other+-+gilded

ATG - "Bosses of the Senate" (NBC) ﻿must include pol cartoon The political cartoon drawn by a popular artists, Keppler, in the news article Puck depicts the oversized view of the monopolists in the post Civil War senate. The monopolists are shown to be these large and over bearing men surrounding the senate. The size of the monopolists in the picture show both the power of the monopolies as well as the intimidation that they had over the smaller shown senators. The influence that these monopolies had over the senate where a very important part of the life of all Americans during this time period. The senate was becoming this sort of millionaires club that helped to further spread the influence that the monopolies had over the United States as a whole. Above the bloated figures of the monopolists you will see a corrupt quote that has been changed from the quote found in the Gettysburg Address to, “This Senate of the monopolists, by the monopolists, and for the monopolists.” This quote shows how the view of the United States as a fair and equal has been changed by the influence that the monopolies have had on the senate. Another thing that you will find in the cartoon that is very important to it’s interpretation can be found in the upper left hand corner. There is a door where the people would be able to come into the senate and watch the preceding, however, in the cartoon it is closed off. This shows how the people of the United States have lost their right and power to say what they felt about the senate. With the doors closed off to the public the senate as been transformed into a house of monopolists, changing the government for their personal benefits. does not reflect APPARTS

APC -- Immigration Powerpoint

As with most migrants in American history, perceived economic/social advantage was the major propulsive force, although persecution at home was an important factor for many, especially those who were a minority group where they lived. Immigrants came to the United States due to a "push-pull" factor. Many if not most immigrants were propelled by both factors. The development of transportation networks greatly influenced Gilded-Age immigration. As railroads—and cheaper and cheaper fares—spread through Europe, places with secure transportation to seaports multiplied. Oceanic transport changed dramatically in the years just before the Gilded Age. As late as 1856 many European immigrants came to America by sail. The chief transport innovation in the Gilded Age was the development of networks of part-time ticket agents in the United States employed by the European lines that dominated the trade. While the technology was new, the end result was similar to what had been going on at least since the Great Migration of Puritans to New England in the seventeenth century. While settlement patterns of Gilded-Age immigrant groups varied, an increasing percentage settled in urban centers. Regionally, immigrants favored the northeastern and north central states—and by 1890, the western states—while shunning the South. Ethnic groups had their own patterns: Irish and Canadians favored New England, Italians and Russians the middle Atlantic states, Germans the east north central states, and Scandinavians the west north central states. Because the Gilded Age was an era of expanding industrialism, most immigrants worked at industrial jobs, usually at the unskilled level, although workers with mechanical skills and training could start higher up the employment ladder. Most immigrants had to take the hardest, lowest paying, and most hazardous industrial employment. It was not just immigrant men who worked. Immigrant women and children were much more likely to be in the labor force than those who were native-born. The agricultural sector, which had once included a majority of immigrants, still attracted a minority, most often those who came with significant resources. Even with free arable western land, which was rapidly disappearing, the costs of establishing a farm were far beyond the means of all but a few Gilded-Age immigrants. Most Gilded-Age immigrants, like their predecessors, lived in ethnic enclaves in both town and country whenever they could. There they could speak their own languages, worship with familiar rituals, and generally recreate a version of the world they had left. Attempts to create familiar surroundings and to maintain old cultures were largely doomed to failure. Language rarely persisted more than a generation or a generation and a half. Some food preferences continued for as long or longer, but most immigrant culture succumbed to the omnipotent American environment and the desire of children to “be American." The great exception was religion, although, it too underwent changes. The Roman Catholic Church became very much a workers’ church in nineteenth-century America. While most Jewish synagogues still held their main services on Saturdays, Sunday and Sabbath schools developed among Reform and Conservative Jews. Similarly, Japanese Buddhists adapted Protestant hymns into songs like “Buddha Loves Me, This I Know.” Thus, continuity rather than change seems to predominate.

GEB Andrew Carnegie Essay- Wealth

Andrew Carnegie, known to many as just another rich man, held high values that were not commonly found among the wealthy class. Carnegie created what he found as the three ways a rich man can get rid of his money: give it to the family or to the public upon death or give it away during life. Of course, Carnegie was in favor of the latter, though not only because it pertained to him. In Carnegie’s time there were only a handful of extremely wealthy men, among Rockefeller and Vanderbilt, who such demonstrated some type of the modes Carnegie spoke of in his essay. Carnegie denounced and argued strongly against the idea of the children inheriting exorbitant amounts of wealthy from the parents in the idea that the children would cease to work and therefore live solely off the money inherited. To Carnegie this was absurd. The basis at this time was intense individualism and if you did not sow your plants, you would not reap the benefits and children inheriting this money just simply existed and were rewarded. Vanderbilt was on the millionaires at this time that did end up giving a decent part of his riches to his remaining family. He left large amounts to all of his living sons and daughters, except for the one son he saw as a wastrel- which ironically relates to what Carnegie was saying about giving money to sons because it does not encourage them, so inadvertently Vanderbilt was helping his runt of a son. The second mode referred to giving away money to the public after death, which to Carnegie was considered selfish and useless. Carnegie believed in giving back to the community, but not as a last resort and by doing so the people usually were posthumously praised, where Carnegie felt they should not be honored at all. Vanderbilt as well as Rockefeller donated their money to different public affairs at their death to which Carnegie would most likely disapprove of. In Carnegie’s mind the only reason people gave their money away at death was because they could not take the money with them and therefore decided to just put the money to something decently useful. It was viewed by Carnegie not as a service to the public, but a egocentric act. The third mode, in which Carnegie himself resided, spoke about the people who used their money for good during their lifetime, who purposely dispensed their money to the public or people because they wanted to. The way the essay is written directly supports this type of giving back. Carnegie talked about how under this an ideal state would come to be and there would be an elevation of the human race that even the poorest could agree with. This essay spoke about not just about individualism, but showcased Carnegie’s view of mankind. There is a difference of how people give back or allot their riches because the meaning mattered to Carnegie. Whether a millionaire donated money after death or during life is beside the point because in essence it would result from the same thing, the point Carnegie was accentuating was that people should work honestly and hard for their money and give back to society not because they have nothing else to give the money to, but to make the world better, to help more people with opportunities to work hard and succeed as well.

KLM: US v. EC Knight Co (1895) Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act to limit cartels and monopolies. This opposed any business that could potentially harm competition and that caused "restraint of trade or commerce." While the economy was growing rapidly during the Gilded Age, a minority of the population controlled a majority of the wealth. Many politicians believed that restrictions must be placed upon the monopolies to increase the availability of equal opportunities for businesses; Chief Justice Fuller of the Supreme Court did not agree. The American Sugar Refining Company held a monopoly over the production of sugar, controlling 98% of the national sugar business. In US v EC Knight Co. (1895), the Supreme Court primarily was determining whether the Sherman Antitrust Act could suppress a monopoly of the manufacturing of a good, in addition to its distribution. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Fuller, ruled that manufacturing was not subject to federal restrictions against monopolies. The United States legislature was given the authority to issue the Sherman Act because of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, which gave Congress the ability to regulate interstate commerce. However, manufacturing, according to Fuller, was not interstate commerce but was only under the authority of the individual states where the manufacturing was occurring. Though the ruling declared the Sherman Act to be constitutional, its influence was greatly diminished by its lack of control over manufacturing.

Chief Justice Fuller's background greatly affected his ruling, placing personal biases on his decisions. He was not a supporter of the common man's rights, preferring commercial business, and was not overly concerned with popular opinion. Fuller advocated a direct interpretation of the Constitution, which led to his decision that the Commerce Clause did prohibited the Sherman Act from limiting manufacturing, which he constituted as intrastate commerce. A direct interpretation of the Constitution also limited government involvement, which promoted business without governmental restrictions. He also opposed government regulation of private businesses, believing that the government does not hold much power to regulate business, advocating for limited national governmental control. He promote business that was run without governmental involvement, such as with bargaining occurring between employers and employees as in Adair v. United States (1908). As a supporter of federalism, an important component of the Constitution, which allowed for America's continued growth, Fuller opposed federal government's efforts to curb monopolies, arguing that the national government must not impede on states' rights. He was also regarded as a "lawyer's lawyer," who was against the common man, supporting big business and wealthy interests instead. Before his nomination, he commonly appeared in the Supreme Court to argue for commercial interests.Thus, he would not support a ruling that would allow the national government to prohibit manufacturing, as the Sherman Antitrust Act had been previously intended to do. Fuller was a man of property, possessing much wealth and, to the common man, seemed to be a defender of wealth in a variety of his rulings, such as in Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co., which invalidated the federal income tax. Previous to his nomination, he was relatively unknown within American politics, despite his involvement in the Democratic Party. This contributed to him being perceived as an unpopular justice. Critics labeled him as "the fifth best lawyer in the City of Chicago." His unpopularity could also be seen in his political rulings; he had a political history of going against popular opinion, such as in this case where he practically supported the growth of manufacturing monopolies. His tenure is regarded as one characterized by a commitment to economic development, market institutions, and limited national government; all of these characteristics are able to be seen through his ruling in US vs. EC Knight Co.

The ruling in US v. EC Knight Co. led to the reduced power of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which diminished some restrictions of further monopolistic growth. This helped to increase the growth of monopolies, increasing the economic concentration of the United States. The divides between federal and state governmental power were further defined, giving more power to the state governments. This trial also further defined the jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause. In Ogden v. Gibbons, the Supreme Court determined interstate navigation to be applicable to the Commerce Clause, placing navigation under the control of the federal government. With US v. EC Knight Co., manufacturing was declared to not be applicable to the Commerce Clause, diminishing the federal government's control over it. The state governments were given the political responsibility to control manufacturing monopolies. State governments lacked some of the resources that the national government held to combat monopolies, diminishing their capabilities to curb monopolistic manufactoring growth. Fuller's ruling stood until the 1930s, when the federal government was given more expansive power. However, US v. EC Knight Co. was never officially overturned. checked

APC -- Plessy vs. Ferguson

The U.S. Supreme Court decided that a Louisiana law mandating separate but equal accommodations for blacks and whites on intrastate railroads was constitutional. This decision provided the legal foundation to justify many other actions by state and local governments to socially separate blacks and whites. The arrest of Homer Plessy (1862-1925) on June 7, 1892, was part of a planned challenge to the 1890 Louisiana Separate Car Act by the Citizens' Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Law, a small group of black professionals in New Orleans. Soon after its organization in 1891, the committee appointed Albion Tourgée. its legal representative. After successfully leading a test case in which the Louisiana district court declared forced segregation in railroad cars traveling between states to be unconstitutional, the committee was anxious to test the constitutionality of segregation on railroad cars operating solely within a single state. The committees strategy was to have someone with mixed blood violate the law, which would allow Tourgée to question the law's arbitrariness. Homer Plessy, a native of south Louisiana who could "pass" as white, agreed to be the test case. The committee arranged with the railroad conductor and with a private detective to detain Plessy until he was arrested. When Plessy appeared before the Louisiana district court, the court ruled that a state had the constitutional power to regulate railroad companies operating solely within its borders and concluded that the Louisiana Separate Car Act was constitutional. The decision was appealed to the state supreme court in 1893 and was appealed again to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1896.

By the time Plessy vs. Ferguson arrived at the Supreme Court, Tourgée and his colleagues had solidified their strategy. Tourgée argued that Plessy was denied his equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and violated the Thirteenth Amendment by perpetuating the essential features of slavery. Eight of the nine justices were unconvinced by Tourgée's arguments, and ruled that neither the Thirteenth nor Fourteenth Amendment was applicable in this case. The majority opinion delivered by Henry Billings Brown, attacked the Thirteenth Amendment claims by distinguishing between political and social equality. According to this distinction, blacks and whites were politically equal (in the sense that they had the same political rights) but socially unequal (blacks were not as socially advanced as whites). The majority also attacked Tourgée's Fourteenth Amendment claims by arguing that enforced separation does not "stamp" blacks with the badge of inferiority, because both blacks and whites were treated equally under the law--in the sense that whites were forbidden to sit in a railroad car designated for blacks. The majority decision in Plessy vs. Ferguson served as the organizing legal justification for racial segregation for over 50 years.

SMR- "Origin of the Populist Movement" NBC Video

As a result of businesses and organizations growing, the farming class became more and more helpless. Farmers and laborers were cheated by rigged scales and false bottoms in elevators. These people were unable to make a living for themselves because irrigation was sometimes impossible to obtain. The farmers and laborers were also skeptical toward their politicians, resulting in the creation of their own party-- the Populists. Although the Populists were ultimately fruitless in winning any presidential elections, many of their ideas were realized and still exist today. One of the Populists' lasting contributions to American politics was the right for women to vote. Although the Populists were not the first to suggest the right to vote for women, it became a strong point in their political campaign. The Populist party was a strong supporter of the Prohibition Party, a temperance movement mainly composed of women. This allowed women to be involved in the politics of the Populist party, and helped women in their rise of political influence. The fact that this political party string supported the suffrage of women undoubtedly affected their failure in presidential elections, because people back then assumed that women shared the political views of their husbands, and letting them vote was not necessary. The Populist party also suggested that the government own the railroads, telephones, and telegraphs. Since the railroads were privately owned, the railroad owners could make their rates whatever they wanted. The main reason the farmers were angered was because the railroad owners would make their rates higher for the small loads the farmers had to ship, but they would give discounts to large shipments. Again, this idea only because true in 1917, after the Populist party had collapsed. The railroads were only nationalized as a wartime measure, and were quickly returned to private ownership after the war. The nationalization of railroad is still a popular debated topic between the Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, the lack of passenger trains today have diminished the need for nationalizing the railroad industry. Perhaps the most important contribution of all is the secret ballot. The secret ballot insured that the voter was being sincere and that the election was one relatively rid of bribery or intimidation. Before the secret ballot, elections were often rigged because campaign managers or other politicians would force people to vote for their candidate to ensure election. However, secret ballots eliminated political bias and prevented linking to voter back to the ballot. This led to a more "pure" government, because the popular vote was now more reliable. Today, the secret ballot also guarantees voter privacy, and it is very effective. Populist ideas were ongoing ideas that were later realized by successful politicians. Unfortunately, the Populists did not have the Political support or influence needed to rise to power and substantiate their own intents. checked