I get to be the car!

Module: 10

From the 1830's to the 1930's the United States economy was in a cycle of crisis. The gap between rich and poor was growing and the expanding population was in a state of unrest, the civil war was more about the have versus the have-nots, than it was about slavery. The creation and stability of the monopolies was made possible by the Federal Government and it's policies: The Pacific Railroad Survey Act, The Morrill Tariff, The Homestead Act, and The Pacific Railroad Bill, along with a corrupt congress helped perpetuate the cycle for more than a century.

In 1853 congressed passed the Pacific Railroad Survey Act appropriating four hundred thousand dollars to find the easiest and cheapest route from the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean. (Hine, P280) The result was that all four of the surveys they did were equally satisfactory for building the line. It wasn't until the southern states seceded from the union that President Lincoln made his decision to route the railways in the north, it is what the Beards would call "the second American Revolution."[1] This was a shift from agrarian to industrial and economic expansion.

The Morrill Tariff of 1861 passed by congress made foreign products more expensive and enabled American manufacturers to charge whatever price they wanted, and forced consumers to pay more. (Zinn, P174) With competition for selling goods low, the few had the power and the capital gains to grow and decide the profits and prices, these monopolistic enterprises would survive the chaotic system that was in place, every ten to fifteen years was another depression, which brought a new set of deaths by disease, starvation, crime, but the big business owners who held the market in check. The Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Morgans, Astor, etc would be just fine, Cornelius Vanderbilt left his son 100 million dollars on his death in 1877, a time when the average wage was $1.75 for a twelve hour shift. With the gap between the rich and the poor so great, it is understandable why the socialist and communist movements gained so much favor in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The Homestead Act of 1862 was first proposed by Thomas Jefferson. This Act signed into law by Lincoln, was to revitalize the preemption act of 1841 and give western settlers 160 acres of land for free provided they lived on the land for five years and built a house and improved the land then paid a ten dollar fee; they could also opt to pay after six months $1.25 per acre to get a fast title to the land. The idea was to empower the people, the "yeoman farmers" to solidify the country of the people, for the people. The south was opposed to the Homestead Act, as it cut into plantation expansion and profits. The biggest problem with the Homestead Act was the corrupt abuse of the system, where corporate fraud hired immigrants to be a "front" for a mass land grab in non-agricultural areas where they could buy up millions of acres and control the water, minerals, and other precious resources.

The Pacific Railroad Bill will forever be a black stain on American government. The corruption throughout congress and with the Union Pacific and Central Pacific Railroads to conspire against the American people is greed at it's worst and capitalism at it's lowest. The government really wanted the transcontinental railroad to be built, and afraid that no one would risk that kind of venture, and being expansionist, they didn't want to take on the job, but rather bid it out. The government provided no risk incentives and opened the door (as well as hid the details) for greed and corruption to thrive. The railroads were given ten square miles of land (later upped to 20 square miles) for every mile of track they laid, they were given loans to build the tracks on 30 year bonds at a set 6% interest rate, and given bonuses for finishing goals on time. The railroad moguls (Huntington, Hopkins, Stanford, and Crocker..the big 4) would defraud the people by telling investors where the track was going, selling them the land, then giving someone else the same deal in a different area, collecting cash from many people who thought the rails would pass their land. The railroads also created dummy corporations like the Credit Mobilier and the Credit Finance Corporation where they could charge three times the actual amount, giving the stockholders (the big 4) huge dividends, claim loss' on their taxes for the railroads, finally declare bankruptcy on the dummy corporations and steal all the money and the land with the only expense being to pay off the congress.

The Federal Government created the monopolies and ensured a chaotic economic system for many years, not only did their policies support big business, but the laws of the nation backed them up. Eminent domain was used frequently to take away from the yeoman farmer and give to the railroad moguls, there was no support for workers safety in the industrial revolution, where machines were not only taking jobs away from people, they were injuring or killing them and no laws to protect the people. The health laws were non existent so the poor people had to drink sewage water, wade through two feet of garbage to walk down the street, and had to live in disease infested basements. Zinn tells us that "In premodern times, the maldistribution of wealth was accomplished by simple force. In modern times, exploitation is disguised-it is accomplished by law, which has the look of neutrality and fairness." (Zinn P.175)



Sources:
[1] Charles A. Beard, "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States"(The Free Press, New York. 1913)

John Mack Faragher et al., Out of Many: A History of the American People 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 2006) ch. 14

Robert V. Hine & John Mack Faragher, The American West: A new interpretive history (Yale University Press, 2000).

Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States: Volume one: American Beginnings to Reconstruction (New York, The New Press, 2003) P.113-124


The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, "Monopoly" George J. Stigler 1999,2002 http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/Monopoly.html (accessed November 17th, 2007)

Living Constitution

Constitution: Module 6



Carl Jung said "[growth can not occur without struggle and change]" and since its creation, the United States Constitution has indeed grown, but not without the struggles and changes of America. While the framers may have made mistakes, fallen short of their potential, and may have acted hypocritical to their beliefs, they left us with a masterpiece that is in and of itself alive. The Constitution was drafted to protect the "people" of the United States, not only in the framers time, but for all time.

The framers did not take the Constitution lightly, and it was no easy task to draw a document that would make all 13 colonies "states" happy; they could not possibly accomplish all that they had hoped to within their time, but they were genius enough to write it to not only protect itself and the "people" but to enable it to be changed, adapted to new times, and allowed to grow to the social needs of the day. Yale Law School's Akhil Reed Amar, professor of Constitutional Law, believes we should all take a look at the Constitution with "fresh" eyes, that the "conventional Constitution" is not the same as the framers wrote it; we are afforded many more rights that we believe. A video of Amar at the National Constitution Center can be seen here. With every amendment and every referendum we act upon the charge the framers left for us; to build a better country.

I have to mention that even though the Constitution was made to give "we the people" the power of our country, it is self serving to the power of the government. The framers needed a way to control the new country to ensure economic and political security. Congress blatantly wrested power from the people in 1798 with the Alien and Sedition Acts smacking the first amendment in the face by allowing "free speech" unless it was something that those in charge did not want to hear; luckily Jefferson deemed them unconstitutional and repealed them a couple years later, but the point is the government will always serve to protect itself first, it is up to the people to be the watchdogs and check the checks and balances.

Interpretation of the Constitution is debated daily, in forums all over the country but ultimately the Judicial branch has the final say on "what the constitution means" but the check here is "we the people" have a say on "who sits on the bench". The basic command of the Constitution that needs no interpretation is: all people must be treated fairly and equally, with no discrimination. (Irons) The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) clearly show intent that the "people" have the power and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property) some day we may even get it right.

I know I have oversimplified all of these issues, but the point of my blog or "rant" is that while the framers may not have delivered all they wanted to, the Constitution is here working for us, all we have to do is read it and apply it when necessary and keep a vigilant eye on those with the power. I am by no means anti-government or a strict originalist, but I do feel that those who are able should watch over those who are unable, and it is in our best interest to share the knowledge and power of this nation so we do not get trapped into the cliche of the empires and crumble because we got greedy.

Lee.

sources:

Akhil Reed Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography. (Random House ,September 13, 2005)

Akhil Reed Amar, For The People: What The Constitution Really Says About Your Rights. (New York, The Free Press, 1998)

John Mack Faragher et al., Out of Many: A History of the American People 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 2006)

Peter Irons, A People's History of the Supreme Court. (Penguin Putnam Inc., New York, 1999)

Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States: Volume one: American Beginnings to Reconstruction (New York, The New Press, 2003)

The National Archives Experience, “The Charters of Freedom”, “The Constitution of the United States”http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html (accessed September 20, 2007)

Google Video, The National Constitution Center, www.constitutioncenter.org, "Akhil Reed Amar" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1761106669261726811&q=akhil+reed+amar&total=6&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

(accessed October 11, 2007)

Slavery: Why did it take so long to end it in America?

Module 4
Slavery
By: Lee Davenport


As I think about the Atlantic slave trade where African people were commodities to be traded along with rice, sugar, tobacco, etc.. I have a hard time staying objective when trying to write this blog. The slave trade triangle in the Atlantic from roughly 1450-1900, nearly fifty million Africans were killed or enslaved. (Zinn, P.26) I was trying to build a relative time line in my mind to compare the slave trade with other events going on in the world at the time so I revisited the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States which I will use as my primary sources for this post. (Click the pictures for the documents.)
As I read and reflected on these empire shaping documents, I can not help but notice some contradictions of words on words and words on actions. I have known my entire life that slavery was and is wrong; is it the society we live in?, is it the point in human evolution where we finally understand the evils of enslavement and forced labor? or are we just a fluke in a bubble and in a hundred years slavery will be the norm again? I say no to all the above, I believe that we as a race, a human race, have known since the beginning of conscious thought that enslavement is wrong. So why then in modern "civilized" times when the world was creating such beautiful works of art and architecture, had stabilized governments and empires, and had written laws and consequence did it take so long for slavery to end in America?

In the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence it says " We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" ("the pursuit of property" was how Thomas Jefferson originally penned it. ) The point here is that in 1776, the founders and framers of our nation knew that slavery was wrong, they knew it had to be changed, they wrote it down and signed it for all to see, but did nothing to stop it. The last sentence in the Preamble Jefferson writes "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security." I do not believe it is a coincidence that the word "despotism" is used here, as it means a single authority rules while everyone else are slaves. This statement also means that those with the power to change the wrongs, have the duty, and responsibility to change them.

Eleven years later the Constitution of the United States was written (another chance to end what they all knew to be wrong) Article 4: Section 2 states " No Person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be do." says state lines will not help slaves escape servitude. This Article was amended some eighty years later in 1865, that is two years after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of 1863. It boggles my mind how an issue of such importance can be swept under the rug for a century after the founders proclaimed it was wrong. Even after the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution was in place and completely abolishing slavery, there was nothing done to make the "freedmen equal to whites under the law." (Unger, P.425)

300 years before the United States was a sovereign Nation, slavery was big business; shipping millions of people to the Americas as slaves knowing it was a crime against humanity (Antonio de Montesinos, Bartolome de las Casas, et. al.) and after the Declaration of Independence was penned and signed stating slavery was wrong but kept it in place, and a century later when President Lincoln abolished slavery and the Constitution was amended former slaves now "brown races" were still not equal. Jump ahead for a minute another hundred years, the 1960's STILL had segregation and mass scale racism in the United States of America, why? I am afraid I am at a loss for a logical conclusion in regards to why after so many centuries of American history did slavery still exist. One could argue that the economy and "free market" was built on slavery and servitude and that everything may have collapsed if it was handled in the beginning, but we will never know because they did not try.

Sources used:

Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States: Volume one: American Beginnings to Reconstruction (New York, The New Press, 2003) P.26

John Mack Faragher et al., Out of Many: A History of the American People 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 2006) P. 41, 82-113

Irwin Unger, These United States: The Questions of our Past: Volume II: Since 1865 (New Jersey, Prentice Hall,1989) P.420-426

The National Archives Experience, “The Charters of Freedom”, “The Declaration of Independence”http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html (accessed September 20, 2007)

The National Archives Experience, “The Charters of Freedom”, “The Constitution of the United States”http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html (accessed September 20, 2007)

The way we think about history

The way we think about history:

Module 3

By, Lee Davenport.

We are all familiar with the common quotes like “History is written by the victors” (Winston Churchill) and “History is a set of lies agreed upon” (Napoleon Bonaparte) and overall that is the way things have been written, from the point of view of the victors, conquerors, and literate. Modern history it seems is taking a turn for the better (in my humble opinion) in that more authors are taking what traditionalist are calling a “liberal approach” to history is in fact a compilation of unheard voices rather than the mighty few. This is by no means a new way to write and tell history; Aristotle in his Poetics argues that poetry is better than history because it tells of things that should be true rather than what is true “to bring about a greater good or ward off a greater evil” (Aristotle; Poetics P.51) and a century earlier Herodotus and The Histories (the father of history), told us that history was meant to teach us tales of morality, give us good lessons to follow, so we may learn and grow in the future. Back and forth the styles for telling history has gone, but in the 21^st century we are getting a “full” picture with historians like Zinn, Hine, Faragher, Einhorn..etc. Hopefully the days of “distinguished authors” like Samuel Eliot Morison are a thing of the past.

"The treatment of heroes (Columbus) and their victims (the Arawaks)-the quiet acceptance of conquest and murder in the name of progress-is only one aspect of a certain approach to history, in which the past is told from the point of view of governments, conquerors, diplomats, leaders. It is as if they, like Columbus, deserve universal acceptance, as if they-the Founding Fathers, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, the leading members of Congress, the famous Justices of the Supreme Court-represent the nation as a whole. The pretense is that there really is such a thing as 'the United States,' subject to occasional conflicts and quarrels, but fundamentally a community of people with common interests. It is as if there really is a 'national interest' represented in the Constitution, in territorial expansion, in the laws passed by Congress, the decisions of the courts, the development of capitalism, the culture of education and the mass media. (Zinn, P.10) In this statement we see the “victors” or “big voices” penned as the “Heroes” and “founders” but to me a “hero” doesn’t have “victims” and a founder usually takes the credit for the blood and sweat of many others, but at least we see the word “victims” in there for the Arawaks (Tainos), a few years ago the sentence may have read “ The treatment of heroes (Columbus) and [the ones they liberated] (the Arawaks)” again this points out the crucial importance of hearing all available voices before we Penn our history for the next generation.

“History is the memory of states” wrote Henry Kissinger in his first book, A World Restored. (Zinn, P.10) and while we may not like this, it is ultimately true. It is up to today’s historians, as well as all social scientists to change that memory to accurately reflect the entire story. I think we have to start changing the way we educate our children, starting with the “big” things like Columbus as a hero. We do not have to show them the gruesome details at a young age, but we certainly should not lie to them about what we know to be false. Somewhere between Aristotle’s Poetics and Morison’s minimization there is truth, balance, and a great story.

Sources:

Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States: Volume one: American Beginnings to Reconstruction (New York, The New Press, 2003) 8-12

Kenneth Telford, Aristotle’s Poetics: Translation and Analysis (United States, Library of Congress, 1965) 51

Aubrey de Selincourt, Herodotus: The Histories (Baltimore, Maryland, Penguin, 1966)

Medieval Sourcebook: Columbus’ letter to the King and Queen of Spain, 1494, Paul Halsall Mar 1996 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/columbus2.html (accessed Sept 9th, 2007)

Geographic Determinism

Geographic Determinism

Module 2

Lee Davenport

Jared Diamond, Pulitzer Prize winner for his novel Guns, Germs, and Steel, analyzes human evolution for the last thirteen thousand years based on geography. The question of technological evolution and the different rates of progression/development in different areas of the world are answered by Dr. Diamond with the help of genetics, molecular biology, biogeography, archaeology, and linguistics. He offers steel swords, guns, horses, disease, isolation, and ships as the primary reasons some civilizations were able to easily conquer others. (A Talk by Jared Diamond) In the Americas, I believe there were other additional factors that made possible the conquest by the Spanish, French, and English.

As early as 500 years before Columbus and the Spanish arrived in the Caribbean and set up a base camp, the Norsemen (Vikings from Iceland and Greenland) reached the Western Hemisphere in what is now the North East United States and South East Canada. With them they brought steel swords, horses, diseases unknown to the native peoples, and seafaring technology. Early Explorers Why then did they not conquer the native peoples like the other invading Europeans did? I believe there were many factors (beyond Dr. Diamonds examples) why the Europeans were successful at conquering the Americas; Timing, settled farming communities, native help, and ancient beliefs all helped make possible the history we know today, it could have very easily gone in a different direction.

The union of Isabella and Ferdinand and the victory crusade in Iberia in 1492 led to the formation of the Christian state of Spain. With seasoned warriors, the momentum of victory, and a lust for the fabled riches of the west, the timing was now right for Spain to look westward to expand its empire. (Hine, Faragher P.14) Columbus landed in the Bahamas in October and met the Tainos Indians, a peaceful, welcoming, farming community. With better weapons and the arrogant assumption that their culture was far superior to that of the Tainos, the Spanish conquered them and moved in. The settled farming communities made it possible for the Spanish (as well as later Europeans) to settle with the assurance they would have supplies through the winter. (Hine, Faragher P.7) This would also serve as a base camp for future conquests. Native help for the Europeans came in the form of “common enemies” like that of the Tlaxcalan warriors who were being oppressed by the Aztecs, and individuals like Malintzin who having been treated poorly by here people took sides with the Spanish and Cortes. Montezuma II (the Emperor of the Aztecs) could have wiped out Cortes and his army early on, but an ancient myth* coincided with the timing of the Spanish arrival so Montezuma invited Cortes and his army into the city. The Spanish after being welcomed into Tenochtitlan, attacked the Aztec Nobility and started the conquest of what is now Mexico City. (Hine, Faragher P.21-22)

While I agree with Dr. Jared Diamond that the geography played an important role in technological development, and that in turn helped determine what cultures expanded and took over other lands, I believe in some areas (the Americas for example) that many other factors played just as big of a role in the unfolding of history.

Sources:
John Mack Faragher et al., Out of Many: A History of the American People 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 2006)

Robert V. Hine & John Mack Faragher, The American West: A new interpretive history (Yale University Press, 2000).

Edge, "A Talk by Jared Diamond" [April 23, 1997]http://webct.dvc.edu/SCRIPT/HIST120_5180_FA07/scripts/serve_home

History.com, Encyclopedia: "Early Explorers of the Western Hemisphere"http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=227329

Introduction

In an attempt to hone my writing skills I will be writing reviews of graduate level history books. This blog was started about five years ago with the same goal in mind of learning how to better communicate through the written word. Hopefully there is a significant difference in quality from then to now.

Lee~