American History – notes in timeline and presidential order 101

“THE GILDED AGE” – the 1880s and 1890s • Mark Twain called the late 19th century the "Gilded Age." By this term, he meant that this time period was glittering on the

surface but that there was a lot of corruption underneath. • In the popular view, the late 19th century was a period of greed and devious guile: a time of insatiably greedy “robber barons,”

unscrupulous speculators (meaning investors), and corporate buccaneers, who indulged in shady business practices, scandal-plagued politics, greed in their business management, and vulgar display.

• The vast majority of people in the population were workers. o Industrial workers mostly lived in the cities and worked long hours (often 12 to 15 hours per day) for low pay, often in

dirty and unsafe environments. o Farmers or farm workers were often poor (even though many – especially in the newly settled farms in the plains areas –

owned their own farms). They were very vulnerable to changes in the market price of their products (and bad weather). • In many ways, it is more useful to think of this particular period as the foundation layer for what became modern America. During

this time, the farming and agriculture-based economy of early-days America changed into a much more modern society and economy dominated by corporations, which owned the industries.

• The late 19th century saw the creation of a major national transportation network and fast communications (e.g., intercontinental railroad and coast-to-coast telegraph, 1869). In the 1880s and 1890s, there were further technological developments:

o New communication technologies were developed, including the telephone. o New entertainment and information technologies developed, including the typewriter and “silent movies.” The light bulb

was improved, and electrical systems were installed in cities to light the streets at night (big improvement over gas lights). o The development of steel mills [like Andrew Carnagie’s US Steel] led to a number of products for farms (like plows and

barbed wire). “Skyscrapers” began to be built in cities using steel beams to support their tall-building structures. o There were even new sports that became popular during this era, including basketball, bicycling, and football. o New transportation technologies began to be developed in the cities, like trolley cars (first horse-drawn, then electric).

A More Industrialized and Growing Economy • By the beginning of the 20th century (i.e., 1900), per capita income [e.g., the amount of income earned per person] and industrial

production in the United States was greater than that of any other country in the world except Britain. • The trust (or, as we now call it, the corporation) became the dominant form of business organization in America. A whole new

approach to practical management changed business operations, such as those adopted by Andrew Carnagie (pp. 446-47), who was constantly improving his steel mills, trying to turn out a better product at lower cost. Carnagie was also an example of the

American History – notes in timeline and presidential order 102

industrial leader of this era in his determination to control as much of his chosen field (i.e., the steel industry) as possible. For example, he bought out his rivals or deliberately undersold them to drive them out of business whenever he got the chance. He also developed what is called an “integrated operation,” meaning that he controlled all the resources that allowed him to manage his product and everything that went into it every step of the way. (For example, Carnagie owned coal and iron mines, ore freighters, and railroad lines.) By the turn of the century, Carnagie was producing 25% of all the steel made in America. His corporation, United States Steel, was the largest business organization in the world at the time.) (pp. 446 – 47)

New Business Methods Business practices were hard for most people to understand. Most of the public understood very well, though, that the rich owners had all kinds of ways to keep control of their companies, make it hard for smaller businesses to compete, and avoid either government rules or taxes on their money that gave them advantages the ordinary person didn’t have.] (pp. 446-447; cartoon p. 448) • For example, Carnagie’s US Steel Co. was a holding company. US Steel didn’t

actually make steel. Instead, it sold stock and used the money it raised to control and operate the companies it owned that were making steel.

• Another way to accomplish much the same thing – that is, keeping the money management and shares of profits separate from the manufacturing process – was by means of a trust agreement, in which the owners (or stockholders) of two or more companies would turn all their stock over to a group of trustees. In return, the stockholders would receive “trust certificates” that allowed them to claim specific amounts of the profits of the combined companies. Meanwhile, the trustees (also called the “board of trustees”) would run the various companies as if they were one company. [Today, the word “trusts” usually relates to matters involving an inheritance, or money passed on through a will.]

• Yet another form of business management was the interlocking directorate, an arrangement with directors of one company also serving as directors of another firm. The two companies could be owned by two different people or even by corporations but because they had the same directors, they operated in the same way.

“Tryyourstrength,gents.Theharderyouhitit,thehigheritgoes.”[Theconsumerisbeinghitbytariffs,wieldedbythebigtrusts,makingtheirprofitsgohigher.]

American History – notes in timeline and presidential order 103

• By 1900, the trusts dominated about 80% of American industry. Most were very big businesses. [For example, about 2% of the companies made 50% of products sold. That means a very few companies made and sold more than half of all products.]

Business Philosophy A number of new ideas were introduced in this era that affected the way people interpreted business and how people get ahead in life. • Biological Findings. In 1859, Charles Darwin – an English botanist – published a book called On the Origin of Species by

Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. This book was usually called The Origin of Species for short. It was a major sensation, partly because it differed from the traditional way of looking at evolution. (Basically, at that time, most people believed that God made all the creatures on earth exactly as they are and that nothing had or would ever change). Darwin's book introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection, wherein the most successful of species survive, adapt, and change and the least successful die out. Darwin’s book presented a body of evidence that the diversity of life arose by means of common descent through a branching pattern of evolution, from earlier and more primitive ancestors to modern-day creatures. (The very idea was so controversial that Darwin’s first versions didn’t even mention the word “evolution” and did not talk about humans or race.) Eventually, the branch or “family tree” of humans was introduced into scientists’ discussions and botanists said that humans most likely came from the family of primates, and that somewhere far back in history, humans and primates (like African apes) shared a common ancestor. This was highly controversial at the time. (pp. 448 – 49).

• Within 20 years, there was widespread scientific agreement that evolution, with a branching pattern of common descent, had occurred. Many people agreed with all that, but disagreed that humans had “evolved” from a family tree that included primates. This was the start of an ideological “war” between science and religion. [Parts of that “war” are still ongoing today.]

• One problem was that as Darwin’s ideas spread, some people used these ideas to explain “survival of the fittest” in terms of business and/or social success.

o In business, Herbert Spencer’s book First Principles (published 1862) applied Darwin’s biological observations to other situations – such as the competition of the marketplace, saying said that the natural law of “survival of the fittest” meant that this process shouldn’t be meddled with (by governments, or labor unions, for example). Spencer said that the government should leave business alone and that the best and most productive would be the ones that survived, while others fell by the wayside. The fact that some people were richer and more powerful than others was part of the natural process, he said, and those weaklings who couldn’t compete deserved to lose out.

o Basically, Spencer’s idea was that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now discredited, Spencer’s “social Darwinism” was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform.

American History – notes in timeline and presidential order 104

o In popular literature, these ideas (a bit watered down) were applied as well. Horatio Alger, Jr. wrote more than 100 books that were bestsellers. (These books sold more than 100 million copies each.) Each book had a similar story in which a poor boy who had good manners, worked hard, and was honest was rewarded with success – and he often married the boss’s daughter as well. These kinds of stories are sometimes called “rags-to-riches” stories. Their popularity has rarely diminished over the ages and they’re still popular today (like “Cinderella,” etc.).

o Social Darwinism (pp. 448 – 49). During the Gilded Age, the whole “social Darwinism” idea was applied to the whole “climbing the social

ladder” idea of the way individuals succeed in life. The problem was that many people used these ideas to basically blame the poor for being poor. The “social

Darwinists” felt that if people were poor, they must be lazy or inferior workers, that it was their responsibility to improve themselves (like, by working harder and finding new opportunities to do better on their own).

An additional problem was that those who believed in “social Darwinism” often thought that that there was nothing wrong with the economic system as it stood. They thought that there was no need to unionize or pass legislation to change the way that businesses and financial systems operated. This meant that there was a lot of popular resistance to changing the way industries operated or how businesses did business.

“Social Darwinist” beliefs had other repercussions, too, because some people used these ideas to “prove” that some people were “better” than others (who were of a different race, gender, religion, etc.). This gave them “scientific” justification to say that people who were not like them were inferior and could be ignored (or much worse -- persecuted, barred from entering the country, or even killed). The basic problem was that if people had strong prejudices, the “social Darwinist” ideas could be used to give them an excuse to apply them.

The Panic of 1893 The financial collapse in the Panic of 1893 shook things up a bit. [We’ve discussed this previously. Like the Panic of 1873, this financial downturn was mostly caused by an abrupt collapse in South American businesses, related to the gold standard. It was a real problem in America – the most severe depression that had ever happened up to that point. Many businesses went under, many workers suddenly lost their jobs.) It’s mentioned here because it had political effects on various labor and Populist causes. Up to that point:

• The unions had tried to organize, with mixed success. (They’d had a couple of strikes, but the government sent troops and dealt severely with the strikers, killing a number of them.)

• Women had attempted to get the vote, but had not succeeded yet.

American History – notes in timeline and presidential order 105

• The farmers tried to organize and finally, in 1891, founded the National Peoples’ Party (as a third political party). This group was often called the Populist Party. They managed to come up with a fairly coherent platform of ideas that they wanted to see changed: (1) They wanted financial reform, especially in terms of cheaper money. (They wanted the govt to either print more paper

money or to allow currency made of silver.) They also wanted an income tax, higher on wealthier people. (2) They wanted transportation and communication reforms. (They wanted the govt to regulate the railroad fees and to take

over the telephone and telegraph system.) (3) They wanted government reforms, including the following:

a. direct popular election of U.S. Senators (which previously had been selected and appointed by state governors), b. single terms of office for Presidents and Vice-Presidents, c. voting by secret ballot, d. several measures that would allow the people to have more direct participation in government, including

• the initiative (allowing people to introduce bills in Congress by means of collecting signatures of voters on petitions);

• the recall (allowing voters to remove elected officials from office before their terms were completed by means of petitions for a special election)

• the referendum (allowing people to vote on bills that had been passed by the legislature) The Populist Party actually managed to get most of these passed – eventually.

[NOTE: Just to make things more confusing, the word “populist” is suddenly back in common use these days. Definition of populist: “those claiming to represent the will of the people.” Implied in this definition is that the will of the people is being expressed in opposition to their political leaders (seen as representing established interests in business, finance, or the privileged elite). What’s confusing is that the term populist is being used for the modern-day far right anti-immigrant movement in Europe -- like those led by Marine le Pen (France), Nigel Farage (UK), and Norbert Hofer (Austria) -- as well as in the US (for example, by alt-right white nationalists). The same term is also being used for the progressive left (like the Our Revolution movement of Bernie Sanders and also the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party). It can be very confusing to keep track of who’s who and whether the “populists” being discussed are right- or left-wing.]

American History – notes in timeline and presidential order 106

Cities Grew Rapidly and Immigrants Came to America in Droves • The “new immigrants” of the 1880s and 1890s came increasingly from southern and eastern Europe (like Hungary, Italy, Poland,

and Russia). (see chart, p. 497) These newcomers were often Catholic or Jewish and often didn’t speak English (as compared to earlier immigrants during the 1860s to 1880s, who had mostly come from northern and western Europe (like Ireland, Britain, Germany, Ireland, and Scandinavia).

• About half of the earlier immigrants had moved out to homestead lands on the Plains – but these cheap homestead lands were gone by the early 1880s. (see immigration location map on p. 499)

• Two-thirds of the newer immigrants two-thirds settled in US cities. They tended to hang on more strongly to their ethnic groups, languages, and religion than earlier western European immigrants had. These differences spurred a strong anti-immigrant reaction in some places, causing reactions and resentments for various reasons: economic, social, cultural, and “social Darwinist” reasons.

a. Economic reasons -- When American workers complained or called a strike, or when the economy got bad (like in 1893) and the businesses laid people off or cut their wages, then American workers were often replaced by immigrant workers, who usually were paid lower wages. American workers resented this, especially during the Panic of 1873, when jobs were harder to find. In addition, as the cities grew, it became harder for workers to afford housing. As more immigrants poured in, housing became even more scarce and more expensive. Most immigrants lived in tenement housing, which was often overcrowded, unsanitary, and unsafe. Most of the new immigrants had no other choice. (pp. 490-92).

b. Social reasons – Some Americans were deeply resentful of the new immigrants’ social, ethnic, and cultural traditions. Their religion, their food, their clothes – all were seen as “too foreign” by some members of the communities they moved to. (see pp. 497-99) Officers at Ellis Island, the place in New York Harbor where the immigrants went through US Customs, often re-named the immigrants from the eastern European areas, because the immigration agents couldn’t pronounce their names (see p. 500). There had been, to some extent, resistance and resentment of Irish Catholic immigrants (from about 1860 to 1880) in Boston (center of former Puritan – meaning Protestant -- New England). The newer bunch of immigrants Catholic immigrants in the 1880s and 1890s (like the Catholic Italians) were also strongly resented by primarily Protestant communities. Jewish immigrants were often resented for the same religious differences from mainly Protestant Americans.

c. Cultural and racial reasons – In California and other areas on the west coast, Asians (primarily Chinese and Japanese) were seen as too different by those in the American communities they moved to. From 1850 on, there were efforts to get the California state lawmakers to ban further immigrants from Asia to these areas. (Even though the railroads across the Plains could not have been built without them.) The Asians just looked and sounded too different to Americans, had different ways of dressing, different food, etc.

American History – notes in timeline and presidential order 107

d. “Social Darwinism” – Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species (1859) was a biological argument that all creatures on earth evolved and changed over time, and that nature favored the “survival of the fittest” – meaning creatures that adapted to the challenges and changes in their environment in ways that helped them survive. Some people then extended this idea to say that human society should be allowed to operate in the “natural” way, allowing “survival of the fittest.” For some, the immigrant or “other” argument became an argument of “we’re superior to them” and was used to justify rejection and sometimes persecution of the “other.” [“We” was usually white and Protestant. “Them” wasn’t.] (pp. 448-49)

• Problems -- Crime problems and fires multiplied in the cities – but few cities had police departments or fire departments. Much of the crime occurred at night in “rough” neighborhoods, and among young men who formed neighborhood gangs. The overcrowded tenements were a convenient place for the tough kids to run and hide, because they were unlikely to be pursued. They knew the area and the police didn’t. (p. 493)

• Segregated areas – The newcomer immigrants tended to be concentrated in certain areas of the city (the parts with the cheap tenement housing). Black people, too, often were only allowed to rent housing in certain areas. These “separate” areas were often called ghettos (the European name for areas where the Jews lived). Oddly enough, being kept in separate neighborhoods often resulted in those being kept apart developing their own small businesses. In Harlem (the black ghetto in New York City), small businesses like hairdressers for black hair, small banks, and other businesses grew up to handle the neighborhood’s unique needs. Similarly, the lower east side in New York became a Jewish enclave, where they had their own Kosher delicatessens and butcher shops as well as papers and theaters in Yiddish. (see pp. 493-94 and pp. 501-503).

• Political Machines -- Politically, the influx of immigrants had a strong effect on local politics, especially in big cities like New York and Chicago – because the local politicians used the immigrants to build their political power into what was called a political machine. The most famous was Tammany Hall, the Democratic political machine in New York City. The political precinct workers would often help the immigrants in various ways, like helping them find jobs, helping them if a disaster (like a tenement-house fire) destroyed their belongings, helping them to find classes to learn English, and so on. The immigrants were poor, desperate, and needed lots of help to get started working and living in a new world, and the political “ward healers” were just about the only help they had. (see description on pp. 495-96 of how this worked) In return, the immigrants generally voted as their precinct workers told them. When the party’s candidates got elected, the politicians found lots of ways to collect graft (like padding the bills for a building being constructed that needed workers, permits, etc.). Eventually, “Boss” Tweed of Tammany Hall was convicted, but the poor never wavered in their support for him, because the political machine was the only place they could get help. They were convinced that the rich and powerful ganged up on him and continued to support him. Over time, the immigrants began to help those of their background. (see p. 503)

• The “Melting Pot” theory – Jean de Crevecoeur, a French writer in New York in the years just after the American Revolution had remarked on the common mixing of European ancestry in the Americans he met. He is credited with coming up with the image of

American History – notes in timeline and presidential order 108

America being a “melting pot,” where Americans were “blended” from people of many nations. However, the problems of the 1880s and 1890s immigrants called this concept into question. The problem with the “melting pot” idea was that it assumed that the person being “melted” into American society was willing to abandon their previous cultural heritage to become Americans. It turned out that most people wanted to hold onto parts of their past as well as celebrate their new beginnings as Americans. It was more of a “both” old and new process than it was a “new replacement blend.”

• The Status Quo is threatened o Workers’ rights and radical ideas -- In Europe, the workers pressing for better pay and working conditions had included

radicals (followers of Karl Marx, a German living in England, who felt that the whole struggle of workers to be fairly paid by the owners of factories was a class struggle of the common man vs. the wealthy elite. Marx felt that the worker’s contributions to the value of what he made should be acknowledged and paid for by the owners.) The European radicals had some members who were ready to cause violence in order to make their point. In Europe, there had been bombs thrown by radicals. So after the Haymarket Affair (a strike in Chicago in 1886 that escalated when someone caused an explosion (see p. 460)), many Americans became convinced that the immigrants were importing European radical ideas and extremism that could result in violence.

o Parochial schools -- In Europe, especially eastern and southern Europe, the schools were largely run by the church. There were so many Irish Catholics in Boston (more than in Dublin!) that began to ask for a share of funds allocated for public schools for Catholic schools. They felt they were being asked to pay twice – taxes for the public schools and then having to pay tuition to the Catholic schools for their kids to get religious instruction. Many Protestants saw this as an attack by Catholics on the traditionally secular and civic-focused public school system. As a result, a number of anti-Catholic societies arose that opposed Catholic aspirations for private or religious school funds provided by the public. Other groups organized to oppose Catholic influence in politics.

o Those in opposition were sometimes called “nativists” or – like in Boston -- “Anglo-Saxons” (since the Irish were traditionally Celtic). These organizations founded the Immigration Restriction League (IRL) to campaign to change the law and limit immigration of the “undesirable classes.” They didn’t want to say that they were against any specific race or religion, so the IRL pushed for legislation to require a literacy test (asking immigrants to show they could read and write 40 words of English). In 1896, this bill was introduced and sponsored by Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts. It passed, but President Cleveland refused to sign it, saying it wasn’t a fair test of whether an immigrant was mentally limited and incapable of reading and writing. It was only a test of whether he’d had a chance to learn to read and write yet. (p. 504)

o In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act prohibiting Chinese workers from entering the US for the next 10 years. In 1892, the law was extended for another 10 years. In 1902, Chinese immigration was suspended indefinitely.

American History – notes in timeline and presidential order 109

In addition, Chinese men (who usually came to the US by themselves to establish a home and steady work before sending for their families) were no longer allowed to send for their wives, even if they (the men) had become US citizens. (pp. 504-505).

o The Japanese had fought the Russians in 1904-1905 over who would have control of Manchuria and Korea. The Japanese had won. The west coast of the US (half of which – all the way from Alaska to San Francisco Bay – had been purchased from Russia by the US in 1867) was alarmed. What if the Japanese decided to invade the west coast? (There was much talk of this danger in terms of “the Yellow Peril.”) In 1906, San Francisco ordered all Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans to be removed from public schools and taught in special Oriental schools. In response, in Japan, there were anti-American demonstrations. Finally, a “Gentlemen’s Agreement” was arranged between Japan and the US whereby Japan agreed not to issue passports to any Japanese workers who had not already been to America or had relatives in the US. Japanese immigration dropped sharply after that. In 1913, the California state legislature passed an Alien Land Law that prohibited Japanese and other Asians from owning farm land.

[NOTE: In the South, where there was little foreign immigration, there was still a strong movement against “the other.” As always, in the South, this was the black former slaves. Having been forced by their loss in the Civil War to free their slaves, the South was still determined to control and rule over them. After Reconstruction ended, the South began to pass Jim Crow laws to prevent black people from voting. These laws also were intended to keep black people separate from white people. (There were “colored only” drinking fountains, balconies in movie theaters, restaurants or areas of restaurants, the back rows of seats on public busses, etc.) It was a felony (meaning prison time) for a white person to marry a black person, and so on.]

America Expands in the 1900s During the 1840s, the idea of America’s having a “manifest destiny” was used to justify the expansion of the US all the way west to the Pacific. By the 1890s, the US had grown to become the world’s second largest economy. Only the British Empire was larger. (see the feature on pp. 480-81). In the 1890s, the British Empire was at its height. The British ruled India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), Kenya, Sudan, and Egypt. (see map, p. 501) The US was generally ready to expand if the opportunity offered – and it did. The Americans began, in the last years of the 1800s and into the 20th Century, to build an empire by conquering or taking lands from others, a process called “imperialism.” [Definition: “a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force”] In the 1890s, American businessmen began to discuss the need to expand and take on new colonies. • They wanted (1) new markets for American goods and they needed (2) new sources for raw materials, like rubber, that could only

be gained overseas.

American History – notes in timeline and presidential order 110

• In addition, they had a whole Anglo-Saxon “master race” belief in their superiority (in other words, “social Darwinism”) that made them feel that they were entitled to get what they wanted.

• One influential leader was Admiral Alfred Mahan, president of the Naval War College in Rhode Island. He argued that the US wanted to be rich in peacetime and unbeatable in wartime, then it needed (1) a modern fleet of warships, (2) naval bases in the Caribbean Sea, (3) a canal across the Isthmus of Panama, and (4) control of Hawaii and other islands in the Pacific as naval bases to defend its shipping lanes and as places to refuel its ships. By the early 1900s, America had obtained all these things.

• The nearest lands to the US in the south were Spanish territories. o The US had already taken some territory from Mexico. Mexico had struggled for its independence from Spain in the

early 1800s, and had supposedly gained its right to self-rule (during which time, in 1836, under Presidente Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, it lost its former state of Texas (remember the Alamo and all that). Texas was an independent republic for about 9 years, and then became an American state in 1845. The Mexican government was very angry about this annexation, but US President Zachary Taylor offered to buy parts of Arizona, New Mexico, and California – lands north of the Rio Grande River. In 1846, Pres. Taylor sent a US army detachment to the disputed Mexican state of Coahuila. This detachment was attacked by Mexican forces. 12 US soldiers were killed and 52 taken prisoner. The same Mexican troops then besieged an American fort along the Rio Grande. This led to the official outbreak of the Mexican-American War. American troops soon took over Santa Fe and California, then invaded Mexico City. Meanwhile, the American navy blockaded the port cities of Spanish California. Then General Winfield Scott landed troops at Veracruz and marched his troops westward, finally capturing Mexico City. Mexico agreed to a peace treaty, but this whole episode cost them much territory: In the peace treaty, called the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), Mexico gave the US the trading post of Santa Fe, the state of New Mexico, and the state of California as well as the western part of Texas and the state of Arizona. The U.S. agreed to pay $15 million in compensation for the physical damage of the war. In addition, the United States assumed $3.25 million of debt owed by the Mexican government to U.S. citizens. Mexico acknowledged the loss of Texas and thereafter accepted the Rio Grande as its national border with the United States. Soon thereafter, in 1853, the US purchased a strip of territory along the southern part of Arizona and New Mexico in the Gadsden Purchase. (see map, p. 325)