JP Morgan's influence on American Society

JP Morgan was an affluential person in American society. Born to a wealthy family, he was able to get a good education, and was brought up in the world of business and wealth from a very young age. While his motives are questionable, there is no question of his influence on our society, and our economy in the time of the Gilded Age.
The first of his excursions with the economy was in 1895, when president Cleveland called on Morgan to help with a terrible economic drop. This drop was caused by massive railroad speculation and a massive increase in investment in railroads that not only went nowhere, but somehow connected nowheres to nowheres. He called upon Europe to help with the economic crash, creating a deal with which to get enough money to finance the economy and bring it out of its terrible crash. The way he did it was by directing congress to sell bonds and to stop the drainage of money by Congress, as well as buy back gold from international syndicates.There is speculation that J.P. Morgan managed to gain quite a bit from this deal, pocketing a certain amount of money for himself with every sum of money financing the US, and yet the unarguable fact is that singlehandedly, Morgan was able to bring us out of an economic depression that could have easily upset our country for years to come.
The second time that Morgan had a hand in keeping our economy from taking a nosedive was when Theodore Roosevelt came to him for help. Morgan, ever the dramatist, organized several powerful bankers in a library and situated them so that they could not leave until they provided proper funding. This funding was to go to a rescue fund of the United States Treasury, and would be the way for congress to save the economy. Yet again, Morgan was able to keep America's economy going, something no mad had singlehandedly done before.
The longterm effects of Morgan's power on the economy are disputable to this day, but there is no arguing the fact that he may very well be the reason our "gilded age" was able to carry us as far as Britain during their industrial revolution in half the time. His talent for business and money were clear as day, and his ability to keep our economy alive and well may be the sole reason we have such a prosperous consumer society today. Whether or not that it is a good thing is up to historians and politicians to debate, but we know for a fact that Morgan was an incredibly influential man who saved the US economy not once, but two times.

Immigrants in Factories

The gilded age was a unique time in American history, where the gap between the rich and the poor seemed to abound by miles. This was the time of the factories, where manpower and machines mixed to create goods readily consumed by a growing upper middle class. People bought cars, used trains, and had available to them a plethora of goods not necessary for survival, but perhaps necessary for luxury. This growing upper class was reliant on the factories of the time, and were so blinded by their fortune that they either did not see what was happening inside the concrete walls, or chose not to see in favor of cheeper food and luxurious cars.
It was during this time that the poor classes started to go from the farms and into the factories. Opportunity for work, no matter how bad the conditions, was growing as more and more mass producers created more and more factories. This created an influx into cities, as work on farms was increasingly replaced by machines and better technology. While the sharecropping system still was in play, farmers decided to hedge their bets with the new factory, where there would be a bit more freedom than working for a landowner.
The factories, however, were a nightmare to the lower class. They ran long hours, with insufficient wages and little to no protection for the worker. Big companies could fire a whole segment of workers in a split second if suddenly their product became undesirable to the fluctuating economy, and these workers had no leverage against the powerful business owners. Unions had little sway against these frighteningly powerful kings of their trade, and as more machinery populated the factory, the leverage of skilled craftsmanship faded into the background.
Many historians argue that the immigrant workers that came to America and worked in the factories had it the worst. Not only were the factory systems against them, but the general public despised them, deeming them un-American and unworthy to work their production plants. They were looked down upon, and as they slowly took over "American jobs", they were resented more and more for their desirability to the plethora of factory owners.
The reason immigrants were so desirable to factory owners was due to their role in wages. Immigrants could be paid relatively cheaply in comparison to American workers. They did not struggle against the factory owners due to a plethora of language barriers, and they could not argue for higher wages because what they had was certainly better than anything else they could get. Moreover, whenever there was a mass lay-off, different races could be played against each other. For example, if a large section of Irish workers were laid off, black workers would be hired in their stead, and rather than being upset with the head of the factory, the workers would fight amongst themselves. This idea of pitting the two races against each other was another one of the many benefits of hiring these immigrant workers. There seemed to be the growing ability to get away with as much as possible in these factories, and the owners were not quick to let go of their leverages.
The American public was furious with the seeming immigrant takeover in their production, however. They started to fight against this movement. The most prevalent example of this dislike is seen in the passing of the Chinese Exclusion act. While this may not have been instigated in the factories, it does a good job of summing up public opinion of Immigrants. They were tired of other people coming to "steal" their jobs, and as such, they would fight against the flow of these laborers.

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

On March 25, 1911, a fire broke out on the top floor of the Triangle Shirtwaist Company, killing 146 of the 500 employees, many of whom were young women. The fire remains one of the great disasters of American industrial history, due to the fact that most of the deaths were preventable. The lack of safety regulations in the workplace was the main culprit behind the deaths of so many women.

In 1910, garment workers in New York had begun calling for better working conditions, including the women from Triangle. The strike went on for 11 weeks, and Anne Morgan, the daughter of business tycoon J.P. Morgan, joined, raising public support of the movement. Eventually, Isaac Harris and Max Blanck, owners of the Triangle factory, agreed to higher wages and shorter hours. However, they did not permit worker unions, and the workers did not have the power to improve factory conditions. The men and women were forced to work with inadequate ventilation, lack of safety precautions and fire drills, and door that remained locked during working hours. Coincidentally, that door happened to be one of the few ways to enter or exit the floor of the building the workers worked on.

On the day of the fire, a lit cigarette from the eighth floor ignited a fire, which hungrily consumed the loose fabric and thread from the shirtwaists being produced. As the fire spread, the workers on the ninth floor worked on, unaware that anything was going on. It was not until the smoke rose up the stairs that the workers started panicking. They tried to escape, but the fire escape was too narrow, and broke after too many women ran down it. The elevator could only hold a couple of workers at a time until it broke, and the door to the stairwell remained locked from the outside. The girls who did not make it to the elevator or the stairwells were trapped by fire, and began jumping out of the open windows. The firefighters that had arrived were ineffective, as their ladders would only reach to the eighth floor, and their hoses did not have enough pressure to spray that high. In just a couple of minutes, many of those workers had died.

The death of the young workers in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire triggered a wave of protests and movements for better working conditions in factories. The National Women’s Trade Union League (NWTUL) was able to compile evidence of the unsafe working conditions, and then create the Citizens’ Committee for Public Safety. Under pressure from the reformers, the government passed an act which created the Bureau of Fire Prevention. The Bureau of Fire Prevention ended confusion over the responsibilities of various city departments and agencies for inspections and safety code creation. There were also changes made to the Municipal Building Code, which included the requirement of fireproof materials and stairwells, fire alarms, extinguishers, and hoses. The city government also prevented smoking in factories.

The Factory Investigative Commission (FIC) was established by the city of New York to investigate much more than fire hazards in factories. A combination of factors, such as a Democratic Congress, public opinion, and a favorable economic climate prompted the commission to investigate low wages, long hours, child labor, and unsanitary working conditions. Additionally, the Sullivan-Hoey Fire Prevention Law required that factories install a sprinkler system and create a single fire commission.

The tragedy of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire Company led to many reform bills being passed and many organizations being formed, but the main effect that it had was a change of the relationship between the government and business. Before the fire, the government had largely left businesses alone. Many historians believe that the fire represented the start of local, state, and federal governments’ attempts to achieve better working conditions in factories. The death of those 146 workers accomplished what many labor unions before them couldn’t. They created the foundation for better working conditions for workers across all of America.

Sources:

http://historybusiness.org/2773-triangle-shirtwaist-company-fire.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/introduction/triangle-intro/

http://www.history.com/topics/triangle-shirtwaist-fire

http://trianglefire.ilr.cornell.edu/story/introduction.html

The Ludlow Massacre

On April 20, 1914 in Ludlow, Colorado the Ludlow Massacre occurred between the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, owned by John D. Rockefeller Jr. and striking coal miners. The miners in Colorado and several other Western States had been trying for several years to join the UMWA (United Miners of America), but the coal operators bitterly opposed these propositions.
Soon enough because of the persistance to join, the miners were kicked out of their company-owned houses and had to set up tent colony's on public land to live in. Even though they were off company property the company's were still not happy with the strikers and tent colony's, so they called in Baldwin Felts Detective Agency, the thugs, Colorado militiamen, and coal company guards, to get rid of the strike once and for all. Which during this time period would often lead to violence and sometimes even death.
On Greek Easter, at 10:00 A.M. 19 innocent men, women, and children were killed. Death caused by shootings into the tents, and keroscene put onto the tents burning them and their inhabitants. Some women and children even burried themselves into holes under their tents so they wouldn't be shot, but they suffocated in the pits.
Because the strike and deaths were between capital and labor, which during this time was not protected by the government, none of the massacrists were punished. Though none of the killers were punished many miners and strike leaders were arrested and black-balled from the coal industry.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/rockefellers-ludlow/
http://www.umwa.org/?q=content/ludlow-massacre

Where is America?

In the late 1800's, after the disastrous American Civil War, the focus of American history turns inwards to the corporations, labor strikes, and rampant political corruption. This was an era of strong American non-interventionism and isolated foreign policy. The Americans seemed to be doing well by themselves and certainly didn't need any wars to bring them prosperity. Additionally, the entire country was still recovering from the destructive Civil War which left scars on an entire generation of politicians and young fighting men.

In Europe, in the back half of the 1800's, the Concert of Europe was starting to show strains from increasing nationalism and militarism across the continent. These exploded into smaller conflicts and wars between European nations. These included the Crimean War, the War of Italian Independence, and the Franco-Prussian War  which dramatically altered the fundamental balance of power in Europe. The United States, heeding to Washington's words of non-alliance entanglement, for the most part stayed out.

In Africa, the United States played a very minimal role with it's one semi-colony, Liberia, declaring independence in 1847 and achieving full recognition of this in 1862. At the Berlin Conference, the Europeans divided the entire African continent into zones of control. The United States was officially invited to the Conference, but had no influence or potential contributions to offer given its position.

Our policy with Latin America was a bit different and slightly more imperialistic than with other regions of the world, at least at this point. In 1869, Grant attempted to convince the nation to annex Santo Domingo, or the Dominican Republic. It was contested and finally shot down in the Senate due to a combination of racial and political ideals. But while we used Monroe Doctrine in some cases, it was largely considered moot to the point where British policy makers could ignore and even undermine.

Secretary Canning (UK) "proceeded to adopt and carry out a policy calculated to render ineffective the Monroe doctrine in so far as it conflicted with British Designs"

With the creation of a crown colony in Belize in 1871, the United States technically could have employed the usage of the Monroe Doctrine to intervene and prevent this, but they didn't. The United States was unprepared to act on the Monroe Doctrine because of its limited military capabilities compared to the United Kingdom as well as the American public not fully having the stomach for another war so soon after the Civil War. Yet immediately after the Civil War, the United States government sent soldiers to the border of Mexico and the United States with the intent to evict French troops there supporting Emperor Maximillian. It goes to show that the Monroe Doctrine in the late 1800's was used when needed, but easily ignored for pragmatic reasons.

"are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers." -Monroe Doctrine

Lastly, in Asia, the United States originally stayed relatively isolated. The United States was able to conduct trade agreements with China and opened up Japan with Admiral Perry in 1854. (Japan proceeded to use the same gunboat diplomacy utilized against them more aggressively in 1876 to open up the Korean peninsula.) The United States had a brief military intervention in Korea in 1871 which yielded few results. Additionally, the United States contributed much to the Westernization of Japan during the Meiji Restoration as well as providing limited troops in the Second Opium War. As trade increased with Asia, immigration also increased, which we quickly shut down in 1882 with the Chinese Exclusion Act. As we stretched across the Pacific, we established consulates in Fiji (1844), Samoa (1856), and the Marshall Islands (1881). Along the way, the United States annexed Hawaii in 1894 through illegal orders and an unjustified coup d'état that overthrew Queen Liliʻuokalani.

"But for the lawless occupation of Honolulu under false pretexts by the United States forces" - Blount Report commissioned by Cleveland's administration

The United States foreign policy was not standard in the late 1800's and although we had an aversion to treaties and had proclaimed our Monroe Doctrine, we ignored both and followed both. American foreign policy was pragmatic and worked within the framework of internal politics which distracted much of the nation away from its foreign affairs. Though it is quite clear that the United States did not cease war after the Civil War and gradually began to increase its presence in the world in the last 20 years of the 1800's. This will lead to American Imperialism in Asia and Latin America as well as a growing isolationist movement within the United States until this ideology is faced with the realities of the world in the mid 20th century.

Works Cited

"Blount Report." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

                  

"Hawaii." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

                  

Hidalgo, Dennis R. "Charles Sumner and the Annexation of the Dominican Repulblic." Academia. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Oct. 2015.

                  

Johnston, Harry Hamilton, and Otto Stapf. Liberia. Vol. 1. New York City: Dodd, Mead, 1906. Google Books. Web. 29 Oct. 2015.

                  

"Monroe Doctrine." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

                  

Shoman, Assad. "The Guatemalan Claim and Decolonization." Belize's Independence and Decolonization in Latin America: Guatemala, Britain, and the UN. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 23-49. Google Books. Web. 29 Oct. 2015.

                  

"United States Maritime Expansion across the Pacific during the 19th Century - 1830–1860 - Milestones - Office of the Historian." Https://history.state.gov/. US Department of State, n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

The Evolution of Labor Unions

The working class and the accompanying labor unions have been a part of American society since its beginnings. The first settlers were craftsmen, and unions began to inevitably show up with the development of larger cities in Colonial America. Not only was a carpenter's union partly responsible for the Boston Tea Party, the Continental Congress met in the Carpenter's’ Hall when signing the Declaration of Independence. Toward the end of the 18th century, unions began striking in hopes of shorter hours and better pay. In the years to come, unions would be increasingly active in improving conditions for workers who would otherwise have no influence over the conditions of their employment.

In the 1830s, as industrialization began to take hold in America, workers moved increasingly to cities and took jobs created by new processes and machinery. As the factory system grew rapidly, it caused many workers to live in poverty as the factory owners amassed large sums of wealth. Recognizing that they were effectively powerless against their wealthy bosses, workers increasingly joined unions in the hope of standing up against working conditions.

In larger cities, the unions often joined to form federations. Founded in 1866, one such federation was the National Labor Union (NLU). While it was briefly successful, even convincing Congress to mandate an eight hour day for workers, it was dissolved in the subsequent depression of 1873.

The next attempt to create a lasting change was by the Knights of Labor, founded in 1869 and composed of both skilled and unskilled workers of both genders and races. The Knights of Labor accumulated a large membership but was hopelessly split between skilled and unskilled workers, and thus it struggled to harness the full power of its membership. The leader, Terence Powderly, failed to maintain control over the members, and he was unsuccessful at preventing violent strikes and riots such as the Haymarket Square rally. Already facing internal issues, the Knights of Labor eventually disbanded after allegations of members throwing a bomb at police officers damaged its reputation beyond repair.

Some members then joined a different organization, The American Federation of Labor (AFL) , which was founded in 1886 by Samuel Gompers. He believed that the issues with labor unions lay in their ineffective organization.

"The various trades have been affected by the introduction of machinery, the subdivision of labor, the use of women's and children's labor and the lack of an apprentice system-so that the skilled trades were rapidly sinking to the level of pauper labor. To protect the skilled labor of America from being reduced to beggary and to sustain the standard of American workmanship and skill, the trades unions of America have been established."

(AFL Constitution)

The AFL organized only skilled workers and focused specifically on promoting higher wages and shorter hours. Gompers believed that these were the steps necessary to begin improving the lives of the working class; the AFL was supposed to avoid any political or social affiliations that were not directly related to their cause.

In 1903, the open shop movement succeeded in driving unions out of various industries by not requiring employees to be a member of a union. Court rulings against strikes were often issued by judges at the request of corporations, and they became an important weapon against unions and strikes. However, even though strikes were illegal, there were various demonstrations over issues such as the Triangle Shirtwaist fire and the textile mill pay cuts. As a result, Congress created the U.S. Department of Labor and a Children’s Bureau, intended to better the rights of workers. Additionally, the Clayton Act of 1914 made clear that “the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce.” Hailed as a “magna carta” by Gompers, this act negated the legal basis being used against strikes and allowed for peaceful protest.

Union membership decreased after World War I because of the post-war economic depression and attempts by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and other similar groups to wipe out unions. These anti-union groups used American fear of the communist revolution to make unions seem “un-American.” Workers were forced to sign a “yellow dog contract” that prevented them from joining a union if they wanted to get a job.

In 1935, John Lewis created the Committee for Industrial Organization (CIO). It was composed of various AFL leaders and at the time, it was still a part of the AFL. However, his constant verbal attacks on the AFL council caused him and the CIO unions to be expelled a year later. By 1938, the CIO held its own constitutional convention and became a separate organization. Initially rivals, the AFL and CIO began working together during World War II to solve problems that affected all workers in America. Over time, their disagreements died out and they were reunited as AFL-CIO in 1955. This new union’s priority was to organize workers in areas where they were not represented and reach out to employees whose companies had previously prohibited unions. 

Labor unions are not as prevalent today as they were during earlier years. Many employers are again prohibiting unions, but another reason is that workers are increasingly providing a secondary source of income for their family and willing to accept lower wages. Unions have also raised the price of union-made products because of their workers higher demands, so that sales are lost to cheaper manufacturers and union workers lose their jobs. Recent shifts towards technology and white collar jobs have also led to decreasing numbers of laborers who want union membership. However, unions like the AFL-CIO, which began earlier in American history, still exist today, proving the importance of the union movement and the rights of the working class.

http://www.history.com/topics/labor
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/history_of_labor_unions.html
http://www.ilwu19.com/history/labor.htm

The Other Jim Crow

In 1896, Plessy v. Ferguson created "separate but equal," and in 1954, Brown v. Board ended it. So goes the story of Jim Crow in America. In reality, what Plessy started affected far more than the struggling free blacks, and Chief Justice Earl Warren's decision in Brown was not the first case of its kind. Non-black minorities, notably Mexican-Americans, suffered from, and fought against Jim Crow just as much as their black counterparts did.
Mexican-Americans and other Latinos were not enslaved by the USA. That is a fact, and trying to equate the suffering of two distinct minorities is both pointless and demeaning. However, the fact remains that Jim Crow often segregated Latinos the same way it did African Americans. Court cases like Lopez v. Seccombe, Mendez v. Westminister, and Hernandez v. Texas represented successful efforts to overturn the doctrine of Plessy.
A 1944 district court case, Lopez saw 8000 Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans in San Bernardino, who sued to gain access to a public park, win a permanent injunction prohibiting the segregation of persons of Mexican or Latin ancestry.
Mendez v. Westminister, a 1947 federal court case, explicitly overturned "separate but equal" even though the judge found that "the physical facilities, teachers and curricula of the segregated school for Mexican children were 'identical and in some respects superior to those in the other schools.'" District Judge McCormick wrote,

"The equal protection of the laws' pertaining to the public school system in California is not provided by furnishing in separate schools the same technical facilities, text books and courses of instruction to children of Mexican ancestry that are available to the other public school children regardless of their ancestry. A paramount requisite in the American system of pub- lic education is social equality. It must be open to all children by unified school association regardless of lineage."

Finally, Hernandez v. Texas reached the Supreme Court two weeks before the Brown v. Board decision. Pedro Hernandez shot and killed a tenant farmer, was tried by an all-white jury, indicted, and then denied bail. The importance of the Supreme Court's ruling that Hernandez was to be retried by a non-segregated jury was not so important regarding Hernandez's innocence, but set a precedent for when the Equal Protection Clause should give preferential treatment to some groups. Although Earl Warren did not explicitly focus on race and instead cited "other differences," the challenge to Jim Crow's institutions remained the same.

Sources:
Juan F. Perea (University of Florida). 31 October 1997. “The Black/White Binary Paradigm of Race: The Normal Science of American Racial Thought.” http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1605&context=californialawreview
Lopez, Ian H., and Michael A. Olivas. "The Story of Hernandez v. Texas." Race Law Stories. By Rachel F. Moran and Devon W. Carbado. New York, NY: Foundation, 2008. N. pag. Web. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/faculty/facultyPubsPDF.php?facID=301&pubID=32