Rockefeller

“Two men have been supreme in creating the modern world: Rockefeller and Bismarck. One in economics, the other in politics, refuted the liberal dream of universal happiness through individual competition, substituting instead monopoly and the corporate state…”

-Bertrand Russell

It is an economic fact that a competitive market is the most efficient. However, one of the major reasons our nation took off economically was because of the few monopolies that controlled many of the major industries in the late 1800’s. Two of these were the oil and railroad industries.

“Railroad corporations became America’s first big business.”[1] Huge tracks connected the two coasts of America and made business and travel easier. Can you imagine hundreds of different companies and organizations trying to work separately and raise the funds to build railroad track that could span tens of thousands of miles? It would have taken years to do half of what Central Pacific Railroad and the other big companies did. The railroad industry was also crucial starting another monopoly, oil.

John D. Rockefeller was one of the United States first millionaires and if converted to today’s dollar, the wealthiest man in the country’s history. Most of this wealth was acquired through illegal deals with railroad companies and the rest through perseverance. He went out and bought smaller companies and grew at an incredible rate. Rockefeller’s company, Standard Oil Company, controlled more than 90 percent of the country’s refinery capacity by the 1870’s (Faragher, 505.) Due to the companies near complete control of the market, Rockefeller was able to drop the price of kerosene products near eighty percent.[2] This is immensely important when you consider the importance of oil in an industrial nation.

Oil has some importance in most, if not all, industries. Oil was crucial getting the United States to the next step economically. In just a mere hundred years of being a independent nation, the U.S. grew to be a leader in industry. Rockefeller’s ability to dominate the oil industry early on was a key factor. He was able to control asset, and ultimately drop the price. Would this be consistent in today’s world? Well OPEC has done a fairly good job of showing there answer to this question is no. We have become so dependent on the resource that the cartel can charge whatever price they please. Which is only good business practice, in my opinion.

Monopolies were an effective way of organizing key industries that made the United States an economic power for over a century. They helped gather natural resources that were eventually crucial in the country’s development. Once again, I think it would be rather foolish to look at Rockefeller, and others like him, and say they were bad men. I would simply say that they an opportunity, and took it.

---

[1] Faragher, John, Mari Buhle, Daniel Czitrom , and Susan Armitage. Out of Many: A History of the American People. New Jersey: Pearson, 2006.

[2] Collier, Peter and Horowitz, David. The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty. New York: Winston, 1976.

The Mexican-American War

Was the Mexican-American War right? Is war ever right? To this day many view the war as controversial at best. Driven by Manifest Destiny and an essentially a desire for more territory to grow cotton and to expand the slave population, the United States felt it was their right to expand into Mexican territories.

Do morals exist on a national level? Few would debate that it is wrong to go across the street and kill your neighbor because you are having a bad day, but is it different for a country to go to its neighbor and kill thousands? The United States could have left what is now Texas and several other states to Mexico, but it the reward for taking it was so much greater. Getting to the West coast was crucial for the expanding country. By owning states such as California they had free access to the ports up and down the coast.[1] A country has to do what is in its best interest. If a country poses a possible threat, that problem can’t be ignored, and in the same sense if there are great rewards for taking something from another country, take it.

One important note is that those who were pushing for expansion into Mexican territories were mostly Southerners looking for additional land to spread slavery. However, many in America were against the idea and fought to avoid confrontation. When John O’Sullivan proposed the concept of Manifest Destiny, he gave the United States a way to take Mexican land and have a clear conscious while doing it. He said that it was the country’s duty to expand and bring with it the benefits of American democracy.[2] This concept was nothing more than a political tool. If the people don’t like what their government is doing, they don’t get re-elected. Manifest Destiny gave the general population peace of mind about taking Mexican land, and let those who wanted it all along what they wanted.

Whether it was right to go to war with Mexico or not is a question that has no real answer, only opinions. If you look at the benefits the U.S. received from taking lands such as California and Texas, its hard to say it wasn’t a good idea to do what they did.

---

[1]Antonia I. Castañeda of Saint Mary’s Univeristy, http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/prelude/

[2] Faragher, John, Mari Buhle, Daniel Czitrom , and Susan Armitage. Out of Many: A History of the American People. New Jersey: Pearson, 2006.

The Importance of Slavery

Slavery was the single most important factor in the rise of the United States. African slaves provided not only a huge work force, but also a cheap one. They contributed everywhere from farms to the maritime industry. Their population allowed the nation to grow and turn into a power.

From the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, over six hundred thousand African slaves were shipped to the United States. By the mid 1800’s, the African slave population had grown to be over 4 million.[1] That number doesn’t include all of the free blacks and those that were born of a mixed decent of both Caucasian and African decent. If you combine these three numbers, individuals of African descent almost reached eight million by the mid-eighteenth century. That is almost a third of the entire population of the U.S. during that time.[2] This large demographic helped the country grow and be able to sustain itself during early wars such as the Civil War.

As a developing nation, African slaves offered an incredibly cheap and even skilled workforce. Slaves from the west coast of Africa brought knowledge that ended up being immensely useful making sugar and other cash crops. Slaves in the Maritime industry were crucial. They were immensely important to the transportation network. Without them there wouldn’t have been enough workers to repair boats, “the network would have broken down.”[3]

These ideas can be seen again in 21^st century. Immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries supply one of the biggest workforces in California, one of the top ten economies in the world.[4] Movies like “A Day Without a Mexican” joke about how much middle and upper class people in California depend on the Latin community to function. A large number of low paying jobs that make our lives easier, such as fast food employees, gardeners and others help let the economy flow. This was the same three hundred years ago when plantation owners and other high class individuals depended on the black slave to make them money. Without slaves, the United States economy never would have gotten off the ground.

The slave trade helped the United States gain the wealth and population necessary to move into a state of power in the world. Who knows, if wasn’t for slavery the United States may never had grown economically strong enough to separate from the British Empire. There is no absolutely no doubt that if it wasn’t for the African slaves, the U.S. would be a very different place.

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_United_States

[2] http://members.aol.com/ntgen/hrtg/census.html#ustimeline

[3] http://www.mit.edu/people/bpfoley/slavery2.html

[4] The World Almanac, World Almanac Books, 2006. p. 195.

The Bill of Rights

Without the Bill of Rights, the United States would have failed almost immediately. For hundreds of years, people came to America looking of freedom from the monarchies back in Europe. Thousands were simply tired of being taxed and controlled by what they viewed as unfair rulers. The difference between the kings and queens of old and the new United States, was the Bill of Rights.

In the early stages of the United States’ government, Federalists and anti-Federalists fought over numerous topics. Anti-Federalists were supporters of a weak central government while having strong state governments, while the Federalists essentially wanted the opposite. Theses two parties fought and helped mold the Constitution. However, the Constitution was on the brink of not being ratified. Anti-Federalists continued to argue that there needed to be more of a guarantee that individual’s rights were going to be protected. Here comes in the Bill of Rights. These ten amendments, initially twelve but only ten were ratified, guaranteed American’s freedom of speech and religion, among other important individual rights. The Bill of Rights is the most important constitutional legacy of the Anti-Federalists[1].

Governments in the late 1700’s were in turmoil to say the least. Revolutions, including the United States, were taking place in Europe. France’s century old monarchy was about to fall and there was general unrest with the low classes. The Bill of Rights helped ensure even the poor would be, at least in practice, treated fairly. This bought the country time to settle and focus on establishing itself as a nation.

A large base for the population of the early U.S. was Europeans looking for a place to live and practice any religion they chose. Dozens of different religions were embraced in the in the early states and the Constitution’s framers wanted to ensure none of these religions would have the opportunity to have power over any of the others. The Bill of Rights made it a priority to have a separation of church and state. This helped ensure that individuals’ freedom to practice a religion of their choosing would be safe.

The Bill of Rights highlighted the irony of slavery in the United States. Every right protected in the ten amendments didn’t necessarily “apply” if you weren’t white. Even though it took over half a century, eventually slavery was brought to an end in the U.S. and the country was able to try and move on. The end of slavery was crucial in the United States ability to advance as a society and as a country.

So, the Bill of Rights was one of the most important factors in the U.S. coming together as a nation. It ensured citizens rights and brought about the ratification of the Constitution. Without it, the United States would not be alive today.

---

[1] Zinn, Howard. APeople's History of the United States. New York: The New Press, 2003

Quakers

Quakers are known for the peaceful and anti war beliefs since their start in the seventeenth century. However, the Quaker’s history isn’t left without it’s share of violence. Which, in part, led to the creation of the state of Pennsylvania.

Much like the early years of Christianity, Quakers faced severe persecution and hate[1]. Wanting to escape religious persecution, they started colonies in Rhode Island and North Carolina. However, life continued to be hard for the Quakers in America. History shows Quakers being tortured in New York and even beheaded in Boston.

In 1682, William Penn sent out a pamphlet, Some Account of the Province of Pennsylvania, across Europe encouraging fellow Quakers and others who were being religiously persecuted to make a journey to America. You were promised 50 acre head rights, 200 acre farms at a penny per acre rent and for 100 pounds you could own your own country estate.

Pennsylvania was hardly a wilderness; remnants of the New Sweden colony were still in the area and helped the new Quaker settlers. Do to the openness of the invitation and help from the Swedes, Pennsylvania’s population grew rapidly. Germans settled Germantown in 1683, Welsh Quakers founded Radnor and Haverford and English Quakers, or the Free Society of Traders, started Philadelphia. In 1684 Penn was quoted, “I have led the greatest colony into America that ever any man did upon a private credit, and the most prosperous beginnings that were ever in it are to be found among us[2].” By 1685, the population was near ten thousand.

The Quakers had a huge influence in American society. They were instrumental on the abolishment of slavery. In 1733, Germantown started to publish articles in opposition of slavery. Quaker’s were also large activists for proper treatment of the mentally ill. In 1796, a tea merchant named William Tuke, started the Retreat in York. Unlike other institutions at the time, at the Retreat patients were treated with the dignity that Quakers believed was in every human being.


[1]Morison, Samuel. The Oxford History of the American People. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.
[2] Morison, Samuel. The Oxford History of the American People. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.
[3] Faragher, John, Mari Buhle, Daniel Czitrom , and Susan Armitage. Out of Many: A History of the American People. New Jersey: Pearson, 2006.

Genocide

Howard Zinn, and to an extent the authors of Out Of Many, make a point of drawing attention to the horrific treatment of the Native Americans at the hands of Christopher Columbus and those who followed in his path. While I agree that the “genocide” of the native Americans was terrible, it wasn’t unusual. It was simply the strong prevailing over the weak.

Before Columbus even had the thought of heading west, Indian tribes were killing one another. The Aztecs ruled with fierce oppression, sacrificing and enslaving neighboring groups that we’re weaker. Wingina, an Indian chief on the East Coast, wanted to use the English as a tool to conquer rivals in the area. Many Indian groups were peaceful, but Zinn works incredibly hard to make the Native Americans seem harmless and completely peaceful.

When the Europeans came, so did their diseases. Zinn makes it sound like it was a conscience effort on their part to bring disease to the Indians. I find it very unlikely that people five hundred plus years ago fully understood the concept of antibodies and immunity to disease. The outbreak of disease that followed the Europeans path just happened to be a convenient weapon added to their arsenal. Once they did figure out that disease was on their side, one can’t really blame them for using it to its full advantage. It wasn’t in their power to cure the Natives or prevent outbreaks, and a people that sailed over treacherous seas for several months are hardly going to stop, apologize, sail back home and leave brand new lands to themselves.

Throughout history, one group of people has conquered another, never without bloodshed. The Romans slaughtered countless nations and peoples. The Mongolians went west and killed virtually everything in their path. Hitler and Nazi Germany did their best to take over Europe and anything that didn’t subscribe to their way of things. Strong attacking the weak. It happens in elementary schools everyday. Europeans found a new land that promised riches, land and slaves. Almost every nation in human history would have done the same thing as Columbus and the other conquistadors.

I not trying to argue that what happened to the Native American people wasn’t terrible, but I am saying that it shouldn’t be a surprise. Decency on a national level, is a fairly new concept. Slavery and cruelty were abundant for the history of mankind and it is hardly fair to look down at Columbus and judge by today’s standards five hundred years later.

Zinn, Howard. APeople's History of the United States. New York: The New Press, 2003