Week 3 Learning Journal
Week 3 Learning Journal
Your Learning Journal is where you will post six insights every week, highlighting new knowledge you gained from both the reading assignments of the respective week and the videos. An insight is a short paragraph that explains in detail something from the readings that you either did not know before, gained more insight on, or just found interesting. You will post three insights from each chapter of the readings. Include your reason for providing these six specific insights or revelations, especially if they changed the way you now view the past or present. Use direct quotes to support your insights.
Latin America in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries FOCUS QUESTIONS: What role did liberalism and nationalism play in Latin America between 1800 and 1870? What were the major economic, social, and political trends in Latin America in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? The Spanish and Portuguese colonial empires in Latin America had been integrated into the traditional monarchical structure of Europe for centuries. When that structure was challenged, first by the ideas of the Enlightenment and then by the upheavals of the Napoleonic era, Latin America encountered the possibility of change. How it responded to that possibility, however, was determined in part by conditions unique to the region. The Wars for Independence By the end of the eighteenth century, the ideas of the Enlightenment and the new political ideals stemming from the successful revolution in North America were beginning to influence the creole elites (descendants of Europeans who became permanent inhabitants of Latin America). The principles of the equality of all people in the eyes of the law, free trade, and a free press proved very attractive. Sons of creoles, such as Simo´ n Bolı ´ var (see-MOHN boh-LEE-var) (1783–1830) and Jose´ de San Martı ´ n (hoh-SAY day san mar-TEEN) (1778– 1850) who became leaders of the independence movement, even went to European universities, where they imbibed the ideas of the Enlightenment. These Latin American elites, joined by a growing class of merchants, especially resented the domination of their trade by Spain and Portugal. NATIONALISTIC REVOLTS IN LATIN AMERICA The creole elites soon began to use their new ideas to denounce the rule of the Iberian monarchs and the peninsulars (Spanish and Portuguese officials who resided in Latin America for political and economic gain). As Bolı ´ var said in 1815, ‘‘It would be easier to have the two continents meet than to reconcile the spirits of Spain and America.’’ 1 When Napoleon Bonaparte toppled the monarchies of Spain and Portugal, the authority of the Spaniards and Portuguese in their colonial empires was weakened, and between 1807 and 1825, a series
Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 518). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.
of revolts enabled most of Latin America to become independent. As described in the chapter-opening vignette, the first revolt was actually a successful slave rebellion. Led by Toussaint L’Ouverture (1746–1803), the revolt resulted in the formation of Haiti as the first independent postcolonial state in Latin America in 1804. Beginning in 1810, Mexico, too, experienced a revolt, fueled initially by the desire of the creole elites to overthrow the rule of the peninsulars. The first real hero of Mexican independence was Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla (mee-GEL ee-THAHL-goh ee kahs-TEE-yuh), a parish priest in a small village about 100 miles from Mexico City. Hidalgo, who had studied the French Revolution, roused the local Indians and mestizos, many of whom were suffering from a major famine, to free themselves from the Spanish. On September 16, 1810, a crowd of Indians and mestizos, armed with clubs, machetes, and a few guns, quickly formed a mob army and attacked the Spaniards, shouting, ‘‘Long live independence and death to the Spaniards.’’ But Hidalgo was not a good organizer, and his forces were soon crushed. A military court sentenced Hidalgo to death, but his memory lived on. In fact, September 16, the first day of the uprising, is celebrated as Mexico’s Independence Day. The participation of Indians and mestizos in Mexico’s revolt against Spanish control frightened both creoles and peninsulars. Fearful of the masses, they cooperated in defeating the popular revolutionary forces. The elites— both creoles and peninsulars—then decided to overthrow Spanish rule as a way of preserving their own power. They selected a creole military leader, Augustı ´ n de Iturbide (ah-goo-STEEN day ee-tur-BEE-day), as their leader and the first emperor of Mexico in 1821. The new government fostered neither political nor economic changes, and it soon became apparent that Mexican independence had benefited primarily the creole elites. Independence movements elsewhere in Latin America were likewise the work of elites—primarily creoles—who overthrew Spanish rule and set up new governments that they could dominate. Jose´ de San Martı ´ n of Argentina and Simo´ n Bolı ´ var of Venezuela, leaders of the independence movement, were both members of the creole elite, and both were hailed as the liberators of South America. THE EFFORTS OF BOLI ´ VAR AND SAN MARTI ´ N Simo´ n Bolı ´ var has long been regarded as the George Washington of Latin America. Born into a wealthy Venezuelan family, he was introduced as a young man to the ideas of the Enlightenment. While in Rome in 1805 to witness the coronation of Napoleon as king of Italy, he committed himself to free his people from Spanish control. He vowed, ‘‘I swear before the God of my fathers, by my fathers themselves, by my honor and by my country, that my arm shall not rest nor my mind be at peace until I have broken the chains that bind me by the will and power of Spain.’’ 2 When he returned to South America, Bolı ´ var began to lead the bitter struggle for independence in Venezuela as well as other parts of northern South America. Although he was acclaimed as the ‘‘liberator’’ of Venezuela in 1813 by the people, it was not until 1821 that he definitively defeated Spanish forces there. He went on to liberate Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Already in 1819, he had become president of Venezuela, at the time part of a federation that included Colombia and Ecuador. Bolı ´ var was well aware of the difficulties in establishing stable republican governments in Latin America (see the box on p. 520). While Bolı ´ var was busy liberating northern South America from the Spanish, Jose´ de San Martı ´ n was concentrating his efforts on the southern part of the continent. Son of a Spanish army officer in Argentina, San Martı ´ n himself went to Spain and pursued a military career in the Spanish army. In 1811, after serving twentytwo years, he learned of the liberation movement in his native Argentina, abandoned his military career in Spain, and returned to his homeland in March 1812. Argentina had already been freed from Spanish control, but San Martı ´ n believed that the Spaniards must be removed from all of South America if any nation was to remain free. In January 1817, he led his forces over the high Andes Mountains, an amazing feat in itself. Two-thirds of their pack mules and horses died during the difficult journey. Many of the soldiers suffered from lack of oxygen and severe cold while crossing mountain passes more than 2 miles above sea level. The arrival of San Martı ´ n’s troops in Chile completely surprised the Spaniards, whose forces were routed at the Battle of Chacabuco (chahk-ah-BOO-koh) on February 12, 1817. In 1821, San Martı ´ n moved on to Lima, Peru, the center of Spanish authority. Convinced that he would be unable to complete the liberation of all of Peru, San Martı ´ n welcomed the arrival of Bolı ´ var and his forces. As he wrote to Bolı ´ var, ‘‘For me it would have been the height of happiness to end the war of independence under the orders of a general to whom [South] America owes its freedom. Destiny orders it otherwise, and one must resign oneself to it.’’ 3 Highly disappointed, San Martı ´ n left South America for Europe, where he remained until his death in 1850. Meanwhile, Bolı ´ var took on the task of crushing the last significant Spanish army at Ayacucho (ah-ya-KOO-choh) on December 9, 1824. By then, Peru, Uruguay, Paraguay, Colombia, Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile had all become free states. In 1823, the Central American states became independent Latin America in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries 519
Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 519). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.
and in 1838–1839 divided into five republics (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua). Earlier, in 1822, the prince regent of Brazil had declared Brazil’s independence from Portugal. INDEPENDENCE AND THE MONROE DOCTRINE In the early 1820s, only one major threat remained to the newly won independence of the Latin American states. Reveling in their success in crushing rebellions in Spain and Italy, the victorious continental European powers favored the use of troops to restore Spanish control in Latin America. This time, Britain’s opposition to intervention prevailed. Eager to gain access to an entire continent for investment and trade, the British proposed joint Simo´ n Bolı´ var on Government in Latin America POLITICS & GOVERNMENT Simo´ n Bolı´var is acclaimed as the man who liberated Latin America from Spanish control. His interest in history and the ideas of the Enlightenment also led him to speculate on how Latin American nations would be governed after their freedom was obtained. This selection is taken from a letter that he wrote to the British governor of Jamaica. Simo´n Bolı ´ var, The Jamaica Letter It is . . . difficult to foresee the future fate of the New World, to set down its political principles, or to prophesy what manner of government it will adopt. . . . We inhabit a world apart, separated by broad seas. We are young in the ways of almost all the arts and sciences, although in a certain manner, we are old in the ways of civilized society. . . . But we scarcely retain a vestige of what once was; we are, moreover, neither Indian nor European, but a species midway between the legitimate proprietors of this country and the Spanish usurpers. In short, though Americans by birth we derive our rights from Europe, and we have to assert these rights against the rights of the natives, and at the same time we must defend ourselves against the invaders. This places us in a most extraordinary and involved situation. . . . The role of the inhabitants of the American hemisphere has for centuries been purely passive. Politically they were nonexistent. We are still in a position lower than slavery, and therefore it is more difficult for us to rise to the enjoyment of freedom. . . . States are slaves because of either the nature or the misuse of their constitutions; a people is therefore enslaved when the government, by its nature or its vices, infringes on and usurps the rights of the citizen or subject. Applying these principles, we find that America was denied not only its freedom but even an active and effective tyranny. . . . It is harder, Montesquieu has written, to release a nation from servitude than to enslave a free nation. This truth is proven by the annals of all times, which reveal that most free nations have been put under the yoke, but very few enslaved nations have recovered their liberty. Despite the convictions of history, South Americans have made efforts to obtain liberal, even perfect, institutions, doubtless out of that instinct to aspire to the greatest possible happiness, which, common to all men, is bound to follow in civil societies founded on the principles of justice, liberty, and equality. But are we capable of maintaining in proper balance the difficult charge of a republic? Is it conceivable that a newly emancipated people can soar to the heights of liberty …? Such a marvel is inconceivable and without precedent. There is no reasonable probability to bolster our hopes. More than anyone, I desire to see America fashioned into the greatest nation in the world, greatest not so much by virtue of her area and wealth as by her freedom and glory. Although I seek perfection for the government of my country, I cannot persuade myself that the New World can, at the moment, be organized as a great republic. Since it is impossible, I dare not desire it; yet much less do I desire to have all America a monarchy because this plan is not only impracticable but also impossible. Wrongs now existing could not be righted, and our emancipation would be fruitless. The American states need the care of paternal governments to heal the sores and wounds of despotism and war. What problems did Bolı´var foresee for Spanish America’s political future? Do you think he believed in democracy? Why or why not? Source: Simo´n Bolı´var, Selected Writings, ed. H. A. Bierck, trans. L Berrand (New York, 1951), pp. 106, 108, 112–114. 520 CHAPTER 20 The Americas and Society and Culture in the West Copyright 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 520). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.
action with the United States against European interference in Latin America. Distrustful of British motives, President James Monroe acted alone in 1823, guaranteeing the independence of the new Latin American nations and warning against any further European intervention in the Americas under what is known as the Monroe Doctrine. Even more important to Latin American independence than American words was Britain’s navy. All of the continental European powers were reluctant to challenge British naval power, which stood between Latin America and any European invasion force. The Difficulties of Nation Building As Simo´ n Bolı ´ var had foreseen, the new Latin American nations (see Map 20.1), most of which began as republics, faced a number of serious problems between 1830 and 1870. The wars for independence themselves had resulted in a staggering loss of population, property, and livestock. At the same time, disputes arose between nations over their precise boundaries. POLITICAL DIFFICULTIES The new nations of Latin America established republican governments, but they had had no experience in ruling themselves. Due to the insecurities prevalent after independence, strong leaders known as caudillos (kah-DEEL-yohz or kow-THEELyohz) came to power. Caudillos at the national level were generally one of two types. One group, who supported the elites, consisted of autocrats who controlled (and often abused) state revenues, centralized power, and kept the new national states together. Sometimes they were also modernizers who built roads and canals, ports, and schools. These caudillos were usually supported by the Catholic Church, the rural aristocracy, and the army, which emerged from the wars of independence as a powerful political force that often made and deposed governments. Many caudillos, in fact, were former army leaders. In contrast, other caudillos were supported by the masses, became extremely popular, and served as instruments for radical change. Juan Manuel de Rosas (WAHN mahn-WEL day ROH-sas), for example, who led
Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 521). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.
Argentina from 1829 to 1852, became very popular by favoring Argentine interests against foreigners. ECONOMIC PATTERNS Although political independence brought economic independence, old patterns were quickly reestablished. Instead of Spain and Portugal, Great Britain now dominated the Latin American economy. British merchants arrived in large numbers, and British investors poured in funds, especially into the mining industry. Old trade patterns soon reemerged. Since Latin America served as a source of raw materials and foodstuffs for the industrializing nations of Europe and the United States, exports—especially wheat, tobacco, wool, sugar, coffee, and hides—to the North Atlantic countries increased noticeably. At the same time, finished consumer goods, especially textiles, were imported in increasing quantities, causing a decline in industrial production in Latin America. The emphasis on exporting raw materials and importing finished products ensured the ongoing domination of the Latin American economy by foreigners.
Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 522). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.
SOCIAL CONDITIONS A fundamental underlying problem for all of the new Latin American nations was the persistent domination of society by the landed elites. Large estates remained an important aspect of Latin America’s economic and social life. After independence, the size of these estates expanded even more. By 1848, the Sa´ nchez Navarro (SAHN-ches nuh-VAH-roh) family in Mexico owned seventeen haciendas (hah-see-ENduhz), or plantations, covering 16 million acres. Estates were often so large that they could not be farmed efficiently. As one Latin American newspaper put it, ‘‘The huge fortunes have the unfortunate tendency to grow even larger, and their owners possess vast tracts of land, which lie fallow and abandoned. Their greed for land does not equal their ability to use it intelligently and actively.’’ 4 Land remained the basis of wealth, social prestige, and political power throughout the nineteenth century. The Latin American elites tended to identify with European standards of progress, which worked to their benefit, while the masses gained little. Landed elites ran governments, controlled courts, and maintained the system of debt peonage that provided large landowners with a supply of cheap labor. These landowners made enormous profits by concentrating on specialized crops for export, such as coffee, while the masses, left without land to grow basic food crops, lived in dire poverty. Tradition and Change in the Latin American Economy and Society After 1870, Latin America began to experience an era of rapid economic growth based to a large extent on the export of a few basic commodities, such as wheat and beef from Argentina, coffee from Brazil, nitrates from Chile, coffee and bananas from Central America, and sugar and silver from Peru. These foodstuffs and raw materials were exchanged for finished goods—textiles, machines, and luxury goods—from Europe and the United States. Despite their economic growth, Latin American nations remained economic colonies of Western nations. Old patterns also still largely prevailed in society. Rural elites dominated their estates and their workers. Although slavery was abolished by 1888, former slaves and their descendants were at the bottom of their society. The Indians remained poverty-stricken. One result of the new prosperity that came from increased exports was growth in the middle sectors of Latin American society—lawyers, merchants, shopkeepers, businesspeople, schoolteachers, professors, bureaucrats, and military officers. These middle sectors, which made up only 5 to 10 percent of the population, depending on the country, were hardly large enough in numbers to constitute a true middle class. Nevertheless, after 1900, the middle sectors continued to expand. They lived in the cities, sought education and decent incomes, and increasingly saw the United States as the model to emulate, especially in regard to industrialization and education. As Latin American exports increased, so did the working class, and that in turn led to the growth of labor unions, especially after 1914. Radical unions often advocated the use of the general strike as an instrument for change. By and large, however, the governing elites succeeded in stifling the political influence of the working class by restricting workers’ right to vote. The need for industrial labor also led Latin American countries to encourage immigration from Europe. Between 1880 and 1914, 3 million Europeans, primarily Italians and Spaniards, settled in Argentina. More than 100,000 Europeans, mostly Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish, arrived in Brazil each year between 1891 and 1900. As in Europe and the United States, industrialization led to urbanization, evident in both the emergence of new cities and the rapid growth of old ones. Buenos Aires (the ‘‘Paris’’ of South America) had 750,000 inhabitants by 1900 and 2 million by 1914—a fourth of Argentina’s population. Political Change in Latin America Latin America also experienced a political transformation after 1870. Large landowners began to take a more direct interest in national politics and even in governing. In Argentina and Chile, for example, landholding elites controlled the governments, and although they produced constitutions similar to those of the United States and European nations, they ensured that they would maintain power by restricting voting rights. In some countries, large landowners supported dictators who would protect their interests. Jose´ de la Cruz Porfirio Dı ´ az (hoh-SAY day lah KROOZ por-FEERyoh DEE-ahs) (1830–1915), who ruled Mexico from 1876 to 1910, created a conservative, centralized government with the support of the army, foreign capitalists, large landowners, and the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, there were forces for change in Mexico that led to revolution in 1910. During Dı ´ az’s dictatorial regime, the real wages of the working class declined. Moreover, 95 percent of the rural population owned no land, while about a thousand families owned almost all of Mexico. When a liberal landowner, Francisco Madero (frahn-SEES-koh muhDERR-oh) (1873–1913), forced Dı ´ az from power, he opened the door to a wider revolution. Madero’s ineffectiveness triggered a demand for agrarian reform
Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 523). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.
Emiliano Zapata (eh-mee-LYAH-noh zup-PAH-tuh) (1873–1919), who aroused the masses of landless peasants and began to seize the estates of the wealthy landholders. The ensuing revolution caused untold destruction to the Mexican economy. Finally, a new constitution in 1917 established a strong presidency, initiated land reform policies, established limits on foreign investors, and set an agenda for social welfare for workers. By this time, a new power had begun to wield its influence over Latin America. By 1900, the United States, which had begun to emerge as a great world power, began to interfere in the affairs of its southern neighbors. As a result of the Spanish-American War (1898), Cuba became a U.S. protectorate, and Puerto Rico was annexed outright by the United States. American investments in Latin America soon followed; so did American resolve to protect these investments. Between 1898 and 1934, American military forces were sent to Cuba, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic to protect American interests. At the same time, the United States became the chief foreign investor in Latin America. The North American Neighbors: The United States and Canada FOCUS QUESTIONS: What role did nationalism and liberalism play in the United States and Canada between 1800 and 1870? What economic, social, and political trends were evident in the United States and Canada between 1870 and 1914? Whereas Latin America had been colonized by Spain and Portugal, the colonies established in North America were part of the British Empire and thus differed in various ways from their southern neighbors. Although they gained their freedom from the British at different times, both the United States and Canada emerged as independent and prosperous nations whose political systems owed much to British political thought. In the nineteenth century, both the United States and Canada faced difficult obstacles in achieving national unity. The Growth of the United States The U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1789, committed the United States to two of the major influences of the first half of the nineteenth century, liberalism and nationalism. Initially, this constitutional commitment to national unity was challenged by divisions over the power of the federal government versus the individual states. A strong force for national unity came from the Supreme Court while John Marshall (1755–1835) was chief justice from 1801 to 1835. Marshall made the Supreme Court into an
Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 524). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.
important national institution by asserting the right of the Court to overrule an act of Congress if the Court found it to be in violation of the Constitution. Under Marshall, the Supreme Court contributed further to establishing the supremacy of the national government by curbing the actions of state courts and legislatures. The election of Andrew Jackson (1767–1845) as president in 1828 opened a new era in American politics, the era of mass democracy. The electorate was expanded by dropping property qualifications; by the 1830s, suffrage had been extended to almost all adult white males. During the period from 1815 to 1850, the traditional liberal belief in the improvement of human beings was also given concrete expression through the establishment of detention schools for juvenile delinquents and new penal institutions, both motivated by the liberal belief that the right kind of environment would rehabilitate wayward individuals. SLAVERY AND THE COMING OF WAR By the midnineteenth century, however, American national unity was increasingly threatened by the issue of slavery. Both North and South had grown dramatically in population during the first half of the nineteenth century, but in different ways. The cotton economy and social structure of the South were based on the exploitation of enslaved black Africans and their descendants. Although the importation of new slaves had been barred in 1808, there were 4 million slaves in the South by 1860—four times the number sixty years earlier. The cotton economy depended on plantation-based slavery, and the South was determined to maintain its slaves. In the North, many people feared the spread of slavery into western territories. The issue first arose in the 1810s as new states were being created by the rush of settlers beyond the Mississippi. The free states of the North feared the prospect of a slave-state majority in the national government. As polarization over the issue of slavery intensified, compromise became less feasible. When Abraham Lincoln, the man who had said in a speech in Illinois in 1858 that ‘‘this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free,’’ was elected president in November 1860, the die was cast. Lincoln, the Republicans’ second presidential candidate, carried only 2 of the 1,109 counties in the South; the Republican Party was not even on the ballot in ten southern states. On December 20, 1860, a South Carolina convention voted to repeal the state’s ratification of the U.S. Constitution. In February 1861, six more southern states did the same, and a rival nation, the Confederate States of America, was formed. In April, fighting erupted between North and South. THE CIVIL WAR The American Civil War (1861–1865) was an extraordinarily bloody struggle, a foretaste of the total war to come in the twentieth century. More than 600,000 soldiers died, either in battle or from deadly infectious diseases spawned by filthy camp conditions. The northern, or Union, forces enjoyed a formidable advantage in numbers of troops and material resources, but to southerners, those assets were not decisive. As they saw it, the Confederacy only had to defend the South from invasion, whereas the Union had to conquer the South. Southerners also believed that the dependence of manufacturers in the North and the European countries on southern raw cotton would lead to antiwar sentiment in the North and support abroad for the South. All these southern calculations meant little in the long run. Over a period of four years, the Union states of the North mobilized their superior assets and gradually wore down the Confederate forces of the South. As the war dragged on, it had the effect of radicalizing public opinion in the North. What began as a war to save the Union became a war against slavery. On January 1, 1863, Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, declaring most of the nation’s slaves ‘‘forever free’’ (see the box on p. 510 in Chapter 19). An increasingly effective Union blockade of the ports of the South, combined with a shortage of fighting men, made the Confederate cause desperate by the end of 1864. The final push of Union troops under General Ulysses S. Grant forced General Robert E. Lee’s Confederate Army to surrender on April 9, 1865. Although problems lay ahead, the Union victory reunited the country and confirmed that the United States would thereafter again be ‘‘one nation, indivisible.’’ The Rise of the United States Four years of bloody civil war had restored American national unity. The old South had been destroyed; onefifth of its adult white male population had been killed, and 4 million black slaves had been freed. For a while at least, a program of radical change in the South was attempted. Slavery was formally abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1865, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments extended citizenship to blacks and gave black men the right to vote. Radical Reconstruction in the early 1870s tried to create a new South based on the principle of the equality of black and white people, but the changes were soon mostly undone. Militia organizations, such as the Ku Klux Klan, used violence to discourage blacks from voting. A new system of sharecropping made blacks once again economically dependent on white landowners. New state laws made it nearly impossible for blacks to exercise their right to vote. By the end of the 1870s, supporters of white supremacy were back in power everywhere in the South.
Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 525). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.
PROSPERITY AND PROGRESSIVISM Between 1860 and 1914, the United States made the shift from an agrarian to a mighty industrial nation. American heavy industry stood unchallenged in 1900. In that year, the Carnegie Steel Company alone produced more steel than Great Britain’s entire steel industry. Industrialization also led to urbanization. Whereas 20 percent of Americans lived in cities in 1860, more than 40 percent did in 1900. Four-fifths of the population growth came from migration. Eight to 10 million Americans moved from rural areas into the cities, and 14 million foreigners came from abroad. The United States had become the world’s richest nation and greatest industrial power. Yet serious questions remained about the quality of American life. In 1890, the richest 9 percent of Americans owned an incredible 71 percent of all the wealth. Labor unrest over unsafe working conditions, strict work discipline, and periodic cycles of devastating unemployment led workers to organize. By the turn of the century, one national organization, the American Federation of Labor, had emerged as labor’s dominant voice. Its lack of real power, however, was reflected in its membership figures. In 1900, it included only 8.4 percent of the American industrial labor force. During the so-called Progressive Era after 1900, reform swept the United States. Efforts to improve living conditions in the cities included attempts to eliminate corrupt machine politics. At the state level, reforming governors sought to achieve clean government by introducing elements of direct democracy, such as direct primaries for selecting nominees for public office. State governments also enacted economic and social legislation, such as laws that governed hours, wages, and working conditions, especially for women and children. State laws were ineffective in dealing with nationwide problems, however, and a Progressive movement soon developed at the national level. The Meat Inspection Act and Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 provided for a limited degree of federal regulation of industrial practices. The presidency of Woodrow Wilson (1913–1921) witnessed the enactment of a graduated federal income tax and the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, which permitted the national government to play a role in important economic decisions formerly made by bankers. Like European nations, the United States was slowly adopting policies that broadened the functions of the state. THE UNITED STATES AS A WORLD POWER At the end of the nineteenth century, the United States began to expand abroad. The Samoan Islands in the Pacific became the first important American colony; the Hawaiian Islands were next. By 1887, American settlers had gained control of the sugar industry on the Hawaiian Islands. As more Americans settled in Hawaii, they sought political power. When Queen Liliuokalani (LIL-ee-uh-woh-kuhLAH-nee) (1838–1917) tried to strengthen the monarchy in order to keep the islands for the Hawaiian people, the U.S. government sent Marines to ‘‘protect’’ American lives. The queen was deposed, and Hawaii was annexed by the United States in 1898.
Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 526). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.
The defeat of Spain in the Spanish-American War in 1898 expanded the American empire to include Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. Although the Filipinos appealed for independence, the Americans refused to grant it. As President William McKinley said, the United States had a duty ‘‘to educate the Filipinos and uplift and Christianize them,’’ a remarkable statement in view of the fact that most of them had been Roman Catholics for centuries. It took three years and 60,000 troops to pacify the Philippines and establish U.S. control. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the United States had become another Western imperialist power. The Making of Canada North of the United States, the process of nation building was also making progress. Under the Treaty of Paris in 1763, Canada—or New France, as it was called—passed into the hands of the British. By 1800, most Canadians favored more autonomy, although the colonists disagreed on the form this autonomy should take. Upper Canada (now Ontario) was predominantly English speaking, whereas Lower Canada (now Quebec) was dominated by French Canadians. A dramatic increase in immigration to Canada from Great Britain (almost one million immigrants between 1815 and 1850) also fueled the desire for self-government. In 1837, a number of Canadian groups rose in rebellion against British authority. Although the rebellions were crushed by the following year, the British government now began to seek ways to satisfy some of the Canadian demands. The U.S. Civil War proved to be a turning point. Fearful of American designs on Canada during the war, the British government finally capitulated to Canadian demands. In 1867, Parliament established the Dominion of Canada, with its own constitution. Canada now possessed a parliamentary system and ruled itself, although foreign affairs still remained under the control of the British government. Canada faced problems of national unity between 1870 and 1914. At the beginning of 1870, the Dominion of Canada had only four provinces: Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. With the addition of two more provinces in 1871—Manitoba and British Columbia—the Dominion now extended from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific. As the first prime minister, John Macdonald (1815–1891) moved to strengthen Canadian unity. He pushed for the construction of a transcontinental railroad, which was completed in 1885 and opened the western lands to industrial and commercial development. This also led to the incorporation of two more provinces—Alberta and Saskatchewan— into the Dominion of Canada in 1905. Real unity was difficult to achieve, however, because of the distrust between the English-speaking majority and the French-speaking Canadians living primarily in Quebec. Wilfred Laurier (LOR-ee-ay), who became the first French Canadian prime minister in 1896, was able to reconcile Canada’s two major groups and resolve the issue of separate schools for French Canadians. During Laurier’s administration, industrialization boomed, especially the production of textiles, furniture, and railway equipment. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants, primarily from central and eastern Europe, also flowed into Canada. Many settled on lands in the west, thus helping populate Canada’s vast territories. The Emergence of Mass Society FOCUS QUESTION: What is meant by the term mass society, and what were its main characteristics? While new states were developing in the Western Hemisphere in the nineteenth century, a new kind of society— a mass society—was emerging in Europe, especially in the second half of the nineteenth century, as a result of
Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 527). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.
rapid economic and social changes. For the lower classes, mass society brought voting rights, an improved standard of living, and access to education. At the same time, however, mass society also made possible the development of organizations that manipulated the populations of the nation-states. To understand this mass society, we need to examine some aspects of its structure. The New Urban Environment One of the most important consequences of industrialization and the population explosion of the nineteenth century was urbanization. In the course of the nineteenth century, more and more people came to live in cities. In 1800, city dwellers constituted 40 percent of the population in Britain, 25 percent in France and Germany, and only 10 percent in eastern Europe. By 1914, urban residents had increased to 80 percent of the population in Britain, 45 percent in France, 60 percent in Germany, and 30 percent in eastern Europe. The size of cities also expanded dramatically, especially in industrialized countries. Between 1800 and 1900, London’s population grew from 960,000 to 6.5 million and Berlin’s from 172,000 to 2.7 million. Urban populations grew faster than the general population primarily because of the vast migration from rural areas to cities. But cities also grew faster in the second half of the nineteenth century because health and living conditions were improving as urban reformers and city officials used new technology to improve urban life. Following the reformers’ advice, city governments set up boards of health to improve the quality of housing and instituted regulations requiring all new buildings to have running water and internal drainage systems. Middle-class reformers also focused on the housing needs of the working class. Overcrowded, disease-ridden slums were seen as dangerous not only to physical health but also to the political and moral health of the entire nation. V. A. Huber, a German housing reformer, wrote in 1861: ‘‘Certainly it would not be too much to say that the home is the communal embodiment of family life. Thus, the purity of the dwelling is almost as important for the family as is the cleanliness of the body for the individual.’’ 5 To Huber, good housing was a prerequisite for stable family life, and without stable family life, society would fall apart. Early efforts to attack the housing problem emphasized the middle-class, liberal belief in the power of private enterprise. By the 1880s, as the number and size of cities continued to mushroom, governments concluded that private enterprise could not solve the housing crisis. In 1890, a British law empowered local town councils to construct cheap housing for the working classes. More and more, governments were stepping into areas of activity that they would not have touched earlier. The Social Structure of Mass Society At the top of European society stood a wealthy elite, constituting but 5 percent of the population while controlling between 30 and 40 percent of its wealth. In the course of the nineteenth century, landed aristocrats had joined with the most successful industrialists, bankers, and merchants (the wealthy upper middle class) to form a new elite. Marriage also united the two groups. Daughters of business tycoons gained titles, while aristocratic heirs gained new sources of cash. Members of this elite, whether aristocratic or middle class in background, assumed leadership roles in government bureaucracies and military hierarchies. The middle classes included a variety of groups. Below the upper middle class was a group that included lawyers, doctors, and members of the civil service, as well as business managers, engineers, architects, accountants, and chemists benefiting from industrial expansion. Beneath this solid and comfortable middle group was a lower middle class of small shopkeepers, traders, manufacturers, and prosperous peasants. Standing between the lower middle class and the lower classes were new groups of white-collar workers who were the product of the Second Industrial Revolution. They were the salespeople, bookkeepers, bank tellers, telephone operators, and secretaries. Though often paid little more than skilled laborers, these white-collar workers were committed to middle-class ideals of hard work, Christian morality, and propriety. Below the middle classes on the social scale were the working classes, who constituted almost 80 percent of the European population. Many of them were landholding peasants, agricultural laborers, and sharecroppers, especially in eastern Europe. The urban working class included skilled artisans in such traditional trades as cabinetmaking, printing, and jewelry making, along with semiskilled laborers, such as carpenters, bricklayers, and many factory workers. At the bottom of the urban working class stood the largest group of workers, the unskilled laborers. They included day laborers, who worked irregularly for very low wages, and large numbers of domestic servants, most of whom were women. The Experiences of Women In the nineteenth century, women remained legally inferior, economically dependent, and largely defined by family and household roles. Women struggled to change their status throughout the century.
Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 528). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.
MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY Many women in the nineteenth century aspired to the ideal of femininity popularized by writers and poets. Alfred Lord Tennyson’s poem The Princess expressed it well: Man for the field and woman for the hearth: Man for the sword and for the needle she: Man with the head and woman with the heart: Man to command and woman to obey; All else confusion. This traditional characterization of the sexes, based on socially defined gender roles, was elevated to the status of universal male and female attributes in the nineteenth century. As the chief family wage earners, men worked outside the home for pay, while women were left with the care of the family, for which they were paid nothing. For most of the century, marriage was viewed as the only honorable career available to most women. The most significant development in the modern family was the decline in the number of offspring born to the average woman. While some historians attribute the decline to more widespread use of coitus interruptus, or male withdrawal before ejaculation, others have emphasized female control of family size through abortion and even infanticide or abandonment. That a change in attitude occurred was apparent in the development of a movement to increase awareness of birth control methods. Europe’s first birth control clinic opened in Amsterdam in 1882. The family was the central institution of middle-class life. Men provided the family income while women focused on household and child care. The use of domestic servants in many middle-class homes, made possible by an abundant supply of cheap labor, reduced the amount of time middle-class women had to spend on household chores. At the same time, by reducing the number of children in the family, mothers could devote more time to child care and domestic leisure. The middle-class family fostered an ideal of togetherness. The Victorians created the family Christmas with its Yule log, Christmas tree, songs, and exchange of gifts. In the United States, Fourth of July celebrations changed from drunken revels to family picnics by the 1850s. Women in working-class families were more accustomed to hard work. Daughters in working-class families were expected to work until they married; even after marriage, they often did piecework at home to help support the family. For the children of the working classes, childhood was over by the age of nine or ten, when they became apprentices or were employed at odd jobs. Between 1890 and 1914, however, family patterns among the working class began to change. High-paying jobs in heavy industry and improvements in the standard of living made it possible for working-class families to depend on the income of husbands and the wages of grown children. By the early twentieth century, some working-class mothers could afford to stay at home, following the pattern of middle-class women. THE MOVEMENT FOR WOMEN’S RIGHTS Modern European feminism, or the movement for women’s rights, had its beginnings during the French Revolution, when some women advocated equality for women based on the doctrine of natural rights. In the 1830s, a number of women in the United States and Europe, who worked together in several reform movements, argued for the right of women to divorce and own property. These early efforts were not overly successful; women did not gain the right to their own property until 1870 in Britain, 1900 in Germany and 1907 in France. Divorce and property rights were only a beginning for the women’s movement, however. Some middle- and upper-middleclass women gained access to higher education, and others sought entry into
Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 529). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.
occupations dominated by men. The first to fall was teaching. As medical training was largely closed to women, they sought alternatives in the development of nursing. Nursing pioneers included the British nurse Florence Nightingale, whose efforts during the Crimean War (1854–1856), along with those of Clara Barton in the American Civil War (1861–1865), transformed nursing into a profession of trained, middle-class ‘‘women in white.’’ By the 1840s and 1850s, the movement for women’s rights had entered the political arena with the call for equal political rights. Many feminists believed that the right to vote was the key to all other reforms to improve the position of women. Suffragists had one basic aim: the right of women to full citizenship in the nation-state. The British women’s movement was the most vocal and active in Europe. In 1903, Emmeline Pankhurst (PANK-hurst) (1858–1928) and her daughters, Christabel and Sylvia, founded the Women’s Social and Political Union, which enrolled mostly middle- and upper-class women. The members of Pankhurst’s organization realized the value of the media and staged unusual publicity stunts to call attention to their demands. Derisively labeled ‘‘suffragettes’’ by male politicians, they pelted government officials with eggs, chained themselves to lampposts, smashed the windows of department stores on fashionable shopping streets, burned railroad cars, and went on hunger strikes in jail. Before World War I, the demands for women’s rights were being heard throughout Europe and the United States, although only in Norway and some American states did women receive the right to vote before 1914. It would take the dramatic upheaval of World War I before maledominated governments capitulated on this basic issue. At the same time, at the turn of the twentieth century, a number of ‘‘new women’’ became prominent. These women rejected traditional feminine roles (see the box on p. 531) and sought new freedom outside the household and new roles other than those of wives and mothers. Education in an Age of Mass Society Education in the early nineteenth century was primarily for the elite or the wealthier middle class, but between 1870 and 1914, most Western governments began to offer at least primary education to both boys and girls between the ages of six and twelve. States also assumed responsibility for better training of teachers by establishing teacher-training schools. By the beginning of the twentieth century, many European states, especially in northern and western Europe, were providing statefinanced primary schools, salaried and trained teachers, and free, compulsory elementary education. Why did Western nations make this commitment to mass education? One reason was industrialization. The new firms of the Second Industrial Revolution demanded skilled labor. Both boys and girls with an elementary education had new possibilities of jobs beyond their villages or small towns, including white-collar jobs in railways and subways, post offices, banking and shipping firms, teaching, and nursing. Mass education furnished the trained workers industrialists needed. For most students, elementary education led to apprenticeship and a job. The chief motive for mass education, however, was political. The expansion of suffrage created the need for a more educated electorate. In parts of Europe where the Catholic Church remained in control of education, implementing a mass education system reduced the influence of the church over the electorate. Even more important, however, mass compulsory education instilled patriotism and nationalized the masses, providing an opportunity for even greater national integration. As people lost their ties to local regions and even to religion, nationalism supplied a new faith (see the comparative essay ‘‘The Rise of Nationalism’’ on p. 533). Compulsory elementary education created a demand for teachers, and most of them were women. Many men viewed the teaching of children as an extension of women’s ‘‘natural role’’ as nurturers of children. Moreover, females were paid lower salaries, in itself a considerable incentive for governments to encourage the establishment of teacher-training institutes for women. The first female colleges were really teacher-training schools. It was not until the beginning of the twentieth century that women were permitted to enter the male-dominated universities.
Duiker, William J.. The Essential World History, Volume II: Since 1500: 2 (p. 530). Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.