Kontan Jou

Leach, William. Land of Desire

Leach examines the growing importance of material gain in American society. There is a shift between 1890 and 1930 from a culture of democracy to a culture of consumption. Social mores are still established by society, but consumption and self-gratification were increasingly important. To accommodate this shift, merchants altered advertising and merchandising strategies to overwhelm the senses of the consumer. Leach details the transformation of advertising, as well as the influence of popular works such as PollyAnna and The Wizard of Oz.

Previously I stated The Elusive Republic was my least favorite book of the program. I retract that statement. This was by far the worst read. For this author it pretty much comes down to man’s desire to prove his masculinity.

Hoganson, Kristin L. Fighting for American Manhood

Hoganson argues that conflict in American history, specifically against Spain and the Phillipines stems from man’s desire to prove his masculinity which he felt was increasingly threatened. Hoganson contends that gender is a neglected aspect of historical analysis.

Gould, Lewis. America in the Progressive Era

Gould traces the origins and growth of reform in the 1890s and examines the role of Roosevelt and Wilson. He states that progressivism is promoted by U.S. enterprise but never sought to regulation. The Progressive era brought order, conservatism, and regulation. Gould argues the causes of progressivism are: the depression of the 1890s, partisan change with William Jennings Bryan’s ideas of anti-corporate policies and government regulation, and a shift in Democrat ideology.

Albion refers to Britain. This book was HUGE, ~904 reading pages…+ extras. Very interesing and an easy read, despite its length.

Folkways include:
language, architecture, literacy, dress, sport, social structure, religious beliefs, and familial ways

David HackettFischer: Albion’s Seed

Fischer presents the origins of America’s diverse culture by arguing that the regional differences in today’s culture derived from four British folkways that arrived in America between 1629 and the Revolutionary War. He categorizes the British folkways into four distinct groups and traces their steps from England to America, noting that the Puritans mostly departed from East Anglia to Massachusetts. Fischer finds that the Cavaliers of Virginia originated in South and West England. The Quakers descended from England’s North Midlands into the Delaware Valley while the backcountry of all these new settlements filled with inhabitants from the Borderlands of North Britain and Ireland.

— And what others have to say –

Virginia DeJohn Anderson. “The Origins of New England Culture”
Anderson says Fischer’s evidence does not fit his argument regarding regional influence, stating cultural values are distinctive by religion, not region.

Jack P. Greene. “Transplanting Moments: Inheritance in the Formation of Early American Culture”
Greene denies that Fischer’s depiction of Britain is accurate and doubts his findings for each region were as extensive as Fischer suggests, stating also that Fischer is inconsistent. Greene states that characteristics Fischer offers regarding England were actually widespread and that settlers were more diverse in their regions of origin. Greene also explains that culture is more religious influenced than regional and Fischer fails to look at other European influences as well.

James Horn. “Cavalier Culture? The Social Development of Colonial Virginia”
Horn states that the “Cavalier” attitude is not as prevalent in Virginia as Fischer says. Also points out that Virginia was not settled by just gentry. Regarding the role of environment, Horn says it was not very similar to England, that there were only some commonalities.

BarryLevy. “Quakers, the Deleware Valley, and North Midlands Emmigration to America”
Levy looks at quantitative studies and concludes Quakers were no more a social group in London than in other places, but due to longevity of Quaker style Levy says Fischer’s argument may have some validity.

David HackettFischer. “Albion and the Critics: Further Evidence and Reflecrtion”
Fischer claims his critics did no understand his conclusions, or misread. He continues to claim he is right.

• discovered gold at Sutters Mill in CA (1848)
• needed to est. gov.
• Zachary Taylor proposed to solve the problem by immediately accepting CA and NM in as states.
• South protested b/c this land had been aquired from Mexico which did not allow slavery, therefore CA and NM would enter as free states upsetting the state balance of power
• citizens were encouraged to adopt a state constitution and apply for statehood
• CA immediately complied, adopting a constitution prohibiting slavery
• NM had problems w/ disputing boundaries w/ TX and there was also an issue w/ Mormons applying for statehood. Although they did not embrace slavery they allowed polygamy, which was as bad or worse in the eyes of Congressmen
• CA entrance as a free state caused controversy

Response: Jan. 1850, Henry Clay proposes 8 resolutions to the Senate addressing Northern and Southern desires.

1. admit CA w/ free state constitution
2. remainder of Mexican cession admitted as territories
3. TX boundary dispute settled favoring NM
4. compensate TX by federal assumption of debt
5. abolish slave trade in DC
6. protect slavery from federal interference
7. Congress would have no authority to interfere w/ interstate slave trade
8. stronger fugitive slave law

After exhausting debate the resolution was killed. Clay left Washington. Stephen Douglas replaced him as leader of pro-compromise forces.

August to September 1850 Congress passed 5 bills that would become the Compromise:

1. CA allowed into Union w/o reference to slavery
2. the organization of NM and Utah as territories w/o reference to slavery
3. TX gave up some territory to NM as a compromise for US to pay TX war debt
4. slavery allowed to continue in DC but there would be no more trade
5. Strengthen the fugitive slave law allowing federal marshals to capture and return run aways to slavery

Regardless of the acceptance of the compromise, it did not eliminate the issue of slavery. The fugitive slave law, the least debated issue of the compromise, would be the most serious feature leading to further division

- bill reported by Senator Stephen Douglas January 1854 to organize the area west and northwest of Missouri as Nebraska territory

Origins and why Douglas support

• Douglas pushes for KN act b/c he is a nationalist and for westward expansion it was necessary to est. Kansas and Nebraska as territories
• it was also speculated Douglas proposed the act b/c of land he owned in Chicago. A transcontinental RR was being built to CA. A direct point b/w Chicago and CA was through Kansas and Nebraska
• Conflict is of course the status of the new territories: slave or free. If Nebraska entered as free then MO would be bordered on three sides by free land. Presumably people would could offer assistance to fugitive slaves.
• originally Douglas stated in his bill that Nebraska would enter as slave or free determined by what its constitutionn implied.
• To appease the South, Douglas added an implied repeal of the Missouri Compromise, saying all questions pertaining to slavery will be left to the people residing in the territories.

• This was not good enough for Southern senators. Douglas was conviniced to add a repealing of the part of the MO compromise prohibiting slavery norht of 36*30′

• Kansas to the immediate west of MO and Nebraska to the north of Kansas

Maurine Weiner Greenwald: Women, War, and Work: The Impact of World War I on Women Workers in the United States

The economic and social changes taking place in the early 1900s was heightened b the start of World War I. The employment circumstances for women were directly affected. New opportunities were opened to women as the United States experienced labor shortages. The emphasis on production encouraged the hiring of women for nontraditional jobs, many times this created conflict with their male coworkers. Many men, especially those involved with union activity, viewed women as a threat to their wage earning capacity. They also viewed the presence of women as a negative challenge to customary practices. They felt women did not belong in a workplace requiring specialized labor. Women, however, embraced the changes as positive advancement in areas of status and earnings.

Greenwald analyzes case studies of home front women working during a time of change and war, explaining, “the case studies reveal a variety of patterns in relations between management and labor as well as among co-workers.” Wartime crisis allowed for the rapid advancement of a women’s labor movement. Greenwald describes women as “exploiters of the wartime economy.” Women saw opportunities for advancement and possible permanence in temporary areas of employment and they pursued them. They joined unions when i would benefit them or protect their jobs. The strongest opposisiont was prevalent when there was a perceived threat or competition with male co-workers. Many men did not accept women in their areas of employment because they fewl the presence of a woman would lower wages. however, when there was no competition and no threat to reduce wages, women found allies in their male co-workers. Social mores also contributed to the discrimination of women in areas of traditional male employment. Prevailing thought in the early twentieth century was the woman’s place was in the home. Success of women in non-traditional, and sometimes traditional, areas of employment depended on their support. Government support was dependent upon the presence of competition. Greenwald concludes that even though many women returned to their home after the war and seemingly lost ground in the labor movement, the stage was set for future change.

Robert H. Zieger: America’s Great War

Zieger seeks to familiarize students with the events of WWI and help them grasp the intensity and importance of what has become known as the Great War. He applies the following four themes to his study of WWI: the relationship of America to Europe, influence of war upon the Progressive Era, national security, and Wilson’s role.

First explored by Zieger are the tangile and intangible connections between the United States and Europe. Most recognizable of these connections is economic, but Zieger also evaluates America’s relationship to Europe with regard to culutre and destiny. It is commonly accepted and taught that America’s connection with Europe in WWI was due to the established economic relationships with Europe. It is also accepted that the ethnically diverse population of America, mainly descending from origins in Europe, was a further connection. Zieger accepts both of these ideas but expands upon them to establish America as a child of Europe with aspirations of becoming the successor of world power. Throughout America’s Great War Zieger does not portray America as power hungry with regard to world domination. In fact, America is many times described as clumsy and ill prepared.

During peacetime the United States relied upon ill-trained and ill-equipped National Guard units. It is because of this that Zieger evaluates America’s realization of the need for expanded national security. With America’s continued trade and Germany’s policies regarding unrestricted submarine warfare, it was becoming increasingly obvious that American isolationism would not continue to protect the country or its citizens. Up until WWI a large standing army was seen as unnecessary and our meager navy was no comparison to those in Europe. As a result of America’s resistance to militarism , debate arose with regard to military and naval expansion. As the world became more dangerous some Americans lobbied for preparedness. With the growing economy and influence of the United States, supporters of miliatrism argued for expansion. Critics however were proudly unarmed and unafraid. Such a stance protrayed America as a peaceful example for the rest of the world to follow.

For many dissenters of military build-up their reasoning was economic. The sheer cost of maintaining a ready army and naby was monumental. Some were willing to accept the build up of a navy because it required less manpower, there fore being less expensive. However, America was also lacking in modern equipment. The United States had few tanks that were proving to be effective weaponry in WWI. Artillery was obsolete and planes antiquated. There were shortages of vehicles leaving it difficult to supply Allied troops and transport wounded. Soldiers were rapidly trained and usually withouth the equipment they would be fighting with. Almost half of the infantrymen soon to enter battle had not fired their weapon. Furthermore, they were not trained for large-scale operations that wartime required.

The third theme by Zieger is the influence wartime brought upon the Progressive era. The Progressive movement was divided upon its war stance. Although both sides saw an opportunity for social action they differed in their arenas for action. According to Zieger liberal progressives embraced the education opportunities with regard to health, well being, and literacy. They also claimed the opportunity to educate with regard to resolution strategies, with a focus on labor disputes. Another group, control progressives, saw the opportunity to promote patriotism, citizenship and social discipline. Zieger concludes that control progressives were more rewarded with regard to changes. Examples of their successes include prohibition, suppression of dissenting propaganda, mobilization, and military conscription. In contrast, the war did not last long enough for liberal progressive victories with regard to labor resolution and social welfare. Social welfare was not just a Progressive goal for the United States; it was Wilson’s goal for the world.

The final theme explored by Zieger is Woodrow Wilson. Zieger states Wilson’s “assumptions, decisions, and behavior so deeply imprinted this period of American history.” The effects of capitalism, militarism, and imperialism were central upon the war in Europe. For Americans, Zieger concludes it was Wilson’s war. Zieger argues that America’s involvement resulted from Wilson’s response to European fighting combined with his Christian ideals and views of American grandeur. As a result of his views, according to Zieger, Wilson was determined “to rescue European moral and cultural values from the folly of the Europeans.” Zieger further claims Wilson’s pivotal influence with declarations that Wilson entered the war with American soldiers based upon his defined terms and battled for peace at Versailles by his goals alone. Zieger declares Wilson had a precise idea with regard to America’s role in a new world order.

As the war ended with Germany and peace treaties were modified for acceptance, America continued its postwar adjustment with regard to social reform, labor battles, and general welfare of the nation. Zieger introduces his work by declaring the enormous influence of WWI upon America. He throroughly portrays American involvement in WWI from prewar to postwar Ameirca and the influence of war upon American life in areas of labor, business, racism, and gender bias. Zieger emphasizes political agendas of Wilson and others, however social issues are also discussed. The far-reaching influence proclaimed by Zieger is easily observed in the examination of modern foreign policy and America’s goasl of world democracy throughout the twentieth and the twenty-first centuries.

Comparison:
The Era of the Muckrakers by Cornelius C. Regier
McClure’s Magazine and the Muckrakers by Harold S. Wilson

Cornelius Regier offers readers an interesting picture of the historical importance of muckraking. Harold Wilsona points out the focus of Muckrakers on society and government. Wilson traces the development of McClure’s magazine from its humble beginnings as an inexpensive monthly publication to its prominence as a leading muckraking journal. He views the magazine press and specifically McClure’s as a “forum for new questions bout the nature and direction of American society and government.” McClure’s basis for muckraking ideology deals with the behavior of society. Muckrakers also view society as out of control and blind to the problems of such rapid change. Wilson proclaims muckrakers as heralds of a new social order. In comparison, Regier assumed everyone was interested but did not understand the problems arising from rapid growth. Popular magazines were able to reach the public with pertinent issues.

To evaluate the role of muckrakers it was necessary to focus much attention on popular magazines. In a more organized and readable manner than Wilson, Regier devotes a chapter to such magazines. According to him, muckraking was to some extent a fad. Regier suggests magazines such as McClure’s brought about muckraking articles for journalistic reasons of customer satisfaction. This is somewhat in contrast to Regier’s definition of Muckraking. He defines muckraking as “the exposing of evils and corruption for the real or ostensible purpose of promoting righteousness and social justice.” Profit does not seem to indicate purposes of righteousness or justice. However, he does clarify that there were issues that needed to be exposed. He merely questions the motives of the popular magazine expose. Regier refers to the bold denunciation of muckrakers as pure sensationalism on the parts of many, but goes on to say the real muckrakers were not merely cheap journalists. They held true passion for social justice and exposing the truth. In agreement, Wilson suggests the role of the Muckrakers was to be a champion for the causes of tradition and reform. As a result of America’s rapid growth and becoming a world power, traditional political institutions were threatened and tere was widespread corruption. The well being of the working class was being threatened. McClure’s was an outlet for spreading muckraking ideas of tradition and reform to benefit the working class.

Although popular magazines were of benefit to the working class, Regier is rather convincing in his argument that popularr magazines were muckraking for sensationalism and profit. Regier points out the competition between the magazines, each wanting to out sell the other. Popular magazines engaged in price wars, and Cosmopolitan going so far as to charter a university. (A plan that was overly ambitious and abandoned.) Eventually, popular magazines established their niche to build readership.

Have I mentioned how I feel about politics? Ugh. (That just oozes intelligence doesn’t it?)

Comparison:
Southern Politics Since the Civil War by Monroe Billington
Romance and Realism in Southern Politics by Harry T. Williams

Monroe Billington offers a brief survey of major events and trends concerning souterhn politics from Reconstruction to Reagan. Harry Williams attempts to present the viewpoints and platforms of souterhn political figures with a “fresh” perspective in an effort to answer ‘What is the South?” Williams desires to determine what made the South distinctive. Billington’s historical perspective is more plausible taking into consideration he is offering his reader a broader view of the politics facing the nation and the southern region. However, Williams, in a series of four essays, examines various opinions of the South that only seem to consider the political agendas perpetuated out of the need to embrace racial tensions so prevalent in southern society. Some speculate Williams is attempting to undermine such viewpoints and express a clear view of Southern politics with explanation, not to be confused with justification, of the ever-prevailing race issues. The method of explanation is many times generalized and holds potential to offend southerners attempting to view the full picture of a historical southerner’s plight. In one, the reader is given a historical overview, in the other a generalized focus on racism.

Williams emphasizes the South as a society “bemused with innocence and optimism.” He exemplifies the fact that the “Southerner is likely to be a romantic and that in many situations he almost certainly will refuse to recognize reality.” Billington portrays a similar view in pronouncing the unrealistic inability to accept blame portrayed by the southern farmer, as he is unable to self-examine for the root of economic hardship. Williams carries a tone of tension with the over generalizations of Southern racism. Unique in his straightforward approach to Southern politics, Billington steps away from the southern stereotype. He proposes that the average southerner was not focused on politics and white supremacy, but rather on the day to day survival. It is undisputable that southern farmers struggled immensely. It is also undisputable that racism was rampant; however, it has generally become a defining issue in the characterization of the South. Williams points out the assumption that “all Southerners were for segregation” is not accurate. Using the proposals to segregate streetcars as an example, Williams points out that several newspapers questioned the reason for changing existing practices. Later when proposals were made to integrate, the same argument protesting the status quo was used. Ultimately it was not the prevailing argument for or against segragation and integration. It was the argument against change. Billington attempts to minimize the role of white supremacy and power of the individual southern leader by offering political ideas from a party perspective. In contrast, Williams focuses much attention on career politicians. Referring to the South, Williams states, “the myth of the perfect society was a powerful argument against change.” There was a prevailing attitude among Southern elite that viewed the “Old South” as the highest example of civilization on the planet. Many politicians advantageously used stated viewpoint. When it became obvious that embracing African American rights would not be beneficial to their investments, all attempts were made to disenfranchise them. Economically weak farmers and others were susceptible to the blame platform of politicians using the “Negro question as a means to steer an opponent away from the real issues.” He states, “Southern men of property saw granting of the vote to Negroes as giving power to a propertyless class, and they opposed it because they feared it would lead to an attack on property.” After the granting of suffrage, there was a strong push to control the Black vote for fear a politician’s investments would be threatened. It was assumed by some that if allowed to vote, the African American would support politicians who would raise taxes for the funding of projects and enact regulatory legislation upon big business leading to economic ruin for corrupt politicians dabbling in big business investment. Due to a decline in cotton prices, overproduction, and failure to acknowledge the scientific necessity of rotation and diversifying, the farmer was suffering and looking for a scapegoat. Politicians capitalized on the weakness.

Contrary to what may be perceived in reading Williams’ work, race was not the only political issue facing the South. Other concerns, including education and industry, are acknowledged in Billington’s work. Due to personal fault and refusal to adapt to changes in world economics, the South was suffering. Long time leading supplier of the world’s cotton, the South was unable to accept the decline of its importance regarding the world market. It was no longer necessary to supply the world. This refusal led to economic struggles. Due to a struggling economy there was the inability of the South to attract industry. Poor undeveloped roads were partially to blame. There was no money to improve conditions that would attract business. Compounding the situation is a lack of desire to attract northern industry. There were still the prevailing feelings of bitterness and blame amond southerners regarding the North.

Both Billington and Williams express the South’s slow adaptation to inevitable change. The contention by Williams that southern politics embraces the romanticism and glory of the “Old South” may be partially contributed to his publication era of the 1960s, a time when the United States and especially the South was heavily struggling with racial tension. Whereas, Billington published in an era that had seen much progress. His viewpoint is impersonal and historical in nature. In comparison, Williams consistently and repeatedly acknowledges the southerner’s willingness to be drawn into the white supremacy trap that carried him through the Civil War and Reconstruction. Expressing Huey Long as the lone burst of realism in southern politics is an unfair assumption that previous years were romantic in nature. It is more accurate to view Long’s success as a turning point in the South’s slow acceptance to change.