In July 1864, the Radical Republicans passed the Wade-Davis Bill in response to Lincoln's 10 percent plan. This bill required that more than 50 percent of white males take an “ironclad” oath of allegiance before the state could call a constitutional convention. The bill also required that the state constitutional conventions abolish slavery. Confederate officials or anyone who had “voluntarily borne arms against the United States” were banned from serving at the conventions. Lincoln pocket-vetoed, or refused to sign, the proposal, keeping the Wade-Davis bill from becoming law. This is where the issue of Reconstruction stood on the night of Lincoln's assassination, when Andrew Johnson became president.

In the 1864 election, Lincoln chose Andrew Johnson as his vice presidential running mate as a gesture of unity. Johnson was a War Democrat from Tennessee, a state on the border of the north-south division in the United States. Johnson was a good political choice as a running mate because he helped garner votes from the War Democrats and other pro-Southern groups. 

Johnson was born to impoverished parents in North Carolina, orphaned at an early age, and moved to Tennessee. Self-educated, he rose through the political ranks to be a congressman, a governor of Tennessee, and a United States senator. At the outbreak of the Civil War, Johnson was the only senator from a seceding state who remained loyal to the Union. Johnson's political career was built on his defense of small farmers and poor white southerners against the aristocratic classes. He was heard saying during the war, “Damn the Negroes, I am fighting those traitorous aristocrats, their masters.”

Unfortunately, Johnson was unprepared for the presidency thrust upon him with Lincoln's assassination. The Radical Republicans believed at first that Johnson, unlike Lincoln, wanted to punish the South for seceding. However, on May 29, 1865, Johnson issued his own reconstruction proclamation that was largely in agreement with Lincoln's plan. Johnson, like Lincoln, held that the southern states had never legally left the Union, and he retained most of Lincoln's 10 percent plan.

Johnson's plan went further than Lincoln's and excluded those Confederates who owned taxable property in excess of $20,000 from the pardon. These wealthy Southerners were the ones Johnson believed led the South into secession. However, these Confederates were allowed to petition him for personal pardons. Before the year was over, Johnson, who seemed to savor power over the aristocrats who begged for his favor, had issued some 13,000 such pardons. These pardons allowed many of the planter aristocrats the power to exercise control over Reconstruction of their states. The Radical Republicans were outraged that the planter elite once again controlled many areas of the south.

Johnson also called for special state conventions to repeal the ordinances of secession, abolish slavery, repudiate all debts incurred to aid the Confederacy, and ratify the Thirteenth Amendment. Suggestions of black suffrage were scarcely raised at these state conventions and promptly quashed when they were. By the time Congress convened in December 1865, the southern state conventions for the most part had met Johnson's requirements.

On December 6, 1865, Johnson announced that the southern states had met his conditions for Reconstruction and that in his opinion the Union was now restored. As it became clear that the design of the new southern state governments was remarkably like the old governments, both moderate Republicans and the Radical Republicans grew increasingly angry. 

 

Presidential and Congressional Reconstruction Plans

The Black Codes

When Congress convened in December 1865, the legislative members from the newly reconstituted southern states presented themselves at the Capitol. Among them were Alexander H. Stephens--who was the ex-vice-president of the Confederacy--four Confederate generals, five colonels, and several other rebels. After four bloody years of war, the presence of these Confederates infuriated the Congressional Republicans, who immediately denied seats to all members from the eleven former Confederate states. 

Adding to the controversy, the new southern legislatures began passing repressive “Black Codes.” Mississippi passed the first of these laws designed to restrict the freedom of the emancipated blacks in November 1865. The South intended to preserve slavery as nearly as possible in order to guarantee a stable labor supply. 

While life under the Black Codes was an improvement over slavery, the codes identified blacks as a separate class with fewer liberties and more restrictions than white citizens. The details of the Codes varied from state to state, but some universal policies applied. Existing black marriages were recognized, blacks could testify in court cases involving other blacks, and blacks could own certain kinds of property. 

In contrast, blacks could not serve on a jury and were not allowed to vote. They were barred from renting and leasing land and in many states could not carry firearms without a license. The Codes also had strict labor provisions. Blacks were required to enter into annual labor contracts and could be punished, required to forfeit back pay, or forced to work by paid “Negro catchers” if they violated the contract. Vagrants, drunkards, and beggars were given stiff fines, and if they could not pay them, they were sentenced to work on a chain gang. 

Most former slaves lacked capital and marketable skills and had only manual labor as a means of support. The black activist Frederick Douglass explained: "A former slave was free from the individual master, but the slave of society. He had neither money, property, nor friends. He was free from the old plantation, but he had nothing but the dusty road under his feet."

Thousands of freedmen became sharecropper farmers, which led them to becoming indentured servants, indebted to the plantation owner and resulting in generations of people working the same plot of land. 

The situation in the south left Northerners wondering what they had gone to war for, since blacks were essentially being re-enslaved. Even moderate Republicans started to adopt the views of the more radical party members. Johnson's lenient Reconstruction plan, along with the South's aggressive tactics, led Congress to reject Johnsonian Reconstruction and create the Joint Committee on Reconstruction. 

 

Presidential and Congressional Reconstruction Plans

Congressional Reconstruction

A clash between President Johnson and Congress over Reconstruction was now inevitable. By the end of 1865, Radical Republican views had gained a majority in Congress, and the decisive year of 1866 saw a gradual diminishing of President Johnson's power. 

In June of 1866, the Joint Committee on Reconstruction determined that, by seceding, the southern states had forfeited “all civil and political rights under the Constitution.” The Committee rejected President Johnson's Reconstruction plan, denied seating of southern legislators, and maintained that only Congress could determine if, when, and how Reconstruction would take place. Part of the Reconstruction plan devised by the Joint Committee to replace Johnson's Reconstruction proclamation is demonstrated in the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Northern Republicans did not want to give up the political advantage they held, especially by allowing former Confederate leaders to reclaim their seats in Congress. Since the South did not participate in Congress from 1861 to 1865, Republicans were able to pass legislation that favored the North, such as the Morrill Tariff, the Pacific Railroad Act, and the Homestead Act. Republicans were also concerned that the South's congressional representation would increase since slaves were no longer considered only three-fifths of a person. This population increase would tip the congressional leadership to the South, enabling them to perpetuate the Black Codes and virtually re-enslave blacks.

The strained relations between Congress and the president became increasingly apparent in February 1866 when President Johnson vetoed a bill to extend the life of the Freedmen's Bureau. The Freedmen's Bureau had been established in 1865 to care for refugees, and now Congress wanted to amend it to include protection for the black population. Although the bill had broad support, President Johnson claimed that it was an unconstitutional extension of military authority since wartime conditions no longer existed. Congress did override Johnson's veto of the Freedmen's Bureau, helping it last until the early 1870s.

Striking back, Congress passed the Civil Rights Bill in March 1866. This Bill granted American citizenship to blacks and denied the states the power to restrict their rights to hold property, testify in court, and make contracts for their labor. Congress aimed to destroy the Black Codes and justified the legislation as implementing freedom under the Thirteenth Amendment. Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Bill, which prompted most Republicans to believe there was no chance of future cooperation with him. On April 9, 1866, Congress overrode the presidential veto, and from that point forward, Congress frequently overturned Johnson's vetoes.

The Republicans wanted to ensure the principles of the Civil Rights Act by adding a new amendment to the Constitution. Doing so would keep the Southerners from repealing the laws if they ever won control of Congress. In June 1866, Congress sent the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, which in the context of the times was a radical measure, to the states for ratification: 

• It acknowledged state and federal citizenship for persons born or naturalized in the United States.

• It forbade any state to diminish the “privileges and immunities” of citizenship, which was the section that struck at the Black Codes.

• It prohibited any state to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without “due process of law.”

• It forbade any state to deny any person “the equal protection of the laws.”

• It disqualified former Confederates from holding federal and state office.

• It reduced the representation of a state in Congress and the Electoral College if it denied blacks voting rights.

• It guaranteed the federal debt, while rejecting all Confederate debts.

All Republicans agreed that no state would be welcomed back to the Union without ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment. In contrast, President Johnson recommended that the states reject it. Johnson's home state of Tennessee was the first to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, while the other 10 seceded states rejected it. During this same time, bloody race riots erupted in several southern cities, adding fuel to the Reconstruction battle. Radical Republicans blamed the indiscriminate massacre of blacks on Johnson's policies. 

The congressional election of 1866 widened the divide between President Johnson and Congress. President Johnson embarked on a “swing around the circle” tour where he gave speeches at various Midwestern cities to rally the public around his policy of lenient Union recognition for the southern states. His tour was a complete failure as he exchanged hot-tempered insults with the critics in the crowd. To counter Johnson's rhetoric, Congressional Republicans took to “waving the bloody shirt”--appealing to voters by reminding them of the sacrifices the Union made during the Civil War. When the congressional election was complete, the Republicans won more than the two-thirds majority in the House and the Senate that they needed to override any presidential vetoes. 

If the southern states had been willing to adopt the Fourteenth Amendment, coercive measures might have been avoided. On March 2, 1867, Congress passed the Military Reconstruction Act, which became the final plan for Reconstruction and identified the new conditions under which the southern governments would be formed. Tennessee was exempt from the Act because it had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.

This legislation divided the former Confederacy into five military districts, each occupied by a Union general and his troops, whom Southerners contemptuously called “bluebellies.” The officers had the power to maintain order and protect the civil rights of all persons. The southern states were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment and adopt new state constitutions guaranteeing blacks the right to vote in order for their representatives to be admitted to Congress and military rule to end (which paved the way for easy ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment later). However, the Act did not go as far as giving freedmen land or education at federal expense.

Although peacetime military rule seemed contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, the Supreme Court allowed it. The hated “bluebellies” remained until the new Republican regimes were firmly established in each state. It was not until 1877 that the last federal troops left the south. 

Radical Republicans were still concerned that once the states were re-admitted to the Union, they would amend their constitutions and withdraw black suffrage. They moved to safeguard their legislation by adding it to the federal Constitution with the Fifteenth Amendment. The amendment prohibited the states from denying anyone the right to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” In 1870, the required number of states had ratified the amendment, and it became part of the Constitution.

The Fifteenth Amendment did not guarantee the right to vote regardless of sex, which outraged feminists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Equally disappointing to feminists was the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment marked the first appearance of the word “male” in the Constitution. Efforts to include female suffrage in the Fifteenth Amendment were defeated, and 50 years passed before an amendment to the Constitution granted women the right to vote.

While most of the southern states had quickly ratified the Fifteenth Amendment under pressure from the federal government, Democratic Party dominance in those states assured the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were largely ignored. Literacy tests and poll taxes were often used to keep blacks from voting. Intimidation and lynching were also common means to keep blacks from the polls. Full suffrage for blacks was not realized until 1965.

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was the last congressional Reconstruction measure. It prohibited racial discrimination in jury selection, transportation, restaurants, and "inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement." It did not guarantee equality in schools, churches, and cemeteries. Unfortunately, the Act lacked a strong enforcement mechanism, and dismayed Northerners did not attempt another civil rights act for 90 years. 

 

The End of Reconstruction

Impeachment of Johnson

In 1867, the political battle between President Johnson and Congress over southern Reconstruction came to a confrontation. The Radical Republicans in Congress were not content with curbing Johnson's authority by overriding his vetoes--they wanted to remove him altogether. Under the laws of the time, removing Johnson meant that Ben Wade, the president pro tempore of the Senate, would become president.

While many considered Johnson to be an inadequate president, he had done nothing to merit removal from office. Johnson believed that everything he did was in the interest of preserving a constitutional government. When Congress passed laws retracting powers granted to the president by the Constitution, Johnson refused to accept them.

For example, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act in 1867, which prohibited the president from removing senate-approved officials without first gaining the consent of the Senate. The Senate's goal was to keep Johnson from firing Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, who had been appointed by President Lincoln. Stanton was a staunch supporter of the Congress and did not agree with President Johnson's Reconstruction policies. 

Johnson believed the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional and challenged it head-on by dismissing Stanton in early 1868. In response, the House voted 126 to 47 to impeach Johnson for "high crimes and misdemeanors,” and they started the procedures set up in the Constitution for removing the president. They charged him with eleven articles of impeachment, eight of which focused on the unlawful removal of Stanton. 

Johnson faced a Senate tribunal, presided over by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase. Johnson's lawyers set out to prove that the Tenure of Office Act did not protect Stanton because it gave Cabinet members tenure “during the term of the President by whom they may have been appointed,” and it was President Lincoln who had appointed Stanton.

On May 16, 1868, the Senate voted and the Radical Republicans were a mere one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to remove Johnson from office. If Johnson had been forced from office on such weak charges, it may have set a destructive precedent and permanently undermined the executive branch of the United States government. 

To appease the Radical Republicans, Johnson agreed to stop obstructing the process of Reconstruction. He named a Secretary of War who was committed to enforcing the new laws, and Reconstruction began in earnest. Ironically, in 1926 the Supreme Court found the Tenure of Office Act to be unconstitutional. 

 

The End of Reconstruction

The Reconstructed South

The postwar South, where most of the fighting had occurred, faced many challenges. In the war's aftermath, Southerners experienced collapsed property values, damaged railroads, and agricultural hardships. The elite planters were faced with overwhelming economic adversity perpetuated by a lack of laborers for their fields. However, it was the newly freed slaves in the former Confederate states that faced the greatest challenge: what to do with their newfound freedom.

Blacks acquired new rights and opportunities, such as equality before the law and the rights to own property, be married, attend schools, enter professions, and learn to read and write. One of the first opportunities the former slaves took advantage of was the chance to educate themselves and their children. The new Radical Republican state governments took steps to provide adequate public schools for the first time in the south. 

Nearly 600,000 black students, from children to the elderly, were in southern schools by 1877. Although State Reconstruction officials tried to prohibit discrimination, the new schools practiced racial segregation, and the black schools generally received less funding than white schools. Black churches, recognizing the importance of the education initiatives, helped raise money to build schools and pay teachers, and many northern missionaries moved south to serve as teachers.

Another opportunity the former slaves pursued was involvement in politics. When the Fifteenth Amendment offered the chance for suffrage, black men seized the opportunity and began to organize politically. The freedmen affiliated themselves with the Republican Party, and hundreds of black delegates participated in statewide political conventions. Blacks used the Union Leagues to organize into a network of political clubs, provide political education, and campaign for Republican candidates. Black women did not have the right to vote at the time, but they aided the political movement with rallies and meetings that supported the Republican candidates. 

In the new state governments of the south, black participation was a novelty. As their political involvement grew, several freedmen were elected to office. Those who were elected generally had some education, had served in the Union Army during the Civil War, had been free before the 1860s, or had some prior experience in public service. 

Nearly 600 blacks served as state legislators, and many participated in the local governments as mayors, judges, and sheriffs. Between 1868 and 1876 at the federal level, 14 black men served in the House of Representatives and two black men served in the Senate--Hiram Revels and Blanche K. Bruce, both born in Mississippi and educated in the north. The freedmen's involvement in politics caused a great deal of controversy in the south, where the idea of former slaves holding office was not widely supported.

While several black men held political offices, the top positions with the most power in southern state governments were held by the freedmen's white Republican allies. The Confederate-minded whites soon came to call them “carpetbaggers” and “scalawags,” depending on their place of birth. 

The Confederates described “carpetbaggers” as Northerners who packed all their belongings in carpetbag suitcases and rushed south in hopes of finding economic opportunity and personal power, which was true in some instances. Many of these Northerners were actually businessmen, professionals, teachers, and preachers who either wanted to “modernize” the south or were driven by a missionary impulse. 

The “scalawags” were native Southerners and Unionists who had opposed secession. The former Confederates accused them of cooperating with the Republicans because they wanted to advance their personal interests. Many of the “scalawags” became Republicans because they had originally supported the Whig Party before secession and they saw the Republicans as the logical successors to the defunct Whig Party. 

Some Southern whites resorted to savage tactics against the new freedom and political influence blacks held. Several secret vigilante organizations developed. The most prominent terrorist group was the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), first organized in Pulaski, Tennessee in 1866. Members of the KKK, called “Klansmen,” rode around the south, hiding under white masks and robes, terrorizing Republicans and intimidating black voters. They went so far as to flog, mutilate, and even lynch blacks.

Congress, outraged by the brutality of the vigilantes and the lack of local efforts to protect blacks and persecute their tormentors, struck back with three Enforcement Acts (1870-1871) designed to stop the terrorism and protect black voters. The Acts allowed the federal government to intervene when state authorities failed to protect citizens from the vigilantes. Aided by the military, the program of federal enforcement eventually undercut the power of the Ku Klux Klan. However, the Klan's actions had already weakened black and Republican morale throughout the south.

As the Radical Republican influence diminished in the south, other interests occupied the attention of Northerners. Western expansion, Indian wars, corruption at all levels of government, and the growth of industry all diverted attention from the civil rights and well-being of ex-slaves. By 1876, Radical Republican regimes had collapsed in all but two of the former Confederate states, with the Democratic Party taking over. Despite the Republicans' efforts, the planter elite were regaining control of the south. This group came to be known as the “Redeemers,” a coalition of prewar Democrats and Union Whigs who sought to undo the changes brought about in the south by the Civil War. Many were ex-plantation owners called “Bourbons” whose policies affected blacks and poor whites, leading to an increase in class division and racial violence in the post-war south. 

 

The End of Reconstruction

Reconstruction Ends

In the election of 1868, General Ulysses S. Grant, the most popular northern hero to emerge from the Civil War, became president. Grant ran on the Republican ticket with the slogan, “Let us have peace” against the Democratic candidate Horatio Seymour. The Republican platform endorsed the Reconstruction policy of Congress, payment of the national debt with gold, and cautious defense of black suffrage.

Grant swept the Electoral College with 214 votes, compared to Seymour's 80. However, Grant only had about 300,000 more popular votes than Seymour, with the more than 500,000 black voters accounting for his margin of victory. 

Unfortunately, the qualities that had made Grant a fine military leader did not serve him well as president. Grant had a dislike of politics and passively followed the lead of Congress in the formulation of policy. He was honest to the point of being the victim of unscrupulous friends and schemers. All of this left him ineffective and caused others to question his leadership abilities.

Financial problems plagued Grant's presidency. With the end of the war, the Treasury assumed that the nearly $450 million worth of greenbacks issued during the conflict would be retired and the nation would return to using gold coins. Numerous agrarian and debtor groups resisted doing so, believing it would negatively affect the economy, cause deflation, and make it harder to pay long-term debts. In President Grant's inaugural address, he encouraged the payment of the national debt with gold. In March 1869, he signed his first act--the Public Credit Act--which endorsed that principle.

The first major scandal of Grant's presidency came in 1869, when two millionaire partners, Jay Gould and Jim Fisk, connived with Grant's brother-in-law to corner the gold market. They convinced Grant that the federal Treasury should refrain from selling gold because the rise in gold prices would raise farm prices. Fisk and Gould bid the price of gold up from $132 to $163 per ounce. On September 24, 1869, the Treasury was ordered to sell large quantities of gold, causing the bubble to burst.

Another scandal that rocked the Grant administration was the Crédit Mobilier scandal. It came to light during the 1872 election that the Union Pacific Railroad had formed the Crédit Mobilier construction company and then hired themselves at inflated prices to build the railroad line. The company then “bought” several prominent Republican congressmen with shares of its valuable stock. A congressional investigation led to the formal censure of only two of the corrupt congressmen. 

The Whiskey Ring affair was also revealed during the 1872 election. The Whiskey Ring bribed tax collectors to rob the Treasury of millions in excise-tax revenues. Grant was adamant that no guilty man involved in the scheme should escape prosecution, but when he discovered his private secretary was involved, he helped exonerate him. Grant's Secretary of War was also discovered to be involved in accepting bribes from suppliers to the Indian reservations. 

The scandals and incompetence surrounding Grant's administration, along with disagreement among party members, led a group of Republicans to break off and start the reform-minded Liberal Republican Party. Unlike the other Republicans, the Liberal Republicans favored gold to redeem greenbacks, low tariffs, an end to military Reconstruction, and restoration of the rights of former Confederates. The Liberal Republicans were generally well educated and socially prominent, and most had initially supported Reconstruction. They nominated Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune, for president in 1872. The Democrats also endorsed Greeley's candidacy, even though he had always been hostile toward them. Grant, as expected, won the Republican Party's nomination for a second term.

In 1872, voters had to choose between two presidential candidates who were not politicians and who had questionable qualifications. In the end, the regular Republicans were able to sway votes by once again “waving the bloody shirt”--appealing to the hatred of northern voters and reminding them of the trials of war. Grant won with a popular majority of nearly 800,000 votes and with 286 Electoral College votes to Greeley's 66. After Grant's victory, the Republicans did clean house with some civil-service reform and reduction of high Civil War tariffs. 

An economic crisis in America followed shortly after the presidential election of 1872. Unbridled expansion of factories, railroads, and farms and contraction of the money supply through the withdrawal of greenbacks helped trigger the Panic of 1873. This was the longest and most severe depression the country had experienced, with over 15,000 businesses filing bankruptcy, widespread unemployment, and a slowdown in railroad and factory building. 

The split of the Republican Party helped the Democrats gain seats in the Senate and carry the House of Representatives in the 1874 congressional elections. With control of the House, the Democrats immediately launched more investigations into the presidential scandals and discovered further evidence of corruption.

The Panic put the issues surrounding greenback currency back into public focus. Greenbacks were valued less than gold, so people tended to spend them first and save their gold or use it to pay foreign accounts, which drained gold out of the country. The Treasury had been slowly removing the greenbacks from circulation in order to combat inflation following the Civil War.

“Hard money” people--primarily creditors who did not want the money they loaned repaid with depreciated dollars--looked forward to the complete withdrawal of greenbacks. In contrast, “cheap money” people--agrarian and debtor groups--pushed for the Treasury to reissue greenbacks that had been withdrawn in hopes that doing so would stimulate the economy. In 1874, President Grant vetoed a bill to issue more greenbacks. Congress then passed the Resumption Act of 1875, which called for the gradual redemption of greenbacks for gold starting in 1879, making the value of paper money equal to that of gold. 

The Resumption Act infuriated the “cheap money” people and resulted in the formation of the Greenback Labor Party, which elected fourteen congressmen in 1878. The Act brought the greenbacks up to their full face value and helped restore the government's credit. However, the contest over monetary policy persisted as one of the most divisive issues in American politics. 

Although President Grant's terms in office were tainted with corruption, his supporters urged him to run for a third term in 1876. Some believe he did not run due to the many scandals that emerged during his terms. Others believe it was because the House passed a resolution to limit presidents to two terms in office. Either way, Grant was out of the running, and the Republicans turned to a compromise candidate: Rutherford B. Hayes from Ohio. Hayes was a three-time governor of Ohio, and his chief virtue was that no one knew much about him, so both Radicals and reformers accepted him.

The Democratic Party nominated Samuel J. Tilden, a famous lawyer from New York who had overthrown the notorious Boss Tweed. Both Hayes and Tilden favored conservative rule in the south and civil service reform. Since the campaign did not generate any substantive issues, the two parties turned to mud-slinging, with Republicans claiming Democrats were Confederates and Democrats pointing to the corruption of the past Republican presidency. 

On Election Day, Tilden garnered 184 electoral votes--only one short of the majority needed--and nearly 300,000 more popular votes than Hayes. However, there were 20 disputed electoral votes due to irregular returns from Oregon, Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina. In the three disputed southern states, rival canvassing boards submitted different returns to Congress: one supporting a Democratic win and the other supporting a Republican win. Unfortunately, the Constitution had no provisions outlined for such a situation, so in January 1877, Congress set up a special electoral commission consisting of 15 men from the Senate, House, and Supreme Court. 

The electoral commission reviewed the votes for Oregon, Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina and, by partisan result of eight Republicans to seven Democrats, gave the Republicans the electoral votes. The House voted to accept the commission's decision, declaring Hayes President by an electoral vote of 185 to 184. Congressional Democrats threatened to filibuster and prevent the recording of the electoral vote. 

Many southern Democrats began to make informal agreements with the Republicans behind closed doors. In the Compromise of 1877, Republican Congressman James Garfield met with powerful southern Democrats at the Wormley Hotel in Washington. The Republicans promised that if Hayes was elected he would withdraw the last of the federal troops from the south, allowing the only remaining Republican Reconstruction governments to collapse. Another concession the Republicans made was to promise support for a bill that would subsidize construction of the southern transcontinental railroad line. Finally, the Republicans also consented to giving the position of Postmaster-General to a southern white.

The Compromise came at a price: It gave the Democrats justification to desert Tilden, since it would allow them to regain political rule in the south. With the compromise, the Republicans had quietly given up their fight for racial equality and blacks' rights in the south. In 1877, Hayes withdrew the last federal troops from the south, and the bayonet-backed Republican governments collapsed, thereby ending Reconstruction. 

Over the next three decades, the civil rights that blacks had been promised during Reconstruction crumbled under white rule in the south. The plight of southern Blacks was forgotten in the north as they were segregated and condemned to live in poverty with little hope. Radical Reconstruction had never offered more than an uncertain commitment to equality, but it had left an enduring legacy with the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments waiting to be enforced. 

 

The New South

Economic Diversification

King Cotton was once the heralded “ruler” of the South, but following the Civil War this King shouldered the blame for the South's losses. Many southern leaders believed that their reliance on one crop had made them vulnerable to the Union's advances, and they pledged to diversify what they called the “New South.”

Henry W. Grady, the editor of the Atlanta Constitution, promoted the vision for the New South at a meeting of the New England Society of New York. Grady shared an optimistic view of the New South's potential—a strong core, economic diversity, and healthy growth over time. Grady, and other intellects of his time, foresaw an agricultural society based around the growth of several crops. They also saw the importance of following the North's example and turning toward industrialization.

Proponents of the New South first turned to secondary crops that could thrive in southern soil. Tobacco was the second most vital crop after cotton to the pre-war South. Several factors led to a resurgence in tobacco production following the Civil War. Two new varieties, bright leaf and burley were identified, and a new method for curing tobacco so that it had less “bite” was discovered. As the Union troops came south during the war, they were introduced to this tobacco, which opened up a new export market for southern tobacco production.

In addition, rice and Louisiana cane sugar became critical elements of the South's agricultural identity. This boom was due in large part to an agriculturalist named Seaman A. Knapp. He moved to Louisiana and used the demonstration method of agriculture education to show farmers how to select the most appropriate crops for their soil and how to care for those crops. His educational exhibitions led way to the development of a network of local and regional extension offices that supported agriculture education and production. 

However, Southerners were not willing to turn their backs on King Cotton completely, and that proved to be a wise move. With the textile industry beginning to boom and industrialization in full force, the number of cotton mills in the south increased from 161 to 400 after the Civil War. Partly as a cause of this boom and partly as a result, cotton consumption increased from 182,000 bales to 1,479,000 per year in the late nineteenth century. 

Cotton and other crops benefited from the ever-growing rail service. With additional railroad lines crossing the country, both the North and the South were able to profit from the other's productivity. Additionally, the advent of refrigerated rail cars allowed other southern produce to reach northern markets, which further diversified the southern economy.

Field crops were not the only industry to take advantage of improved transportation. The area around Birmingham, Alabama became known for its iron, limestone, and coal production. Coal was especially important as an energy source for the trains that transported it. Between 1875 and 1900, southern coal production increased by 44 million tons per year, from 5 million to 49 million tons. 

Another important energy source revitalized the South. Hydroelectricity, or electricity generated by water, was a growing force in the southeast region of the United States. This power source provided another important step in the industrialization process.

The South also offered Southern Pine trees, which were in demand for their soft, multi-use lumber—which was used in great quantities to restore homes damaged during the war. Lumber camps grew exponentially in the south after 1870, and tree cutting rose to new heights. If not for the warm climate and quick renewal of the Southern Pines, the mass destruction of these trees might have rendered the south an ecological wasteland. Fortunately, scientific forestry grew alongside the lumber camps, and the first forestry school opened in Asheville, North Carolina, in 1898.

A host of other industries also developed in the south. The lumber industry carved the way for a bustling paper commerce. Clay, glass, and stone products were in high demand. Vegetables that were not sold fresh and transported on refrigerated railway cars were canned at one of several canneries in the south. And of course, the mint julep and moonshine reputation of the South perpetuated a thriving beverage industry.

 

The New South

Political Changes

Along with a changing economic profile, the political atmosphere was also being transformed in the New South. With the loss of the Confederate government, southern residents turned to leaders within their community. These local leaders came to be known collectively as “Redeemers,” both for their efforts to redeem the South from being dominated by Yankees, as well as their redemption of the South from a one-crop society.

Republicans, Independents, and Populists alike called the Redeemers “Bourbons,” a derogatory label meant to imply that the Redeemers were not proactive but reactive. These critics believed that the Bourbons had learned nothing from the Civil War. As most Bourbons were Democrats, this label became entrenched in the Southern vocabulary to signify a leader of the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, the Redeemers' detractors pointed out a major truth about this group—their true purpose was to undue the “progress” achieved by the Civil War and to reassert their dominance over blacks. Although as a group they did not participate in or advocate violence against blacks as did the KKK, the Redeemers benefited from those kinds of aggression. Their main goals were to repress blacks at the expense of whites and to increase their political power.

To that end, the Redeemers brought about a mini political revolution in the south. They believed strongly that a laissez-faire federal government would be more productive than the militarily enforced Reconstruction. This ideology was influenced by their desire to regain local control. The Redeemers also believed that education was important, but the cost should be borne by private benefactors rather than state governments. Most southern states did not have government funds for public education prior to the Civil War, and after the war the Redeemers felt that there were more pressing needs in the Reconstruction effort, such as business and industry. 

Several philanthropists did come through with the funds to keep southern education afloat. London banker George Peabody was a major supporter of education through his Peabody Fund, which provided over $3 million to public schools in the south. Another philanthropist, John F. Slater, donated another $1 million, which was designated for the development and maintenance of black schools. 

J.L.M. Curry, a former soldier, preacher, and educator, served as the manager of both these funds and developed many programs that are still in effect today, including teacher's associations and summer schools. With the help of Curry's programs, literacy increased to 88 percent for the native white population and 50 percent for the southern black population. In addition, the Redeemers' influence led to teacher education schools, agricultural and mechanical colleges, and even black colleges. 

Democrats campaigned for Congressional seats during the election of 1874 on the strength of programs such as the public education initiative and other Redeemer programs such as boards of agriculture and public health. The public bought into the platform of the Redeemers, and with their votes they gave the Democrats a majority in the House of Representatives as well as several prime seats in the Senate. 

The changing mindset of the South allowed for several black politicians to emerge as leaders, if only of other blacks. South Carolina and Georgia both had black representatives in Congress throughout the late nineteenth century, although they always represented areas with a high density of black residents. 

Most white people, although claiming racial superiority, wished no ill-will upon their black counterparts because they did not see them as threats to their social structure. Even as the white Redeemers were preaching racial superiority, they were practicing tolerance. For a brief period in the 1880s and 1890s, the black population was able to coexist with the white population in relative peace in the south. 

 

The New South

Race Relations in the New South

There was a tentative peace in the south between blacks and whites, but it had severe limitations. White Southerners expected blacks to keep to themselves, to socialize and worship in separate venues, to work for white people in menial jobs and for meager wages, and to never request or demand anything, including equal rights. 

When slaves were emancipated, the white South lost its labor supply and the slaves lost their shelter. Instead of owning the slaves, white men became landlords, charging high rent to slave families who often could not pay with cash. These slaves effectively became indentured servants to their former owners as they tried to pay off their debts through service—an impossible task, with the interest tacked on by the landlords. 

Freedmen also encountered the difficulties of sharecropping. With little land available to purchase and few skills other than knowing how to work in the fields, former slaves participated in the sharecropping system that provided a share of the crop for the worker's service. A similar practice was known as crop liens, in which the owner of the land—usually a freedman or a poor white man—would offer a lien on his crop to a merchant in exchange for cash or supplies. Sharecropping and crop liens were idealistic plans used by crooked bookkeepers and white land owners who kept black men in perpetual debt.

Blacks did have some allies, albeit self-serving ones. The Populist Party of the 1890s needed numbers to gain power, and blacks were numerous. Populists brought blacks en masse into their folds, even giving them prominent leadership positions. Not surprisingly, these actions stirred up the Redeemers who wanted to repress the northern influence of equality for former slaves. They also did not want to lose elections to the growing Populist Party.

Since the Fifteenth Amendment ensured that the Redeemers could not outright disenfranchise blacks, they had to be crafty. Redeemers developed voting rules for their states that were known as “literacy tests,” although they were impossible tests meant solely to weed out black voters. In addition, the Redeemers implemented poll taxes that they knew many blacks could not afford to pay. While this did eliminate most of the black vote, it also kept many poor, uneducated whites from voicing their opinions at the polls. Still, the narrow-minded Redeemers considered this a victory for the South.

The Redeemers felt further justified when Mississippi took their actions a few steps further. In 1890, at a state constitutional convention, harsher voting requirements were enacted. The first of these requirements was a residency rule, which stated that all voters had to have lived in the state's borders for a minimum of two years. Furthermore, each voter had to prove residency within their election district for a minimum of one year. Since many blacks were transient, moving to follow jobs throughout the south, few met the strict residency requirements and lost their voting privileges under the Mississippi Plan.

Those who had maintained a proper residence in Mississippi also had to meet other requirements. All taxes had to be paid by February 1st of the voting year. Even those who met this requirement were sometimes not allowed to vote when election officials “lost” the receipt in the months prior to the election. Under Mississippi's rules, voters also had to pass a literacy test and not have been convicted of certain crimes. Again, these rules prohibited some poor white voters from participating in elections, although the rules were sometimes not enforced for the white constituency. Regardless, it was apparent to all that the harsh rules targeted blacks. 

The Mississippi Plan was adopted by seven additional states over the next 20 years. Many of these states added their own exceptions that would qualify white voters who were kept from voting under Mississippi's rules. For example, South Carolina's literacy requirement had a loophole that exempted voters from this requirement if they owned $300 worth of property. Likewise, Louisiana invented the “grandfather clause” in 1898, which allowed illiterates to vote if their fathers or grandfathers had been eligible to vote on January 1, 1867. This excluded blacks since blacks did not have voting rights at that time. Exceptions like this were the norm as governments attempted to exclude only black voters without violating the Fifteenth Amendment.

This exclusionary attitude infused the South. A series of seven cases before the Supreme Court ruled that discrimination against blacks by corporations or individuals was in violation of federal Civil Rights laws. However, their rulings did not prohibit states from enacting segregation laws. 

Proponents of the New South took up the “Separate but Equal” battle cry. Under this agenda, segregation of blacks and whites became common as long as each had “equal” facilities. However, although blacks and whites might both have facilities that served the same purpose, such as public restrooms, railroad cars, and theater seats, the facilities were rarely equal. The railroad cars for white patrons would typically be cleaner and more comfortable than the car for blacks. The state laws legalizing this practice were known as “Jim Crow laws,” named after a black character in old minstrel shows. 

These segregation laws were first tested in a case known as Plessy v. Ferguson, which went before the Supreme Court in 1896. Homer Plessy was a man with one-eighth black ancestry who was ordered to leave the whites-only railroad car. He refused the order and was arrested and later convicted of this crime. He appealed the case all the way to the highest court, but the Supreme Court validated Plessy's conviction, and the southern states took that as a green light to enact segregation laws on a wide scale. 

One Supreme Court Justice, John Marshall Harlan of Kentucky, dissented in the Plessy verdict. He believed that validating Plessy's conviction would promote aggressive attitudes toward blacks. Such attitudes were already firmly entrenched in Southern society, and as Harlan predicted, the ruling increased the violence. Lynchings, already a common practice, hit record highs in the late 1800s, with nearly 90% of the victims being black. 

Two black men, Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois, risked their lives to stand up against the violence and lead their fellow blacks, albeit in opposite directions. Washington, a former slave, had overcome the odds to receive an education at Hampton Institution, and he later built the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. Washington encouraged blacks to keep to themselves and focus on the daily tasks of survival, rather than leading a grand uprising. He believed that building a strong economic base was more critical at that time than planning an uprising or fighting for equal rights. Washington also stated in his famous “Atlanta Compromise” speech in 1895 that blacks had to accept segregation in the short term as they focused on economic gain to achieve political equality in the future.

W.E.B. Du Bois, born after the Civil War and the first African American to earn a Harvard PhD, was one of Washington's harshest critics. He believed that Washington's pacifist plan would only perpetuate the second-class-citizen mindset. Du Bois felt that immediate “ceaseless agitation” was the only appropriate method for attaining equal rights, especially for those he dubbed the “talented tenth” of African Americans who deserved total equality immediately. As editor of the black publication “The Crisis,” Du Bois publicized his disdain for Washington and was instrumental in the creation of the “Niagara Movement,” which later evolved into the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). Eventually, Du Bois grew weary of the slow pace of racial equality in the United States. He renounced his citizenship and moved to Ghana in 1961, where he died two years later.

Both Washington and Du Bois had loyal followers and both are legendary black leaders for the progress they made—even on different paths—toward equality. Each served as important role models for later leaders of the civil rights movement. 

 

Focus on the West

Migration Westward

Prior to the Civil War, most English settlers and their descendents chose to live along the Atlantic Coast. However, the Pacific Coast was also being settled, which would lead to the development of the Great Plains as the two coasts spread toward the middle of America.

Atlantic settlers referred to the Great Plains and the Pacific Coast as the “Great West.” A less-optimistic name for this region was the “Great American Desert,” so-named because of a lack of available water sources and soil that did not respond to Atlantic farming methods. 

Those who traversed the Great Plains found large settlements of Indians, along with scatterings of Mexicans, Asians, and Anglo-Americans, many of whom were Mormons who had settled in the Utah region. White pioneers who had moved westward were often trappers or miners who were seeking new and fertile sources of their commodities.

Mexican settlers were populous particularly in the southwest. Indians, pushed west by white settlements along the Atlantic coast, were scattered across the Great West. Sioux and Comanche Indians were populous throughout the Great Plains, while Apache and Navajo migrated to the southwest. The Nez Perce and Shoshone Indians settled across the northwest.

An act passed by Congress in the midst of the Civil War, the Homestead Act of 1862, further shaped the western landscape during the nineteenth century. Under this act, farmers could claim as much as 160 acres in the Great Plains by staking a claim to a parcel of land and living on the property for five years. After those five years the settler would be awarded the free and clear title to his claim. The settler would also have the opportunity to purchase the land outright after six months for $1.25 per acre.

The Homestead Act drew many west who wanted to escape the carnage of the Civil War. More Indians were pushed out of their land by this act as farmers sought the promise of land ownership and profitability. However, these farmers did not take into account that much of the land in the Great Plains was suited only to cattle ranching, rather than crop farming, at least using the farming methods that these east coast farmers were familiar with. Many of those seeking fortune under the Homestead Act were largely disappointed. 

The Great Plains saw another influx of new residents following the Civil War, as southern blacks sought new opportunities as freedmen. At the urging of former slave Benjamin “Pap” Singleton, a self-proclaimed rescuer of blacks from the hardships of sharecropping and tenant farming, many former slaves boarded boats to cross the Mississippi River for a final destination of Kansas. Singleton distributed literature touting Kansas, a free state since its inception, as salvation for freedmen trying to eke out a living in the South. 

However, blacks who reached Kansas faced a different set of hardships. The unyielding soil and lack of resources led many blacks to hire themselves out to other farmers in order to make a living. Thus, their quality of life was no better than it had been in the south as slaves or sharecroppers. In addition, the exodus of blacks to the Plains was hampered by southern leaders who resented the loss of black labor resources. Mississippians blocked access to the river and the boats that would transport blacks to the Great Plains in 1879. Still, Singleton and his allies spurred the migration of over a half-million blacks west of the Mississippi River by 1890. 

 

Focus on the West

Mining

Westward expansion was fueled by the prospect of fortune. Mining was a new frontier that everyone was interested in. Freedmen, ranchers, and farmers toiled alongside prospectors and commercial miners in search of a mother lode that would make them instantaneously rich.

The mining boom got underway with the 1848 discovery of gold in California, which sparked the 1849 California gold rush. The resulting population boom led to California statehood through the Compromise of 1850. This surge west at the hint of gold or other precious metals would repeat itself time and again over the next several decades. In 1858, gold was discovered near Pike's Peak in Colorado territory, along the South Platte River. The excitement spread and would-be miners came from near and far over the next year with hopes of becoming wealthy. Of course, very few of the approximately 100,000 emigrants were successful at mining, but many of these “Fifty-niners” settled in the area as farmers and ranchers.

Some of those who were successful in Colorado were the prospectors at Central City in 1859 and at Leadville in the 1870s. As in California, this influx of residents and a healthy mining industry led to Colorado's statehood in 1876, making it the “Centennial State.” The final major strike of gold and silver in Colorado happened in the early 1890s at Cripple Creek.

Colorado was not the only territory that built its statehood on the mining industry. Prospectors targeted the mountains of Nevada as another potential site for precious metals. H.T.P. Comstock, a fur-trader turned gold prospector, had drifted south from Canada in 1856. Eventually landing in Gold Hill, Nevada, Comstock aligned himself with two prospectors who had made an amazing discovery of gold and “blue earth,” which would later be determined to contain silver. Comstock named the discovered site after himself, and the Comstock Lode would come to be known as one of the most famous strikes in history. 

Around the same time, a prospector named James Finney discovered a vein of his own. Finney's nickname, “Old Virginia,” became the namesake of Virginia City, Nevada. Both Finney and Comstock had the opportunity to develop their discoveries into great personal wealth, but both sold their rights to mining companies shortly after their discoveries, missing out on hundreds of millions of dollars in gold and silver. However, their legacies live on in the state that their finds helped develop, as Nevada (“The Silver State”) was awarded statehood in 1864. 

Although gold and silver brought high prices, it would be lead, tin, quartz, zinc, and especially copper that brought more consistent prices and would be more profitable in the long run. Advancing technology required copper for telegraph, telephone, and electrical wires. Montana and Arizona would prove to be fertile lands for the highly demanded copper, even though these regions were not otherwise sought-after as settlements. 

During the height of the mining boom, towns sprang up near veins of ore. Miners needed homes, food, and mining supplies, and smart businessmen stepped forth to supply those needs. Storefronts went up and settlers moved in. However, when the vein was exhausted, the boom towns became ghost towns as the miners moved on to the next prospect. 

In traditional business fashion, the individual miners who were successful were usually bought out by commercial miners. These conglomerates increased their wealth by buying miners' rights to veins and harvesting the ore themselves. The commercialization of the mining industry also contributed to the ghost town effect, since there was no profit in leaving their laborers in tapped-out areas. 

The surge of the mining industry in the western frontier affected the entire nation. The encroachment on Indian lands intensified the conflict between whites and Indians and would eventually lead to bloody battles. Financially, the mining industry helped fund the Civil War. The mining industry led to great American folklore, as writers such as Bret Harte and Mark Twain glorified the gold rush. And perhaps most importantly, the mining industry strengthened the case for a transcontinental railroad. 

 

Focus on the West

Building and Influence of the Railroads

The mining industry facilitated expansion of the railroad industry by creating a need for quick and easy transport between mining and production sites. Entrepreneurs responded with the first transcontinental railroad. 

Prior to the Civil War, railroads had been in use east of the Missouri River. The country's leaders hoped to span the void of the Great American Desert with a railway that would connect the populous areas and truly unite the states. 

The challenge of a transcontinental railroad was too overwhelming for any one company to undertake without government support. The western portion of the railroad would need to cross mountainous terrain and span hundreds of miles of prairie with no nearby water source. In addition, the workers who would create this line would need to do so under the constant threat of Indian warfare. 

Since the risk was too great for any one company to assume, the federal government stepped in and awarded charters to two railway companies in 1862 to complete connecting sections of the track. The Union Pacific was awarded the charter for the section of track from the Missouri River, across the Great Plains, and through the Rocky Mountains. The Central Pacific's charter directed them to begin working in Sacramento, California, and work eastward through the Sierra Nevada mountains. 

A federal assistance package, signed by President Lincoln, awarded generous loans and land grants to the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific. When the project started, the companies were each awarded $16,000 for each mile of level track laid, $32,000 for each mile of track through the plateaus, and $48,000 for each mile through the mountains. Those figures doubled at the encouragement of lobbyists within a year of the project's start. In addition, each company was awarded 6,400 acres of federal land for each mile of track laid.

Both companies raced to complete the most miles of track to receive the most money and land. These incentives often led to shoddy work that would need to be repaired or replaced soon after the railway was put in use, but company officials pushed their employees toward quick completion rather than quality work. These questionable business practices earned them the nickname “robber barons.”

Both Union Pacific and Central Pacific had a very diverse labor supply. Union Pacific laborers were primarily ex-soldiers and Irish immigrants. Central Pacific's workforce consisted mainly of Chinese men who had followed the dream of wealth to the United States. Many of these men arrived without their families, intending to stay only long enough to amass their fortunes and then return to their homeland. However, building railroads was grueling work, made even more challenging by the bigotry of their white bosses, as well as constant threat by Indians, and many Chinese died on the job. 

Still, the companies pushed forward, each hoping to build more track—and reap more profit—than the other. The two lines finally met at Promontory, Utah, on May 10, 1869. The Union Pacific had built 1,086 miles of track, far more than Central Pacific's 689 miles. The meeting was a ceremony, one which is often called the “wedding of the rails.” California governor Leland Stanford was on hand for the ceremony, and he drove a final golden spike into the railway to signify the completion of the first transcontinental railroad. The vision of Stephen Douglas as stated in his Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 had finally been realized.

Soon, there were several lines of transcontinental railroad crossing the nation. Track ran through nearly every state and territory west of the Mississippi, with lines going north as well as south. As farms, ranches, and towns cropped up along the railway lines, the rail companies continued to profit as they sold the land that had been granted to them by the government. 

The transcontinental railroads benefited the mining industry by carrying people westward and carrying ore to production sites. However, the railroads also revolutionized other industries, particularly agriculture. Prior to the transcontinental railroad, cattle going to slaughter had to be herded from the range to the market by cowboys on horseback. By the time the cattle reached their destination, they were thin and in poor condition, making them less valuable. The use of railroad transportation for cattle to market allowed for quicker, less stressful trips and higher market prices.

In addition, as progress was being made on the railroads, an important improvement to the trains themselves was being invented. The refrigerator car was developed to transport dressed meat from the slaughterhouse to markets across the country. Although it took some time for consumers to accept dressed meat over fresh meat at their local markets, its availability and cheaper prices eventually made it the standard.

In all, the transcontinental railroad benefited Americans in many ways. In addition to the transport of cattle and meat, it allowed speedier mail delivery, eventually replacing the Pony Express. It also allowed for easier transport of military aid to areas of conflict, which was a constant concern as American settlers encroached upon land possessed by Indians.

 

Confrontations with Native Americans

Native Americans

European immigrants are credited for “civilizing” the United States, but prior to their arrival America had long been inhabited by tribes of indigenous people. In the fifteenth century, when Christopher Columbus landed in what he presumed was the Indies, he began calling these inhabitants “Indians,” a label that would last centuries until the modern term “Native Americans” came into use. 

Prior to white settlement, Indian tribes stretched from coast to coast across North America. Spanish explorers introduced horses to the Plains Indians during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which allowed the Indians to cover ground more rapidly and made them nomadic, able to follow their main source of food, clothing, and shelter—the buffalo—along its migratory path.

Indians were divided into tribes, or small societies. A chief served as the religious, moral, and political leader of each tribe. Tribes were divided into “bands,” with each band containing around 500 members, including men, women, and children. A governing council for each band, along with the tribal chief, served as the authority for members of the tribe. Only the males from the tribe were entrusted with governance responsibilities, and the men also provided food, shelter, and safety, while the women assumed domestic roles. 

Tribal lines were typically strong. Men and women rarely married outside their tribe, and it was unusual for two tribes to work in cooperation. Young male tribe members were warriors who competed with warriors from other tribes for superiority, often in bloody battles. This lack of Indian unity contributed to the losses they suffered at the hands of the white society.

When European settlers began to inhabit the Atlantic Coast, Indians native to that region spread westward—often encroaching on other tribes. Still, the vast expanse of the western plains would have been adequate for a relatively peaceful existence for the Indians, but the white society followed them west. 

By the early nineteenth century, the United States government had claimed most of North America as its own, either as states or territories. Initially, Indians were “allowed” to remain on this land, although the federal government made attempts to regulate their habitation. The U.S. government was not sure how to classify Indians who occupied U.S. territory, so tribes were considered to be both independent nations and wards of the state. This dual—albeit contradictory—perspective, required that treaties negotiated with Indian tribes be ratified by the U.S. Senate.

However, the ratification requirement did not ensure fair enforcement. White settlers recognized that the Indians inhabited land that could be beneficial to agriculture, settlement, and other endeavors. In an effort to obtain these native lands, tribes were often victimized, sometimes by the very people that the Senate had put in charge of protecting them. The desire to attain tribal lands often led people in power to ignore treaties and look the other way as Indians were unlawfully and unfairly removed from their locations.

In 1851, the United States government began to introduce a Concentration Policy. This strategy would provide white settlers with the most productive lands and relocate Indians to areas north and south of white settlements. Over the next decade, Indians were evicted from their land to make way for a white society.

However, the settlers were not satisfied with the Concentration Policy, and they sought to restrict Indians to even smaller areas through relocation. For example, the Sioux tribe, which had previously spread across the northern United States, was relocated to an area in Dakota Territory known as the Black Hills. Present-day Oklahoma became known as “Indian Territory” as additional tribes were relocated to reservations there. The federal government relocated hundreds of thousands of Indians under the guise of protecting them, when in truth the government's primary goal was attaining the Indians' lands. 

The federal government established the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in 1836 to be in charge of the relocated Indians. Illustrating the government's sentiment toward Indians, this bureau was initially placed under the Department of War, and one of its primary responsibilities was to prevent Indian military action against whites.

However, by the mid-nineteenth century, the BIA had shifted its focus to overseeing Indian concentration and relocation. It aimed to provide reasonable protection to the Indians—however, their lands were still fair game. Corruption by BIA leaders and agents further resulted in the destruction of the Indian lifestyle. Many agents were paid to look the other way as white men took land and game that rightfully belonged to the Indians. This flawed federal aid program furthered the Indians' resentment toward white society and created an atmosphere of conflict.

 

Confrontations with Native Americans

Indian Resistance

Warfare was constant between whites and Indians in the late nineteenth century, as Native Americans fought to protect their land and their heritage from white encroachment. Although they had the benefit of state-of-the-art weapons (repeating rifles obtained from fur traders), they were up against formidable U.S. forces.

As the dust settled from the Civil War, soldiers from both sides of that conflict were ready to step into another fray. The battle to acquire U.S. territories from Indians was predominantly fought by Civil War veterans, including a significant number of black men who were assigned to a fighting group called the Buffalo Regiment. Under the guidance of Generals William T. Sherman, P.T. Sheridan, and George Custer, these “Buffalo Soldiers” advanced confidently and repeatedly against Indian tribes.

Although some battles against Indians were brutal on both sides, other conflicts were nothing but displays of dominance by U.S. troops. One such battle was the Sand Creek Massacre, which occurred in Colorado in 1864. At that time, Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes inhabited the Sand Creek region after being forcibly relocated there due to the gold rush in 1861. Miners overtook their area and pushed the tribes into a desolate locale. 

The approximately 400 Indians living in this area believed they had been granted immunity and protective custody by the United States government when Colonel J.M. Chivington's troops arrived. Chivington ordered his troops to slaughter the Indian men, women, and children to flaunt their dominance over the natives. 

The gold rush also led to another legendary conflict. The Sioux tribe, led by Chief Sitting Bull, had been relocated to the Black Hills of the Dakota Territory and had been living there in peace when miners determined the Black Hills to be another gold rush target in 1875. General Custer was called to lead troops to move the Sioux away from the area the miners sought to excavate. Undaunted, the Sioux pushed back in a clash that would become known as the Sioux War and would span from 1876 to 1877.

The warfare came to a head on June 25, 1877 at Little Bighorn in the Montana Territory. General Custer, seeking to overtake the ore-rich land for the miners, came across a settlement of over 7,000 Indians from the Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho tribes. Even though he realized the U.S. forces were largely outnumbered, Custer believed that the element of surprise would work to his advantage. Dividing his troops into three groups of approximately 200 men each, he directed the groups to encircle the camp and launch an attack.

However, before the attack could commence, Custer and his group found themselves surrounded by an Indian sneak attack led by famed war Chief Crazy Horse. The well-armed Indians attacked Custer and his men without mercy. In a two-hour battle, Crazy Horse's 2,500 warriors massacred Custer and his 264 men. Winning the Sioux War did not ensure their safety, so Chief Sitting Bull led his Sioux to Canada, where they established themselves as peaceful and law-abiding residents.

While the Sioux were struggling in the northern plains, the Nez Perce tribe, led by Chief Joseph, was fighting a similar battle in the Pacific Northwest. This tribe was centralized in Oregon and Idaho after ceding large amounts of land to the United States in the name of peace. However, the United States made continued attempts to concentrate the Nez Perce into smaller and smaller areas. In 1877, the U.S. told the Nez Perce that they would be removed either by agreement or force from the Wallowa Valley. The tribe resisted this encroachment with several battles that reduced both U.S. and Nez Perce forces. 

Chief Joseph had a reputation for being a humane and noble leader, and he did not wish for the bloodshed to continue. He decided to seek Chief Sitting Bull's advice, but needed to travel to Canada to do so. He mobilized his troops and began the 75-day, 1,500 mile trip to Sitting Bull's locale, only to be overcome by U.S. forces 30 miles from the Canadian border.

After first promising to return the tribe to their ancestral lands in Idaho, the U.S. government redirected the Nez Perce's trek south, placing them in an Indian camp in Kansas. The camp was infected with malaria and over one-third of the Nez Perce died while in Kansas. Eventually, the remaining members of the Nez Perce tribe were relocated to Oklahoma. They would later be allowed to return to the northwest but were never allowed to return to the Wallowa Valley. These moves took their toll on the Nez Perce tribe, and by the time they were allowed to return to the northwest, they numbered only a fraction of the once-strong tribe. 

The Apache was another tribe damaged by warfare. Although several Apache accepted the relocation effort and became relatively successful farmers and cattle ranchers in Oklahoma, many others firmly resisted relocation efforts. Led by Geronimo and Cochise, Apache warriors established a base in the Rocky Mountains, where they fought a nine-year guerilla war against U.S. troops. The U.S. eventually pushed the Apache further into the southwest and Mexico and captured Geronimo. Cochise surrendered and allowed his tribe to be relocated and concentrated.

There was one final event in the series of Indian Wars. An Indian named Wovoka, who also went by the English name Jack Wilson, dreamt that a supreme being would rescue the Indians from the opposing U.S. forces. Wovoka's dream indicated that Indians could hasten the rescue by performing a “Ghost Dance” on the eve of each New Moon. 

Indian tribes, especially the Sioux, placed their faith in the Ghost Dance and performed it with unprecedented fervor. White settlers, although not believing Wovoka's prophecy, feared the atmosphere the Ghost Dance created and asked the federal government to make the religious ceremony illegal. Although the government never fulfilled that request, they watched Ghost Dance ceremonies with a cautious eye. 

When a particularly passionate Ghost Dance raised concerns in 1890, authorities stepped in to control the furor by arresting the Chief. During the arrest, the Chief was killed, which only served to inflame the already resentful Indians. The atmosphere was tense.

The tension spilled over into conflict on the night of December 29, 1890. An accidental gunfire at Wounded Knee, South Dakota, caused both sides to mistakenly believe that warfare had begun. The result was a bloodbath, with over 200 Indians—men, women, and children—and a significant number of U.S. soldiers killed. The Indians harbored resentment for the massacre, but for the most part they sought an end to the Indian Wars and allowed themselves to be integrated into American society.

 

Confrontations with Native Americans

Effects of the Indian Wars

The cruelty inflicted on the natives during the Indian Wars was chronicled by Helen Hunt Jackson in her book “A Century of Dishonor,” which was published in 1881 and distributed by Jackson to every member of Congress. Jackson had become incensed at the harsh treatment of Indians during a lecture by Chief Sitting Bear of the Ponca tribe in 1879. Her mission to improve Indian conditions furthered the effort to assimilate Indians onto reservations “for their own good.” 

By 1890, all Indian tribes were consolidated onto government-structured reservations. The government accepted the responsibility of establishing these reservations because they believed the cost of caring for the Indians would be less than the cost of fighting them. Once the reservations were established, the government played a miniscule role in their day-to-day management and provided little support. 

The cost of the Indian Wars was great. In addition to the financial cost of sustaining troops and the loss of human life, the Indian Wars wreaked havoc on the country's natural resources, particularly the buffalo. The government encouraged the slaughter of buffalo to eliminate the Indians' food and housing resources to make them easier to fight. Buffalo had numbered over 50 million across the United States prior to the Indian Wars. That number was reduced to around 15 million by 1868, and less than 1,000 by 1885. 

Amidst the many detriments of the Indian Wars, there was one positive result. The conflicts and the relocation of Indians benefited the newly established railroads by providing a steady steam of travelers. Troops rode the rails to and from battles, and Indians were loaded onto railway cars and shipped to reservations. The Indian Wars helped solidify the railroad as a necessary transportation source.

The effects of the Indian Wars on the Indians themselves were significant. The many skirmishes greatly reduced the number of Indians living within U.S. borders, and the wars also had a deep emotional impact on those Indians who survived. Many Indians felt dehumanized by the experience of being relocated to reservations, since the moves had not been by choice. 

Although Indians living on reservations tended to socialize only with other Indians, they were forced to interact with non-Indian teachers, merchants, and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) agents. This contact was not always beneficial to the Indians. Physical interaction with white society—sometimes consensual, sometimes not—introduced diseases into the native population. It also introduced vices, including the over-consumption of alcohol. Thus far, attempts to contain the natives had only resulted in transference of the most negative characteristics of white society.

However, attempts to “civilize” the Indians continued. Recognizing that Native Americans were easier to deal with individually rather than by tribe, Massachusetts Senator Henry M. Dawes sponsored an act which provided Indians with land and U.S. citizenship. The Dawes Severalty Act of 1887, also known as the Allotment Act, gave the president authority to divide tribal lands and award 160 acres to each family head and lesser amounts to other tribe members. 

In addition, the government would hold the property in trust for 25 years, and at the end of that time the Indians would be granted ownership of the land and United States' citizenship. Although this act was beneficial for individual Indians, it was irreparably harmful to tribes. Essentially, it removed all tribal ownership of land. Two-thirds of the Indian lands were lost forever to the United States government. It also ended legal entity status for tribes. With the destruction of the tribal structure, it furthered the assimilation of Indians into white culture at the cost of devastating Indian culture. Indian children were sent to army-style boarding schools, where acts and discussions of Indian culture were prohibited. 

Although Indian culture was rapidly decaying, the end of the Indian Wars and the government-protected reservations allowed the Indian population to increase. In 1887, approximately 243,000 Indians lived within U.S. borders. Today, that number is over two million. However, modern leaders continue to fight the loss of Indian lands and the diminishing culture caused by the Indian Wars.

 

Cattle, Frontiers, and Farming

Cattle, Cowboys, and Beef Barons

By the end of Civil War, as many as five million longhorn cattle, descendants of old Spanish stock, roamed wild in Texas. These tough, rangy animals sported horns with a spread of as much as eight feet. At first they were hunted only for their hides since there was no way to get them to markets in the East. With the building of the Transcontinental Railroads, it became possible to transport these cattle to the eastern market that had developed a taste for beef at a time when the effects of war had depleted eastern herds. Beef, even tough wild beef, was in great demand.

In 1866, a large herd was driven from Texas to Sedalia, Missouri, which was then the far-western station of the Missouri-Pacific Railroad. This proved a poor route as it traced alternately through forests where cattle were lost and through farmland that farmers understandably did not want trampled and grazed. There were also bushwhackers and cattle thieves to contend with. But the era of the long cattle drive had begun.

As the railroads extended farther west, the route to a station shifted to the open, relatively unpopulated prairies of Kansas and Oklahoma. Here the cattle had good grazing, fewer bandits roamed, and the drives did not encounter so many farmers protecting their crops. As the railroad passed through Abilene, Kansas, in 1867, an entrepreneurial Illinois livestock dealer, Joseph G. McCoy, saw the potential for making that tiny log-cabin settlement into a booming cattle town. McCoy bought 250 acres near the railroad and laid out a stockyard, outbuildings, a hotel, and a bank. Hardy plains pioneers such as the half-Cherokee John Chisholm scouted trails through Indian territory from south Texas to Kansas and eventually Wyoming. The Chisholm Trail ran from central Texas to Abilene, Kansas, a distance of 500 miles. The Western Trail to Dodge City was slightly shorter, while the Goodnight-Loving Trail looped from central Texas into New Mexico and then straight north to Cheyenne, Wyoming, for a marathon 700-mile trek.

Men as wild and tough as the longhorns were hired to round-up and drive these ownerless Texas cattle on the “long drive,” the slow, dangerous journey to the stations. During the decades following the Civil War, over 40,000 men were employed to herd cattle in the West. These “Cowboys” were usually in their twenties and came from many backgrounds. Black, white, Mexican, and Indian cowboys tended and protected the wild herds, while riding cowponies that were often only slightly less scrawny and wild than the longhorns. Contrary to the Hollywood film image, being a cowboy involved hard work, low pay, constant exposure to the elements, and a notable absence of many things we now consider necessities such as bathing, a change of clothes, and a diet more diverse than boiled beef and beans.

Cowboys came to that occupation for varied reasons. Many were Civil War veterans, while some were immigrants direct from Europe. In the south, cattle raising and care of livestock was an occupation often designated to slaves. After the war, many young African-American men drifted west and used their knowledge of animal husbandry to get hired on as cowboys. Indians were already living in the region and knew the country and how to survive. Texas had a substantial population of Mexicans who had remained after Mexico lost Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California to the United States; hence the incorporation of Spanish terms such as rodeo, bronco, lasso, and corral into the cowboy lexicon. Building the Transcontinental Railroad had employed thousands of men, many of whom had no desire to return to the industrial centers of the East when construction was complete. Some turned to cattle work as a permanent profession, but for many it was simply a means to save up a stake in order to homestead. Dangers encountered by the cowboys on these drives included attack by Indians, stampedes, disease, and accidents. With no medical treatment available, getting sick or being hurt often ended in death. 

Herds of 1,000 to 10,000 animals were driven over the vast open ranges of prairie. Altogether, 4,000,000 head of longhorn cattle were driven north from 1866 to 1888. High prices for beef also encouraged raising cattle in Kansas by bringing in Hereford and other “blooded” strains from the east. These cattle produced more and better beef than their sinewy Texas counterparts, but they were not as well adapted to the region. The Texas cattle carried a tick-borne disease that infected the eastern cattle. The disease produced no symptoms in the longhorns, but it was devastating to the eastern breeds. 

Kansas ranchers of blooded stock complained to the state legislature about infected Texas cattle. In 1872, the legislature drew a quarantine line south of Abilene, Kansas, beyond which it was illegal to move Texas cattle. John McCoy moved his operation to Wichita, Kansas, which then had a four-year run as a roaring cattle town along with the towns of Caldwell and Ellsworth. In 1876, the quarantine line was redrawn south of Wichita, and the long-drive cattle trade moved west to Dodge City, Kansas, and north to Cheyenne, Wyoming. These rough outposts on the frontier welcomed the cattle drives and catered to the cowboys for the dollars they brought into the community. Cowboys were young men with no personal attachment to these towns, however, which often meant trouble. Lawmen such as Wyatt Earp and James B. (Wild Bill) Hickok were hired to keep the peace. As the long drives moved west, they left in their wake prosperous farming and ranching communities and energetic, entrepreneurial towns. The populations of Kansas and Nebraska doubled several times in the last half of the nineteenth century, greatly due to an influx of capital from the cattle drives.

At the western stations, cattle were loaded onto railroad cars and shipped live to their destinations in the East. Many of the animals perished on the trip and the remainder lost weight, which reduced their value. In 1869, a Chicago meatpacker, G.H. Hammond, shipped beef slaughtered in Chicago to Boston in an air-cooled rail car. This was the beginning of a new era of food production and distribution in the United States. Perishable foods no longer had to be produced on local farms. Meats, fruits, vegetables, and dairy products could be raised in the areas best suited for their growth and shipped by rail to markets hundreds, even thousands, of miles away. 

Within a decade after Hammond's air-cooled car, Gustavus Swift developed a true refrigerated car, which revolutionized the meatpacking business. Now the cattle were transported to stockyards in Kansas City or Chicago where they were slaughtered, and the meat was shipped east under optimum conditions. “Beef Barons” such as Swift and Armour developed an efficient, factory-type meatpacking industry that employed thousands directly and supported other businesses such as feed wholesalers and leather tanners indirectly, thus becoming critically important in their regional economies. 

The end of the open range in the late 1880s spelled the end of the long drive. In addition to shipping cattle out, railroads brought homesteaders and sheepherders to the plains. Homesteaders plowed up the prairie and laced the plains with barbed wire, invented by Joseph Glidden in 1873. Cattle ranchers responded by fencing off huge tracts for their own use. Sometimes homesteaders “squatted” on land claimed by cattle ranchers, which caused friction. Conflicts between ranchers and homesteaders over land and water rights became commonplace. 

To cattle ranchers, sheepherders were even less welcome than homesteaders. Sheep grazed the grass to the roots and contributed to overgrazed, depleted ranges. Ethnic and religious prejudice added to tension with sheepherders. In the southwest, shepherds were usually Mexican or Indian, while in Nevada and the northwest they were often Mormons or Basque immigrants from the region along the French-Spanish border. With these new elements on the plains, violent range wars sometimes broke out as cattle drovers, homesteaders, and sheepherders found themselves at odds. Eventually land and water use was worked out between ranchers and farmers through laws and agreements, and sheepherders took their flocks to marginal and high altitude ranges that were unsuitable for cattle but where sheep did well. Land use was everywhere restricted, and the great sweep of open country that had once characterized the West became only a memory.

The terrible winters of 1885-86 and 1886-87 followed by a decade of desert-dry, scorching summers killed thousands of cattle on the Texas ranges. As a final blow to the profitability of the long drive, the Indians levied ever-higher charges on drives that crossed their land. To counter these developments, railroads branched from the main transcontinental lines into Texas and Oklahoma making it possible for cattle drovers to deliver their cattle to a local destination. All these factors combined to end the era of the long cattle drive by the mid-1880s. 

Mexican ranchers had developed ranching techniques over many years that were adopted by Texans and then by Great Plains cattlemen and cowboys. Ranchers bred heftier, blooded stock and fenced them into controlled ranges where they could be fed, watered, and protected. Herds were restricted in size to avoid overgrazing the dry prairie. Cattle raising became a regular business. Easterners and even Europeans looking for speculative, profitable ventures began investing in cattle ranches, which had changed from an entrepreneurial-type enterprise of families or partners to a business dominated by urban investors. 

Sometimes big ranchers fenced off enormous tracts of public grazing land at the expense of smaller ranchers. Small ranchers would cut the fences to allow their cattle access to grass. This led to the Fence-Cutters' War of 1883-1884 that claimed several ranchers' lives. Texas finally passed legislation that outlawed fence cutting. The occupation of cowboy became a permanent, stationary job rather than transient contract work. But the dangers, excitement, and stories of the West remained in the national consciousness as romantic folklore.

As with the farmers and sheepherders, ranchers slowly learned to live with one another either through mutual practices or, if all else failed, through legal action. To increase their political leverage with respect to the railroads and cattle buyers, the ranchers organized into groups, such as the Wyoming Stock-Growers' Association, in order to make their collective voice heard in the state capitals. From the long drive to the legislature, the cattle business had come a long way.

 

Cattle, Frontiers, and Farming

Farming on the Plains

No less difficult, though less colorful and poetic, were the lives of the settlers. With the Homestead Act of 1862, a settler could claim as much as 160 acres (a quarter section) on the condition that he (occasionally she) lived on the land for five years, improved it, and paid a fee of $30. Alternatively, land could be bought after only six months' residence at $1.25 per acre. Before the Homestead Act, government land was sold for revenue. After the Homestead Act, public land was literally given away to encourage settlement of the frontier with family farms, considered the mainstay of democracy. Western settlement would also create new markets for eastern manufactured goods.

By 1865, 20,000 pioneers had migrated west to stake a claim and carve a life from the wilderness. In the next 40 years, half a million more families became homesteaders. During that same time, however, over two million families purchased land from the railroads, land companies, or state governments. Homesteading was difficult since 160 acres on the dry plains were often not enough to support a family. The land was cheap, but livestock, equipment, and seed were expensive. It took a minimum of $1,000 to get started homesteading, which was a lot of money at the time. 

The bane of the plains farmer was the weather. Temperature and moisture varied tremendously from year to year, and wind and hail could wipe out crops in an instant. Prairie fires and swarms of locusts added to the farmer's burden. Unlike eastern farmers, the farmers of the West might not get a crop every year, and they had to be prepared to hang on and live a subsistence sort of life in the lean years. These brutal facts discouraged all but the hardiest pioneers.

Transportation to haul produce to market was expensive, and interest rates on loans and mortgages were high. Special plows and new machinery such as threshers and hay mowers all allowed a farmer to produce more, but the expense of the devices often put him into debt. As more grain was produced, prices fell, adding to the woes of the farmer. More than half the homesteaders who had headed west with such high hopes were forced to give up. 

Much of the prairie was not suitable for farming at all, but was much better grazing land. The Homestead Act parceled out land in small lots, while cattle ranchers needed large tracts to run a successful operation. The Homestead Act forced ranchers to acquire land piecemeal as homesteaders gave up and sold out or as railroads sold their land to raise money to extend their tracks. 

Unscrupulous companies often acquired the best timber and mineral properties through fraudulent practices including using “dummy” homesteaders and fake improvements. Much of the public domain land passed quickly from the original homesteaders to promoters, not farmers. The Federal policy of virtually free homestead land lasted until 1934, though as time went on, the land available became increasingly marginal. 

Railroads had made it possible to sell crops at great distances, and farmers began to think in terms of a single cash crop rather than general farming to produce their families' needs. Railroads benefited from this trade and sent agents to Europe to promote western settlement. Mennonites and other groups who had farmed on the Russian steppes in a climate and topography similar to the American plains brought valuable knowledge and experience with them to America. They also brought the Red Turkey strain of winter wheat, which was ideally suited to the region. 

As farmers became more knowledgeable about raising crops in the severe conditions of the plains, they abandoned water-hungry crops such as corn and beans in favor of drought-resistant grains such as sorghum and wheat. A new flour-milling process developed by John S. Pillsbury of Minneapolis increased demand for grain. 

Originally called the high plains desert, the prairie supported tough, water-conserving native grasses whose root systems often reached ten feet into the earth. This dense sod resisted being broken up for planting crops until special steel plows were developed. Farmers who used these plows were called sodbusters. Contrary to expectation, the prairie proved remarkably fertile. With no trees on the prairie, sodbusters used the tough sod to build their homes, burned corncobs and buffalo chips (dried manure) for cooking and heating, and fenced their land with barbed wire to keep cattle and other grazing animals out of their fields. Wood was so scarce and expensive on some parts of the prairie that roughly hewn limestone was used as fence posts for stringing barbed wire. By 1883, Joseph Glidden's company was making 600 miles of his patented wire each day.

Heedless of the increasingly dry climate west of the 100th meridian, which runs through North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, settlers began tilling western Kansas, eastern Colorado, and Montana. In the late 1880s and early 1890s, a drought drove all but the most stubborn out. Dry farming techniques such as using a “lifter” to cultivate rather than a plow to break up the soil seemed to improve matters. But cultivation of any sort ground the surface to powder with devastating results later in the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s.

Because there were fewer women than men on the frontier, women were treated more equitably than in other areas of the country. In many places, the ratio of men to women was more than 100 to 1. The scarcity of women accorded them privileges of owning property and conducting their own businesses, which women in the East could not do. With the wave of homesteaders, women worked side-by-side with men on the family farm. On the frontier, the harsh demands of wresting a living from the land forced men to accept women as equal partners in the pioneer endeavor. 

Women settlers became more independent and found confidence in themselves and their ability to survive in difficult situations. For these reasons, the women's rights movement was especially strong in the West. Women still faced prejudice and legal barriers, however, and everywhere women were subject to varying restrictions in owning and selling property and in bringing suit against people or companies who wronged them. Even in the West, it was not until the twentieth century that women could serve on juries, vote, or hold public office.

 

Cattle, Frontiers, and Farming

The Far West

In 1598 Juan de Oñate, the son of a wealthy Spanish mining family in Mexico, was given the rights to the unexplored territory north of the Rio Grande. He headed an expeditionary force into what is now New Mexico and founded the town of San Gabriel. Jesuit and Franciscan missionaries followed Oñate to convert the Indians, who were coaxed, bribed, and forced to accept Catholicism and a settled farming life. In the beginning there were troubles, including several Indian revolts that were brutally suppressed by the Spanish. Eventually the Indians became “pacified.” The country was rugged and no gold or silver was discovered, which greatly disappointed Oñate. 

The Spanish considered abandoning New Mexico, but missionaries had baptized thousands of Indians and these new converts could not simply be deserted. New Mexico was made a Spanish province, and Spain sent a royal governor to administer the area. In 1610, when the first English colonists were struggling to survive at Jamestown, Spain established an official provincial capital in Santa Fe, making it the first seat of government in the present day United States. By 1630 there were 3,000 Spaniards in New Mexico and more than 50 churches and monasteries. 

By 1680, the missionaries claimed to have converted over 80,000 Indians, but shortly thereafter the Indians revolted and forced the Spanish back south of the Rio Grande. After 14 years of fighting and four military campaigns, the Spanish retook New Mexico, which then remained peaceful for well over a century. Catholic friars also tried to establish missions in Arizona and Texas but met with greater resistance from the fierce Apache, Comanche, and Yuma tribes.

In the late 1700s, the Spanish began to colonize the coast of California as far north as what is now San Francisco. This colonization effort was pursued in response to Russian trading vessels extending their routes southward along the Pacific Coast from Alaska to barter for furs and other goods with the Indians. The Spanish had always considered California to be theirs, but now they had to develop the region in order to hold it. 

A line of missions spaced a day's journey apart was built stretching from San Diego to San Francisco Bay. The Spanish government supported the missions, and each was defended by a presidio, or military garrison. The Indians of the region were forced to accept Catholicism and to labor for the benefit of the missions. Believing they were saving the souls of the Indians, the Catholic friars insisted that disciplined work was essential to producing moral Christians. They therefore had no qualms about using any means to achieve baptism and regimentation of the Indians at the expense of their native religion and culture. Disease and unrelenting work took their toll on the Indians, and the native population along the California coast dropped from 70,000 to 18,000 after only 50 years of mission rule. According to mission reports, infant mortality among the native population was 75% and life expectancy for the remainder about 25 years. 

In 1821, Mexico won independence from Spain. Thereafter, Mexico granted massive tracts of land, including the mission lands, to individuals called rancheros who lived in a grand, almost feudal style. The culture of California at that time was very similar to the plantation culture of the South, but with distinctly Spanish overtones in social structure, religion, and architecture. Another difference was that while the southern states were part of the federal system of the United States and thus acted somewhat independently until the Civil War, California was ruled by a governor appointed in Mexico City. In the Spanish tradition, regional governors had nearly the power of a king and were answerable only to those who appointed them. Tyranny and corruption were common, which bred conflict with the people. From the date of Mexican independence in 1821 to the Mexican Cession in 1848, Californians revolted ten times against despotic governors.

The change of government and of masters did not, unfortunately, improve the circumstance of the Indians whose death rate continued to be twice as high as for slaves in the Deep South. Though not slaves in the sense that they could be bought or sold, the Indians lived no better than feudal serfs tied to the land for generations. Those who tried to leave were hunted down and punished. 

American traders and entrepreneurs began to arrive in California by ship in the early 1800s. In the beginning they followed the “hide and tallow” trade. Hides for leather goods and tallow for candles were purchased from the rancheros and loaded onto sailing ships for the long journey around the southern tip of South America. Soon Anglos, or English-speakers, established permanent outposts to buy and store hides and tallow until a ship arrived. The fabled beauty, fertility, mild climate, and opportunity of California began to be known among Americans, and the hardiest of pioneer traders and settlers made the dangerous trek overland on the Santa Fe Trail to live or trade in Spanish provinces. 

With the ousting of the Spanish from Mexico, even more Anglos headed for the southwest, precipitating in many areas a struggle for dominance with the Mexican population, most notably in Texas. By 1848, Americans made up half of the non-Indian population in Mexican-held North America. With the Mexican Cession in 1848 following Mexico's defeat at the hands of the Americans, the U.S. acquired not only a vast tract of land from Texas to California, but also Indian and Hispanic populations numbering tens of thousands. There were 13,000 Hispanics in California alone. At a stroke, all these people became Americans, willingly or not. 

After the discovery of gold in 1848 at Sutter's Mill, an estimated 100,000 “Forty-niners” overwhelmed the Californians who had hoped to hold onto their land, culture, and political structure through the transition. In resentment, many Californians supported the South during the Civil War. By 1870, a great deal of the original Hispanic culture in California and the southwest had disappeared, though Spanish was still spoken in parts of the southwest and many traditions and practices persisted in New Mexico. Place names, such as Los Angeles (The Angels) and Las Vegas (The Stars), and a distinctive mission style of architecture permanently memorialize the first Spanish settlers in the Far West. 

 

End of the Frontier

Growth of the West

At the close of the Civil War, Texas was only sparsely settled and large parts of Oklahoma and Kansas were designated as Indian lands. The vast and empty loneliness of Nebraska, the Dakotas, the Rocky Mountains, and beyond seemed remote and forbidding. For these areas to be developed, the government had to promote settlement and provide transportation that would allow movement of people and goods in a less arduous, dangerous, time-consuming, and expensive manner than by wagon. 

The first phase of the government's plan for settlement was building the Transcontinental Railroad. The railroad provided a way to bring settlers and manufactured goods west and ship their agricultural and mining produce east. The Transcontinental Railroad was an essential artery for rapid development of the frontier. 

The second phase of the government's plan was a liberal land distribution policy that made it possible for many people to homestead. With these two key elements—transportation and cheap land—the government rapidly achieved its goal of persuading people to move west, settle on farms, and push back the frontier.

The West saw remarkable population growth in the 1870s and 1880s, though this growth was by no means evenly spread across the western lands. Though we often think of the West as a large, homogenous region, in reality it was as diverse in history, culture, and development as the eastern half of the United States. Foreign-born immigrants accounted for half the settlers in the west, making it a remarkably diverse group. 

The first settlers in the west were the Spanish in New Mexico and California. Though New Mexico remained relatively sparsely populated, California grew rapidly throughout the nineteenth century. San Francisco was the urban heart of California. By 1880, it had become the economic hub of the entire Pacific Coast with a diverse Hispanic, Anglo, and Asian population of a quarter million. 

From the California coast, settlement proceeded east through the valleys and passes of the coastal ranges and into the high, arid region west of the Rocky Mountains. Initial settlement of the Far West was often for mining, but was then followed by pioneers interested in timber, ranching, and farming. 

Settlement on the Great Plains was by people from equally varied backgrounds. Canadians migrated southward and Mexicans northward to homestead, while Germans, Irish, and Scandinavians settled in enclaves that developed into towns and areas of distinct cultural imm . At the same time, as many as a quarter million blacks left the Old South and moved west in search of opportunity and a more egalitarian society. Americans from the east headed west in record numbers to seek a new start, while immigrant settlers from nearly every country of Europe, the Near East, and Asia were represented among the people who came to live, work, and raise their families on the American frontier. 

By 1900, 14 new states were organized from the western territories. Colorado was admitted to the Union in 1876 following the Pikes Peak Gold Rush. Because it achieved statehood 100 years after the United States became a nation, Colorado was called the “Centennial State.” A Republican Congress admitted in rapid succession six politically conservative states from 1889 to 1890: North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming. Utah was admitted in 1896, six years after the Mormons renounced polygamy, which had been the major objection against them.

In 1889, the federal government decided to open for settlement lands in Oklahoma that had been occupied by the Creeks and Seminoles. Before the opening date, many “Sooners” tried to sneak across the boundary to prospect for the best sites and make sure they could stake out their claims before others. Most Sooners were forcibly evicted by federal troops. At noon on April 22, 1889, a pistol shot signaled that the race of the century was on. Fifty thousand “Boomers” or “89ers” raced over the boundary to settle two million acres. By the end of the year, Oklahoma had 60,000 inhabitants and Congress made it a territory. Oklahoma became a state in 1907.

For the most part, western settlement followed a pattern. After a relatively brief pioneering phase of rough-and-ready farming or mining, the various regions of the west developed rapidly as entrepreneurs arrived in the boomtowns to conduct trade and provide the services and financial institutions necessary to sustain a community. With the motivation, the people, and a plan, western settlement that had been predicted to take centuries was accomplished in decades. 

 

End of the Frontier

The Frontier Passes into History

In 1890, the Census Bureau announced the end of the frontier, meaning there was no longer a discernible frontier line in the west, nor any large tracts of land yet unbroken by settlement. This news had a terrific psychological impact on many Americans. For the first time in history, America was without a frontier. The frontier was a part of American national identity. The ideal of an ever-pioneering spirit with eternally new wildernesses to conquer was the American heroic myth, felt by all and expressed in literature and art. With the end of the frontier, the romance of the West was over.

Since the first colonies at Jamestown and Plymouth, Americans had lived with the reality of a frontier, which represented many things. Danger, adventure, opportunity, and freedom were embodied in the idea. But above all, the frontier seemed limitless, and this reinforced a feeling of endless possibilities for the great American experiment in democracy. Development of the west in the post-Civil War period was so rapid that the American public did not have time to foresee and accept the consequence that when the wilderness was settled, the frontier would have disappeared. 

The frontier had also represented a sort of escape mechanism for Americans. With the frontier gone, the possibility of escape into the wilderness to create a new life and even a new identity was gone as well, and people felt as though their power to shape their lives had diminished. 

On a larger scale, contemporary social theorists believed that the frontier acted as a “safety valve” for the nation. In times of high unemployment in the east, rather than causing civil disorder as in European cities, poor people had an option of migrating west and settling on the frontier. In reality, few city workers actually moved to the frontier during hard times since they were not farmers and had no money for transportation, livestock, or the things necessary to begin homesteading. Most of the settlers on the frontier moved from eastern farms or older frontiers. Of city dwellers, the frontier lured the young, the restless, and the adventurous who wanted to live “the American Dream” of complete freedom and a natural way of life. 

For slightly different reasons than once believed, the safety valve theory appears to have had some basis of fact. It is true that farmers were the most likely to move west to greener pastures. But this meant that in hard times rather than flocking to the cities, rural people tended to move to the frontiers. Immigrants with a farming background also often chose the rigors of frontier settlement on free land over life in the industrial city tenements. If unemployment was high, immigrants would have been even more likely to move on to the west than stay in a city. In these ways the existence of the frontier acted to limit unemployment in the east. In addition, due to the continuous draw of the population westward, eastern wages tended to be higher than they otherwise might have been if workers had no other option.

In spite of the disappearance of a distinct frontier, there were still large regions of unsettled government land, and families continued to homestead. But by the end of the nineteenth century, the general migration pattern into rural areas had reversed itself, and more people were moving to the city in search of employment than were moving out of the city and onto a farm. These job-searchers did not always go to the eastern cities, but rather to the industrial giants and trade capitals of the west: Chicago, St. Louis, Denver, and San Francisco.

As time went on, farmers felt the impact of the loss of the frontier as the land available for homesteading became increasingly marginal. Traditionally, American farmers were not tied to the land as in other countries. Original settlers would often sell their land for a profit to later arrivals and move on. With no new and better lands to move to, farmers had to make do with what farmland was available. They also had to contend with the political and economic forces that they had sought to escape by moving west.

In 1893, Frederick Jackson Turner wrote “The Significance of the Frontier in American History,” one of the most influential essays written in America. In it he claimed that American history had been a study of expansion and settlement of a succession of “Wests”: the West beyond the Atlantic Coast, the Appalachian West, the Old Northwest, the Mississippi Valley, the Western Plains, the Old Southwest, and the Far West. Turner claimed that prolonged frontier experience had affected the thinking of the American people, their culture, and their institutions, and that the isolation and hardship of the frontier had fostered self-reliance, individualism, and movement away from the influence of Europe. In each successive advance westward, the need to create civilization anew accounted for the vigor, ambition, and democracy of America. With loss of the frontier, Americans lost a critical foundation for their culture, and an era had ended with unforeseen abruptness and startling finality. 

Critics have pointed out that while Turner's thesis addressed the psychological state of mainstream, English-speaking America, it did not take into account other people living in the country. The history of the frontier would certainly appear in a different light from the perspective of Native Americans, Hispanics, blacks, and women. The essay was a seminal work, however, in that it investigated the evolution of a social and psychological phenomenon in terms of culture and economics as well as personalities, politics, and fortunes of war. Partly because of the impact of Turner's writing, efforts were made to preserve some of the virgin land in the form of protected national parks. 

 

End of the Frontier

Farming Becomes a Business

Agriculture in the Mississippi Valley region underwent major changes after the Civil War. Farmers began thinking of farming as a business with a cash crop of wheat, corn, or cotton instead of a self-sufficient way of life. A farm began to be viewed as an outdoor factory and growing crops as production. Farmers made use of credit and considered such factors as transportation and marketing, just like other businesses. Farming also became increasingly mechanized, which drew farmers into a cycle of purchasing ever more expensive farm machinery. As a result, agricultural production increased remarkably, and America became the world's breadbasket and top meat producer. 

In the late 1800s, rural dwellers started to purchase household goods, tools, and clothing rather than fashioning these items themselves. Mail-order catalogs filled the need for manufactured items in areas where travel to a large city to shop was not practical. Montgomery Ward produced the first such catalog, followed closely by Sears & Roebuck.

Huge “bonanza” wheat farms in Minnesota and North Dakota as well as large, irrigated California fruit and vegetable farms foreshadowed the gargantuan holdings of agribusinesses in the twentieth century. Large corporate farms, using economies of scale, could purchase seed, equipment, and supplies at discounted prices. Because of the size of their businesses, they could negotiate for better rates from the railroads for transportation of their produce. These factors contributed to the profitability of the bonanza farm. Development of the railroad refrigerator car allowed fresh produce from every area of the country to be shipped to markets in the large urban centers. 

In the south, large-scale commercial agriculture changed the rural way of life. Entrepreneurial capitalists of the New South extended the business of agriculture beyond the old plantations and into regions of small farms. There was an acute shortage of capital in the south, which posed major obstacles to rebuilding the economy. Without hard currency, Southerners had to operate on credit. Wealthy individuals who extended credit for profit were called credit merchants. Many acquired large holdings of land in the post-Reconstruction south at the expense of small farmers. 

The "crop lien" system was one method of the commercialization of southern agriculture. A planter or merchant extended a line of credit at high interest rates to a poor farmer in exchange for a lien on the farmer's crop. The farmer was thus pressed by circumstances into making a large planting of a single cash crop—usually cotton. Many farmers cultivating the same product caused cash crop prices to drop. Some farmers were able to use the crop lien form of credit to bootstrap themselves into independence and pay for their own seed and supplies in the following years. For other farmers, however, the crop lien proved to be a debt trap from which they could never climb out. Eventually, many lost their farms. 

The planter or merchant who extended the credit was often seen as a villain. Their risk was high, however. If the farmer's crop failed, there was nothing to pay the debt off with and the seed and supplies were already gone. The high interest the credit merchants charged partially reflected the risk they were taking. 

As a direct result of the crop lien system, many poor white and black farmers became landless tenant farmers or sharecroppers. Sharecroppers worked the land using the owner's machinery and seed. They generally got supplies and half the crop for their effort. Tenant farmers worked the land but used their own equipment and draft animals and bought their own seed. They usually earned three-fourths of the cash crop and two-thirds of the subsistence crop. The owner of the land received the remainder as rent. 

This system encouraged taking as much as possible from the land on a short-term basis and making no provision for the long term. The economics favored using up the nutrients in the soil without replacing them, and there was no incentive to prevent erosion from wind or water. Tenants and landlords were constantly suspicious that they were being cheated and used by the other. By the 1870s, 20 percent of southern farmers were tenants, most of whom were freed slaves. By 1910, 50 percent of southern farmers were tenants, many newly landless whites. This situation resulted in a massive migration of Americans out of the southern Cotton Belt.

Farming lost its luster in other areas of the country, as well. The labor and equipment required for a cash crop operation were fixed costs that often ran high. Hay balers and combines were expensive, but farmers needed them to remain competitive. Farmers overproduced for the market in an effort to be as profitable as possible, but this drove prices down. 

With improved ocean and rail shipping, other countries such as Argentina, Australia, Russia, and Canada began to sell their agricultural products in European markets that had formerly been the exclusive province of American farmers. A smaller market share further depressed farm prices for Americans. Though farmers' products were unprotected in a competitive world market, import tariffs protected U.S. manufacturers from competition with foreign manufacturers, keeping the price of manufactured goods high. Farmers were caught in a squeeze between low prices for their products and high prices for the manufactured goods they needed. 

Agricultural-related trusts, such as the barbed wire trust, fertilizer trust, harvester trust, and railroad trust, fixed high prices that farmers had no choice except to pay. Farmers' land was often assessed at a high rate by cash-strapped local governments making property taxes unreasonably heavy. Farmers were also hurt by the domestic marketing system, which had developed using multiple layers of middlemen, all taking a share of the profit at the expense of the farmers. Suddenly it was not enough to know how to raise a crop. Farmers also had to be keen businessmen to stay afloat, and many gave up or lost their land and moved to the city to take industrial jobs. 

Successful farmers could produce near miraculous harvests with the new mechanized farm equipment, but with low prices they were sometimes no better off for all their effort. Natural disasters such as bitterly cold winters, drought, storms, insects, crop and livestock diseases, erosion, and depletion of the soil all took their toll. The terrible heat and drought of the late 1880s proved too much even for the bonanza farms. Many farmers of the plains were forced to give up, and the entire plains region became economically depressed in the 1890s. Farmers of the east were generally less affected by adversity than their counterparts in the west and south because eastern farmers had much lower transportation costs to the great urban centers and had generally been established longer and had little, if any, debt. 

The single cash crop now came to be seen as a liability, and farmers began to opt instead for an income from diverse farming sources, such as wheat, sorghum, corn, oats, cattle, and hogs. If one failed, there might still be an income from the others. In spite of hardships, farmers of the plains as a group continued to be successful, particularly with grains. 

The economy of post-Civil War America grew at an astonishing pace, providing most Americans with a higher standard of living. The urban middle class became comfortable, even fashionable, and for the first time many Americans had time and enough money to afford leisure activities. Cities provided social and cultural opportunities on a large scale. 

By contrast, farming, especially on the plains, still meant hard work, long hours, loneliness, and isolation. Farm life was particularly arduous for women. A farm wife cared for her children, did the housework, prepared all meals on a wood stove (even baking the family's bread), sewed most of the family's clothes, did laundry on a scrub board with lye soap she made herself, raised a vegetable garden and canned the excess for consumption in the winter, milked cows, churned butter, fed livestock, gathered eggs, killed and plucked chickens, and did whatever else needed to be done. Social opportunities were few, leisure activities were of the homespun variety, and following fashion was out of the question. 

Living on a farm was no longer idealized as a way of life. Though the number of farming families nearly doubled by the turn of the century, the urban population quadrupled and manufacturing far outstripped farming in producing wealth for the nation. For these reasons, farmers' status and relative influence in America declined. Farmers were underrepresented politically, and new laws often favored business interests at the expense of the farmers. Though they represented half of the population in 1890, farmers were independent and individualistic by nature and found it difficult to organize effectively. Angry farmers often embraced radical ideas about how they could obtain fairer treatment. Slowly they realized that they must band together with a common agenda in order to be effective in gaining recognition of their needs. 

One particularly galling problem to farmers was that deflation from an insufficient supply of gold currency meant they had to pay back loans and mortgages with dollars that were more valuable than when they borrowed the money. This had the effect of compounding interest on their loans. The Greenback movement of 1868 sought relief from deflation by increasing the supply of paper currency. Printing negotiable paper dollars would relieve the demand for gold coins. 

The National Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry also became a serious political force in grain-growing states. Founded in 1867 as a social organization, the Grange established cooperatively owned stores, grain elevators, and warehouses in an effort to economize member's expenses. Grangers also experimented with cooperative marketing of farm products and cooperative purchasing of seed, fertilizer, machinery, and other commodities. By mid-1879, there were Granges in 14 states, mostly in the west and south, and Grange membership approached one million. 

Similar to the Grange, the Farmers' Alliance of the late 1870s in Texas organized cooperatives to combat high freight costs. The Farmers' Alliance evolved into the nationwide People's Party or Populists who demanded a bimetal (gold and silver) currency base in order to increase the amount of money in circulation and prevent deflation. The Populists attempted to unite rural farmers and urban labor into a single political party to counter the enormous influence of business on government and the making of laws and regulations. 

Farmers elected Grange candidates to state legislatures, which began to enact a patchwork of laws, mostly aimed at unfair railroad and warehousing practices. Grange-dominated legislatures passed laws that established what farmers considered reasonable rates and that outlawed business practices farmers felt were unjust. Before the state-established shipping rates, railroads had charged whatever they could get to transport goods. Different localities could be charged radically different rates for shipping the same distance. If only one railroad served an area, it could elicit a much higher rate than in areas where the railroad faced competition from another line. Customers had no choice but to pay what was asked. Railroads would cut manufacturers and large shippers rock-bottom deals due to the volume of their freight business. They would then attempt to make up their profit by charging smaller, individual shippers, such as farmers, much higher rates. 

The railroads objected to infringement on their prerogative to set rates, claiming that it was their right to charge whatever they wished. The Supreme Court case of Munn v. Illinois (1877) upheld the states' rights to determine maximum freight and warehouse charges because railroads and warehouses served a public interest beyond their own private interest of earning a profit. 

In the Wabash case (1886), however, the Supreme Court denied the states' rights to regulate commerce that crossed state lines, since that right was reserved by the Constitution to the federal government. In response to the plight of farmers as well as to the widespread practice among the railroads of giving kickbacks and preferential treatment to certain customers, the U.S. Congress in 1887 passed the Interstate Commerce Act and created the Interstate Commerce Commission. Subsequently, the railroads were required to publish their rates and were not allowed to charge a different rate without giving public notice. 

Initially, the Interstate Commerce Act was not very effective, but it established that Congress could and would regulate businesses engaged in interstate trade. As time passed, laws were crafted that better addressed the extremely complex dealings of the railroads.

 

Gilded Age Scandal and Corruption

The Tweed Ring and Machine Politics

The late nineteenth and very early twentieth centuries in America are often referred to as the “Gilded Age.” The origin of this name is usually attributed to Mark Twain who co-authored a novel entitled The Gilded Age. The term is metaphoric on several levels. It can be taken to reference an obsession with appearances. Unlike “golden,” which has positive associations of beauty and value, the word “gilded” carries connotations of cheap commercialization, shoddiness, and fakery. Twain's novel is about social climbers and get-rich-quick schemers who are all show and no substance, like a gold-painted trinket. “Gilded Age” also suggests a fascination with gold itself and with the wealth and power that gold symbolizes. 

Concern with gold was certainly heightened by U.S. money being minted in scarce gold coins. In addition, gilding, in the sense of gold plating, is often done to make objects beautiful that must also be strong and durable, because gold itself is a soft metal. This might reflect an American sentiment of that era that their efforts toward culture and refinement were just a veneer over a strong but coarse base. All interpretations of the meaning of “Gilded Age” carry an element of irony, however. Perhaps this sense of the ironic is more insightful than any particular interpretation of the term in describing an age of such extremes of wealth and poverty, opportunity and disaster, high standards and low practices, advancement and decay. 

The population of post-Civil War America ballooned with a new tide of immigration. In spite of the terrible losses during the war, the census of 1870 reported a population of 39 million Americans, up over 25% from the decade before. The U.S. had become the third most populous nation in the Western world after Russia and France. While farmers struggled and barely maintained their numbers, business and industry boomed with America's increasing demand for goods and services.

From afar, in countries with repressive social and political structures, stagnant economies, depressed wages, and high unemployment, America seem like a dreamland of opportunity to millions who had no hope of bettering their situation in their native country. Immigration surged, providing industry with a huge new labor force. Immigrants did well if they had a skill, money to start a business, or relatives already in the U.S. who could help them get started. Most immigrants, however, were unskilled, poor, and found themselves without support in America. 

When the immigrants arrived on American shores, they gravitated toward established enclaves of people with the same language and customs. These cultural and ethnic clusters often amounted to little cities within cities that provided support, assistance, and protection for new arrivals. Cities became filled with tens of thousands of people who, because they could not afford the cost of public transportation, had to live within walking distance of their employment. As a result, huge labor-intensive factories and industries were ringed with multistory tenements that offered workers shelter from the elements and little more. Certain districts in Chicago had the highest population density in the world, exceeding even the crowding in cities such as Calcutta and Shanghai. 

As immigrants were pouring into the cities, the old middle class was moving to the suburbs, taking with them most of the experience and expertise in governing an industrial metropolis. The posts of leadership were often then filled by people with less experience in city government and less of an understanding of traditional American culture.

In the nineteenth century, government at all levels saw itself a provider of essential services such as roads and as an advocate of justice, but not as responsible for the welfare of individuals. The law was supposed to protect people from being wronged, but beyond that they were responsible for their own fate. Neighborhood and fraternal associations bridged the gap between what government provided and what people needed. These organizations helped people in many ways: they gave material assistance to new arrivals, got people jobs, provided necessities for families in distress, supported small businesses, and provided legal assistance. Those who had received help and eventually made good were expected to help others in return. 

Many of these associations gained considerable power using the “good old boy” system of giving preferential treatment, especially in business, to members of the group. Some began to wield their power by mobilizing large blocks of voters to influence candidates, elections, and local political parties.

Eventually the association leaders, generally called bosses, began to run for office and get elected themselves. Their first loyalty, however, was not to their government posts or to any political party but to the associations through whose ranks they had risen and to whom they owed their political and personal success. 

In all the large industrial cities, such associations became embedded in city government. This new political landscape where the official government was supported and manipulated by a shadow government of bosses and associations became known as machine politics for its ability to call out the votes “like a machine” to sponsor any political agenda. It is important to remember that these associations sprang up to provide vital services to people who had no other recourse. But because shadow government operated outside the public eye, opportunities for graft and abuse of power abounded. 

The most infamous example of machine politics was Tammany Hall, headquarters of the Democratic Party in New York City. Headed by William Marcy Tweed, the Tammany Hall political machine of the late 1860s and early 1870s used graft, bribery, and rigged elections to bilk the city of over $200 million. Some of this money went to create public jobs that helped people and supported the local economy. Some went into constructing public buildings at hugely inflated expense thus lining the pockets of building contractors and suppliers of materials. But contractors and suppliers, and anyone else doing business in the city, had to give kickbacks to the bosses in order to stay in business. Many machine bosses, including Boss Tweed, amassed fortunes as a result of kickbacks and bribes.

Some of the city's money also went for such laudable, though unauthorized, uses as support for widows, orphans, the poor, the aged, the sick, and the unemployed. Tammany supporters cited these diversions of public funds as benefits to society that worked to redistribute some of the wealth that big businesses reaped from having a pool of cheap labor. Many of the people of New York were not convinced by these arguments of the benefits of the boss system, but New York City residents who complained were threatened or had their property taxes raised.

In 1871, the New York Times published sufficient evidence of misuse of public funds to indict and eventually convict Boss Tweed and some of his Tammany cronies. The brilliant political cartoonist Thomas Nast conveyed Tweed's abuses to even the illiterate and semi-illiterate masses of recent immigrants. Nast was offered a $100,000 bribe to "study art in Paris," a euphemism for discontinuing his pictorial campaign against Tweed. Nast refused despite even higher offers.

To escape arrest, Tweed fled to Spain. Ironically, he was identified from Nast cartoons circulated in that country, and as a result was captured by Spanish authorities and extradited back to the United States. Samuel Tilden prosecuted Tweed, which paved the way for Tilden's presidential nomination in 1876. Tweed was convicted in 1872 and died in jail.

In the wake of experience with political machines, reformers, who at first had simply been against the machines as a matter of principle, began lobbying for more government involvement in providing social services. These were the same services the machines purported to provide, but openly and under public scrutiny. Reformers pointed out that the social benefits provided by the political machines came at terrific public expense. 

Americans have traditionally been resistant to any sort of socialism, but the arguments of the reformers made sense on both economic and humanitarian levels. City, state, and national governments began to consider the welfare of society in their planning and budgeting and to incorporate social services as an integral part of the function of government.

 

Gilded Age Scandal and Corruption

Corruption in Business and Government

In the decades between the end of the Civil War and the turn of the twentieth century, new technologies, cheap immigrant labor, maturing methods of industrialization, and a mechanized, streamlined transportation system of railroads and steam-powered ships proved a formula for astoundingly rapid growth in the business sector. Government, however, could not keep pace with these changes. Governments were naïve about business and the ways that individuals and companies made money, both legally and illegally. They were not able to deal with many cutthroat business practices, so these were allowed to continue. Competition was intense and business managers often had to adopt practices they disliked or be forced out of business. 

America was founded on a philosophy of “hands off” of business, an approach known as “laissez-faire,” which is French for “leave to do.” Even when it became clear that some regulation was necessary, especially of credit and corporate practices, government did not know where or how to apply controls. Americans disliked many of the abuses they saw in business, but were reluctant to advocate government interference for fear of doing anything to cool the remarkable engines of progress and production.

Earlier in the century, businesses had been allowed to incorporate by obtaining a charter from a state government. Among other advantages, the owners of an incorporated business were shielded from most of the liabilities incurred by the business. This was beneficial since before incorporation was allowed, if a business failed, the owner was wholly liable for all the debts. In some cases businesses failed through no fault of the owner. Creditors could then take everything, even the owner's home, and turn him and his family destitute into the street.

Without incorporation, business owners naturally tended to be very cautious in their dealings. If a company was owned jointly by stockholders, company managers were also reluctant to risk not only the stockholders' investment but also their personal assets. Sometimes this excessive caution prevented beneficial and needed investment.

After incorporation was allowed, big companies discovered they could buy other companies and hold them under the umbrella of the parent company. This in itself was not bad, but unscrupulous holding companies could buy a company, transfer all the assets from it to another company that was also owned by the holding company, and bankrupt the first company. This caused the first company to default on all of its financial obligations and the stock and bondholders to lose their investment. 

Another unscrupulous practice sometimes employed was to have a company form another company with the same board of directors running both companies. This duplicated board was called an interlocking directorate. Again, in itself this was not bad unless the intent of the directors was to build both companies, transfer all the benefits to one company and bankrupt the other, again at the expense of the stock and bondholders. This practice was so blatantly harmful that the government had to step in to outlaw it.

The worst scandal involving an interlocking directorate occurred when the American government decided to underwrite a transcontinental railroad. The western half was built by the Union Pacific Railroad Company with substantial federal subsidies. The Union Pacific directors created a company called Crédit Mobilier that was to supply materials and labor. Though they were also the directors of Crédit Mobilier, they kept their involvement with that company quiet.

The Union Pacific built its half of the transcontinental railroad, but within a few years of operating the railroad, the company was bankrupt in spite of heavy infusions of government money. A New York newspaper exposed the scandalous co-ownership of the companies in 1872, and charges were confirmed by congressional investigation. Crédit Mobilier tried to divert attention by giving congressmen shares of its valuable stock that paid dividends of as much as 348%. Two congressmen and Grant's Vice President were censured for accepting these bribes.

Investigators discovered that Union Pacific paid Crédit Mobilier hugely inflated prices for all its services and materials. In this way the directors transferred the assets of the railroad to the supply company. The losers were not only the thousands of Union Pacific shareholders who had invested millions in the railroad and lost their money, but also the American public that had supported Union Pacific through tax dollars. The Crédit Mobilier scandal broke during Grant's presidency, tarnishing his reputation even though most of the corruption occurred during previous administrations. 

In the wake of Andrew Johnson's impeachment, the American public grew tired of politicians and political wrangling. In 1868, the Republicans nominated the popular Civil War hero Ulysses S. Grant for president. Grant won the election, but though an excellent general, he was wholly unprepared to be president. Grant presided over an era of unprecedented growth in the nation, but also one of unprecedented corruption. Honest to a fault himself, Grant was either unable or unwilling to stop the graft. Besides Crédit Mobilier, Grant's administration was held responsible for the Whiskey Ring Scandal, Gould and Fiske's attempt to corner the gold market, and Secretary of War William Belknap's bribe-taking from Indian reservation suppliers. 

One of the few bright lights in Grant's cabinet was Secretary of State Hamilton Fish who negotiated the Treaty of Washington in 1871. During the Civil War, the Alabama, a British fighting ship with Confederate officers, did enormous damage to Northern merchant ships, sinking 64. In the Treaty of Washington, Britain agreed to pay the U.S. $15.5 million in reparations for damages done by the Alabama. Fish also averted war with Spain by persuading Grant to remain neutral in Cuba's struggle for independence. 

Adding to the problems in Gilded Age politics was the spoils system, whereby a newly elected official distributed favors to his friends, relatives, and political supporters. Often these favors came in the form of government jobs. Nepotism, or giving jobs to one's relatives, combined with patronage, or giving jobs in payment for political favors, sapped the vitality of government. Besides passing out political jobs to more than the usual number of party cronies, Grant reportedly installed several dozen of his wife's relations in jobs with the federal government. 

Hamilton Fish reorganized the State Department and attempted to adhere to the merit system in civil service where an applicant for a job had to demonstrate competency, often by examination, in order to be considered for a position. Grant's failure to embrace civil service reform throughout the rest of the federal government caused widespread protest. This dissatisfaction led to the creation of the Liberal Republican Party, which nominated Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune, for president in 1872.

In spite of the opposition of many people and organizations, including President Hayes who won the election of 1876, the spoils system continued unabated until disaster struck. By the election of 1881, the Republican Party had divided into two factions, the Stalwarts and the Half-Breeds. The Stalwarts supported Grant, radical reconstruction in the South, and the patronage system. The Half-Breeds opposed Grant and radical policies for the South and advocated civil service reform.

The 1881 Stalwart Republican candidate, James A. Garfield, won the election but was fatally shot just six months later by a lawyer named Charles J. Guiteau, who was distraught at not being given a government job. Garfield‘s successor, Chester A. Arthur, supported civil service reform in the wake of public demand for an overhaul of the spoils system of filling government posts through patronage rather than merit. The Civil Service Commission was created during Arthur's tenure as president, but originally affected only about ten percent of all government jobs. It had a provision, however, that the president could expand the categories of jobs protected by Civil Service. Each new president then had an incentive to enlarge this percentage in order to protect his own appointments from being replaced by the next president. Much of government thus came to be under Civil Service and the merit system.

 

Consumer Culture

Entrepreneurs

The small businesses that supported the pre-Civil War economy could not satisfy the rapidly growing national markets. Entrepreneurs quickly developed systems of mass production and distribution to meet growing national needs. The resulting expansion in industry went hand-in-hand with industrial combination and concentration, enabling a few business leaders to dominate the largest markets of the time. 

One of the greatest of these “Captains of Commerce” stands out for his achievements and his contributions—Andrew Carnegie. In 1848, as a young boy, Carnegie migrated with his family from Scotland to Allegheny, Pennsylvania. Carnegie eventually worked his way to the top through a number of jobs in various industries. During a trip to Europe in 1872 he met Sir Henry Bessemer, who in 1856 had invented a new process of turning iron into steel. To this point, steel was a scarce commodity in America, but with the Bessemer process steel could be inexpensively and easily produced for locomotives, rails, and the girders used in building construction. This inspired Carnegie to focus his business efforts on steel, and in 1875 he launched J. Edgar Thompson Steel Works, which was named after the president of his biggest customer, Pennsylvania Railroad. 

America was one of the few places where all of the components needed to make steel were available in fairly close proximity. Recognizing this, Carnegie employed a tactic known as “vertical integration,” where he integrated every phase of the steel-making business. He acquired coal properties, iron ore from Lake Superior, a fleet of steamships to transport materials across the Great Lakes, and railroads that delivered the materials to the furnaces in Pittsburgh. His goals were to improve efficiency, increase quality, and decrease costs by controlling all of the variables in the production process. 

Carnegie was a skilled businessman and salesman, and he had a talent for hiring men with the greatest expertise. Contrary to most, he used times of recession to expand his business, slowly buying out all of his competitors. However, he disliked monopolistic trusts, and so built his organization into a partnership that included about 40 Pittsburgh millionaires. By 1900, Carnegie's company was producing one quarter of the nation's Bessemer steel. 

By 1900, Carnegie was ready to sell his steel holdings. J.P. Morgan, an investment banker, bought Carnegie out for over $400 million. Though often criticized for paying low wages to his workers, Carnegie believed that he and other industrial giants had a social responsibility and should consider themselves public benefactors. At the age of 65, Carnegie devoted the rest of his life to philanthropic endeavors that promoted social welfare and world peace. In all, he gave approximately $350 million to public libraries, universities, hospitals, parks, meeting and concert halls, swimming pools, church buildings, and other charitable causes. 

Once he bought out Carnegie, J. Pierpont Morgan moved rapidly to expand his holdings, adding other steel and finished product companies, and “watering” the stock, or selling stock to buyers at a price greater than its current value. This enabled him to launch The United States Steel Corporation in 1901, which was America's first billion-dollar corporation. 

Morgan was born into a rich family and worked to increase his wealth throughout his life. He was an investment banker and owned a Wall Street banking house that financed the reorganization of railroads, insurance companies, and banks. Once Morgan got into the steel business, he began to eliminate all competition to create his steel monopoly. 

During the depression of the 1890s, Morgan bought out his competition and placed officers from his own banking house on their boards of directors. This duplicated board was called an interlocking directorate, and it ensured future harmony among the rival enterprises. This concentration of financial power could be abused if the intent of the directors was to build two companies, transfer all the benefits to one company, and bankrupt the other at the expense of the stock and bondholders. However, an effective board could increase efficiency, enhance economic growth, pave the way for large-scale mass production, and stimulate new markets. Morgan, along with most big business leaders, did not believe the consolidation of money was anything but advantageous to the nation, and the rapid rise of the U.S. economy made Morgan's position hard to refute. Social critics and Progressive-Era politicians would soon propose limits to “unbridled” capitalism.

Another important business leader of the time was John D. Rockefeller. He was born to a modest family in New York State, and as a youth moved to Cleveland, which was strategically located near the oil fields of Pennsylvania. Rockefeller, already a successful businessman as a teenager, recognized the potential profits in refining oil. In 1859, the first oil well was struck in Titusville, Pennsylvania, called “Drake's Folly.” In 1870, Rockefeller formed the Standard Oil Company of Ohio, worth $1 million. 

Although Rockefeller was the largest oil refiner, he felt his competition was flooding the market by producing too much oil, which led to reduced profits, so he weeded them out. Rockefeller was ruthless in his business tactics, and he perfected what came to be known as the “trust.” He forced his competition to join with him and assign their stock to the board of directors of his Standard Oil Company, who would then consolidate the two operations. If his competitors did not agree to this, he would temporarily lower the price of his oil and drive them out of business. By 1877, Rockefeller controlled 95 percent of the oil refineries in United States and monopolized virtually the entire world petroleum market.

John D. Rockefeller justified his wealth with statements like, “The good Lord gave me my money.” Yet, in spite of his often ruthless business practices, Rockefeller donated more than $500 million to philanthropic endeavors throughout his lifetime. 

Following Rockefeller's lead, trusts rapidly developed in other industries, such as lead, rubber, sugar, tobacco, and leather. In the 1860s, Cornelius Vanderbilt consolidated 13 separate railroads creating the New York Central Railroad System, and Gustavus F. Swift and Philip Armour consolidated the meat packing industry. Aggressive businessmen rapidly consolidated much of the transportation and communication industries. In retailing, huge urban department stores grew up in the big cities, and Montgomery Ward and Sears, Roebuck and Company dominated the mail-order industry, making it difficult for smaller businesses to compete. Over time, public opposition toward trusts increased and they swiftly became a hotly debated political issue. However, for most businesses at the end of the century, monopoly was not the goal of a trust, but rather increased efficiency through centralization of the management of increasingly complex business operations.

 

Consumer Culture

The Government Steps In

The rapid expansion of industry and the concentration of ownership by fewer and fewer people changed the way many Americans felt about the role of government in economic affairs. With the growing number of trusts in America, reformers in the late nineteenth century began to voice their concerns about the expanding gulf between the rich and the poor. Although the new class of millionaires brought economic and material progress, they also created deepening class divisions. Reformers feared that businessmen held an increasing amount of power that would eventually succeed in destroying republican institutions and placing captains of industry in direct control of the government. 

Along with the reformers, the “old blood” American aristocracy was highly resentful of the "nouveau riche." Long-established merchants and professionals did not like the change in the order of society and felt that this arrogant class of "new rich" should be held in check. Small business owners and farmers resented both classes, and a new “civil war” was brewing.

In contrast, some theorists and wealthy business leaders used Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species (1859) to champion the extreme success of such a small percentage of Americans. Although Darwin's argument that existing species had all evolved through a long process of “natural selection,” described as a basic process of biology, many theorists drew broader economic inferences from his writings. William Graham Sumner applied Darwin's “survival of the fittest” theory to the social world, touting in What Social Classes Owe to Each Other that “the millionaires are a product of natural selection.” 

Herbert Spencer, one of the first major prophets of Social Darwinism, used Darwin's theory as a foundation for promoting the virtues of free-market capitalism. He felt that Social Darwinism was the logical explanation for small businesses being crowded out by trusts and monopolies, and that the government should not interfere in this natural process. Spencer warned that “fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty.”

Andrew Carnegie did not advocate Social Darwinism, but instead felt the wealthy had to prove that they were morally responsible. Carnegie's The Gospel of Wealth, published in 1889, stated that the concentration of wealth was necessary for society to progress. Carnegie felt that that the contrast between a millionaire and a laborer was an indication of how far humanity had come and that in the long run extreme disparities of wealth were good for the "race." 

Political action against big business came first at the state level with legislation aimed at regulating railroads. This approach failed, in part due to the Wabash case, which confirmed the federal role in regulating interstate commerce. Congress stepped in and passed the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 as a response to the plight of farmers as well as to the widespread practice among the railroads of giving kickbacks and preferential treatment to certain customers. The act was aimed at stopping discrimination against small business customers by requiring that all charges made by railroads must be reasonable. The railroads were also required to publish their rates and were not allowed to charge a different rate without giving public notice. 

The Interstate Commerce Act spawned the first federal regulatory board, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The ICC supervised the affairs of the railroads, investigated any complaints, and issued orders when they determined the railroads had acted illegally. The most important outcome of the Interstate Commerce Act was that it established a precedent for Congress to regulate businesses engaged in interstate trade. 

In 1890, President Benjamin Harrison signed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which declared that any combination “in the form of trust or otherwise” in restraint of trade or commerce was illegal. Unfortunately, the act turned out to be largely symbolic since succeeding administrations did little to enforce it, and when it was enforced it contained legal loopholes. The actions of the Federal government seemed to reflect the general public's perception that the laissez-faire approach, a philosophy that the government leaves business alone, was best for the burgeoning capitalistic nation.

  

Rise of Unions

Workers in America

The new industrial age and the resulting growth of the U.S. economy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries affected nearly everyone in America. Industrial combination and concentration became the norm, with huge trusts appearing in almost every industry. The workplace was changing as machines became common and the demand for unskilled workers brought new groups into the workforce, including immigrants, women, and children. By 1920, nearly 20 percent of all manufacturing workers were women, and 13 percent of all textile workers were younger than 16 years old.

The abundance of laborers available for these unskilled factory jobs made individual workers expendable and led to decreased wages. Most industrial laborers worked at least a ten-hour day, yet earned 20 to 40 percent less than the minimum wage necessary for a decent life. Many Americans feared that the great industrialists were reducing "freemen" to "wage slaves." Class division between the corporate giants and laborers became increasingly apparent throughout America. Little of the fortune that the industrial growth of the nation had generated went to the workers. In 1900, it was estimated that ten percent of Americans owned over three-fourths of the nation's wealth. Many feared that the United States was on the brink of a disastrous class war.

Health and safety conditions in the workplace were poor and workers had limited recourse. Federal laws offered little protection, and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was often used to stop the organization of laborers. It was not until the 1930s that the federal government would become actively involved in regulating labor. State and local authorities were usually more responsive to the interests of wealthy industrialists than the needs of laborers.

The social transformation brought on by the new industrial age affected every aspect of life in America. With women toiling alongside men, marriages were often delayed, resulting in smaller families. It was not uncommon for a single company to own an entire town. The company could increase prices at the local grocery store and give laborers easy credit, keeping workers in debt and stuck working at the same low-paying job. The crowded, dirty tenements in these towns led to high disease and death rates.

The workplace became regimented and impersonal. Any time workers would protest the working conditions, corporations would blacklist the uncooperative workers and replace them with workers who would often work for lower pay and without any benefits. Individual workers were not able to battle against the corporate monster. The process of industrialization transformed the nation's economy and social structure, but in doing so it provoked the emergence of an organized labor movement.

 

Rise of Unions

Union Organizations

In the 1842 case Commonwealth v. Hunt, the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that it was not illegal for workers to organize a union or try to compel recognition of that union with a strike. This was certainly an important step for labor, but the idea of permanent unions was slow to catch on. Since many laborers were immigrants, they often spoke different languages and harbored racial and cultural biases. Many only planned to stay in America long enough to earn sufficient money to return to their homelands and live comfortably, and therefore saw no point in joining a union. For nearly 20 years after the Commonwealth v. Hunt ruling, labor unions tended to be small and limited to skilled trades. 

Eventually, the increase in cost of living after the Civil War, coupled with the rising number of large corporations that decreased wages, lead industrial laborers to organize into unions. In 1866, the first national coalition of these unions was founded—The National Labor Union.

The struggle for the right to unionize was a remarkable event in the history of the United States labor movement. It not only involved overcoming resistance from the corporations, but also cultural divisions within the working class itself. The National Labor Union consisted of delegates from labor and reform groups who supported an eight-hour workday, arbitration of industrial disputes, and inflationary greenbacks—the printing of paper money to expand the supply of currency and relieve debtors. 

The National Labor Union lasted approximately six years and attracted nearly 600,000 members. It included skilled and unskilled laborers, farmers, and some women and blacks, but excluded the Chinese. The depression of the 1870s, along with the sudden death of its leader, put an end to the union. During its existence, the union persuaded Congress to enact an eight-hour workday for federal employees and to repeal the Contract Labor Law (a law that was passed during the Civil War to encourage importation of labor). Many industrialists had employed the Contract Labor Law to recruit immigrants who were willing to work for lower wages than Americans. 

Another national union group emerged in 1869 called the Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor. The organization was founded by Uriah S. Stephens and a group of Philadelphia garment workers. Stephens made the Knights a secret organization with an elaborate initiation ritual, which kept membership to a minimum until his successor, Terence V. Powderly, discarded secrecy. At that time membership increased greatly. 

In a step that resembles modern industrial unionism, the Knights of Labor welcomed both skilled and unskilled laborers, blacks (though mostly in segregated locals), women, and immigrants (excluding Chinese). The Knights upheld reform measures that had been endorsed by previous unions (eight-hour workday, greenbacks, producers' cooperatives, codes for safety and health, etc.), and were ahead of their time when they called for equal pay for equal work by men and women. The group rejected the suggestion that laborers would forever remain wage earners, and instead encouraged the idea that by joining together working people could advance up the corporate ladder.

In 1885, the Knights of Labor staged a successful strike over Jay Gould's Wabash Railroad. Gould had cut workers' wages and a strike on his railroad lines led to Gould restoring the wage cuts. This victory helped to increase membership, and by 1886 the Knights of Labor surpassed 700,000 members. The Knights had reached their peak, and closely after they went into rapid decline. One historical interpretation is that the Knights of Labor failed in part because they tried to be all things to all working-class people.

In 1886, there was a great upheaval of labor and the Knights became involved in several May Day strikes, which included several hundred thousand workers across the country. In Chicago about 80,000 workers were involved in a strike for the eight-hour workday. Tension built between the strikers and the police, and during a clash at McCormick Harvester Company one striker was killed. 

Coincidentally, Chicago was home to an active group of anarchists who tried to take advantage of the excitement to win support for their cause. On May 4, 1886, the day after the McCormick incident, anarchists gathered at Haymarket Square to protest the killing and other brutalities by the authorities during the May Day strikes. Chicago police arrived to break up the meeting. A bomb was thrown into the crowd and gunfire ensued, killing several policemen and civilians and wounding approximately 100. Panic seized the city and several anarchists were arrested, although there was never any evidence linking them to the bomb-throwing. 

One of the anarchists held a membership card in the Knights of Labor, which provoked widespread antipathy against the Knights and labor groups in general. No direct tie could be proven between the Knights and the anarchists or between the Knights and the bombing, but the public tended to associate the Knights with violence and radicalism from then on. Subsequent strikes by the Knights were unsuccessful. By the 1890s, the Knights of Labor had only 100,000 members who ultimately left to join other protest groups, so that by 1893 the union had dissolved. One of the lasting achievements of the Knights was their drafting a bill that resulted in the creation of the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1884. 

The labor movement in general was still gaining strength, and various craft unions began to organize. An association of national craft unions called the American Federation of Labor (AFL) was established in 1886. The AFL was an alliance that unified the strategy for various independent self-governing national unions. Samuel Gompers, a cigar maker who came to America as a teenager, served as president of the AFL every year except for one until he died in 1924.

Gompers did not become involved with politics or champion utopian ideas like other union leaders, instead he focused on concrete economic gains for AFL members. The AFL generally believed that most workers would remain laborers their whole lives, and so tried to create a sense of pride in their skills and jobs. Rather than open its membership to all, the AFL allowed only skilled workers to enter the union. The federation worked for things like employers' liability, mine-safety laws, favorable trade agreements, closed shops (shops that could only hire union members), increased wages, and above all, a standard eight-hour workday. Since the AFL focused on a select number of basic goals, it was sometimes called a “bread and butter” union.

Gompers and the AFL members used walkouts, boycotts, and negotiations to achieve their goals. A strike fund collected from workers' dues enabled the AFL members to strike for extended periods of time and still get paid. This put more pressure on management to negotiate fair deals with workers. Gompers' approach to labor problems resulted in solid growth for the AFL. By 1900, unions with a total of about 500,000 members formed the federation, and by 1920 it reached a peak of four million members.

Over the years, the public tired of the frequent union strikes and was often unsympathetic to the workers' plight since strikes disrupted their daily lives. However, in the early 1900s, attitudes toward labor slowly changed as people began to understand the workers' need to organize, bargain, and strike. 

 

Rise of Unions

Major Strikes

The end of the nineteenth century saw the most contentious and violent labor conflicts in the history of the nation. Between 1881 and 1900, approximately 23,000 strikes occurred, involving over six million workers. Unfortunately, in about half of the strikes the laborers gained nothing, and in the other half they were only able to elicit meager or modest gains. Bloody confrontations wracked the railroad, steel, and mining industries, often requiring intervention with federal troops or local militia.

One of the first great labor conflicts occurred in the early 1870s in the anthracite coal region of Pennsylvania. Conditions in the coal mines were dangerous, with inadequate safety provisions and ventilation. A group of primarily Irish miners in Pennsylvania organized into a union. The members of this union were called the Molly Maguires.

The miners grew increasingly frustrated with the horrendous conditions, while the mine owners ignored the problem. The situation continued to deteriorate with both sides eventually resorting to violence. The Molly Maguires often used intimidation, beatings, arson, and killings to fight for better working conditions and protest the mine owners' denial of their right to unionize. Mine owners intimidated miners into submission by maiming and killing those suspected of union participation. The struggle reached its peak in 1874-75, and the mine owners hired the Pinkerton Detective Agency to stifle the miners' struggle. 

The Pinkerton detectives gathered enough evidence concerning the criminal activities of the Molly Maguires to indict the leaders. Approximately 20 members went to trial in 1876 and were convicted, and some of them were hanged. The Molly Maguires became martyrs for labor, inspiring other labor groups to form. 

A more widespread labor struggle was the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. In America's first nationwide strike, rail workers ceased working in response to a 10 percent pay cut by the four largest railroads. Workers walked off the job and blockaded freight trains near Baltimore and in West Virginia, allowing only passenger traffic to get through. 

Attempts to break the strike only led to rioting and sympathy walkouts. Nearly 100,000 workers were idled and approximately two-thirds of the railroad mileage across the Unites States was shut down with over 14 states and ten railroads involved. Violent strikes quickly broke out from Maryland to California, killing over 100 people and destroying millions of dollars in property. 

Eventually President Hayes sent federal troops to restore order in the cities with the worst uprisings. The workers, never able to fully organize themselves, slowly went back to work. The strike inspired support for the Greenback-Labor Party in 1878 and Workingmen's Parties in the 1880s. It had been one of the most violent and destructive strikes in America's history, yet few gains were realized by the workers. 

Two other violent incidents stalled the emerging industrial union movement in the 1890s. During contract talks at Andrew Carnegie's Homestead steel plant in 1892, plant manager Henry C. Frick proposed a wage cut. Negotiations broke down and the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers went on strike. Frick proceeded to lock them out and hired 300 Pinkerton detectives to guard the plant. Workers and townspeople confronted the detectives and a battle broke out, leaving a handful of detectives and workers dead and over 60 wounded.

The Pennsylvania governor called in the state militia to establish peace, and non-union scabs replaced the workers. Scores of workers were indicted on 167 counts of murder, rioting, and conspiracy, but eventually a jury found the union leaders innocent. Unions were not allowed back in the Homestead plant until 1937. The outcome of the Homestead strike demonstrated that a strong employer could break a union if it hired a mercenary police force and gained government and court protection.

In 1894, one of the most notable walkouts in history occurred in Pullman, Illinois, where the Pullman Palace Car Company housed its employees. George Pullman was hit hard by the depression and decided to cut wages 25-40 percent, but he maintained rent prices for company housing. 

Many Pullman workers joined the American Railway Union, founded by Eugene V. Debs. The workers, backed by Debs, tried to negotiate with Pullman to no avail. The workers went on strike refusing to handle Pullman cars, which shut down most of the railroads in the Midwest. The U.S. Attorney General, Richard Olney, stepped in and urged President Cleveland to dispatch federal troops to break the strike. Olney's rationale was that the strikers were interfering with transit of U.S. mail, since Pullman cars were connected to mail cars.

President Cleveland ordered troops to Illinois, and the federal courts issued an injunction forbidding any interference with the mail, citing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to support the injunction. 

Involvement of federal troops resulted in a spread of violence to several states and rioting ensued. The Pullman strike was crushed, but the fighting left 34 dead. Eugene Debs and his aides were arrested and spent six months in jail for ignoring the injunction. During his time in jail, Debs made a political conversion to socialism. The Pullman strike represented the first time the government used an injunction to break a strike, which left many workers wary that an alliance between big business and the courts had become official.

 

The Progressive Impulse

Municipal, State, and National Reforms

During the first decade of the twentieth century, urban populations grew quickly and corruption spread throughout all levels of political institutions. Political machines and dishonest public officials controlled some of the largest cities in the nation. San Francisco lawyer Abe Ruef, who operated one of the most powerful political machines of the era, forced companies to pay substantial bribes to conduct business in the city. For example, a streetcar company once paid $85,000 for approval from the city—actually Ruef—to install overhead trolley lines. Ruef and his associates also collected huge profits from prostitution and illegal liquor license sales.

To attack political corruption, progressives took the direct approach and ran for public office. Successful progressive mayoral candidates included Samuel “Golden Rule” Jones of Toledo; Tom Johnson of Cleveland; Seth Low and later John P. Mitchell of New York; and Hazen S. Pingree of Detroit. The city reformers changed the urban political institutions to combat the corrupt political machines. While some cities received more freedom from state administrations to deal with problems at local levels, others created special bureaus to conduct nonpartisan investigations. 

Many communities assigned the power and responsibility to coordinate city activities to small elected commissions. From this arrangement came the city manager system, first used in Galveston, Texas, which involved the hiring of a professional manager to oversee city affairs on a nonpartisan basis. Under the direction of progressive leaders, some cities also regained control over the power and water systems and operated them as departments of the city government. 

The success of progressive leadership in the city encouraged followers to run for state office. In Wisconsin, perhaps the most progressive state during the era, Governor Robert La Follette challenged corrupt corporations and political machines. Before his election as governor, La Follette served three terms as a progressive Republican congressman. During that time he developed a reputation as an uncompromising enemy of corruption. 

La Follette reasoned that accurate information was the key to ethical behavior. If people are well informed, they will choose to do the right thing. Democracy, he claimed, was based upon knowledge, which is why political machines relied on misrepresentation and fraud to gain control. La Follette constantly clashed with the more conservative Republicans in his state, and was accused of oversimplifying the truth to voters, but he remained dedicated to keeping government honest.

During his tenure as governor, La Follette established direct primaries, railroad regulations, state income tax, and workers' compensation. To create a more efficient government, he developed the Legislative Reference Bureau, which was staffed by experienced economic and political science professors from the University of Wisconsin. The Bureau established a legislative reference library to help lawmakers draft bills. The success of the Wisconsin Idea, as it became known, swept into other states as progressive-minded politicians, both Republican and Democrat, looked for methods to make government more responsive to the needs of the population. 

Progressivism gained national attention when Theodore Roosevelt took his place in the White House. The adventurous president who loved to box, wrestle, hunt, and chase rustlers embraced many of the movement's ideals. He believed that the president should set the agenda for Congress, rather than just lead the executive departments. He promoted efficiency and expertise and staffed the growing federal government with highly capable professionals. 

Roosevelt's reputation as a “trust buster” gained momentum when he attacked the Northern Securities Company, financial giant J.P. Morgan's attempt to build a railroad monopoly. The Supreme Court supported his antitrust suit and ordered Northern Securities Company to be dissolved. By taming the powerful corporations, improving living and working conditions, and creating more educational opportunities, progressives in all levels of government hoped to transform society and establish what they called “social justice.” 

 

The Progressive Impulse

Social Alternatives

During the Progressive Era, lawmakers at both state and federal levels introduced laws and regulations to protect citizens at home and work. Although many states had already passed social-minded legislation before the Progressive Movement, many of the laws were poorly written and could not be adequately enforced. For example, in 1874, Massachusetts restricted women and children workers to 10-hour workdays. In 1882, New York attacked the sweatshops by prohibiting cigar manufacturing on property occupied as a residence. And in 1901, New York enacted a tenement house law that required better ventilation, fireproofing, and plumbing for each apartment. However, powerful manufacturers and landlords hired high-priced lawyers to find holes in the bills and defeated the regulations.

Many conservative judges believed that the new social laws were too strict and used the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution to overturn the rulings. The Fourteenth Amendment, enacted to protect the civil rights of blacks, forbid states to deprive any person of life, liberty, and property without due process of the law. In the 1905 Lochner v. New York legal case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that an act regulating New York bakers to ten-hour days deprived bakers the liberty of working as long as they desired. 

Undeterred by the rulings, progressives continued to use the law to reform business. Inspired by the National Child Labor Committee, which was organized in 1904, progressives pushed for laws banning the employment of young children and restricting the hours of older ones. However, when Congress passed a federal child labor law, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. 

After the Triangle Shirtwaist disaster of 1911, in which a fire in a New York factory killed 150 women because there were no fire escapes, state lawmakers enacted stricter regulations to protect workers from on-the-job accidents. Before the tragedy, most workers accepted the risk of accidents with no entitlement to compensation if their employers were negligent. In the years following the catastrophe, state leaders gradually adopted accident insurance plans and granted pensions to widows with children.

During the nineteenth century, the vast majority of society felt that the woman's place was in the home. Progressive females avoided questioning their positions as wives and mothers, and instead considered activism as an extension of their more traditional roles. Many women campaigned for improved working conditions for children and females. 

In 1908, Florence Kelley of the National Consumers League persuaded attorney Louis D. Brandeis to participate in the Muller v. Oregon lawsuit, which challenged states' rights to limit women laundry workers to ten hours a day. Owner Curt Muller contested the law when his laundry business was fined because a supervisor asked a female employee to work after hours. Brandeis argued that the law to restrict work was constitutional because it protected women's weaker bodies from the harsh effects of factory labor. The Supreme Court agreed with Brandeis and Muller was forced to pay his $10 fine.

The drive to create more complete consumer protection laws gained support when New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson pushed for a public utility commission to evaluate railroad, gas, electric, and telephone companies. The group was granted the power to regulate rates and standards for these businesses. During this time, between 1911 and 1913, the legislature also enacted storage and food inspection laws to protect consumers' health. Congress then passed a series of bills to give states more control over corporations. Progressives believed that the balance of power was finally tilting in the people's favor. 

 

The Progressive Presidents

Roosevelt's Square Deal

At the dawn of the twentieth century, America was at a crossroads. Presented with abundant opportunity, but also hindered by significant internal and external problems, the country was seeking leaders who could provide a new direction. The political climate was ripe for reform, and the stage was set for the era of the Progressive Presidents, beginning with Republican Theodore Roosevelt. 

Teddy Roosevelt was widely popular due to his status as a hero of the Spanish-American War and his belief in “speaking softly and carrying a big stick.” Taking over the presidency in 1901 after the assassination of William McKinley, he quickly assured America that he would not take any drastic measures. He then demanded a “Square Deal” that would address his primary concerns for the era—the three C's: control of corporations, consumer protection, and conservation.

The ownership of corporations and the relationship between owners and laborers, as well as government's role in the relationship, were the contentious topics of the period. Workers were demanding greater rights and protection, while corporations expected labor to remain cheap and plentiful. This conflict came to a head in 1902, with the anthracite coal strike in Pennsylvania. Coal mining was dirty and dangerous work, and 140,000 miners went on strike and demanded a 20 percent pay increase and a reduction in the workday from ten to nine hours. The mine owners were unsympathetic and refused to negotiate with labor representatives. With the approach of winter the dwindling coal supply began to cause concern throughout the nation.

Roosevelt, going against established precedent, decided to step in. He summoned the mine owners and union representatives to meet with him in Washington. Roosevelt was partly moved by strong public support and took the side of the miners. Still, the mine owners were reluctant to negotiate until Roosevelt, threatening to use his “big stick,” declared that he would seize the mines and operate them with federal troops. Owners reluctantly agreed to arbitration, where the striking workers received a 10 percent pay increase and a nine-hour working day. This was the first time a president sided with unions in a labor dispute, and it helped cement Roosevelt's reputation as a friend of the common people and gave his administration the nickname “The Square Deal.” 

Emboldened by this success and in pursuit of the first element of his Square Deal, Roosevelt began to attack large, monopolistic corporations. Some trusts were effective and legitimate, but many of these companies engaged in corrupt and preferential business practices. In 1902, the Northern Securities Company, owned by J.P. Morgan and James J. Hill, controlled most of the railroads in the northwestern United States and intended to create a total monopoly. Roosevelt initiated legal proceedings against Northern Securities and eventually the Supreme Court ordered that the company be dissolved. Roosevelt's radical actions angered big business and earned him the reputation of a “trust buster,” despite the fact that his successors Taft and Wilson actually dissolved more trusts.

In 1903, with urging from Roosevelt, Congress created the Department of Commerce and Labor (DOCL). This cabinet-level department was designed to monitor corporations and ensure that they engaged in fair business practices. The Bureau of Corporations was created under the DOCL to benefit consumers by monitoring interstate commerce, helping dissolve monopolies, and promoting fair competition between companies. In 1913, the DOCL was split into two separate entities, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Labor, both of which continue to play an important role in regulating business today.

The railroad business continued to be one of the most powerful and influential industries. Like many companies of the time, railroad companies engaged in corrupt business practices such as rebating and price fixing. Roosevelt encouraged Congress to take action to address these abuses, and in 1903 they passed the Elkins Act, which levied heavy fines on companies that engaged in illegal rebating. In 1906, they passed the Hepburn Act, which greatly strengthened the Interstate Commerce Commission. This law allowed the Commission to set maximum rates, inspect a company's books, and investigate railroads, sleeping car companies, oil pipelines, and other transportation firms. This was a bold action by Roosevelt and Congress given the transportation industry was a powerful lobbyist and a significant political contributor.

The second element of Roosevelt's Square Deal was consumer protection. In the early 1900s, there was little regulation of the food or drugs that were available to the public. In 1906, Upton Sinclair published a book calledThe Jungle that described in graphic detail the Chicago slaughterhouse industry. Sinclair intended for his book to expose the plight of immigrant workers and possibly bring readers to the Socialist movement, but people were instead shocked and sickened by the practices of the meat industry. 

Roosevelt had the power to do something about the horrors described in The Jungle. He immediately appointed a special investigating committee to look into food handling practices in Chicago. Their report confirmed much of what Sinclair had written. Roosevelt was shocked by the report and predicted that it could have a devastating effect on American meat exports. He agreed to keep it quiet on the condition that Congress would take action to address the issues.

After much pressure from Roosevelt, Congress reluctantly agreed to pass the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. Many members of Congress were reluctant to pass these laws, as the meat industry was a powerful lobbying force. However, the passage of this legislation helped prevent the adulteration and mislabeling of food, alcohol, and drugs. It was an important first step toward ensuring that Americans were buying safe and healthy products. Eventually, the meatpacking industry welcomed these reforms, as they found that a government seal of approval would help increase their export revenues.

The final element of Roosevelt's Square Deal was conservation. Roosevelt was widely known as a sportsman, hunter, and outdoorsman, and he had a genuine love and respect for nature. However, many Americans of the time viewed the country's natural resources as limitless. For example, many farmers, ranchers, and timber companies in the west were consuming a huge portion of the available resources at an alarming rate. Their primary obsession was profit, and they had little concern for the damage they were causing. However, there was a small but vocal population who had a great deal of concern for the environment. Fortunately for them and for future Americans, the environmentalists had a friend in Teddy Roosevelt.

Environmentalism and conservation were not new ideas, but most had not been concerned with ecological issues. While a number of laws had been passed to prevent or limit the destruction of natural resources, the majority of this legislation was not enforced or lacked the teeth necessary to make a significant difference.

With Roosevelt's urging, Congress passed the Newlands Act of 1902. This legislation allowed the federal government to sell public lands in the arid, desert western states and devote the proceeds to irrigation projects. Landowners would then repay part of the irrigation costs from the proceeds they received from their newly fertile land, and this money was earmarked for more irrigation projects. Eventually, dozens of dams were created in the desert including the massive Roosevelt Dam on Arizona's Salt River.

Another major concern of environmentalists was the devastation of the nation's timberlands. By 1900, only about 25 percent of the huge timber preserves were still standing. Roosevelt set aside 125 million acres of timberlands as federal reserves, over three times the amount preserved by all of his predecessors combined. He also performed similar actions with coal and water reserves, thus guaranteeing the preservation of some natural resources for future generations. Environmentalists such as John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, and the upstart Sierra Club aided Roosevelt in his efforts. Preserving America's natural resources and calling attention to the desperate need for conservation may well have been Teddy Roosevelt's greatest achievement as President, and his most enduring legacy.

 

The Progressive Presidents

Taft's Administration

In 1908, President Teddy Roosevelt could have easily carried his burgeoning popularity to a sweeping victory in the presidential election, but in 1904 he made an impulsive promise not to seek a second elected term. However, he did not intend to completely relinquish control, so he handpicked a successor. Howard Taft, the 350-pound Secretary of War, was chosen as the Republican candidate for 1908. Taft was a mild progressive and an easygoing man that Roosevelt and other Republican leaders felt they could control. Taft easily defeated the Democratic candidate, William Jennings Bryan, and the Socialist candidate, Eugene Debs, in what can be construed as continued public endorsement of Roosevelt.

Unfortunately, from the onset of his administration Taft did not live up to Roosevelt's standards or the expectations of other Progressives. He lacked Roosevelt's strength of personality and was more passive in his dealings with Congress. Many politicians were surprised to learn that Taft did not share some of the Progressive ideas and policies that Roosevelt endorsed. In fact, many people felt that Taft lacked the mental and physical stamina necessary to be an effective President.

The first major blow to the Progressives during Taft's administration was the Payne-Aldrich Tariff of 1909. Taft called a special session of Congress to address what many people felt were excessive tariffs. After this session, the House of Representatives passed a bill that moderately restricted tariffs, but their legislation was severely modified when it reached the Senate. Radical Senators, led by Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode Island, tacked on hundreds of revisions that effectively raised tariffs on almost all products. Taft eventually signed the bill and declared it “the best bill that the Republican Party ever passed.” This action dumbfounded Progressives and marked the beginning of an internal struggle for control of the Republican Party.

Another issue that caused dissension among Republicans was Taft's handling of conservation issues. Taft was a dedicated conservationist and he devoted extensive resources to the protection of the environment. However, most of his progress was undone by his handling of the Ballinger-Pinchot dispute. Pinchot, the leader of the Department of Forestry and a well-liked ally of Roosevelt, attacked Secretary of the Interior Richard Ballinger for how he handled public lands.

Ballinger opened up thousands of acres of public lands in Wyoming, Montana, and Alaska for private use, and this angered many Progressives. Pinchot was openly critical of Ballinger, and in 1910 Taft responded by firing Pinchot for insubordination. This infuriated much of the public as well as the legions of political players who were still fiercely loyal to Roosevelt.

A major rift occurred in the Republican Party as a result of Taft's straying from Progressive policy. The party was split down the middle between the “Old Guard” Republicans who supported Taft and the Progressive Republicans who backed Roosevelt. This division in the Republican Party allowed Democrats to regain control of the House of Representatives in a landslide victory in the congressional elections of 1910.

In early 1912, Roosevelt triumphantly returned and announced himself as a challenger for the Republican presidential nomination. Roosevelt and his followers, embracing “New Nationalism,” began to furiously campaign for the nomination. However, as a result of their late start and Taft's ability as incumbent to control the convention, they were unable to secure the delegates necessary to win the Republican candidacy. Not one to admit defeat, Roosevelt formed the “Bull Moose” Party and vowed to enter the race as a third-party candidate.

The split in the Republican Party made the Democrats optimistic about regaining the White House for the first time since 1897. They sought a reformist candidate to challenge the Republicans, and decided on Woodrow Wilson, a career academic and the current progressive governor of New Jersey. Wilson's “New Freedom” platform sought reduced tariffs, banking reform, and stronger antitrust legislation. The Socialists again nominated Eugene V. Debs whose platform sought public ownership of resources and industries. As expected, Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote, and Wilson easily won a majority of the electoral votes. Having received only 41 percent of the popular vote, Wilson was a minority president.

 

The Progressive Presidents

Wilson's New Freedom

Upon taking office, Woodrow Wilson became only the second Democratic president since 1861. Wilson was a trim figure with clean-cut features and pince-nez glasses clipped to the bridge of his nose, giving him an academic look. Partly due to his academic background and limited political experience, Wilson was very much an idealist. He was intelligent and calculating, but the public perception was that he was emotionally cold and distant. Wilson arrived in the White House with a clear agenda and the drive to achieve all of his goals. In addition, the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress was eager to show the public that their support was not misdirected.

Wilson's platform called for an assault on “the triple wall of privilege,” which consisted of tariffs, banks, and trusts, and rarely has a president set to work so quickly. His first objective was to reduce the prohibitive tariffs that hurt American businesses and consumers. In an unprecedented move, Wilson personally appeared before Congress to call a special session to discuss tariffs in early 1913. Moved and stunned by Wilson's eloquence and force of character, Congress immediately designed the Underwood Tariff Bill, which significantly reduced import fees.

The Underwood Tariff Bill brought the first significant reduction of duties since before the Civil War. In order to make up for the loss in revenues caused by the lower tariffs, the Underwood Bill introduced a graduated income tax. This new tax was introduced under the authority of the recently ratified Sixteenth Amendment. Initially, the tax was levied on incomes over $3,000, which was significantly higher than the national average. However, by 1917 the revenue from income taxes greatly exceeded receipts from the tariff. This margin has continued to grow exponentially over the years.

After tackling the tariff, Wilson turned his attention to the nation's banks. The country's financial structure was woefully outdated, and its inefficiencies had been exposed by the Republican's economic expansion and the Panic of 1907. The currency system was very inelastic, with most reserves concentrated in New York and a few other large cities. These resources could not be mobilized quickly in the event of a financial crisis in a different area. Wilson considered two proposals: one calling for a third Bank of the United States, the other seeking a decentralized bank under government control.

Siding with public opinion, Wilson called another special session of Congress in June of 1913. He overwhelmingly endorsed the idea of a decentralized bank, and asked Congress to radically change the banking system. Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act, which was arguably the greatest piece of legislation between the Civil War and Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. The Act created a Federal Reserve Board, which oversaw a system of 12 regional reserve districts, each with its own central bank. This new system also issued Federal Reserve Notes, paper currency that quickly allowed the government to adjust the flow of money, which are still in use today. The Federal Reserve Act was instrumental in allowing America to meet the financial challenges of World War I and emerge from the war as one of the world's financial powers.

Emboldened by his successes, President Wilson turned his attention to the trusts. Although legislation designed to address the issue of trusts had existed for many years, they were still very much a problem. Again, Wilson appeared before Congress and delivered an emotional and dramatic address. He asked Congress to create legislation that would finally address trusts and tame the rampant monopolies. After several months of discussion, Congress presented Wilson with the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. This act allowed the government to closely inspect companies engaged in interstate commerce, such as meatpackers and railroads. The Commission investigated unfair trading practices such as false advertising, monopolistic practices, bribery, and misrepresentation.

Following closely behind the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, was the Clayton Act of 1914. It served to strengthen the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 (the first measure passed by the U.S. Congress to prohibit trusts) and redefine the practices that were considered monopolistic and illegal. The Clayton Act provided support for labor unions by exempting labor from antitrust prosecution and legalizing strikes and peaceful picketing, which were not part of the Sherman Act. Renowned American Federation of Labor union leader, Samuel Gompers, declared the Clayton Act the “Magna Carta” of labor. Unfortunately, labor's triumph was short-lived, as conservative judges continued to curtail union power in controversial decisions.

The era of the Progressive presidents produced a number of notable achievements. Trust-busting forced industrialists and monopolistic corporations to consider public opinion when making business decisions. This benefited the consumer and helped grow the economy. The Progressive presidents also increased consumers' rights by limiting corporate abuses and trying to ensure the safe labeling of food and drugs. The creation of a federal income tax system lowered tariffs and increased America's presence as a global trading partner. It also raised additional revenues, some of which were used for beneficial programs such as conservation. The Progressive presidents served to strengthen the office of the president and the public began to expect more from the executive branch. Progressivism as a concept helped challenge traditional thinking about government's relationship to the people and sparked new ideas that stimulated thought for decades to come.

Along with these significant accomplishments, the Progressive movement also had a number of notable shortcomings. Due to several contrary schools of thought within the movement, goals were often confusing and contradictory. Although most Progressives had good intentions, their conflicting goals helped detract from the overall objectives of the movement. Despite the numerous successes and lofty goals and ideals of the Progressive movement, the federal government was still too greatly influenced by industry and big business.

The Progressive movement was not a complete success, but it did serve to spark new ideas and new ways of thinking about business and government. It created a new school of thought that challenged traditional ideas and allowed several new politicians to break the mold and lead the country in a new direction. This new way of thinking proved vital for the United States as the First World War loomed on the horizon.

 

McKinley and Roosevelt

China

When Theodore Roosevelt took over the presidency in September 1901, after the assassination of William McKinley, he inherited many of McKinley's policies and programs. During McKinley's second run for office, he promised to continue programs of prosperity intended to lift the U.S. out of the depression of 1893. The gold standard assigned value to bank notes based on the corresponding price of gold, while imperialism promoted greater U.S. involvement in foreign nations. Roosevelt, despite much public skepticism, vowed to preserve and expand McKinley's programs.

An important issue during McKinley's presidency was U.S. involvement in China. In a war that started in 1894 and ended in 1895, Japan defeated China, and for the next several years China was in disarray. In the aftermath of the war, Japan and major European powers moved in to take control of China's substantial resources. Many U.S. leaders feared that if America did not join in, we would miss out on a huge economic opportunity. McKinley's Secretary of State, John Hay, sent a note to the countries with an economic stake in China requesting an “Open-Door Policy” that respected Chinese rights and promoted fair competition among those interested in Chinese resources. Britain, Germany, France, and Japan agreed to the policy, assuming that all of the other key countries would commit. Russia declined to commit to the plan, which caused dissension among the other countries and made the “Open-Door Policy” weak and relatively ineffective. Still, the “Open Door” continued to be the primary approach that the U.S. took toward China.

By 1900, a group of Chinese patriots known as Boxers, rebelled against what they viewed as European exploitation. They killed 200 foreigners with the battle cry “kill foreign devils.” A multinational task force of 18,000 troops, including American soldiers, was quickly assembled to quell the rebellion. The Boxer group was disorganized and easily suppressed by the superior allied forces. The leaders of this multinational force assessed cash-poor China an indemnity of $300 million payable immediately. America realized that this reparation was excessive and would only punish and further repress the Chinese. As an act of friendship, the U.S. remitted $18 million to the Chinese, who as a sign of appreciation, sent students to the U.S. to study. These students later returned to China and were key players in the move to “westernize” China and help improve Chinese/American relations. 

 

McKinley and Roosevelt

Spanish-American War

The beginning of the twentieth century was a period of unprecedented American prosperity and power. The economic and social environment was perfect for the rise of the International Darwinism movement. Followers of this movement applied some of the fundamental views of Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) to international politics. They believed that the earth belonged to the strong, and with America quickly growing in strength, there was a strong surge of support for increased U.S. imperialism. 

The International Darwinism movement was enthusiastically promoted by Josiah Strong's book, Our Country: It's Possible Future and Its Present Crisis (1885). The book asserted that natural law dictates that strong countries will dominate weaker countries and that the Anglo-Saxon race is superior to other races. Inspired by Strong's book, many American imperialists began calling for the spread of American religion, culture, and values to what they considered “backwards” third-world countries. 

Another concern for many American businesspeople, politicians, and religious leaders was that the U.S. would not be able to keep pace with European powers. During the 1880s and 1890s, many European nations had flexed their imperial muscles throughout much of Africa, the Pacific, and China. Imperialists feared that the U.S. would be frozen out of these regions and would not be able to spread its influence or reap the financial benefits. Many people began to strongly encourage the federal government to spread American influence, and the government was more than happy to comply.

In 1895, Cuban citizens revolted against their Spanish occupiers because of widespread poverty and oppression and what they perceived as Spanish tyranny. Some of the poverty was due to high U.S. duties that were placed on Cuban sugar. In a reactionary move to the revolt, Spanish General “Butcher” Weyler herded thousands of Cuban civilians into “reconcentration” camps. These camps were filthy and many of the residents died of diseases that flourished in these overcrowded and unsanitary camps. The sentiment of the American people was strongly against Spanish barbarism and there was a call of support for the Cuban people.

Newspaper tycoons William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer played a major role in shaping the attitudes and opinions of Americans during this era. These two men owned many major newspapers across the country, and they were engaged in a fierce rivalry. In an attempt to outdo one another, they routinely created sensational headlines designed to “scoop” the competition. Unfortunately, these “yellow journalism” headlines were often enhanced or sometimes entirely made up in order to maximize their sensationalism. On February 9, 1898, Hearst greatly stoked the fire of anti-Spanish sentiment when he published a private letter written by Spanish diplomat Dupuy de Lome that was very critical of President McKinley. De Lome was forced to resign, but the public was angered and outraged by the sensational stories and began to call for armed intervention in Cuba.

President McKinley ordered the battleship USS Maine stationed in Havana Harbor ostensibly to monitor the situation and keep the peace. Then, on February 15, 1898, the Maine suddenly exploded in the harbor killing all 260 officers and crewmembers aboard. Immediately, both Spanish and American officials began investigating the cause of the explosion. The Spanish investigation concluded that the explosion was the result of an internal malfunction, and they ruled it an accident. However, after a hurried investigation, the American investigators reported that a Spanish mine caused the explosion. Spain attempted to pacify the U.S. and avoid armed confrontation with an offer of arbitration. However, fueled by the ever-present “yellow press,” the U.S. was enraged and ready to go to war, with the American public proclaiming, “Remember the Maine, to Hell with Spain.” Years later in 1976, a thorough investigation was conducted and it showed that the Spanish theory was correct and the explosion was accidental.

On April 11, 1898, Congress declared war on Spain. They also ratified the Teller Amendment, which pledged to give Cubans their freedom after the Spanish were defeated. Many Europeans and Americans were skeptical of this anti-imperialistic pledge. Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt, acting in the absence of the Secretary, ordered Commodore George Dewey to attack the Spanish-controlled Philippines at Manila Harbor. The U.S. also annexed Hawaii to use as a naval base in the Pacific on July 7, 1898. Although American confidence was very high, on paper the Spanish possessed a superior army and a navy of equal status. However, their navy was run-down and far from its home base.

The U.S. Navy easily destroyed the aging Spanish fleet in Manila. In the battle, over 400 Spanish sailors were killed or wounded, while the U.S. suffered no casualties. Having crushed the Spanish Navy, Dewey had no choice but to wait for ground support as his sailors were incapable of ground combat. Finally, soldiers arrived to lead the attack on the capital. The soldiers recruited rebel leader Emilio Aguinaldo, and on August 13, 1898, soldiers collaborating with Filipino rebels quickly captured Manila.

The U.S. Navy had similar success in Cuba. They engaged the Spanish Navy and easily defeated it. The U.S. suffered only one casualty compared to over 500 Spanish casualties. Meanwhile, the U.S. Army, including Roosevelt's famed “Rough Riders”, routed the Spanish but suffered significant fatalities. There were many other battles and skirmishes, but the U.S. Army's most significant enemy was their lack of logistical preparedness, not the Spanish. For example, they were wearing wool uniforms in the intense heat, and were very susceptible to tropical illnesses. In addition, the lack of medical knowledge concerning the causes and treatments of tropical diseases such as malaria cost many American lives. During the course of the war, 400 U.S. soldiers were killed by Spanish hostilities, while over 5,000 were killed by disease. Despite these American shortcomings, the Spanish military was greatly overmatched, and they surrendered on August 12, 1898.

Later in 1898, the Pact of Paris was signed, which freed Cuba from Spanish rule and gave the U.S. control over Guam and Puerto Rico. Cuban freedom was conditional, as they were pressured to sign the Platt Amendment, which prohibited Cuba from contracting debts and allowed the U.S. to intervene militarily at its discretion. The U.S. agreed to pay $20 million for the Philippines, since it was captured the day after the armistice was signed and therefore was not considered a spoil of war. The U.S. acquisition of the Philippines, the first American venture into true imperialism, sparked a great deal of domestic debate.

In America, the Spanish-American War prompted a fast growing anti-imperialist movement, with members such as prominent authors, philosophers, and academics, including Mark Twain, Jane Addams, and Andrew Carnegie. The Filipino people longed for freedom after years of Spanish rule. In the Downes v. Bidwell case of 1901, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that products imported from U.S. territories are subject to duties and the “Constitution does not follow the flag.” These and other rulings were referred to as “insular cases” and denied residents of occupied territories the rights and protections afforded by the Constitution. These rulings set an important precedent, since previously acquired land had been eligible for these rights as well as future statehood. The U.S. did not grant the Philippines independence, but instead, annexed it. On February 4, 1899, a bloody three-year revolution began that left over 600,000 Filipinos dead and was responsible for more American casualties than the Spanish-American War. In the aftermath of World War II, the America granted the Philippines independence on July 4, 1946.

 

McKinley and Roosevelt

Panama Canal

An important discovery that resulted from the Spanish-American War was America's need to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. During the war, ships in the Pacific had to travel around South America in order to join the fleet in Cuba. The U.S. now had to protect and supply its far ranging territories in Guam, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the Philippines. The U.S. was also beginning to emerge as a world economic power and needed quicker shipping routes to meet its international business needs. Another significant reason for a quick route between the Atlantic and the Pacific was that the U.S. Navy was fast becoming an important, global military player. President Roosevelt began to swing his “big stick” in order to achieve his dream of building a canal in Central America. 

Initially, proponents of the canal considered two sites: Nicaragua and Panama. However, experts quickly concluded that Panama would be a more advantageous and realistic site. Despite Roosevelt's intentions, there were still several legal challenges to overcome before he could build the canal. The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of 1850 between the U.S and Britain asserted that the U.S. could not have sole control over an isthmian canal in the Americas. However, the British were engaged in the South African Boer War and were feeling increasingly threatened by their European neighbors, so they were willing to repeal the treaty. In 1901, the British and the Americans signed the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty that allowed the U.S. to build and fortify a canal. England had little to lose by signing the treaty, and in exchange hoped to secure the U.S. as an ally in a conflict with Germany that was beginning to look inevitable.

In addition to legal challenges, there were other significant obstacles to building a canal. Panama was eager to secure the canal project in the hope that it would revive their lagging economy. However, Panama was controlled by Colombia, and the Colombian Senate rejected a treaty that would have allowed the U.S. to lease a six-mile zone in Panama. The offer called for an initial payment of $10 million and an annual disbursement of $250,000, which the Colombians viewed as inadequate. Roosevelt was enraged by Colombia's refusal to cooperate and he was determined to secure the canal area one way or another. A Panamanian uprising against Colombian rule began on November 3, 1903. This coup was backed by Panamanians who sought the prosperity the canal offered as well as representatives of the company that hoped to sell the land to the U.S. for $40 million. The U.S. did not actively encourage this rebellion, although they viewed it as a fortunate development. 

Colombian soldiers were poised to crush the rebellion, but U.S. naval vessels would not allow them to cross the isthmus and engage the revolutionaries. Using questionable legal precedent, President Roosevelt quickly recognized Panama's independence three days later. This was a bitter victory for the U.S., as it secured the necessary land for the canal, but hurt foreign perception of America as well as American relations in Latin America. Latin Americans were already concerned about American control in Puerto Rico and Cuba, and now they began to fear their neighbor to the north. 

After years of dubious politics and relationships, construction began on the Panama Canal in 1904. Many obstacles were encountered, including landslides, pestilence, and labor problems. However, a team of engineers persisted, and finally in 1914 the Panama Canal was opened and heralded as the greatest technological achievement of its time. The total costs to complete the job were staggering. In addition to $400 million in financial costs, the loss of good will toward America was incalculable. The English author James Bryce referred to the project as “the greatest liberty Man has ever taken with Nature.”

 

McKinley and Roosevelt

Roosevelt Corollary

Around the turn of the twentieth century, Latin American nations began defaulting on massive loans from European powers such as Germany and England. Many of these “Banana Republics,” including Venezuela and the Dominican Republic, had borrowed heavily and had no way or intention of repaying their debts. This issue came to the forefront in 1903, when German warships sank two Venezuelan vessels and bombarded a Venezuelan town. Their intention was to intimidate Venezuela into paying its debts, but they inadvertently threatened Roosevelt and America's sense of security as well. 

Roosevelt was intent on keeping European nations out of the Americas. He feared that if he allowed Germany and England into the Hemisphere to collect debts, they might decide to set up permanent bases, which would have been a violation of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. Also, the U.S. did not want the European powers to “extort” Latin American countries, thereby bankrupting them. In order to prevent their presence, Roosevelt devised the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which instituted a policy of “preventive intervention.” 

In this clever maneuver, Roosevelt stated that the U.S. would now function as “the policeman of the Caribbean.” Under this arrangement, the U.S. took over the management of tariff collections in 1905. This meant that whenever a Latin American nation was overdue on a debt to a European power, the U.S. would intervene. America would pay off the foreign debt, and then take responsibility for collection, thereby guaranteeing the European loan. The Europeans quickly agreed to this arrangement, as it ensured the prompt payment of the debt, but they were skeptical of America's motivation. Many people in America, Europe, and Latin America viewed this as yet another imperial move by the United States. Anti-imperialists believed that America was removing the traditional imperialists who were taking advantage of the Banana Republics, for no other reason than to take their place.

The U.S. experienced a number of advantages by assuming control of these customshouses. Corruption and embezzlement were rampant in many of these Latin American countries. The U.S. ran the customshouses fairly and equitably and helped ensure that corruption was minimized. In the short run, several of these Latin American countries began managing their money more efficiently and achieving financial security for the first time. Countries such as the Dominican Republic and Venezuela were able to manage their resources more effectively and were beginning to emerge as viable trading partners. However, over time as the U.S. began to return control to local governments, many returned to their corrupt and inefficient ways, which ended this short era of relative prosperity.

Despite the success of the Roosevelt Corollary, there were also several drawbacks. Essentially this was a perversion of the Monroe Doctrine, which was considered a sacred document in American politics. It also set another negative precedent for U.S. involvement in Latin America. This new policy was used for years as justification for military and political intervention throughout the region. For many decades, the U.S. performed military landings in Central America and stationed Marines in Nicaragua and other countries in semi-permanent bases. Also, Roosevelt's “cowboy diplomacy” strained relations not only with Latin American nations, but with the rest of the world as well. The Roosevelt Corollary helped give notice that the U.S. was emerging as a significant world power that could not be ignored.

 

Taft and Wilson

Dollar Diplomacy

William Howard Taft was easily elected in 1908, because a majority of Americans believed that he would continue the popular Republican policies laid out by President Roosevelt. Taft was susceptible to outside pressure, and he often submitted to the desires of Congress and special interest groups. Roosevelt and many Americans were angry and dismayed when Taft began to stray from the Republican platform. However, one area in which Taft consistently pursued Roosevelt's aims was in expanding America's influence abroad.

Taft used America's growing economic power as a diplomatic tool. He urged Wall Street investors to invest money in foreign markets in order to increase American influence abroad. Investors were especially encouraged to invest their money in foreign markets in which the U.S. had strategic interests, such as the Far East and the Panama Canal region. Many people were critical of Taft's plan and his critics denounced this strategy as “dollar diplomacy.” In fact, the senate refused to sign several treaties, but the president encouraged private banks and Wall Street investors to act independently.

One goal of dollar diplomacy was to preempt foreign powers from gaining or enlarging an investment foothold in key markets. Many European countries had been imperial powers for decades and held a significant advantage over the U.S. in several global markets. The administration believed that if American investors were firmly situated in these markets economic rivals such as Germany would be unable to continue their dominance. Taft believed that the increased investment would not only benefit the U.S. but its trade partners as well, creating better foreign relations. Taft also assumed that the expenditure of money in foreign markets would increase American influence abroad and would help further its foreign policies. Of course, the overriding belief was that foreign investments would enhance American businesses, which in turn would grow the economy and enrich the government.

A primary focus of dollar diplomacy was the Manchurian region of China. Japan and Russia controlled a large portion of Manchurian resources including the railroads. Taft, like many people of the era, believed that whoever controlled the railroads also controlled the economy. He believed that without an interest in the Manchurian railroad system, the U.S. would be frozen out of the emerging Chinese markets and the Unite States' “open door” policy in China would be undermined. Taft personally sent a telegram to the Chinese Government on behalf of American investors interested in railroads in the Yangtze Valley. In 1909, Secretary of State Philander C. Knox offered the Japanese and Russians a deal. He proposed that American bankers and industrialists would purchase the Manchurian railroads from Japan and Russia and return them to Chinese control. Japan and Russia flatly refused the offer, which publicly embarrassed the Taft administration. Taft persevered in his efforts to gain influence in China, and in 1912 the U.S. and five other nations offered the new Chinese Republic a huge loan.

In an extension of the Roosevelt Corollary, Taft encouraged investors to spend money in Latin American countries such as Honduras and Haiti. Adhering to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, Taft would not allow foreign investors into Latin American markets, so America felt a responsibility to support these financially struggling republics. Many of these nations were constantly on the verge of financial collapse and required foreign investment to strengthen their shaky foundations. Political turmoil in this region later required U.S. troops to protect the substantial American investment. In 1912, a group of 2,500 marines landed in Nicaragua to suppress a rebellion, and they remained for 13 years due to continued instability. This was another action that increased distrust of America among many Latin American nations. 

 

Taft and Wilson

Central America and the Caribbean

The Spanish-American War, the Panama Canal project, and the Roosevelt Corollary ensured extensive U.S. involvement in Latin America. Many Caribbean and Latin American countries seemed to be in a perpetual state of revolution and political upheaval. Due to its close geographic proximity, the U.S. felt compelled to get involved and exert influence in these conflicts. The significant financial investment that resulted from “dollar diplomacy” also required the U.S. to intervene repeatedly in order to protect its citizens and investments. Taft continued Roosevelt's imperialist policies and increased America's economic and political empire throughout the world. 

Disorder and rebellion in Cuba, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic were causes for alarm in the United States. Most Caribbean countries at the time were politically unstable and desperately impoverished. The U.S. adopted a policy of “non-colonial imperial expansion” in an attempt to bring stability and order to the region. Essentially, this unilateral policy enabled the U.S. to intervene in the region without actually taking control of any of these countries. The decision to intervene was at the discretion of President, although some countries requested U.S. assistance. People on both sides of the imperialism issue were critical of non-colonial imperial expansion. Imperialists believed that this policy was limiting and contrary to American interests. Anti-imperialists believed the strategy was too vague and would allow America to intervene in any situation it wanted. 

A key element of this new imperialistic movement was the promotion of financial security for the U.S. and other countries in the western hemisphere. The U.S. stepped in and advised Caribbean countries on ways to more efficiently manage their economic affairs. However, many of these countries were rife with corruption and their resources were badly mismanaged, so the U.S. took a more active role to ensure that their revenues were properly handled. In many cases, the U.S. took control of a country's customshouses and made certain that revenues were appropriately controlled and distributed. In the short run, this strategy was successful. For example, U.S. control of the Dominican Republic's customshouses helped bring short-term financial security to the nation. However, when the U.S. returned control to the Dominicans, the mismanagement resumed and the Dominican Republic was no better off than before. Another unfortunate result of U.S. involvement was that feelings of resentment and distrust toward America continued to grow throughout Latin America.

In 1912, within one week of taking office, Woodrow Wilson removed governmental support for American businesses operating in the Caribbean and China. Wilson was an intense critic of imperialism and his goal was to reverse Roosevelt's “big stick” policies and Taft's “dollar diplomacy.” His vision for U.S. foreign policy was based on morality. He strongly believed that his immediate predecessors had pursued a policy that would breed dislike of the U.S. and often sacrifice goodwill for short-term gain. For this reason, Wilson's foreign policy has sometimes been called “missionary diplomacy” or “moral diplomacy.” 

After Wilson's policies were instated, American bankers withdrew their support for Taft's six-nation loan to China, which caused the loan to collapse. Wilson also immediately repealed the Panama Canal Tolls Act that exempted U.S. vessels from paying tolls at the Canal. The repeal of this act pleased England who was angry at paying tolls that U.S. ships were exempt from. Another of Wilson's anti-imperialist actions was the signing of the Jones Act of 1916. The Jones Act promised the Philippines independence as soon as they were able to demonstrate that they had a stable government. However, this act proved to be less than successful, as the Philippines were not granted independence until 30 years later on July 4, 1946.

Haiti had been a key target of Taft's “dollar diplomacy.” It was an exceptionally poor nation even by Caribbean standards and Taft tried to improve the Haitian economy through the influx of American investment. Wilson began withdrawing some of America's involvement and influence when he took office, although many Americans continued to live and own property in Haiti. In 1914 and 1915, the Haitian people were outraged by the oppressive nature of their President, so they rebelled, literally tearing him to pieces during a bloody revolution. In response, Wilson reluctantly sent troops to Haiti to protect American citizens and investments. He agreed to a treaty with Haiti in which the U.S. would help police the nation and supervise its finances. Due to continued Haitian instability, U.S. troops remained in Haiti for 19 years. Despite Wilson's intentions, the U.S. continued to exert influence throughout the Caribbean. 

For the United States, another key area of concern in Central America was Nicaragua. Its close proximity to the Panama Canal made Nicaragua's stability crucial to American interests in the region. Nicaragua asked the U.S. for help, and in 1911 American bankers and investors reorganized the Nicaraguan financial structure and began to manage its customs service. They were successful in bringing some stability to the country, but in 1912 a violent political revolution began. This revolution greatly concerned the U.S., since an armed insurrection in the region threatened the security and the prosperity of the burgeoning Panama Canal. The U.S. responded by sending 2,500 troops to the nation. Although the troops were rarely involved in combat, they remained in Nicaragua for 13 years.

Wilson's “moral diplomacy” achieved mixed results. One of his primary goals was to stabilize the Caribbean and Latin America during the onset of World War I, with a minimal amount of American involvement. Also, he wanted to completely reverse Roosevelt's “big stick” policies and remove all elements of Taft's “dollar diplomacy.” However, Wilson faced a great deal of pressure from imperialists as well as American industrialists. Despite Wilson's intentions to limit U.S. involvement in the region, he sent troops to Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, which ensured a U.S. military presence in the Caribbean and Central America for decades. Ironically, regardless of his sincere intentions to halt the spread of imperialism, Wilson intervened in Latin American affairs more than any other president.

 

Taft and Wilson

The Mexican Revolution

The Latin American country most important to the well-being of the U.S. was its neighbor to the south, Mexico. Mexico is a nation rich in resources, but its ineffective and corrupt governments had exploited the Mexican people for years. A series of brutal dictators had controlled the country for decades, and many of them mismanaged Mexico's resources, making themselves rich while the majority of Mexicans were desperately poor. Tension had been high for years, and there had been several attempts at revolt, but the dictators were successful at suppressing any significant revolution. 

Mexican leaders sold the country's resources to foreign investors, often at the expense of Mexican citizens. Americans owned 43 percent of the land in Mexico, while foreigners from other countries owned 25 percent. By 1913, American investment in Mexico was well over a billion dollars, including significant ownership in railroads, oil resources, and mines. Porfirio Diaz, the leader at that time, was particularly ruthless and oppressive. Eventually, the number of foreigners profiting from Mexican resources and Diaz's cruelty helped promote a strong surge of nationalism in Mexico.

The first Mexican Revolution began in 1910. The people were led by the radical Francisco Madero. Madero and his followers staged a successful campaign, and in 1911 they gained control of Mexico and appointed Madero president. He was very popular and viewed as a president of the people, but in 1913 another revolutionary group assassinated Madero. The leader of the coup, General Victoriano Huerta,thenthen then assumed the presidency.

As a result of the instability and revolution in Mexico, a huge influx of immigrants fled to the United States. Many Mexicans feared Huerta, and fled the country in order to escape his tyranny. The majority of these immigrants settled in the southwestern U.S., where they lived in segregated communities and were used as cheap labor for building railroads. All told, over one million Mexicans migrated to the United States in the early twentieth century.

During this revolutionary era in Mexico, over 50,000 Americans owned property and lived in Mexico. They began to feel legitimately threatened by this newfound Mexican nationalism, and called for protection from the U.S. government. Other Americans not living in Mexico also asked for intervention, including “yellow journalist” William Randolph Hearst. Although Hearst may have truly desired aid for Americans living in Mexico, he was surely influenced by his ownership of a Mexican Ranch larger than the state of Rhode Island. Despite growing pressure, President Wilson was reluctant to intervene in Mexican politics. He had been working to reduce American involvement in Latin America, and was very hesitant to interfere and risk a direct conflict with Mexico. 

Although Wilson was unwilling to play an active role in Mexico, he by no means condoned the tyrannical Huerta regime. In fact, Wilson was one of the few foreign leaders who did not accept the legitimacy of Huerta's leadership and refused to recognize his government. As Huerta's violence towards his people continued to escalate, Wilson was forced to act more directly. He stated that he would “…teach the South American republics to elect good men,” and in 1914 the U.S. began supplying weapons to Huerta's rivals. Venustiano Carranza and Francisco “Pancho” Villa, were the leaders of a rebel army created to unseat Huerta.

In April 1914, a group of American sailors on shore leave was arrested in Tampico, Mexico. The U.S. was outraged, and the sailors were quickly released with the apologies of the Mexican government. However, Mexico was unwilling to provide the 21-gun salute demanded by the Americans. Seizing the opportunity to finally remove Huerta and end his tyranny, Wilson asked Congress for permission to use force against Mexico. In the mean time, while still awaiting Congressional approval, Wilson ordered the navy to seize the port of Vera Cruz. This action not only angered Huerta, it also upset the rebel leader Carranza, who viewed this act as exceeding the boundaries of the informal agreement between his group and the United States.

As tensions continued to mount, war with Mexico seemed inevitable until Argentina, Brazil, and Chile intervened. The so-called “ABC Powers” interceded and attempted to reach an agreement between the United States and Mexico. These powerful South American nations helped the U.S. undermine Huerta, and in 1914, after intense internal and external pressure, President Huerta stepped down as ruler of Mexico. The open presidential seat was filled by Venustiano Carranza who still harbored resentment toward America because of the U.S. meddling at Vera Cruz.

Despite his distrust of Carranza, President Wilson reluctantly recognized the legitimacy of Carranza's presidency. Meanwhile, Carranza's former general, Pancho Villa, had now emerged as his chief rival. Villa not only defied Carranza's régime by leading an armed revolution, he directly challenged the extensive U.S. involvement in Mexico. In an effort to rebuild a relationship with Mexico, Wilson supported Carranza against Villa and sent arms to sustain Carranza's armies. Villa was angered by Wilson's actions, and retaliated by killing 18 Americans in Mexico and then embarked on a bold raid into Columbus, New Mexico killing 19 Americans. 

Americans were stunned and outraged by Pancho Villa's brash actions. President Wilson ordered General John J. Pershing to lead several thousand troops into Mexico to capture Villa. General Pershing's army moved quickly into Mexico and engaged Villa's supporters, who were known as Villistas. The disorganized Mexican rebels were no match for the better-trained and equipped U.S. forces, and Pershing won several convincing victories. However, he was unable to find Pancho Villa, which was the ultimate goal of the mission, and this failure did little to enhance the international reputation of the U.S. military. Finally, as it no longer seemed possible for the U.S. to remain out of WWI, Wilson recalled Pershing and his men in January 1917. 

Both Taft's “dollar diplomacy” and Wilson's “moral diplomacy” achieved mixed results. Taft's foreign spending and interventionism gained the U.S. short-term allies, but also created long-term animosity throughout Latin America. It strengthened the U.S. economy through increased American investment abroad and allowed America to gain a position in several emerging global markets. Upon taking office, Woodrow Wilson attempted to reverse most of Taft's foreign policy. Wilson's staunch anti-imperialism was a completely new approach for America. He withdrew government support of American investors in foreign markets and attempted to bring America back within its borders. However, his reluctance to intervene militarily in foreign affairs was often seen as hesitant and weak and caused many of his policies to be largely ineffective. Eventually, Wilson's approach to foreign policy proved too unrealistic for success in the Western Hemisphere, but the true test of his foreign policy would come on the other side of the Atlantic in World War I.