# data[].attributes.body
The First Migration: http://theconversation.com/first-americans-lived-on-land-bridge-for-thousands-of-years-genetics-study-suggests-23747
The Earliest North American Societies:
https://cdn.britannica.com/s:300x300/67/91967-004-2785FBF6.jpg
Native American Culture Areas:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/precontact-and-early-colonial-era/before-contact/v/native-american-societies-before-contact
The European Renaissance:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Europe/The-Renaissance

# data[].attributes.body
The Viking: https://i1.wp.com/barnesreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/viking-voyages.jpg?fit=800%2C501&ssl=1
Voyages Of Christoper Columbus:
https://www.history.com/topics/exploration/christopher-columbus
Spanish Empire In North America:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/precontact-and-early-colonial-era/spanish-colonization/v/spanish-colonization
Race For Empire In North America:
https://www.peaster.net/cms/lib/TX01000798/Centricity/Domain/359/Ch.2Sec.4.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
English Settlements In North America: https://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/topics/the-first-english-settlements/
Colonist Effected By The Great Awakening And The Enlightenment:
https://www.studymode.com/essays/Impact-Of-Enlightenment-And-The-Great-820484.html
Acts Passed Against The Colonist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eytc9ZaNWyc
Colonist Response:
https://www.landofthebrave.info/images/protesting-stamp-act.jpg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Who were the first to step out of Beringia and into the foothills of Alaska? tpsdave

The theory that the Americas were populated by humans crossing from Siberia to Alaska across a land bridge was first proposed as far back as 1590, and has been generally accepted since the 1930s.

But genetic evidence shows there is no direct ancestral link between the people of ancient East Asia and modern Native Americans. A comparison of DNA from 600 modern Native Americans with ancient DNA recovered from a late Stone Age human skeleton from Mal'ta near Lake Baikal in southern Siberia shows that Native Americans diverged genetically from their Asian ancestors around 25,000 years ago, just as the last ice age was reaching its peak.

Based on archaeological evidence, humans did not survive the last ice age's peak in northeastern Siberia, and yet there is no evidence they had reached Alaska or the rest of the New World either. While there is evidence to suggest northeast Siberia was inhabited during a warm period about 30,000 years ago before the last ice age peaked, after this the archaeological record goes silent, and only returns 15,000 years ago, after the last ice age ended.

So where did the ancestors of the Native Americans go for 15,000 years, after they split from the rest of their Asian relatives?

Surviving in Beringia

As John Hoffecker, Dennis O'Rourke and I argue in an article for Science, the answer seems to be that they lived on the Bering Land Bridge, the region between Siberia and Alaska that was dry land when sea levels were lower, as much of the world's freshwater was locked up in ice, but which now lies underneath the waters of the Bering and Chukchi Seas. This theory has become increasingly supported by genetic evidence.

Disappearing Beringia, from 21,000 years before present (BP) to today. NOAA

The Bering Land Bridge, also known as central part of Beringia, is thought to have been up to 600 miles wide. Based on evidence from sediment cores drilled into the now submerged landscape, it seems that here and in some adjacent regions of Alaska and Siberia the landscape at the height of the last glaciation 21,000 years ago was shrub tundra - as found in Arctic Alaska today.

This is dominated by dwarf shrubs such as willow and birch, only a few centimetres tall. There is evidence that there may have been some stands of spruce trees in these regions too in some protected microhabitats, where temperatures were milder than the regions around. The presence of a particular group of beetle species that live in shrub tundra habitats today in Alaska, and are associated with a specific range of temperatures, also supports the idea that the area was a refuge for both flora and fauna.

This kind of vegetation would not have supported the large, grazing animals - woolly mammoth, woolly rhino, Pleistocene horses, camels, and bison. These animals lived on the vegetation of the steppe-tundra which dominated the interior of Alaska and the Yukon, as well as interior regions of northeast Siberia. This shrub tundra would have supported elk, perhaps some bighorn sheep, and small mammals. But it had the one resource people needed most to keep warm: wood.

The wood and bark of dwarf shrubs would have been used to start fires that burned large mammal bones. The fats inside these bones won't ignite unless they are heated to high temperatures, and for that you need a woody fire. And there is evidence from archaeological sites that people burned bones as fuel - the charred remains of leg bones have been found in many ancient hearths. It is the heat from these fires that kept these intrepid hunter-gatherers alive through the bitter cold of Arctic winter nights.

Escape to America

The last ice age ended and the land bridge began to disappear beneath the sea, some 13,000 years ago. Global sea levels rose as the vast continental ice sheets melted, liberating billions of gallons of fresh water. As the land bridge flooded, the entire Beringian region grew more warm and moist, and the shrub tundra vegetation spread rapidly, out-competing the steppe-tundra plants that had dominated the interior lowlands of Beringia.

While this spelled the end of the woolly mammoths and other large grazing animals, it probably also provided the impetus for human migration. As retreating glaciers opened new routes into the continent, humans travelled first into the Alaskan interior and the Yukon, and ultimately south out of the Arctic region and toward the temperate regions of the Americas. The first definitive archaeological evidence we have for the presence of people beyond Beringia and interior Alaska comes from this time, about 13,000 years ago.

These people are called Paleoindians by archaeologists. The genetic evidence records mutations in mitochondrial DNA passed from mother to offspring that are present in today's Native Americans but not in the Mal'ta remains. This indicates a population isolated from the Siberian mainland for thousands of years, who are the direct ancestors of nearly all of the Native American tribes in both North and South America - the original "first peoples".
For more commentaries written by academic experts, like The Conversation's Facebook page. Or follow us on Twitter for updates throughout the day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
First Americans lived on land bridge for thousands of years, genetics study suggests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The theory that the Americas were populated by humans crossing from Siberia to Alaska across a land bridge was first proposed as far back as 1590, and has been generally accepted since the 1930s. But genetic evidence shows there is no direct ancestral link between the people of ancient East Asia and modern Native Americans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Native American societies before contact (video) | Khan Academy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn for free about math, art, computer programming, economics, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, finance, history, and more. Khan Academy is a nonprofit with the mission of providing a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Few historians are comfortable with the triumphalist and western Europe-centred image of the Renaissance as the irresistible march of modernity and progress. A sharp break with medieval values and institutions, a new awareness of the individual, an awakened interest in the material world and nature, and a recovery of the cultural heritage of ancient Greece and Rome-these were once understood to be the major achievements of the Renaissance. Today, every particular of this formula is under suspicion if not altogether repudiated. Nevertheless, the term Renaissance remains a widely recognized label for the multifaceted period between the heyday of medieval universalism, as embodied in the papacy and Holy Roman Empire, and the convulsions and sweeping transformations of the 17th century.

In addition to Classical scholarship, the systematic investigation of the physical world, and commercial enterprise based on private capital, other important innovations of the Middle Ages that came into their own in the period included the revival of urban life, banking, the formation of states, and vernacular literatures. In religious life, the Renaissance was a time of the broadening and institutionalizing of earlier initiatives in lay piety and lay-sponsored clerical reforms, rather than the abandonment of traditional beliefs. In government, city-states and regional and national principalities supplanted the fading hegemony of the empire and the papacy and obliterated many of the local feudal jurisdictions that had covered Europe, although within states power continued to be monopolized by elites drawing their strength from both landed and mercantile wealth. If there was a Renaissance "rediscovery of the world and of man," as the 19th-century historians Jules Michelet (in the seventh volume of his History of France) and Jacob Burckhardt (in The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy [1860]) asserted, it can be found mainly in literature and art, influenced by the latest and most successful of a long series of medieval Classical revivals. For all but exceptional individuals and a few marginal groups, the standards of behaviour continued to arise from traditional social and moral codes. Identity derived from class, family, occupation, and community, although each of these social forms was itself undergoing significant modification. Thus, for example, while there is no substance to Burckhardt's notion that in Italy women enjoyed perfect equality with men, the economic and structural features of Renaissance patrician families may have enhanced the scope of activity and influence of women of that class. Finally, the older view of the Renaissance centred too exclusively on Italy, and within Italy on a few cities- Florence, Venice, and Rome. By discarding false dichotomies-Renaissance versus Middle Ages, Classical versus Gothic, modern versus feudal-one is able to grasp more fully the interrelatedness of Italy with the rest of Europe and to investigate the extent to which the great centres of Renaissance learning and art were nourished and influenced by less exalted towns and by changes in the pattern of rural life.

For additional treatment of Renaissance thought and intellectual activity, see humanism and classical scholarship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History of Europe - Renaissance, Art, Culture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
History of Europe - Renaissance, Art, Culture: Few historians are comfortable with the triumphalist and western Europe-centred image of the Renaissance as the irresistible march of modernity and progress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Christopher Columbus - Facts, Voyage & Discovery

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The explorer Christopher Columbus made four voyages across the Atlantic Ocean from Spain: in 1492, 1493, 1498 and 1502. His most famous was his first voyage, commanding the ships the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria to the Americas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Spanish colonization (video) | Khan Academy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn for free about math, art, computer programming, economics, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, finance, history, and more. Khan Academy is a nonprofit with the mission of providing a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The First English Settlements - AP U.S. History Topic Outlines - Study Notes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
100% Free AP Test Prep website that offers study material to high school students seeking to prepare for AP exams. Enterprising students use this website to learn AP class material, study for class quizzes and tests, and to brush up on course material before the big exam day.

# data[].attributes.headline
Colonist Effected By The Great Awakening And The Enlightenment 

# data[].attributes.subject
Colonist Effected By The Great Awakening And The Enlightenment 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Enlightenment and the Great Awakening had a great influence on American colonies. The Enlightenment emphasized the power of human reason to shape the world, to better educate men and women. The Great Awakening unified colonies, and also acceptance of religious tolerance. I believe that these two movements of the 18th century had a great impact on American culture and how people think before and after these movements. The Enlightenment changed people's view on politics, religion, and human nature, and The Great Awakening accepted religious tolerance.

First of all, Enlightenment mainly influenced educated people in the American colonies. Even though Enlightenment first began in Europe, it spread to America. The German word for Enlightenment is "Aufklaerung"- it means to "clearing up". It is a useful word because it helps explain what the Enlightenment really is, and what they tried to achieve. Also, the American Revolution was impacted greatly by the Enlightenment. The most famous Enlightenment thinkers in America were Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Because of Enlightenment, people started believing that agreement must exist between people and leader. People started thinking about improving their individual lot and to invent useful devices to help the society. Before the era of Enlightenment, people's knowledge on politics was based on God, but after Enlightenment, Americans started believing that reasoning is important, and you cannot just accept things.

Second, the Great Awakening brought diversity; it was caused by renewal of religion after many people in the colonies turned away from religion. The Great Awakening brought Christianity to people who stopped believing in religion. It taught people that they were responsible for their own actions. The most famous theologian is Jonathan Edwards. He wrote a very famous sermon "Sinners in The Hands of An Angry God." In his sermon, Jonathan Edwards, talks about hell, what will happen if you do not...

Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Impact of Enlightenment and the Great Awakening on American Colonies Essay - 432 Words

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Enlightenment and the Great Awakening had a great influence on American colonies. The Enlightenment emphasized the power of human reason to shape the world, to better educate men and women. The Great Awakening unified colonies, and also acceptance of religious tolerance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Taxes & Smuggling - Prelude to Revolution: Crash Course US History #6

# data[].attributes.headline
Paul Revere's and Lexington and Concord  

# data[].attributes.subject
Paul Revere's and Lexington and Concord  

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Battles of Lexington and Concord April 19, 1775, (The American Revolution)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Declaration of Independence: Full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While large armies were doing battle in the East, small groups of men were fighting over large areas of territory in the West. While the commanders of British outposts, such as Forts Detroit and Niagara, were encouraging local Native Americans to attack colonial settlements, the frontiersmen began to band together to fight back. The most notable campaign west of the mountains was led by Colonel George Rogers Clark who embarked from Pittsburgh with 175 men in mid-1778. Moving down the Ohio River, they captured Fort Massac at the mouth of the Tennessee River before moving overland to take Kaskaskia (Illinois) on July 4. Cahokia was captured five days later as Clark moved back east and a detachment was sent to occupy Vincennes on the Wabash River.

Concerned by Clark's progress, the Lieutenant Governor of Canada, Henry Hamilton, departed Detroit with 500 men to defeat the Americans. Moving down the Wabash, he easily retook Vincennes which was renamed Fort Sackville. With winter approaching, Hamilton released many of his men and settled in with a garrison of 90. Feeling that urgent action was needed, Clark embarked on a winter campaign to retake the outpost. Marching with 127 men, they endured a tough march before attacking Fort Sackville on February 23, 1780. Hamilton was forced to surrender the next day.

To the east, Loyalist and Iroquois forces attacked American settlements in western New York and northeastern Pennsylvania, as well as won a victory over Colonels Zebulon Butler and Nathan Denison's militia at Wyoming Valley on July 3, 1778. To defeat this threat, General George Washington dispatched Major General John Sullivan to the region with a force of around 4,000 men. Moving up through the Wyoming Valley, he proceeded to systematically destroy the towns and villages of the Iroquois during the summer of 1779, and badly damaged their military potential.

Following the Battle of Monmouth, Washington's army settled into positions near New York City to watch the forces of Lieutenant General Sir Henry Clinton. Operating from the Hudson Highlands, elements of Washington's army attacked British outposts in the region. On July 16, 1779, troops under Brigadier General Anthony Wayne captured Stony Point, and a month later Major Henry "Light Horse Harry" Lee successfully attacked Paulus Hook. While these operations proved to be victories, American forces suffered an embarrassing defeat at Penobscot Bay in August 1779, when an expedition from Massachusetts was effectively destroyed. Another low point occurred in September 1780, when Major General Benedict Arnold, one of the heroes of Saratoga, defected to the British. The plot was revealed following the capture of Major John Andre who had been serving as a go-between for Arnold and Clinton.

On March 1, 1781, the Continental Congress ratified the Articles of Confederation which officially established a new government for the former colonies. Originally drafted in mid-1777, Congress had been operating on the Articles since that time. Designed to increase cooperation between the states, the Articles empowered Congress to make war, mint coins, resolve issues with the western territories, and negotiate diplomatic agreements. The new system did not allow Congress to levy taxes or regulate commerce. This led to Congress having to issue requests for money to the states, which were often ignored. As a result, the Continental Army suffered from a lack of funds and supplies. The issues with the Articles became more pronounced after the war and resulted in the convening of the 1787 Constitutional Convention.

Though Washington desperately wished to attack New York, he was dissuaded from this desire after receiving news that Rear Admiral Comte de Grasse planned to bring a French fleet to the Chesapeake. Seeing an opportunity, Washington and Rochambeau left a small blocking force near New York and embarked on a secret march with the bulk of the army. On September 5, Cornwallis' hope for a quick departure by sea was ended following the French naval victory at the Battle of the Chesapeake. This action allowed the French to blockade the mouth of the bay, preventing Cornwallis from escaping by ship.

With the defeat at Yorktown, support of the war in Britain declined greatly and ultimately forced Prime Minister Lord North to resign in March 1782. That year, the British government entered into peace negotiations with the United States. The American commissioners included Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Henry Laurens, and John Jay. While initial talks were inconclusive, a breakthrough was achieved in September and a preliminary treaty was finalized in late November. While Parliament expressed unhappiness with some of the terms, the final document, the Treaty of Paris, was signed on September 3, 1783. Britain also signed separate treaties with Spain, France, and the Netherlands.

By the terms of the treaty, Britain recognized the thirteen former colonies as free and independent states, as well as agreed to release all prisoners of war. In addition, border and fishery issues were addressed and both sides agreed to free access to the Mississippi River. In the United States, the last British troops departed from New York City on November 25, 1783, and the treaty was ratified by Congress on January 14, 1784. After nearly nine years of conflict, the American Revolution had come to an end and a new nation was born.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Winning Independence: Yorktown & Victory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Battle of Yorktown was the final major battle of the American Revolution. Fought in Virginia, the Battle of Yorktown saw Gen. George Washington capture the army of General Lord Charles Cornwallis. The victory at Yorktown persuaded the British to begin peace negotiations which resulted in the Treaty of Paris and recognition of American independence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
View the original text of history's most important documents, including the Articles of Confederation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Great Compromise helped determine how each of the US states was to be represented in the Congress.

What Was The Great Compromise?

The Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, the Great Compromise of 1787, or the Sherman Compromise, was an agreement made between large and small states which partly defined the representation each state would have under the United States Constitution, as well as in legislature. It occurred in 1787. The Connecticut Compromise resulted from a debate among delegates on how each state could have representation in the Congress. The Great Compromise led to the creation of a two-chambered Congress. Also created was the House of Representative which is determined by a state's population. The agreement retained the bicameral legislature, but the upper house had to change to accommodate two senators to represent each state. The deal reshaped the American government structure striking a balance between the highly populated states and their demands while at the same time taking into consideration the less-populous state and their interests.

Overview And Background

The United States underwent painful years in the 1780s. The 1781 ratification of the Articles of Confederation provided an inadequate governmental structure. It failed to regulate trade, levy taxes, and draft soldiers. Also, it failed to solve the slavery issue which polarized the Northwest Territory. The country's economy which had severely plummeted following the Anglo-American Revolution struggled to rebound. Debt, especially the accumulated war debts became an enormous issue in the US. Many citizens found it increasingly difficult to generate enough income to pay for their daily expenses as well as taxes. As much as the people looked up to the state for help, no social welfare relief developed. Furthermore, the contentious politics also divided the citizens. This instability called for a delegation in 1785, proposed by Alexander Hamilton which would address a national reform. James Madison responded with support and asked other states to send their delegates to Annapolis, Maryland for a conference. However, only five states representatives attended, but even so, they approved a plan in whichever state would send delegates to the 1787 Philadelphian convection. In May 1787, 55 delegates representing 12 states, Rhodes Island was absent, met in Philadelphia to discuss the limitations of the Articles of Federation. The Constitutional Convention started later on when Madison proposed the Virginia Plan which Patterson countered with the New Jersey Plan.

What The Great Compromise Involved?

Before the 1787 Constitutional Convention, larger states like Virginia favored congressional representation based on a state's population. On the other hand, smaller states wanted equal representation. Edmund Randolph and James Madison proposed the Virginia Plan on May 29, 1787. This plan outlined that the government should comprise of three branches the legislature, executive, and judiciary. The three branches would serve a two-housed legislature. The population was to elect the members of the lower house and they, in turn, would elect representatives in the Upper House. In other words, both houses included a population proportional representation. Madison also proposed that Congress get a veto for all state laws. The New Jersey Plan, put forward on June 15, 1787, by William Patterson, called for equal representation of each state like it was in the Articles of Confederation system but sought to increase Congress power. It called for a one-house legislature, equal representation of each state, and popular elections. Patterson also proposed a lifetime Supreme Court appointed by executive officers. He focused on the probability that the national government would violate the sovereignty of the states. At this point, the less populous states representatives feared that the agreement would result in larger states drowning the voices and interests rendering them useless in the national scale. Madison, on the other hand, argued that the most important states were very different from each other. Hamilton pointed out that each state was an artificial entity made up of individuals. He thus accused smaller states of being power hungry.

As such, the two sides rejected each other's plans. The disagreements called for reflection leading to a negotiation on how to determine the future of the US government. Roger Sherman, a Connecticut delegate suggested a plan that eventually turned out as the Great Compromise. His plan included a two-legislative form of government in the US, the Senate and the House of Representatives. For every 300,000 citizens, a state received one member to serve in the House of representative and two senators. On July 16, 1787, despite Benjamin Franklin efforts to block equal voting rights of the smaller states, the proposal did pass even though by only one vote. Thus the name compromise was conjured, and it paved the way for the constitutional final passage and became an important stepping stone in the creation and development of the United States.

Upon deciding on the representation issue, the debate focused on the slaves existing in a state's population and which led to the formation of the Three-Fifths Compromise. Under this agreement, each state had to count three-fifths of its slaves into its total population. Before this agreement, slave-holding states called for an increase in their representation in Congress by counting all slaves as part of the community. On the other hand, opponents argued that since slaves were not citizens they thus had no rights. Counting them in the context of the population was not necessary.

The Results Of The Great Compromise

The most significant effect of the Great Compromise was the change in the American Government structure. The agreement focused on working out the interests of large states like Virginia and New York, and the smaller states such as New Hampshire and Rhodes Island, striking a balance between proportional and general representation. The most visible term achieved under the compromise was that each state would split congressional delegates between; representatives who would then be elected by district so as to serve in the lower house and senators to represent individual states in the Upper House. The practical effect was in the creation of a two-tiered system that could address the needs of the people in the lower house, and the upper house could handle the interests of states. The Electoral College and Presidential elections formation splinted from this split between direct and indirect representation.

The Great Compromise of 1787 gave larger states representation in the lower house according to population, and the smaller states attained equal representation in the upper house. Many delegates called for proportional representation in both houses while the smaller state delegates decided not having a constitution was better than having Madison's proposed system. As such the compromise balanced the needs of both the smaller states which wanted a unicameral legislature and the larger states that were rooting for a bicameral legislature, paving the way for constitutional development. Ultimately, the Connecticut Compromise kept the Convention together and led to the system of bicameral Congress in which the lower House is based on proportional representation, and each state has equal representation in the Upper House.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Great Compromise, also known as the Connecticut Compromise, the Great Compromise of 1787, or the Sherman Compromise, was an agreement made between large and small states which partly defined the representation each state would have under the United States Constitution, as well as in legislature. It occurred in 1787.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
federalism, mode of political organization that unites separate states or other polities within an overarching political system in a way that allows each to maintain its own integrity. Federal systems do this by requiring that basic policies be made and implemented through negotiation in some form, so that all the members can share in making and executing decisions. The political principles that animate federal systems emphasize the primacy of bargaining and negotiated coordination among several power centres; they stress the virtues of dispersed power centres as a means for safeguarding individual and local liberties.

The various political systems that call themselves federal differ in many ways. Certain characteristics and principles, however, are common to all truly federal systems.

Written constitution

First, the federal relationship must be established or confirmed through a perpetual covenant of union, usually embodied in a written constitution that outlines the terms by which power is divided or shared; the constitution can be altered only by extraordinary procedures. These constitutions are distinctive in being not simply compacts between rulers and ruled but involving the people, the general government, and the states constituting the federal union. The constituent states, moreover, often retain constitution-making rights of their own.

Elements maintaining union

Modern federal systems generally provide direct lines of communication between the citizenry and all the governments that serve them. The people may and usually do elect representatives to all the governments, and all of them may and usually do administer programs that directly serve the individual citizen.

The existence of those direct lines of communication is one of the features distinguishing federations from leagues or confederations. It is usually based on a sense of common nationality binding the constituent polities and people together. In some countries this sense of nationality has been inherited, as in Germany, while in the United States, Argentina, and Australia it had to be at least partly invented. Canada and Switzerland have had to evolve this sense in order to hold together strongly divergent nationality groups.

Geographic necessity has played a part in promoting the maintenance of union within federal systems. The Mississippi Valley in the United States, the Alps in Switzerland, the island character of the Australian continent, and the mountains and jungles surrounding Brazil have all been influences promoting unity; so have the pressures for Canadian union arising from that country's situation on the border of the United States and the pressures upon the German states generated by their neighbours to the east and west. In this connection, the necessity for a common defense against common enemies has stimulated federal union in the first place and acted to maintain it.

Elements maintaining noncentralization

The constituent polities in a federal system must be fairly equal in population and wealth or else balanced geographically or numerically in their inequalities. In the United States, each geographic section has included both great and small states. In Canada, the ethnic differences between the two largest and richest provinces have prevented them from combining against the others. Swiss federalism has been supported by the existence of groups of cantons of different sizes and religio-linguistic backgrounds. Similar distributions exist in every other successful federal system.

A major reason for the failure of federal systems has often been a lack of balance among the constituent polities. In the German federal empire of the late 19th century, Prussia was so dominant that the other states had little opportunity to provide national leadership or even a reasonably strong alternative to the policy of the king and government. During the Soviet era (1917-90/91), the existence of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic-occupying three-fourths of the area and containing three-fifths of the population-severely limited the possibility of authentic federal relationships in that country even if the communist system had not.

Successful federal systems have also been characterized by the permanence of their internal boundaries. Boundary changes may occur, but such changes are made only with the consent of the polities involved and are avoided except in extreme situations.

In a few very important cases, noncentralization is given support through the constitutionally guaranteed existence of different systems of law in the constituent polities. In the United States, each state's legal system stems directly and to a certain extent uniquely from English (and, in one case, French) law, while federal law occupies only an interstitial position binding the systems of the 50 states together. The resulting mixture of laws keeps the administration of justice substantially noncentralized, even in federal courts. In Canada, the existence of common-law and civil-law systems side by side has contributed to French-Canadian cultural survival. Federal systems more often provide for modification of national legal codes by the subnational governments to meet special local needs, as in Switzerland.

The point has often been made that in a truly federal system the constituent polities must have substantial influence over the formal or informal constitutional-amending process. Since constitutional changes are often made without formal constitutional amendment, the position of the constituent polities must be such that serious changes in the political order can be made only by the decision of dispersed majorities that reflect the areal division of powers. Federal theorists have argued that this is important for popular government as well as for federalism.

Noncentralization is also strengthened by giving the constituent polities guaranteed representation in the national legislature and often by giving them a guaranteed role in the national political process. The latter is guaranteed in the written constitutions of the United States and Switzerland. In other systems, such as those of Canada and Latin America, the constituent polities have acquired certain powers of participation, and these have become part of the unwritten constitution.

Perhaps the most important single element in the maintenance of federal noncentralization is the existence of a noncentralized party system. Noncentralized parties initially develop out of the constitutional arrangements of the federal compact, but once they have come into existence they tend to be self-perpetuating and to function as decentralizing forces in their own right. The United States and Canada provide examples of the forms that a noncentralized party system may take. In the two-party system of the United States, the parties are actually coalitions of the state parties (which may in turn be dominated by specific local party organizations) and generally function as national units only for the quadrennial presidential elections or for purposes of organizing the national Congress.

In Canada, on the other hand, the parliamentary form of government, with its requirements of party responsibility, means that on the national plane considerably more party cohesiveness must be maintained simply in order to gain and hold power. There has been a fragmentation of the parties along regional or provincial lines. The party victorious in national elections is likely to be the one able to expand its provincial electoral bases temporarily to national proportions.

Federal nations with less-developed party systems frequently gain some of the same decentralizing effects through what has been called caudillismo-in which power is diffused among strong local leaders operating in the constituent polities. Caudillistic noncentralization has apparently existed also in Nigeria and Malaysia.

Elements maintaining the federal principle

Several devices found in federal systems serve to maintain the federal principle itself. Two of these are of particular importance.

The maintenance of federalism requires that the central government and the constituent polities each have substantially complete governing institutions of their own, with the right to modify those institutions unilaterally within limits set by the compact. Both separate legislative and separate administrative institutions are necessary.

The contractual sharing of public responsibilities by all governments in the system appears to be a fundamental characteristic of federalism. Sharing, broadly conceived, includes common involvement in policy making, financing, and administration. Sharing may be formal or informal; in federal systems, it is usually contractual. The contract is used as a legal device to enable governments to engage in joint action while remaining independent entities. Even where there is no formal arrangement, the spirit of federalism tends to infuse a sense of contractual obligation.

Federal systems or systems strongly influenced by federal principles have been among the most stable and long-lasting of polities. But the successful operation of federal systems requires a particular kind of political environment, one that is conducive to popular government and has the requisite traditions of political cooperation and self-restraint. Beyond this, federal systems operate best in societies with sufficient homogeneity of fundamental interests to allow a great deal of latitude to local government and to permit reliance upon voluntary collaboration. The use of force to maintain domestic order is even more inimical to the successful maintenance of federal patterns of government than to other forms of popular government. Federal systems are most successful in societies that have the human resources to fill many public offices competently and the material resources to afford a measure of economic waste as part of the price of liberty.
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federalism | Definition, History, Characteristics, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Federalism, mode of political organization that unites separate states or other polities within an overarching political system in a way that allows each to maintain its own integrity. Learn more about the history and characteristics of federalism in this article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How is power divided in the United States government? - Belinda Stutzman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Constitution, the Articles, and Federalism: Crash Course US History #8

# data[].attributes.body
Paul Revere's and Lexington and Concord:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDRSE2Euxs4
The Declaration of Independence:
https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/declaration-of-independence

Battle of Saratoga:
https://learnodo-newtonic.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Benedict-Arnold-leading-the-charge-during-the-Battles-of-Saratoga.jpg?08c689

Battle of Yorktown and Treaty of Paris:
https://www.thoughtco.com/american-revolution-yorktown-and-victory-2360665

# data[].attributes.body
The Articles of Confederation: http://www.ushistory.org/documents/confederation.htm
The Great Compromise:
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-was-the-great-compromise.html
Federalism:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/federalism
Separation of Power:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuFR5XBYLfU
The Constitution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO7FQsCcbD8
The Bill of Rights:
https://axiomamuse.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/bill-of-rights.jpg

# data[].attributes.body
The Rise of Political Parties: https://www.reference.com/government-politics/led-rise-political-parties-1790-s-9e28da618f085f38
The Louisiana Purchase:
https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/louisiana-lewis-clark/the-louisiana-purchase/
The Corps of Discovery:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWS-TI38XA
The War of 1812:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6eGJVScjVo
The Monroe Doctrine:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Monroe-Doctrine
Nationalism vs. Sectionalism:
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/americanromanticism-130404223137-phpapp02/95/american-romanticism-10-638.jpg?cb=1365114779

# data[].attributes.body
Jacksonian Democracy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beN4qE-e5O8
Native American Removal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q16OZkgSXfM
Trails West:
https://media.nationalgeographic.org/assets/photos/000/315/31543.jpg
Texas Becomes a Nation:
https://www.reference.com/history/did-texas-become-independent-country-d81bfd9cab758165
Manifest Destiny:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Manifest-Destiny
Mexican – American War:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Mexican-American-War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The rise of political parties in the 1790's was largely the result of the formation of groups with opposing views about the structure of government. The first two groups were the Federalists, who supported a loose interpretation of the Constitution and a strong central government, and the Republicans, who supported the opposite. These two groups became the first "political parties."

Even before the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, there were debates and arguments about the way in which the Constitution should be interpreted and used. The two groups with differing opinions went on to become the first political parties once the Constitution was finally ratified.

The "official" birth of political parties is due to a feud between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton in 1792, according to Dr. Barrow's Online Classroom at Pope John Paul II High School. Hamilton constructed proposals to fund the federal and state debts, to establish a national bank, and to provide government assistance to manufacturing. These proposals were met with opposition. James Madison saw Hamilton's plan as a threat to his ideal vision of America, so he and Thomas Jefferson founded a newspaper to criticize it. In response, Hamilton created his own newspaper, the Gazette of the United States.

Political parties rose out of those who supported each plan. Hamilton's supporters formed the Federalist Party, and his opponents formed the Republican Party, also known as the Democratic Republican Party or Jeffersonian Party.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Led to the Rise of Political Parties in the 1790's?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The rise of political parties in the 1790's was largely the result of the formation of groups with opposing views about the structure of government. The first two groups were the Federalists, who supported a loose interpretation of the Constitution and a strong central government, and the Republicans, who supported the opposite.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A look at Jefferson's role in the Louisiana Purchase, which doubled the size of the young American republic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The War of 1812   Crash Course US History #11

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why was the Monroe Doctrine important?

What were the basic tenets of the Monroe Doctrine?

What motives were behind the Monroe Doctrine?

Who worked on the Monroe Doctrine?

How did the Monroe Doctrine change over time?

Monroe Doctrine, (December 2, 1823), cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy enunciated by Pres. James Monroe in his annual message to Congress. Declaring that the Old World and New World had different systems and must remain distinct spheres, Monroe made four basic points: (1) the United States would not interfere in the internal affairs of or the wars between European powers; (2) the United States recognized and would not interfere with existing colonies and dependencies in the Western Hemisphere; (3) the Western Hemisphere was closed to future colonization; and (4) any attempt by a European power to oppress or control any nation in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act against the United States:

In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense....

With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.

The origin and framing of the Monroe Doctrine

The doctrine was an outgrowth of concern in both Britain and the United States that the Continental powers would attempt to restore Spain's former colonies, in Latin America, many of which had become newly independent nations. The United States was also concerned about Russia's territorial ambitions in the northwest coast of North America. As a consequence, George Canning, the British foreign minister, suggested a joint U.S.-British declaration forbidding future colonization in Latin America. Monroe was initially favourable to the idea, and former presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison concurred. But Secretary of State John Quincy Adams argued that the United States should issue a statement of American policy exclusively, and his view ultimately prevailed.

American History and Politics Quiz

The first draft of the message included a reproof of the French for their invasion of Spain, an acknowledgment of Greek independence in the revolt against Turkey, and some further indications of American concern in European affairs. Adams argued for the better part of two days against such expressions, which were finally eliminated from the message.

Adams noted in his diary,

The ground that I wish to take is that of earnest remonstrance against the interference of the European powers by force in South America, but to disclaim all interference on our part with Europe; to make an American cause, and adhere inflexibly to that.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Monroe Doctrine | History, Summary, & Significance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Monroe Doctrine, U.S. foreign policy enunciated by President James Monroe in 1823 that the U.S. would not interfere in European affairs and wars or with existing colonies in the Western Hemisphere. European intervention in the hemisphere (closed to future colonization) would be seen as a hostile act against the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Age of Jackson: Crash Course US History #14

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Westward Expansion: Crash Course US History #24

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Texas effectively became an independent country when it began the Texas Revolution on October 2, 1835. According to the Lone Star Junction website, the country formally signed a Declaration of Independence on March 2, 1836 to establish the Republic of Texas.

The Republic of Texas persisted as an independent country for nine years before it became part of the United States. The annexation process took so long because of divided political opinions both in Texas and in the U.S. Some Texans wanted to remain independent, extending their power over the vast range of land west toward the Pacific Ocean. In the United States, many people viewed the addition of a new slave state with distaste; they wanted to balance its entry into the union with that of a free state. Finally, though, President Polk signed legislation incorporating the fledgling country on December 29, 1845.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When Did Texas Become an Independent Country?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Texas effectively became an independent country when it began the Texas Revolution on October 2, 1835. According to the Lone Star Junction website, the country formally signed a Declaration of Independence on March 2, 1836 to establish the Republic of Texas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What was Manifest Destiny?

Manifest Destiny, in U.S. history, the supposed inevitability of the continued territorial expansion of the boundaries of the United States westward to the Pacific and beyond. Before the American Civil War (1861-65), the idea of Manifest Destiny was used to validate continental acquisitions in the Oregon Country, Texas, New Mexico, and California. The purchase of Alaska after the Civil War briefly revived the concept of Manifest Destiny, but it most evidently became a renewed force in U.S. foreign policy in the 1890s, when the country went to war with Spain, annexed Hawaii, and laid plans for an isthmian canal across Central America.

Origin of the term

John L. O'Sullivan, the editor of a magazine that served as an organ for the Democratic Party and of a partisan newspaper, first wrote of "manifest destiny" in 1845, but at the time he did not think the words profound. Rather than being "coined," the phrase was buried halfway through the third paragraph of a long essay in the July-August issue of The United States Magazine, and Democratic Review on the necessity of annexing Texas and the inevitability of American expansion. O'Sullivan was protesting European meddling in American affairs, especially by France and England, which he said were acting

for the avowed object of thwarting our policy and hampering our power, limiting our greatness and checking the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.

O'Sullivan's observation was a complaint rather than a call for aggression, and he referred to demography rather than pugnacity as the solution to the perceived problem of European interference. Yet when he expanded his idea on December 27, 1845, in a newspaper column in the New York Morning News, the wider audience seized upon his reference to divine superintendence. Discussing the dispute with Great Britain over the Oregon Country, O'Sullivan again cited the claim to

the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.

Some found the opinion intriguing, but others were simply irritated. The Whig Party sought to discredit Manifest Destiny as belligerent as well as pompous, beginning with Massachusetts Rep. Robert Winthrop's using the term to mock Pres. James K. Polk 's policy toward Oregon.

Yet unabashed Democrats took up Manifest Destiny as a slogan. The phrase frequently appeared in debates relating to Oregon, sometimes as soaring rhetoric and other times as sarcastic derision. As an example of the latter, on February 6, 1846, the New-Hampshire Statesman and State Journal, a Whig newspaper, described "some windy orator in the House [of Representatives]" as "pouring for his 'manifest destiny' harangue."

Over the years, O'Sullivan's role in creating the phrase was forgotten, and he died in obscurity some 50 years after having first used the term "manifest destiny." In an essay in The American Historical Review in 1927, historian Julius W. Pratt identified O'Sullivan as the phrase's originator, a conclusion that became universally accepted.

A history of expansion

Despite disagreements about Manifest Destiny's validity at the time, O'Sullivan had stumbled on a broadly held national sentiment. Although it became a rallying cry as well as a rationale for the foreign policy that reached its culmination in 1845-46, the attitude behind Manifest Destiny had long been a part of the American experience. The impatient English who colonized North America in the 1600s and 1700s immediately gazed westward and instantly considered ways to venture into the wilderness and tame it. The cause of that ceaseless wanderlust varied from region to region, but the behaviour became a tradition within one generation. The western horizon would always beckon, and Americans would always follow. After the American Revolution (1775-83), the steady advance of the cotton kingdom in the South matched the lure of the Ohio Country in the North. In 1803, Pres. Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of the country with the stroke of a pen. Expansionists eager to acquire Spanish Florida were part of the drive for the War of 1812, and many historians argue that American desires to annex Canada were also an important part of the equation. Andrew Jackson's invasion of Florida in 1818 and the subsequent Transcontinental Treaty (Adams-Onís Treaty) settled a southern border question that had been vexing the region for a generation and established an American claim to the Pacific Northwest as Spain renounced its claim to the Oregon Country. The most consequential territorial expansion in the country's history occurred during the 1820s. Spreading American settlements often caused additional unrest on the country's western borders. As the United States pacified and stabilized volatile regions, the resulting appropriation of territory usually worsened relations with neighbours, setting off a cycle of instability that encouraged additional annexations.

Caught in the upheaval coincidental to that expansion, Southeast Indians succumbed to the pressure of spreading settlement by ceding their lands to the United States and then relocating west of the Mississippi River under Pres. Andrew Jackson's removal policy of the 1830s. The considerable hardships suffered by the Indians in that episode were exemplified by the devastation of the Cherokees on the infamous Trail of Tears, which excited humanitarian protests from both the political class and the citizenry.

Finally, in the 1840s, diplomacy resolved the dispute over the Oregon Country with Britain, and victory in the Mexican-American War (1846-48) closed out a period of dramatically swift growth for the United States. Less than a century after breaking from the British Empire, the United States had gone far in creating its own empire by extending sovereignty across the continent to the Pacific, to the 49th parallel on the Canadian border, and to the Rio Grande in the south. Having transformed a group of sparsely settled colonies into a continental power of enormous potential, many Americans thought the achievement so stunning as to be obvious. It was for them proof that God had chosen the United States to grow and flourish.

Yet in a story as old as ancient Rome's transformation from republic to empire, not all Americans, like the doubters of Rome, found it encouraging. Those dissenters saw rapid expansion as contrary to the principles of a true republic and predicted that the cost of empire would be high and its consequences perilous.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Manifest Destiny | Summary, Examples, Westward Expansion, & Significance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Manifest Destiny, the supposed inevitability of the continued territorial expansion of the boundaries of the United States westward to the Pacific and beyond. Before the American Civil War, Manifest Destiny was used to validate continental acquisitions in the Oregon Country, Texas, New Mexico, and California.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Spanish:

Guerra de 1847 or Guerra de Estados Unidos a Mexico ("War of the United States Against Mexico")

What was the Mexican-American War?

What did the Mexican-American War have to do with Manifest Destiny?

Was there opposition to the Mexican-American War within the United States?

What did the U.S. gain by winning the Mexican-American War?

How did the Mexican-American War increase sectionalism in the United States?

Summarize This Article

Summarize

BETA

?

Trusted Britannica articles, summarized using artificial intelligence, to provide a quicker and simpler reading experience. This is a beta feature. Please verify important information in our full article.

This summary was created from our Britannica article using AI. Please verify important information in our full article.

Mexican-American War, war between the United States and Mexico (April 1846-February 1848) stemming from the United States' annexation of Texas in 1845 and from a dispute over whether Texas ended at the Nueces River (Mexican claim) or the Rio Grande (U.S. claim). The war-in which U.S. forces were consistently victorious-resulted in the United States' acquisition of more than 500,000 square miles (1,300,000 square km) of Mexican territory extending westward from the Rio Grande to the Pacific Ocean.

"American blood on American soil": Polk and the prelude to war

Mexico severed relations with the United States in March 1845, shortly after the U.S. annexation of Texas. In September U.S. Pres. James K. Polk sent John Slidell on a secret mission to Mexico City to negotiate the disputed Texas border, settle U.S. claims against Mexico, and purchase New Mexico and California for up to $30 million. Mexican Pres. José Joaquín Herrera, aware in advance of Slidell's intention of dismembering the country, refused to receive him. When Polk learned of the snub, he ordered troops under Gen. Zachary Taylor to occupy the disputed area between the Nueces and the Rio Grande (January 1846).

On May 9, 1846, Polk began to prepare a war message to Congress, justifying hostilities on the grounds of Mexican refusal to pay U.S. claims and refusal to negotiate with Slidell. That evening he received word that Mexican troops had crossed the Rio Grande on April 25 and attacked Taylor 's troops, killing or injuring 16 of them. In his quickly revised war message-delivered to Congress on May 11-Polk claimed that Mexico had "invaded our territory and shed American blood on American soil."

Spot Resolutions and Civil Disobedience: American opposition to the war

Congress overwhelmingly approved a declaration of war on May 13, but the United States entered the war divided. Democrats, especially those in the Southwest, strongly favoured the conflict. Most Whigs viewed Polk's motives as conscienceless land grabbing. Indeed, from the outset, Whigs in both the Senate and the House challenged the veracity of Polk's assertion that the initial conflict between U.S. and Mexican forces had taken place in U.S. territory. Further, legislators were at odds over whether Polk had the right to unilaterally declare that a state of war existed. Principally at issue was where the encounter had actually taken place and the willingness of Americans to acknowledge the Mexican contention that the Nueces River formed the border between the two countries. Active Whig opposition not only to the legitimacy of Polk's claim but also to the war itself continued well into the conflict. In December 1846 Polk accused his Whig doubters of treason. In January 1847 the by-then Whig-controlled House voted 85 to 81 to censure Polk for having "unnecessarily and unconstitutionally" initiated war with Mexico.

Among the most-aggressive challenges to the legitimacy of Polk's casus belli was that offered by future president Abraham Lincoln, then a first-term member of the House of Representatives from Illinois. In December 1847 Lincoln introduced eight " Spot Resolutions," which placed the analysis of Polk's claim in a carefully delineated historical context that sought to

obtain a full knowledge of all the facts which go to establish whether the particular spot of soil on which the blood of our citizens was so shed was, or was not, our own soil at that time.

Ultimately, the House did not act on Lincoln's resolutions, and Polk remained steadfast in his claim that the conflict was a just war.

Abolitionists saw the war as an attempt by the slave states to extend slavery and enhance their power with the creation of additional slave states out of the soon-to-be-acquired Mexican lands. One abolitionist who agreed with that interpretation was author Henry David Thoreau, who was incarcerated in July 1846 when he refused to pay six years' worth of back poll taxes because he felt the U.S. government's prosecution of the war with Mexico was immoral. Although he spent only a single night in jail (his aunt, against his wishes, paid the taxes, thus securing his release), Thoreau documented his opposition to the government's actions in his famous book-length essay Civil Disobedience (1849), insisting that if an injustice of government is

of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mexican-American War | Significance, Battles, Results, Timeline, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mexican-American War, war between the U.S. and Mexico from 1846 to 1848. It was caused by a territorial dispute stemming from the United States' annexation of Texas in 1845 and from contention over whether Texas ended at the Nueces River or the Rio Grande.

# data[].attributes.body
The Industrial Revolution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhL5DCizj5c

Interchangeable Parts:
https://www.britannica.com/technology/interchangeable-parts

The Rise of Organized Labor:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Europe/The-rise-of-organized-labour-and-mass-protests

The Transportation Revolution:
https://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/topics/the-transportation-revolution/

Eli Whitney’s Cotton Gin:
https://etc.usf.edu/clipart/7800/7804/cottongin_7804_lg.gif

The Life of a Slave:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhjBsJF4C20

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coal, Steam, and The Industrial Revolution: Crash Course World History #32

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Interchangeable parts | industrial engineering

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Interchangeable parts, identical components that can be substituted one for another, particularly important in the history of manufacturing. Mass production, which transformed the organization of work, came about by the development of the machine-tool industry by a series of 19th-century

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mass leisure coexisted interestingly with the final major social development of the later 19th century, the escalating forms of class conflict. Pressed by the rapid pace and often dulling routine of work, antagonized by a faceless corporate management structure seemingly bent on efficiency at all costs, workers in various categories developed more active protest modes in the later 19th century. They were aided by their growing familiarity with basic industrial conditions, which facilitated the formation of relevant demands and made organization more feasible. Legal changes, spreading widely in western Europe after 1870, reduced political barriers to unionization and strikes, though clashes with government forces remained a common part of labour unrest.

Not surprisingly, given the mood of reaction following the failures of the 1848 revolutions, the 1850s constituted a period of relative placidity in labour relations. Skilled workers in Britain formed a conservative craft union movement, known as New Model Unionism, that urged calm negotiation and respectability; a number of durable trade unions were formed as a result, and a minority of workers gained experience in national organization. Miners and factory workers rose in strikes occasionally, signaling a class-based tension with management in many areas, but no consistent pattern developed.

The depression of the 1870s, which brought new hardship and reminded workers of the uncertainty of their lot, encouraged a wider range of agitation, and by the 1890s mass unionism surfaced throughout western Europe. Not only artisans but also factory workers and relatively unskilled groups, such as dockers, showed a growing ability to form national unions that made use of the sheer power of numbers, even in default of special skills, to press for gains. Strike rates increased steadily. In 1892 French workers struck 261 times against 500 companies; most of the efforts remained small and local, and only 50,000 workers were involved. By 1906, the peak French strike year before 1914, 1,309 strikes brought 438,000 workers off the job. British and German strike rates were higher still; in Britain, more than 2,000,000 workers struck between 1909 and 1913. A number of nationwide strikes showed labour's new muscle.

Unionization formed the second prong of the new labour surge. Along with mass unions in individual industries, general federations formed at the national level, such as the British Trades Union Congress and the French and Italian general confederations of labour. Unions provided social and material benefits for members along with their protest action; in many industries they managed to win collective bargaining procedures with employers, though this was far from a uniform pattern in an atmosphere of bitter competition over management rights; and they could influence governmental decisions in the labour area.

The rise of organized labour signaled an unprecedented development in the history of European popular protest. Never before had so many people been formally organized; never before had withdrawal of labour served as the chief protest weapon. Many workers joined a sweeping ideological fervor to their protest. Many were socialists, and a number of trade union movements were tightly linked to the rising socialist parties; this was particularly true in Germany and Austria. In other areas, especially France and Italy, an alternative syndicalist ideology won many adherents in the union movement; syndicalists urged that direct action through strikes should topple governments and usher in a new age in which organizations of workers would control production. Against these varied revolutionary currents, many workers saw in unions and strikes primarily a means to compensate for changes in their work environment, through higher pay (as a reward for less pleasant labour) and shorter hours. Even here, there was an ability to seek new ends rather than appealing to past standards. Overall, pragmatism battled with ideology in most labour movements, and in point of fact none of the large organizations aimed primarily at revolution.

Labour unrest was not the only form of protest in the later 19th century. In many continental nations (but not in Britain or Scandinavia), nationalist organizations drew the attention of discontented shopkeepers and others in the lower middle class who felt pressed by new business forms, such as department stores and elaborate managerial bureaucracies, but who were also hostile to socialism and the union movement. Nationalist riots surfaced periodically in many countries around such issues as setbacks in imperialist competition or internal political scandals. Some of the riots and accompanying organizations were also anti-Semitic, holding Jews responsible for big business and socialism alike. France witnessed the most important agitation from the radical right, through organizations like the Action Française; but anti-Semitic political movements also developed in Germany and Austria.

Important women's movements completed the new roster of mass protests. The basic conditions of women did not change greatly in western Europe during the second half of the 19th century, with the significant exception of the rapidly declining birth rate. The steady spread of primary education increased female literacy, bringing it nearly equal to male levels by 1900. A growing minority of middle-class women also entered secondary schools, and by the 1870s a handful reached universities and professional schools. Several separate women's colleges were founded in centres such as Oxford and Cambridge, and, against heavy resistance, a few women became doctors and lawyers. For somewhat larger numbers of women, new jobs in the service sector of the economy, such as telephone operators, primary-school teachers, and nurses, provided opportunities for work before marriage. Gradually some older sectors of employment, such as domestic service, began to decline. Nevertheless, emphasis on a domestic sphere for women changed little. Public schools, while teaching literacy, also taught the importance of household skills and support for a working husband.

These were the circumstances that produced increasingly active feminist movements, sometimes independently and sometimes in association with socialist parties. Feminist leaders sought greater equality under the law, an attack on a double-standard sexuality that advantaged men. Above all, they came to concentrate on winning the vote. Massive petitions in Britain, accompanied by considerable violence after 1900, signaled Europe's most active feminist movement, drawing mainly on middle-class ranks. Feminists in Scandinavia were successful in winning voting rights after 1900. Almost everywhere, feminist pressures added to the new variety of mass protest action.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History of Europe - The rise of organized labour and mass protests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
History of Europe - History of Europe - The rise of organized labour and mass protests: Mass leisure coexisted interestingly with the final major social development of the later 19th century, the escalating forms of class conflict.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Westward Movement

By the mid-nineteenth century, the American economy that had been based on local commerce and small-scale farming was maturing into a dynamic, wide-reaching capitalist marketplace. As the industrial revolution in the northeast altered the economy and intensified the process of urbanization, an agricultural empire began to emerge in the west.

By 1860, more than one-half of the American population was located west of the Appalachian Mountains. Conditions along the entire Atlantic seaboard stimulated migration to the western regions. The soil in New England was incapable of producing agricultural crops beyond a subsistence level, resulting in a steady stream of men and women moving west to take advantage of the rich land in the interior of the continent. Many people in the Carolinas, Virginia, and the Deep South also moved westward because they had exhausted the soil. A lot of them moved near the Mississippi River because it provided a means for getting their products to coastal markets.

In the early nineteenth century, life was grim for the first pioneer families, who were poorly fed, ill-clad, and housed in hastily built dwellings. Many trudged on foot over hundreds of miles, dragging crude carts loaded with their scanty possessions. More fortunate pioneers traveled on horseback or in wagons-the best known was the canvas-topped Conestoga "covered wagons," pulled by horses or oxen. These wagons were waterproof, enabled pioneers to travel farther, and allowed families to travel together and bring more of their possessions.

As the nineteenth century wore on and more and more settlers moved west, conditions improved. Many became farmers as well as hunters, and flourishing settlements began to change the face of the west. Land speculators bought large tracts of the cheap land, sold their holdings for a profit, and moved still farther west, making way for new settlers. Artisans and merchants soon followed the farmers west. Rapid growth in the west was the norm. Chicago, Illinois in 1830 was simply a trading village with a fort, but long before some of its original settlers died, it had become one of the largest and richest cities in the nation.

Farmland in the west was easy to acquire. A new land law in 1820 reduced the minimum price of government land from $1.64 to $1.25 per acre and the minimum plot size from 160 to 80 acres. Westerners continued to push for greater relaxation of land laws, and under the Preemption Act of 1830, squatters were allowed to stake out claims ahead of the governmental land surveys and later get 160 acres at the minimum price of $1.25 per acre. Then, after the 1862 Homestead Act, land could be claimed by merely occupying and improving it.

Pioneer families first had to clear the trees and grub out the stumps and underbrush, but then they could grow their own grain, vegetables, and fruit. They also ranged the woods for wild game, fished the nearby streams, and raised livestock. They usually planted their first crop in a natural glade, and then year by year they pushed back the trees until the land was cleared. They discovered corn was very versatile-it could be fed to livestock or distilled into liquor-and it rapidly became the Western farmers' staple market item. Much of the Westerner's harvest was sent down the Ohio-Mississippi River system to the booming Cotton Kingdom in the south. The Mississippi River and its tributaries provided a natural highway for western commerce.

Westerners were continually finding ways to bring more land into cultivation. Unfortunately, when they reached the sticky black soil of the treeless prairies, their wooden plows would break, making it nearly impossible to plant. The innovators of the time helped the farmers overcome the challenges they faced. In 1837, John Deere invented a steel plow that could break the soil and was light enough to be pulled by horses.

In 1834, Cyrus McCormick invented a mechanical mower-reaper that transformed the scale of American agriculture. Farmers using hand-operated sickles and scythes could only harvest half an acre of wheat a day, while McCormick's reaper and two men could work twelve acres a day. McCormick's success attracted other inventors, and soon there were mechanical seeders that replaced the need to sow seed by hand and mechanical threshers to separate the grains of wheat from straw.

With all of the technological advances and continual movement to the west, farming had become a major commercial activity by the 1850s. Large-scale, specialized, cash-crop agriculture dominated the trans-Allegheny west. Soon, the volume of agricultural products became more than the South could consume. However, before the farming community could do more than ship their produce downriver, a transportation revolution would have to occur that would enable them to send foodstuffs east and west.

Innovative Transportation

In the late eighteenth century, primitive methods of travel were still in use in America. Waterborne travel was uncertain and often dangerous, covered-wagon and stagecoach travel over rutted trails was uncomfortable, and all types of travel were very slow. Americans were aware that a transportation network would increase land values, stimulate domestic and foreign trade, and strengthen the American economy.

In 1794, a private company completed the Philadelphia-Lancaster Turnpike, a broad, paved highway that was similar to the good European highways at that time. It was called a "turnpike" because as drivers approached the tollgate they were confronted with a barrier of sharp spikes that was turned aside when they paid their toll. The completion of the Lancaster Turnpike resulted in a turnpike-building boom that lasted nearly 20 years. By 1821, nearly 4,000 miles of turnpikes had been completed, mostly connecting eastern cities. Money needed to build the new turnpikes was coming primarily from state governments and in some cases from individuals.

Constructing decent roads over the Appalachians and in the west was a more difficult task than building those in the east. Although states' rights proponents regularly blocked spending federal funds for internal improvements, one notable exception was the Cumberland Road. In 1811, the federal government began to construct a turnpike-Cumberland Road, also called the "National Road"-which stretched 591 miles from Cumberland, in western Maryland, to Vandalia, in Illinois. The project was completed in 1852 with a combination of federal and state aid, with different states receiving ownership of segments of the highway.

Americans benefited from the new turnpikes; however, it was not yet economical to ship bulky goods by land across the great distances in America. Businessmen and inventors began concentrating on improving water transportation. In 1807, Robert Fulton sent the first commercially successful steamboat, the Clermont, from New York City up the Hudson River to Albany. Skeptics initially thought the project would never work and nicknamed the boat "Fulton's Folly." The Clermont made the run of 150 miles at about five miles an hour, proving that it was an efficient vessel. Thereafter, use of the steamboat spread rapidly, with steamers making the run from New Orleans as far north as Ohio. By 1830, there were more than 200 steamers on the Mississippi.

As early as the 1820s, the successes of the steamboat were clear. Steamboats played a vital role in opening the west and south to further settlement. They stimulated the agricultural economy of the west by providing better access to markets at a lower cost. Farmers quickly bought land near navigable rivers, because they could now easily ship their produce out. Villages at strategic points along the waterways evolved into centers of commerce and urban life. In the 1830s and 1840s, the port of New Orleans grew to lead all others in exports.

Steamboats were also much more comfortable than other forms of land transportation at the time. The General Pike, launched in 1819, set the standard for luxurious steamers with marble columns, thick carpets, ornate mirrors, and plush curtains. Luxury steamers evolved into floating palaces where passengers could dine, drink, dance, and gamble as they traveled to their destinations.

While steamboats were conquering western rivers, canals were under construction in the northeast to further improve the transportation network. In 1817, the New York legislature endorsed Governor DeWitt Clinton's plan for connecting the Hudson River with Lake Erie-the Erie Canal. Completed in 1825, the canal ran 363 miles from Albany to Buffalo. The completion of the canal reduced travel time from New York City to Buffalo from 20 days to six, reduced the cost of moving a ton of freight from $100 to $5, and moved the country a step closer to linking the Mississippi Valley and the Atlantic Ocean. The canal also provided a water route from New York to Chicago, via the Great Lakes, and marked the beginning of Chicago's rapid growth.

The Erie Canal was immediately a financial success, paying for itself within seven years. The success of the "Big Ditch" sparked a canal-building mania that lasted for more than a decade and resulted in around 3,000 miles of waterways by 1840. Ohio built the Ohio and Erie Canal, running from the Ohio River to Cleveland, and Indiana built the Wabash and Erie Canal. Both were feeders that supplied farmers west of the Appalachians with water connections to the east.

The Erie Canal had broad economic implications. The value of land along the route increased, new cities in New York such as Rochester and Syracuse sprang up, industry in New York boomed, and farming in the Old Northwest attracted thousands of newcomers who could now easily ship their goods to market on the east coast.

Both the turnpike and the canal contributed to the emerging national economy, but the most significant development was the railroad. Railroads were faster and cheaper than canals to construct, and they did not freeze over in the winter. Since many states had overextended by borrowing heavily to finance their canals, much of the early railroad growth was developed by private investors.

In 1828, development of the first railroad began in Baltimore, and four years later the Baltimore and Ohio (B&O) Railroad reached 73 miles. By 1833, the Charleston and Hamburg Railroad extended 136 miles west of Charleston. The Panic of 1837 slowed railroad construction, but by 1840 the United States had over 3,000 miles of tracks, nearly double the mileage in all of Europe. And by 1860, the U.S. saw development of over 30,000 miles of railroad tracks, three-fourths of which were in the industrializing north. There were several southern railway lines, but no one single southern railway system.

Early railroad pioneers faced several challenges: Tracks with steep grades and sharp curves required more powerful locomotives, sparks from wood-burning engines caused fires, brakes were ineffective, and wooden rails topped with iron straps wore out quickly and broke loose, causing dangerous crashes. The intent of most early railroad builders had been to monopolize the trade of certain districts, not to establish connections with competing centers, so few of the tracks were coordinated into railroad systems. Frequently, railroads went so far as to use tracks of different widths to prevent other lines from using their tracks.

Eventually, all of these railway obstacles were overcome. Modifications in locomotive design enabled trains to negotiate sharp curves, engines that could burn hard coal appeared, better brakes were developed, and the iron T-rail combined with crossties increased durability of the tracks. Rail gauges also gradually became standardized, linking the various rail lines together.

Water travel was generally more comfortable than the train, but railway travel became the most popular from of transport because it was economical, reliable, and fast. Trains traveled more than twice as fast as a stagecoach and four times as fast as a steamboat.

The development of so many railroads changed American society. The railroad provided indirect benefits by encouraging settlement and expansion of farming, thus transforming agriculture. Much more of the fertile prairie could be developed because the farmers now had access to national markets via the train. American cities were also influenced by railway development. Eastern seaports, along with other intermediate centers like Cincinnati, benefited from an increase in exportable goods.

Other forms of transportation were also working to bind the United States together and to the rest of the world. In 1845, the first clipper ship, the Rainbow, was launched. Clipper ships were long, narrow, and built for speed. With their taller masts and numerous sails, they could outrun a steamer if there was a good breeze. While in operation, clippers carried highly demanded tea from China to America and transported goods to the prospectors in California. Clippers lasted less than two decades because, although they were fast, they did not have much cargo space.

In 1860 in the far west, the Pony Express was established as a form of transportation for carrying mail. Daring pony riders carried mail from Missouri to California in ten days-an amazing feat for the times. The riders changed horses at stations every 10 miles, and rode summer or winter, day or night, good weather and bad. The Pony Express only lasted 18 months, succumbing to Samuel Morse's telegraph machine.

The transportation revolution in the United States had been spurred by the desire of the Easterners to tap into all that the west had to offer. Turnpike, canals, steamboats, and railways forged a truly continental economy. Transportation innovations cut the cost and increased the speed of moving goods, helping to create a national market and provide a stimulus for regional specialization. Westerners, with their boundless prairies and swiftly growing population, became important producers of commercial agriculture, supplying both the North and the South with food. Northerners supplied the West and the South with textiles and other manufactured goods. Southerners supplied the North with cotton, the raw material they needed to produce their textiles.

The movement of goods over long distances to the various regions required a supporting infrastructure, which stimulated the growth of market towns where merchants, bankers, warehousemen, retailers, and other middlemen provided the services needed to move the goods from producers to consumers. More extensive markets increased competition, pushing manufacturers to produce better and cheaper products in order to capture a larger share of the market.

Transportation innovations encouraged a new sense of connectedness among Americans, encouraging a deeper sense of nationalism. The transportation revolution pushed nineteenth-century America through the process of integrating an entire continent into a single cultural and economic entity.

You just finished The Transportation Revolution. Nice work!
Previous Outline Tip: Use ← → keys to navigate! Next Outline

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Transportation Revolution - AP U.S. History Topic Outlines - Study Notes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
100% Free AP Test Prep website that offers study material to high school students seeking to prepare for AP exams. Enterprising students use this website to learn AP class material, study for class quizzes and tests, and to brush up on course material before the big exam day.

# data[].attributes.headline
Immigration to the United States in the 1800s

# data[].attributes.subject
Immigration to the United States in the 1800s

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigration policy in the United States has evolved over time in response to debates surrounding who may become a new citizen of the United States or enter the country as a temporary worker, student, refugee, or permanent resident. The first laws regarding immigration were enacted in the late 1800s; legislation enacted after 1952 amended and was codified in the Title 8 of the United States Code, the canon of federal law dealing with immigration policy.

The executive branch also has wide authority over immigration policy and can impact immigration regulation with executive actions and orders. Immigration policy also determines who in ineligible for admission into the country and outlines the procedure for removal of individuals in violation of immigration law. This article summarizes some of the changes in immigration policy throughout the history of the United States.

Early immigration policy

Among the first laws passed to limit immigration were the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Immigration Act, both enacted in 1882. The Chinese Exclusion Act prohibited the entry of Chinese laborers into the country for 10 years, while the Immigration Act established a 50-cent tax to enter the country, to be paid by each immigrant upon entry. The Immigration Act also excluded "any convict, lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of him or herself without becoming a public charge" from entry altogether.

The Immigration Act of 1882 set a precedent for barring categories of individuals from entry, and the next major immigration law, the Immigration Act of 1891, expanded these categories to include polygamists, individuals convicted of crimes of moral depravity, and those with contagious diseases that posed a threat to public health. The law also created the first federal agency dedicated to enforcing immigration law, the Office of the Superintendent of Immigration within the Treasury Department.

20th century immigration policy

Immigration Act of 1924

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, Congress continued to pass various laws related to immigration and naturalization, many of them restrictive, such as the Immigration Act of 1924. According to the United States Department of State Office of the Historian, "the Immigration Act of 1924 limited the number of immigrants allowed entry into the United States through a national origins quota." The quota had originally been established on a temporary basis by the Emergency Quota Act of 1921; the Immigration Act of 1924 amended and made permanent this quota system. The act provided for the granting of immigration visas to 2 percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States, calculated as of the 1890 census. Immigrants from Asia were barred under this system. Quotas were not applied to immigrants from the Western Hemisphere. The Immigration Act of 1924 was also known as the Johnson-Reed Act.

Nationality Act of 1940

In 1940, Congress passed and Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Nationality Act of 1940; its stated purpose was to "revise and codify the nationality laws of the United States into a comprehensive nationality code." The law established the conditions necessary to meet for one to acquire U.S. citizenship through the nature of one's birth (known as birthright citizenship). Birthright citizenship was primarily granted to individuals born within the United States, or outside the United States to U.S. citizen parents. The law also outlined the process by which immigrants could acquire U.S. citizenship through naturalization and described classes of non-citizens who would be ineligible for naturalization.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

The Nationality Act of 1940 was supplanted by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 modified the national origins quota system. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the prohibition on Asian immigration was rescinded and national origins quotas were set at one-sixth of 1 percent of each nationality's population the United States as of the 1920 census.

The law also codified and compiled existing laws from a variety of sources into a single text. Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 granted the President of the United States the following authority:

"

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

"

-Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Section 212

Although the law has been amended several times since its passage, it remains the foundation of Title 8 of the United States Code, the canon of federal law relating to immigration policy.

Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965

The law also established systems of family-based and employment-based preference categories for the issuance of visas to individuals seeking to come to the United States. The preference system is a method of distributing the limited number of visas awarded each year, with more visas available for the more highly preferred categories. Under the family-based preference system, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens were most preferred, followed by immediate relatives of lawful permanent residents, and then married adult children and siblings of U.S. citizens. Under the employment-based preference system, individuals with "extraordinary abilities in the arts, sciences, education, business, or athletics" were most preferred, followed by professionals and those with "exceptional ability in the sciences or the arts," skilled workers, various special classes of immigrants, and high-dollar investors. While these preference systems and their numerical limits were adjusted by subsequent laws, their fundamental structures remained in tact. For a list of the preference categories as of March 2017, click here.

Refugee Act of 1980

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was written based on the recommendations of a 1981 congressional commission for amending the immigration system and reducing illegal immigration. The law made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire individuals unauthorized to work in the United States and established a system for verifying the legal status of employees. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (broken into three separate agencies in 2003: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)) and the U.S. Border Patrol were provided increased funding for the purpose of enforcing immigration law.

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

The law introduced civil penalties for attempting to cross the border illegally. It also amended the process of removing individuals residing in the country without legal permission by prohibiting legal reentry for a certain period of time and introducing a process for expedited removal. The law also applied new restrictions to the asylum application process.

21st century immigration policy

Legislation

Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002

Secure Fence Act of 2006

Executive actions

Obama administration

During his administration, President Barack Obama (D) established Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). DACA is a program that allows individuals who were brought to the United States as children to receive relief from being deported for a period of time if they meet certain criteria. DAPA proposed delaying the deportation of parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and providing them with work permits, as long as they were in the United States since January 1, 2010, and did not pose a threat to national security or public safety.

Both programs relied on deferred action, which is "[a] use of prosecutorial discretion to not remove an individual from the country for a set period of time, unless the deferred action is terminated for some reason. Deferred action is determined on a case-by-case basis and only establishes lawful presence but does not provide immigration status or benefits of any kind." Nearly 800,000 people were granted deferred action under DACA through fiscal year 2015, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Since DACA and DAPA were executive actions and not the result of new legislation from Congress, there was debate about whether such actions were permissible under the United States Constitution. A group of 26 states sought and won from lower courts an injunction the implementation of DAPA and the expansion of DACA. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and on June 23, 2016, the court issued a per curiam ruling in the case, which is an opinion without a specific justice named as the author. The court was evenly divided on the case, which left the injunction in place. On October 3, 2016, the Supreme Court rejected a request from the U.S. Department of Justice to rehear the case. These rulings were preliminary ones on the merits of the case; the full case was sent back to be considered by the lower courts.

Trump administration

Executive orders

Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States: introduced penalties against sanctuary cities, including making them ineligible for federal grants; prioritized the deportation of non-citizens charged with or convicted of a crime; reinstated Secure Communities, a deportation program discontinued under the Obama administration which used local law enforcement arrest data to identify individuals residing in the United States without legal permission.

March 6, 2017, executive order: suspended for 90 days entry into the United States for individuals from Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen; suspended refugee admissions to the United States for 120 days while the process was reviewed for additional national security measures that could be implemented.

DACA and DAPA under the Trump administration

DACA: At a press briefing on September 5, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke had issued a memo rescinding DACA. The memo outlined a wind down of DACA taking place over several months. The administration heard and decided pending program applications and applications for renewal from those whose benefits {{{after}}} by March 5, 2018.

DAPA: On June 15, 2017, then-U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly rescinded DAPA, a policy that suspended the removal of individuals residing in the country without legal permission who were the parents of U.S. citizens. The policy was enacted in November 2014, during the Obama administration, but had been placed on hold by federal courts as part of a lawsuit from the state of Texas. It was never implemented.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History of immigration policy in the United States - Ballotpedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Immigration policy in the United States has evolved over time in response to debates surrounding who may become a new citizen of the United States or enter the country as a temporary worker, student, refugee, or permanent resident.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article was most recently revised and updated by

Second Great Awakening, Protestant religious revival in the United States from about 1795 to 1835. During this revival, meetings were held in small towns and large cities throughout the country, and the unique frontier institution known as the camp meeting began. Many churches experienced a great increase in membership, particularly among Methodist and Baptist churches. The Second Great Awakening made soul-winning the primary function of ministry and stimulated several moral and philanthropic reforms, including temperance and the emancipation of women. Generally considered less emotional than the Great Awakening of the early 18th century, the second wave of evangelical revivalism led to the founding of numerous colleges and seminaries and to the organization of mission societies across the country.

The Second Great Awakening can be divided into three phases. The first phase (1795-1810) was associated with frontier camp meetings conducted by American preachers James McGready, John McGee, and Barton W. Stone in Kentucky and Tennessee. The second and more conservative phase of the awakening (1810-25) centred in the Congregational churches of New England under the leadership of theologians Timothy Dwight, Lyman Beecher, Nathaniel W. Taylor, and Asahel Nettleton. The third and final phase (1825-35) stemmed from the activities of evangelist Charles Grandison Finney, who began his revivalism in small towns in western New York in the 1820s but eventually conducted revival meetings in the largest cities in the United States and Britain.

During the Second Great Awakening revivalistic theology in many denominations shifted from Calvinism to a practical Arminianism as preachers emphasized the ability of sinners to make an immediate decision for their salvation; theological differences almost disappeared among evangelical churches. Moreover, under Finney's aegis a rationale for carefully contrived revival techniques evolved. After 1835 an irregular corps of professional revival experts traveled through the towns and cities of America and Britain organizing annual revival meetings at the invitation of local pastors who wanted to reinvigorate their churches. Although many American Protestants lost interest in revivalism in the first half of the 20th century, tent revivals as well as annual revivals in churches in the South and Midwest continued to be an important feature of Protestant church life.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Melissa Petruzzello.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Second Great Awakening | Description, History, & Key Figures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Second Great Awakening, Protestant religious revival in the United States from about 1795 to 1835. Many churches experienced a great increase in membership, and the revival stimulated moral reforms, such as the temperance movement. Learn more about the Second Great Awakening and its impact on American Protestantism.

# data[].attributes.headline
Abolitionist Movement Prior to the Civil War

# data[].attributes.subject
Abolitionist Movement Prior to the Civil War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
officially:

An Act to Organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas

This article was most recently revised and updated by

Kansas-Nebraska Act, in the antebellum period of U.S. history, critical national policy change concerning the expansion of slavery into the territories, affirming the concept of popular sovereignty over congressional edict. In 1820 the Missouri Compromise had excluded slavery from that part of the Louisiana Purchase (except Missouri) north of the 36°30′ parallel. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Stephen A. Douglas, provided for the territorial organization of Kansas and Nebraska under the principle of popular sovereignty, which had been applied to New Mexico and Utah in the Compromise of 1850. Pres. Franklin Pierce signed An Act to Organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas into law on May 30, 1854.

Written in an effort to arrest the escalating sectional controversy over the extension of slavery, the Kansas-Nebraska Act ironically fanned the flame of national division. It was attacked by free-soil and antislavery factions as a capitulation to the proponents of slavery. Passage of the act was followed by the establishment of the Republican Party as a viable political organization opposed to the expansion of slavery into the territories. In the Kansas Territory a migration of proslavery and antislavery factions, seeking to win control for their respective institutions, resulted in a period of political chaos and bloodshed. See Bleeding Kansas.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Alicja Zelazko.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kansas-Nebraska Act | Definition, History, Outcome, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kansas-Nebraska Act, in the antebellum period of U.S. history, critical national policy change concerning the expansion of slavery into the territories, affirming the concept of popular sovereignty over congressional edict. It was signed into law by President Franklin Pierce in 1854. Read about its history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lincoln-Douglas debates, series of seven debates between the Democratic senator Stephen A. Douglas and Republican challenger Abraham Lincoln during the 1858 Illinois senatorial campaign, largely concerning the issue of slavery extension into the territories.

The slavery extension question had seemingly been settled by the Missouri Compromise nearly 40 years earlier. The Mexican War, however, had added new territories, and the issue flared up again in the 1840s. The Compromise of 1850 provided a temporary respite from sectional strife, but the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854-a measure Douglas sponsored-brought the slavery extension issue to the fore once again. Douglas's bill in effect repealed the Missouri Compromise by lifting the ban against slavery in territories north of the 36°30′ latitude. In place of the ban, Douglas offered popular sovereignty, the doctrine that the actual settlers in the territories and not Congress should decide the fate of slavery in their midst.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act spurred the creation of the Republican Party, formed largely to keep slavery out of the western territories. Both Douglas's doctrine of popular sovereignty and the Republican stand on free soil were seemingly invalidated by the Dred Scott decision of 1857, in which the Supreme Court said that neither Congress nor the territorial legislature could exclude slavery from a territory.

When Lincoln and Douglas debated the slavery extension issue in 1858, therefore, they were addressing the problem that had divided the nation into two hostile camps and that threatened the continued existence of the Union. Their contest, as a consequence, had repercussions far beyond determining who would win the senatorial seat at stake.

When Lincoln received the Republican nomination to run against Douglas, he said in his acceptance speech that "A house divided against itself cannot stand" and that "this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free." Douglas thereupon attacked Lincoln as a radical, threatening the continued stability of the Union. Lincoln then challenged Douglas to a series of debates, and the two eventually agreed to hold joint encounters in seven Illinois congressional districts.

The debates, each three hours long, were convened in Ottawa (August 21), Freeport (August 27), Jonesboro (September 15), Charleston (September 18), Galesburg (October 7), Quincy (October 13), and Alton (October 15). Douglas repeatedly tried to brand Lincoln as a dangerous radical who advocated racial equality and disruption of the Union. Lincoln emphasized the moral iniquity of slavery and attacked popular sovereignty for the bloody results it had produced in Kansas.

At Freeport Lincoln challenged Douglas to reconcile popular sovereignty with the Dred Scott decision. Douglas replied that settlers could circumvent the decision by not establishing the local police regulations-i.e., a slave code-that protected a master's property. Without such protection, no one would bring slaves into a territory. This became known as the " Freeport Doctrine."

Douglas's position, while acceptable to many Northern Democrats, angered the South and led to the division of the last remaining national political institution, the Democratic Party. Although he retained his seat in the Senate, narrowly defeating Lincoln when the state legislature (which then elected U.S. senators) voted 54 to 46 in his favour, Douglas's stature as a national leader of the Democratic Party was gravely diminished. Lincoln, on the other hand, lost the election but won acclaim as an eloquent spokesman for the Republican cause.

In 1860 the Lincoln-Douglas debates were printed as a book and used as an important campaign document in the presidential contest that year, which once again pitted Republican Lincoln against Democrat Douglas. This time, however, Douglas was running as the candidate of a divided party and finished a distant second in the popular vote to the triumphant Lincoln.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lincoln-Douglas debates | Summary, Dates, Significance, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lincoln-Douglas debates, series of seven debates between the Democratic senator Stephen A. Douglas and Republican challenger Abraham Lincoln during the 1858 Illinois senatorial campaign, largely concerning the issue of slavery extension into the territories. The slavery extension question had seemingly been settled by the Missouri Compromise nearly 40 years earlier.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Election of 1860 & the Road to Disunion: Crash Course US History #18

# data[].attributes.body
Immigration to the United States in the 1800s:
https://ballotpedia.org/History_of_immigration_policy_in_the_United_States

Second Great Awakening:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Great-Awakening

Abolitionist Movement Prior to the Civil War:
http://socialistworker.org/sites/default/files/images/2011/04/abolitionist-handbill-a.jpg

Women’s Rights Movement in the 1800s:
https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/4402972.jpg

Compromise of 1850:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COnR9R1jwvY

Kansas/Nebraska Act:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kansas-Nebraska-Act
Lincoln/Douglas Debates:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Lincoln-Douglas-debates
Election of 1860:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roNmeOOJCDY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Battle of Fort Sumter, (April 12-14, 1861), the opening engagement of the American Civil War, at the entrance to the harbour of Charleston, South Carolina. Although Fort Sumter held no strategic value to the North-it was unfinished and its guns faced the sea rather than Confederate shore batteries-it held enormous value as a symbol of the Union.

The United States Army began building Fort Sumter on an artificial island at the entrance to Charleston Harbor in 1829. The fort was named for Thomas Sumter, a general who had won key victories against the British in the Carolinas during the American Revolution. The fort was still under construction during the last months of Pres. James Buchanan's term, when a succession of events occurred that brought the contending regions of the United States to the verge of armed conflict. Soon after the election of Abraham Lincoln in November 1860, the state of South Carolina called a convention that passed an ordinance of secession (December 20, 1860), and Gov. Francis Pickens sent commissioners to Washington, D.C., to claim possession of the forts in Charleston Harbor and all other U.S. property in his state.

On December 26, 1860, Maj. Robert Anderson, commanding officer of the Federal garrison at Charleston, secretly transferred his two weak companies from Fort Moultrie-which was located on a peninsula on the east side of the harbour and was untenable against a land attack-to Fort Sumter in the mouth of the harbour. Pickens seized the arsenal and other forts around the harbour and began throwing up batteries against Sumter. Meanwhile, his commissioners in Washington requested the recall of the Federal troops from Charleston. Buchanan refused this request. In a message to Congress on December 3, Buchanan had already denied the right of secession, but he asserted that the Constitution gave him no right to attempt coercion. He hoped for compromise, and a committee of Congress considered various proposals for adjustment. A peace conference, called by Virginia, also met in Washington and suggested amendments to the Constitution that would satisfy Southern grievances. Lincoln and the leaders of the Republican Party refused to accept the adjustments that the Southerners demanded. In the meantime, Buchanan sent an unarmed commercial steamer, Star of the West, with supplies and reinforcements to Sumter, but it turned back when it was fired upon in the harbour on January 9, 1861.

Between January 9 and February 1 six other states ( Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) followed South Carolina's example. Without attempting negotiation, their governors seized all the forts and arsenals in their respective states except Fort Pickens in the harbour of Pensacola, Florida. Delegates from the seceding states met at Montgomery, Alabama, organized the Confederate States of America, and set up a provisional government with Jefferson Davis as president. Davis's inauguration took place on February 18. The Confederate government then assumed control of the negotiations about Sumter. Neither Buchanan nor Davis was eager to precipitate a crisis. Buchanan's fervent desire apparently was to leave the solution of the whole problem to his successor; Davis was chiefly concerned with getting his own administration in working order. He sent Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard, an engineer officer of distinction, to Charleston to complete the defenses of the harbour. The day after Beauregard reached Charleston, Lincoln was inaugurated in Washington, D.C. (March 4).

A difficult problem confronted the new president. Seven slave states had seceded, but eight still remained in the Union. Any attempt at coercion would throw all these states, except Delaware (which practically counted as a Northern state), into the arms of the Confederacy. At this stage neither side wanted war. This was certainly true of the North, where a strong feeling was growing in favour of "letting the erring sisters depart in peace." The South had assumed a defensive role, that of a newborn country asking only to be left alone. Lincoln's inaugural speech was really addressed to the slave states still in the Union. To the Confederate states it sounded like a declaration of war, but they sought to avoid the responsibility of striking the first blow.

The South hoped to force Lincoln's hand over Sumter. Anderson's position there was daily growing more difficult. He would have gladly evacuated the fort to avert a civil war, but his duty as a soldier compelled him to sit with folded hands while the enemy was completing its preparations. His provisions would be exhausted by mid-April. The Confederate batteries had made such progress that he doubted whether it was still possible to relieve the fort unless possession of the whole harbour were secured, and for that purpose he estimated that 20,000 men would be required. The whole U.S. Army numbered only about 17,000 men, most of whom were scattered in small posts on the Western frontier, whence they could not be hastily withdrawn.

Only on March 5 did Lincoln learn that Anderson might be starved into surrender. Gen. Winfield Scott, the president's chief military adviser, urged evacuation on military grounds. However, Lincoln had pledged himself "to hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the Government." It would be fatal to the prestige of his administration to start by going back on his word, and evacuation might seem a virtual recognition of the Confederacy. Against the advice of a majority of his cabinet, he determined to send a relief expedition, carrying only food supplies, to Sumter. If the Federal flag should be fired upon, that would constitute a casus belli, and the responsibility for beginning the war would rest on the Confederates.

Although he did not inform Anderson, Lincoln gave Pickens precise information regarding his intention. He must have foreseen the actual event. Through war, the Union could be restored, and the North, which was not agreed on policy, could be united. Pickens promptly informed the Montgomery government, and Davis ordered Beauregard to reduce Sumter. Upon Anderson's refusal to evacuate, the batteries opened fire at 4:30 am on April 12. The next afternoon Anderson agreed to surrender and evacuated the fort at noon on April 14. When the U.S. troops marched out of the fort, they waved the U.S. flag and carried out a gun salute. On the 50th round of the 100-gun salute, an explosion occurred, causing the only death of the engagement. Pvt. Daniel Hough of the 1st U.S. Artillery regiment was the first of as many as 850,000 Americans who would perish before the cessation of hostilities.

The Confederate leaders' ready acceptance of Lincoln's challenge may have been due to a fear that without a collision the ardour of the Southern people, many of whom had opposed secession, might abate. Neither Lincoln nor Davis could have foreseen the dimensions the war would assume.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Battle of Fort Sumter | Location, Significance, & Map

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Battle of Fort Sumter was the opening engagement of the American Civil War.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Emancipation Proclamation, edict issued by U.S. Pres. Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, that freed the slaves of the Confederate states in rebellion against the Union. It took more than two years for news of the proclamation to reach the slaves in the distant state of Texas. The arrival of the news on June 19 (of 1865) is now celebrated as a national holiday- Juneteenth or Emancipation Day.
(Read Charles Blow's Britannica essay on the Juneteenth holiday.)
Before the start of the American Civil War, many people and leaders of the North had been primarily concerned merely with stopping the extension of slavery into western territories that would eventually achieve statehood within the Union. With the secession of the Southern states and the consequent start of the Civil War, however, the continued tolerance of Southern slavery by Northerners seemed no longer to serve any constructive political purpose. Emancipation thus quickly changed from a distant possibility to an imminent and feasible eventuality. Lincoln had declared that he meant to save the Union as best he could-by preserving slavery, by destroying it, or by destroying part and preserving part. Just after the Battle of Antietam (September 17, 1862) he issued his proclamation calling on the revolted states to return to their allegiance before the next year, otherwise their slaves would be declared free men. No state returned, and the threatened declaration was issued on January 1, 1863.

As president, Lincoln could issue no such declaration; as commander in chief of the armies and navies of the United States he could issue directions only as to the territory within his lines; but the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to territory outside of his lines. It has therefore been debated whether the proclamation was in reality of any force. It may fairly be taken as an announcement of the policy that was to guide the army and as a declaration of freedom taking effect as the lines advanced. At all events, this was its exact effect.

Its international importance was far greater. The locking up of the world's source of cotton supply had been a general calamity, and the Confederate government and people had steadily expected that the English and French governments would intervene in the war. The conversion of the struggle into a crusade against slavery made European intervention impossible.

The Emancipation Proclamation did more than lift the war to the level of a crusade for human freedom. It brought some substantial practical results, because it allowed the Union to recruit Black soldiers. To this invitation to join the army the Blacks responded in considerable numbers, nearly 180,000 of them enlisting during the remainder of the war. By August 26, 1863, Lincoln could report, in a letter to James C. Conkling, that "the emancipation policy, and the use of colored troops, constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the rebellion."

Two months before the war ended-in February 1865-Lincoln told portrait painter Francis B. Carpenter that the Emancipation Proclamation was "the central act of my administration, and the greatest event of the nineteenth century." To Lincoln and to his countrymen it had become evident that the proclamation had dealt a deathblow to slavery in the United States, a fate that was officially sealed by the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment in December 1865.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Emancipation Proclamation | Definition, Date, Summary, Significance, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Emancipation Proclamation, edict issued by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, that freed the slaves of the Confederate states during the American Civil War. Besides lifting the war to the level of a crusade for human freedom, the proclamation allowed the Union to recruit Black soldiers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Southern Surrender at Appomattox Courthouse

# data[].attributes.subject
Southern Surrender at Appomattox Courthouse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Blood and Glory: The Civil War in Color: Lee's Reluctant Surrender | History

# data[].attributes.body
The Fall of Ft. Sumter:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Fort-Sumter
The Emancipation Proclamation:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Emancipation-Proclamation
Clara Barton and the American Red Cross:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Clara_Barton_1948_issue_3c.JPG

The Battle of Gettysburg:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Gettysburg

The Battle of Vicksburg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eSgimZ8GKQ

Southern Surrender at Appomattox Courthouse:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2B7QzAR6XI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thirteenth Amendment, amendment (1865) to the Constitution of the United States that formally abolished slavery. Although the words slavery and slave are never mentioned in the Constitution, the Thirteenth Amendment abrogated those sections of the Constitution which had tacitly codified the "peculiar institution": Article I, Section 2, regarding apportionment of representation in the House of Representatives, which had been "determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons provided for the appointment," with "all other persons" meaning slaves; Article I, Section 9, which had established 1807 as the end date for the importation of slaves, referred to in this case as "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit"; and Article IV, Section 2, which mandated the return to their owners of fugitive slaves, here defined as persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another."

The Emancipation Proclamation, declared and promulgated by Pres. Abraham Lincoln in 1863 during the American Civil War, freed only those slaves held in the Confederate States of America. In depriving the South of its greatest economic resource-abundant free human labour-Lincoln's proclamation was intended primarily as an instrument of military strategy. Only when emancipation was universally proposed through the Thirteenth Amendment did it become national policy. Moreover, the legality of abolition by presidential edict was questionable.

The full text of the amendment is:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The amendment was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, but did not pass in the House until January 31, 1865. The joint resolution of both bodies that submitted the amendment to the states for approval was signed by Lincoln on February 1, 1865. However, he did not live to see its ratification. Assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, he died on April 15, 1865, and the amendment was not ratified by the required number of states until December 6, 1865.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Thirteenth Amendment | Definition, Significance, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thirteenth Amendment, amendment (1865) to the Constitution of the United States that formally abolished slavery. Although the words 'slavery' and 'slave' are never mentioned in the Constitution, the Thirteenth Amendment abrogated those sections of the Constitution which had tacitly codified the 'peculiar institution.'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article was most recently revised and updated by

Fourteenth Amendment, amendment (1868) to the Constitution of the United States that granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War, including them under the umbrella phrase "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." In all, the amendment comprises five sections, four of which began in 1866 as separate proposals that stalled in legislative process and were later amalgamated, along with a fifth enforcement section, into a single amendment.

This so-called Reconstruction Amendment prohibited the states from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and from denying anyone within a state's jurisdiction equal protection under the law. Nullified by the Thirteenth Amendment, the section of the Constitution apportioning representation in the House of Representatives based on a formula that counted each slave as three-fifths of a person was replaced by a clause in the Fourteenth Amendment specifying that representatives be "apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed." The amendment also prohibited former civil and military office holders who had supported the Confederacy from again holding any state or federal office-with the proviso that this prohibition could be removed from individuals by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress. Moreover, the amendment upheld the national debt while exempting the federal government and state governments from any responsibility for the debts incurred by the rebellious Confederate States of America. Finally, the last section, mirroring the approach of the Thirteenth Amendment, provided for enforcement.

The full text of the amendment is:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Among those legislators responsible for introducing the amendment's provisions were Rep. John A. Bingham of Ohio, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, Rep. Henry Deming of Connecticut, Sen. Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri, and Rep. Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania. The Congressional Joint Resolution proposing the amendment was submitted to the states for ratification on June 16, 1866. On July 28, 1868, having been ratified by the requisite number of states, it entered into force. However, its attempt to guarantee civil rights was circumvented for many decades by the post-Reconstruction-era black codes, Jim Crow laws, and the U.S. Supreme Court's "separate but equal" ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Adam Augustyn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fourteenth Amendment | Definition, Summary, Rights, Significance, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fourteenth Amendment, amendment (1868) to the Constitution of the United States that granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the Civil War, including them under the umbrella phrase 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States.'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fifteenth Amendment, amendment (1870) to the Constitution of the United States that guaranteed that the right to vote could not be denied based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The amendment complemented and followed in the wake of the passage of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments, which abolished slavery and guaranteed citizenship, respectively, to African Americans. The passage of the Fifteenth Amendment and its subsequent ratification (February 3, 1870) effectively enfranchised African American men while denying the right to vote to women of all colours. Women would not receive that right until the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.

The full text of the Fifteenth Amendment is:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude-

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

After the Civil War, during the period known as Reconstruction (1865-77), the amendment was successful in encouraging African Americans to vote. Many African Americans were even elected to public office during the 1880s in the states that formerly had constituted the Confederate States of America. By the 1890s, however, efforts by several states to enact such measures as poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses-in addition to widespread threats and violence-had completely reversed those trends. By the beginning of the 20th century, nearly all African Americans in the states of the former Confederacy were again disenfranchised.

Poll taxes in federal elections were abolished by the Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964), and in 1966 the Supreme Court extended that ban to state and local elections. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 abolished prerequisites to registration and voting and also allowed for federal "preclearance" of changes in election laws in certain ("covered") jurisdictions, including nine mostly Southern states. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), however, the Supreme Court struck down the section of the VRA that had been used to identify covered jurisdictions, effectively making the preclearance requirement unenforceable.

Chelsey Parrott-Sheffer The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fifteenth Amendment | Definition, Significance, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fifteenth Amendment, amendment (1870) to the U.S. Constitution that guaranteed that the right to vote could not be denied based on 'race, color, or previous condition of servitude.' Its ratification effectively enfranchised African American men while denying the right to vote to women of all colors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
crash course reconstruction election of 1876

# data[].attributes.body
The 13th Amendment:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Thirteenth-Amendment
The 14th Amendment:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fourteenth-Amendment
The 15th Amendment:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fifteenth-Amendment
The Election of 1876:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1hb0izmaVs
Plessy v. Ferguson:
https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/55/182255-004-CCBDFFDC.jpg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wounded Knee Massacre (29 December 1890) - Miniconjou Lakota Sioux vs United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dawes General Allotment Act | History, Significance, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dawes General Allotment Act, U.S. law providing for the distribution of Indian reservation land among individual Native Americans, with the aim of creating farmers in the white man's image. It was sponsored several times by Senator Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts and finally was enacted in February 1887.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Homestead Act of 1862 | Summary, History, & Significance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Homestead Act of 1862, legislative action that promoted the settlement and development of the American West. It was also notable for the opportunity it gave African Americans to own land. President Abraham Lincoln signed the act into law on May 20, 1862. Some 270 million acres were distributed under it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bessemer process, the first method discovered for mass-producing steel. Though named after Sir Henry Bessemer of England, the process evolved from the contributions of many investigators before it could be used on a broad commercial basis. It was apparently conceived independently and almost concurrently by Bessemer and by William Kelly of the United States. As early as 1847, Kelly, a businessman-scientist of Pittsburgh, began experiments aimed at developing a revolutionary means of removing impurities from pig iron by an air blast. Kelly theorized that not only would the air, injected into the molten iron, supply oxygen to react with the impurities, converting them into oxides separable as slag, but that the heat evolved in these reactions would increase the temperature of the mass, keeping it from solidifying during the operation. After several failures, he succeeded in proving his theory and rapidly producing steel ingots.

In 1856 Bessemer, working independently in Sheffield, developed and patented the same process. Whereas Kelly had been unable to perfect the process owing to a lack of financial resources, Bessemer was able to develop it into a commercial success. Another Englishman, Robert Forester Mushet, found that adding an alloy of carbon, manganese, and iron after the air-blowing was complete restored the carbon content of the steel while neutralizing the effect of remaining impurities, notably sulfur. A Swedish ironmaster, Goran Goransson, redesigned the Bessemer furnace, or converter, making it reliable in performance. The end result was a means of mass-producing steel. The resultant volume of low-cost steel in Britain and the United States soon revolutionized building construction and provided steel to replace iron in railroad rails and many other uses.

The Bessemer converter is a cylindrical steel pot approximately 6 metres (20 feet) high, originally lined with a siliceous refractory. Air is blown in through openings (tuyeres) near the bottom, creating oxides of silicon and manganese, which become part of the slag, and of carbon, which are carried out in the stream of air. Within a few minutes an ingot of steel can be produced, ready for the forge or rolling mill.

The original Bessemer converter was not effective in removing the phosphorus present in sizable amounts in most British and European iron ore. The invention in England, by Sidney Gilchrist Thomas, of what is now called the Thomas-Gilchrist converter, which was lined with a basic material such as burned limestone rather than an (acid) siliceous material, overcame this problem. Another drawback to Bessemer steel, its retention of a small percentage of nitrogen from the air blow, was not corrected until the 1950s. The open-hearth process, which was developed in the 1860s, did not suffer from this difficulty, and it eventually outstripped the Bessemer process to become the dominant steelmaking process until the mid-20th century. The open-hearth process was in turn replaced by the basic oxygen process, which is actually an extension and refinement of the Bessemer process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bessemer process | Dates, Definition, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bessemer process, the first method discovered for mass-producing steel. Though named after Sir Henry Bessemer of England, the process evolved from the contributions of many investigators before it could be used on a broad commercial basis. It was apparently conceived independently and almost concurrently by Bessemer and by William Kelly of the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (LC-DIG-nclc-01581)

The Industrial Revolution, the period in which agrarian and handicraft economies shifted rapidly to industrial and machine-manufacturing-dominated ones, began in the United Kingdom in the 18th century and later spread throughout many other parts of the world. This economic transformation changed not only how work was done and goods were produced, but it also altered how people related both to one another and to the planet at large. This wholesale change in societal organization continues today, and it has produced several effects that have rippled throughout Earth 's political, ecological, and cultural spheres. The following list describes some of the great benefits as well as some of the significant shortcomings associated with the Industrial Revolution.

Pro: Goods Became More Affordable and More Accessible
Factories and the machines that they housed began to produce items faster and cheaper than could be made by hand. As the supply of various items rose, their cost to the consumer declined ( see supply and demand). Shoes, clothing, household goods, tools, and other items that enhance people's quality of life became more common and less expensive. Foreign markets also were created for these goods, and the balance of trade shifted in favor of the producer-which brought increased wealth to the companies that produced these goods and added tax revenue to government coffers. However, it also contributed to the wealth inequality between goods-producing and goods-consuming countries.

Pro: The Rapid Evolution of Labor-Saving Inventions
The rapid production of hand tools and other useful items led to the development of new types of tools and vehicles to carry goods and people from one place to another. The growth of road and rail transportation and the invention of the telegraph (and its associated infrastructure of telegraph-and later telephone and fiber optic-lines) meant that word of advances in manufacturing, agricultural harvesting, energy production, and medical techniques could be communicated between interested parties quickly. Labor-saving machines such as the spinning jenny (a multiple-spindle machine for spinning wool or cotton) and other inventions, especially those driven by electricity (such as home appliances and refrigeration) and fossil fuels (such as automobiles and other fuel-powered vehicles), are also well-known products of the Industrial Revolution.

Pro: The Rapid Evolution of Medicine
The Industrial Revolution was the engine behind various advances in medicine. Industrialization allowed medical instruments (such as scalpels, microscope lenses, test tubes, and other equipment) to be produced more quickly. Using machine manufacturing, refinements to these instruments could more efficiently roll out to the physicians that needed them. As communication between physicians in different areas improved, the details behind new cures and treatments for disease could be dispersed quickly, resulting in better care.

Pro: Enhanced Wealth and Quality of Life of the Average Person
Mass production lowered the costs of much-needed tools, clothes, and other household items for the common (that is, nonaristocratic) people, which allowed them to save money for other things and build personal wealth. In addition, as new manufacturing machines were invented and new factories were built, new employment opportunities arose. No longer was the average person so closely tied to land-related concerns (such as being dependent upon the wages farm labor could provide or the plant and animal products farms could produce). Industrialization reduced the emphasis on landownership as the chief source of personal wealth. The rising demand for manufactured goods meant that average people could make their fortunes in cities as factory employees and as employees of businesses that supported the factories, which paid better wages than farm-related positions. Generally speaking, people could save some portion of their wages, and many had the opportunity to invest in profitable businesses, thereby growing their family "nest eggs." The subsequent growth of the middle class in the United Kingdom and other industrializing societies meant that it was making inroads into the pool of economic power held by the aristocracy. Their greater buying power and importance in society led to changes in laws that were updated to better handle the demands of an industrialized society.

Pro: The Rise of Specialist Professions
As industrialization progressed, more and more rural folk flocked to the cities in search of better pay in the factories. To increase the factories' overall efficiency and to take advantage of new opportunities in the market, factory workers were trained to perform specialized tasks. Factory owners divided their workers into different groups, each group focusing on a specific task. Some groups secured and transported to the factories raw materials (namely iron, coal, and steel) used in mass production of goods, while other groups operated different machines. Some groups of workers fixed machines when they broke down, while others were charged with making improvements to them and overall factory operation.

As the factories grew and workers became more specialized, additional teachers and trainers were needed to pass on specialized skills. In addition, the housing, transportation, and recreational needs of factory workers resulted in the rapid expansion of cities and towns. Governmental bureaucracies grew to support these, and new specialized departments were created to handle traffic, sanitation, taxation, and other services. Other businesses within the towns also became more specialized as more builders, physicians, lawyers, and other workers were added to handle the various needs of the new residents.

Con: Overcrowding of Cities and Industrial Towns
The promise of better wages attracted migrants to cities and industrial towns that were ill-prepared to handle them. Although initial housing shortages in many areas eventually gave way to construction booms and the development of modern buildings, cramped shantytowns made up of shacks and other forms of poor-quality housing appeared first. Local sewerage and sanitation systems were overwhelmed by the sudden influx of people, and drinking water was often contaminated. People living in such close proximity, fatigued by poor working conditions, and drinking unsafe water presented ideal conditions for outbreaks of typhus, cholera, smallpox, tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases. The need to treat these and other diseases in urban areas spurred medical advances and the development of modern building codes, health laws, and urban planning in many industrialized cities.

Con: Pollution and Other Environmental Ills
With relatively few exceptions, the world's modern environmental problems began or were greatly exacerbated by the Industrial Revolution. To fuel the factories and to sustain the output of each and every type of manufactured good, natural resources (water, trees, soil, rocks and minerals, wild and domesticated animals, etc.) were transformed, which reduced the planet's stock of valuable natural capital. The global challenges of widespread water and air pollution, reductions in biodiversity, destruction of wildlife habitat, and even global warming can be traced back to this moment in human history. The more countries industrialize in pursuit of their own wealth, the greater this ecological transformation becomes. For example, atmospheric carbon dioxide, a primary driver of global warming, existed in concentrations of 275 to 290 parts per million by volume (ppmv) before 1750 and increased to more than 400 ppmv by 2017. In addition, human beings use more than 40% of Earth's land-based net primary production, a measure of the rate at which plants convert solar energy into food and growth. As the world's human population continues to grow and more and more people strive for the material benefits promised by the Industrial Revolution, more and more of Earth's resources are appropriated for human use, leaving a dwindling stock for the plants and animals upon whose ecosystem services (clean air, clean water, etc.) the biosphere depends.

Con: Poor Working Conditions
When factories sprung up in the cities and industrial towns, their owners prized production and profit over all else. Worker safety and wages were less important. Factory workers earned greater wages compared with agricultural workers, but this often came at the expense of time and less than ideal working conditions. Factory workers often labored 14-16 hours per day six days per week. Men's meager wages were often more than twice those of women. The wages earned by children who worked to supplement family income were even lower. The various machines in the factory were often dirty, expelling smoke and soot, and unsafe, both of which contributed to accidents that resulted in worker injuries and deaths. The rise of labor unions, however, which began as a reaction to child labor, made factory work less grueling and less dangerous. During the first half of the 20th century, child labor was sharply curtailed, the workday was reduced substantially, and government safety standards were rolled out to protect the workers' health and well-being.

Con: The Rise in Unhealthy Habits
As more cheap labor-saving devices become available, people performed less strenuous physical activity. While grueling farm-related labor was made far easier, and in many cases far safer, by replacing animal power and human power with tractors and other specialized vehicles to till the soil and plant and harvest crops, other vehicles, such as trains and automobiles, effectively reduced the amount of healthy exercise people partook in each day. Also, many professions that required large amounts of physical exertion outdoors were replaced by indoor office work, which is often sedentary. Such sedentary behaviors also occur away from work, as television programs and other forms of passive entertainment came to dominate leisure time. Added to this is the fact that many people eat food that has been processed with salt and sugar to help with its preservation, lower its cooking time, and increase its sweetness. Together, these lifestyle trends have led to increases in lifestyle-related diseases associated with obesity, such as heart disease, diabetes, and certain forms of cancer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Rise of the Machines: Pros and Cons of the Industrial Revolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Industrial Revolution made our lives easier, but did it make them better?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sherman Antitrust Act | Definition, History, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sherman Antitrust Act, first legislation enacted by the U.S. Congress (1890) to curb concentrations of power that interfere with trade and reduce economic competition. It was named for U.S. Sen. John Sherman of Ohio, who was an expert on the regulation of commerce. One of the act’s main provisions…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Labor Movement in the United States | History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Growth, Cities, and Immigration: Crash Course US History #25

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
< Back to Timeline

Timeline: EVENTS
Wave of Immigration
Hollerith Machine
Chicago World's Fair
Turner Frontier Essay
Growth of Cities
The Melting Pot
World War I
Sheppard-Towner Act
Immigration Laws
Stock Market Crash
Great Depression
1936 Election
World War II
Executive Order 8802
1948 Election
Civil Rights Act
Deregulation
"Goldilocks" Economy
Census 2000

Growth of Cities

1900 - The decades before and after 1900 were a period of enormous transformation in the physical locations of Americans. Demographers typically distinguish two modes of living: urban and rural. In plainer language, people live in the city or they live in the country. Throughout the nineteenth century, the United States had been mostly a nation of farmers, who lived in the country. Indeed, immigrants came to America seeking land that they could farm.

But throughout the nineteenth century, the population living in cities rose faster than the rural population. As the 1800s wore on, more and more Americans moved from the farm to the city, abandoning farming to build new industries in the cities. John D. Rockefeller grew up on a farm in rural New York but moved to the city to become the richest man in America from the new industry of petroleum. Henry Ford had also grown up on a farm, but moved to the city to create the modern automobile industry. Ford didnt actually like cities: he designed his Model T to be useful to farmers. Ford advertised his revolutionary machine as stronger than a horse and easier to take care of.

In 1880, when a new wave of immigrants began to arrive in the United States, they moved to American cities, not to the countryside as immigrants had for 250 years. Immigrants took jobs in the new industries in the new cities: Polish farmers became steelworkers in Pittsburgh; Serbian farmers became meatpackers in Chicago; Russian Jewish farmers became tailors in New York Citys garment district; Slovaks assembled cars in Detroit; Italian farmers found jobs in Baltimore factories.

The cities grew at a fabulous pace, some of them doubling in size every decade. By the 1920 census, the urban and rural populations were equal in size, but the rural share would continue to drop for the rest of the twentieth century. Cities became the location of most of American life: politically, culturally, financially, and economically, the action moved from the bucolic countryside to the crowded, filthy city streets.

Related Links:

Program Segment 2

Book References:
Urban, Rural Suburban
Large Cities

<< Back to Timeline

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The First Measured Century: Timeline: Events - Growth of Cities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Back to Timeline Timeline: EVENTS Wave of Immigration Hollerith Machine Chicago World's Fair Turner Frontier Essay Growth of Cities The Melting Pot World War I Sheppard-Towner Act Immigration Laws Stock Market Crash Great Depression 1936 Election World War II Executive Order 8802 1948 Election Civil Rights Act Deregulation "Goldilocks" Economy Census 2000 Growth of Cities 1900 - The decades before and after 1900 were a period of enormous transformation in the physical locations of Americans.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Growth of Mass Communication - late 1800s

# data[].attributes.subject
The Growth of Mass Communication - late 1800s

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Evolution of Communication is our latest ebook that explores the development of human communication methods from prehistoric times until today. This is the second of a three-part blog series that highlights the in-depth information available in that publication.
Can you imagine not being able to reach anyone, no matter their location, at a moment's notice? Until just a few centuries ago, communications were limited by distance. Once we entered the 19 th century, our communications methods advanced with innovations that made communications simpler and able to happen over longer distances than previously possible (remember the methods we talked about in our previous post?.

The 1800s: A Major Leap
During the 19 th century, signal lamps, newspapers, and the electric telegraph made it possible to transmit information farther and to more people at once than ever before. First known to be available around 1867, signal lamps were used to transmit Morse code between towns, between ships at sea, and from land to sea.

By the late 1800s, many small town and cities published their own newspaper which allowed for passing along information to very large groups of people at a time. People could learn about events in towns and cities from all over by subscribing to papers from other places. The electric telegraph led to many additional telegraph innovations including the trans-Atlantic telegraph, the acoustic phonograph, and wireless telegraphy.

The telegraph played a major role in the development of communication; in 1858, the completion of the first trans-Atlantic telegraph cable marked a new era in communication between Europe and the United States. Of course, one of the biggest technological breakthroughs of all time may be the telephone, which became a prime method of communication between individuals starting 1876. No discussion of communication would be complete without mention of the radio, which became publicly available in the late 1800s.

The 1900s: Technology Soars
America was already going mobile by the early 20 th century. Believe it or not, the first experimental videophone was available around 1936, and telephone service for automobiles was available shortly after that, though availability was limited.

Television changed the landscape of communication forever when it was first introduced in 1927. A few decades later, many families would have their own television sets, making it possible for the latest news and information to come directly into an individual's home almost as soon as it happened. Though many forms of communication have come and gone, television remains one of the most widely used inventions. People all around the world still depend on TV for up-to-date information, as well as entertainment.

Do these inventions sound more familiar? Go ahead and breathe a sigh of relief at the familiarity of these more common methods of communication. They are here and we are no longer relying on a pigeon to transmit our messages (probably). While many of these came out less than a century ago, they have already been improved quite a lot in the years following their inventions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evolution of Communication: 1800s and 1900s | OCN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Evolution of Communication is our latest ebook that explores the development of human communication methods from prehistoric times until today. This is the second of a three-part blog series that highlights the in-depth information available in that publication. Can you imagine not being able to reach anyone, no matter their location, at a moment's notice?

# data[].attributes.body
The Transcontinental Railroad:
https://www.american-rails.com/images/PromontoryMeet.jpg
Massacre at Wounded Knee:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=177-q8oW8dA
Dawes General Allotment Act of 1887:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dawes-General-Allotment-Act
The Homestead & Morrill Acts:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Homestead-Act

# data[].attributes.body
The Bessemer Process;
https://www.britannica.com/technology/Bessemer-process
Growth of Invention - late 1800s;
https://www.britannica.com/story/the-rise-of-the-machines-pros-and-cons-of-the-industrial-revolution
The Rise of Big Business;
http://ushistorygildedage.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/2/3/15236182/6925114.jpg?1
The Antitrust Movement;
https://www.britannica.com/event/Sherman-Antitrust-Act
The Labor Movement;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewu-v36szlE

# data[].attributes.body
The Rise of Immigration - late 1800s;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRhjqqe750A
The Growth of Cities;
http://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/ecities.htm
Tenement Life - Causes and Effects;
http://history.furman.edu/benson/h41p02.jpg
The Growth of Mass Communication - late 1800s;
https://www.onecallnow.com/blog/02/evolution-of-communication-1800s-and-1900s/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
political machine, in U.S. politics, a party organization, headed by a single boss or small autocratic group, that commands enough votes to maintain political and administrative control of a city, county, or state.

The rapid growth of American cities in the 19th century, a result of both immigration and migration from rural areas, created huge problems for city governments, which were often poorly structured and unable to provide services. In those conditions, political machines-such as Tammany Hall, run by boss William Magear Tweed (1823-73) in New York City -were able to build a loyal voter following, especially among immigrant groups, by performing such favours as providing jobs or housing.

Political machines are characterized by a disciplined and hierarchical organization, reaching down to neighbourhood and block organizers, that enables the machine to respond to the problems of individual neighbourhoods, or even families, in exchange for loyalty at the polls. The term refers to their ability to elect candidates or enact measures with mechanical efficiency and predictability.

Although the primary goal of a political machine is keeping itself in power rather than providing good government, machines have been responsible for restructuring city governments to centralize authority, improving facilities and services, helping to assimilate immigrant groups, and encouraging the growth of business and industry. Supporters of political machines say that they "work" and that consolidating power in the hands of a boss, like Mayor Richard J. Daley (1902-76) of Chicago, guarantees city governments the power and authority that they need to cope with urban problems effectively. However, because political machines in such cities as Boston, Philadelphia, New York, Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Kansas City have also been responsible for many abuses of power, the term carries a pejorative sense.

Organizers who "deliver" the votes are often rewarded with patronage jobs. However, patronage can result in poorer service to the citizens because appointees may be neither qualified for their jobs nor interested in performing them. Control of both elective and appointed posts also gives a machine control of government salaries and revenues, which can be used to enrich the party at the public's expense. For example, the machine may accept donations or kickbacks from businesses in return for such favours as tax or zoning concessions or the award of lucrative public-works contracts. In some cities, machine business dealings have included accepting money from organized-crime syndicates in exchange for protection from legal interference.

In cities whose neighbourhoods are divided along ethnic or racial lines, machine patronage may aggravate hostilities by awarding most jobs and services to those people of the same background as the city's power elite. In practice, this made machine politics the last defense of white neighbourhoods against growing black populations, while black politicians who anticipated power viewed their constituents as merely the latest in a series of ethnic or racial groups that had benefited from the machine.

Since the 19th-century heyday of machine politics, civil service reforms limiting the number of patronage jobs, the institution of direct primaries rather than party nomination of candidates, the municipal operation of public utilities, and judicial review by state and federal courts have all reduced the power of political machines. The steady exodus of city residents to the suburbs since World War II and a more mobile population with fewer ties to particular neighbourhoods have also weakened the social base that once made political machines synonymous with city government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Political machine | Definition, History, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
political machine, in U.S. politics, a party organization, headed by a single boss or small autocratic group, that commands enough votes to maintain political and administrative control of a city, county, or state.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Progressive Era: Crash Course US History #27

# data[].attributes.headline
Rise of Labor Organizations - early 1900s

# data[].attributes.subject
Rise of Labor Organizations - early 1900s

# data[].attributes.headline
Women’s Suffrage & the Temperance Movement - late 1800s & early 1900s

# data[].attributes.subject
Women’s Suffrage & the Temperance Movement - late 1800s & early 1900s

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Women in the 19th Century: Crash Course US History #16

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
United States presidential election of 1912

Info Print

Please select which sections you would like to print:

Cite

Feedback

Share

Alternative Title: U.S. presidential election of 1912

This article was most recently revised and updated by

United States presidential election of 1912, American presidential election held on November 5, 1912, in which Democrat Woodrow Wilson defeated Bull Moose (Progressive) candidate and former Republican president Theodore Roosevelt and Republican incumbent president William Howard Taft.

American presidential election, 1912 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

The rise of the Republican "insurgents"

Theodore Roosevelt first came to the presidency in 1901, following the assassination of William McKinley, but won election in his own right in 1904 and proved a very popular chief executive. Shortly after the election of 1904, he announced that he would not be a candidate four years later-though he was so much the idol of the masses that he could easily have gained the Republican nomination in 1908. Adhering stubbornly to his pledge, he arranged the nomination of his secretary of war, William Howard Taft, who was easily elected president in 1908.

Taft faced a restless public and a split Republican Party. National progressivism was nearly at high tide, and a large group of Republican progressives, called "insurgents," sat in both houses of Congress. These Republicans, like a majority of Americans, demanded such reforms as tariff reductions, an income tax, the direct election of senators, and even stricter railroad and corporation regulations. Taft, who thought of himself as a progressive, was more conservative philosophically and lacked the qualities of a dynamic popular leader. His troubles began when he called Congress into special session in 1909 to take up tariff reform. When the measure that emerged from Congress increased rates, Republican insurgents and a majority of Americans were outraged, but Taft signed the bill and called it the best tariff law the Republicans had ever enacted. Conflicts and misunderstandings over conservation and legislative procedure caused the rift between Taft Republicans and the insurgents to grow. By 1910 the Republican insurgents were clearly in the ascendancy in Congress. Taking control of the president's railroad-regulation measure, they added new provisions that greatly increased the Interstate Commerce Commission's authority. The following year they bitterly opposed Taft's measure for tariff reciprocity with Canada; it passed with Democratic support in Congress, only to go down to defeat at the hands of the Canadian electorate.

Taft, William Howard Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Republican insurgents were determined to prevent Taft's renomination in 1912. They found their leader in Roosevelt, who had become increasingly alienated from Taft and who made a whirlwind campaign for the presidential nomination in the winter and spring of 1912. Roosevelt swept the presidential primaries, even in Taft's home state of Ohio. But Taft and conservative Republicans controlled the powerful state organizations and the Republican National Committee, and when the Republicans gathered at their national convention in Chicago in June 1912 it proved a bitter, divisive affair. Taft, Roosevelt, and Wisconsin Sen. Robert M. La Follette, a leading reformer, sought the nomination, but so complete were Taft's supporters' control over the party machinery that delegate challenges made by Roosevelt were all beaten back-leading Roosevelt to refuse to have his name entered into nomination. In the event, Taft was nominated on the first ballot, and Vice Pres. James S. Sherman was easily renominated. Convinced that the bosses had stolen the nomination from him, Roosevelt led his followers out of the Republican convention. In August they organized the Progressive (" Bull Moose") Party and named Roosevelt to lead the third-party cause. Hiram Johnson, the reform Republican governor of California, became Roosevelt's running mate.

Get exclusive access to content from our 1768 First Edition with your subscription. Subscribe today

Meanwhile, the Democrats had swept the 1910 congressional and gubernatorial elections, and after the disruption of the Republican Party in the spring of 1912 it was obvious that almost any passable Democrat could win the presidency in that year. Meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, a week after the Republican convention, the Democrats had a number of candidates contesting the nomination, including speaker of the House Champ Clark and former president of Princeton University Woodrow Wilson, who had a progressive record as governor of New Jersey. Ultimately, Wilson secured the Democratic nomination on the 46th ballot, and Thomas R. Marshall was chosen as his running mate.

Wilson, Woodrow Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

The general election campaign

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Edison National Historical Site

U.S. presidential election of 1912 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

The Democrats emerged from their convention in strong shape, given that Wilson was, in effect, facing two Republicans. Roosevelt and the Bull Moose movement stressed its progressive, reform credentials, even backing women's suffrage. For Taft, his single objective in the 1912 campaign was to defeat Roosevelt. The real contest, however, was between Roosevelt and Wilson for control of the progressive majority. Campaigning strenuously on a platform that he called the New Nationalism, Roosevelt demanded effective control of big business through a strong federal commission, radical tax reform, and a whole series of measures to put the federal government squarely into the business of social and economic reform. By contrast, Wilson seemed conservative with a program he called the New Freedom; it envisaged a concerted effort to destroy monopoly and to open the doors of economic opportunity to small businessmen through drastic tariff reduction, banking reform, and severe tightening of antitrust laws.

Wilson, Woodrow: 1912 presidential campaign Courtesy of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library, Staunton, Virginia

On election day, November 5, Roosevelt outpolled Taft but failed to win many Democratic progressives away from Wilson. Though Wilson captured only about 42 percent of the popular vote, he won 435 electoral votes. Between them, Roosevelt and Taft secured 7.6 million votes-1.3 million more than Wilson-but Roosevelt won only 88 electoral votes, and Taft won only 8. Taft's 8 electoral votes represented the worst performance by an incumbent seeking reelection. Wilson, born in Virginia, thus became the first Southern-born president elected since the American Civil War (1861-65).

For the results of the previous election, see United States presidential election of 1908. For the results of the subsequent election, see United States presidential election of 1916.

Results of the 1912 election

The results of the 1912 U.S. presidential election are provided in the table.

presidential candidate

political party

electoral votes

popular votes

Sources: Electoral and popular vote totals based on data from the United States Office of the Federal Register and Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections, 4th ed. (2001).

Woodrow Wilson Democratic
435

6,293,454

Theodore Roosevelt
Progressive ( Bull Moose)

88

4,119,207

William Howard Taft Republican
8

3,483,922

Eugene V. Debs
Socialist

900,369

Eugene W. Chafin
Prohibition
207,972

Arthur E. Reimer

Socialist Labor

29,374

Amy Tikkanen, Corrections Manager.

Learn More in these related Britannica articles:

Woodrow Wilson: Early life, education, and governorship

Prevailing at the 1912 convention after a hard struggle against better-entrenched rivals, Wilson entered into an exciting three-way race for president. Former president Theodore Roosevelt's bolt to the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party had split the dominant Republican Party, a factor that allowed Wilson to be elected with only...

progressivism: Diversity and disagreement within progressivism

For example, the progressives' 1912 presidential campaign, with the celebrated former president Theodore Roosevelt as its standard bearer, was deeply divided over whether the reform movement should attack legally enforced racial segregation in the South ( see Jim Crow laws). In the end it did not, instead accepting the right...

...candidate for president in 1908, 1912, and 1920 (he refused the nomination in 1916). His highest popular vote total came in 1920, when he received about 915,000 votes. Ironically, he was in prison at the time, serving a sentence for having criticized the U.S. government's prosecution of persons charged with...

United States presidential election of 1912

date

participants

related topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
united states presidential election of 1912

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
United States presidential election of 1912 | United States government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
United States presidential election of 1912 Info Print Please select which sections you would like to print: Cite Feedback Share Alternative Title: U.S. presidential election of 1912 This article was most recently revised and updated by United States presidential election of 1912, American presidential election held on November 5, 1912, in which Democrat Woodrow Wilson defeated Bull Moose (Progressive) candidate and former Republican president Theodore Roosevelt and Republican incumbent president William Howard Taft.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imperialists believe that the American government should protect what it considers to be the national interest, even if that means getting involved in conflicts around the globe. They also maintain that it is the government's duty to spread our political and economic systems to other countries, by force if necessary. In other words, they believe in U.S. leadership of the world. The Federalists were the original American imperialists. Being Anglophiles, they looked to Great Britain as the role model for American foreign policy. Federalists desired strong financial and commercial ties to Europe and an economy based on overseas trade. Power needed to be concentrated in a strong federal government in order to speak with one voice to the governments of other nations. A strong military was needed to protect the interests of American bankers and businessmen. An admirer of Caesar and Napoleon, Alexander Hamilton desired an imperialistic foreign policy for the new nation. In 1799, Major General Hamilton "was a man who dreamed dreams, and in his imagination he was already leading his army into Louisiana, the Floridas and points south. 'We ought,' he said, 'to squint at South America.'" The ideological division in early American public policy is clear: "Hamilton longs for empire, opulence, and glory for the nation, whereas Jefferson seeks virtue, freedom, and happiness for the social individual." Hamilton was "very opportunistic about international diplomacy" and distrusted "moralizing in foreign policy." 1

Isolationists believe that the American government should be predominantly concerned about the needs and desires of its own citizens. They do not believe our government should be potentially involved in every conflict around the globe. They do not believe our government should attempt to control the governments of other nations. In other words, they believe in national self-determination. The Anti-Federalists and Democratic-Republicans were the original American isolationists. They believed in decentralized politics, agrarian-based economics, no standing army, staying out of Europe's continual bloodshed, and friendship with the people of other nations but non-alliance with those people's governments. Isolationists are often characterized as provincial bumpkins. This characterization hardly fits the nation's premier isolationist. Jefferson was a diplomat and a student of language, science, and philosophy. Cosmopolitan in outlook, he nonetheless opposed national involvement in overseas political and military conflicts. Referring to a controversy about the West Indies, in a 1791 letter to an American diplomat, he stated, "If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American, it is, that we should have nothing to do with conquest." In 1799, Jefferson wrote, "I am for free commerce with all nations; political connection with none; and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe; entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance..." In his first inaugural address (1801), President Jefferson urged "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." He held this view throughout his life. 2

Using the word isolationism to describe Jefferson's foreign policy is an oversimplification. Setting aside the negative images with which it is saddled due to 70 years of imperial propaganda, the term is still problematic because it does not express the full range of Jefferson's thought. In addition to the obvious forswearing of entangling alliances, Jeffersonian isolationism involved support for a republic rather than an empire, for national sovereignty, for ethical conduct, for human rights, and for popular control of foreign policy. These five beliefs could be thought of as causes, components, or concomitants of isolationism. Jefferson "vigorously rejected the view that only individuals are bound by a moral code, and that nations are free to act in accordance with self-interest without any restraints." Writing to James Madison in 1789, he remarked, "I know but one code of morality for men, whether acting singly or collectively. He who says I will be a rogue when I act in company with a hundred others, but an honest man when I act alone, will be believed in the former assertion but not in the latter." Despite his belief in the importance of moral conduct in foreign relations, Jefferson was not nave in his view of the world. He had, for example, a realistic assessment of foreign governments. In 1812, Jefferson condemned both the French and British governments for trying to "draw to themselves the power, the wealth and the resources of other nations." Three years later, he called Napoleon "the wretch...who has been the author of more misery and suffering to the world, than any being who ever lived before him. After destroying the liberties of his country, he has exhausted all its resources, physical and moral, to indulge his own maniac ambition, his own tyrannical and overbearing spirit." He did not, however, have a favorable view of the British government and other opponents of Napoleon. Jefferson condemned the imperialism of all the leading countries of Europe: "The will of the allies? There is no more moderation, forbearance, or even honesty in theirs, than in that of Bonaparte. They have proved that their object, like his, is plunder." 3

Isolationism is a problematic word. It is an epithet, it is anachronistic when applied to Jefferson, and it fails to indicate the full range of thought involved. Admittedly, it is a flawed term, but it may be the best term available. Non-interventionism is a non-definition that merely calls attention to another undefined term, the word continentalism never caught on after being proposed by scholar Charles Beard, and neutrality is too vague. To some, isolationism may imply ostrich-like, willful ignorance of the rest of the world, but this was never the case with its most famous practitioners. The isolation is not one of intellect, trade, or travel, but one of entangling alliances, military conflict, and imperial domination. For isolationists, national self-determination for colonies and national sovereignty for America are closely-related principles emanating from a common source: a commitment to democracy, freedom, and decentralization. Isolationism is the foreign policy of traditional liberals. As Robert Morss Lovett noted in 1924 in his Progressive Party statement for the elite journal Foreign Affairs,

It is historically characteristic of governments devoted to conservative measures and the maintenance of the status quo in domestic affairs to develop an aggressive policy in foreign affairs, and similarly for governments whose chief outlook is toward the progressive improvement of existing conditions to seek to disembarrass themselves from the complications of foreign policy.

This progressive tradition was first manifested in power through the presidency of Thomas Jefferson.

Isolationism may be an unfortunate term in some ways, but it describes a real, deep, and honorable tradition in American politics. Prior to the 1930s, the ideological underpinning of our approach to the world lacked a distinct label because it was simply accepted as traditional U.S. foreign policy. In his 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine wrote, "As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European contentions..." In 1796, George Washington's Farewell Address noted, "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible....It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world..." The Independence Day speech of Secretary of State John Quincy Adams in 1821 indicated that isolationism was still taken for granted 25 years later. Referring to America, he reminded the House of Representatives, "She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings...She goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." The Monroe Doctrine acted as an isolationist bulwark for many years, until it was corrupted by the Theodore Roosevelt Corollary (1904) and virtually set aside by Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. The Doctrine asserted,

In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so....It is impossible that the allied powers [of Europe] should extend their political system to any portion of either [American] continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord....It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the [Latin American] parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course.

In opposing the annexation of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) in 1870, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Charles Sumner (R-MA) argued that Caribbean islands "should not be absorbed by the United States, but should remain as independent powers, and should try for themselves to make the experiment of self-government....To the African belongs the equatorial belt and he should enjoy it undisturbed." Things began to change dramatically in 1898. With the annexation of Hawaii and the Spanish-American War, we were well on our way to becoming an empire with extensive political and military ties to the rest of the world. As a result, traditional foreign policy fell into disfavor among U.S. elites and was eventually disparaged by the dismissive term isolationism. Meanwhile, when the word imperialism fell out of favor, it was exchanged for the more euphemistic internationalism.

The Best of Jeff Taylor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Imperialism and Isolationism: Contrasting Approaches to Foreign Policy - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
DIGG THIS Imperialists believe that the American government should protect what it considers to be the national interest, even if that means getting involved in conflicts around the globe. They also maintain that it is the government's duty to spread our political and economic systems to other countries, by force if necessary.

# data[].attributes.headline
Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

# data[].attributes.subject
Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Franz Ferdinand, archduke of Austria-Este (born December 18, 1863, Graz, Austria-died June 28, 1914, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Austria-Hungary [now in Bosnia and Herzogovina]) was the archduke of Austria-Este. His assassination in 1914 was the immediate cause of World War I.

Life until 1914

Franz Ferdinand was the eldest son of the archduke Charles Louis, who was the brother of the emperor Franz Joseph. The death of the heir apparent, Archduke Rudolf, in 1889 made Franz Ferdinand next in succession to the Austro-Hungarian throne after his father, who died in 1896. But because of Franz Ferdinand's ill health in the 1890s, his younger brother Otto was regarded as more likely to succeed, a possibility that deeply embittered Franz Ferdinand. His desire to marry Sophie, countess of Chotek, a lady-in-waiting, brought him into sharp conflict with the emperor and the court. Only after renouncing his future children's rights to the throne was the morganatic marriage allowed in 1900.

In foreign affairs he tried to restore Austro-Russian understanding without endangering the alliance with Germany. At home he thought of political reforms that would have strengthened the position of the crown and weakened that of the Magyars against the other nationalities in Hungary. His plans were based on the realization that any nationalistic policy pursued by one section of the population would endanger the multinational Habsburg empire. His relationship with Franz Joseph was exacerbated by his continuous pressure on the emperor, who in his later years left affairs to take care of themselves but sharply resented any interference with his prerogative. From 1906 onward Franz Ferdinand's influence in military matters grew, and in 1913 he became inspector general of the army.

Assassination of Franz Ferdinand

On June 28, 1914, Franz Ferdinand was in the Austro-Hungarian province of Bosnia and Herzegovina accompanied by his wife, Sophie. He was there as inspector general of the imperial army. The visit was not a popular one. Balkan politics were turbulent, and the neighbouring Kingdom of Serbia coveted Bosnia. Moreover, the date chosen for this imperial visit and Hapsburg show of force was June 28, a black date in Serbian history: it was the anniversary of the Turkish victory over Serbia at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389. This fanned the flames of dissent among Serbian nationalists even further.

The royal couple was travelling in a motorcade through Sarajevo in an open-topped car, ignorant of the fact that several would-be assassins awaited along the route of their preannounced stops. Shortly after 10 am, amid cheering crowds lining the wide avenue called Appel Quay, one of the attackers, Nedjelko Cabrinovic, threw a grenade at the royal couple's car. The bomb bounced off the back of the vehicle and exploded behind them, injuring members of the entourage who were in the next car and peppering bystanders with shrapnel.

After completing the planned reception at City Hall, the shaken royal couple insisted on changing their schedule and visiting the hospital to check on one of the officers injured in the morning attack. Confusion among the drivers in the motorcade followed, with the drivers starting off in the wrong direction, down the very avenue where the conspirators were still present. When the royal motorcade entered a side street and stopped to turn around, a compatriot of Cabrinovic, 19-year-old Gavrilo Princip, seized his opportunity. Approaching the royal couple's open car, he shot both Franz Ferdinand and Sophie with a Browning pistol. The driver of the couple's car then sped off for medical help. Sophie died en route and Franz Ferdinand died shortly after. Princip tried to shoot himself but was apprehended by bystanders. All of the conspirators were eventually found and arrested. Exempted from the death penalty because of his young age, Princip was sentenced to 20 years in prison, where he died from tuberculosis in 1918.

Anti-Serb protests and riots followed throughout Austria-Hungary in the wake of the assassination. One month later, on July 28, Austria-Hungary declared war on the country seemingly behind the murders, Serbia. This set the Triple Alliance (Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Italy) against Serbia's allies in the Triple Entente ( Russia, France, and Britain). Momentum became unstoppable, sparking one of the deadliest conflicts in history- World War I.
Fid Backhouse and others The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Franz Ferdinand, archduke of Austria-Este | Biography, Assassination, Facts, & World War I

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Franz Ferdinand, archduke of Austria-Este, Austrian archduke whose assassination was the immediate cause of World War I. He and his wife, Sophie, were murdered by the Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, and a month later Austria declared war on Serbia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fourteen Points, (January 8, 1918), declaration by U.S. Pres. Woodrow Wilson during World War I outlining his proposals for a postwar peace settlement.

On January 8, 1918, President Wilson, in his address to a joint session of the United States Congress, formulated under 14 separate heads his ideas of the essential nature of a post-World War I settlement. The text of the Fourteen Points is as follows:

1. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.

2. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.

3. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.

4. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.

5. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.

6. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest coöperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.

7. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired.

8. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.

9. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.

10. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity of autonomous development.

11. Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into.

12. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.

13. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.

14. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.

On October 3-4, 1918, Prince Maximilian of Baden, the German imperial chancellor, sent a note, via Switzerland, to President Wilson, requesting an immediate armistice and the opening of peace negotiations on the basis of the Fourteen Points. Germans would later argue a "betrayal" when faced by the harsher terms of the Armistice and the Treaty of Versailles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fourteen Points, declaration by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson during World War I outlining his proposals for a postwar peace settlement. On January 8, 1918, Wilson, in his address to a joint session of Congress, formulated under 14 separate heads his ideas of the essential nature of a post-World War I settlement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why The Treaty of Versailles Was Such A Shock For Germany? (Documentary)

# data[].attributes.body
Rise of Political Machines - late 1800s;
https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-machine

Progressive Reform - late 1800s;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Q4zPR4G7M

Rise of Labor Organizations - early 1900s;
http://news.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/styles/breakout/public/2017-08/0828_union2_0.jpg?itok=fjWkCfD8

Women’s Suffrage & the Temperance Movement - late 1800s & early 1900s;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM1czS_VYDI

Election of 1912;
https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1912

Isolationism vs. Imperialism;
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/11/jeff-taylor/imperialism-and-isolationism-contrasting-approaches-to-foreign-policy/

# data[].attributes.body
Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand;
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Franz-Ferdinand-Archduke-of-Austria-Este

New Technology of World War I;
http://www.21stcentech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/World-War-One-Transportation-Technology.png

President Wilson’s Fourteen Points;
https://www.britannica.com/event/Fourteen-Points
Treaty of Versailles;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TViVAmSlLG4