# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Federalism in the United States. Exclusive and concurrent federal and state powers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To ensure a separation of powers, the U.S. Federal Government is made up of three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. To ensure the government is effective and citizens' rights are protected, each branch has its own powers and responsibilities, including working with the other branches.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article the first. .... After the first enumeration required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second. .... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. see Amendment XXVII

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Español Accordion [accordion classes="" id="59774" expand_first="true"][/accordion] Back to Main Page How Did it Happen?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learn about the history and culture of the Paleo Indians

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Archeologists think that the Paleo Indians, sometimes referred to as the Clovis People, were among the first to inhabit the Americas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What does "Renaissance" mean?

When did the Renaissance happen?

What is Renaissance art?

What does "Renaissance man" mean?

Renaissance, (French: "Rebirth") period in European civilization immediately following the Middle Ages and conventionally held to have been characterized by a surge of interest in Classical scholarship and values. The Renaissance also witnessed the discovery and exploration of new continents, the substitution of the Copernican for the Ptolemaic system of astronomy, the decline of the feudal system and the growth of commerce, and the invention or application of such potentially powerful innovations as paper, printing, the mariner's compass, and gunpowder. To the scholars and thinkers of the day, however, it was primarily a time of the revival of Classical learning and wisdom after a long period of cultural decline and stagnation.

A brief treatment of the Renaissance follows. For full treatment, see history of Europe: The Renaissance.

Origins and rise of humanism

The term Middle Ages was coined by scholars in the 15th century to designate the interval between the downfall of the Classical world of Greece and Rome and its rediscovery at the beginning of their own century, a revival in which they felt they were participating. Indeed, the notion of a long period of cultural darkness had been expressed by Petrarch even earlier. Events at the end of the Middle Ages, particularly beginning in the 12th century, set in motion a series of social, political, and intellectual transformations that culminated in the Renaissance. These included the increasing failure of the Roman Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire to provide a stable and unifying framework for the organization of spiritual and material life, the rise in importance of city-states and national monarchies, the development of national languages, and the breakup of the old feudal structures.

While the spirit of the Renaissance ultimately took many forms, it was expressed earliest by the intellectual movement called humanism. Humanism was initiated by secular men of letters rather than by the scholar-clerics who had dominated medieval intellectual life and had developed the Scholastic philosophy. Humanism began and achieved fruition first in Italy. Its predecessors were men like Dante and Petrarch, and its chief protagonists included Giannozzo Manetti, Leonardo Bruni, Marsilio Ficino, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Lorenzo Valla, and Coluccio Salutati. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 provided humanism with a major boost, for many eastern scholars fled to Italy, bringing with them important books and manuscripts and a tradition of Greek scholarship.

Humanism had several significant features. First, it took human nature in all of its various manifestations and achievements as its subject. Second, it stressed the unity and compatibility of the truth found in all philosophical and theological schools and systems, a doctrine known as syncretism. Third, it emphasized the dignity of man. In place of the medieval ideal of a life of penance as the highest and noblest form of human activity, the humanists looked to the struggle of creation and the attempt to exert mastery over nature. Finally, humanism looked forward to a rebirth of a lost human spirit and wisdom. In the course of striving to recover it, however, the humanists assisted in the consolidation of a new spiritual and intellectual outlook and in the development of a new body of knowledge. The effect of humanism was to help men break free from the mental strictures imposed by religious orthodoxy, to inspire free inquiry and criticism, and to inspire a new confidence in the possibilities of human thought and creations.

From Italy the new humanist spirit and the Renaissance it engendered spread north to all parts of Europe, aided by the invention of printing, which allowed literacy and the availability of Classical texts to grow explosively. Foremost among northern humanists was Desiderius Erasmus, whose Praise of Folly (1509) epitomized the moral essence of humanism in its insistence on heartfelt goodness as opposed to formalistic piety. The intellectual stimulation provided by humanists helped spark the Reformation, from which, however, many humanists, including Erasmus, recoiled. By the end of the 16th century the battle of Reformation and Counter-Reformation had commanded much of Europe's energy and attention, while the intellectual life was poised on the brink of the Enlightenment.

Artistic developments and the emergence of Florence

It was in art that the spirit of the Renaissance achieved its sharpest formulation. Art came to be seen as a branch of knowledge, valuable in its own right and capable of providing man with images of God and his creations as well as with insights into man's position in the universe. In the hands of men such as Leonardo da Vinci it was even a science, a means for exploring nature and a record of discoveries. Art was to be based on the observation of the visible world and practiced according to mathematical principles of balance, harmony, and perspective, which were developed at this time. In the works of painters such as Masaccio, the brothers Pietro and Ambrogio Lorenzetti, Fra Angelico, Sandro Botticelli, Perugino, Piero della Francesca, Raphael, and Titian; sculptors such as Giovanni Pisano, Donatello, Andrea del Verrocchio, Lorenzo Ghiberti, and Michelangelo; and architects such as Leon Battista Alberti, Filippo Brunelleschi, Andrea Palladio, Michelozzo, and Filarete, the dignity of man found expression in the arts.

In Italy the Renaissance proper was preceded by an important "proto-renaissance" in the late 13th and early 14th centuries, which drew inspiration from Franciscan radicalism. St. Francis of Assisi had rejected the formal Scholasticism of the prevailing Christian theology and gone out among the poor praising the beauties and spiritual value of nature. His example inspired Italian artists and poets to take pleasure in the world around them. The work of the most famous artist of the proto-renaissance period, Giotto (1266/67 or 1276-1337), reveals a new pictorial style that depends on clear, simple structure and great psychological penetration rather than on the flat, linear decorativeness and hierarchical compositions of his predecessors and contemporaries, such as the Florentine painter Cimabue and the Siennese painters Duccio and Simone Martini. The great poet Dante lived at about the same time as Giotto, and his poetry shows a similar concern with inward experience and the subtle shades and variations of human nature. Although his Divine Comedy belongs to the Middle Ages in its plan and ideas, its subjective spirit and power of expression look forward to the Renaissance. Petrarch and Giovanni Boccaccio also belong to this proto-renaissance period, both through their extensive studies of Latin literature and through their writings in the vernacular. Unfortunately, the terrible plague of 1348 and subsequent civil wars submerged both the revival of humanistic studies and the growing interest in individualism and naturalism revealed in the works of Giotto and Dante. The spirit of the Renaissance did not surface again until the 15th century.

In 1401 a competition was held at Florence to award the commission for bronze doors to be placed on the baptistery of San Giovanni. Defeated by the goldsmith and painter Lorenzo Ghiberti, Filippo Brunelleschi and Donatello left for Rome, where they immersed themselves in the study of ancient architecture and sculpture. When they returned to Florence and began to put their knowledge into practice, the rationalized art of the ancient world was reborn. The founder of Renaissance painting was Masaccio (1401-28). The intellectuality of his conceptions, the monumentality of his compositions, and the high degree of naturalism in his works mark Masaccio as a pivotal figure in Renaissance painting. The succeeding generation of artists- Piero della Francesca, the Pollaiuolo brothers, and Andrea del Verrocchio-pressed forward with researches into linear and aerial perspective and anatomy, developing a style of scientific naturalism.

The situation in Florence was uniquely favourable to the arts. The civic pride of Florentines found expression in statues of the patron saints commissioned from Ghiberti and Donatello for niches in the grain-market guildhall known as Or San Michele, and in the largest dome built since antiquity, placed by Brunelleschi on the Florence cathedral. The cost of construction and decoration of palaces, churches, and monasteries was underwritten by wealthy merchant families, chief among whom were the Medici family.

The Medici traded in all of the major cities in Europe, and one of the most famous masterpieces of Northern Renaissance art, The Portinari Altarpiece, by Hugo van der Goes ( c. 1476; Uffizi, Florence), was commissioned by their agent, Tommaso Portinari. Instead of being painted with the customary tempera of the period, the work is painted with translucent oil glazes that produce brilliant jewel-like colour and a glossy surface. Early Northern Renaissance painters were more concerned with the detailed reproduction of objects and their symbolic meaning than with the study of scientific perspective and anatomy even after these achievements became widely known. On the other hand, central Italian painters began to adopt the oil medium soon after The Portinari Altarpiece was brought to Florence in 1476.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Renaissance | Definition, Meaning, History, Artists, Art, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Renaissance was a period in European civilization that immediately followed the Middle Ages and reached its height in the 15th century. It is conventionally held to have been characterized by a surge of interest in Classical scholarship and values. The Renaissance also witnessed the discovery and exploration of new continents and numerous important inventions.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.history.com/topics/exploration/christopher-columbus

# 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 empire in north america - Google Search

# data[].attributes.body
https://slideplayer.com/slide/10575238/
in case it doesn´t load

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
chapter 2 section 4: the race for empires.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chapter 2 Section 4: The Race For Empires. - ppt video online download

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Protestant Reformation Events in Europe Wars in Europe led to competition for land and power overseas. The Protestant Reformation Religious protest movement that split the Christian church and led to conflict across Europe. Martin Luther criticized the Catholic church for it's wealth and abuses of power. He helped start the protestant movement.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/colonial-america/early-chesapeake-and-southern-colonies/v/early-english-settlements-jamestown
for the rest of the vids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer. More information

# data[].attributes.headline
The affect on colonists from the Enlightenment and Great Awakening

# data[].attributes.subject
The affect on colonists from the Enlightenment and Great Awakening

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Enlightenment philosophy and Great Awakening Christianity were very different, but both influenced the American colonies and American Revolution and both frame our thinking today. The Enlightenment - so named by its own practitioners, who didn't lack self-esteem - is best thought of as a continuation of the Renaissance we discussed in Chapter 2, with a strong emphasis on the Scientific Revolution, reason, and progress. Its practitioners adhered to the scientific method of testing hypotheses through rigorous, repeatable experimentation. Ancient Greeks, inventors of the first organized sporting events (the Olympics), also promoted hard-nosed, constructive debate and organized competition in law, politics, philosophy, and science. Greeks like Thales, Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Heron, and Democritus took things in this analytical direction first - testing their ideas against each other - and Iraqi-Egyptian Hasan Ibn al-Haytham (aka Alhazen) honed the scientific method in the Middle Ages. Even in ancient Greece, though, thinkers were outnumbered: Athenians banished Anaxagoras for arguing that the Moon was a rock rather than a God.

The scientific method is really about both knowledge and ignorance - not just the ignorance of individuals you disagree with or the purported ignorance of other societies, but collective ignorance. It proceeds from the humble assumption that we really don't know much - and that all of our supposed knowledge is subject to ongoing reexamination - to the bold (hubristic?) assumption that we can learn more through careful observation combined with the application of reason, math, and science. Good scientists have to know what they don't know. For instance, physicists don't know why the Big Bang happened and Charles Darwin didn't fill in gray area by pretending to know about what we now call DNA. Scientific research, in other words, takes for granted the insufficiency of old knowledge. Research rarely plays out in a vacuum, though, instead being enmeshed in politics, ideology, and economics. Science and technology fused in the Renaissance when the Florentine Medicis patronized weapons research by Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, leading to advances in optics and physics, and alchemists helped jumpstart legitimate chemistry by trying to make synthetic gold. Then, like now, war and money spurred science, with ramifications spilling over into medicine, astronomy, and even political science.

By the late 17th and 18th centuries, the Renaissance application of reason to the natural and social world morphed into various strands known collectively as the Age of Enlightenment. No one seems to agree exactly on what it was, and it cut a wide enough swath for some historians to blame it for slavery's justification while others credit its emphasis on equality and justice as contributing to slavery's abolition. Likewise, you could blame/credit Enlightenment science for both pollution and environmentalism to combat pollution. Enlightenment science ultimately brought us hydrogen bombs and the missiles to deliver them on. Yet Enlightenment philosopher Cesare Beccaria's On Crimes and Punishments (1764) helped convince America's Founding Fathers to add the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. Critics describe torture and the death penalty as "unenlightened." America's founders are often criticized for failing to live up to the Enlightenment's ideals, but that could only have been possible if the ideals existed in the first place. Is partially unfulfilled idealism worse than no idealism at all? Like the Renaissance and Dark Ages, the Enlightenment is one of those historical tags that lends itself to biased agenda-driven oversimplifications, highlighting some themes while concealing others. Yet, people who lived through it were aware of a new age being ushered in.

The Age of Exploration (Chapter 2) was key to the Enlightenment because it opened up a global inventory of data to European scientists. Running overseas colonies required knowledge of the world's geography, weather, cultures, economies, etc. Exploration also brought coffee to Europe - the signature drink of the Enlightenment. Historian Tom Standage points out that coffee, fittingly unknown to ancient Greeks and Romans, was the "drink of clear-headedness, the epitome of modernity and progress." Most java of the era was thick, gritty and, by judgement of aficionados, downright nasty. Still, instead of starting off the day clouding their minds with ale or wine, scientists, writers, politicians, merchants, and clerks imbibed the Ethiopian plant/ Yemeni invention/Turkish-Ottoman import to "play good-fellows [with] this wakeful and civil drink," to quote one Englishman from 1660. Just as Europeans imported and modified gunpowder, printing, shipbuilding, and math to their benefit during the Renaissance, they imported and modified the Arabic coffeehouse during the Enlightenment. Standage calls these clubby establishments the "Internet of the Age of Reason," serving as informal post offices, stock exchanges, and forums for ideas ranging from theories of gravity to political rebellion to poetry to commodity prices, along with news and gossip. Dutch merchants who grew coffee in Java (Indonesia) imported beans to New York in 1660 and coffeehouses assumed a social and political role in colonial America similar to taverns, even though most Americans drank tea in the home.

But improving on Classical ignorance of coffee was the least of it. Scholars during the Late Renaissance and Enlightenment started to question all dogma - be it philosophical, scientific, political, or religious - building on rather than just revering and reviving ancient Greek and Roman knowledge. Meanwhile, they continued to import ideas along with coffee from Arabia and Persia. A famous example is Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus' reconceptualization of the universe (really just our solar system) along the heliocentric model suggested by Abu Raihan al-Biruni (973-1048 CE) rather than the geocentric version inherited from the ancient Greeks (Plato, Aristotle, Ptolemy) and Catholic Church (St. Thomas Aquinas). Biruni, who centuries ahead of his time hypothesized about the existence of the American continent, was in turn well-versed in Classical scholars like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Enlightenment engineers also imported ideas from ancient Greece and medieval Iraq, building toy automatons that were really the first robots. In Novum Organum (or New Instrument, 1620), Englishman Francis Bacon, the era's most famous cheerleader, beseeched scientists to "start from the bottom-most foundations - unless we prefer to go 'round in perpetual circles at a contemptibly slow rate."

While we can safely say that the Enlightenment valued reason and logic, historians disagree on its timeframe and even what it was exactly. The Great Awakening, on the other hand, spurs less scholarly controversy. This religious revival gave rise to a less exclusive but equally devout form of Protestant Christianity than that of "Old Light" (Puritan) New England Calvinism. Like the Enlightenment, Christianity was used both to support and denounce slavery. We'll look at the Enlightenment more closely here in the first half of the chapter, then explore the Great Awakening and American notions of religious freedom in the second half. Together, these movements laid the foundation for the American Revolution that we'll examine in the next few chapters.

Enlightenment Politics
The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are products of the Enlightenment, as the U.S. was created by politicians swept up in the movement when it was all the rage. Paris was the epicenter of the Enlightenment, but its philosophes lived throughout Europe, the British Isles, and small but enthusiastic outposts in colonial America. They rejected monarchs' claim to the divine right of rule, turning the traditional political model upside down and arguing that power was a privilege bestowed by the people on their rulers. They disagreed that God chose certain people to rule over others and instead promoted representative government - an idea that had been mostly dormant in Western history since Classical times but had been reviving in England and a few small pockets in continental Europe during the Renaissance. England's absolutist monarchy eroded in the 17th century in a series of revolutions. This is a vivid and important example of Enlightenment thinkers reexamining traditional wisdom.

Along with free trade, representative government was a cornerstone of Classical liberalism. In England in the late 17th century, physician/philosopher John Locke wrote about the "natural right" to "life, liberty and estate," and helped draft the constitution for America's Carolina colony. If these rights sound familiar, they morphed a century later into life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and protection against government denial of life, liberty or property without due process of law in the U.S. Constitution's 5th Amendment. Locke saw it as part of a government's social contract to secure such natural rights among free men of means (he was a major shareholder in the Royal African slave-trading company). Other English Radical Whigs, including the anonymous author of Cato's Letters, wrote of the "equality of all men."

British Americans carried on this republican, Radical Whig tradition in the 18th century, most famously Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Locke and Jefferson were concerned with the political representation of middle-class men and above, but their descendants applied democracy more broadly. You can see why Enlightenment critics see its philosophy as merely a self-serving justification for white male hegemony; yet, you can also see how its ideas contained the seeds of a more universal revolution. With the republican genie out of the bottle, white male elites found it increasingly difficult to explain why they should run roughshod over everyone else. That's because, by the philosophes' own standards of justice and equality, there isn't a good reason. Enlightenment political theory was also concerned with balance - reflected in the U.S. Constitution's emphasis on checks and balances and equality among its three main branches. You could say that, via the Declaration and Constitution, the Enlightenment is built into the fabric or DNA of American politics. Politics, like science, was a vehicle for progress and making the world a better place. Though often not religious in the traditional sense, especially with their commitment to questioning tradition, philosophes had an undying faith in progress.

Enlightenment Religion
The Enlightenment's signature religion was Deism, though there were plenty of atheist and Christian Enlightenment philosophers as well. Deists were religious, to be sure, but they rejected two central tenants of traditional religion. First, in the name of progress, they disagreed that everything important to know was already known. That notion is implicit in the very word enlightenment, along with future historical tags like Dark Ages to contrast the period behind them. Second, they rejected Scriptural revelation and the sovereign, father-figure conception of the Judeo-Christian God in favor of a more impersonal force having created the universe. Their revelation was nature itself rather than Scripture, so science provided the path to the divine. While Deist ideas are still around today, it never formed into an organized church. The closest it came was the Cult of the Supreme Being or Festivals of Reason during the French Revolution in the 1790s, but they never gained traction. Most Philosophes, after all, weren't into "cults" and most French people were Catholics, not Deists.

While denying Scriptural revelation, Deists were nonetheless tapping into a strand of Christianity dating back at least to St. Augustine (354-430 CE) that revered nature. Within Enlightenment Christianity, there was the liberal Unitarian branch (now UU) and a thread known as "natural religion" that overlapped with Deism. Charles Darwin was a natural theologian as a young man, prior to his daughter Annie's death, and nearly entered the Anglican ministry. Science and rationality, even if combined with a dash of mysticism, gave mankind its best hope for future progress in the eyes of Deists and natural theologians. Contrary to the way they're often depicted in textbooks and dictionaries, most Deists didn't believe that God was a mere "clockmaker" who wound up the universe only to vacate the premises. Like Thomas Jefferson, many adhered to what might better be termed pantheism: belief in a divinity infusing and animating all things. Jefferson wasn't the only Enlightenment figure difficult to categorize religiously.

The most famous and emblematic scientist of the era, Englishman Isaac Newton, was a Biblical scholar (if not orthodox Christian) and eschatologist and had more than a passing interest in the occult. His use of the term natural law for forces like gravity implied a lawgiver (God). Newton and Locke both believed in witchcraft, as did Robert Boyle, founder of modern chemistry and a pioneer of the scientific method. Astronomer Galileo Galilei, telescope pioneer and early proponent of the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun, was motivated by a strong sense of wonder and mysticism. He said that philosophy was "written in the grand book" of the universe, which "stands continually open to our gaze" and that "The Sun, with all those planets revolving around it and dependent on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as if it has nothing else in the universe to do." You may have guessed from that last quote that Galileo enjoyed wine and you'd be right. He described vino as "sunlight held together by water." Galileo's predecessor, Giordano Bruno, might have leaned toward the heliocentric rather than geocentric view of astronomy not because he was a paragon of reason battling the irrational Catholic Church, but rather because he thought the Earth had a soul or "Holy Ghost" that powered its motion around the Sun. For its part, the Catholic Church initially supported the Copernican heliocentric theory until Galileo's writings appeared to lampoon Pope Urban VIII and the Jesuits. Protestants also spurred science, indirectly by weakening the Catholic Church and directly by supporting education and literacy. Protestant Reformer Philipp Melanchthon was an early supporter of the Copernican, Sun-centered model of the cosmos. Albert Einstein said that "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Enlightenment Science
Isaac Newton was most famous, though, as a scientist. He built on Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, and Kepler's Renaissance theories of the aforementioned heliocentric, sun-centered universe (solar system) and developed the theory of gravity to explain the planets' orbits. Newton was also the inventor of the reflecting telescope and co-inventor of calculus along with German Gottfried Leibniz. Newton formulated the general laws of motion and mechanics that dominated physics for the next centuries in Principia Mathematica (1687). His "cradle" of pendulums at the top of the chapter demonstrated conservation of momentum and energy. His optical research led to prisms that dispersed white light into the colors of the rainbow. Newton's work was typical of how 17th and 18th-century scientists developed laws to codify nature's order in the same way the Bible provided a code for Christianity. Enlightenment philosophers had faith that scientific laws were discernible (or perceptible) and provided the foundation for laws that governed other fields like politics and economics. Put another way, there was a rhyme and reason to nature that transcended science. Politicians like Locke and Jefferson based their beliefs in concepts like natural rights on Newton's scientific principles, as did Scottish economist Adam Smith.

Enlightenment scientists' passion for categorizing, collecting, and cataloging knowledge found its extreme expression in British and French modifications of the encyclopedia. Ephraim Chambers Cylopaedia (or Universal Dictionary of Arts & Sciences, 1728) and Diderot and D'Alembert's Encyclopédie (1751) exceeded ancient and medieval compilations in their breadth and sophistication. Contributors included luminaries such as Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu. Because of its secular emphasis and denunciations of ecclesiastical power, the Catholic Church banned its 28 volumes, but they delivered to subscribers in secret. The Wikipedia entries linked to terms in these chapters are modern-day manifestations of the Enlightenment as are many of the courses one takes in school, and the way those courses are divided up into various topics and " ologies" (from the Greek logos, for study of).

Carl Linnaeus' biological taxonomy is a good Enlightenment example of an attempt at all-encompassing knowledge. The Swedish botanist took it upon himself to catalog all life forms under categories of family, genus, species, etc. While modern biologists have re-arranged his categories and don't traffic in families of species, his conceptualization of life forms as being related on a Tree of Life was the basis for Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection later in the 19th century. Darwin's grandfather Erasmus, a contemporary of Linnaeus, was an early evolutionist.

Another example of Enlightenment categorizing was the study of elements at the University of Heidelberg, in Germany. Among the students was Russian Dmitri Mendeleev, who is credited with developing the Periodic Table of Elements familiar to anyone who's been in a lab or science classroom. The table not only lists known elements, it predicts and explains their qualities based on its particular arrangement. Like Linnaeus' taxonomy, Mendeleev's 19th-century original was arranged differently than today's Periodic Table. Enlightenment scientists didn't just dig deeper into biology, chemistry, and physics, they cataloged their findings so that others could challenge and build on their theories as part of a worldwide effort. If the Enlightenment had a modern creed, it might be that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, even if its proponents made plenty of their own unsubstantiated claims.

Penn's Woods & Quakerism
The Enlightenment's main American satellite was Philadelphia, port and capital of Pennsylvania, the most religiously tolerant and scientifically oriented colony. "Penn's Woods" was a relative latecomer among the colonies, but the region north of Maryland and west of the Delaware River made up for lost time by becoming one of the most important. William Penn, who had been arrested in England for practicing Quakerism with the Society of Friends, but whose father was a creditor of King Charles II, founded the colony after the English Civil War. Because of his family connection, Penn went from being imprisoned to being awarded a tract of land in America larger than all of England - quite a reversal of fortune. Given Penn's noisy advocacy of religious freedom in England, it's possible that Charles II gave him land in America just to get rid of him. That way he could pay off his debt and get an agitator out of his hair (or powdered wig) at the same time.

Penn wasn't typical of early Quakers, or "Children of Light," insofar as he was born into the upper class. The denomination's founders were from remote parts of northern England - so remote that not only were they illiterate themselves, they weren't even within range of trained ministers. Consequently, they argued that Christianity could not only do without an established church, be it Catholic or Anglican, but that one didn't need Scripture either to be blessed with the inner light caused by Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. This was a bare bones form of Protestantism that Martin Luther never imagined. Classic Quaker meetings have no ministers or planned sermons; Friends meditate and rise when moved to speak. Outsiders called the Society of Friends "Quakers" because their bodies would sometimes convulse or shake when enraptured.

Penn impacted history even before he left England. One of his trial juries refused to convict him when the Lord Mayor of London charged him with violating the Conventicle Acts dictating conformity to the Church of England. The judge then went after the jury but an ensuing trial and counter-suit resulted in English judges losing their right to imprison juries for awarding what judges deemed to be incorrect verdicts. Penn thus indirectly caused a major change in western legal history even before founding an important American colony. Imagine how different trials would be if juries had to worry about being imprisoned by judges.

In America, Penn turned the New England Puritan model of homogeneity inside out by inviting anyone interested to enjoy a "Holy Experiment" in religious pluralism, with no official religious establishment. Pennsylvania was diverse ethnically as well as religiously. Philadelphia was Greek for "city of brotherly love." The Middle Colonies were the first to attract large numbers of non-British European settlers, including Dutch who founded New York, Swedes who founded Delaware and parts of New Jersey, and Germans and Moravians who came to Pennsylvania. Initially, wealthy Quakers owned slaves, but a small and militant handful became the first Christian abolitionists in America.

Foremost among them was a cave-dwelling, bee-keeping, vegan dwarf named Benjamin Lay, whose theatrical public protests against slavery (and tobacco and capital punishment) earned him fame as the "Quaker Comet" in the 18th century but dismissal from the Society of Friends. Lay, who'd seen a slave commit suicide in Barbados to avoid torture, called "man-stealers" the "literal spawn of Satan" bearing the "mark of the Beast." Mainstream Quakers were starting to vindicate his radical abolitionist ideas when he died in 1759. Quakers founded the Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society in April 1775, the same month as the famous rebel battles against British redcoats at Lexington and Concord (next chapter).

Quakers also tried to respect Indians within Penn's borders. Indians reciprocated by not killing "Broad Brims," a reference to Quaker's distinct hats. Though white Pennsylvanians ultimately succumbed to disputes among themselves and struggled to maintain peace with Indians along the frontier, they built a prosperous colony on the strength of Delaware Valley wheat and Philadelphia's inland deep water harbor. They'd grown successful in England, as well, founding Barclay's and Lloyd's banks and Cadbury chocolates, and influential enough politically that some historians suspect their rise motivated the gentry to overthrow Cromwell's Puritan republic and restore the crown to Charles II.

Historian Barry Levy described how, despite their small numbers - no more than 1% of Christians for most of their history - Quakers had a disproportionate impact. They were pacifists, which got them in trouble during times of war but helped spark the modern ideal that war, even if sometimes necessary, should be avoided if possible (modern hawks now talk about using war to maintain or restore peace). They advocated progressive child-rearing and equality for women ahead of their time; contemporary European men joked at taverns and in popular culture about beating their wives and children. Quakers argued that children should be cultivated, persuaded, and talked to rather than just having their "wills broken" like draft animals with intimidation and physical punishment. While some parents today might violate that ideal, it's not only out-of-date to beat one's children but also illegal (e.g. NFL player Adrian Peterson). Quakers helped define motherhood as the "ethical center of American socialization," yet also believed that women had an equal role to play in the public realm. Future reformers Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, and Jane Addams were all born Quakers. After owning slaves themselves through the mid-18th century, Quakers spearheaded abolitionism well into the 19th century and emphasized egalitarianism. They believed in simple, unpretentious clothing and architecture. Quakers called everyone Mr. and Mrs. regardless of wealth and shook hands rather than bowing or doffing caps to superiors. In fact, they didn't believe in rank to start with among mortals, though they also shook hands to feel the pulsing of "the Light" in others. To this day, Americans use Mr. and Mrs. for rich and poor alike and people of all economic classes commonly greet by shaking hands. Quakers also believed that, since humans could carry the Light and "radiate God's word," they should never lie or engage in any uncouth or ungodly behavior, including haggling for prices. Thus, this small Protestant denomination invented set prices for goods and egalitarian handshakes, helped to abolish slavery, and launched the women's movement and widely accepted, modern ideas of raising children. If we're really more "enlightened" today than medieval Europeans, it might owe as much to Quakers as philosophes.

Benjamin Franklin
Pennsylvania was also home to Benjamin Franklin, who exemplified the Enlightenment spirit as well as any American. Franklin fled Puritan Boston as a teenager, finding refuge in comparatively cosmopolitan Philadelphia. He was a printer by trade - most famous for his own fact- and wisdom-filled annual Poor Richard's Almanack ( PDF) - and a true polymath with multiple interests and a strong curiosity. As a sixteen-year-old, Franklin anonymously contributed to his brother James' New England Courant under the name "Mrs. Silence Dogood," boosting circulation with opinionated witticisms (without James' knowledge) while also typesetting and selling papers on the street. Franklin also published Quaker Benjamin Lay's All Slave-Keepers That Keep the Innocent in Bondage, Apostates (1738), that historian Marcus Rediker called a "founding text of Atlantic antislavery."

As an adult, Franklin became a serious scientist. He rejected the traditional interpretation of lightning being a manifestation of God's anger as being lazy and superstitious, choosing instead to investigate the real cause using science. He arrived at the theory of lightning being caused by electricity and even developed a tool to control its destructive force through his modification of the lightning rod (lightning strikes were a common cause of fires and, without pressurized water hoses, people had no effective means to douse fires). Franklin laid the groundwork for batteries by storing electricity in a Leyden jar, developed the concepts of positive and negative charges, coined the terms conductor and electrician, and hoped that humans would someday be able to harness electrical energy for their own purposes. That, too, was in the Enlightenment spirit.

Franklin invented bifocals, the Franklin stove, the glass harmonica, daylight savings, and the post office, and properly theorized about how the Gulf Stream from the Caribbean warmed Europe. He pioneered demographics in his study of colonial Americans' migration patterns. Franklin asked questions and, when confronted with practical problems, furthered progress by inventing new solutions. For instance, his brother's catheter was uncomfortable, so he invented a more flexible one. If that's not practical, what is? He was constantly researching and coming up with new medical ideas, some useful others less so. When he was eleven, he invented swim fins. Franklin helped transform Philadelphia into the first true city in America, with a hospital, fire and police departments, libraries, and paved, numbered and lit streets. Franklin established the colonies' first volunteer fire department there in 1736. Philadelphia's grid street system influenced cities throughout America and it started the first medical colleges in the colonies, named for Penn and Jefferson.

Franklin's Deism was typical of the Founders, as was his Enlightenment politics. Since America was born at the height of the Enlightenment, the Revolution presented its founders with an opportunity to ensconce representative government in a country starting from scratch. Through republicanism, along with its endorsement of science and technology, the Enlightenment lives on in contemporary America. While Jefferson was wrong that orthodox faiths would soon give way to Deism or Unitarianism, people of all faiths live in a technologically advancing world and share at least some subconscious belief in the scientific method. Few among us would rush to a church instead of a hospital if injured or sick, and no one is advocating replacing First Responders with ministers on the other end of 911 calls. We drive cars and trucks and live in homes and talk on phones invented and improved on by application of the scientific method. But gone is the philosophes ' blind faith in progress as a uniformly good thing since people today realize that science will never solve all our problems and can even create new ones of its own like pollution, carcinogens, overpopulation, cyber-attacks, and weapons of mass destruction.

Freemasonry
While Deists never established a formal denomination or church of their own, some of their emphasis on Enlightenment progress made its way into the Freemasons, a fraternal society that traced its origins to stonemason guilds and the masons who built Solomon's Temple to house the Ark of the Covenant. The "G" in the Masonic Square & Compass symbol stands for "Grand Architect of the Universe" - a Deist way to describe God. But Masons were, and are, an organization that includes people of many faiths, including Christianity, bound together by monotheism and a commitment to community service. Many Americans were suspicious of the organization because of their secretive meetings, rituals, and codes, but their ranks included Founders like Franklin and George Washington and dozens of future prominent politicians, inventors, entertainers, and theologians. A cursory glance at this list makes one wonder if there aren't more famous American Masons than famous American non-Masons. While not up to no good, as wrongly suspected, Masons were obviously networking long before LinkedIn®.
In addition, Masonic imagery worked its way onto American currency and iconic structures like the Washington Monument and Statue of Liberty, a gift from French Masons to America to celebrate the Union's victory in the Civil War. The political structure of Masonic lodges, with their system of checks-and-balances and one-man-one-vote, is similar to the U.S. Constitution - likely because they both developed during the Enlightenment.
Contrary to conspiracy theories, the Eye of Providence on the back of the American one-dollar bill comes from the original Great Seal of the United States (1782) and dates to Christian iconography, adopted later by Masons. Franklin Roosevelt, one of 14 Masons to have served as president, added it to the dollar in 1935.

The Great Awakening
While Enlightenment philosophers were disproportionately represented among the Founders and in Masonic Lodges, and Enlightenment politics is built into our Constitution, few Americans were attracted to Enlightenment religion. Traditional religion and religious indifference were far more common in the 18th century among farmers, craftsmen, shopkeepers, and slaves, and Christianity experienced revolutions of its own known collectively as the Great Awakening. Historians usually refer to the First and Second Great Awakenings in reference to big bursts in the 1730s-40s and 1790s-1850s. The First took place mostly within the old Congregational denominations of New England and in Philadelphia, while the Second was associated with tent revivals and missionaries around the country and launched new denominations.

The Puritans' Elect of God predestination-oriented Calvinism wasn't destined to survive the 18th century in its original form, at least not administered by ministers delivering erudite "Old Light" sermons to a passive audience. It was too stuffy and complicated for New England, least of all the frontier and rest of the country. Many Americans couldn't read let alone dive into John Calvin's Commentaries. Puritanism was too exclusive. What was the attraction if you couldn't prove to insiders that you, too, were among the Elect? To put it crassly, American Protestantism was in need of a reboot or rebranding after the first few generations of Puritans had served their purpose. In New England, the key bridge between the older Calvinism and more emotional, less formal "New Light" variety was Jonathan Edwards. Despite appealing to the masses, Edwards was an intellectual who embraced Enlightenment science and his books and sermons are still read today at colleges and divinity schools ( Yale Collection). Edwards was one of the most influential Christian theologians in American history.

But the most popular and dynamic of the new ministers was George Whitefield, who preached throughout the colonies outside of churches, in the streets. While Ben Franklin didn't share Whitefield's religious views, he appreciated the social role of religion in supporting society's moral fabric and published Whitefield's sermons, helping to trigger the Great Awakening. Others were less enamored, as suggested by the engraving below where two women named "hypocrisy" and two-faced "deceit" support Whitefield. The jester's staff and monkey in the bottom right corner indicate that this artist viewed Great Awakening "enthusiasm" ministers like showmen in a carnival.

But their theology was substantive. John Wesley, the English founder of Methodism, argued against predestination in favor of Arminianism, the idea that salvation came through good works. With its emphasis on free will and salvation, Methodism was the most popular denomination in America by 1830. Jonathan Edwards downplayed Arminianism and promoted the Calvinist idea of salvation coming through inner reflection and God's Grace in "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God: a Sermon" (1741). The upshot was that the Fire-and-Brimstone aspect of Puritan lived on, but Protestant Christianity opened itself up to all comers in the 18th and 19th centuries, becoming more heartfelt and user-friendly.In the upgraded Calvinism 2.0, new converts could be saved and evangelicals carried that message to followers of German and Dutch Reformed churches, Scottish "New-Side" Presbyterians, and Anglo-American Baptists and Methodists. The Greek root of the word evangelical means good news, or bearer of good news.

The new faiths had a democratic or egalitarian bent, with no respect for hierarchies like the Church of England, which they viewed as "Catholic Lite," or even the formal organization of the Old Light Puritan Congregations or Old Side Presbyteries, with their insistence on college-educated ministers. Their preference, especially at first, was for informal tent revival gatherings where swarms of people communed and shared born-again experiences similar to the Puritans' regeneration. Charles Finney, president of Presbyterian Oberlin College, described his conversion as "waves of waves of liquid love." Barton Stone's camp meeting at Cane Ridge, Kentucky attracted tens of thousands of people, a significant number given the frontier's sparse population. The Methodists didn't have any churches at first; their Circuit Riders rode around on horses and slept on the ground.

In the early 19th century, dozens more new denominations spun out of the Second Great Awakening, including Pentecostals, Disciples of Christ (part of the Restoration Movement), Seventh-day Adventists, Cumberland Presbyterians, Millerites, Jehovah's Witnesses (later in 1870s) and, most famously, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) - by far the most successful denomination invented in America and the fastest growing in the world today. The Puritans' old Congregational Church lives on today, too, mainly in the form of the post-1957 United Church of Christ. The Second Great Awakening also reinvigorated the mainstream evangelical faiths (Baptist, Methodist, New Side Presbyterian) popularized in the First Great Awakening of the 18th century.

Religious Freedom
Denominational growth in the early U.S. reflects well on the religious freedom James Madison ensconced in the Constitution's First Amendment, that forbids Congress from making any "law respecting a religious establishment or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." We discussed how religious freedom originated in the pluralistic colonies some above and at the end of Chapter 6 and we'll unpack the Consitution in Chapter 10, but here we'll briefly examine how religious freedom sustained the Second Great Awakening and denominational growth. It's worth considering since modern American often mistakenly associate religious freedom with being anti-religious.

Madison consulted with Jefferson on the First Amendment and Jefferson authored its forerunner at the state level: the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. That explains the unlikely allegiance between Baptists and the non-Christian Jefferson when he became president. Politics "makes for strange bedfellows" as the saying goes and, in the case of the Mammoth Cheese, the Baptist congregation from Cheshire, Massachusetts so appreciated President Jefferson that they sent him a block of cheese weighing 1,230 lbs. Nine hundred bovines contributed to the gigantic chunk of coagulated milk, with some drawn from the cows of every Republican in town but no Federalist farmers (more on parties in Chapter 11).

Why would Christians bestow so much cheese on an infidel (Deist)? Because, in spite of his own unorthodox faith, Jefferson's support for the First Amendment helped provide New England Baptists legal protection in a region where they were outlawed and persecuted by Congregationalists. It's safe to say that scarcely a single reader viewing this textbook espouses religious beliefs that wouldn't have been outlawed somewhere by somebody at some point in time. In fact, it's a certainty. That's why Jefferson and Madison thought that, far from hindering religion, separation of church and state would benefit religion in the long run. History shed light because today many people assume that supporters of church-state separation oppose religion when often they just oppose government involving itself in religion. Those are two very different things. Jefferson and Madison's viewpoint "flips the script," suggesting that it's advantageous for religion - all religions in the long run - to disassociate from politics (not issues, necessarily, but from legal political grounding).

Today's church-state debates are a key part of our culture wars, especially those regarding the proper place of Christianity in public schools. "Separationists" argue that it has no place whatsoever and that any inclusion violates the First Amendment rights of non-Christians or Christians who don't want the government in that part of their lives. It's simple: keep religion out of the public sphere and keep it a private affair. As Jefferson put it, his neighbor's religion neither "picked his pocket nor broke his leg." No one wants to override the First Amendment altogether, but some Christians want to partially break down the church-state barrier and argue that the Constitution doesn't actually say anything about separating church and state. Contrary to a popular misconception, the phrase separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. But it does come from the First Amendment's virtual co-author, Jefferson. Like the Cheshire cow farmers, another group of New England Baptists sent Jefferson a thank you letter for his role in establishing religious freedom. In his response, the Letter to the Danbury [Ct.] Baptists, the new president explained how the framers intended to separate church and state. What about the First Amendment's primary author, James Madison? In an 1819 letter, Madison wrote that even Virginia's clergy had benefited from "total separation of church and state."

While interpreting original intent of Constitutional framers is a suspect enterprise most of the time, future Supreme Court justices were confident in applying the separationist idea because Jefferson and Madison penned it themselves in letters. Thus, you should think for yourself about the Texas State Board of Education's decree in 2010 that the First Amendment "didn't intend for separation of church and state." Here's who thinks it did: it's author, chief consultant, most trained judges, historians, and political scientists.

Finally, what's most ironic about America's church-state separation is that it inadvertently enabled religion to infuse politics more than in most countries. Permit me to explain. All denominations and ideas were free to thrive or die out in America's free religious marketplace. The national government, at least - and states after the Fourteenth Amendment - neither collected taxes for, favored nor outlawed any denomination. Diverse theologies flourished that could be widely interpreted, especially after the invention of steam-powered printing presses allowed for more sermons, pamphlets, and Bibles. In that uncensored marketplace, religion was (and is) used to argue both sides of political debates. For instance, Christianity was the primary ideological force behind both slavery and abolition. Liberals and conservatives employed Christianity to argue for and against Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s. God rewards the rich in Prosperity Gospel while Jesus favors the poor through the Social Gospel. Political scientist James Morone pointed out that today's evangelicals warn their flocks that to cast a "blue" (Democratic) vote would be a sin against the Almighty, while black churches bus their mostly Democratic congregations to voting booths. In the few Western countries even more religious than the U.S., such as Croatia and Ireland, virtually no one makes any connection whatsoever between religion and politics. Perhaps that's because, in the long run, moral principles don't sit well alongside the realities of political power, amorality, compromise, and expediency.

Conclusion
While Christians and Enlightenment philosophers each had faith, the nature of their respective faiths differed. Christians emphasized faith in Scripture while philosophes put their faith in science, nature's God, and secular progress (natural theologians bridged the gap between them). Evangelicals and Quakers mustered a more significant challenge to slavery than their Enlightenment counterparts despite attempts to abolish slavery during the French Revolution. Yet, most Christians didn't challenge slavery either, at least in the 18th century. Nevertheless, Great Awakening Christians and philosophe s both demanded religious liberty and they shared a disdain for political or religious leaders who claimed superiority over others by virtue of divine right. As such, neither accepted the basic premise of why the British king, supported by the Church of England, had an inherent right to rule over the American colonies.

Historian Nathan Hatch referred to this period in religious history as the democratization of American Christianity, implying that the increasingly democratic politics of the time paved the way for the growth of denominations. Still, it's difficult to see which came first, the chicken or the egg, as far as democratic religion or democratic politics (having already discussed coffee, wine, and cheese in this chapter, I thought we'd toss in some chickens and eggs). Despite their different takes on reason and faith, Great Awakening Protestantism and Enlightenment politics reinforced each other as twin streams that fed into the American Revolution. Americans of both stripes understood what Jefferson and Franklin meant when they suggested that the motto for the new country's Great Seal read: "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." It never caught on as the official motto but, in 1801, the Cheshire Baptists inscribed it in their Mammoth Cheese.

Optional Reading & Viewing:
Jefferson's Religious Beliefs (Monticello)
Papers of Benjamin Franklin (Yale Univ.)
Exploring the Republic of Letters (National Endowment for the Humanities)
Jamelle Bouie, "The Enlightenment's Dark Side" (Slate, 6.5.18)
Art & Identity in the British North American Colonies (Metropolitan Museum of Art)Lisa Gensel, "The Medical World of Benjamin Franklin" ( Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine) Jersey Devil: The Real Story (Center for Skeptical Inquiry) - An Interesting Side of Benjamin Franklin
Marcus Rediker, "The 'Quaker Comet' Was the Greatest Abolitionist You've Never Heard Of," Smithsonian, 9.17
Kwame Anthony Appia, From "Irrationality: A History of the Dark Side of Reason," New York Review of Books (5.9.19)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enlightenment philosophy and Great Awakening Christianity were very different, but both influenced the American colonies and American Revolution and both frame our thinking today. The Enlightenment - so named by its own practitioners, who didn't lack self-esteem - is best thought of as a continuation of the Renaissance we discussed in Chapter 2, with a strong emphasis on the Scientific Revolution, reason, and progress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The series of acts passed by Parliament during the 1760s and 1770s is what initially sparked the unrest that led to the American Revolution.

The acts regulated trade and commerce in the colonies and were passed to help pay off the debt that the British government had incurred during the French and Indian War.

The colonies resented the acts and felt they were a blatant attempt to make money off the colonies. Since the colonists were unable to vote on the Parliamentary officials who passed the acts, they felt they were being taxed unfairly, hence the colonist's motto: No taxation without representation!

The following is a list of the acts of the American Revolution:

The Sugar Act:

The Sugar Act was passed by Parliament in April of 1764. The act placed a tax on sugar and molasses imported into the colonies.

This affected Boston and New England greatly because the colonists there used sugar and molasses to make rum. The act was also intended to stop trade between the colonies and the Dutch, French and Spanish.

Boston merchants responded to the act by boycotting British luxury imports and vowed to find ways to increase colonial manufacturing to make them less dependent on British goods.

The Currency Act:

The Currency Act consisted of several acts, such as the Currency Act of 1751 and the Currency Act of 1764, that regulated paper money issued by the American colonies. The acts were passed to protect British merchants from being paid in depreciated colonial currency.

The acts forbade the colonies from issuing paper money, which was creating problems due to inflation and a complex system of varying values and types of money from the various North American colonies.

The Currency act created tension in the colonies because it was seen as an attempt by the British government to gain control of the colonies monetary policies.

The Stamp Act:

The Stamp Act was passed in March of 1765. The act was a tax on all paper used for printed materials in the colonies. It required that all materials printed in the colonies be printed on paper embossed with an official revenue stamp. The printed materials in question included everything from newspapers, to magazines to legal documents.

The Stamp Act was the first new tax that the colonists actually took to the streets and held public protests about. A new political group, the Sons of Liberty, formed in Boston as a protest against the act.

The group held public protests around Boston and incited a number of violent riots during which tax collectors where tarred and feathered and many government official's homes were looted and burned.

The Townshend Acts:

The Townshend Acts were passed in 1767. The acts consisted of the Revenue Act of 1767 (which placed a tax on British goods imported into the colonies such as glass, tea, lead, paints and paper), the Commissioners of Customs Act, the Vice Admiralty Act, and the New York Restraining Act.

The acts were highly unpopular and met with resistance from the colonists, especially in Boston. This prompted the British government to send more troops to Boston, in 1768, to help enforce the new taxes.

A new political group, the Daughters of Liberty, formed as a result of the Townshend Acts and organized boycotts against British goods. In 1770, the Townshend acts were repealed except for the tax on tea.

The Tea Act:

The Tea Act was passed in 1773. It allowed for tea to be shipped by British companies duty-free to the colonies, thus allowing them to sell the tea for a discounted price.

The tea act was intended to be a bailout for the British East India Company which was suffering financially when colonists began boycotting British tea. It was also intended to subtly persuade the colonists to comply with the tea tax by offering them the tea at a cheaper price.

The colonists greatly opposed the tea act because it gave British companies a monopoly on the tea trade and it helped promote the tea tax.

The tea act prompted the Boston Tea Party in December of 1773. This was a protest against the tea act during which several hundred colonists boarded merchant ships in Boston harbor and destroyed millions of dollars of British tea by throwing it overboard.

The Coercive Acts:

The Coercive Acts were the British government's response to the Boston Tea Party. The acts were passed in 1774 and were a series of four acts designed to restore order in Massachusetts and punish Boston for its rebellious act.

The Coercive Acts included:

Boston Port Act: The Boston Port Act closed Boston harbor until the damages from the Boston Tea Party were paid for.

Massachusetts Government Act: Massachusetts Government Act restricted town meetings and made it so positions on the Governor's council were appointed by the British government.

Administration of Justice Act: Administration of Justice Act made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in Massachusetts.

Quartering Act: Quartering Act required colonists to house British soldiers in their homes if need be

Quebec Act: Quebec Act gave freedom of worship to Catholics in Canada.

The acts were intended to suppress rebellion in Massachusetts and isolate it from the other colonies. Instead, the other colonies came to Massachusetts' defense and formed the First Continental Congress to discuss forming a united resistance against British rule in the colonies.

Sources:
"The Coming of the American Revolution." Massachusetts Historical Society, www.masshist.org/revolution/index.html
"British Parliament Adopts the Coercive Acts." History.com, A&E Television Networks, LLC, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/british-parliament-adopts-the-coercive-acts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Acts of the American Revolution - History of Massachusetts Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The series of acts passed by Parliament during the 1760s and 1770s is what initially sparked the unrest that led to the American Revolution. The acts regulated trade and commerce in the colonies and were passed to help pay off the debt that the British government had incurred during the...

# data[].attributes.headline
Colonist's Response (Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party)

# data[].attributes.subject
Colonist's Response (Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
boston massacre and tea party - Google Search

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Paul Revere's Ride/Lexington & Concord - Google Search

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Declaration of Independence (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
Battle of Quebec

After a failed Canadian invasion known as the Battle of Quebec (December 1775 - May 1776) left much of the Continental Army beaten, sick and in retreat, the British hoped to quash rebellion once and for all by isolating the New England colonies from the other American colonies.

They also hoped to discourage potential American allies such as France from joining the fight. To accomplish this, the British Redcoats needed to take upstate New York and control the Hudson River.

In the spring of 1777, the British ordered three of their armies to merge in Albany, New York. Only one army, however, commanded by General John Burgoyne, made the final push to its destination. Waiting for them was the heavily-fortified Northern Department of the Continental Army, commanded by General Horatio Gates.

Did you know? To celebrate the American victory at Saratoga, the Continental Congress issued a proclamation for a national day "for solemn Thanksgiving and praise," the first official holiday observance with that name.

First Battle of Saratoga: Freeman's Farm

The opposing armies came face to face on September 19 on the abandoned farm of Loyalist John Freeman near Saratoga, New York. Known as the Battle of Freeman's Farm or the First Battle of Saratoga, the fierce fighting lasted for several hours.

Momentum changed sides several times, but neither side gained significant ground until Burgoyne ordered his column of German troops to support the faltering British line and forced the Americans to pull back. Still, the British suffered twice the number of casualties than the Americans and couldn't continue their drive to Albany.

Battle of Bemis Heights

Burgoyne decided to stay put and wait for reinforcements from New York City. In the meantime, the number of Gates' American troops increased to over 13,000 and continued to grow.

By October 7, with supplies dwindling fast, Burgoyne realized waiting for backup was in vain. He sent out a reconnaissance force to attack the American's left flank in the wooded area of Bemis Heights, south of Saratoga. The Americans got wind of the movement, however, and forced the British to withdraw.

Burgoyne decided to take his army north to safety, but heavy rain and frigid temperatures slowed their retreat. Within two days, Gates' soldiers surrounded what remained of Burgoyne's army. Supporting the Patriot cause was Colonel Thaddeus Kosciusko, a Polish engineer who built strong field fortifications on Bemis Heights overlooking the Hudson River.

Out of supplies and out of options, Burgoyne surrendered his army to Gates on October 17. The battle became known as the Battle of Bemis Heights or the Second Battle of Saratoga.

Benedict Arnold

Benedict Arnold is infamous for betraying his country to the British, but he also played a heroic patriot's role during the American Revolution, including the Battle of Saratoga. Despite being wounded in the leg in the Battle of Quebec and then helping delay a British invasion of New York in late 1776, Arnold was passed up for promotions.

Frustrated, he resigned his commission in July 1777, but General George Washington, commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, refused his request and ordered him north to serve under General Gates.

At best, Arnold and Gates strongly disliked each other and often argued. After the Battle of Freeman's Farm, Gates relieved Arnold of his command. During the Battle of Bemis Heights, however, Arnold supposedly defied Gates' order and led an assault on horseback which helped the Americans win the battle. He severely wounded his leg again during the attack.

Arnold never felt appreciated by his country and eventually became a traitor, threatening everything he'd fought for during his time with the Continental Army. Yet his heroics at the Battle of Saratoga complicate his legacy.

Saratoga National Historical Park

The Saratoga Monument in Saratoga National Historical Park honors key players of the Battle of Saratoga. Its southern niche is empty in recognition of Arnold's conflicting roles of top general and turncoat.

A memorial statue of a lone boot, also located in Saratoga National Historical Park, represents Arnold's actions and leg wound at Saratoga. Neither the Boot Monument nor the southern niche bears Arnold's name.

Who Won the Battle of Saratoga?

Despite being overcome during the Battle of Freeman's Farm, the Continental Army persevered and won a decisive victory at the Battle of Saratoga. They decimated Burgoyne's troops, cut off supply routes, and Burgoyne never received his promised and desperately needed reinforcements.

The Redcoats had planned a divide-and-conquer attack against the Americans in upstate New York. However, a series of British mishaps and delays, as well as offensive actions taken by the Continental Army, forced Burgoyne's troops to fight Gates' fast-growing army alone, greatly diminishing any possibility of British success.

Significance of the Battle of Saratoga

The Battle of Saratoga was a turning point in the American Revolution. It gave the Patriots a major morale boost and persuaded the French, Spanish and Dutch to join their cause against a mutual rival.

France's naval support eventually helped the Continental Army win the final Battle of Yorktown, leading to the end of the American Revolution.

Sources

Benedict Arnold. Mountvernon.org.
Saratoga: Freeman's Farm/Bemis Heights. American Battlefield Trust.
Saratoga National Historic Park New York: Saratoga Monument. National Park Service.
Saratoga National Historic Park New York: History and Culture. National Park Service.
The Battle of Freeman's Farm. Alabama Sons of the American Revolution.
The Battle of Saratoga. Saratoga.org.
The Battle of Saratoga. The Saratoga County Chamber.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Battle of Saratoga - Definition, Significance & Date

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Battle of Saratoga occurred in 1777 during the Revolutionary War. It was a decisive victory for the Continental Army and a crucial turning point in the war.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Yorktown and the Treaty of Paris [ushistory.org]

# data[].attributes.body
Chapter 1:
Section 1:
http://indians.org/articles/paleo-indians.html

Section 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRzuKCqmF_k

Section 3:
https://www.google.com/search?q=culture+areas&rlz=1CAASUJ_enUS822&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6iKzdodLeAhXM5oMKHfY8DQEQ_AUIEygB&biw=1366&bih=610&safe=active&ssui=on#imgrc=BQiMeecg-HSXJM:

Section 4:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Renaissance

Chapter 2:

Section 1:
https://www.history.com/news/the-viking-explorer-who-beat-columbus-to-america

Section 2:
https://www.history.com/topics/exploration/christopher-columbus

Section 4:
https://slideplayer.com/slide/10575238/

Section 3:
https://www.google.com/search?q=spanish+empire+in+north+america&rlz=1CAASUJ_enUS822&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjswcLF_dTeAhXO21MKHcMnD5kQ_AUIEygB&biw=1366&bih=610&safe=active&ssui=on#imgrc=8GpOJVIjW5q29M:

Chapter 3:

Section 1:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/colonial-america/early-chesapeake-and-southern-colonies/v/early-english-settlements-jamestown

Section 2:
http://sites.austincc.edu/caddis/enlightenment-great-awakening/

Section 3:
http://historyofmassachusetts.org/american-revolution-acts/

Section 4:
https://www.google.com/search?q=boston+massacre+and+tea+party&rlz=1CAASUJ_enUS822&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid19P5iNjeAhXnQd8KHY8aAl0Q_AUIDigB&biw=1366&bih=610&safe=active&ssui=on#imgrc=fght2-CgwgAwcM:

Chapter 4:

Section 1:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Paul+Revere%27s+Ride/Lexington+%26+Concord&rlz=1CAASUJ_enUS826&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHkIP7843fAhXjooMKHeFDAXsQ_AUIDigB&biw=1366&bih=610&safe=active&ssui=on#imgrc=d_oJmbe_rSJl_M:

Section 2:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/road-to-revolution/the-american-revolution/v/the-declaration-of-independence

Section 3:
https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/battle-of-saratoga

Section 4:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/11i.asp

Chapter 5/6:
Articles of Confederation:
https://www.google.com/search?q=articles+of+federation&rlz=1CAXWWL_enUS835&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1mtiO76fgAhUBTKwKHRqiCVsQ_AUIDygC&biw=1366&bih=610&surl=1&complete=0&safe=active&ssui=on#imgrc=G4eLUZW_zebJjM:

The Great Compromise:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAlv93kuVwY

Federalism:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-government-and-politics/foundations-of-american-democracy/relationship-between-states-and-the-federal-government/v/federalism-in-the-united-states

Separation of Powers:
https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/branches-of-government
The Constitution:
http://constitutionus.com/

The Bill of Rights:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights/what-does-it-say

Chapters 7-9:
The Rise of political Parties:
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html

The Louisiana Purchase:
https://www.history.com/topics/westward-expansion/louisiana-purchase
The Corps of Discovery:
http://www.edgate.com/lewisandclark/expedition.html
The War of 1812:
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/aspeninstitute/founding-fathers/james-madison/v/isaacson-with-cheney-khan-academy-lesson-x
The Monroe Doctrine:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/the-early-republic/politics-society-early-19th-c/v/the-monroe-doctrine
Nationalism v.
Sectionalsim:
https://www.google.com/search?q=nationalism+vs+sectionalism&rlz=1CAXWWL_enUS846&complete=0&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5xNGU5-ThAhVORKwKHUEmDV4Q_AUIDigB&biw=1366&bih=609&surl=1&safe=active&ssui=on#imgrc=w-5ObwuRFjqRKM:

Chapter 10/11:
Jacksonian Democracy:
https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/jacksonian-democracy
Native American Removal:
https://www.google.com/search?q=trail+of+tears&rlz=1CAXWWL_enUS846&complete=0&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKmJzD7OThAhUGA6wKHT8FBUYQ_AUIDigB&biw=1366&bih=609&surl=1&safe=active&ssui=on#imgrc=UbVgs1DpI1tDtM:
Trails West:
http://westwardexpansion8thgradeproject.weebly.com/trails-oregon-santa-fe-and-mormon.html
Texas ecomes a Nation:
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/treasures/republic/index.html
Manifest Destiny:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/civil-war-era/sectional-tension-1850s/v/manifest-destiny
Mexican-American War:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U9vbZwFZL4

Chapter 11/12:
Section 1:
Industrial Revolution:
https://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution/industrial-revolution
Section 2:
Interchangeable parts:
https://assets.sutori.com/user-uploads/image/e9a48163-1dd1-4660-9327-98540e7730e1/471ea24a4c0cca24c7eab57823990984.png
Section 3:
The Rise of Organized Labor:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/37.asp
Section 4:
The Transportation Revolution:
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-transportation-revolution-turnpikes-to-steamboats-to-railroads.html
Section 5:
Eli Whitney's Cotton Gin:
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-cotton-gin-definition-history-impact.html
Section 6:
The Life of a Slave:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/27b.asp
Chapter 14/15:
Section 1:
Immigration to America in the 1800's:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/25f.asp
Section 2:
The Second Great Awakening:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Great-Awakening
Section 3:
Abolitionist Movement Prior to the Civil War:
https://www.historynet.com/abolitionist-movement
Section 4:
Women's Rights Movement in the 1800's:
https://www.womenshistory.org/sites/default/files/styles/embedded/public/images/2017-10/College_day_in_the_picket_line_LOC_3a32338v.jpg?itok=bHun0H07
Section 5:
Compromise of 1850:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Compromise-of-1850
Section 6:
Kansas/Nebraska Act:
http://tile.loc.gov/image-services/iiif/service:gmd:gmd370m:g3701m:g3701sm:gct00482:cs000033/full/pct:25/0/default.jpg
Section 7:
Lincoln/Douglass Debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK4YTY9DL4I
section 8:
Election of 1860:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vna0ile2ogg

Chapter 16:
Section 1:
The Fall of Fort Sumter:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Bombardment_of_Fort_Sumter.jpg/300px-Bombardment_of_Fort_Sumter.jpg
Section 2:
the emancipation proclamation:
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/abraham-lincolns-emancipation-proclamation
Section 3:
Clara Barton and the American Red Cross:
https://www.redcross.org/about-us/who-we-are/history/clara-barton.html
Section 4:
The Battle of Gettysburg:
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/videos/battle-gettysburg
Section 5:
The Battle of Vicksburg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE1bYVwH1jM
Section 6:
Southern Surrender at Appomattox Courthouse:
https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/appomattox-court-house

Chapter 17:
Section 1:
The 13th Amendment:
https://guides.loc.gov/13th-amendment
Section 2:
The 14th Amendment:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
Section 3:
The 15th Amendment:
https://guides.loc.gov/15th-amendment
section 4:
The election of 1876:
https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1348361049l/151255.jpg
Section 5:
Plessy vs. Ferguson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldd0PLPG3E0

Chapter 18:
Section 1:
The Transcontinental Railroad:
https://www.loc.gov/collections/railroad-maps-1828-to-1900/articles-and-essays/history-of-railroads-and-maps/the-transcontinental-railroad/

Section 2:
Massacre at Wounded Knee:
https://growthplates.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/battle-of-wounded-knee.jpg?w=1056
Section 3:
Dawes General allotment Act:
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-dawes-act-of-1877-definition-summary.html
Section 4:
The Homestead & Morrill Acts:
https://into-the-westah1.weebly.com/homestead-act-and-morrill-land.html
Chapter 19:
Section 1:
The Bessemer Process:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Bessemer_converter.jpg
Section 2:
Growth of Inventions in the Late 1800's:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory2os2xmaster/chapter/inventors-of-the-age/
Section 3:
The Rise of Big Business:
https://ehistory.osu.edu/exhibitions/1912/trusts/RiseBigBusiness
Section 4:
The Antitrust Movement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DSN0uUNLOw
Section 5:
The Labor Movement:
https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/labor

Chapter 20:
Section 1:
The Rise of Immigration in the Late 1800's:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-ushistory/chapter/the-rise-of-immigration/
Section 2:
The Growth of Cities:
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/riseind/city/
Section 3:
Tenement Life:
https://sites.google.com/site/bevingtonshistory/_/rsrc/1385323241833/e-portfolios/student-16/untitledpost/Tenement.jpg
Section 4:
The Growth of Mass Communication in the Late 1800's:
https://www.library.illinois.edu/hpnl/tutorials/antebellum-newspapers-introduction/

Chapter 21/22:
section 1:
The Rise of Political Machines in the Late 1800s:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-machine
Section 2:
Progressive Reform in the Late 1800s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Q4zPR4G7M
Section 3:
The Rise of Labor Organizations in the Early 1900s:
https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/labor
Section 4:
Women’s Suffrage & the Temperance Movement (Late 1800s/Early 1900s):
https://miro.medium.com/max/969/1*FZuPfWVBvJPRI8AdDOQnRQ.png
Section 5:
Election of 1912:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdl8RzFcArU
Section 6:
Isolationism vs. Imperialism:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/11/jeff-taylor/imperialism-and-isolationism-contrasting-approaches-to-foreign-policy/
Chapter 23:
Section:
The asassination of Archduke franz Ferdinand
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/euro-hist/world-war-i-tutorial/v/assassination-of-franz-ferdinand-by-gavrilo-princip
Section 2:
New Technology of World War I:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4b5e87c92d5bd07082dd07f42a3a857e
Section 3:
President Wilson’s Fourteen Points:
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/wilson-delivers-fourteen-points-speech
Section 4:
Treaty of Versailles:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Versailles-1919
Chapter 24:

# data[].attributes.headline
The Rise of Political Parties (Federalists and Republicans)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Rise of Political Parties (Federalists and Republicans)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Political factions or parties began to form during the struggle over ratification of the federal Constitution of 1787. Friction between them increased as attention shifted from the creation of a new federal government to the question of how powerful that federal government would be. The Federalists, led by Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, wanted a strong central government, while the Anti-Federalists, led by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, advocated states' rights instead of centralized power. Federalists coalesced around the commercial sector of the country while their opponents drew their strength from those favoring an agrarian society. The ensuing partisan battles led George Washington to warn of "the baneful effects of the spirit of party" in his Farewell Address as president of United States.

"Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally."

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796
Amending the Constitution

Roger Sherman (1721-1793), a congressman from Connecticut, argued in a special congressional committee appointed on July 21, 1789, that any amendments should be appended to the Constitution. On August 19, 1789, the House of Representatives finally adopted Shermans argument that to insert them into the text would be too confusing and voted instead to add the amendments by way of a supplement.

This list of proposed amendments in Shermans writing is probably a draft of a report by a committee on which he served. It differs markedly from the amendments finally proposed and sent to the states. As such, it provides valuable insights into the creation of the Bill of Rights.

Republican Party Christened by James Madison

In September 1792, James Madison coined the term Republican Party in an essay, A Candid State of Parties, published in the National Gazette of Philadelphia. Although the Jeffersonian-Republican Party drew strength from the Anti-Federalists, no one had more claim to the authorship of the federal Constitution than did Madison, one of the founders of the Jeffersonian-Republican Party.

John Jay

John Jay (1745-1829), a prominent New York nationalist and former president of the Continental Congress, was among the first to call for a National Convention to replace or revise the Articles of Confederation. Jay was an outspoken advocate for the new Constitution and authored several of the Federalist essays. He served as first chief justice of the United States, 1789-1795. President Washington sent Jay to England in 1794 to negotiate a treaty, which became known as "Jay's Treaty."

Factional Fighting after Washington's Farewell

Despite George Washington's warning about the dangers of political factions or parties in his Farewell Address to the nation in 1796, the lack of a consensus candidate to assume the presidency only intensified party struggles. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson led partisan political factions or parties into the national elections of 1796. Washington even sought advice from two opposing partisan leaders, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Displayed here is a draft of Washington's Farewell Address, which Hamilton helped write.

Seeking Women's Rights

American women, such as Abigail Adams and Mercy Otis Warren, hoped the American Revolution would lead to more legal and political rights for women. During the post- Revolutionary period, periodicals aimed directly at women emerged. The best known was The Lady's Magazine and Repository of Entertaining Knowledge, founded in Philadelphia in 1792. In this engraving, a copy of A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792), the cornerstone feminist document, by Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) is presented to Lady Liberty.

Political Rights of Women Asserted

In a letter to her sister, Elizabeth Smith Shaw Peabody (1750-1815) of Aktinson, New Hampshire, Abigail Adams, wife of John Adams, asserted the rights of women to judge the conduct of government, even if a woman does not hold the Reigns of government.

Ongoing, Undeclared Naval War

During the administration of President John Adams, the United States was engaged in an ongoing, undeclared naval war with France over neutral shipping rights. French naval vessels and privateers seized hundreds of American vessels, like the frigate Philadelphia pictured here, while the United States struggled to build a navy capable of defending its commerce.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Creating the United States Formation of Political Parties

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Political factions or parties began to form during the struggle over ratification of the federal Constitution of 1787. Friction between them increased as attention shifted from the creation of a new federal government to the question of how powerful that federal government would be.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.history.com/topics/westward-expansion/louisiana-purchase
Here is for if it doesn't work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

1. France in the New World

2. Louisiana Territory Changes Hands

3. Louisiana Purchase Negotiations

4. Legacy of the Louisiana Purchase

The Louisiana Purchase of 1803 brought into the United States about 828,000 square miles of territory from France, thereby doubling the size of the young republic. What was known at the time as the Louisiana Territory stretched from the Mississippi River in the east to the Rocky Mountains in the west and from the Gulf of Mexico in the south to the Canadian border in the north. Part or all of 15 states were eventually created from the land deal, which is considered one of the most important achievements of Thomas Jefferson's presidency.

France in the New World

Beginning in the 17th century, France explored the Mississippi River valley and established scattered settlements in the region.

By the middle of the 18th century, France controlled more of the present-day United States than any other European power: from New Orleans northeast to the Great Lakes and northwest to modern-day Montana.

In 1762, during the French and Indian War, France ceded French Louisiana west of the Mississippi River to Spain and in 1763 transferred nearly all of its remaining North American holdings to Great Britain. Spain, no longer a dominant European power, did little to develop Louisiana during the next three decades.

Louisiana Territory Changes Hands

In 1796, Spain allied itself with France, leading Britain to use its powerful navy to cut off Spain from America. And in 1801, Spain signed a secret treaty with France to return the Louisiana Territory to France.

Reports of the retrocession caused considerable unease in the United States. Since the late 1780s, Americans had been moving westward into the Ohio River and Tennessee River valleys, and these settlers were highly dependent on free access to the Mississippi River and the strategic port of New Orleans.

U.S. officials feared that France, resurgent under the leadership of Napoleon Bonaparte, would soon seek to dominate the Mississippi River and access to the Gulf of Mexico. In a letter to U.S. minister to France Robert Livingston, President Thomas Jefferson stated, "The day that France takes possession of New Orleans...we must marry ourselves to the British fleet and nation."

Livingston was ordered to negotiate with French Finance Minister Barbé-Marbois for the purchase of New Orleans.

Louisiana Purchase Negotiations

France was slow in taking control of Louisiana, but in 1802 Spanish authorities, apparently acting under French orders, revoked a U.S.-Spanish treaty that granted Americans the right to store goods in New Orleans.

In response, Jefferson sent future U.S. president James Monroe to Paris to aid Livingston in the New Orleans purchase talks. In mid-April 1803, shortly before Monroe's arrival, the French asked a surprised Livingston if the United States was interested in purchasing all of Louisiana Territory.

It's believed that the failure of France to put down a slave revolution in Haiti, the impending war with Great Britain and probable British naval blockade of France - combined with French economic difficulties - may have prompted Napoleon to offer Louisiana for sale to the United States.

Negotiations moved swiftly, and at the end of April the U.S. envoys agreed to pay $11,250,000 and assume claims of American citizens against France in the amount of $3,750,000. In exchange, the United States acquired the vast domain of Louisiana Territory, some 828,000 square miles of land.

The treaty was dated April 30 and signed on May 2. In October, the U.S. Senate ratified the purchase, and in December 1803 France transferred authority over the region to the United States.

Legacy of the Louisiana Purchase

The acquisition of the Louisiana Territory for the bargain price of less than three cents an acre was among Jefferson's most notable achievements as president. American expansion westward into the new lands began immediately, and in 1804 a territorial government was established.

Jefferson soon commissioned the Lewis and Clark Expedition, led by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, to explore the territory acquired in the Louisiana Purchase.

On April 30, 1812, exactly nine years after the Louisiana Purchase agreement was made, the first state to be carved from the territory - Louisiana - was admitted into the Union as the 18th U.S. state.
Access hundreds of hours of historical video, commercial free, with HISTORY Vault. Start your free trial today.

Fact Check

We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something that doesn't look right, click here to contact us! HISTORY reviews and updates its content regularly to ensure it is complete and accurate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Louisiana Purchase - Definition, Facts & Importance | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Louisiana Purchase of 1803 introduced about 828,000,000 square miles of territory from France into the United States, thereby doubling the size of the young republic. Explore the facts about this important acquisition and its lasting legacy on Thomas Jefferson's presidency.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On March 23, 1806, the Corps of Discovery started on the long journey back the way they had come. They had some conflicts with some of the Indians on the lower Columbia, whom they accused of charging high prices for food, trying to steal from the travelers, and interfering with their progress. But when they reached the friendly Nez Percés, they found their horses alive and cared-for, though scattered on open range.

The group was back across the mountains by June and decided to split up into smaller parties for a while so as to explore some of the territory more thoroughly. Lewis took a more northerly route, and it was during this trip that the explorers had their first and only violent conflict with Indians. A group of Blackfeet apparently tried to captured horses and guns, and Lewis's party killed two of them.

At about that same time, Clark, on a southerly route, discovered an unusual, large stone formation on the Yellowstone River. He named it "Pompy's Tower," after the nickname of Sacagawea's son, now in his second year (certainly one of the most remarkable childhoods in American history). There on that formation, Clark left an inscription, "Wm. Clark July 25th 1806," which can still be seen today.

The separate parties rejoined in August back on the Missouri River, at the mouth of the Yellowstone. They continued on down the river, dropping off Charbonneau, Sacagawea, and little Jean-Baptiste at the Mandan villages. Traveling quickly, they reached St. Louis on September 23, 1806.

The men of the expedition were welcomed as heroes. They had been gone so long that the nation feared they were dead. Remarkably, only one member of the group died. This was Sergeant Charles Floyd, who probably died of a ruptured appendix as the Corps of Discovery traveled up the Missouri River on its way to the Mandan villages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lewis and Clark : The Expedition of the Corps of Discovery

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On March 23, 1806, the Corps of Discovery started on the long journey back the way they had come. They had some conflicts with some of the Indians on the lower Columbia, whom they accused of charging high prices for food, trying to steal from the travelers, and interfering with their progress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lynne Cheney, author of "James Madison: A Life Reconsidered" in conversation with Walter Isaacson of the Aspen Institute.

# data[].attributes.body
there is better picture than the one shown if you click on it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
nationalism vs sectionalism - Google Search

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/jacksonian-democracy
Here is for if it tries to redirect you

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An ambiguous, controversial concept, Jacksonian Democracy in the strictest sense refers simply to the ascendancy of Andrew Jackson and the Democratic party after 1828. More loosely, it alludes to the entire range of democratic reforms that proceeded alongside the Jacksonians' triumph-from expanding the suffrage to restructuring federal institutions. From another angle, however, Jacksonianism appears as a political impulse tied to slavery, the subjugation of Native Americans, and the celebration of white supremacy-so much so that some scholars have dismissed the phrase "Jacksonian Democracy" as a contradiction in terms.

Such tendentious revisionism may provide a useful corrective to older enthusiastic assessments, but it fails to capture a larger historical tragedy: Jacksonian Democracy was an authentic democratic movement, dedicated to powerful, at times radical, egalitarian ideals-but mainly for white men.

Socially and intellectually, the Jacksonian movement represented not the insurgency of a specific class or region but a diverse, sometimes testy national coalition. Its origins stretch back to the democratic stirrings of the American Revolution, the Antifederalists of the 1780s and 1790s, and the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans. More directly, it arose out of the profound social and economic changes of the early nineteenth century.

Recent historians have analyzed these changes in terms of a market revolution. In the Northeast and Old Northwest, rapid transportation improvements and immigration hastened the collapse of an older yeoman and artisan economy and its replacement by cash-crop agriculture and capitalist manufacturing. In the South, the cotton boom revived a flagging plantation slave economy, which spread to occupy the best lands of the region. In the West, the seizure of lands from Native Americans and mixed-blood Hispanics opened up fresh areas for white settlement and cultivation-and for speculation.

Not everyone benefited equally from the market revolution, least of all those nonwhites for whom it was an unmitigated disaster. Jacksonianism, however, would grow directly from the tensions it generated within white society. Mortgaged farmers and an emerging proletariat in the Northeast, nonslaveholders in the South, tenants and would-be yeomen in the West-all had reasons to think that the spread of commerce and capitalism would bring not boundless opportunities but new forms of dependence. And in all sections of the country, some of the rising entrepreneurs of the market revolution suspected that older elites would block their way and shape economic development to suit themselves.

By the 1820s, these tensions fed into a many-sided crisis of political faith. To the frustration of both self-made men and plebeians, certain eighteenth-century elitist republican assumptions remained strong, especially in the seaboard states, mandating that government be left to a natural aristocracy of virtuous, propertied gentlemen. Simultaneously, some of the looming shapes of nineteenth-century capitalism-chartered corporations, commercial banks, and other private institutions-presaged the consolidation of a new kind of moneyed aristocracy. And increasingly after the War of 1812, government policy seemed to combine the worst of both old and new, favoring the kinds of centralized, broad constructionist, top-down forms of economic development that many thought would aid men of established means while deepening inequalities among whites. Numerous events during and after the misnamed Era of Good Feelings-among them the neo-Federalist rulings of John Marshall's Supreme Court, the devastating effects of the panic of 1819, the launching of John Quincy Adams's and Henry Clay's American System-confirmed a growing impression that power was steadily flowing into the hands of a small, self-confident minority.

Proposed cures for this sickness included more democracy and a redirection of economic policy. In the older states, reformers fought to lower or abolish property requirements for voting and officeholding, and to equalize representation. A new generation of politicians broke with the old republican animus against mass political parties. Urban workers formed labor movements and demanded political reforms. Southerners sought low tariffs, greater respect for states' rights, and a return to strict constructionism. Westerners clamored for more and cheaper land and for relief from creditors, speculators, and bankers (above all, the hated Second Bank of the United States).

It has confounded some scholars that so much of this ferment eventually coalesced behind Andrew Jackson-a one-time land speculator, opponent of debtor relief, and fervent wartime nationalist. By the 1820s, however, Jackson's personal business experiences had long since altered his opinions about speculation and paper money, leaving him eternally suspicious of the credit system in general and banks in particular. His career as an Indian fighter and conqueror of the British made him a popular hero, especially among land-hungry settlers. His enthusiasm for nationalist programs had diminished after 1815, as foreign threats receded and economic difficulties multiplied. Above all, Jackson, with his own hardscrabble origins, epitomized contempt for the old republican elitism, with its hierarchical deference and its wariness of popular democracy.

After losing the "corrupt bargain" presidential election of 1824, Jackson expanded upon his political base in the lower and mid-South, pulling together many strands of disaffection from around the country. But in successfully challenging President John Quincy Adams in 1828, Jackson's supporters played mainly on his image as a manly warrior, framing the contest as one between Adams who could write and Jackson who could fight. Only after taking power did the Jacksonian Democracy refine its politics and ideology. Out of that self-definition came a fundamental shift in the terms of national political debate.

The Jacksonians' basic policy thrust, both in Washington and in the states, was to rid government of class biases and dismantle the top-down, credit-driven engines of the market revolution. The war on the Second Bank of the United States and subsequent hard-money initiatives set the tone-an unyielding effort to remove the hands of a few wealthy, unelected private bankers from the levers of the nation's economy. Under the Jacksonians, government-sponsored internal improvements generally fell into disfavor, on the grounds that they were unnecessary expansions of centralized power, beneficial mainly to men with connections. The Jacksonians defended rotation in office as a solvent to entrenched elitism. To aid hard-pressed farmers and planters, they pursued an unrelenting (some say unconstitutional) program of Indian removal, while backing cheap land prices and settlers' preemption rights.

Around these policies, Jacksonian leaders built a democratic ideology aimed primarily at voters who felt injured by or cut off from the market revolution. Updating the more democratic pieces of the republican legacy, they posited that no republic could long survive without a citizenry of economically independent men. Unfortunately, they claimed, that state of republican independence was exceedingly fragile. According to the Jacksonians, all of human history had involved a struggle between the few and the many, instigated by a greedy minority of wealth and privilege that hoped to exploit the vast majority. And this struggle, they declared, lay behind the major problems of the day, as the "associated wealth" of America sought to augment its domination.

The people's best weapons were equal rights and limited government-ensuring that the already wealthy and favored classes would not enrich themselves further by commandeering, enlarging, and then plundering public institutions. More broadly, the Jacksonians proclaimed a political culture predicated on white male equality, contrasting themselves with other self-styled reform movements. Nativism, for example, struck them as a hateful manifestation of elitist puritanism. Sabbatarians, temperance advocates, and other would-be moral uplifters, they insisted, should not impose righteousness on others. Beyond position-taking, the Jacksonians propounded a social vision in which any white man would have the chance to secure his economic independence, would be free to live as he saw fit, under a system of laws and representative government utterly cleansed of privilege.

As Jacksonian leaders developed these arguments, they roused a noisy opposition-some of it coming from elements of the coalition that originally elected Jackson president. Reactionary southern planters, centered in South Carolina, worried that the Jacksonians' egalitarianism might endanger their own prerogatives-and perhaps the institution of slavery-if southern nonslaveholders carried them too far. They also feared that Jackson, their supposed champion, lacked sufficient vigilance in protecting their interests-fears that provoked the nullification crisis in 1832-1833 and Jackson's crushing of extremist threats to federal authority. A broader southern opposition emerged in the late 1830s, mainly among wealthy planters alienated by the disastrous panic of 1837 and suspicious of Jackson's successor, the Yankee Martin Van Buren. In the rest of the country, meanwhile, the Jacksonian leadership's continuing hard-money, antibank campaigns offended more conservative men-the so-called Bank Democrats-who, whatever their displeasure with the Second Bank of the United States, did not want to see the entire paper money credit system dramatically curtailed.

The oppositionist core, however, came from a cross-class coalition, strongest in rapidly commercializing areas, that viewed the market revolution as the embodiment of civilized progress. Far from pitting the few against the many, oppositionists argued, carefully guided economic growth would provide more for everyone. Government encouragement-in the form of tariffs, internal improvements, a strong national bank, and aid to a wide range of benevolent institutions-was essential to that growth. Powerfully influenced by the evangelical Second Great Awakening, core oppositionists saw in moral reform not a threat to individual independence but an idealistic cooperative effort to relieve human degradation and further expand the store of national wealth. Eager to build up the country as it already existed, they were cool to territorial expansion. Angered by Jackson's large claims for presidential power and rotation in office, they charged that the Jacksonians had brought corruption and executive tyranny, not democracy. Above all, they believed that personal rectitude and industriousness, not alleged political inequalities, dictated men's failures or successes. The Jacksonians, with their spurious class rhetoric, menaced that natural harmony of interests between rich and poor which, if only left alone, would eventually bring widespread prosperity.

By 1840, both the Jacksonian Democracy and its opposite (now organized as the Whig party) had built formidable national followings and had turned politics into a debate over the market revolution itself. Yet less than a decade later, sectional contests linked to slavery promised to drown out that debate and fracture both major parties. In large measure, that turnabout derived from the racial exclusiveness of the Jacksonians' democratic vision.

The Jacksonian mainstream, so insistent on the equality of white men, took racism for granted. To be sure, there were key radical exceptions-people like Frances Wright and Robert Dale Owen-who were drawn to the Democracy's cause. North and South, the democratic reforms achieved by plebeian whites-especially those respecting voting and representation-came at the direct expense of free blacks. Although informed by constitutional principles and genuine paternalist concern, the Jacksonian rationale for territorial expansion assumed that Indians (and, in some areas, Hispanics) were lesser peoples. As for slavery, the Jacksonians were determined, on both practical and ideological grounds, to keep the issue out of national affairs. Few mainstream Jacksonians had moral qualms about black enslavement or any desire to meddle with it where it existed. More important, they believed that the mounting antislavery agitation would distract attention from the artificial inequalities among white men and upset the party's delicate intersectional alliances. Deep down, many suspected that the slavery issue was but a smokescreen thrown up by disgruntled elitists looking to regain the initiative from the real people's cause.

Through the 1830s and 1840s, the mainstream Jacksonian leadership, correctly confident that their views matched those of the white majority, fought to keep the United States a democracy free from the slavery question-condemning abolitionists as fomenters of rebellion, curtailing abolitionist mail campaigns, enforcing the congressional gag rule that squelched debate on abolitionist petitions, while fending off the more extremist proslavery southerners. In all of this fighting, however, the Jacksonians also began to run afoul of their professions about white egalitarianism. Opposing antislavery was one thing; silencing the heretics with gag rules amounted to tampering with white people's equal rights. More important, Jacksonian proexpansionism-what one friendly periodical, the Democratic Review boosted as "manifest destiny"-only intensified sectional rifts. Slaveholders, quite naturally, thought they were entitled to see as much new territory as legally possible opened up to slavery. But that prospect appalled northern whites who had hoped to settle in lily white areas, untroubled by that peculiar institution whose presence (they believed) would degrade the status of white free labor.

It would take until the 1850s before these contradictions fully unraveled the Jacksonian coalition. But as early as the mid-1840s, during the debates over Texas annexation, the Mexican War, and the Wilmot Proviso, sectional cleavages had grown ominous. The presidential candidacy of Martin Van Buren on the Free-Soil ticket in 1848-a protest against growing southern power within the Democracy-amply symbolized northern Democratic alienation. Southern slaveholder Democrats, for their part, began to wonder if anything short of positive federal protection for slavery would spell doom for their class-and the white man's republic. In the middle remained a battered Jacksonian mainstream, ever hopeful that by raising the old issues, avoiding slavery, and resorting to the language of popular sovereignty, the party and the nation might be held together. Led by men like Stephen A. Douglas, these mainstream compromisers held sway into the mid-1850s, but at the cost of constant appeasement of southern concerns, further exacerbating sectional turmoil. Jacksonian Democracy was buried at Fort Sumter, but it had died many years earlier.

There was a grim, ironic justice to the Jacksonians' fate. Having tapped into the disaffection of the 1820s and 1830s and molded it into an effective national party, they advanced the democratization of American politics. By denouncing the moneyed aristocracy and proclaiming the common man, they also helped politicize American life, broadening electoral participation to include an overwhelming majority of the electorate. Yet this very politicization would ultimately prove the Jacksonian Democracy's undoing. Once the slavery issue entered the concerns of even a small portion of the electorate, it proved impossible to remove without trampling on some of the very egalitarian principles the Jacksonians were pledged to uphold.

None of this, however, should be a source of self-satisfaction to modern Americans. Although the Jacksonian Democracy died in the 1850s, it left a powerful legacy, entwining egalitarian aspirations and class justice with the presumptions of white supremacy. Over the decades after the Civil War, that legacy remained a bulwark of a new Democratic party, allying debt-ridden farmers and immigrant workers with the Solid South. The Second Reconstruction of the 1950s and 1960s forced Democrats to reckon with the party's past-only to see party schismatics and Republicans pick up the theme. And at the close of the twentieth century, the tragic mix of egalitarianism and racial prejudice so central to the Jacksonian Democracy still infected American politics, poisoning some of its best impulses with some of its worst.

Fact Check

We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something that doesn't look right, click here to contact us! HISTORY reviews and updates its content regularly to ensure it is complete and accurate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jacksonian Democracy - Definition, Summary & Significance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jacksonian Democracy refers to the ascendancy of President Andrew Jackson (in office 1829 -1837)and the Democratic party after the election of 1828. More loosely, it alludes to the entire range of democratic reforms that proceeded during Jacksons' tenure-from expanding suffrage to restructuring federal institutions, but also slavery, the subjugation of Native Americans, and the celebration of white supremacy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Oregon Trail In this time their was only one main way to get across the Mountains, which was the Oregon trail. This trail stretches across the currently known states of Missouri,Kansas,...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By 1835, Antonio López de Santa Anna had established himself as a dictator in Mexico. Among Anglo-American colonists and Tejanos alike, the call for Texas independence grew louder. On March 2, 1836, a delegation at Washington-on-the-Brazos adopted the Texas Declaration of Independence, and thus was born the Republic of Texas.

Santa Anna had brought his army to Texas to put down the rebellion, and events followed in quick succession. At the time the Declaration was issued, many Texans were fleeing their homes eastward ahead of Santa Anna's army, in what became known as the Runaway Scrape. The Alamo fell to Santa Anna on March 6, and over 300 unarmed Texan prisoners were massacred at Goliad on March 27. Sam Houston's revolutionary army was also retreating eastward as Santa Anna drove for the coast to capture Texas seaports. On April 21, the Texan army took a stand in the bayou country near present-day Houston at a site called San Jacinto. They attacked Santa Anna's army while it was sleeping, and, in a battle lasting only 18 minutes, routed the Mexican army and captured Santa Anna.

Many Texans favored immediate annexation by the United States. However, the proposals went nowhere, because of the risk of continued war with Mexico and Texas' shaky financial status. Even after San Jacinto, Mexico refused to recognize Texas's independence and continued to raid the Texas border. The new government had neither money nor credit, and no governmental structures were in place. Rebuffed by the United States, Texans went about the business of slowly forming a stable government and nation. Despite many difficulties and continued fighting both with Mexico and with Indian tribes, the Texas frontier continued to attract thousands of settlers each year.

In 1841, Santa Anna again became president of Mexico and renewed hostilities with Texas. By this time, sympathy for the Texan cause had grown in the United States, and in 1845, annexation was at last approved. Hostilities with Mexico and the Indians reached a settlement, and Texas was admitted as a state on December 29, 1845. The Republic of Texas, after nine years, eleven months, and seventeen days, was no more.

Subject categories and links in this Republic of Texas online exhibit:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By 1835, Antonio López de Santa Anna had established himself as a dictator in Mexico. Among Anglo-American colonists and Tejanos alike, the call for Texas independence grew louder. On March 2, 1836, a delegation at Washington-on-the-Brazos adopted the Texas Declaration of Independence, and thus was born the Republic of Texas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer. More information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Was the Mexican-American War? | History

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution/industrial-revolution
This is in case it redirects you

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Was the Industrial Revolution?

Though a few innovations were developed as early as the 1700s, the Industrial Revolution began in earnest by the 1830s and 1840s in Britain, and soon spread to the rest of the world, including the United States.

Modern historians often refer to this period as the First Industrial Revolution, to set it apart from a second period of industrialization that took place from the late 19th to early 20th centuries and saw rapid advances in the steel, electric and automobile industries.

Spinning Jenny

Thanks in part to its damp climate, ideal for raising sheep, Britain had a long history of producing textiles like wool, linen and cotton. But prior to the Industrial Revolution, the British textile business was a true "cottage industry," with the work performed in small workshops or even homes by individual spinners, weavers and dyers.

Starting in the mid-18th century, innovations like the spinning jenny (a wooden frame with multiple spindles), the flying shuttle, the water frame and the power loom made weaving cloth and spinning yarn and thread much easier. Producing cloth became faster and required less time and far less human labor.

More efficient, mechanized production meant Britain's new textile factories could meet the growing demand for cloth both at home and abroad, where the British Empire's many overseas colonies provided a captive market for its goods. In addition to textiles, the British iron industry also adopted new innovations.

Chief among the new techniques was the smelting of iron ore with coke (a material made by heating coal) instead of the traditional charcoal. This method was both cheaper and produced higher-quality material, enabling Britain's iron and steel production to expand in response to demand created by the Napoleonic Wars (1803-15) and the later growth of the railroad industry.

Impact of Steam Power

An icon of the Industrial Revolution broke onto the scene in the early 1700s, when Thomas Newcomen designed the prototype for the first modern steam engine. Called the "atmospheric steam engine," Newcomen's invention was originally applied to power the machines used to pump water out of mine shafts.

In the 1760s, Scottish engineer James Watt began tinkering with one of Newcomen's models, adding a separate water condenser that made it far more efficient. Watt later collaborated with Matthew Boulton to invent a steam engine with a rotary motion, a key innovation that would allow steam power to spread across British industries, including flour, paper, and cotton mills, iron works, distilleries, waterworks and canals.

Just as steam engines needed coal, steam power allowed miners to go deeper and extract more of this relatively cheap energy source. The demand for coal skyrocketed throughout the Industrial Revolution and beyond, as it would be needed to run not only the factories used to produce manufactured goods, but also the railroads and steamships used for transporting them.

Transportation During the Industrial Revolution

Britain's road network, which had been relatively primitive prior to industrialization, soon saw substantial improvements, and more than 2,000 miles of canals were in use across Britain by 1815.

In the early 1800s, Richard Trevithick debuted a steam-powered locomotive, and in 1830 similar locomotives started transporting freight (and passengers) between the industrial hubs of Manchester and Liverpool. By that time, steam-powered boats and ships were already in wide use, carrying goods along Britain's rivers and canals as well as across the Atlantic.

Banking and Communication in the Industrial Revolution

In 1776, Scottish social philosopher Adam Smith, who is regarded as the founder of modern economics, published The Wealth of Nations. In it, Smith promoted an economic system based on free enterprise, the private ownership of means of production, and lack of government interference.

Banks and industrial financiers soon rose to new prominence during this period, as well as a factory system dependent on owners and managers. A stock exchange was established in London in the 1770s; the New York Stock Exchange was founded in the early 1790s.

The latter part of the Industrial Revolution also saw key advances in communication methods, as people increasingly saw the need to communicate efficiently over long distances. In 1837, British inventors William Cooke and Charles Wheatstone patented the first commercial telegraphy system, even as Samuel Morse and other inventors worked on their own versions in the United States.

Cooke and Wheatstone's system would be used for railroad signaling, as the speed of the new steam-powered trains created a need for more sophisticated means of communication.

Labor Movement

Though many people in Britain had begun moving to the cities from rural areas before the Industrial Revolution, this process accelerated dramatically with industrialization, as the rise of large factories turned smaller towns into major cities over the span of decades. This rapid urbanization brought significant challenges, as overcrowded cities suffered from pollution, inadequate sanitation, miserable housing conditions and a lack of safe drinking water.

Meanwhile, even as industrialization increased economic output overall and improved the standard of living for the middle and upper classes, poor and working class people continued to struggle. The mechanization of labor created by technological innovation had made working in factories increasingly tedious (and sometimes dangerous), and many workers-including children-were forced to work long hours for pitifully low wages.

Such dramatic changes and abuses fueled opposition to industrialization worldwide, including the " Luddites," known for their violent resistance to changes in Britain's textile industry.

Did you know? The word "luddite" refers to a person who is opposed to technological change. The term is derived from a group of early 19th century English workers who attacked factories and destroyed machinery as a means of protest. They were supposedly led by a man named Ned Ludd, though he may have been an apocryphal figure.

In the decades to come, outrage over substandard working and living conditions would fuel the formation of labor unions, as well as the passage of new child labor laws and public health regulations in both Britain and the United States, all aimed at improving life for working class and poor citizens who had been negatively impacted by industrialization.

The Industrial Revolution in the United States

The beginning of industrialization in the United States is usually pegged to the opening of a textile mill in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, in 1793 by the recent English immigrant Samuel Slater. Slater had worked at one of the mills opened by Richard Arkwright (inventor of the water frame) mills, and despite laws prohibiting the emigration of textile workers, he brought Arkwright's designs across the Atlantic. He later built several other cotton mills in New England, and became known as the "Father of the American Industrial Revolution."

The United States followed its own path to industrialization, spurred by innovations "borrowed" from Britain as well as by homegrown inventors like Eli Whitney. Whitney's 1793 invention of the cotton gin (short for "engine") revolutionized the nation's cotton industry (and strengthened the hold of slavery over the cotton-producing South).

By the end of the 19th century, with the so-called Second Industrial Revolution underway, the United States would also transition from a largely agrarian society to an increasingly urbanized one, with all the attendant problems.

By the mid-19th century, industrialization was well-established throughout the western part of Europe and America's northeastern region. By the early 20th century, the U.S. had become the world's leading industrial nation.

Effects of the Industrial Revolution

Historians continue to debate many aspects of industrialization, including its exact timeline, why it began in Britain as opposed to other parts of the world and the idea that it was actually more of a gradual evolution than a revolution. The positives and negatives of the Industrial Revolution are complex.

On one hand, unsafe working conditions were rife and environmental pollution from coal and gas are legacies we still struggle with today. On the other, the move to cities and ingenious inventions that made clothing, communication and transportation more affordable and accessible to the masses changed the course of world history.

Regardless of these questions, the Industrial Revolution had a transformative economic, social and cultural impact, and played an integral role in laying the foundations for modern society.

Photo Galleries

Sources

Robert C. Allen, The Industrial Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007
Claire Hopley, "A History of the British Cotton Industry." British Heritage Travel, July 29, 2006
William Rosen, The Most Powerful Idea in the World: A Story of Steam, Industry, and Invention. New York: Random House, 2010
Gavin Weightman, The Industrial Revolutionaries: The Making of the Modern World, 1776-1914. New York: Grove Press, 2007
Matthew White, "Georgian Britain: The Industrial Revolution." British Library, October 14, 2009

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Industrial Revolution: Definition, Inventions & Dates - HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, a time of great growth in technologies and inventions, transformed rural societies into industrialized, urban ones.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Revolutionary Invention

The cotton gin is a machine that separates cotton seeds from cotton fiber. Invented by Eli Whitney in 1793, it was an important invention because it dramatically reduced the amount of time it took to separate cotton seeds from cotton fiber. Prior to Whitney's invention, cotton seeds had to be removed by hand or with other primitive tools, making it a tedious and time consuming process. It took one person approximately ten hours to remove one pound of lint from the seeds.

Whitney's cotton gin was a machine consisting of a cylinder that was wound by hand. Attached to the cylinder were rows of small 'teeth' that pulled the fiber through a grid. In this way, the machine, 'combed out' the seeds, leaving only the lint fiber. Whitney's cotton gin went through numerous variations over the years, but the basic operating principle remained the same.

Eli Whitney

The inventor of the mechanical cotton gin, Eli Whitney, was born in Westborough, Massachusetts, in 1765. He graduated from Yale College in 1792 and invented the cotton gin just a year later.

Although he received a patent for the cotton gin in 1794, imitations of his device were widespread, and he was not able to profit from his revolutionary machine. Legal troubles plagued Whitney. Some people even charged that Catherine Littlefield Greene, the wife of Revolutionary War hero Nathaniel Greene, instructed Whitney on how to make the cotton gin. Loopholes in the patent law prevented him from winning the rights to his patent until 1807. By that time, however, it was too late, and imitation cotton gins were readily available.

In addition to inventing the cotton gin, Whitney also helped popularize interchangeable machine parts and was among the first to develop the milling machine. Whitney died in 1825 at the age of 58.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
history & impact - video & lesson transcript | study.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Cotton Gin: Definition, History & Impact - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The cotton gin is a machine that separates cotton seeds from cotton fiber. Invented by Eli Whitney in 1793, it was an important invention because it dramatically reduced the amount of time it took to separate cotton seeds from cotton fiber.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Interpretation of Slave Quarter, Carter's Grove Plantation, Williamsburg

Slave life varied greatly depending on many factors.

Life on the fields meant working sunup to sundown six days a week and having food sometimes not suitable for an animal to eat. Plantation slaves lived in small shacks with a dirt floor and little or no furniture. Life on large plantations with a cruel overseer was oftentimes the worst. However, work for a small farm owner who was not doing well could mean not being fed.

The stories about cruel overseers were certainly true in some cases. The overseer was paid to get the most work out of the slaves; therefore, overseers often resorted to whatever means was necessary. Sometimes the slaves would drive the overseer off the plantation in desperation. When slaves complained that they were being unfairly treated, slaveholders would most often be very protective of their "property" and would release the overseer.

Slaves who worked inside the plantation homes often had better living and working conditions than slaves who worked in the fields.

In some cases, a driver was used rather than an overseer. The difference between the overseer and the driver was simple: drivers were slaves themselves. A driver might be convinced by a master to manage the slaves for better privileges. Drivers were usually hated by the rest of the slaves. These feelings often led to violence.

Large plantations often required some slaves to work in the plantation home. These slaves enjoyed far better circumstances. Domestic slaves lived in better quarters and received better food. They sometimes were able to travel with the owner's family. In many cases, a class system developed within the slave community. Domestic slaves did not often associate themselves with plantation slaves. They often aspired to arrange courtships for their children with other domestic slaves.

This Slave Code booklet for Washington D.C., was published in 1862, only one month before Lincoln abolished slavery in the nation's capitol. More lenient than most states' slave codes, the District's code allowed slaves to hire themselves out and live apart from their masters.

As the Peculiar Institution spread across the South, many states passed "slave codes," which outlined the rights of slaves and the acceptable treatment and rules regarding slaves. Slave codes varied from state to state, but there were many common threads. One could not do business with a slave without the prior consent of the owner. Slaves could be awarded as prizes in raffles, wagered in gambling, offered as security for loans, and transferred as gifts from one person to another.

A slave was not permitted to keep a gun. If caught carrying a gun, the slave received 39 lashes and forfeited the gun. Blacks were held incompetent as witnesses in legal cases involving whites. The education of slaves was prohibited. Anyone operating a school or teaching reading and writing to any African-American in Missouri could be punished by a fine of not less than $500 and up to six months in jail. Slaves could not assemble without a white person present. Marriages between slaves were not considered legally binding. Therefore, owners were free to split up families through sale.

Any slave found guilty of arson, rape of a white woman, or conspiracy to rebel was put to death. However, since the slave woman was chattel, a white man who raped her was guilty only of a trespass on the master's property. Rape was common on the plantation, and very few cases were ever reported.

Virginia's Slave Code of 1705
Virginia's slave code of 1705 was designed to settle the questions about the status of non-Christian servants... they were all made slaves. The law served as a model for codes in other colonies. This webpage from PBS provides a brief overview and links to related topics.

Report broken link

Antebellum Slavery
What happens when an ardent abolitionist marries a member of one of the largest slaveholders in the South? A disastrous marriage - and a moving epic of slavery in the South. Read excerpts from the account, which includes physical and mental abuse as well as the story of the largest sale of human beings in the history of the United States. Links to other moving stories surrounding antebellum (before the war) slavery abound as well.

Report broken link

Virginia's slave codes
If any slave resist his master ... correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction ... the master shall be free of all punishment ... as if such accident never happened. Read more about the 1705 slave code which served as a model for future laws.

Report broken link

Few slaves wrote letters or diaries because they weren't allowed to read or write, but some broke the rules and wrote down their stories.
Learn More...

Report broken link

If you like our content, please share it on social media!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Slave Life and Slave Codes [ushistory.org]

# data[].attributes.headline
Irish and German Immigration to America in the 1800's

# data[].attributes.subject
Irish and German Immigration to America in the 1800's

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Steamers carried Irish emigrants to Liverpool where their transatlantic voyage began

In the middle half of the nineteenth century, more than one-half of the population of Ireland emigrated to the United States. So did an equal number of Germans. Most of them came because of civil unrest, severe unemployment or almost inconceivable hardships at home. This wave of immigration affected almost every city and almost every person in America. From 1820 to 1870, over seven and a half million immigrants came to the United States - more than the entire population of the country in 1810. Nearly all of them came from northern and western Europe - about a third from Ireland and almost a third from Germany. Burgeoning companies were able to absorb all that wanted to work. Immigrants built canals and constructed railroads. They became involved in almost every labor-intensive endeavor in the country. Much of the country was built on their backs.

Letter to the London Times from an Irish Immigrant in America, 1850

I am exceedingly well pleased at coming to this land of plenty. On arrival I purchased 120 acres of land at $5 an acre. You must bear in mind that I have purchased the land out, and it is to me and mine an "estate for ever", without a landlord, an agent or tax-gatherer to trouble me. I would advise all my friends to quit Ireland - the country most dear to me; as long as they remain in it they will be in bondage and misery.

What you labour for is sweetened by contentment and happiness; there is no failure in the potato crop, and you can grow every crop you wish, without manuring the land during life. You need not mind feeding pigs, but let them into the woods and they will feed themselves, until you want to make bacon of them.

I shudder when I think that starvation prevails to such an extent in poor Ireland. After supplying the entire population of America, there would still be as much corn and provisions left us would supply the world, for there is no limit to cultivation or end to land. Here the meanest labourer has beef and mutton, with bread, bacon, tea, coffee, sugar and even pies, the whole year round - every day here is as good as Christmas day in Ireland.

Anti-Irish sentiment permeated the United States during the Industrial Revolution. The prejudice exhibited in advertisements like this one sometimes led to violent outbursts.

In Ireland almost half of the population lived on farms that produced little income. Because of their poverty, most Irish people depended on potatoes for food. When this crop failed three years in succession, it led to a great famine with horrendous consequences. Over 750,000 people starved to death. Over two million Irish eventually moved to the United States seeking relief from their desolated country. Impoverished, the Irish could not buy property. Instead, they congregated in the cities where they landed, almost all in the northeastern United States. Today, Ireland has just half the population it did in the early 1840s. There are now more Irish Americans than there are Irish nationals.

In the decade from 1845 to 1855, more than a million Germans fled to the United States to escape economic hardship. They also sought to escape the political unrest caused by riots, rebellion and eventually a revolution in 1848. The Germans had little choice - few other places besides the United States allowed German immigration. Unlike the Irish, many Germans had enough money to journey to the Midwest in search of farmland and work. The largest settlements of Germans were in New York City, Baltimore, Cincinnati, St. Louis and Milwaukee.

With the vast numbers of German and Irish coming to America, hostility to them erupted. Part of the reason for the opposition was religious. All of the Irish and many of the Germans were Roman Catholic. Part of the opposition was political. Most immigrants living in cities became Democrats because the party focused on the needs of commoners. Part of the opposition occurred because Americans in low-paying jobs were threatened and sometimes replaced by groups willing to work for almost nothing in order to survive. Signs that read NINA - "No Irish Need Apply" - sprang up throughout the country.

The Know Nothing Party's platform included the repeal of all naturalization laws and a prohibition on immigrants from holding public office.

Ethnic and anti-Catholic rioting occurred in many northern cites, the largest occurring in Philadelphia in 1844 during a period of economic depression. Protestants, Catholics and local militia fought in the streets. 16 were killed, dozens were injured and over 40 buildings were demolished. "Nativist" political parties sprang up almost overnight. The most influential of these parties, the Know Nothings, was anti-Catholic and wanted to extend the amount of time it took immigrants to become citizens and voters. They also wanted to prevent foreign-born people from ever holding public office. Economic recovery after the 1844 depression reduced the number of serious confrontations for a time, as the country seemed to be able to use all the labor it could get.

But Nativism returned in the 1850s with a vengeance. In the 1854 elections, Nativists won control of state governments in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and California. They won elections in Maryland and Kentucky and took 45% of the vote in 5 other states. In 1856, Millard Fillmore was the American Party candidate for President and trumpeted anti-immigrant themes. Nativism caused much splintering in the political landscape, and the Republicans, with no platform or policies about it, benefited and rode to victory in the divisive election of 1860.

German Immigration to Texas
The first permanent German settlements in Texas date back to the early 1830's, and the upsurge in German immigration in the 1840's resulted in such towns as Fredericksburg and New Braunfels. By the mid 1850's, the populations of San Antonio, Houston, and Galveston were about one-third German.

Report broken link

The Five Points Site: Rediscovery of a 19th-Century Neighborhood
The demolition of city buildings provides opportunities for archaeological investigation, and this website proves the value of digging into our past. Five Points was a mixed residential, commercial, and industrial neighborhood in New York City through several waves of immigration. The documentary record pictures Five Points as a frightening slum, but the archaeological record shows a thriving, working-class neighborhood. Both views are shown on this fascinating website.

Report broken link

Views of the Famine
How did it feel to watch your children starve while your fields were barren? To get on a boat to a foreign land with little or no money because it was your only chance to survive? This website documents the Great Potato Famine of Ireland through contemporary articles from the Illustrated London Times, the Cork Examiner, and other publications. There is also a nicely organized master picture list and comprehensive list of online resources.

Report broken link

If you like our content, please share it on social media!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Irish and German Immigration [ushistory.org]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Steamers carried Irish emigrants to Liverpool where their transatlantic voyage began In the middle half of the nineteenth century, more than one-half of the population of Ireland emigrated to the United States. So did an equal number of Germans. Most of them came because of civil unrest, severe unemployment or almost inconceivable hardships at home.

# 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
Facts, information and articles about Abolitionist Movement, one of the causes of the civil war

Abolitionist Movement summary: The Abolitionist movement in the United States of America was an effort to end slavery in a nation that valued personal freedom and believed "all men are created equal." Over time, abolitionists grew more strident in their demands, and slave owners entrenched in response, fueling regional divisiveness that ultimately led to the American Civil War.

Slavery Comes To The New World

African slavery began in North America in 1619 at Jamestown, Virginia. The first American-built slave ship, Desire, launched from Massachusetts in 1636, beginning the slave trade between Britain's American colonies and Africa. From the beginning, some white colonists were uncomfortable with the notion of slavery. At the time of the American Revolution against the English Crown, Delaware (1776) and Virginia (1778) prohibited importation of African slaves; Vermont became the first of the 13 colonies to abolish slavery (1777); Rhode Island prohibited taking slaves from the colony (1778); and Pennsylvania began gradual emancipation in 1780.

The Maryland Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of Free Negroes and Others Unlawfully Held in Bondage was founded in 1789, the same year the former colonies replaced their Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution, "in order to form a more perfect union."

When the U.S. Constitution was written, it made no specific mention of slavery, but it provided for the return of fugitives (which encompassed criminals, indentured servants and slaves). It allowed each slave within a state to be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of determining population and representation in the House of Representatives (Article I, Section 3, says representation and direct taxation will be determined based on the number of "free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.")

The Constitution prohibited importation of slaves, to begin in 1808, but again managed to do so without using the words "slave" or "slavery." Slave trading became a capital offense in 1819. There existed a general feeling that slavery would gradually pass away. Improvements in technology-the cotton gin and sewing machine-increased the demand for slave labor, however, in order to produce more cotton in Southern states. By the 1830s, many Southerners had shifted from, "Slavery is a necessary evil," to "Slavery is a positive good." The institution existed because it was "God's will," a Christian duty to lift the African out of barbarism while still exerting control over his "animal passions."

Learn More About Slavery In America

The Missouri Compromise And Dred Scott

Missouri's appeal for statehood brought a confrontation between free and slave states in Congress in 1820; each feared the other would gain the upper hand. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 set a policy of admitting states in pairs, one slave, one free. (Maine came in at the same time as Missouri.) The compromise prohibited slavery above parallel 36 degrees, 30 minutes in the lands of the Louisiana Purchase, and it included a national Fugitive Slave Law requiring all Americans to return runaway slaves to their owners. The Fugitive Slave Law was upheld in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 1842, but the Missouri Compromise's prohibitions on the spread of slavery would be found unconstitutional in the 1857 Dred Scott decision.

Learn more about Dred Scott

The Abolitionism Movement Spreads

Although many New Englanders had grown wealthy in the slave trade before the importation of slaves was outlawed, that area of the country became the hotbed of abolitionist sentiment. Abolitionist newspapers and pamphlets sprang into existence. These were numerous enough by 1820 that South Carolina instituted penalties for anyone bringing written anti-slavery material into the state.

These publications argued against slavery as a social and moral evil and often used examples of African American writings and other achievements to demonstrate that Africans and their descendents were as capable of learning as were Europeans and their descendents in America, given the freedom to do so. To prove their case that one person owning another one was morally wrong, they first had to convince many, in all sections of the country, that Negroes, the term used for the race at the time, were human. Yet, even many people among the abolitionists did not believe the two races were equal.

In 1829, David Walker, a freeman of color originally from the South, published An Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World in Boston, Massachusetts. It was a new benchmark, pushing abolitionists toward extreme militancy. He called for slaves to rise up against their masters and to defend themselves: "It is no more harm for you to kill a man who is trying to kill you, than it is for you to take a drink of water when thirsty." As early as 1800, a Virginia slave known as Gabriel Prosser had attempted an uprising there, but it failed when two slaves betrayed the plan to their masters.

Walker's publication was too extreme even for most abolition leaders, including one of the most renowned, William Lloyd Garrison. In 1831, Garrison founded The Liberator, which would become the most famous and influential of abolitionist newspapers. That same year, Virginia debated emancipation, marking the last movement for abolition in the South prior to the Civil War. Instead, that year the Southampton Slave Riot, also called Nat Turner's Rebellion, resulted in Virginia passing new regulations against slaves. Fears of slave revolts like the bloody Haitian Revolution of 1791-1803 were never far from Southerners' minds. Publications like An Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World led white Southerners to conclude Northern abolitionists intended to commit genocide against them.

In 1833 in Philadelphia, the first American Anti-Slavery Society Convention convened. In a backlash, anti-abolition riots broke out in many northeastern cities, including New York and Philadelphia, during 1834-35. Several Southern states, beginning with the Carolinas, made formal requests to other states to suppress abolition groups and their literature. In Illinois, the legislature voted to condemn abolition societies and their agitation; Delegate Abraham Lincoln voted with the majority, then immediately co-sponsored a bill to mitigate some of the language of the earlier one. The U.S. House of Representatives adopted a gag rule, automatically tabling abolitionist proposals.

The first national Anti-Slavery Convention was held in New York City in 1837, and the following year the second Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women met in Philadelphia; the latter resulted in pro-slavery riots. The Liberty Party, a political action group, held its first national convention, at Albany, N.Y., in 1839. That same year, Africans mutinied aboard the Spanish slave ship Amistad and asked New York courts to grant them freedom. Their plea was answered affirmatively by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1841.

Frederick Douglass: A Black Abolitionist

Frederick Douglass-a former slave who had been known as Frederick Bailey while in slavery and who was the most famous black man among the abolitionists-broke with William Lloyd Garrison's newspaper, The Liberator, after returning from a visit to Great Britain, and founded a black abolitionist paper, The North Star. The title was a reference to the directions given to runaway slaves trying to reach the Northern states and Canada: Follow the North Star. Garrison had earlier convinced the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society to hire Douglass as an agent, touring with Garrison and telling audiences about his experiences in slavery. In England, however, Douglass had experienced a level of independence he'd never known in America and likely wanted greater independece for his actions here.

Working with Douglass on The North Star was another black man, Martin R. Delaney, who gave up publishing his own paper, The Mystery, to join with Douglass. Born to a free mother in Virginia (in what is now the eastern panhandle of West Virginia), Delaney had never been a slave, but he had traveled extensively in the South. After Uncle Tom's Cabin became a bestseller, he attempted to achieve similar success for himself by penning a semi-fictional account of his travels, Blake: The Huts of America. In 1850, he was one of three black men accepted into Harvard Medical School, but white students successfully petitioned to have them removed. No longer believing that merit and reason could allow members of his race to have an equal opportunity in white society, he became an ardent black nationalist. In 1859, he traveled to Africa and negotiated with eight tribal chiefs in Abbeokuta for land, on which he planned to establish a colony for skilled and educated African Americans. The agreement fell apart, and he returned to America where, near the end of the Civil War, he became the first black officer on a general's staff in the history of the U.S. Army.

The Seneca Falls Convention

In 1848, the first Women's Rights convention was held, in Seneca Falls, N.Y. Outside of the Society of Friends ("Quakers"), women were often denied the opportunity to speak at abolitionist meetings. The women's rights movement produced many outspoken opponents of slavery, including Elizabeth Cody Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. In fact, women's equality and abolition became inextricably linked in the minds of many Southerners. In the 20th century, that lingering animosity nearly defeated the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote.

Although Delaney's planned African colony failed, in 1849 Great Britain recognized the African colony of Liberia as a sovereign state. It had been founded in 1822 as a colony for free-born blacks, freed slaves and mulattoes (mixed race) from the United States. A number of Americans who opposed slavery (including Abraham Lincoln for a time and the aforementioned Delany) felt that the two races could never live successfully together, and the best hope for Negroes was to return them to freedom in Africa. However, the slave trade between Africa and the Western Hemisphere (the Caribbean and South America) had never ended, and many American ship owners and captains were enjoying something of a golden era of slave-trading while the U.S. and Europe looked the other way. Even if freed slaves had been sent to Africa, many would have wound up back in slavery south of the United States. Only in the late 1850s did Britain step up its anti-slavery enforcement on the high seas, leading America to increase its efforts somewhat.

When the federal government passed a second, even more stringent fugitive slave act in 1850, several states responded by passing personal liberty laws. The following year, Sojourner Truth (Isabella Baumfree) gave a now-famous speech, "Ain't I a Woman," at the Women's Rights convention in Akron, Ohio. Born a slave in New York, she walked away from her owner after she felt she had contributed enough to him. In the late 1840s, she dictated a memoir, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, published by Garrison in 1850. She began to tour, speaking against slavery and in favor of women's rights.

Learn more about the Seneca Falls Convention

Harriet Tubman and The Underground Railroad

While Sojourner Truth, Douglass, Delaney and others wrote and spoke to end slavery, a former slave named Harriet Tubman, nee Harriet Ross, was actively leading slaves to freedom. After escaping from bondage herself, she made repeated trips into Dixie to help others. Believed to have helped some 300 slaves to escape, she was noted for warning those she was assisting that she would shoot any of them who turned back, because they would endanger herself and others she was assisting.

Tubman was an agent of the Underground Railroad, a system of "safe houses" and way stations that secretly helped runaways. The trip might begin by hiding in the home, barn or other location owned by a Southerner opposed to slavery, and continuing from place to place until reaching safe haven in a free state or Canada. Those who reached Canada did not have to fear being returned under the Fugitive Slave Act. Several communities and individuals claim to have created the term "Underground Railroad." In the southern section of states on the north bank of the Ohio River, a "reverse underground railroad" operated; blacks in those states were kidnapped, whether they had ever been slaves or not, and taken South to sell through a series of clandestine locations.

Learn more about Harriet Tubman
Learn more about the Underground Railroad

Harriet Beecher Stowe: Abolitionist and Author

In 1852, what may have been the seminal event of the abolition movement occurred. Harriet Beecher Stowe, an abolitionist who had come to know a number of escaped slaves while she was living in Cincinnati, authored the novel Uncle Tom's Cabin. It presented a scathing view of Southern slavery, filled with melodramatic scenes such as that of the slave Eliza escaping with her baby across the icy Ohio River:

The huge green fragment of ice on which she alighted pitched and creaked as her weight came on it but she stayed there not a moment. With wild cries and desperate energy she leaped to another and still another cake;-stumbling,-leaping,-slipping-springing upwards again! Her shoes are-gone her stockings cut from her feet-while blood marked every step; but she saw nothing, felt nothing, till dimly, as in a dream, she saw the Ohio side and a man helping her up the bank.

Critics pointed out that Stowe had never been to the South, but her novel became a bestseller in the North (banned in the South) and the most effective bit of propaganda to come out of the abolitionist movement. It galvanized many who had been sitting on the sidelines. Reportedly, when President Abraham Lincoln met Stowe during the Civil War he said to her, "So you're the little woman who started this big war."
Harriet Beecher Stowe
Abolitionists Invoke A Higher Law

Abolitionists became increasingly strident in their condemnations of slave owners and "the peculiar institution of slavery." Often, at Fourth of July gatherings of abolition societies, they reportedly used the occasion to denounce the U.S. Constitution as a "covenant with death, and an agreement with hell." Many of them came to believe in "higher law," that a moral commitment to ending slavery took precedent over observing those parts of the Constitution that protected slavery and, in particular, they refused to obey the Fugitive Slave Act. Slave owners or their representatives traveling north to reclaim captured runaways were sometimes set upon on abolitionists mobs; even local lawmen were sometimes attacked. In the South, this fueled the belief that the North expected the South to obey all federal laws but the North could pick and choose, further driving the two regions apart.

Abolitionism, Politics and the Election Of Abraham Lincoln

The abolition movement became an important element of political parties. Although the Native American Party (derisively called the Know-Nothing Party because when member were asked about the secretive group they claimed to "know nothing") opposed immigrants, they also opposed slavery. So did many Whigs and the Free Soil Party. In 1856, these coalesced into the Republican Party. Four years later, its candidate, Abraham Lincoln, captured the presidency of the United States.

John Brown: Abolitionism's Fiery Crusader

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 allowed the citizens of those territories to determine for themselves whether the state would be slave or free. Proponents of both factions poured into the Kansas Territory, with each side trying to gain supremacy, often through violence. After pro-slavery groups attacked the town of Lawrence in 1856, a radical abolitionist named John Brown led his followers in retaliation, killing five pro-slavery settlers. The territory became known as "Bleeding Kansas."

Learn more about John Brown

Dred Scott V. Sanford

The 1857 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford denied citizenship to anyone of African blood and held the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to be unconstitutional. While Southern states had been passing laws prohibiting "Negro citizenship" and further restricting the rights even of freemen of color (Virginia in 1857 prohibited slaves from smoking and from standing on sidewalks, among other restrictions), one Northern state after another had been passing laws granting citizenship to their black residents. The Court's findings upended that, and the ruling outraged many Northerners. Abraham Lincoln revived his personal political career, coming out of a self-imposed semi-retirement to speak out against the Dred Scott decision.

The year 1859 saw two events that were milestones in the history of slavery and abolition in America. The ship Clotilde landed in Mobile, Alabama. Though the importation of slaves had been illegal in America since 1808, Clotilde carried 110 to 160 African slaves. The last slave ship ever to land in the United States, it clearly demonstrated how lax the enforcement of the anti-importation laws was.

Learn more about the Dred Scott Decision

John Brown's Raid On Harpers Ferry

Nearly 1,000 miles northeast of Mobile, on the night of October 16, 1859, John Brown-the radical abolitionist who had killed proslavery settlers in Kansas-led 21 men in a raid to capture the U.S. arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia). Though Brown denied it, his plan was to use the arsenal's weapons to arm a slave uprising. He and his followers, 16 white men and five black ones, holed up in the arsenal after they were discovered, and were captured there by a group of U.S. Marines commanded by an Army lieutenant colonel, Robert E. Lee. Convicted of treason against Virginia, Brown was hanged December 2.

Initial reaction in the South was that this was the work of a small group of fanatics, but when Northern newspapers, authors and legislators began praising him as a martyr-a poem by John Greenleaf Whittier eulogizing Brown was published in the New York Herald Tribune less than a month after the execution-their actions were taken as further proof that Northern abolitionists wished to carry out genocide of white Southerners. The flames were fanned higher as information came out that Brown had talked other abolitionists, including Frederick Douglass, about his plans and received financial assistance from some of them.
Learn more about John Brown's Raid On Harpers Ferry

Abraham Lincoln: Abolitionist President

Following Abraham Lincoln's election to the presidency in 1860, Southern states began seceding from the Union. Though personally opposed to slavery and convinced the United States was going to have to be all free or all slave states-"a house divided against itself cannot stand"-he repeatedly said he would not interfere with slavery where it existed. But he adamantly opposed its expansion into territories where it did not exist, and slave owners were determined that they had to be free to take their human property with them if they chose to move into those territories.

Less than two years into the civil war that began over Southern secession, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. It freed all slaves residing in areas of the nation currently in rebellion. Often ridiculed, both then and now, because it only freed slaves in areas that did not recognize Lincoln's authority, it meant that Union Army officers no longer had to return runaway slaves to their owners because, as the armies advanced, slaves in the newly captured areas were considered free. It also effectively prohibited European nations that had long since renounced slavery from entering the war on the side of the South.

Learn more about Abraham Lincoln
Learn more about the Emancipation Proclamation

The 13th Amendment: The Abolitionism Movement Triumphs

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution, declared ratified on December 18, 1865, ended slavery in the United States-at least in name. During the Reconstruction Era, Southern states found ways to "hire" black workers under terms that were slavery in all but name, even pursuing any who ran off, just as they had in the days of the Underground Railroad.

Abolition had been achieved, but the lessons learned by those in the abolition movement would be applied to other social concerns in the decades to come, notably the temperance and woman's suffrage movements.

Articles Featuring The Abolitionist Movement From History Net Magazines

Featured Article

More Abolitionism Articles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abolitionist Movement summary: The Abolitionist movement in the United States of America was an effort to end slavery in a nation that valued personal freedom and believed "all men are created equal." Over time, abolitionists grew more strident in their demands, and slave owners entrenched in response, fueling regional divisiveness that ultimately led to the American Civil War.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Compromise of 1850, in U.S. history, a series of measures proposed by the "great compromiser," Sen. Henry Clay of Kentucky, and passed by the U.S. Congress in an effort to settle several outstanding slavery issues and to avert the threat of dissolution of the Union. The crisis arose from the request of the territory of California (December 3, 1849) to be admitted to the Union with a constitution prohibiting slavery. The problem was complicated by the unresolved question of slavery's extension into other areas ceded by Mexico the preceding year ( see Mexican-American War).

The issue of whether the territories would be slave or free came to a boil following the election of Zachary Taylor as president in 1848. In his first annual message to Congress, Taylor endorsed statehood for California and urged that "those exciting topics" that had caused such apprehension be left to the courts. He opposed any legislative plan that would address the problems that so agitated Northerners and Southerners, thus preventing Henry Clay from pushing ahead with another compromise plan that, he hoped, would settle the issue for at least a generation, as had the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Then Taylor died just 16 months into his term, and his successor, Millard Fillmore, saw the wisdom of Clay's proposal and encouraged him to continue.

Clay's purpose was to maintain a balance between free and slave states and to satisfy both proslavery and antislavery forces. The plan adopted by Congress had several parts: California was admitted as a free state, upsetting the equilibrium that had long prevailed in the Senate; the boundary of Texas was fixed along its current lines; Texas, in return for giving up land it claimed in the Southwest, had $10 million of its onerous debt assumed by the federal government; areas ceded by Texas became the recognized territories of New Mexico and Utah, and in neither case was slavery mentioned, ostensibly leaving these territories to decide the slavery question on their own by the principle of popular sovereignty; the slave trade, but not slavery itself, was abolished in the District of Columbia; and finally, Congress passed a new and stronger Fugitive Slave Act, taking the matter of returning runaway slaves out of the control of states and making it a federal responsibility.

With the influential support of Sen. Daniel Webster and the concerted unifying efforts of Sen. Stephen A. Douglas, the five compromise measures were enacted in September. These measures were accepted by moderates in all sections of the country, and the secession of the South was postponed for a decade. Indeed, the political system had seemed to work, and many Americans greeted the Compromise of 1850 with relief. President Fillmore called it "a final settlement," and the South certainly had nothing to complain about. It had secured the type of fugitive slave law it had long demanded, and although California came in as a free state, it elected proslavery representatives. Moreover, New Mexico and Utah enacted slave codes, technically opening the territories to slavery.

The compromise, however, contained the seeds of future discord. The precedent of popular sovereignty led to a demand for a similar provision for the Kansas Territory in 1854, causing bitterness and violence there ( see Bleeding Kansas). Furthermore, the application of the new Fugitive Slave Act triggered such a strong reaction throughout the North that many moderate antislavery elements became determined opponents of any further extension of slavery into the territories. While the Compromise of 1850 succeeded as a temporary expedient, it also proved the failure of compromise as a permanent political solution when vital sectional interests were at stake.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Compromise of 1850 | Summary, Map, Facts, & Significance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Compromise of 1850, in U.S. history, a series of measures proposed by the 'great compromiser,' Sen. Henry Clay of Kentucky, and passed by Congress in an effort to settle several outstanding slavery issues and to avert the threat of dissolution of the Union.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lincoln-Douglas Debate: The Question of Slavery

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lincoln speaks on differences between the Democrats and Republicans concerning slavery. Michael Krebs portrays Abraham Lincoln in reenactment at the lone surviving Lincoln-Douglas Debate site. More information about this debate is available at http://www.withlincolnproductions.com/debate.html.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The American Presidential Election of 1860

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Emancipation Proclamation issued by Abraham Lincoln in 1862, which would go into effect on January 1, 1863.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about Clara Barton, the founder of the American Red Cross who led the organization for 23 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
VIDEO | Historian Garry Adelman describes the events that took place during the Battle of Gettysburg from July 1-July 3, 1863.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's Why the Battle of Vicksburg Was So Important

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

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

1. Battle of Appomattox Court House

2. Lee Surrenders to Grant

3. The Final Battle of the Civil War?

The Battle of Appomattox Court House was fought on April 9, 1865, near the town of Appomattox Court House, Virginia, and led to Confederate General Robert E. Lee's surrender of his Army of Northern Virginia to Union General Ulysses S. Grant. Days earlier, Lee had abandoned the Confederate capital of Richmond and the city of Petersburg; his goal was to rally the remnants of his beleaguered troops, meet Confederate reinforcements in North Carolina and resume fighting. But the resulting Battle of Appomattox Court House, which lasted only a few hours, effectively brought the four-year Civil War to an end.

Battle of Appomattox Court House
WATCH: Appomattox Court House
In retreat from the Union army's Appomattox campaign, which began in March 1865, the Army of Northern Virginia stumbled westward through the Virginia countryside stripped of food and supplies. At one point, Union cavalry forces under General Philip Sheridan had outrun General Lee's troops, blocking their retreat and taking approximately 6,000 prisoners at Sayler's Creek.

Confederate desertions were mounting daily, and by April 8 the Rebels were almost completely surrounded. Nonetheless, early on the morning of April 9, Confederate troops led by Major General John B. Gordon mounted a last-ditch offensive that was initially successful. Soon, however, the Confederates saw that they were hopelessly outnumbered by two corps of Union soldiers who had marched all night to cut off the Confederate advance.

Later that morning, Lee-cut off from all provisions and all support-famously declared that "there is nothing left me to do but to go and see Gen. Grant, and I would rather die a thousand deaths." But Lee also knew his remaining troops, numbering about 28,000, would quickly turn to pillaging the countryside in order to survive.

With no remaining options, Lee sent a message to General Ulysses Grant announcing his willingness to surrender the Army of Northern Virginia. The two war-weary generals met in the front parlor of the Wilmer McLean home at one o'clock that afternoon.

Lee Surrenders to Grant

Lee and Grant, both of whom held the highest rank in their respective armies, had known each other slightly during the Mexican-American War (1846-48) and began their dialogue by exchanging awkward personal inquiries. Characteristically, Grant had arrived in his mud-splattered field uniform while Lee had turned out in full dress attire, complete with sash and sword.

Did you know? In 1869, the house where Lee surrendered to Grant was sold at public auction after owner Wilmer McLean defaulted on his loan repayments. In the ensuing years, the house had a series of owners before it was reconstructed and opened to the public by the National Park Service in 1949.

Lee asked for the terms of surrender, and Grant hurriedly wrote them out. Generously, all officers and men were to be pardoned, and they would be sent home with their private property-most important to the men were the horses, which could be used for a late spring planting. Officers would keep their side arms, and Lee's starving men would be given Union rations.

Quieting a band that had begun to play in celebration, Grant told his officers, "The war is over. The Rebels are our countrymen again." Although scattered resistance continued for several weeks-the final skirmish of the Civil War occurred on May 12 and 13 at the Battle of Palmito Ranch near Brownsville, Texas-for all practical purposes the Civil War had come to an end.

The Final Battle of the Civil War?

News of the surrender traveled slowly. Although scattered resistance continued for several weeks-there were six battles that took place after Appomattox, with the final skirmish of the Civil War occurring on May 12 and 13 at the Battle of Palmito Ranch near Brownsville, Texas-for all practical purposes, the Civil War had come to an end.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Appomattox Court House - Definition, Date & Location

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Appomattox Court House, located in Virginia, is where Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant in April 1865, bringing an end to the Civil War.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declared that "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." Formally abolishing slavery in the United States, the 13th Amendment was passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the states on December 6, 1865.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research Guides: 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents in American History: Introduction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Digital materials at the Library of Congress related to the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as links to external websites, and a selected print bibliography. Digital materials at the Library of Congress related to the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Amendment XIV

Section 1.

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

Section 2.

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

Section 3.

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

Section 4.

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

Section 5.

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
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.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted African American men the right to vote by declaring that 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." Although ratified on February 3, 1870, the promise of the 15th Amendment would not be fully realized for almost a century. Through the use of poll taxes, literacy tests and other means, Southern states were able to effectively disenfranchise African Americans. It would take the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 before the majority of African Americans in the South were registered to vote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research Guides: 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents in American History: Introduction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted African American men the right to vote by declaring that 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."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The possibility of railroads connecting the Atlantic and Pacific coasts was discussed in the Congress even before the treaty with England which settled the question of the Oregon boundary in 1846.[8] Chief promoter of a transcontinental railroad was Asa Whitney, a New York merchant active in the China trade who was obsessed with the idea of a railroad to the Pacific. In January 1845 he petitioned Congress for a charter and grant of a sixty-mile strip through the public domain to help finance construction.[9]

A large-scale grant map dated 1893, showing the alternate sections of public land granted to the Little Rock & Fort Smith Railway. Such maps were used by land speculators to advertise railroad lands for sale to the public.

Whitney suggested the use of Irish and German immigrant labor, which was in great abundance at the time. Wages were to be paid in land, thus ensuring that there would be settlers along the route to supply produce to and become patrons of the completed line. The failure of Congress to act on Whitney's proposal was mainly due to the vigorous opposition of Sen. Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri, who favored a western route originating at St. Louis.

In 1849 Whitney published a booklet to promote his scheme entitled Project for a Railroad to the Pacific. It was accompanied by an outline map of North America which shows the route of his railroad from Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, across the Rocky Mountains north of South Pass. An alternate route to the south of the pass joined the main line at the Salmon River and continued to Puget Sound. Proposed lines also extended from St. Louis to San Francisco and from Independence, Missouri, to New Mexico and the Arkansas River. This is one of the earliest promotional maps submitted to Congress and was, according to its author, conceived as early as 1830[10].

Although Congress failed to sanction his plan, Whitney made the Pacific railroad one of the great public issues of the day. The acquisition of California following the Mexican War opened the way for other routes to the coast. The discovery of gold, the settlement of the frontier, and the success of the eastern railroads increased interest in building a railroad to the Pacific.[11]

Railroads were also needed in the West to provide better postal service, as had been developed in the East, by designating railroad lines "post roads" in 1838. Strengthened by other proposals such as those of Hartwell Carver in 1849 and of Edwin F. Johnson in 1853, such leading statesmen as John C. Calhoun, Stephen A. Douglas, and Jefferson Davis declared their support for linking the country by rails. The lawmakers, however, could not agree on an eastern terminus, and they did not see the merits of the several routes west. To resolve the debate, money was appropriated in 1853 for the Army Topographic Corps "to ascertain the most practicable and economical route for a railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean."

Under the provisions of the Army Appropriation Act of March 1853, Secretary of War Jefferson Davis was directed to survey possible routes to the Pacific. Four east to west routes, roughly following specific parallels, were to be surveyed by parties under the supervision of the Topographical Corps. The most northerly survey, between the 47th and 49th parallels, was under the direction of Isaac Ingalls Stevens, governor of Washington Territory. This route closely approximated that proposed by Asa Whitney.

The ill-fated party under Capt. John W. Gunnison was to explore the route along the 38th and 39th parallels, or the Cochetopoa Pass route, which was advocated by Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton. After Gunnison's death at the hands of hostile Indians, Lt. Edward G. Beckwith continued the survey along the 41st parallel. Capt. Amiel W. Whipple, assistant astronomer of the Mexican Boundary Survey, and Lt. Joseph Christmas Ives surveyed the route along the 35th parallel westward to southern California. This line was favored by Jefferson Davis and was essentially the route traversed by Josiah Gregg in 1839 and later surveyed by Col. John J. Abert. The most southerly survey, which followed the 32d parallel, was surveyed by Lt. John G. Parke from California along the Gila River to the Pima villages and the Rio Grande. Capt. John Pope mapped the eastern portion of the route from Dona Ana, New Mexico, to the Red River.

A fifth survey, following a north-south orientation, was conducted under the direction of Lt. Robert S. Williamson. This party reconducted topographical surveys to locate passes through the Sierra Nevadas and the Coast Range in California in order to determine a route that would connect California, Oregon, and Washington were made under the direction of Lt. Robert S. Williamson[12].

These surveys showed that a railroad could follow any one of the routes, and that the 32nd parallel route was the least expensive. The Southern Pacific Railroad was subsequently built along this parallel. The southern routes were objectionable to northern politicians and the northern routes were objectionable to the southern politicians, but the surveys could not, of course, resolve these sectional issues.

While sectional issues and disagreements were debated in the late 1850s, no decision was forthcoming from Congress on the Pacific railroad question. Theodore D. Judah, the engineer of the Sacramento Valley Railroad, became obsessed with the desire to build a transcontinental railroad. In 1860 he approached Leland Stanford, Collis P. Huntington, Mark Hopkins, and Charles Crocker, leading Sacramento merchants, and soon convinced them that building a transcontinental line would make them rich and famous. The prospect of tapping the wealth of the Nevada mining towns and forthcoming legislation for federal aid to railroads stimulated them to incorporate the Central Pacific Railroad Company of California. This line later merged with the Southern Pacific. It was through Judah's efforts and the support of Abraham Lincoln, who saw military benefits in the lines as well as the bonding of the Pacific Coast to the Union, that the Pacific Railroad finally became a reality.

The Railroad Act of 1862 put government support behind the transcontinental railroad and helped create the Union Pacific Railroad, which subsequently joined with the Central Pacific at Promontory, Utah, on May 10, 1869, and signaled the linking of the continent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Transcontinental Railroad | History of Railroads and Maps | Articles and Essays | Railroad Maps, 1828-1900 | Digital Collections | Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The possibility of railroads connecting the Atlantic and Pacific coasts was discussed in the Congress even before the treaty with England which settled the question of the Oregon boundary in 1846.[8] Chief promoter of a transcontinental railroad was Asa Whitney, a New York merchant active in the China trade who was obsessed with the idea of a railroad to the Pacific.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What Was the Dawes Act?

The General Allotment Act of 1887, known commonly as the Dawes Act, was introduced by Henry Dawes, a Senator from Massachusetts. Simply put, the Act broke up previous land settlements given to Native Americans in the form of reservations and separated them into smaller, separate parcels of land to live on. More importantly, the Act required Natives to live apart from their nations and assimilate into European culture.

Dawes felt that the law, once fully realized, would actually save Native Americans from the alternative, which was their total extermination. However, the Dawes Act may, in fact, be the gold medal winner of all time when it comes to how often the best intentions result in the worst harm, since, ironically, it just about accomplished what Dawes claimed he was trying to avoid.

Background

Since Europeans arrived in the 15th century, Native Americans had been inexorably pushed west, as the frontier moved in front of colonization. By the mid-19th century, the expansion of the United States was in full swing. The passage of the Homestead Act in 1862, which effectively gave away land in the West to settlers in an effort to populate those territories, was a clear marker of what was coming.

Given all this expansion, it was clear that some sort of governmental policy should be adopted to accommodate both the Native Americans who chose not to resist and those who actively fought back. The initial approach, relocation, as typified by the Indian Removal Act of 1830, proved less than successful, especially given the variety, diversity, and entrenched nature of Native American societies across the eastern U.S. In 1851, the U.S. government passed the Indian Appropriations Act, which was supposed to create a long-term solution to the Native American issue: reservations.

The reservations, originally to be based in Oklahoma, but later across the West, were land grants upon which tribes could live more or less as they pleased, so long as they remained within the reservation's borders. However, many tribes ignored orders from the U.S. government to relocate, and the Army was brought in to enforce the policy (this became substantially more common after the Civil War ended in 1865).

Of course, bringing troops into the issue resulted in conflict, most famously in 1876, when Sioux, under the command of 'hostiles,' like Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, wiped out George A. Custer and most of his command at the Battle of the Little Bighorn. The death of over 200 American soldiers right around the time of the nation's centennial celebration ignited cries for revenge against the Sioux and all recalcitrant Native Americans. This was the atmosphere in which Henry Dawes was operating when he unveiled his plan.

The Dawes Act

Dawes's plan was to 'save' Native Americans by changing their way of life. To understand this, it's helpful to take a quick look at how most Native American societies operated. This is, of course, by no means true of all Native Americans. With over 500 separate indigenous societies, there was a tremendous amount of diversity, but there were some values that were largely shared across the spectrum, and these were the values that Dawes saw as a genuine threat to Native American survival.

Native Americans tended to view land ownership as a fairly foreign concept, instead focusing on land stewardship (caring for and using the land, but not considering themselves owners of it in a legal sense). Similarly, most Native Americans, in the face of U.S. expansion in the Plains territories of the West and Midwest, led nomadic, quasi-hunter/gatherer lifestyles that were incompatible with the 19th-century American emphasis on agriculture.

Dawes saw these philosophies as a direct threat to Native American existence, since, without adhering to the American ethos of land ownership and capitalistic enterprise, he felt it was unlikely that a peaceful resolution could be reached between Native Americans and the U.S. government. His plan was to survey Native-held reservations, which varied in size based on the particular tribe's area and size, and separate them into smaller units, or allotments, of around 160 acres apiece. These allotments would then be given to Native Americans. Those who accepted and lived separately from their tribes would be granted U.S. citizenship. The sizes of the parcels were equal regardless of how much land the tribe had previously been allotted for the reservations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
the dawes act of 1887: definition & summary - video & lesson transcript | study.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Dawes Act of 1887: Definition & Summary - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The General Allotment Act of 1887, known commonly as the Dawes Act, was introduced by Henry Dawes, a Senator from Massachusetts. Simply put, the Act broke up previous land settlements given to Native Americans in the form of reservations and separated them into smaller, separate parcels of land to live on.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The homestead act was passed May 20, 1862. This act allowed for US citizens to get 160 acres of land out in the west for free. They had to be adults of course, and they also had to have been loyal to...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Learning Objectives

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

Explain how the ideas and products of late nineteenth-century inventors contributed to the rise of big business

Explain how the inventions of the late nineteenth century changed everyday American life

From corrugated rollers that could crack hard, homestead-grown wheat into flour to refrigerated train cars and garment-sewing machines, new inventions fueled industrial growth around the country. As late as 1880, fully one-half of all Americans still lived and worked on farms, whereas fewer than one in seven-mostly men, except for long-established textile factories in which female employees tended to dominate-were employed in factories. However, the development of commercial electricity by the close of the century, to complement the steam engines that already existed in many larger factories, permitted more industries to concentrate in cities, away from the previously essential water power. In turn, newly arrived immigrants sought employment in new urban factories. Immigration, urbanization, and industrialization coincided to transform the face of American society from primarily rural to significantly urban. From 1880 to 1920, the number of industrial workers in the nation quadrupled from 2.5 million to over 10 million, while over the same period urban populations doubled, to reach one-half of the country's total population.

In offices, worker productivity benefited from the typewriter, invented in 1867, the cash register, invented in 1879, and the adding machine, invented in 1885. These tools made it easier than ever to keep up with the rapid pace of business growth. Inventions also slowly transformed home life. The vacuum cleaner arrived during this era, as well as the flush toilet. These indoor "water closets" improved public health through the reduction in contamination associated with outhouses and their proximity to water supplies and homes. Tin cans and, later, Clarence Birdseye's experiments with frozen food, eventually changed how women shopped for, and prepared, food for their families, despite initial health concerns over preserved foods. With the advent of more easily prepared food, women gained valuable time in their daily schedules, a step that partially laid the groundwork for the modern women's movement. Women who had the means to purchase such items could use their time to seek other employment outside of the home, as well as broaden their knowledge through education and reading. Such a transformation did not occur overnight, as these inventions also increased expectations for women to remain tied to the home and their domestic chores; slowly, the culture of domesticity changed.

Perhaps the most important industrial advancement of the era came in the production of steel. Manufacturers and builders preferred steel to iron, due to its increased strength and durability. After the Civil War, two new processes allowed for the creation of furnaces large enough and hot enough to melt the wrought iron needed to produce large quantities of steel at increasingly cheaper prices. The Bessemer process, named for English inventor Henry Bessemer, and the open-hearth process, changed the way the United States produced steel and, in doing so, led the country into a new industrialized age. As the new material became more available, builders eagerly sought it out, a demand that steel mill owners were happy to supply.

In 1860, the country produced thirteen thousand tons of steel. By 1879, American furnaces were producing over one million tons per year; by 1900, this figure had risen to ten million. Just ten years later, the United States was the top steel producer in the world, at over twenty-four million tons annually. As production increased to match the overwhelming demand, the price of steel dropped by over 80 percent. When quality steel became cheaper and more readily available, other industries relied upon it more heavily as a key to their growth and development, including construction and, later, the automotive industry. As a result, the steel industry rapidly became the cornerstone of the American economy, remaining the primary indicator of industrial growth and stability through the end of World War II.

Advancements in communications matched the pace of growth seen in industry and home life. Communication technologies were changing quickly, and they brought with them new ways for information to travel. In 1858, British and American crews laid the first transatlantic cable lines, enabling messages to pass between the United States and Europe in a matter of hours, rather than waiting the few weeks it could take for a letter to arrive by steamship. Although these initial cables worked for barely a month, they generated great interest in developing a more efficient telecommunications industry. Within twenty years, over 100,000 miles of cable crisscrossed the ocean floors, connecting all the continents. Domestically, Western Union, which controlled 80 percent of the country's telegraph lines, operated nearly 200,000 miles of telegraph routes from coast to coast. In short, people were connected like never before, able to relay messages in minutes and hours rather than days and weeks.

One of the greatest advancements was the telephone, which Alexander Graham Bell patented in 1876. While he was not the first to invent the concept, Bell was the first one to capitalize on it; after securing the patent, he worked with financiers and businessmen to create the National Bell Telephone Company. Western Union, which had originally turned down Bell's machine, went on to commission Thomas Edison to invent an improved version of the telephone. It is actually Edison's version that is most like the modern telephone used today. However, Western Union, fearing a costly legal battle they were likely to lose due to Bell's patent, ultimately sold Edison's idea to the Bell Company. With the communications industry now largely in their control, along with an agreement from the federal government to permit such control, the Bell Company was transformed into the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, which still exists today as AT&T. By 1880, fifty thousand telephones were in use in the United States, including one at the White House. By 1900, that number had increased to 1.35 million, and hundreds of American cities had obtained local service for their citizens. Quickly and inexorably, technology was bringing the country into closer contact, changing forever the rural isolation that had defined America since its beginnings.

Visit the Library of Congress to examine the controversy over the invention of the telephone. While Alexander Graham Bell is credited with the invention, several other inventors played a role in its development; however, Bell was the first to patent the device.

Although Thomas Alva Edison is best known for his contributions to the electrical industry, his experimentation went far beyond the light bulb. Edison was quite possibly the greatest inventor of the turn of the century, saying famously that he "hoped to have a minor invention every ten days and a big thing every month or so." He registered 1,093 patents over his lifetime and ran a world-famous laboratory, Menlo Park, which housed a rotating group of up to twenty-five scientists from around the globe.

Edison became interested in the telegraph industry as a boy, when he worked aboard trains selling candy and newspapers. He soon began tinkering with telegraph technology and, by 1876, had devoted himself full time to lab work as an inventor. He then proceeded to invent a string of items that are still used today: the phonograph, the mimeograph machine, the motion picture projector, the dictaphone, and the storage battery, all using a factory-oriented assembly line process that made the rapid production of inventions possible.

In 1879, Edison invented the item that has led to his greatest fame: the incandescent light bulb. He allegedly explored over six thousand different materials for the filament, before stumbling upon tungsten as the ideal substance. By 1882, with financial backing largely from financier J. P. Morgan, he had created the Edison Electric Illuminating Company, which began supplying electrical current to a small number of customers in New York City. Morgan guided subsequent mergers of Edison's other enterprises, including a machine works firm and a lamp company, resulting in the creation of the Edison General Electric Company in 1889.

The next stage of invention in electric power came about with the contribution of George Westinghouse. Westinghouse was responsible for making electric lighting possible on a national scale. While Edison used "direct current" or DC power, which could only extend two miles from the power source, in 1886, Westinghouse invented "alternating current" or AC power, which allowed for delivery over greater distances due to its wavelike patterns. The Westinghouse Electric Company delivered AC power, which meant that factories, homes, and farms-in short, anything that needed power-could be served, regardless of their proximity to the power source. A public relations battle ensued between the Westinghouse and Edison camps, coinciding with the invention of the electric chair as a form of prisoner execution. Edison publicly proclaimed AC power to be best adapted for use in the chair, in the hope that such a smear campaign would result in homeowners becoming reluctant to use AC power in their houses. Although Edison originally fought the use of AC power in other devices, he reluctantly adapted to it as its popularity increased.

Not all of Edison's ventures were successful. Read about Edison's Folly to learn the story behind his greatest failure. Was there some benefit to his efforts? Or was it wasted time and money?

Inventors in the late nineteenth century flooded the market with new technological advances. Encouraged by Great Britain's Industrial Revolution, and eager for economic development in the wake of the Civil War, business investors sought the latest ideas upon which they could capitalize, both to transform the nation as well as to make a personal profit. These inventions were a key piece of the massive shift towards industrialization that followed. For both families and businesses, these inventions eventually represented a fundamental change in their way of life. Although the technology spread slowly, it did spread across the country. Whether it was a company that could now produce ten times more products with new factories, or a household that could communicate with distant relations, the old way of doing things was disappearing.

Communication technologies, electric power production, and steel production were perhaps the three most significant developments of the time. While the first two affected both personal lives and business development, the latter influenced business growth first and foremost, as the ability to produce large steel elements efficiently and cost-effectively led to permanently changes in the direction of industrial growth.

Review Question

How did the burst of new inventions during this era fuel the process of urbanization?

Answer to Review Question

New inventions fueled industrial growth, and the development of commercial electricity-along with the use of steam engines-allowed industries that had previously situated themselves close to sources of water power to shift away from those areas and move their production into cities. Immigrants sought employment in these urban factories and settled nearby, transforming the country's population from mostly rural to largely urban.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By the end of this section, you will be able to: Explain how the ideas and products of late nineteenth-century inventors contributed to the rise of big business Explain how the inventions of the late nineteenth century changed everyday American life From corrugated rollers that could crack hard, homestead-grown wheat into flour to refrigerated train cars and garment-sewing machines, new inventions fueled industrial growth around the country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The late nineteenth century saw the rise of "big business" in important areas of economic activity. ("Big" is never defined precisely, but the quantitative term is popularly used to connote something important.) Big business firms were institutions that used management to control economic activity. Big business firms broke themselves into different functions, or "departments," and used managers to coordinate the work of departments, and "middle managers" to coordinate work among departments.

Railroads were the first "big businesses" in the United States. After railroad companies began to operate on tracks that stretched for fifty and more miles, their owners soon realized that they had to divide responsibilities among different managers, with coordination of the various functions of the company--from soliciting business, to operating trains, to maintaining facilities, to financing everything. By the 1850s railroad executives were perfecting systems of managerial control over their ever more complex firms.

After the railroads pioneered the formation of "big business," big businesses appeared in manufacturing and distribution.

Big city department stores were a form of "big business." They combined many different retail operations in one organization, and placed them together in one building. By 1912 department stores were principal features of the downtown districts of every city.

Still other big businesses, mail order firms such as Sears, Roebuck, were by 1912 serving rural areas and small towns.

Thus when Americans shopped in 1912, they were likely to encounter a "big business." In their stores, moreover, they were likely to find products manufactured by "big businesses."

The "big business" form of organization spread rapidly in manufacturing industries after about 1870.

In some lines of manufacturing, there were advantages to have a single organization control raw materials, transportation, fabrication, and distribution. When he sold his steel company in 1901, for example, Andrew Carnegie was the most efficient--and the wealthiest--steel maker in the world. Carnegie steel had control over sources of coal, coke, and iron ore. Carnegie steel exercised control over ships and railroads that brought raw materials to its mills in the Pittsburgh district. Carnegie insisted on his mill remaining the most advanced of their day. Not only did Carnegie Steel manufacture steel, the company also produced finished products like railroad rails and bridge girders. All of these operations were in a single managerial organization. Managers controlled the flow of materials. Carnegie Steel was so efficient that it could undercut all of its competitors and still make large profits.

Meatpacking was another industry that witnessed the rise and perfection of "big business" forms. After 1870, several Chicago meatpackers built huge, complex organizations for purchasing animals, butchering them, and distributing meat to markets all across the nation. Their companies used all of the byproducts of the animals they slaughtered. Skins went into leather goods, hoofs into glue, bones into fertilizer, and fat into soap. One wag commented that the only part of the hog the Chicago packers did not use and sell was the squeal!

By the end of the nineteenth century, Standard Oil, led by John D. Rockefeller, dominated the refining and distribution of petroleum products in the United States, and extended its reach well beyond the nation's borders.

When an entrepreneur like Carnegie was successful in building an efficient organization to control manufacturing processes, he drove competitors out of business. A steel maker either had to compete by mimicking Carnegie's managerial techniques, or go into a niche, or specialized, market that the big steel companies did not enter. In the case of meatpacking, by 1900 thousands of local butchers found themselves squeezed, because they were less efficient than the Chicago packers. Small shopkeepers sometimes faced ruin from large department store competitors. These businesses following older, more traditional practices sometimes fueled popular sentiment to "bust" the trusts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The late nineteenth century saw the rise of "big business" in important areas of economic activity. ("Big" is never defined precisely, but the quantitative term is popularly used to connote something important.) Big business firms were institutions that used management to control economic activity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act Explained: US History Review

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/labor Link in case of redirection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Origins of The Labor Movement

The origins of the labor movement lay in the formative years of the American nation, when a free wage-labor market emerged in the artisan trades late in the colonial period. The earliest recorded strike occurred in 1768 when New York journeymen tailors protested a wage reduction. The formation of the Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers (shoemakers) in Philadelphia in 1794 marks the beginning of sustained trade union organization among American workers.
WATCH: The Labor Movement
From that time on, local craft unions proliferated in the cities, publishing lists of "prices" for their work, defending their trades against diluted and cheap labor and, increasingly, demanding a shorter workday in the face of the Industrial Revolution. Thus a job-conscious orientation was quick to emerge, and in its wake there followed the key structural elements characterizing American trade unionism. First, with the formation in 1827 of the Mechanics' Union of Trade Associations in Philadelphia, central labor bodies began uniting craft unions within a single city, and then, with the creation of the International Typographical Union in 1852, national unions began bringing together local unions of the same trade from across the United States and Canada (hence the frequent union designation "international"). Although the factory system was springing up during these years, industrial workers played little part in the early trade union development. In the 19th century, trade unionism was mainly a movement of skilled workers.

Did you know? In 2009, 12 percent of American workers belonged to unions.

Early Labor Unions

The early labor movement was, however, inspired by more than the immediate job interest of its craft members. It harbored a conception of the just society, deriving from the Ricardian labor theory of value and from the republican ideals of the American Revolution, which fostered social equality, celebrated honest labor, and relied on an independent, virtuous citizenship. The transforming economic changes of industrial capitalism ran counter to labor's vision. The result, as early labor leaders saw it, was to raise up "two distinct classes, the rich and the poor." Beginning with the workingmen's parties of the 1830s, the advocates of equal rights mounted a series of reform efforts that spanned the nineteenth century. Most notable were the National Labor Union, launched in 1866, and the Knights of Labor, which reached its zenith in the mid-1880s.

On their face, these reform movements might have seemed at odds with trade unionism, aiming as they did at the cooperative commonwealth rather than a higher wage, appealing broadly to all "producers" rather than strictly to wageworkers, and eschewing the trade union reliance on the strike and boycott. But contemporaries saw no contradiction: trade unionism tended to the workers' immediate needs, labor reform to their higher hopes. The two were held to be strands of a single movement, rooted in a common working-class constituency and to some degree sharing a common leadership. But equally important, they were strands that had to be kept operationally separate and functionally distinct.
PHOTOS: These Appalling Images Exposed Child Labor in America
American Federation of Labor

During the 1880s, that division fatally eroded. Despite its labor reform rhetoric, the Knights of Labor attracted large numbers of workers hoping to improve their immediate conditions. As the Knights carried on strikes and organized along industrial lines, the threatened national trade unions demanded that the group confine itself to its professed labor reform purposes. When it refused, they joined in December 1886 to form the American Federation of Labor (AFL). The new federation marked a break with the past, for it denied to labor reform any further role in the struggles of American workers. In part, the assertion of trade union supremacy stemmed from an undeniable reality. As industrialism matured, labor reform lost its meaning-hence the confusion and ultimate failure of the Knights of Labor. Marxism taught Samuel Gompers and his fellow socialists that trade unionism was the indispensable instrument for preparing the working class for revolution. The founders of theAFL translated this notion into the principle of "pure and simple" unionism: only by self-organization along occupational lines and by a concentration on job-conscious goals would the worker be "furnished with the weapons which shall secure his industrial emancipation."

That class formulation necessarily defined trade unionism as the movement of the entire working class. The AFL asserted as a formal policy that it represented all workers, irrespective of skill, race, religion, nationality or gender. But the national unions that had created the AFL in fact comprised only the skilled trades. Almost at once, therefore, the trade union movement encountered a dilemma: How to square ideological aspirations against contrary institutional realities?

Discrimination in The Labor Movement

As sweeping technological change began to undermine the craft system of production, some national unions did move toward an industrial structure, most notably in coal mining and the garment trades. But most craft unions either refused or, as in iron and steel and in meat-packing, failed to organize the less skilled. And since skill lines tended to conform to racial, ethnic and gender divisions, the trade union movement took on a racist and sexist coloration as well. For a short period, the AFL resisted that tendency. But in 1895, unable to launch an interracial machinists' union of its own, the Federation reversed an earlier principled decision and chartered the whites-only International Association of Machinists. Formally or informally, the color bar thereafter spread throughout the trade union movement. In 1902, blacks made up scarcely 3 percent of total membership, most of them segregated in Jim Crow locals. In the case of women and eastern European immigrants, a similar devolution occurred-welcomed as equals in theory, excluded or segregated in practice. (Only the fate of Asian workers was unproblematic; their rights had never been asserted by the AFLin the first place.)

Samuel Gompers

Gompers justified the subordination of principle to organizational reality on the constitutional grounds of "trade autonomy," by which each national union was assured the right to regulate its own internal affairs. But the organizational dynamism of the labor movement was in fact located in the national unions. Only as they experienced inner change might the labor movement expand beyond the narrow limits-roughly 10 percent of the labor force-at which it stabilized before World War I.

In the political realm, the founding doctrine of pure-and-simple unionism meant an arm's-length relationship to the state and the least possible entanglement in partisan politics. A total separation had, of course, never been seriously contemplated; some objectives, such as immigration restriction, could be achieved only through state action, and the predecessor to the AFL, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (1881), had in fact been created to serve as labor's lobbying arm in Washington. Partly because of the lure of progressive labor legislation, even more in response to increasingly damaging court attacks on the trade unions, political activity quickened after 1900. With the enunciation of Labor's Bill of Grievances (1906), the AFL laid down a challenge to the major parties. Henceforth it would campaign for its friends and seek the defeat of its enemies.

This nonpartisan entry into electoral politics, paradoxically, undercut the left-wing advocates of an independent working-class politics. That question had been repeatedly debated within theAFL, first in 1890 over Socialist Labor party representation, then in 1893-1894 over an alliance with the Populist Party and after 1901 over affiliation with the Socialist party of America. Although Gompers prevailed each time, he never found it easy. Now, as labor's leverage with the major parties began to pay off, Gompers had an effective answer to his critics on the left: the labor movement could not afford to waste its political capital on socialist parties or independent politics. When that nonpartisan strategy failed, as it did in the reaction following World War I, an independent political strategy took hold, first through the robust campaigning of the Conference for Progressive Political Action in 1922, and in 1924 through labor's endorsement of Robert La Follette on the Progressive ticket. By then, however, the Republican administration was moderating its hard line, evident especially in Herbert Hoover's efforts to resolve the simmering crises in mining and on the railroads. In response, the trade unions abandoned the Progressive party, retreated to nonpartisanship, and, as their power waned, lapsed into inactivity.

The Labor Movement and The Great Depression
WATCH: Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal
It took the Great Depression to knock the labor movement off dead center. The discontent of industrial workers, combined with New Deal collective bargaining legislation, at last brought the great mass production industries within striking distance. When the craft unions stymied the ALF's organizing efforts, John L. Lewis of the United Mine Workers and his followers broke away in 1935 and formed the Committee for Industrial Organization (CIO), which crucially aided the emerging unions in auto, rubber, steel and other basic industries. In 1938 the CIO was formally established as the Congress of Industrial Organizations. By the end of World War II, more than 12 million workers belonged to unions and collective bargaining had taken hold throughout the industrial economy.

In politics, its enhanced power led the union movement not to a new departure but to a variant on the policy of nonpartisanship. As far back as the Progressive Era, organized labor had been drifting toward the Democratic party, partly because of the latter's greater programmatic appeal, perhaps even more because of its ethno-cultural basis of support within an increasingly "new" immigrant working class. With the coming of Roosevelt's New Deal, this incipient alliance solidified, and from 1936 onward the Democratic Party could count on-and came to rely on-the campaigning resources of the labor movement.

Collective Bargaining

That this alliance partook of the nonpartisan logic of Gompers's authorship-too much was at stake for organized labor to waste its political capital on third parties-became clear in the unsettled period of the early cold war. Not only did theCIO oppose the Progressive party of 1948, but it expelled the left-wing unions that broke ranks and supported Henry Wallace for the presidency that year.

The formation of the AFL-CIOin 1955 visibly testified to the powerful continuities persisting through the age of industrial unionism. Above all, the central purpose remained what it had always been-to advance the economic and job interests of the union membership. Collective bargaining performed impressively after World War II, more than tripling weekly earnings in manufacturing between 1945 and 1970, gaining for union workers an unprecedented measure of security against old age, illness and unemployment, and, through contractual protections, greatly strengthening their right to fair treatment at the workplace. But if the benefits were greater and if they went to more people, the basic job-conscious thrust remained intact. Organized labor was still a sectional movement, covering at most only a third of America's wage earners and inaccessible to those cut off in the low-wage secondary labor market.

Women and Minorities in the Labor Movement

Nothing better captures the uneasy amalgam of old and new in the postwar labor movement than the treatment of minorities and women who flocked in, initially from the mass production industries, but after 1960 from the public and service sectors as well. Labor's historic commitment to racial and gender equality was thereby much strengthened, but not to the point of challenging the status quo within the labor movement itself. Thus the leadership structure remained largely closed to minorities-as did the skilled jobs that were historically the preserve of white male workers-notoriously so in the construction trades but in the industrial unions as well. Yet the AFL-CIOplayed a crucial role in the battle for civil rights legislation in 1964-1965. That this legislation might be directed against discriminatory trade union practices was anticipated (and quietly welcomed) by the more progressive labor leaders. But more significant was the meaning they found in championing this kind of reform: the chance to act on the broad ideals of the labor movement. And, so motivated, they deployed labor's power with great effect in the achievement of John F. Kennedy's and Lyndon B. Johnson 's domestic programs during the 1960s.

Decline in Unions

This was ultimately economic, not political power, however, and as organized labor's grip on the industrial sector began to weaken, so did its political capability. From the early 1970s onward, new competitive forces swept through the heavily unionized industries, set off by deregulation in communications and transportation, by industrial restructuring and by an unprecedented onslaught of foreign goods. As oligopolistic and regulated market structures broke down, nonunion competition spurted, concession bargaining became widespread and plant closings decimated union memberships. The once-celebrated National Labor Relations Act increasingly hamstrung the labor movement; an all-out reform campaign to get the law amended failed in 1978. And with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, there came to power an anti-union administration the likes of which had not been seen since the Harding era.

Between 1975 and 1985, union membership fell by 5 million. In manufacturing, the unionized portion of the labor force dropped below 25 percent, while mining and construction, once labor's flagship industries, were decimated. Only in the public sector did the unions hold their own. By the end of the 1980s, less than 17 percent of American workers were organized, half the proportion of the early 1950s.

The labor movement has never been swift to change. But if the new high-tech and service sectors seemed beyond its reach in 1989, so did the mass production industries in 1929. There is a silver lining: Compared to the old AFL, organized labor is today much more diverse and broadly based: In 2018, of the 14.7 million wage and salary workers who were part of a union (compared to 17.7 million in 1983), 25 percent are women and 28 percent are Black.

Sources

TED: The Economics Daily. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The origins of the labor movement lay in the formative years of the American nation, when a free wage-labor market emerged in the artisan trades late in the colonial period. The earliest recorded strike occurred in 1768 when New York journeymen tailors protested a wage reduction.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Rise of Immigration in the Late 1800's

# data[].attributes.subject
The Rise of Immigration in the Late 1800's

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Rise of Immigration | Boundless US History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Study Guides for thousands of courses. Instant access to better grades!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Between 1880 and 1900, cities in the United States grew at a dramatic rate. Owing most of their population growth to the expansion of industry, U.S. cities grew by about 15 million people in the two decades before 1900. Many of those who helped account for the population growth of cities were immigrants arriving from around the world. A steady stream of people from rural America also migrated to the cities during this period. Between 1880 and 1890, almost 40 percent of the townships in the United States lost population because of migration.

Industrial expansion and population growth radically changed the face of the nation's cities. Noise, traffic jams, slums, air pollution, and sanitation and health problems became commonplace. Mass transit, in the form of trolleys, cable cars, and subways, was built, and skyscrapers began to dominate city skylines. New communities, known as suburbs, began to be built just beyond the city. Commuters, those who lived in the suburbs and traveled in and out of the city for work, began to increase in number.

Many of those who resided in the city lived in rental apartments or tenement housing. Neighborhoods, especially for immigrant populations, were often the center of community life. In the enclave neighborhoods, many immigrant groups attempted to hold onto and practice precious customs and traditions. Even today, many neighborhoods or sections of some of the great cities in the United States reflect those ethnic heritages.

During the final years of the 1800s, industrial cities, with all the problems brought on by rapid population growth and lack of infrastructure to support the growth, occupied a special place in U.S. history. For all the problems, and there were many, the cities promoted a special bond between people and laid the foundation for the multiethnic, multicultural society that we cherish today.

To find additional sources in American Memory on this general topic, use such keywords as city, neighborhood, immigration, industry, urbanization, transportation, suburbs, slums, tenements, and skyscrapers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
City Life in the Late 19th Century - American Memory Timeline- Classroom Presentation | Teacher Resources - Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Between 1880 and 1900, cities in the United States grew at a dramatic rate. Owing most of their population growth to the expansion of industry, U.S. cities grew by about 15 million people in the two decades before 1900. Many of those who helped account for the population growth of cities were immigrants arriving from around the world.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Growth of Mass Communication in the Late 1800's

# data[].attributes.subject
The Growth of Mass Communication in the Late 1800's

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
American Newspapers, 1800-1860: An Introduction – History, Philosophy, and Newspaper Library – U of I Library

# data[].attributes.headline
Rise of Political Machines in the Late 1800s

# data[].attributes.subject
Rise of Political Machines in the Late 1800s

# 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
The Rise of Labor Organizations in the Early 1900s

# data[].attributes.subject
The Rise of Labor Organizations in the Early 1900s

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Origins of The Labor Movement

The origins of the labor movement lay in the formative years of the American nation, when a free wage-labor market emerged in the artisan trades late in the colonial period. The earliest recorded strike occurred in 1768 when New York journeymen tailors protested a wage reduction. The formation of the Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers (shoemakers) in Philadelphia in 1794 marks the beginning of sustained trade union organization among American workers.
WATCH: The Labor Movement
From that time on, local craft unions proliferated in the cities, publishing lists of "prices" for their work, defending their trades against diluted and cheap labor and, increasingly, demanding a shorter workday in the face of the Industrial Revolution. Thus a job-conscious orientation was quick to emerge, and in its wake there followed the key structural elements characterizing American trade unionism. First, with the formation in 1827 of the Mechanics' Union of Trade Associations in Philadelphia, central labor bodies began uniting craft unions within a single city, and then, with the creation of the International Typographical Union in 1852, national unions began bringing together local unions of the same trade from across the United States and Canada (hence the frequent union designation "international"). Although the factory system was springing up during these years, industrial workers played little part in the early trade union development. In the 19th century, trade unionism was mainly a movement of skilled workers.

Did you know? In 2009, 12 percent of American workers belonged to unions.

Early Labor Unions

The early labor movement was, however, inspired by more than the immediate job interest of its craft members. It harbored a conception of the just society, deriving from the Ricardian labor theory of value and from the republican ideals of the American Revolution, which fostered social equality, celebrated honest labor, and relied on an independent, virtuous citizenship. The transforming economic changes of industrial capitalism ran counter to labor's vision. The result, as early labor leaders saw it, was to raise up "two distinct classes, the rich and the poor." Beginning with the workingmen's parties of the 1830s, the advocates of equal rights mounted a series of reform efforts that spanned the nineteenth century. Most notable were the National Labor Union, launched in 1866, and the Knights of Labor, which reached its zenith in the mid-1880s.

On their face, these reform movements might have seemed at odds with trade unionism, aiming as they did at the cooperative commonwealth rather than a higher wage, appealing broadly to all "producers" rather than strictly to wageworkers, and eschewing the trade union reliance on the strike and boycott. But contemporaries saw no contradiction: trade unionism tended to the workers' immediate needs, labor reform to their higher hopes. The two were held to be strands of a single movement, rooted in a common working-class constituency and to some degree sharing a common leadership. But equally important, they were strands that had to be kept operationally separate and functionally distinct.
PHOTOS: These Appalling Images Exposed Child Labor in America
American Federation of Labor

During the 1880s, that division fatally eroded. Despite its labor reform rhetoric, the Knights of Labor attracted large numbers of workers hoping to improve their immediate conditions. As the Knights carried on strikes and organized along industrial lines, the threatened national trade unions demanded that the group confine itself to its professed labor reform purposes. When it refused, they joined in December 1886 to form the American Federation of Labor (AFL). The new federation marked a break with the past, for it denied to labor reform any further role in the struggles of American workers. In part, the assertion of trade union supremacy stemmed from an undeniable reality. As industrialism matured, labor reform lost its meaning-hence the confusion and ultimate failure of the Knights of Labor. Marxism taught Samuel Gompers and his fellow socialists that trade unionism was the indispensable instrument for preparing the working class for revolution. The founders of theAFL translated this notion into the principle of "pure and simple" unionism: only by self-organization along occupational lines and by a concentration on job-conscious goals would the worker be "furnished with the weapons which shall secure his industrial emancipation."

That class formulation necessarily defined trade unionism as the movement of the entire working class. The AFL asserted as a formal policy that it represented all workers, irrespective of skill, race, religion, nationality or gender. But the national unions that had created the AFL in fact comprised only the skilled trades. Almost at once, therefore, the trade union movement encountered a dilemma: How to square ideological aspirations against contrary institutional realities?

Discrimination in The Labor Movement

As sweeping technological change began to undermine the craft system of production, some national unions did move toward an industrial structure, most notably in coal mining and the garment trades. But most craft unions either refused or, as in iron and steel and in meat-packing, failed to organize the less skilled. And since skill lines tended to conform to racial, ethnic and gender divisions, the trade union movement took on a racist and sexist coloration as well. For a short period, the AFL resisted that tendency. But in 1895, unable to launch an interracial machinists' union of its own, the Federation reversed an earlier principled decision and chartered the whites-only International Association of Machinists. Formally or informally, the color bar thereafter spread throughout the trade union movement. In 1902, blacks made up scarcely 3 percent of total membership, most of them segregated in Jim Crow locals. In the case of women and eastern European immigrants, a similar devolution occurred-welcomed as equals in theory, excluded or segregated in practice. (Only the fate of Asian workers was unproblematic; their rights had never been asserted by the AFLin the first place.)

Samuel Gompers

Gompers justified the subordination of principle to organizational reality on the constitutional grounds of "trade autonomy," by which each national union was assured the right to regulate its own internal affairs. But the organizational dynamism of the labor movement was in fact located in the national unions. Only as they experienced inner change might the labor movement expand beyond the narrow limits-roughly 10 percent of the labor force-at which it stabilized before World War I.

In the political realm, the founding doctrine of pure-and-simple unionism meant an arm's-length relationship to the state and the least possible entanglement in partisan politics. A total separation had, of course, never been seriously contemplated; some objectives, such as immigration restriction, could be achieved only through state action, and the predecessor to the AFL, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (1881), had in fact been created to serve as labor's lobbying arm in Washington. Partly because of the lure of progressive labor legislation, even more in response to increasingly damaging court attacks on the trade unions, political activity quickened after 1900. With the enunciation of Labor's Bill of Grievances (1906), the AFL laid down a challenge to the major parties. Henceforth it would campaign for its friends and seek the defeat of its enemies.

This nonpartisan entry into electoral politics, paradoxically, undercut the left-wing advocates of an independent working-class politics. That question had been repeatedly debated within theAFL, first in 1890 over Socialist Labor party representation, then in 1893-1894 over an alliance with the Populist Party and after 1901 over affiliation with the Socialist party of America. Although Gompers prevailed each time, he never found it easy. Now, as labor's leverage with the major parties began to pay off, Gompers had an effective answer to his critics on the left: the labor movement could not afford to waste its political capital on socialist parties or independent politics. When that nonpartisan strategy failed, as it did in the reaction following World War I, an independent political strategy took hold, first through the robust campaigning of the Conference for Progressive Political Action in 1922, and in 1924 through labor's endorsement of Robert La Follette on the Progressive ticket. By then, however, the Republican administration was moderating its hard line, evident especially in Herbert Hoover's efforts to resolve the simmering crises in mining and on the railroads. In response, the trade unions abandoned the Progressive party, retreated to nonpartisanship, and, as their power waned, lapsed into inactivity.

The Labor Movement and The Great Depression
WATCH: Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal
It took the Great Depression to knock the labor movement off dead center. The discontent of industrial workers, combined with New Deal collective bargaining legislation, at last brought the great mass production industries within striking distance. When the craft unions stymied the ALF's organizing efforts, John L. Lewis of the United Mine Workers and his followers broke away in 1935 and formed the Committee for Industrial Organization (CIO), which crucially aided the emerging unions in auto, rubber, steel and other basic industries. In 1938 the CIO was formally established as the Congress of Industrial Organizations. By the end of World War II, more than 12 million workers belonged to unions and collective bargaining had taken hold throughout the industrial economy.

In politics, its enhanced power led the union movement not to a new departure but to a variant on the policy of nonpartisanship. As far back as the Progressive Era, organized labor had been drifting toward the Democratic party, partly because of the latter's greater programmatic appeal, perhaps even more because of its ethno-cultural basis of support within an increasingly "new" immigrant working class. With the coming of Roosevelt's New Deal, this incipient alliance solidified, and from 1936 onward the Democratic Party could count on-and came to rely on-the campaigning resources of the labor movement.

Collective Bargaining

That this alliance partook of the nonpartisan logic of Gompers's authorship-too much was at stake for organized labor to waste its political capital on third parties-became clear in the unsettled period of the early cold war. Not only did theCIO oppose the Progressive party of 1948, but it expelled the left-wing unions that broke ranks and supported Henry Wallace for the presidency that year.

The formation of the AFL-CIOin 1955 visibly testified to the powerful continuities persisting through the age of industrial unionism. Above all, the central purpose remained what it had always been-to advance the economic and job interests of the union membership. Collective bargaining performed impressively after World War II, more than tripling weekly earnings in manufacturing between 1945 and 1970, gaining for union workers an unprecedented measure of security against old age, illness and unemployment, and, through contractual protections, greatly strengthening their right to fair treatment at the workplace. But if the benefits were greater and if they went to more people, the basic job-conscious thrust remained intact. Organized labor was still a sectional movement, covering at most only a third of America's wage earners and inaccessible to those cut off in the low-wage secondary labor market.

Women and Minorities in the Labor Movement

Nothing better captures the uneasy amalgam of old and new in the postwar labor movement than the treatment of minorities and women who flocked in, initially from the mass production industries, but after 1960 from the public and service sectors as well. Labor's historic commitment to racial and gender equality was thereby much strengthened, but not to the point of challenging the status quo within the labor movement itself. Thus the leadership structure remained largely closed to minorities-as did the skilled jobs that were historically the preserve of white male workers-notoriously so in the construction trades but in the industrial unions as well. Yet the AFL-CIOplayed a crucial role in the battle for civil rights legislation in 1964-1965. That this legislation might be directed against discriminatory trade union practices was anticipated (and quietly welcomed) by the more progressive labor leaders. But more significant was the meaning they found in championing this kind of reform: the chance to act on the broad ideals of the labor movement. And, so motivated, they deployed labor's power with great effect in the achievement of John F. Kennedy's and Lyndon B. Johnson 's domestic programs during the 1960s.

Decline in Unions

This was ultimately economic, not political power, however, and as organized labor's grip on the industrial sector began to weaken, so did its political capability. From the early 1970s onward, new competitive forces swept through the heavily unionized industries, set off by deregulation in communications and transportation, by industrial restructuring and by an unprecedented onslaught of foreign goods. As oligopolistic and regulated market structures broke down, nonunion competition spurted, concession bargaining became widespread and plant closings decimated union memberships. The once-celebrated National Labor Relations Act increasingly hamstrung the labor movement; an all-out reform campaign to get the law amended failed in 1978. And with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, there came to power an anti-union administration the likes of which had not been seen since the Harding era.

Between 1975 and 1985, union membership fell by 5 million. In manufacturing, the unionized portion of the labor force dropped below 25 percent, while mining and construction, once labor's flagship industries, were decimated. Only in the public sector did the unions hold their own. By the end of the 1980s, less than 17 percent of American workers were organized, half the proportion of the early 1950s.

The labor movement has never been swift to change. But if the new high-tech and service sectors seemed beyond its reach in 1989, so did the mass production industries in 1929. There is a silver lining: Compared to the old AFL, organized labor is today much more diverse and broadly based: In 2018, of the 14.7 million wage and salary workers who were part of a union (compared to 17.7 million in 1983), 25 percent are women and 28 percent are Black.

Sources

TED: The Economics Daily. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The origins of the labor movement lay in the formative years of the American nation, when a free wage-labor market emerged in the artisan trades late in the colonial period. The earliest recorded strike occurred in 1768 when New York journeymen tailors protested a wage reduction.

# 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
The American Presidential Election of 1912

# 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
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

# data[].attributes.subject
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We're now ready to talk about one of the most famous events in all of world history that really was the trigger for World War I, or the Great War, as it was called back then. So just as a little bit of backdrop, in 1908, the Austro-Hungarian Empire formally annexes Bosnia and Herzegovina. It had already been occupying it since the late 1800s, since the Ottomans were being pushed out. But then in 1908, it formally annexes it. And just as a little bit more backdrop, as the Ottomans were being pushed out of the Balkans, it helped rekindle or bring about more hope of unifying the Yugoslavic people, the southern Slavic people. When people talk about Yugoslav, they're literally talking about the southern Slavs. So that literally means southern. So you had these nationalistic hopes. But now in 1908, it was already being occupied. A significant state, that would be part of a potential future Yugoslav, was now formally annexed by the Austro-Hungarians. Now, you also had an independent kingdom of Serbia right here. And you can imagine that this was the home base of the nationalistic movement. If only they could add the other southern Slavic states to this, it could one day turn into a greater Yugoslavia. So in that context, we get to 1914. So let me draw a little line here. So we're getting to 1914. June 28, which is one of the most famous dates in all of history. And you have the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie. They're visiting Sarajevo which is now in annexed Bosnia. And when they are there, there is a ploy. There is a scheme to assassinate them, from a group-- they're called the Young Bosnians. They have ties to the Black Hand, which is this nationalistic group. That has ties, many, many people say-- all these things are all very shady and behind the back, behind the scenes. But it has ties to elements in the kingdom of Serbia. They attempt to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand. And it's actually a fascinating story because the initial assassination attempt is completely, completely botched. There's even one case of a guy, one of the guys who tried to be an assassin when it gets botched, he tries to bite on a cyanide capsule and then jump into a river. The cyanide capsule had gone bad. The river was only 10 inches deep. And so they were able to get their hands on him. And one of the conspirators, Gavrilo Princip-- at this point, once the whole thing was botched, he gives up on the whole assassination attempt. And he's having, literally, a sandwich at a cafe in Sarajevo, thinking about how botched their whole attempt was. And while that was happening, a mistake on the part of those planning Archduke Franz Ferdinand's route as he was traveling within Sarajevo has them driving right near Gavrilo Princip. So he sees, all of a sudden, that they've taken the wrong route, that they're driving right by him again. Remember, his people already knew that there was an assassination attempt on him earlier in the day. So they should have been more careful. Now, Gavrilo Princip gets up, puts his sandwich down, and starts walking over to where he sees Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Sophie's car going. Now, the drivers, once they realized that they had made a mistake, they had taken a less safe route. They tried to back up, which makes things even worse because then the car starts stalling. And Gavrilo Princip literally walks up to the car and is able to shoot Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Sophie. And just to give you a sense of how important this is, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria is the heir. He's the nephew of Franz Josef, who was the ruler of Austria-Hungary. And so he is the heir to the empire. And so he gets assassinated by Gavrilo Princip. So Franz Ferdinand assassinated by Gavrilo Princip. And we have right over here a picture right after Gavrilo Princip-- I believe this is Gavrilo Princip right over here, right after he was arrested. And just to get a little sense of how this was tied to this whole Yugoslavian nationalistic movement. This is what he said once he was arrested. "I am a Yugoslav nationalist, aiming for the unification of all Yugoslavs, and I do not care what form of state, but it must be free of Austria." So this act, this assassination motivated by a nationalistic movement, motivated by a desire to maybe merge Bosnia and Herzegovina with Serbia and maybe eventually Croatia, with Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. This assassination, as we'll see in the next video, is the trigger for all of World War I. And the reason why it triggers it is because, well, there's many things you can cite. You could argue that many of the empires in Europe were already militarizing, already had a desire for conflict. But then you also had all of these alliances that essentially allowed the dominoes to fall in all of Europe. And because they had these empires, essentially much of the world to be at war with each other.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We're now ready to talk about one of the most famous events in all of world history that really was the trigger for World War I, or the Great War, as it was called back then. So just as a little bit of backdrop, in 1908, the Austro-Hungarian Empire formally annexes Bosnia and Herzegovina.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Fourteen Points speech of President Woodrow Wilson was an address delivered before a joint meeting of Congress on January 8, 1918, during which Wilson outlined his vision for a stable, long-lasting peace in Europe, the Americas and the rest of the world following World War I.

Wilson's proposal called for the victorious Allies to set unselfish peace terms with the vanquished Central Powers of World War I, including freedom of the seas, the restoration of territories conquered during the war and the right to national self-determination in such contentious regions as the Balkans.

The devastation and carnage of the First World War grimly illustrated to Wilson the unavoidable relationship between international stability and American national security.

At the same time, he sought to placate American isolationists by stating that the world must "be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world as against force and selfish aggression."

What Were the Fourteen Points?

In his speech, Wilson itemized 14 strategies to ensure national security and world peace. Several points addressed specific territorial issues in Europe, but the most significant sections set the tone for postwar American diplomacy and the ideals that would form the backbone of U.S. foreign policy as the nation achieved superpower status in the early 20th century.

Wilson could foresee that international relations would only become more important to American security and global commerce. He advocated equal trade conditions, arms reduction and national sovereignty for former colonies of Europe's weakening empires.

One of Wilson's purposes in delivering the Fourteen Points speech was to present a practical alternative to the traditional notion of an international balance of power preserved by alliances among nations-belief in the viability of which had been shattered by World War I-and to the Bolshevik-inspired dreams of world revolution that at the time were gaining ground both within and outside of Russia.

Wilson hoped also to keep a conflict-ridden Russia in the war on the Allied side. This effort met with failure, as the Bolsheviks sought peace with the Central Powers at the end of 1917, shortly after taking power following the Russian Revolution.

In other ways, however, Wilson's Fourteen Points played an essential role in world politics over the next several years. The speech was translated and distributed to the soldiers and citizens of Germany and Austria-Hungary and contributed to their decision to agree to an armistice in November 1918.

Treaty of Versailles

Like the man himself, Wilson's Fourteen Points were liberal, democratic and idealistic. He spoke in grand and inspiring terms, but was less certain of the specifics of how his aims would be achieved.

At the Paris Peace Conference, Wilson had to contend with the leaders of the other victorious Allied nations, who disagreed with many of the Fourteen Points and demanded stiff penalties for Germany in the Treaty of Versailles.

Importantly, Wilson urged the establishment of an international governing body of united nations for the purpose of guaranteeing political independence and territorial integrity to great and small countries alike. His idea gave birth to the short-lived League of Nations. The more viable United Nations would come into existence only after the conclusion of another devastating global conflict: World War II.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Fourteen Points speech of President Woodrow Wilson was an address delivered before a joint meeting of Congress on January 8, 1918, during which Wilson outlined his vision for a stable, long-lasting peace in Europe, the Americas and the rest of the world following World War I.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Treaty of Versailles | Definition, Summary, Terms, & Facts | Britannica

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Treaty of Versailles, peace document signed at the end of World War I by the Allied powers and Germany in the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles, France, on June 28, 1919; it took force on January 10, 1920. Learn more about the Treaty of Versailles here.