 454, 479
monopoly, 525, 541
monster bank, 285, 297 Reconstruction Acts, 463
P
Montesquieu, 197 Red Scare, 694, 697
Pancho Villa, 672
Moral Majority, 938 Red Summer, 693, 697
Panic of 1819, 311
moral suasion, 381, 387 redeemers, 475, 479
Panic of 1873, 590
Mormons, 372, 387 referendum, 613, 637
Parents Music Resource Center,
Morrill Act, 435 repartimiento, 64, 91
940
1052 Index
Report on Public Credit, 216 sod houses, 492 Townshend, 137

Republic of Fredonia, 312 Sons of Liberty, 134, 152 Trail of Tears, 291, 297
Republic of Sonora, 357 southern strategy, 172, 904, 926 transcendentalism, 366, 387
Republican Party, 404, 417 Southern Tenant Farmers Treaty of Paris, 118
republicanism, 163, 182 Union, 775 trust, 526, 541
Reservationists, 692, 697 Spanish-American War, 631 Tuskegee Institute, 804
Restoration colonies, 97, 120 specie, 256, 269 tyranny of the majority, 294,
return to normalcy, 724, 728 Speculation, 734 297
Revolution of 1800, 230, 240 speculation, 760
Rhode Island system, 246 sphere of influence, 655, 665 U
Roanoke, 47, 59 spoils system, 276, 297 Underground Railroad, 397,
robber baron, 541 Sputnik, 845, 858 417
robber barons, 521 Square Deal, 629, 637 unicameral, 198, 210
rock and roll, 848, 858 stagflation, 908, 926 Union Leagues, 467, 479
Roosevelt Corollary, 660, 665 Stalwarts, 589, 606 universal manhood suffrage,
Rosie the Riveter, 809, 825 Stamp Act, 131 275, 297
rotation in office, 282, 297 START, 947, 960 Urbanization, 546
Rough Riders, 651, 665 state-level reforms, 612 V
states’ rights, 856, 858 vertical integration, 526, 541
S Student Nonviolent
sacraments, 20 vice-admiralty courts, 130, 152
Coordinating Committee Victory Stamps, 808
salutary neglect, 102, 120 (SNCC), 879
Sand Creek Massacre, 501, 510 Vietnam Syndrome, 943, 960
subprime mortgage, 991 Vietnamization, 913, 926
scalawags, 472, 479 subprime mortgages, 976
scientific management, 529, 541 Virginia Plan, 205
subtreasury plan, 606
Scopes Monkey Trial, 713, 728 Suffolk Resolves, 148, 152 W
Scottsboro Boys, 750, 760 sugarcane, 54, 59 wampum, 88, 91
Second Great Awakening, 364, Supreme Court Packing Plan, war on drugs, 942, 960
387 784, 791 war on poverty, 874, 891
Second Ku Klux Klan, 711, 728 Susquehannock, 77 Washington Temperance
second middle passage, 344, Society, 377
359 T Whigs, 286, 297
second party system, 295, 297 Taliban, 965, 991 Wilmot Proviso, 323, 327
Seneca Falls, 385, 387 Tallmadge Amendment, 309, Wisconsin Idea, 614, 637
Separatists, 49, 59 327 WMDs, 967, 991
serf, 30 Tammany Hall, 560, 574 Wobblies, 621, 638
serfs, 19 Tariff of Abominations, 279, Working Men’s Party, 251, 269
settlement house movement, 297 Works Progress Administration,
552, 574 Taylorism, 615, 637 765, 782, 791
Seward’s Folly, 643, 665 Tea Act of 1773, 145
Shakers, 371, 387 Tea Party, 986, 991 X
sharecropping, 472, 479 Teapot Dome scandal, 725, 728 XYZ affair, 228, 240
Sherman’s March to the Sea, teetotalism, 377, 387
445, 449 Tejanos, 311, 327 Y
silent majority, 904, 926 temperance, 375, 387 yellow fever, 658
Silent Sentinels, 622, 637 ten percent plan, 454, 479 yellow journalism, 649, 665
Slave Power, 324, 327 Tennessee Valley Authority, Yippies, 906, 926
Slavery, 105 778, 791 Yom Kippur War, 908
smallpox, 57, 59 the Terror, 221, 240 Yorktown, 173, 182
Smoot-Hawley Tariff, 757, 760 thirteen colonies, 163, 182 Yuppie, 937
social Darwinism, 523, 541, 567 three-fifths compromise, 206, Z
social gospel, 552, 574 210 Zimmermann telegram, 675,
Social Register, 563, 574 Timucua, 65, 91 697
Social Security, 783, 791 Title VII, 890, 891 zoot suit, 825
sod house, 510 total war, 433, 449 zoot suits, 814

Index 1071
About Connexions
Since 1999, Connexions has been pioneering a global system where anyone can create course materials and
make them fully accessible and easily reusable free of charge. We are a Web-based authoring, teaching
and learning environment open to anyone interested in education, including students, teachers, professors
and lifelong learners. We connect ideas and facilitate educational communities. Connexions's modular,
interactive courses are in use worldwide by universities, community colleges, K-12 schools, distance
learners, and lifelong learners. Connexions materials are in many languages, including English, Spanish,
Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Vietnamese, French, Portuguese, and Thai.

USHistory LR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USHistory LR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

USHistory LR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.S.

To learn more about OpenStax College, visit http://openstaxcollege.org.

For questions regarding this licensing, please contact partners@openstaxcollege.org.

This content is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3

This content is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3

About U.S. History

This content is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3

Appendix C: Presidents of the United States

Questions for Each Level of Learning

About Our Team

Amy Bix Iowa State University

Edward Bond Alabama A&M University

Tammy Byron Dalton State College

Benjamin Carp Brooklyn College, CUNY

Sharon Deubreau Rhodes State College

Gene Fein Fordham University

Joel Franks San Jose State University

Raymond Frey Centenary College

Richard Gianni Indiana University Northwest

Larry Gragg Missouri University of Science and Technology

Laura Graves South Plains College

Elisa Guernsey Monroe Community College

Thomas Chase Hagood University of Georgia

Charlotte Haller Worcester State University

David Head Spring Hill College

Tamora Hoskisson Salt Lake Community College

Jean Keller Palomar College

This content is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3

Kathleen Kennedy Missouri State University

Mark Klobas Scottsdale Community College

Ann Kordas Johnson & Wales University

Stephanie Laffer Miami International University of Art and Design

Jennifer Lang Delgado Community College

Jennifer Lawrence Tarrant County College

Wendy Maier-Sarti Oakton Community College

Jim McIntyre Moraine Valley Community College

Marianne McKnight Salt Lake Community College

Brandon Morgan Central New Mexico Community College

Caryn Neumann Miami University of Ohio

Michelle Novak Houston Community College

Lisa Ossian Des Moines Area Community College

Paul Ringel High Point University

Jason Ripper Everett Community College

Silvana Siddali Saint Louis University

Brooks Simpson Arizona State University

Steven Smith California State University, Fullerton

David Trowbridge Marshall University

Eugene Van Sickle University of North Georgia

Hubert van Tuyll Augusta State University

This content is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3

The Americas, Europe, and Africa

1.1 The Americas

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Figure 1.2 (credit: modification of work by Architect of the Capitol)

This content is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3

THE FIRST AMERICANS: THE OLMEC

This content is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3

Click and Explore

Visit the University of Arizona Library Special Collections

This content is available for free at https://cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3