Us History Reconstruction Reading 2

1
U.S. History: Reconstruction

- Present
Collection edited by: Jamey Polak
Content authors: OpenStax and OpenStax College History
Based on: U.S. History <http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3>.
Online: <https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1>
This selection and arrangement of content as a collection is copyrighted by Jamey Polak.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Collection structure revised: 2016/07/28
PDF Generated: 2019/09/24 09:47:22
For copyright and attribution information for the modules contained in this collection, see the "Attributions"
section at the end of the collection.
2
This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

Table of Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter 1: The Era of Reconstruction, 1865–1877 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.1 Restoring the Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2 Congress and the Remaking of the South, 1865–1866 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.3 Radical Reconstruction, 1867–1872 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.4 The Collapse of Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Chapter 2: Go West Young Man! Westward Expansion, 1840-1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.1 The Westward Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.2 Homesteading: Dreams and Realities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.3 Making a Living in Gold and Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.4 The Loss of American Indian Life and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.5 The Impact of Expansion on Chinese Immigrants and Hispanic Citizens . . . . . . . . 57
Chapter 3: Industrialization and the Rise of Big Business, 1870-1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.1 Inventors of the Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.2 From Invention to Industrial Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
3.3 Building Industrial America on the Backs of Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3.4 A New American Consumer Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Chapter 4: The Growing Pains of Urbanization, 1870-1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.1 Urbanization and Its Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
4.2 The African American “Great Migration” and New European Immigration . . . . . . . . 104
4.3 Relief from the Chaos of Urban Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.4 Change Reflected in Thought and Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Chapter 5: Politics in the Gilded Age, 1870-1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
5.1 Political Corruption in Postbellum America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
5.2 The Key Political Issues: Patronage, Tariffs, and Gold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
5.3 Farmers Revolt in the Populist Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
5.4 Social and Labor Unrest in the 1890s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Chapter 6: Leading the Way: The Progressive Movement, 1890-1920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
6.1 The Origins of the Progressive Spirit in America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
6.2 Progressivism at the Grassroots Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
6.3 New Voices for Women and African Americans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
6.4 Progressivism in the White House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Chapter 7: Age of Empire: American Foreign Policy, 1890-1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
7.1 Turner, Mahan, and the Roots of Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
7.2 The Spanish-American War and Overseas Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
7.3 Economic Imperialism in East Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
7.4 Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” Foreign Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
7.5 Taft’s “Dollar Diplomacy” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Chapter 8: Americans and the Great War, 1914-1919 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
8.1 American Isolationism and the European Origins of War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
8.2 The United States Prepares for War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
8.3 A New Home Front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
8.4 From War to Peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
8.5 Demobilization and Its Difficult Aftermath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Chapter 9: The Jazz Age: Redefining the Nation, 1919-1929 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
9.1 Prosperity and the Production of Popular Entertainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
9.2 Transformation and Backlash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
9.3 A New Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
9.4 Republican Ascendancy: Politics in the 1920s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
Chapter 10: Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? The Great Depression, 1929-1932 . . . . . . . . 279
10.1 The Stock Market Crash of 1929 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
10.2 President Hoover’s Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
10.3 The Depths of the Great Depression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
10.4 Assessing the Hoover Years on the Eve of the New Deal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
Chapter 11: Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932-1941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
11.1 The Rise of Franklin Roosevelt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
11.2 The First New Deal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
11.3 The Second New Deal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Chapter 12: Fighting the Good Fight in World War II, 1941-1945 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
12.1 The Origins of War: Europe, Asia, and the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
12.2 The Home Front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
12.3 Victory in the European Theater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
12.4 The Pacific Theater and the Atomic Bomb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
Chapter 13: Post-War Prosperity and Cold War Fears, 1945-1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
13.1 The Challenges of Peacetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
13.2 The Cold War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
13.3 The American Dream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
13.4 Popular Culture and Mass Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
13.5 The African American Struggle for Civil Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
Chapter 14: Contesting Futures: America in the 1960s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
14.1 The Kennedy Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412
14.2 Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
14.3 The Civil Rights Movement Marches On . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
Chapter 15: Political Storms at Home and Abroad, 1968-1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
15.1 Challenging the Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438
15.2 Identity Politics in a Fractured Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442
15.3 Coming Apart, Coming Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
15.4 Vietnam: The Downward Spiral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456
15.5 Watergate: Nixon’s Domestic Nightmare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
15.6 Jimmy Carter in the Aftermath of the Storm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
Chapter 16: From Cold War to Culture Wars, 1980-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
16.1 The Reagan Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478
16.2 Political and Cultural Fusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483
16.3 A New World Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 488
16.4 Bill Clinton and the New Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494
Chapter 17: The Challenges of the Twenty-First Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
17.1 The War on Terror . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510
17.2 The Domestic Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516
17.3 New Century, Old Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
17.4 Hope and Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528
Appendix A: The Declaration of Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541
Appendix B: The Constitution of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545
Appendix C: Presidents of the United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561
Appendix D: U.S. Political Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565
Appendix E: U.S. Topographical Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567
Appendix F: United States Population Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569
Appendix G: Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587

Preface 1
Preface
Welcome to U.S. History, an OpenStax resource. This textbook was written to increase student access to
high-quality learning materials, maintaining highest standards of academic rigor at little to no cost.
ABOUT OPENSTAX
OpenStax is a nonprofit based at Rice University, and it’s our mission to improve student access to
education. Our first openly licensed college textbook was published in 2012, and our library has since
scaled to over 25 books for college and AP® courses used by hundreds of thousands of students. OpenStax
Tutor, our low-cost personalized learning tool, is being used in college courses throughout the country.
Through our partnerships with philanthropic foundations and our alliance with other educational
resource organizations, OpenStax is breaking down the most common barriers to learning and
empowering students and instructors to succeed.
ABOUT OPENSTAX RESOURCES
Customization
U.S. History is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY) license, which
means that you can distribute, remix, and build upon the content, as long as you provide attribution to
OpenStax and its content contributors.
Because our books are openly licensed, you are free to use the entire book or pick and choose the sections
that are most relevant to the needs of your course. Feel free to remix the content by assigning your students
certain chapters and sections in your syllabus, in the order that you prefer. You can even provide a direct
link in your syllabus to the sections in the web view of your book.
Instructors also have the option of creating a customized version of their OpenStax book. The custom
version can be made available to students in low-cost print or digital form through their campus bookstore.
Visit your book page on OpenStax.org for more information.
Errata
All OpenStax textbooks undergo a rigorous review process. However, like any professional-grade
textbook, errors sometimes occur. Since our books are web based, we can make updates periodically when
deemed pedagogically necessary. If you have a correction to suggest, submit it through the link on your
book page on OpenStax.org. Subject matter experts review all errata suggestions. OpenStax is committed
to remaining transparent about all updates, so you will also find a list of past errata changes on your book
page on OpenStax.org.
Format
You can access this textbook for free in web view or PDF through OpenStax.org, and in low-cost print and
iBooks editions.
ABOUT U.S. HISTORY
U.S. History is designed to meet the scope and sequence requirements of most introductory courses.
The text provides 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). U.S. History covers key forces that form the American experience,
with particular attention to issues of race, class, and gender.
Coverage and scope
To develop U.S. History, we solicited ideas from historians at all levels of higher education, from
community colleges to PhD-granting universities. They told us about their courses, students, challenges,
resources, and how a textbook can best meet the needs of them and their students.The result is a book that
covers the breadth of the chronological history of the United States and also provides the necessary depth
2 Preface
to ensure the course is manageable for instructors and students alike.

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.
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
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

Preface 3
Pedagogical foundation
U.S. History features material that takes topics one step further to engage students in historical inquiry.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 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
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 and reasoning about the concepts pushing
students to places they wouldn’t have thought of going themselves.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Student and instructor resources
We’ve compiled additional resources for both students and instructors, including Getting Started Guides,
an instructor solution guide, and PowerPoint slides. Instructor resources require a verified instructor
account, which you can apply for when you log in or create your account on OpenStax.org. Take advantage
of these resources to supplement your OpenStax book.
Community Hubs
OpenStax partners with the Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education (ISKME)
to offer Community Hubs on OER Commons – a platform for instructors to share community-created
resources that support OpenStax books, free of charge. Through our Community Hubs, instructors can
upload their own materials or download resources to use in their own courses, including additional
ancillaries, teaching material, multimedia, and relevant course content. We encourage instructors to join
the hubs for the subjects most relevant to your teaching and research as an opportunity both to enrich your
courses and to engage with other faculty.
To reach the Community Hubs, visit www.oercommons.org/hubs/OpenStax.
Partner resources
OpenStax Partners are our allies in the mission to make high-quality learning materials affordable and
accessible to students and instructors everywhere. Their tools integrate seamlessly with our OpenStax
titles at a low cost. To access the partner resources for your text, visit your book page on OpenStax.org.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Senior contributing authors
P. Scott Corbett, 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
4 Preface
University’s Channel Islands campus. A passionate educator, Scott has also taught history to university
students in Singapore and China.
Volker Janssen, 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, Keene State College
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, 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, 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, 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
Kathleen Kennedy, Missouri State University
Mark Klobas, Scottsdale Community College
Ann Kordas, Johnson & Wales University

Preface 5
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
Preface

Chapter 1 | The Era of Reconstruction, 1865–1877 7
CHAPTER 1
The Era of Reconstruction,

1865–1877
Figure 1.1 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
1.1 Restoring the Union
1.2 Congress and the Remaking of the South, 1865–1866
1.3 Radical Reconstruction, 1867–1872
1.4 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 1.1) 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.
8 Chapter 1 | The Era of Reconstruction, 1865–1877
By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• 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 1.3). 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 1.2

Figure 1.3 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://openstax.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 1.4).
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 1.4 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 exempted 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 1.5). 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 1.5 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 1.6) shows a campaign poster for Hiester Clymer, who ran for governor of
Pennsylvania in 1866 on a platform of white supremacy.
Figure 1.6 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. Most former Confederate states, except
for Tennessee, 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://openstax.org/l/15Fourteena) and then view the
original document (http://openstax.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
1.7).
Figure 1.7 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 1.8). 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 1.8 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 1.9). 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 1.9 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://openstax.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
1.10).
Figure 1.10 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 1.11), 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 1.11 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 1.12). 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 1.12 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
1.13). 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 1.13 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 1.14). 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 1.14 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://openstax.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 1.15).
Figure 1.15 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
1.16). The Democrats called foul, threatening to hold up the commission’s decision in the courts.
Figure 1.16 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?
Critical Thinking Questions

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 2 | Go West Young Man! Westward Expansion, 1840-1900 35
CHAPTER 2
Go West Young Man! Westward

Expansion, 1840-1900
Figure 2.1 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
2.1 The Westward Spirit
2.2 Homesteading: Dreams and Realities
2.3 Making a Living in Gold and Cattle
2.4 The Loss of American Indian Life and Culture
2.5 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 2.1).
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.
36 Chapter 2 | 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
it—was destined to come under the civilizing rule of Euro-American settlers and their superior technology,
Figure 2.2 (credit “barbed wire”: modification of work by the U.S. Department of Commerce)

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 2.3).
Figure 2.3 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 (https://archive.org/details/acrossplainsin6400collrich) 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, 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 2.4).
Figure 2.4 The “Golden Spike” connecting the country by rail was driven into the ground in Promontory, 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 2.5).
Figure 2.5 “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://openstax.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 2.6).
Figure 2.6 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 2.7).
Figure 2.7 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
2.8). 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 2.8 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://openstax.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 2.9). 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 2.9 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 2.10).

Figure 2.10 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 2.11).
Figure 2.11 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 2.12).
Figure 2.12 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://openstax.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
2.13). 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 2.13 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 2.14).
Figure 2.14 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 single persons and 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://openstax.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.
2.5 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 2.15). 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 2.15 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://openstax.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 2.16).
Figure 2.16 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.
2.5 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 5. What accounts for the success of large,
group that participated significantly in westward commercial “bonanza farms?” What benefits did
migration after 1870? they enjoy over their smaller family-run
A. African American “exodusters” escaping counterparts?
racism and seeking economic opportunities
B. former Southern slaveholders seeking land 6. How did everyday life in the American West
and new financial opportunities hasten equality for women who settled the land?
C. recent immigrants from Northern Europe
and Canada 7. Which of the following groups was not
D. recent Chinese immigrants seeking gold in impacted by the invention of barbed wire?
California A. ranchers
B. cowboys
2. Which of the following represents an action C. farmers
that the U.S. government took to help Americans D. illegal prostitutes
fulfill the goal of western expansion?
A. the passage of the Homestead Act 8. The American cowboy owes much of its model
B. the official creation of the philosophy of to what other culture?
Manifest Destiny A. Mexicans
C. the development of stricter immigration B. Indians
policies C. Northern European immigrants
D. the introduction of new irrigation D. Chinese immigrants
techniques
9. How did mining and cattle ranching transform
3. Why and how did the U.S. government individual “get rich quick” efforts into “big
promote western migration in the midst of business” efforts when the nineteenth century
fighting the Civil War? came to a close?
4. What specific types of hardships did an

average American farmer not face as he built his
homestead in the Midwest?
A. droughts
B. insect swarms
C. hostile Indian attacks
D. limited building supplies
10. Which of the following was not a primary 12. What brought the majority of Chinese
method by which the American government dealt immigrants to the U.S.?
with American Indians during the period of A. gold
western settlement? B. work opportunities on the railroads
A. relocation C. the Homestead Act
B. appeasement D. Chinese benevolent associations
C. extermination
D. assimilation 13. How were Hispanic citizens deprived of their
wealth and land in the course of western
11. What did the Last Arrow pageant symbolize? settlement?
A. the continuing fight of the Indians A. Indian raids
B. the total extermination of the Indians from B. land seizures
the West C. prisoner of war status
C. the final step in the Americanization D. infighting
process
D. the rebellion at Little Bighorn 14. Compare and contrast the treatment of
Chinese immigrants and Hispanic citizens to that
of Indians during the period of western
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 3 | Industrialization and the Rise of Big Business, 1870-1900 65
CHAPTER 3
Industrialization and the Rise of Big

Business, 1870-1900
Figure 3.1 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
3.1 Inventors of the Age
3.2 From Invention to Industrial Growth
3.3 Building Industrial America on the Backs of Labor
3.4 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 3.1), 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.
66 Chapter 3 | 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.
AN EXPLOSION OF INVENTIVE ENERGY

From corrugated rollers that could crack hard, homestead-grown wheat into flour to refrigerated train
Figure 3.2

cars and garment-sewing machines (Figure 3.3), 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 3.3 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 3.4). 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 3.4 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://openstax.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 3.5) 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 3.5 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 practical incandescent light bulb.
He allegedly explored over six thousand different materials for the filament, before stumbling upon
carbonized cotton thread 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://openstax.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 3.6). 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 3.6 “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 3.7).
Figure 3.7 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 3.8) where players could hope to win in the
same way that his heroes did.

Figure 3.8 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 3.9). 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 3.9 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://openstax.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 3.10) 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 3.10 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 3.11). 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 3.11 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 3.12). 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 3.12 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 3.13).
Figure 3.13 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://openstax.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 3.14) 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 3.14 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 Field's 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 3.15).
Figure 3.15 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 3.16), 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 3.16 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 1886
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 4 | The Growing Pains of Urbanization, 1870-1900 95
CHAPTER 4
The Growing Pains of Urbanization,

1870-1900
Figure 4.1 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
4.1 Urbanization and Its Challenges
4.2 The African American “Great Migration” and New European Immigration
4.3 Relief from the Chaos of Urban Life
4.4 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 4.1): 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.
96 Chapter 4 | 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 4.3). 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
people to move to urban areas where jobs were plentiful, but hourly wages were often low and the work
Figure 4.2

was routine and grindingly monotonous.
Figure 4.3 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 for Massachusetts (http://openstax.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 as 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, two of the most common forms of transportation
within cities were the omnibus and the horse car. An omnibus was a large, horse-drawn carriage. A horse
car was similar to an omnibus, but it was placed on iron or steel tracks to provide a smoother ride. While
these horse-driven vehicles 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 horse
car, 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 4.4). 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 4.4 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 4.5). 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 Elisha 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 4.5 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 4.6).
Figure 4.6 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://openstax.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 4.7) 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 4.7 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.
4.2 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 (ending slavery, ensuring equal protection under the law, and protecting the right to vote,
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 4.8). 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 4.8 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
4.1).
Table 4.1 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 4.9). 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 4.9 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://openstax.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://openstax.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
4.10). 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 4.10 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 4.11). 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 4.11 The Dreamland Amusement Park tower was just one of Coney Island’s amusements.
Click and Explore
The Coney Island History Project (http://www.coneyislandhistory.org/collection) shows a photographic

history 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 4.12).
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 4.12 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 4.13).
Figure 4.13 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 4.14). 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 4.14 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 4.15). 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 4.15 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 4.16).
Figure 4.16 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 The 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 4.17).

Figure 4.17 Jack London poses with his dog Rollo in 1885 (a). The cover of Jack London’s The 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://openstax.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 4.18).
Figure 4.18 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://openstax.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.
4.2 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 2. Which of the following did the settlement
essential for creating massive urban growth in late house movement offer as a means of relief for
nineteenth-century America? working-class women?
A. electric lighting A. childcare
B. communication improvements B. job opportunities
C. skyscrapers C. political advocacy
D. settlement houses D. relocation services
3. What technological and economic factors

combined to lead to the explosive growth of
American cities at this time?

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

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 5 | Politics in the Gilded Age, 1870-1900 127
CHAPTER 5
Politics in the Gilded Age, 1870-1900
Figure 5.1 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
5.1 Political Corruption in Postbellum America
5.2 The Key Political Issues: Patronage, Tariffs, and Gold
5.3 Farmers Revolt in the Populist Era
5.4 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 5.1), 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.
128 Chapter 5 | 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
new political parties and organizations to directly address the problems they faced. Out of the frustration
Figure 5.2

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 5.3). 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 5.3 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 5.4) 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 5.4 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://openstax.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 5.5). Likewise, both parties promised an end to post-
Civil War Reconstruction.

Figure 5.5 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. Tactics included 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 5.6).
Figure 5.6 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 5.7).

Figure 5.7 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 5.8).
Figure 5.8 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 5.1), 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 5.1 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
Winfield Hancock 4,444,267 48.2% 155
Others 319,806 3.5% 0

Table 5.1 U.S. Presidential Election Results (1876–1896)
Year Candidates Popular Vote Percentage Electoral Vote
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 Republican 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 5.9). 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 5.9 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 5.10), 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 5.10 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://openstax.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 approximately 10 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 5.11). 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 5.11 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 5.12).
Figure 5.12 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 5.13). 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 5.13 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://openstax.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 5.14).
Figure 5.14 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://openstax.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 5.15). 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 5.15 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
workers 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 5.16).
Figure 5.16 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.
THE ELECTION OF 1896

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 5.17).

Figure 5.17 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://openstax.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
5.18).

Figure 5.18 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 2. How did the Great Compromise of 1877
________. influence the election?
A. conditions in the South in the pre-Civil War A. It allowed a bilateral government
era agreement.
B. the corrupt politics of the post-Civil War B. It gave new power to northern Republicans.
era C. It encouraged southern states to support
C. the populist movement Hayes.
D. the Republican Party D. It gave the federal government new
powers.
3. What accounted for the relative weakness of

the federal government during this era?
4. A Mugwump is ________. 8. Which of the following contributed directly to

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

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 6 | Leading the Way: The Progressive Movement, 1890-1920 157
CHAPTER 6
Leading the Way: The Progressive

Movement, 1890-1920
Figure 6.1 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
6.1 The Origins of the Progressive Spirit in America
6.2 Progressivism at the Grassroots Level
6.3 New Voices for Women and African Americans
6.4 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 6.1), 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.
158 Chapter 6 | 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,
he was the one who first gave them the disparaging nickname “muckrakers,” invoking an ill-spirited
Figure 6.2

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 6.3). 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 6.3 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://openstax.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 6.4) 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 6.4 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
6.5). 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 6.5 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://openstax.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 6.6) 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 6.6 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 6.7).

Figure 6.7 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 6.8). 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 6.8 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 Woman’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 6.9). 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 6.9 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 why
mainstream 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 6.10). 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 6.10 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 6.11). 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 6.11 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 6.12), 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 6.12 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 6.13) 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 6.13 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://openstax.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 6.14). 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 6.14 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://openstax.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 6.15). 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 6.15 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
6.16) 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 6.16 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 6.17). 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 6.17 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 6.18).
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 6.18 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 6.19). 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 6.19 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 the Theodore Roosevelt Center (http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/) at

Dickinson State University 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 from 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 6.20).
Figure 6.20 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 6.21). 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 6.21 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 6.22). 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 6.22 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://openstax.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 12. Explain the fundamental differences between
item passed by Taft? Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism” and Wilson’s
A. the Pure Food and Drug Act “New Freedom.”
B. the U.S. Forestry Service
C. the Mann-Elkins Act 13. Why did Wilson’s “New Freedom” agenda
D. the Payne-Aldrich Act come in two distinct phases (1913 and 1916)?
11. Which of the following was not an outcome of

the Underwood Tariff Act?
A. It reduced tariffs 15 percent across all
imports.
B. It eliminated tariffs for steel.
C. It eliminated tariffs for iron ore.
D. It established a federal banking system to
oversee tariffs.

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 7 | Age of Empire: American Foreign Policy, 1890-1914 189
CHAPTER 7
Age of Empire: American Foreign

Policy, 1890-1914
Figure 7.1 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
7.1 Turner, Mahan, and the Roots of Empire
7.2 The Spanish-American War and Overseas Empire
7.3 Economic Imperialism in East Asia
7.4 Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” Foreign Policy
7.5 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 7.1) 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.
190 Chapter 7 | 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
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.
Figure 7.2

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 7.3). 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 7.3 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 Colombia. 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 7.4) 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 7.4 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://ushistoryscene.com/article/

legacy-of-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 7.5).
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 7.5 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 7.6). Following five
more years of political wrangling, the United States annexed Hawaii in 1898, during the Spanish-American
War.
Figure 7.6 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 7.7).

Figure 7.7 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. 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 7.8).
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 7.8 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 Office of the Historian to understand different perspectives on the role of yellow journalism
(https://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, appeasing those who opposed expansionism.
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 7.9). 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 7.9 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 7.10).
Figure 7.10 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 7.11), 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 7.11 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://ushistoryscene.com/article/aloha-hawaii/) 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 7.12). 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 7.12 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 (1899)—fought to expel all western nations and
their influences from China (Figure 7.13). 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 7.13 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://openstax.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 7.14). 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 7.14 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 7.15). Excited by the work, Roosevelt became the first sitting U.S. president to conduct an official
international trip. 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 7.15 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://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/panama-

canal-creating-canal/) 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 7.16) shows the widespread effects of Roosevelt’s policies throughout Latin
America.

Figure 7.16 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 7.17). 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 7.17 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://openstax.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 7.18). 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 7.18 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 (https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/presidents/

williamhowardtaft) 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 2. Which of the following did Mahan not believe
interest in overseas expansion in the 1860s and was needed to build an American empire?
1870s? A. a navy
A. fear of attacks on their borders B. military bases around the world
B. post-Civil War reconstruction C. the reopening of the American frontier
C. the Anti-Imperialist League D. a canal through Central America
D. Manifest Destiny
3. Why were the Midway Islands important to
American expansion?

4. Which is not one of the reasons the Anti- 10. How did Colombia react to the United States’
Imperial League gave for opposing the creation of proposal to construct a canal through Central
an American empire? America?
A. fear of competition from foreign workers A. They preferred to build such a canal
B. fear that the United States would suffer a themselves.
foreign invasion B. They preferred that no canal be built at all.
C. concerns about the integration of other C. They agreed to sell land to the United States
races to build the canal, but in a less
D. concerns that empire building ran counter advantageous location than the
to American democratic principles Panamanians.
D. They felt that Roosevelt’s deal offered too
5. What was the role of the Taft Commission? little money.
6. What challenges did the U.S. military have to 11. With the Roosevelt Corollary, Roosevelt
overcome in the Spanish-American War? What sought to establish ________.
accounted for the nation’s eventual victory? A. the consequences for any European nation
that involved itself in Latin American
7. How did Hay’s suggestion of an open door affairs
policy in China benefit the United States over B. the right of the United States to involve
other nations? itself in Latin American affairs whenever
A. The United States produced goods of better necessary
quality and lower cost than other countries. C. the idea that Latin America was free and
B. The United States enjoyed a historically independent from foreign intervention
stronger relationship with the Chinese D. the need for further colonization efforts in
government. the Western Hemisphere
C. The United States was the only nation
granted permission to collect taxes on the 12. Compare Roosevelt’s foreign policy in Latin
goods it traded within China’s borders. America and Asia. Why did he employ these
D. The United States controlled more foreign different methods?
ports than other countries.
13. Why did some Central American nations
8. How did the Boxer Rebellion strengthen object to Taft’s paying off their debt to Europe
American ties with China? with U.S. dollars?
A. The United States supported the rebels and A. because American currency wasn’t worth
gained their support. as much as local currencies
B. The United States provided troops to fight B. because they felt it gave the United States
the rebels. too much leverage
C. The United States sent arms and financial C. because they were forced to give land
support to the Chinese government. grants to the United States in return
D. The United States thwarted attempts by D. because they wanted Asian countries to pay
Great Britain and Germany to fortify the off their debts instead
rebels.
14. What two countries were engaged in a
9. How does the “Open Door notes” episode negotiation that the Lodge Corollary disallowed?
represent a new, nonmilitary tactic in the A. Mexico and Japan
expansion of the American empire? B. Nicaragua and France
C. Colombia and Japan
D. Mexico and Spain
15. What problems did Taft’s foreign policy

create for the United States?

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 8 | Americans and the Great War, 1914-1919 217
CHAPTER 8
Americans and the Great War,

1914-1919
Figure 8.1 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
8.1 American Isolationism and the European Origins of War
8.2 The United States Prepares for War
8.3 A New Home Front
8.4 From War to Peace
8.5 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 8.1), 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.
218 Chapter 8 | 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 EARLY EFFORTS AT FOREIGN POLICY

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
commission. Bryan also negotiated friendly relations with Colombia, including a $25 million apology for
Figure 8.2

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 8.3). In reality, the United States was interventionist in areas where its interests—direct or
indirect—were threatened.
Figure 8.3 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 8.4). 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 8.4 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 28, 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 8.5). 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 8.5 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 complicating the decision to go to war was 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 8.6).
Figure 8.6 “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://openstax.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 8.7). 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 8.7 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 8.8).
Figure 8.8 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 8.9).
Figure 8.9 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
8.10). 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 8.10 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://openstax.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 8.11), 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 8.11 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 8.11). 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 8.12), 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 8.12 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://openstax.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 8.13).
Figure 8.13 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 8.14).
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 8.14 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 8.15).
Figure 8.15 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 8.16).
Figure 8.16 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 8.17).
Figure 8.17 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://openstax.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 8.18). 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 8.18 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, Lodge 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://openstax.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 8.19). 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 8.19 The flu pandemic of 1918, commonly called Spanish Flu at the time, swept across the United States,
resulting in overcrowded flu wards like this one in Camp Funstun, Kansas, and 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 8.20). 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 8.20 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://openstaxcollege.org/l/15RaceRiot) 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 8.21). 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 8.21 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 8.22).
Figure 8.22 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://openstax.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 7. Why did the war not increase overall
influence overseas only when it was a moral prosperity?
imperative, Wilson put which man in the position A. because inflation made the cost of living
of Secretary of State? higher
A. Charles Hughes B. because wages were lowered due to the
B. Theodore Roosevelt war effort
C. William Jennings Bryan C. because workers had no bargaining power
D. John Pershing due to the “no-strike pledge”
D. because women and African American men
2. Why was the German use of the unterseeboot were paid less for the same work
considered to defy international law?
A. because other countries did not have 8. Which of the following did not influence the
similar technology eventual passage of the Nineteenth Amendment?
B. because they refused to warn their targets A. women’s contributions to the war effort
before firing B. the dramatic tactics and harsh treatment of
C. because they constituted cruel and unusual radical suffragists
methods C. the passage of the Volstead Act
D. because no international consensus existed D. the arguments of President Wilson’s
to employ submarine technology daughter
3. To what extent were Woodrow Wilson’s actual 9. Why was prohibition’s success short-lived?
foreign policy decisions consistent with his foreign
policy philosophy or vision? 10. What was Article X in the Treaty of
Versailles?
4. Which of the following was not enacted in A. the “war guilt clause” that France required
order to secure men and materials for the war B. the agreement that all nations in the League
effort? of Nations would be rendered equal
A. the Food Administration C. the Allies’ division of Germany’s holdings
B. the Selective Service Act in Asia
C. the War Industries Board D. the refusal to allow Bolshevik Russia
D. the Sedition Act membership in the League of Nations
5. What of the following was not used to control 11. Which of the following was not included in
American dissent against the war effort? the Treaty of Versailles?
A. propaganda campaigns A. extensive German reparations to be paid to
B. repressive legislation the Allies
C. National Civil Liberties Bureau B. a curtailment of German immigration to
D. loyalty leagues Allied nations
C. France’s acquisition of disputed territory
6. How did the government work to ensure unity along the French-German border
on the home front, and why did Wilson feel that D. a mandate for Germany to accept
this was so important? responsibility for the war publicly
12. What barriers did Wilson face in his efforts to 14. What was the inciting event that led to the
ratify the Treaty of Versailles? What objections did Chicago Race Riot of 1919?
those opposed to the treaty voice? A. a strike at a local factory
B. a protest march of black activists
13. Which of the following was not a destabilizing C. the murder of a black boy who swam too
factor immediately following the end of the war? close to a white beach
A. a flu pandemic D. the assault of a white man on a streetcar by
B. a women’s liberation movement black youths
C. high inflation and economic uncertainty
D. political paranoia 15. How did postwar conditions explain Warren
Harding’s landslide victory in the 1920
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 9 | The Jazz Age: Redefining the Nation, 1919-1929 249
CHAPTER 9
The Jazz Age: Redefining the

Nation, 1919-1929
Figure 9.1 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
9.1 Prosperity and the Production of Popular Entertainment
9.2 Transformation and Backlash
9.3 A New Generation
9.4 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 9.1), 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.
250 Chapter 9 | 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
more than Charlie Chaplin. This sad-eyed tramp with a moustache, baggy pants, and a cane was the top
Figure 9.2

box office attraction of his time (Figure 9.3).
Figure 9.3 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 9.4). 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 9.4 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 9.5). Ford’s reliance on the moving assembly line, scientific
management, and time-motion studies added to his emphasis on efficiency over craftsmanship.
Figure 9.5 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, to reduce the turnover rate, 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.
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 9.6)—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 9.6).
Figure 9.6 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 9.7).
Figure 9.7 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://openstax.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 9.8), 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 9.8). He changed the game of baseball
from a low-scoring one dominated by pitchers to one where his hitting became famous. By 1923, pitchers
frequently chose to intentionally walk him. In 1927, he hit sixty home runs.
Figure 9.8 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 9.9). 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 9.9 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 9.9).
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://openstax.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 9.10). 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 9.10 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 9.11). 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 9.11 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
9.12).
Figure 9.12 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 9.13). 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 9.13 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 9.13). 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 9.14). 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 9.14 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://openstax.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 9.15).
Figure 9.15 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 9.16). 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 published in 1937.

Figure 9.16 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 9.17). 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 9.17 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 9.18) 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 9.18 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 9.19). 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 9.19 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://openstax.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 9.20). 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 9.20 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://openstax.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 9.21). 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 9.21 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 3. Who was the first person to fly solo across the
was the first successful talking motion picture? Atlantic Ocean?
A. The Clansman A. Orville Wright
B. The Great Gatsby B. Jim Thorpe
C. The Jazz Singer C. Charlie Chaplin
D. The Birth of a Nation D. Charles Lindbergh
2. The popularization of ________ expanded the 4. How did Henry Ford transform the automobile
communications and sports industries. industry?
A. radios
B. talkies 5. The Scopes Monkey Trial revolved around a
C. the Model T law that banned teaching about ________ in public
D. airplanes schools.
A. the Bible
B. Darwinism
C. primates
D. Protestantism

6. Which man was both a professional baseball 11. Why did the prohibition amendment fail after
player and an influential evangelist during the its adoption in 1919?
1920s?
A. Babe Ruth 12. What was the Harlem Renaissance, and who
B. H. L. Mencken were some of the most famous participants?
C. Jim Thorpe
D. Billy Sunday 13. Who was the Republican presidential
nominee for the 1920 election?
7. What was the platform of the Second Ku Klux A. Calvin Coolidge
Klan, and in what activities did they engage to B. Woodrow Wilson
promote it? C. Warren Harding
D. James Cox
8. The popularization of which psychologist’s
ideas encouraged the new morality of the 1920s? 14. In 1929, Albert Fall was convicted of bribery
A. Sigmund Freud while holding the position of ________.
B. Alice Paul A. Secretary of the Interior
C. W. E. B. Du Bois B. head of the Veterans’ Bureau
D. Margaret Sanger C. Secretary of the Treasury
D. Secretary of Commerce
9. Which amendment did Alice Paul promote to
end gender discrimination? 15. Coolidge’s presidency was characterized by
A. Prohibition Amendment ________.
B. Equal Rights Amendment A. scandal and dishonesty
C. Sheppard-Towner Amendment B. silence and inactivity
D. Free Exercise Amendment C. flamboyancy and extravagance
D. ambition and greed
10. Which novel of the era satirized the
conformity of the American middle class? 16. What was the economic outlook of the
A. This Side of Paradise average American when Herbert Hoover took
B. The Sun Also Rises office in 1929?
C. A Farewell to Arms
D. Babbitt

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 10 | Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? The Great Depression, 1929-1932 279
CHAPTER 10
Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?

The Great Depression, 1929-1932
Figure 10.1 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
10.1 The Stock Market Crash of 1929
10.2 President Hoover’s Response
10.3 The Depths of the Great Depression
10.4 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 10.1), 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.
280 Chapter 10 | 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 10.2 (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 10.3). “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 10.3 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
10.4).

Figure 10.4 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://openstax.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 10.5).

Figure 10.5 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 10.6). Companies
fired workers and tore down employee housing to avoid paying property taxes. The landscape of the
country had changed.
Figure 10.6 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 10.7).
Figure 10.7 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 10.8).

Figure 10.8 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 10.9) 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 10.9 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 10.10).
Figure 10.10 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 10.11).
Figure 10.11 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://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5062) 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://studsterkel.matrix.msu.edu/
htimes.php) 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 10.12). 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, illuminated 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 10.12 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://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/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 10.13).
Figure 10.13 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 10.14). 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 10.14 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://openstax.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://openstax.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 10.15), 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 10.15 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 10.16). 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 10.16 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. After 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://openstax.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 10.17).

Figure 10.17 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 5. Which of the following groups or bodies did
market crash of 1929? not offer direct relief to needy people?
A. too many people invested in the market A. the federal government
B. investors made risky investments with B. local police and schoolteachers
borrowed money C. churches and synagogues
C. the federal government invested heavily in D. wealthy individuals
business stock
D. World War I created optimal conditions for 6. What attempts did Hoover make to offer
an eventual crash federal relief? How would you evaluate the
success or failure of these programs?
2. Which of the following groups would not be
considered “the deserving poor” by social welfare 7. Which of the following hardships did African
groups and humanitarians in the 1930s? Americans not typically face during the Great
A. vagrant children Depression?
B. unemployed workers A. lower farm wages in the South
C. stock speculators B. the belief that white workers needed jobs
D. single mothers more than their black counterparts
C. white workers taking historically “black”
3. What were Hoover’s plans when he first jobs, such as maids and janitors
entered office, and how were these reflective of D. widespread race riots in large urban centers
the years that preceded the Great Depression?
8. Which of the following was not a key factor in
4. Which of the following protests was directly the conditions that led to the Dust Bowl?
related to federal policies, and thus had the A. previous overcultivation of farmland
greatest impact in creating a negative public B. decreasing American demand for farm
perception of the Hoover presidency? produce
A. the Farm Holiday Association C. unfavorable weather conditions
B. the Ford Motor Company labor strikes D. poor farming techniques regarding proper
C. the Bonus Expeditionary Force irrigation and acreage rotation
D. the widespread appearance of
“Hooverville” shantytowns

9. What did the popular movies of the 11. Which of the following phrases best
Depression reveal about American values at that characterizes Herbert Hoover’s foreign policy
time? How did these values contrast with the agenda?
values Americans held before the Depression? A. interventionist, in terms of unwanted
interference in other nations’ affairs
10. Which assessment of Herbert Hoover’s B. militaristic, in terms of strengthening
presidency is most accurate? American armed forces
A. Hoover’s policies caused the stock market C. isolationist, in terms of preventing
crash and subsequent depression. America’s interaction with other nations
B. Although he did not cause the stock market D. mutual respect, in terms of being available
crash, Hoover deserves criticism for his to support others when called upon, but not
inadequate response to it. interfering unnecessarily in their affairs
C. Hoover pledged a great deal of direct
federal aid to unemployed Americans,
overtaxing the federal budget and
worsening the financial crisis.
D. Hoover disapproved of American
capitalism and therefore attempted to
forestall any concrete solutions to the
Depression.

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 11 | Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932-1941 313
CHAPTER 11
Franklin Roosevelt and the New

Deal, 1932-1941
Figure 11.1 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
11.1 The Rise of Franklin Roosevelt
11.2 The First New Deal
11.3 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 11.1), 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.
314 Chapter 11 | 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
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.
Figure 11.2

Roosevelt exuded confidence, which the American public desperately wished to see in their leader (Figure
11.3). 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 11.3 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 19 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 11.4).
Figure 11.4 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://openstax.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
11.5). 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 11.5 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
Listen to one of Roosevelt's fireside chat (https://openstax.org/l/fireside) speeches. 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 11.6).
Figure 11.6 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 11.1).
Table 11.1 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 the refinancing 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://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/author-interview-

neil-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 11.7).
Figure 11.7 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 11.8). 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 11.8 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
11.9), 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 11.9 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 11.10).
Figure 11.10 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 11.11). 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 11.11 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 11.12). 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 11.12 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://openstax.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 11.2).
Table 11.2 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
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

Table 11.2 Key Programs from the Second New Deal
New Deal Legislation Years Enacted Brief Description
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 11.13), 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 11.13 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://openstax.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 11.14 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 11.15). 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 11.15 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 12 | Fighting the Good Fight in World War II, 1941-1945 343
CHAPTER 12
Fighting the Good Fight in World

War II, 1941-1945
Figure 12.1 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
12.1 The Origins of War: Europe, Asia, and the United States
12.2 The Home Front
12.3 Victory in the European Theater
12.4 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 12.1) 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.
344 Chapter 12 | 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
of countries in the Western Hemisphere during this period, the general mood in America was to avoid
Figure 12.2

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 12.3). 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 12.3 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 12.4). 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 12.4 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 12.5).
Figure 12.5 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 12.6), 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://openstax.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 12.6 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 12.7). 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 12.7 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://openstax.org/l/15FDRWar) seeking a

Declaration of War at this archive of presidential recordings.
12.2 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 12.8). When the Tuskegee Airmen did get their
opportunity to serve in combat, they did so with distinction.

Figure 12.8 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 12.9). 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 12.9 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 12.10). Americans responded
eagerly, planting gardens in their backyards and vacant lots.
Figure 12.10 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://openstax.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 12.11). 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 12.11 “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 or 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://openstax.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 12.12). 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 12.12 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
12.13). 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 12.13 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 12.14). 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 12.14 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://openstax.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 12.15). 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 between the two belligerent
states. He wanted a permanent transformation of Germany and Japan 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 12.15 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 12.16). 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 12.16 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 12.17).
Figure 12.17 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://openstax.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 12.18).
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 12.18 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 12.19), 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 12.19 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
12.20). 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 12.20 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. Monday morning, August 6, 1945. 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 12.21).

Figure 12.21 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://openstax.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 V campaign 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 incarceration 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.
12.2 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
D. Neville Chamberlain

3. During World War II, unionized workers 7. What did Roosevelt mean to achieve with his
agreed ________. demand for Germany and Japan’s unconditional
A. to work without pay surrender?
B. to go without vacations or days off
C. to live near the factories to save time 8. What were the phases of the Holocaust?
commuting
D. to keep production going by not striking 9. Which of the following islands had to be
captured in order to provide a staging area for
4. The program to recruit Mexican agricultural U.S. bombing raids against Japan?
workers during World War II was the ________. A. Sakhalin
A. bracero program B. Iwo Jima
B. maquiladora program C. Molokai
C. brazzos program D. Reunion
D. campesino program
10. What purpose did the Allied strategy of
5. What were American women’s contributions island hopping serve?
to the war effort?
11. Why might President Truman have made the
6. Which of the following demands did the Soviet decision to drop the second atomic bomb on
Union make of Britain and the United States? Nagasaki?
A. the right to try all Nazi war criminals in the
Soviet Union
B. the invasion of North Africa to help the
Soviet Union’s ally Iraq
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 13 | Post-War Prosperity and Cold War Fears, 1945-1960 377
CHAPTER 13
Post-War Prosperity and Cold War

Fears, 1945-1960
Figure 13.1 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
13.1 The Challenges of Peacetime
13.2 The Cold War
13.3 The American Dream
13.4 Popular Culture and Mass Media
13.5 The African American Struggle for Civil Rights
Introduction
Is This Tomorrow? (Figure 13.1), 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.
378 Chapter 13 | 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
the “Ohio boys” (Over the Hill in October), threatened to vote Republican if they were not home by
Figure 13.2 (credit: “1953”: modification of work by Library of Congress)

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 13.3). 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 13.3 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://openstax.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.
13.2 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 13.4).
Figure 13.4 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 13.5)
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 13.5 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 13.6). 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 13.6 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 13.7). 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 13.7 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://openstax.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 13.8). In December 1954, the U.S. Senate
officially condemned his actions with a censure, ending his prospects for political leadership.
Figure 13.8 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 13.9). 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 13.9 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 13.10).
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 13.10 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://openstax.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 13.11), 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 13.11 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 13.12). 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 13.12 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 13.13). 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 13.13 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 13.14). 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 13.14 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 13.14).
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 13.15). 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 13.15 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://openstax.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
13.16).

Figure 13.16 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 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://openstax.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 13.17). These changes, while
symbolically significant, were mere cracks in the wall of segregation.

Figure 13.17 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 13.18). 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 13.18 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 13.19) 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 13.19 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 13.20). 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 13.20 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.
13.2 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 7. The name of the first manmade satellite,
and social reform as the ________. launched by the Soviet Union in 1957, was
A. New Deal ________.
B. Square Deal A. Triton
C. Fair Deal B. Cosmolskaya
D. Straight Deal C. Pravda
D. Sputnik
2. Which of the following pieces of Truman’s
domestic agenda was rejected by Congress? 8. The first Levittown was built ________.
A. the Taft-Hartley Act A. in Bucks County, Pennsylvania
B. national healthcare B. in Nassau County, New York
C. the creation of a civil rights commission C. near Newark, New Jersey
D. funding for schools D. near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
3. How did the GI Bill help veterans return to 9. How did suburbanization help the economy?
civilian life? What were its limitations?
10. The disc jockey who popularized rock and
4. What was the policy of trying to limit the roll was ________.
expansion of Soviet influence abroad? A. Bill Haley
A. restraint B. Elvis Presley
B. containment C. Alan Freed
C. isolationism D. Ed Sullivan
D. quarantine
11. What challenges did Hollywood face in the
5. The Truman administration tried to help 1950s?
Europe recover from the devastation of World
War II with the ________. 12. The NAACP lawyer who became known as
A. Economic Development Bank “Mr. Civil Rights” was ________.
B. Atlantic Free Trade Zone A. Earl Warren
C. Byrnes Budget B. Jackie Robinson
D. Marshall Plan C. Orval Faubus
D. Thurgood Marshall
6. What was agreed to at the armistice talks
between North and South Korea? 13. The Arkansas governor who tried to prevent
the integration of Little Rock High School was
________.
A. Charles Hamilton Houston
B. Kenneth Clark
C. OrvalFaubus
D. Clark Clifford

14. What was the significance of Shelley v.

Kraemer?

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 14 | Contesting Futures: America in the 1960s 411
CHAPTER 14
Contesting Futures: America in the

1960s
Figure 14.1 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
14.1 The Kennedy Promise
14.2 Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society
14.3 The Civil Rights Movement Marches On
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 14.1) 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
Robert F. Kennedy, made it dramatically clear that not all Americans shared this vision of a more inclusive
democracy.
412 Chapter 14 | Contesting Futures: America in the 1960s

• 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
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
Figure 14.2

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 14.3). Few knew that behind Kennedy’s healthful
and sporty image was a gravely ill man whose wartime injuries caused him daily agony.
Figure 14.3 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://openstax.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 14.4) 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 14.4 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 Freedom 7 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. The event highlighted
how difficult it would be for the United States to act against 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 14.5).
Figure 14.5 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 14.6). 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 14.6 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 14.7). 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 14.7 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 14.8). 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 14.8 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 14.9). 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 14.9 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 14.9). 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 14.10). 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 14.10 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 14.11). Images of white brutality appeared on television screens throughout the nation and in
newspapers around the world.
Figure 14.11 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 14.12).
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 14.12 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://openstax.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 14.13). In heavy fighting, U.S. and South Vietnamese
forces recaptured all the points taken by the enemy.
Figure 14.13 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 14.14).
Figure 14.14 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 14.15). 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 14.15 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 14.16), 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 14.16 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 14.17). 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 14.17 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://openstax.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 also espoused 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 14.18).
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 14.18 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 14.19).

Figure 14.19 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 Cesar
Chavez (Figure 14.20) 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 14.20 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.

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
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.
Review Questions
1. The term Kennedy chose to describe his sealing 6. How did the actions of the Johnson
off of Cuba to prevent Soviet shipments of administration improve the lives of African
weapons or supplies was ________. Americans?
A. interdiction
B. quarantine 7. The new protest tactic against segregation used
C. isolation by students in Greensboro, North Carolina, in
D. blockade 1960 was the ________.
A. boycott
2. Kennedy proposed a constitutional B. guerilla theater
amendment that would ________. C. teach-in
A. provide healthcare for all Americans D. sit-in
B. outlaw poll taxes
C. make English the official language of the 8. The African American group that advocated
United States the use of violence and espoused a Marxist
D. require all American men to register for the ideology was called ________.
draft A. the Black Panthers
B. the Nation of Islam
3. What steps did Kennedy take to combat C. SNCC
Communism? D. CORE
4. ________ was Johnson’s program to provide 9. Who founded the Crusade for Justice in
federal funding for healthcare for the poor. Denver, Colorado in 1965?
A. Medicare A. Reies Lopez Tijerina
B. Social Security B. Dolores Huerta
C. Medicaid C. Larry Itliong
D. AFDC D. Rodolfo Gonzales
5. Many Americans began to doubt that the war 10. How did the message of Black Power
in Vietnam could be won following ________. advocates differ from that of more mainstream
A. Khe Sanh civil rights activists such as Martin Luther King,
B. Dien Bien Phu Jr.?
C. the Tonkin Gulf incident
D. the Tet Offensive

Chapter 15 | Political Storms at Home and Abroad, 1968-1980 437
CHAPTER 15
Political Storms at Home and

Abroad, 1968-1980
Figure 15.1 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
15.1 Challenging the Status Quo
15.2 Identity Politics in a Fractured Society
15.3 Coming Apart, Coming Together
15.4 Vietnam: The Downward Spiral
15.5 Watergate: Nixon’s Domestic Nightmare
15.6 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 15.1). 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.
438 Chapter 15 | Political Storms at Home and Abroad, 1968-1980

• 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://michiganintheworld.history.lsa.umich.edu/

antivietnamwar/exhibits/show/exhibit/item/128) 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 15.2). 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 15.2 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 15.3). 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 15.3 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.”

• 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.
Some hippies dropped out of mainstream society altogether and expressed their disillusionment with the
Figure 15.4

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 15.5). 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 15.5 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 15.6). 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 15.6 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QNfUE7hBUc) 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 15.7). 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 15.7 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 invalidated a number
of state laws under which abortions obtained during the first three months of pregnancy were illegal. 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 15.8).

Figure 15.8 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 15.9).

Figure 15.9 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 15.10). 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 15.10 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 15.11).
Figure 15.11 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://openstax.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 15.12). 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 15.12 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 first 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 15.13). 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 15.13 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 15.14).
Figure 15.14 U.S. soldiers in Hue in 1968 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 15.15). 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 15.15 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 15.16).
Figure 15.16 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://openstax.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 15.17). 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 15.17 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 15.17). 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
15.18). 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 15.18 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://openstax.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. A growing number of citizens felt 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 15.19). Yet, while revealing nothing about Nixon’s knowledge of Watergate, the
transcripts captured Nixon in a most unflattering light and helped to dismantle the image of himself he
had so carefully curated over his years of public service.
Figure 15.19 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 pass three of the five
articles of impeachment out of committee. 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 15.20). 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 15.20 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 15.21). 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 15.21 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://openstax.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 15.22). This in turn
resulted in the drafting of a historic peace treaty between Egypt and Israel in 1979.
Figure 15.22 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 15.23).
Figure 15.23 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
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
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
Title VII the section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibited discrimination in employment on the
basis of gender
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
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.

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 faced impeachment before becoming the first president 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. What was one of the major student 6. What kinds of values did hippies adopt?
organizations engaged in organizing protests and
demonstrations against the Vietnam War? 7. President Nixon took a bold diplomatic step in
A. Committee for American Democracy early 1972 when he ________.
B. Freedom Now Party A. went to Vienna
C. Students for a Democratic Society B. declared the Vietnam War over
D. Young Americans for Peace C. met with Chinese leaders in Beijing
D. signed the Glasgow Accords
2. Which of the following was not a founding
goal of NOW? 8. The blue-collar workers who Nixon called “the
A. to gain for women all the rights enjoyed by silent majority” ________.
men A. fled to the suburbs to avoid integration
B. to ensure passage of the Equal Rights B. wanted to replace existing social
Amendment institutions with cooperatives
C. to de-criminalize the use of birth control C. opposed the war in Vietnam
D. to allow women to participate in all aspects D. believed their opinions were overlooked in
of American life the political process
3. In what ways did the birth control pill help to 9. What caused the rifts in the Democratic Party
liberate women? in the 1968 election?
4. One of the original founders of AIM was 10. The demonstrations at Kent State University
________. in May 1970 were held to protest what event?
A. Patsy Mink A. the My Lai massacre
B. Dennis Banks B. the North Vietnamese invasion of Saigon
C. Jerry Rubin C. the invasion of Cambodia by U.S. forces
D. Glenn Weiser D. the signing of a peace agreement with
North Vietnam
5. The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v.
Wade established that ________. 11. Recognizing that ongoing protests and
A. abortions obtained during the first three campus violence reflected a sea change in public
months of pregnancy were legal opinion about the war, in 1971 Nixon ________.
B. witnesses were not required to corroborate A. repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
a charge of rape B. postponed the invasion of Cambodia
C. marriage could not be abolished C. released the Pentagon Papers
D. homosexuality was a mental illness D. covered up the My Lai massacre
12. According to John Kerry, how did many U.S. 16. During the 1976 election campaign, Jimmy
soldiers treat Vietnamese civilians? Carter famously promised ________.
A. that he would never start a war
13. The agreement Gerald Ford signed with the B. that he would never be unfaithful to his
leader of the Soviet Union that ended the wife
territorial issues remaining from World War II C. that he had never smoked marijuana
was ________. D. that he would never lie
A. the Moscow Communiqué
B. the Beijing Treaty 17. Carter deregulated several major American
C. the Iceland Protocol industries in an effort to ensure that ________.
D. the Helsinki Accords A. companies would become more
competitive
14. Of these figures, who was not indicted B. airlines would merge
following the Watergate break-in and cover-up? C. oil prices would rise
A. John Mitchell D. consumers would start conserving energy
B. Bob Woodward
C. John Ehrlichman 18. What were President Carter’s successes in the
D. H.R. Haldeman area of foreign policy?
15. In what types of unethical and illegal

activities did the White House plumbers and the
“dirty tricks” squad engage?

19. 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?
20. 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?
21. 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?
22. Were groups that advocated the use of violence in the 1960s justified in doing so? Why or why not?
23. Discuss how the United States became engaged in the Vietnam War. What were some of the results of
that engagement?
24. 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?
25. 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?

26. To what degree did foreign policy issues affect politics and the economy in the United States in the
late 1960s and 1970s?
27. What events caused voters to lose faith in the political system and the nation’s leaders in the late 1960s
and 1970s?
28. 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 16 | From Cold War to Culture Wars, 1980-2000 477
CHAPTER 16
From Cold War to Culture Wars,

1980-2000
Figure 16.1 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
16.1 The Reagan Revolution
16.2 Political and Cultural Fusions
16.3 A New World Order
16.4 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 16.1).
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.
478 Chapter 16 | 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 16.3). By 1962, he had
Figure 16.2

formally switched political parties, and in 1964, he actively campaigned for the Republican presidential
nominee Barry Goldwater.
Figure 16.3 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 16.4). 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 16.4 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
16.5).

Figure 16.5 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 16.6). 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 16.6 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://openstax.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://openstax.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
16.7). 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 16.7 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 16.8). 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 16.8 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://openstax.org/l/15DeeSnider) and John Denver

(http://openstax.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 16.9).
Figure 16.9 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 16.10).
Figure 16.10 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 16.11).

In February 1984, Reagan announced that, given intensified fighting, U.S. troops were being withdrawn.
Figure 16.11 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://openstax.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.
After his reelection in 1984, Reagan began to moderate his position toward the Soviets. Mikhail Gorbachev
became the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party and was willing to meet with the president.
Reagan found he was able to work with the Soviet leader once Gorbachev distanced himself from the
traditional communist policies. 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 16.12). This laid the foundation for future agreements limiting nuclear weapons.

Figure 16.12 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://openstax.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 16.13). 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 16.13 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://openstax.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 16.14).

Figure 16.14 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
16.15). 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 16.15 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
16.16). 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 16.16 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://www.rialto.k12.ca.us/rhs/planetwhited/AP%20PDF%20Docs/

Unit%2014/CONTRAC7.PDF) 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 16.17). 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 16.17 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 16.18). A year later, the Clinton
administration helped facilitate the second settlement and normalization of relations between Israel and
Jordan.
Figure 16.18 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 16.19). 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 16.19 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 16.20).
Figure 16.20 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, 3. What were the elements of Ronald Reagan’s
Ronald Reagan was ________. plan for economic reform?
A. a liberal Democrat
B. a Socialist 4. Which statement best describes Reagan’s
C. politically apathetic political style?
D. a Herbert Hoover Republican A. folksy and likeable
B. conservative and inflexible
2. The belief that cutting taxes for the rich will C. liberal and pragmatic
eventually result in economic benefits for the poor D. intelligent and elitist
is commonly referred to as ________.
A. socialism
B. pork barrel politics
C. Keynesian economics
D. trickle-down economics

5. What rationale did Phyllis Schlafly and her 8. The country that Iraq invaded to trigger the
STOP ERA movement cite when opposing the crisis that resulted in the Persian Gulf War was
ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment? ________.
A. the ERA would ultimately lead to the A. Jordan
legalization of abortion B. Kuwait
B. the ERA provided insufficient civil rights C. Saudi Arabia
protections for women D. Iran
C. mothers could not be feminists
D. the ERA would end gender-specific 9. What was the Iran-Contra affair about?
privileges women enjoyed
10. Bill Clinton helped create a large free market
6. What were some of the primary values of the among Canada, the United States, and Mexico
Moral Majority? with ratification of the ________ treaty.
A. NAFTA
7. The group the Reagan administration B. NATO
encouraged and supported in its fight against the C. Organization of American States
Sandinista government in Nicaragua was known D. Alliance for Progress
as the ________.
A. anti-Somozas 11. The key state in the 2000 election where the
B. Shining Path U.S. Supreme Court stopped a recount of votes
C. Contras was ________.
D. Red Faction A. Florida
B. Texas
C. Georgia
D. Virginia
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 17 | The Challenges of the Twenty-First Century 509
CHAPTER 17
The Challenges of the Twenty-First

Century
Figure 17.1 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
17.1 The War on Terror
17.2 The Domestic Mission
17.3 New Century, Old Disputes
17.4 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 17.1). 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.
510 Chapter 17 | 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
towers of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan. Morning news programs that were filming the
Figure 17.2 (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)

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 17.3).
Figure 17.3 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://openstax.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://openstax.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 17.4). 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 17.4 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
17.5).
Figure 17.5 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 17.6). 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 17.6 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 17.7). 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 17.7 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 17.8).
Figure 17.8 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 17.9), 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 17.9 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 17.10). 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 17.10 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://openstax.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 17.11).
Figure 17.11 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://openstax.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 17.12). As of 2014, leaders in both political parties are more receptive than ever
before to the idea of same-sex marriage.

Figure 17.12 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://www.pewforum.org/topics/gay-marriage-and-homosexuality/) 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 17.13).
Figure 17.13 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 17.14).
Figure 17.14 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 17.15) 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 17.15 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 17.16). 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 17.16 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://openstax.org/l/1547percent2) of “On the 47 percent,” the secretly recorded
speech (http://openstax.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 17.17), 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 17.17 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 17.18). 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 17.18 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 17.19). 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 17.19 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 7. A popular Mexican American studies program
detention and interrogation of terrorist suspects was banned by the state of ________, which
and “enemy combatants” is located at ________. accused it of causing resentment of white people.
A. Kuwait City, Kuwait A. New Mexico
B. Riker’s Island, New York B. California
C. Guantanamo Bay, Cuba C. Arizona
D. Lahore, Pakistan D. Texas
2. Unwarranted wiretapping in the United States 8. The first state to allow same-sex marriage was
was conducted by ________. ________.
A. the FBI A. Massachusetts
B. the CIA B. New York
C. the New York Times C. California
D. the NSA D. Pennsylvania
3. In what ways did the U.S. government attempt 9. What was the result of the Bush
to deny the rights of prisoners taken in administration’s unwillingness to recognize that
Afghanistan and Iraq? climate change is being accelerated by human
activity?
4. What investment banking firm went bankrupt
in 2008, signaling the beginning of a major 10. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Defense of
economic crisis? Marriage Act unconstitutional in ________.
A. CitiBank A. 2007
B. Wells Fargo B. 2009
C. Lehman Brothers C. 2013
D. Price Waterhouse D. 2014
5. A subprime mortgage is ________. 11. Which of the following is not a goal of

A. a high-risk, high-interest loan Obamacare (the Patient Protection and Affordable
B. a federal bailout for major banks Care Act)?
C. a form of insurance on investments A. to provide all Americans with access to
D. a form of political capital affordable health insurance
B. to require that everyone in the United
6. What are the pros and cons of school States acquire some form of health
vouchers? insurance
C. to lower the costs of healthcare
D. to increase employment in the healthcare
industry
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 541
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.
542 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 543
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
544 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 545
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.
546 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 547
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;
548 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
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal

Appendix B 549
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.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate,
550 Appendix B
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 551
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,
G. Washington
552 Appendix B
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 553
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
554 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 555
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
556 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
shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person

Appendix B 557
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
a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of
558 Appendix B
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.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied

Appendix B 559
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.
560 Appendix B

Appendix C 561
APPENDIX C
Presidents of the United States of

America
Table C1 Presidents of the United States of
America
Order Election Year President
1 1788â€“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

562 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 563

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

564 Appendix C

Appendix D 565
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)
566 Appendix D

Appendix E 567
APPENDIX E
U.S. Topographical Map
Figure E1
568 Appendix E

Appendix F 569
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.
570 Appendix F

Appendix G 571
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.
Elliott, J. H. 2006. Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America, 1492–1830. New Haven: Yale
572 Appendix G
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.
Lovejoy, David S. 1972. The Glorious Revolution in America. New York: Harper & Row.

Appendix G 573
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.
INDUSTRIALIZATION AND TRANSFORMATION

Blackmar, Elizabeth. 1989. Manhattan for Rent, 1785–1850. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
574 Appendix G
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.
THE ANTEBELLUM SOUTH

Berlin, Ira. 2003. Generations of Captivity: A History of African-American Slaves. Cambridge, MA: Belknap

Appendix G 575
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.
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.
576 Appendix G
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.
Williams, Heather Andrea. 2005. Self-Taught: African American Education in Slavery and Freedom. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.

Appendix G 577
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.
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
578 Appendix G
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.
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.

Appendix G 579
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.
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.
580 Appendix G
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.
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.

Appendix G 581
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.
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.
582 Appendix G
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 583
Answer Key
Chapter 1
1. C 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.
5. D 7. B 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. 11. C
Chapter 2
1. B 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. 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. 7. D 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. 11. C 13. B
Chapter 3
1. B 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. 5. C 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.
9. B 11. C
Chapter 4
1. D 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. 5. D 7. D 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.
584 Answer Key
11. A
Chapter 5
1. B 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. 5. A 7. A 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,
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. 11. D
Chapter 6
1. B 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. 5. B 7. D 9. A 11. D 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 7
1. B 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. 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. 7. A 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. 11. B
13. B 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 8
1. C 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.
5. C 7. A 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. 11. B 13. B 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.

Answer Key 585
Chapter 9
1. C 3. D 5. B 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. 9. B 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. 13. C 15. B
Chapter 10
1. B 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. 5. A 7. D 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 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. 11. D
Chapter 11
1. C 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. 5. D 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. 9. A
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 12
1. A 3. D 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. 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. 9. B 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 13
1. C 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
586 Answer Key
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. 5. D 7. D 9. The construction of houses meant
more work for people in the construction trades, including plumbers and 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. 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. 13. C
Chapter 14
1. 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. 5. D 7. D 9. D
Chapter 15
1. C 3. 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. 5. A 7. C 9. 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. 11. A 13. D 15. 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. 17. A
Chapter 16
1. A 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. 5. D 7. C 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. 11. A
Chapter 17
1. C 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. 5. A 7. C 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. 11. D

Index 587
Index
A 321, 339 farm holidays, 294
Abu Ghraib, 518 Clark Memorandum, 305, 308 Farmerettes, 231
Afghan Northern Alliance, 512 clear and present danger, 229, Farmers’ Alliance, 144, 154
al-Qaeda, 510, 536 245 Fascism, 345, 373
Alliance for Progress, 414 Cold War, 382, 406 federal minimum wage, 381
American Equal Rights collateralized debt obligations, Fence Cutting War, 51, 61
Association, 20 521 fireside chat, 318
American individualism, 292, Committee of Public flapper, 264, 275
308 Information, 227 flexible response, 415, 435
American Missionary Compromise of 1877, 31, 32 Florida land boom, 282
Association, 13 Comstock Lode, 47, 61 Ford Hunger March, 294
Americanization, 55, 61 conscientious objectors, 353, Fourteen Points, 238, 245
Anti-Imperialist League, 201, 373 Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 313
213 containment, 383, 406 Freedmen’s Bureau, 13, 32
appeasement, 346 Contract with America, 498, Frontier Thesis, 193, 213
Atlanta Compromise, 173, 185 505
Contras, 489 G
B Copperheads, 11 gender gap, 499, 505
baby boom, 396, 406 counterculture, 442, 471 GI Bill, 379, 406
bank run, 308 counterinsurgency, 415, 435 Gilded Age, 128, 154
bank runs, 286 Coxey’s Army, 147, 154 Giuseppe Zangara, 316
Banking Act of 1935, 330 credit default swaps, 521, 536 Glass-Steagall Banking Act, 320
Battle of Wounded Knee, 55, 61 Crédit Mobilier of America graft, 110, 123
Bell, 68 scandal, 132 Grange, 143, 154
Big Three, 364, 373 crop-lien system, 25, 32 Great Migration, 105, 123
Black Cabinet, 334 Great Recession, 522, 536
black codes, 14, 32 D Great Society, 419, 435
Black Power, 430, 435 D-day, 365, 373 Greek civil war, 383
Black Pride, 432, 435 Deep Throat, 464, 471 Green Party, 503, 505
black separatism, 431, 435 Defense of Marriage Act, 534 Greenback Party, 144
Black Tuesday, 284, 308 Depression of 1893, 147 greenhouse gases, 527, 536
blacklist, 387, 406 desegregation, 403, 406
détente, 456, 471 H
bloody shirt campaign, 133, 154
direct primary, 160, 185 Half-Breeds, 137, 154
bonanza farms, 45, 61
Dixiecrats, 451, 471 Harlem Hellfighters, 231, 245
Bonus Army, 295, 308
dollar diplomacy, 211, 213 Haymarket affair, 82, 90
boomerang generation, 533, 536
domino theory, 383, 406 Heritage Foundation, 484, 505
bootlegging, 268, 275
Double V campaign, 361, 373 Higher Education Act, 420
Boxer Rebellion, 193
Dust Bowl, 299, 308 Hillarycare, 498
Brains Trust, 314, 339
Hippies, 442
Bush Doctrine, 511, 536
E HIV/AIDS, 486, 505
C Edison, 69 holding company, 76, 90
California Gold Rush, 47, 61 Emergency Banking Act, 318 Hollywood, 251, 275
carpetbagger, 32 Enforcement Acts, 28 Homeland Security Act, 515
carpetbaggers, 26 Enola Gay, 370, 373 Homestead Act, 39
Carter Doctrine, 470, 471 eugenicists, 173 Hoover, 280
charter schools, 517, 536 Executive Order 9066, 362, 373 Hoover Moratorium, 305
City Beautiful, 116, 123 executive privilege, 465, 471 horizontal integration, 75, 90
civil service, 132, 154 exodusters, 41, 61 Huey “Kingfish” Long, 329
civil unions, 526, 536 expatriate, 269, 275 hydroelectric power, 326
Civil Works Administration,
F I
321
Fair Deal, 381, 406 identity politics, 442, 471
Civilian Conservation Corps,
588 Index
initiative, 161, 185 National Organization for robber baron, 90

instrumentalism, 117, 123 Women, 449 robber barons, 71
internment, 362, 373 National Recovery rock and roll, 396, 406
interregnum, 316, 339 Administration, 325 Roosevelt Corollary, 208, 213
Iron Curtain, 383, 406 nativism, 256, 275 Rosie the Riveter, 357, 373
Ironclad Oath, 9, 32 naturalism, 118, 123 Rough Riders, 199, 213
Irreconcilables, 240, 245 naval quarantine, 416, 435
Negro nationalism, 267, 275 S
J neutrality, 222, 245 Sand Creek Massacre, 53, 61
Jackie Robinson, 400 New Deal, 314 scalawags, 26, 32
Jim Crow, 15 New Freedom, 181, 185 scientific management, 79, 90
José Martí, 197 new morality, 264, 275 Scopes Monkey Trial, 261, 275
New Nationalism, 181, 185 Scottsboro Boys, 298, 308
K Second Ku Klux Klan, 259, 275
Kamikaze, 369 New Right, 479, 505
Niagara Movement, 174, 185 settlement house movement,
Kellogg-Briand Pact, 345 102, 123
Ku Klux Klan, 26, 32 No Child Left Behind Act, 517
Seward’s Folly, 191, 213
Kyoto Protocol, 527, 536 O sharecropping, 25, 32
L Obamacare, 530, 536 silent majority, 450, 471
las Gorras Blancas, 60, 61 Okies, 300 Silent Sentinels, 170, 185
League of Nations, 238, 245 Open Door notes, 204, 213 Smoot-Hawley Tariff, 305, 308
Levittown, 394 Operation Desert Storm, 492, social Darwinism, 73, 90, 117
Levittowns, 406 505 social gospel, 102, 123
liberty bonds, 226, 245 Social Register, 113, 123
P Social Security, 331, 339
Little Rock Nine, 404, 406 Pancho Villa, 220
Long Telegram, 383 sod house, 61
Panic of 1873, 138 sod houses, 44
Lost Generation, 269, 275 Parents Music Resource Center, southern strategy, 450, 471
M 485 Southern Tenant Farmers
machine politics, 110, 123 Peace Corps, 415 Union, 323
malaria, 206 Pentagon Papers, 461, 471 Spanish-American War, 179
Manhattan Project, 370, 373 photojournalism, 159 Speculation, 282
Manifest Destiny, 37, 61 pink collar, 288 speculation, 308
Marshall Plan, 384, 406 plumbers, 463, 471 sphere of influence, 203, 213
Mary McLeod Bethune, 334 Populist Party, 146, 154 Sputnik, 393, 406
massive retaliation, 391, 406 Port Huron Statement, 438, 471 Square Deal, 177, 185
materiel, 349, 373 pragmatism, 117, 123 stagflation, 454, 471
McDonalds, 394 Progressive Party, 180, 185 Stalwarts, 137, 154
middle class, 113 progressive tax, 162 START, 492, 505
military-industrial complex, Progressivism, 160, 185 state-level reforms, 160
391, 406 Prohibition, 232 states’ rights, 404, 406
Model T, 251, 275 prohibition, 245 Student Nonviolent
Molly Maguires, 80, 90 R Coordinating Committee
monopoly, 75, 90 Radical Republicans, 9, 32 (SNCC), 426
Moral Majority, 484 Reaganomics, 480, 505 subprime mortgage, 536
moving assembly line, 252, 275 realism, 117, 123 subprime mortgages, 521
muckrakers, 158, 185 recall, 161, 185 subtreasury plan, 154
Mugwumps, 140, 154 Reconstruction, 8, 32 Supreme Court Packing Plan,
Mutually Assured Destruction, Reconstruction Acts, 16 332, 339
391 Red Scare, 242, 245 T
N Red Summer, 241, 245 Taliban, 511, 536
NAACP, 175, 185 redeemers, 29, 32 Tammany Hall, 110, 123
National Labor Relations Board, referendum, 161, 185 Taylorism, 163, 185
331 Reservationists, 240, 245 Tea Party, 531, 536
return to normalcy, 272, 275

Index 589
Teapot Dome scandal, 273, 275

ten percent plan, 8, 32
Tennessee Valley Authority,
326, 339
Title VII, 441, 471
trust, 76, 90
Tuskegee Institute, 352
U
Union Leagues, 21, 32
Urbanization, 96
V
vertical integration, 76, 90
Victory Stamps, 356
Vietnam Syndrome, 488, 505
Vietnamization, 459, 471
W
war on drugs, 487, 505
war on poverty, 420, 435
Wisconsin Idea, 162, 185
WMDs, 513, 536
Wobblies, 169, 186
Works Progress Administration,
313, 330, 339
Y
yellow fever, 206
yellow journalism, 197, 213
Yippies, 452, 471
Yom Kippur War, 454
Yuppie, 483
Z
Zimmermann telegram, 223,
245
zoot suit, 373
zoot suits, 362
590 Index

Index 591
Attributions
Collection: U.S. History: Reconstruction - Present
Edited by: Jamey Polak
URL: https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1/
Copyright: Jamey Polak
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Based on: U.S. History <http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3> arranged by OpenStax.
Module: Preface
By: OpenStax
URL: https://legacy.cnx.org/content/m52490/1.5/
Copyright: Rice University
Module: Introduction
By: OpenStax
Module: Restoring the Union

By: OpenStax
Module: Congress and the Remaking of the South, 1865–1866

By: OpenStax
Module: Radical Reconstruction, 1867–1872

By: OpenStax
Module: The Collapse of Reconstruction

By: OpenStax
By: OpenStax
Module: The Westward Spirit

By: OpenStax
Module: Homesteading: Dreams and Realities

592 Index
By: OpenStax
Module: Making a Living in Gold and Cattle

By: OpenStax
Module: The Loss of American Indian Life and Culture

By: OpenStax
Module: The Impact of Expansion on Chinese Immigrants and Hispanic Citizens

By: OpenStax
By: OpenStax
Module: Inventors of the Age

By: OpenStax
Module: From Invention to Industrial Growth

By: OpenStax
Module: Building Industrial America on the Backs of Labor

By: OpenStax
Module: A New American Consumer Culture

By: OpenStax
By: OpenStax

Index 593
Module: Urbanization and Its Challenges

By: OpenStax
Module: The African American “Great Migration” and New European Immigration
By: OpenStax
Module: Relief from the Chaos of Urban Life

By: OpenStax
Module: Change Reflected in Thought and Writing

By: OpenStax
By: OpenStax
Module: Political Corruption in Postbellum America

By: OpenStax
Module: The Key Political Issues: Patronage, Tariffs, and Gold

By: OpenStax
Module: Farmers Revolt in the Populist Era

By: OpenStax
Module: Social and Labor Unrest in the 1890s

By: OpenStax
By: OpenStax
594 Index
Module: The Origins of the Progressive Spirit in America

By: OpenStax
Module: Progressivism at the Grassroots Level

By: OpenStax
Module: New Voices for Women and African Americans

By: OpenStax
Module: Progressivism in the White House

By: OpenStax
By: OpenStax
Module: Turner, Mahan, and the Roots of Empire

By: OpenStax
Module: The Spanish-American War and Overseas Empire

By: OpenStax
Module: Economic Imperialism in East Asia

By: OpenStax
Module: Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” Foreign Policy

By: OpenStax
Module: Taft’s “Dollar Diplomacy”

By: OpenStax

Index 595
By: OpenStax
Module: American Isolationism and the European Origins of War

By: OpenStax
Module: The United States Prepares for War

By: OpenStax
Module: A New Home Front

By: OpenStax
Module: From War to Peace

By: OpenStax
Module: Demobilization and Its Difficult Aftermath

By: OpenStax
By: OpenStax and OpenStax College History
Copyright: OpenStax College History and Rice University
Module: Prosperity and the Production of Popular Entertainment

By: OpenStax
Module: Transformation and Backlash

By: OpenStax
Module: A New Generation

By: OpenStax
596 Index
Module: Republican Ascendancy: Politics in the 1920s

By: OpenStax
By: OpenStax
Module: The Stock Market Crash of 1929

By: OpenStax
Module: President Hoover’s Response

By: OpenStax
Module: The Depths of the Great Depression

By: OpenStax
Module: Assessing the Hoover Years on the Eve of the New Deal
By: OpenStax
By: OpenStax
Module: The Rise of Franklin Roosevelt

By: OpenStax
Module: The First New Deal

By: OpenStax
Module: The Second New Deal

By: OpenStax

Index 597
By: OpenStax
Module: The Origins of War: Europe, Asia, and the United States
By: OpenStax
Module: The Home Front

By: OpenStax
Module: Victory in the European Theater

By: OpenStax
Module: The Pacific Theater and the Atomic Bomb

By: OpenStax
By: OpenStax
Module: The Challenges of Peacetime

By: OpenStax
Module: The Cold War

By: OpenStax
Module: The American Dream

By: OpenStax
Module: Popular Culture and Mass Media

By: OpenStax
598 Index
Module: The African American Struggle for Civil Rights

By: OpenStax
By: OpenStax
Module: The Kennedy Promise

By: OpenStax
Module: Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society

By: OpenStax
Module: The Civil Rights Movement Marches On

By: OpenStax
By: OpenStax
Module: Challenging the Status Quo

By: OpenStax
Module: Identity Politics in a Fractured Society

By: OpenStax
Module: Coming Apart, Coming Together

By: OpenStax
Module: Vietnam: The Downward Spiral

By: OpenStax

Index 599
Module: Watergate: Nixon’s Domestic Nightmare

By: OpenStax
Module: Jimmy Carter in the Aftermath of the Storm

By: OpenStax
By: OpenStax
Module: The Reagan Revolution

By: OpenStax
Module: Political and Cultural Fusions

By: OpenStax
Module: A New World Order

By: OpenStax
Module: Bill Clinton and the New Economy

By: OpenStax
By: OpenStax
Module: The War on Terror

By: OpenStax
Module: The Domestic Mission

By: OpenStax
600 Index
Module: New Century, Old Disputes

By: OpenStax
Module: Hope and Change

By: OpenStax
Module: The Declaration of Independence

By: OpenStax
Module: The Constitution of the United States

By: OpenStax
Module: Presidents of the United States of America

By: OpenStax
Module: U.S. Political Map

By: OpenStax
Module: U.S. Topographical Map

By: OpenStax
Module: United States Population Chart

By: OpenStax
Module: Further Reading

By: OpenStax

Index 601
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.

Us History Reconstruction Reading 2

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Us History Reconstruction Reading 2

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

Us History Reconstruction Reading 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

U.S. History: Reconstruction

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

to ensure the course is manageable for instructors and students alike.

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

Stephanie Laffer, Miami International University of Art and Design

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

The Era of Reconstruction,

1.1 Restoring the Union

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT

Click and Explore

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

ANDREW JOHNSON AND THE BATTLE OVER RECONSTRUCTION

1.2 Congress and the Remaking of the South, 1865–1866

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

THE FREEDMEN’S BUREAU

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Click and Explore

1.3 Radical Reconstruction, 1867–1872

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON

THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

Click and Explore

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

BLACK POLITICAL ACHIEVEMENTS

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

1.4 The Collapse of Reconstruction

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

BUILDING BLACK COMMUNITIES

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

THE “INVISIBLE EMPIRE OF THE SOUTH”

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

Click and Explore

Visit Freedmen’s Bureau Online (http://openstax.org/l/15Freedmen) to view digitized records of attacks on

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

“REDEEMERS” AND THE END OF RECONSTRUCTION

THE CONTESTED ELECTION OF 1876

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

1.2 Congress and the Remaking of the South, 1865–1866

1.3 Radical Reconstruction, 1867–1872

1.4 The Collapse of Reconstruction

Critical Thinking Questions

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1

Go West Young Man! Westward

2.1 The Westward Spirit

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

This OpenStax book is available for free at https://legacy.cnx.org/content/col12028/1.1