AICE US History Paper 2

Why did the slave states divide in 1861? (2)

• Seceding states - economies were reliant on slave-labor (cotton/tobacco) - worried abolitionist would ruin economy

• Fear of Lincoln - when Lincoln elected (1860) many southerners viewed him as abolitionist

• States rights - southern states didn't want to be told what to do by federal government

• Cultural differences - North was industrializing, South more agricultural

Remember not all Southerners supported secession. Some fought for the Union (e.g. Eastern Tennessee)

How great was the damage to life in the

South during the Civil War?

1. DAMAGED

• 40% of South destroyed

• Higher casualty rates than North

• Blockade caused shortages - Richmond women rioted for bread

• Inflation rate of 9000% - Confederate grayback became worthless

• Slaves left plantations - women had to work

• Total war strategy (Sherman and Grant) - left large areas of South damaged • Left South poor for decades

2. NOT DAMAGED

• Rich less effected by war. Plantation owners avoided draft

• Anaconda Plan - slowly strangled the South - conditions got worse when North changed tactics • Certain parts of South left unscathed

Conclusion - South suffered a great deal of damage during the war

Why did it take the North three years to turn its superiority of resources over the South into military victory? (7)

• Anaconda plan - naval blockade and gain control of the Mississippi - not a plan for a quick victory

(• North - won by switching strategy to total war)

• Defensive war - South fighting on their own soil and had shorter supply lines

• Military leadership - South had better generals (Lee and Jackson) at start of war - Northern generals were too cautious at beginning of war - Lincoln was inexperienced military commander

• North lacked ships to enforce blockade

• South - did not have to win - just had to hang on long enough to get North

to compromise (make peace)

The North won the war because Grant was prepared to attack the people of the South as well as its armies. How far do you agree? (7)

AGREE

March to the Sea - South Carolina - led by Sherman (1864-1865)- very effective - Sherman wrote in 'We are not only fighting hostile armies but a hostile people.' There was pillaging and destruction

• Sherman's rapid advance allowed him to join with Grant's army - Lee surrendered soon after (Appomattox)

• Scorched earth policy destroyed the spirit of popular resistance in the South

• Sherman's army had long supply lines lived off the land

DISAGREES

• Civilians were not attacked - they were moved out of the way (Ex. Atlanta)

• Grant's battles in 1864 were traditional military campaigns (battles and sieges) No attacks

on civilians

• Anaconda Plan - had suffocated the South by 1864

Why did Lincoln win the 1864 presidential

election?

Lincoln won in 1860 - up for re-election in 1864 Reasons Lincoln won:

• Sherman took Atlanta - tilted balance of war towards the North - before that Lincoln's popularity suffered because of draft, limits on civil liberties, and high casualty rates

• Split in both parties - Lincoln ran under National Union Party with the War Democrats (he was opposed by some Radical Republicans) - the Democrats split even worse - the Copperheads (Dems who wanted immediate peace) supported ex-general George McClellan

• To get Democratic support Lincoln chose Andrew Johnson (Tenn.) as Vice President

• Northern soldiers - were largely pro-Lincoln

• Lincoln won in landslide - 212 electoral votes to 21

How great was the impact of the

Emancipation Proclamation? (3)

GREAT IMPACT

• Changed how Europe viewed North. Kept Britain and France out of war

• Allowed black men into the Northern armies. Provided needed soldiers

• Changed focus of war from keeping union together to the moral issue of eliminating slavery

• Lincoln did this because war was not going well for the North

• Proclamation seriously undermined the Southern war effort because it could not rely on the support of its slaves

• War had been a stalemate in east - caused movement in the east

NOT GREAT

• Proclamation did not shift balance - was already an imbalance of resources that favored the North - it took until 1863-64 for the imbalance to take effect

Why were Congress and the Presidency so deeply divided over the Reconstruction of the South so soon after winning the Civil War?

Short answer - Congress was composed of Northern Republicans while President Johnson, was a [War] Democrat from Tennessee

• 1864 to 1868 Lincoln and Johnson labeled themselves National Unionists

• During Johnson's presidency Republicans had a supermajority in both Houses (could override veto)

• Many called themselves Radical Republicans - opposed to Slave Power in all its forms

• Even Lincoln as President had conflict with Congress before his death - he vetoed the Wade-Davis Bill on Reconstruction (Lincoln wanted 10% plan - Wade Davis was much harsher)

• Johnson vetoed 21 bills from Congress - they overrode that veto 15 times

• Johnson wanted limited change on the South after the war - Congress wanted to impose much

harsher demands (like punishing Southern war leaders)

• Conflict became so bitter - Congress impeached Johnson, first time ever

• Conflict ended with election of Ulysses Grant in 1869

Which side did more to limit civil liberties during the Civil War: North or South? (4)

Background: Civil liberties are the rights and freedoms of the individual, e.g. freedom of speech, freedom of association. In wartime, they are usually restricted

Both sides

• Used a draft (conscription) - South started first

• Had Exemptions - could pay way out of draft

• Suspended habeas corpus - individuals could be detained without charge

• Lincoln was quick to suspend habeas corpus in certain areas - Merryman case - habeas was granted by a judge -Lincoln ignored it

• South used martial law especially in the Border States - military courts - South was more desperate for manpower

Both sides limited civil liberties. North's restrictions more well known

Account for the rise and fall of the Freedmen's Bureau during the Reconstruction era.

Freedmen's Bureau 1869-72 - was extremely controversial - established last few months of Lincoln's presidency

• Intended to last for one year only

• Purpose: to help the 4 million ex-slaves become free men

• Resistance: White Southerners passed Black Codes - laws intended to restrict African Americans' freedom and made them to work for low wages or debt

• Ku Klux Klan formed - a way white Southerners opposed Reconstruction - used intimidation and violence

• 1866 - Congress extended life of Bureau - had to override President Johnson's veto

• Bureau provided hospitals, schools (beginning of black universities), and support of ex-slaves

• Southern states - when readmitted to Union - used votes to stop the Bureau

• Grant - introduced bill to save Bureau in Ku Klux Klan Act

• First time federal government took welfare role, a role which traditionally belonged to the states

• 1872 - Congress dismantled bureau due to pressure from White Southerners

How radical was Radical Reconstruction?

(Radical - means fundamental change not limited reform

Radical Reconstruction - aim was to bring big changes to South)

• Goals were redistribution of land, harsh treatment of CSA leaders, political equality, and support for ex-slaves

Goals achieved - political equality in theory - 14th and 15th Amendments Goals not achieved

• actual equality (e.g. - black codes) - things got worse once North became less involved in South

• CSA leaders escaped relatively lightly - Jefferson Davis was arrested spent four years in prison - was released

without charge

• Land redistribution - mostly ignored. Sherman's idea was 'forty acres and a mule' - never became part of federal government policy

• Land remained with previous landowners. Ex-slaves ended up working for their ex-masters on terms slightly better than before

-Radical Reconstruction had some radical goals. Practice of Reconstruction, however, was limited by the politics of both the South and of federal government

Why, in 1876-77, did the North abandon the policy of Reconstruction?

Economic depression - lasted 6 years - there was labor unrest in Northeast and agitated farmers in the west

• Politicians' turned attention away from the South

• Prominent abolitionists died - (Thaddeus Stevens died in 1868)

• Republican party lost popularity in 1874 Congressional elections

• Reconstruction won few votes - Republicans turned toward other issues

• Republican party kept control of Presidency in 1876 by Compromise of 1877 with Democrats

Practical consequence of deal:

• Republican policies to reconstruct the South were abandoned • Federal troops were withdrawn from the South

Enforcement Acts of 1870 and Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 - high-water mark of federal intervention thereafter Democrats started to gain control of Southern states

How far did President Johnson continue the

Reconstruction policies of President Lincoln?

Lincoln had 3 initiatives

1. 10% Plan - rebel states could return if 10% of voters took an oath of future loyalty and state amended constitution to abolish slavery

2. A 13th Amendment - to abolish slavery

3. A Freedmen's Bureau - to help freed black slaves

Before assassination - Lincoln stated publicly some black males could be given the vote

CONGRESS:

• Opposed 10% Plan - approved Wade-Davis bill with a minimum of 50% taking the loyalty oath - Lincoln vetoed the bill

(Andrew Johnson - Southern Democrat from Tennessee (border state)

FOLLOWED LINCOLN:

• Amnesty (1865) - gave amnesty to southerners with no percentage required to take oath taking the oath

• Pardoned many southern landowners

• Declared Reconstruction complete - alienated Congress

• Introduced 14th Amendment - equality for all Americans

DID NOT FOLLOW LINCOLN:

• Vetoed bill to extend the Freedmen's Bureau (1866)

• Vetoed Civil Rights Act introducing black suffrage

• Believed in state's rights which allowed black codes

Johnson thought he was continuing Lincoln's policies - radicals in Congress became even more hostile to Johnson

Why did Southern states introduce 'black codes' in 1865-66?

Background - 13th Amendment abolished slavery Reasons for Black codes:

• Plantation owners needed state laws to replace their own rule

• States needed laws to regulate the freedmen and to maintain the traditional economy of

the South

• State rights - Johnson supported giving the former slave states great autonomy in making laws

All Southern states created Black Codes. Some examples:

• Employment was required of all freedmen; violators faced vagrancy charges • Freedmen could not assemble without the presence of a white person

• Freedmen were not to be taught to read or write

Black codes caused much hostility in the North - helped bring about the Radical Reconstruction - with 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment (1868)

The federal nature of the Southern system of government was the

main reason for the South's weakness in waging war against the North.' How far do you agree?

Confederacy - loose relationship between states - the states have broad power - the central government is weak

• Federal system - central government has more power Argument for Southern form of government being main weakness:

• Union government (Washington) had greater control over states than CSA (Richmond)

• Jefferson Davis - based arguments against the North on states rights - made it hard to control the Southern states

• CSA constitution also gave considerable powers to the states

• Conscription (draft) - CSA did one year before North - some states reluctant to provide troops because of exemptions given to slave owners war became known as 'a rich man's war but a poor man's fight'

• Georgia governor called Davis a tyrant over conscription

• CSA did not have two-party system - 1863 election saw the defeat of some pro-Davis candidates Counterarguments:

• CSA had trouble paying for war - printed money rather than raise taxes - caused inflation and lowered living standards

• Naval embargo - restricted exports of cotton and imports of needed military equipment (South lacked industrial base to

produce)

• CSA was agricultural society waging war the industrial North

Account for the formation of the Ku Klux Klan in 1865

Background: secret society formed in Tennessee - mission was to uphold white supremacy. Attacked freedmen, carpetbaggers (Northerners who came to govern the South), and scalawags (white southerners who worked with North)

Why was it formed:

• Many white southerners found the changes in Southern life hard to accept

• KKK gave the violence after the war a more organized and collective structure

• Civil Rights Act in 1866 (Congress overrode a veto) - gave legal equality to ex-slaves accentuated bad feelings

• Many Southern states sympathized with the KKK - enabled it to grow with great speed in 1866-67 - eventually forced federal intervention

'The Thirteenth Amendment was the greatest of the constitutional amendments passed between 1865 and 1970.' How far do you agree?

Background:

• 13th Amendment - abolished slavery

• 14th Amendment - equal rights for all

• 15th Amendment - gave blacks the right to vote

Agree:

• First major change to Constitution in 60 years

• Expanded federal power - Gave federal government broad power to enforce

Disagree:

• 14th gave great power to federal government to enforce equality - due process clause • 15th - gave blacks the right to vote - not enforced until 1960s

• Which was the greatest? Probably 14th

Taken together - some have called 3 Amendments the Second American revolution

Why was there opposition in the North to Lincoln's presidency prior to the 1864 election?

• The main Northern group opposed to Lincoln's presidency was known as the Copperheads, based mainly in the lower

• mid-west, e.g. Ohio. They opposed:

• • The methods of war, e.g. conscription, limits on civil liberties.

• • Lincoln's refusal to negotiate a compromise settlement with the South.

• • The Emancipation Proclamation: Copperheads were willing to accept the continuation of slavery in the South.

• • The modernising reforms pushed through Congress by Yankees from the East, e.g. protective tariffs, a national

• bank.

• Copperheads also criticised the slow progress the North was making in defeating the South.

Promised much, achieved little.' How accurate is this assessment of President Grant's reconstruction

policies?

The reconstruction of the South after 1868 focused on two main issues: political equality for freedmen and the rise of white violence against blacks trying to claim their rights. Grant's theme in 1868 was 'Let us have peace'. He was a soldier who had little liking for politicians apart from Lincoln.

Evidence for the assertion that Grant promised much in reconstructing the South includes:

• His use of federal troops in states where black rights were threatened, especially by white groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, e.g. Louisiana and Georgia.

• His support for the Fifteenth Amendment giving the vote to all men, white or black.

• His support for the 1875 Civil Rights Act, which banned racial discrimination in access to public places.

• His support for and use of the Force Acts of 1870-71 against the Ku Klux Klan.

Evidence for the assertion that his policies achieved little includes:

• His reliance on federal law and troops to implement his reconstruction policies did little to win over white southerners.

• The failure to continue with the Freedmen's Bureau in the early 1870s.

• His failure to continue to focus on the South as other issues needed more attention, e.g. financial and economic crises.

Why did the USA fight the 'Indian Wars' in

the period from 1865 to 1890? (3)

Background: Wars mainly with Plains Indians (Sioux, Cheyenne). Wars often were over

broken treaties (e.g. Fort Laramie Treaty was broken by White Americans because of gold in

South Dakota)

Battles: included defeat of Custer by Sioux at Little Big Horn, Sand Creek massacre, Apache

leader Geronimo's over 30 year resistance to US military, and the massacre at Wounded

Knee

US fought these wars for a variety of reasons

economic - gain resources

political - gain control

protect settlers and railroads

Some might mention genocide - General Sheridan as said 'the only good Indian is a dead

one'. Be careful of definition

Some might mention buffalo - killing buffalo was a way to defeat the Native Americans

How successful were the 'Indian wars' of the

late nineteenth century?

Arguments for the Indian wars being successful include:

Native American resistance to US rule was broken

Success of US forces enabled the US Congress to pass Dawes Act - allowed

President to break up tribal land and give it to individual Native Americans

- objective was assimilation

US gained control over all territories of the USA including reservations

Arguments against the Indian wars being successful include:

Brutality of methods used by US forces meant Native Indians remained

second class members of the US

Only in 1924 did all Native Americans become US citizens

Why did the concept of Manifest Destiny

gain such influence in the 1840s and 1850s?

(2)

Manifest Destiny - term coined by journalist John O'Sullivan - idea that US was destined by

God to control North America. O'Sullivan thought expansion would result from immigration

and settlement rather than military might

Gained influence because:

Economic motives - Desire for more land to homestead and gold discovered in California

Cultural superiority - belief that Native Americans and Mexicans were inferior. Argument

that they needed to be civilized

Religious - God had blessed the US and they had to Christianize the heathens

During this time the US annexed Texas, acquired land from Mexico, and settled Oregon

question

Note: Some wanted to use concept to expand in Caribbean and across the Pacific

How far were the motives for waging war against

Native Americans in the period from 1840 to 1890

economic?

Economic motives:

Land - Wars were often fought either to control the lands needed for agriculture,

whether cattle or arable, or to develop the new railroads

Minerals - Many lands contained gold and silver. Gold discoveries lead to wars in

Colorado (1858) and the Black Hills of Dakota (1874)

Reservations - Indian tribes were confined to - sometimes moved when land

became valuable

Other competing motives

Political - desire to assert power - to enforce the superiority of the new

Americans - evidenced by US violating treaties

Cultural - manifest destiny - justified wars as necessary to break Native American

resistance and to civilize them

Religious - (see previous slide)

Why was the war with Mexico in 1846-48

important to the expansion of the USA in

North America? (2)

Background: War was one-sided conflict - US obtained huge slice of

territory known as Mexico Cession

Important to US because:

US got CA,UT,NV- most of AZ, half of NM and parts of CO and WY. In

addition TX had joined US in 1845

Gave the US control of territory from the Atlantic to the Pacific

Oceans

Expansion coincided with idea of Manifest Destiny

Gold was discovered in California causing more westward migration

How far does the Mexican-American War of

1846-48 deserve to be known as 'Mr. Polk's War'?

Background: War against Mexico - a personal initiative of Polk - Polk had favored the

annexation of Texas

Arguments that the war was Polk's personal initiative are:

• Polk took hardline stance against Mexico in Texas and California

• He sent troops to the Rio Grande knowing that Mexico considered it their territory -when

Mexican troops attacked US forces, Polk had a justification for going to war

• Many believe Polk took war-making powers which properly belonged to Congress

Arguments that US involvement in the war was more than Polk's personal enterprise are:

• It was a sectional war - South supported the war because they saw it as leading to the

gaining of territories which could become slave states

• It was a national war - Country could be united behind concept of Manifest Destiny

Abolitionists opposed war - saw it expanding number of slave states

Northern Whigs, e.g. Lincoln opposed the war

Explain why the European great powers did not

formally take sides in the American Civil War. (2)

Pressure to intervene:

Self-interest - cotton trade - Britain especially dependent on Southern cotton - was hurt by North's naval blockade

Humanitarian needs - France and Britain contemplated intervention as war got bloodier

Trent Affair - North seized 2 confederates on British ship - angered the British - North backed down

Sympathy for South - Gladstone, UK government minister, said South was developing into a nation

Why the Europeans did not intervene:

Emancipation Proclamation - caused Europeans to be more sympathetic to the North

Britain and France - never really considered taking sides. Britain wanted to trade with both North and South

Was never any question of military or naval intervention by European powers - surprising because of need for raw cotton

Britain declared both sides to be belligerents and thus subject to the laws of war

As the war continued, Britain and France began to think of mediation, another reason why they avoided taking sides

How close did the European great powers come to

intervening in the American Civil War?

Background: (See previous slide) France was at war with Mexico at same time

Evidence that Europeans came close to intervening

Britain was angry about North blockade - needed cotton for factories

Britain recognized South as a belligerent - status only given to sovereign states

Trent Affair - (See previous slide) - British sent 10,000 troops to the US - Canada border

Building of Southern ship Alabama in Britain and its subsequent escape in the summer of 1862 to destroy

North shipping did nothing to improve British relations with the North

Evidence that Europeans did not come close to intervening

South expected British support because of British dependence on cotton. Britain stayed on the sidelines

British and French thought of mediating an end to the war - never did

Northern military victories and the Emancipation Proclamation shifted British public opinion in favor of the

North

Conclusion: Great powers never serioussly thought of getting into war.

Note: If Southern diplomacy had been less arrogant, more skillful, how might events have changed?

Why did the USA expand its naval forces in

the 1890s and early 1900s? (3)

Background: US had large navy but was designed for coastal, defensive duties. New

battleships were developed in 1880s - many major countries rebuilt their fleets

Reasons US expanded fleet

Alfred Mahan's book The Influence of Sea Power on History (1890) emphasized great

powers had a strong navy

Closure of the land frontier - many Americans looked to the Pacific as a new area to

expand to

Theodore Roosevelt - favored a larger navy as Assistant Secretary to the Navy and as

President

Impact of Spanish-American War - US navy won quick victories in the Caribbean and the

western Pacific - popularity of war caused Congressmen to support naval expansion

Note: Great White Fleet - 1907-08 Roosevelt sent 16 battleships on world tour emphasizing

US naval power

'The expansion of US naval power was the most important factor shaping the USA's relations with Europe in the years from 1901 to

1922.' How far do you agree?

Background: Major events in US History (1901 - 1922) - (1) Platt Amendment (Cuba) (2) Big Stick Diplomacy (Latin America)

(3) World War I (4) US intervention in Russian civil war (5) Washington Naval Conference

Reasons in favor of assertion:

US Navy moved from fifth to third behind Britain and Germany

US sailed the Great White Fleet around the world to show its power

WW I - once US joined US Navy played major role in shipping 2 million men to France

US was interested in the Pacific because of war with Spain in 1898 and more immediately the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05

Surprisingly Japan had defeated Russia

Washington Naval Conference - US was instrumental in limiting naval arms race

Reasons that challenge assertion

US was more concerned about Caribbean

US was more interested in the Pacific because of situations in Philippines, China, and Japan

US was concerned about Anglo-Japanese alliance out of fear of Japanese not the British

Why did the USA develop close relations with

Japan in the second half of the nineteenth

century? (6)

Background: Japan opened up to US influence (1853-54) from visit of Commander Perry and his four black ships.

Reasons for closer relations with Japan:

Trade - US wanted to trade - Treaty of Amity and Commerce (1858) - provided US with legal rights in Japan and access to ports

Politics - US wanted to gain and maintain influence in the western Pacific

Manifest Destiny - idea applied to the Pacific

China - big market - dominated by Europe - Better relations with Japan would give the USA some kind of counter-balance to

European predominance in China

Results:

Japan modernized - modeled development on Western powers (Meiji Restoration)

US was a major influence over Japanese educational and agrarian reforms

Relations were never close

1894 - Japan and China went to war but - US played little part in the diplomacy surrounding the war

1902 - Japan chose Britain as its military ally rather than US

How serious a threat to the USA was the rise of

Japan in the late nineteenth and early twentieth

centuries?

Background: (See previous slide) Japan industrialized and modernized its armed forces with the help of Western military advisers

Cause for concern :

1895 China and Japan war over Formosa (Taiwan) - Japan got Port Arthur on Chinese mainland

European powers - were alarmed by Japanese expansion - tried to limit Japanese gains

1904 - Japan and Russia fought over Port Arthur - Japan won

US negotiated the peace treaty - Treaty of Portsmouth - Teddy Roosevelt and US got positive international attention -

Roosevelt won Nobel Peace prize

Japan - became the leading power of western Pacific

Allies - Japan became ally of Britain

Reasons US was not concerned:

US did little to stop Japanese expansion

US was worried about Japan and Britain being allies

US was more interested in China, Philippines, and Hawaii

Conclusion: US didn't take Japan as a serious threat. They probably should have because of later events (WW II)

Why did the USA advocate an 'open door' policy

towards China in the later nineteenth century?

Background: Open door policy - purpose was to make China open to trade

with all nations. Became official US policy with John Hay's Open Door notes

Reasons for:

• China was weak - seemed on verge of partition like the recent scramble for

Africa.

• Wanted to distance itself from the European great powers' policy of signing

unequal treaties with China - US still saw itself as against imperialism

• US wanted/needed access to the large market that China offered for US

goods

• Victory over Spain in 1898 gave US confidence (US gained the Philippines)

How consistently did the USA support an Open

Door policy towards China in the years from 1899

to 1931?

Background: Open Door Policy (see previous slide)

History:

US wanted to assure access to large China market and protect missionaries

US actions influenced by rise of Japan and expansion of Russia

Consistent:

Initially US was pro-Japanese - after 1905 the US became wary of Japanese expansion

US objected to 21 Demands Japan made of China in 1915

1922 - USA led the signing of a Nine-Power treaty at Washington - accepted the territorial sovereignty of China

Inconsistent

After 1922 became isolationist did little to interfere in China

After WW I US did not join League of Nations - because of WW I experience there was strong public opinion to

stay out of foreign affairs

1931 - US took no action when Japan invaded Manchuria (too preoccupied with the Depression)

Conclusion: US policy was inconsistent

Why, in 1867, did the USA acquire Alaska

from Russia? (2)

History: Secretary of State, William Seward agreed to buy Alaska for $7.2m.

Critics called it Seward's Folly or Seward's Icebox

Seward was an expansionist - wanted new lands for both commercial and

political reasons

Russia was keen to get rid of Alaska - it needed the money to help pay for

emancipation of the serfs

'Seward's folly' - subject of much criticism

Some argued it was

Intended to divert attention away from domestic politics especially the

impeachment of President Johnson

Seward saw the purchase as putting pressure on British Colombia which he

still hoped to acquire

How far did the purchase of Alaska by the

USA deserve to be called 'Seward's Folly'?

Reasons why Seward's Folly might be seen as a big mistake

Financial - Russians might have given it away for free and it was expensive to

administer a vast unpopulated area

Belief that land was not bought to benefit US but to deflect public attention away

from impeachment of President Johnson

Unrealistic ambitions of Seward of making US a global power

Reasons why it was great acquisition

Economic benefits - fishing, whaling, and ice trade

Did not get British Colombia to join US but made US the dominant power in the

region

Alaska purchase might have been a short-term folly but was certainly a long-term

success (gold discovered in 1890s and oil in 1960s)

Explain why, in 1898, the USA went to war

with Spain. (2)

Traditional explanation - Yellow press of Hearst and Pulitzer excited the American public

into influencing US politicians to go to war in order to help the Cuban people had been

fighting a war of liberation that exploded with destruction of Maine in Havana harbor

Better reasons:

War was fought to further American economic interests

Intervention would control the process of independence - preventing establishment of a

black republic similar to Haiti

By 1890s - frontier of the US was closed - some Americans wanted to consider overseas

expansion

Imperialism - Germany and Japan were expanding - Many believed could not afford to

miss out - this influenced Congress and President McKinley to go to war with Spain

Note: The War involved the Philippines as well

How significant to US relations with Asia was

its acquisition of the Philippines?

History

Philippines ruled by the Spanish since 1571 - US won in war against Spain

US annexed Philippines - did not make a territory or protectorate

Filipinos had rebelled against Spain - expected independence - US disappointed them - Pres. McKinley claimed

Filipinos not ready to rule themselves

Same time US also took control of Guam and Hawaii

Effect

A radical departure from the US anti-imperialist values

Helped US commercial and strategic interests in Far East

Angered Filipinos

Many US troops in Philippines to fight guerilla war

War ended in 1903 with some kind of joint rule - full independence came after WWII

China was focus of US interest - US presence in Western Pacific grew after it took the Philippines

Did US do this to keep closer eye on China or stop the expansion of Japan? Hard to say

Why did President Taft introduce the policy

known as 'dollar diplomacy'? (2)

Why did President Taft introduce the policy

known as 'dollar diplomacy'? (2)

History - Dollar diplomacy - US private banks - backed by US

government - took over debts of various states

Reasons for:

Created more stable governments (e.g. Haiti, Nicaragua, Honduras)

Good for US business

Excluded influence of other imperial powers

Overall aim - uphold the Monroe Doctrine without using military force

- although force was required in Nicaragua

How successful was US policy towards the states

of Central America and the Caribbean from 1846

to 1898?

Arguments US policy towards the region was successful

• 1824 Monroe Doctrine was upheld - European interference in Latin American

affairs was contained - e.g. France in Mexico in the 1860s

• US dominated region - e.g. Panama Canal

• 1848 US defeated Mexico - Mexican Cession handed over to the US

• 1898 - war with Spain - ended the Spanish empire in region

• US economic imperialism was more effective, especially in Gilded Age

Arguments US policy towards the region was unsuccessful

• Failure to establish naval bases to protect the eastern approaches to proposed

Canal

• Failure to ensure political stability across the region - US not seen as good

neighbor - instead viewed as colossus of the North

Why did the USA annex the Republic of

Hawaii in 1898? (1)

History

Kingdom of Hawaii - independent nation 1840s

Overthrown in 1893 by a group of businessmen supported by the US marines (never fired a shot)

Established Republic of Hawaii - 5 years later the US Congress voted to annex Hawaii

Reasons for annexation

Hawaii sugar hit hard by the McKinley tariff of 1890 - Annexation removed tariff wall

Hawaii halfway between Panama Canal and markets of China (valuable coaling and cable station)

USA wanted access to Chinese market

US wanted Pearl Harbor (an excellent port)

McKinley saw it as part of America's manifest destiny to expand in the Pacific

Happened same year as war with Spain

Encouraged the US to expand in Caribbean

Some saw acquisition of Hawaii as a check on Japanese expansion

How far, in the period 1897-1934, did US policy

towards the states of the Caribbean and Central

America remain consistent?

Arguments that it remained consistent:

• US used political and military intervention for almost the whole period - e.g. Roosevelt's Big stick approach

• FDR's Good Neighbor - public relations move - short-term fix while the USA concentrated on Depression

• USA always needed to support business interests in the region

• Wilson adopted the policy of financial intervention backed up by gunboats

Arguments that it did not remain consistent:

• FDR's Good Neighbor policy

• Shift from Theodore Roosevelt's Big Stick approach to Taft's Dollar Diplomacy

• Wilson - wanted less materialistic, more idealistic approach

• USA had different patterns of government for different states, e.g. semi-colonial for Puerto Rico, Panama Canal

Zone for the strip of land surrounding the canal, private companies providing many services, e.g. the United Fruit Company

Explain the reasons for the economic boom

experienced by most Americans in the 1920s.

Reasons for economic boom:

lower taxes following WW I - consumers had money

Installment purchasing - new form of credit - enabled consumers to

purchase new goods and services like refrigerators, cars, and radios

Henry Ford's assembly line idea - was copied by other companies - made

products cheaper

Electricity became widespread

Stock-market grew - people bought on the margin - created a greater

sense of prosperity - until the Great Crash arrived

Europe - became more prosperous - wanted US goods

How far did the economic boom of the 1920s

cause the Great Depression of the 1930s?

Argument that boom caused Depression:

Created a large disparity in wealth - richest 1% owned 1/3 of US

Encouraged consumers to get into debt - installment contracts were overused

Encouraged firms to make products that consumers eventually could not afford

Encouraged excessive speculation in stock market and banks to make risky loans - stock

market collapsed

Argument that other factors caused Depression:

Capitalism - inevitable that boom would end

US Banking industry was not well regulated

Growing tariff wars - US enacted Smoot-Hawley tariff - Europe retaliated

US stayed on gold standard - limited money supply

Decline in Agriculture - farmers were in trouble during 20s - drought made it worse

How far do you agree that President Hoover's

response to the Great Crash was wholly

inadequate? (4)

Great Crash - happened 7 months into Hoover's presidency

Argument Hoover's response was inadequate

He kept US on gold standard put US at disadvantage to countries that gave up on gold - caused high interest rates further

hurting the economy

Hoover signed Smoot-Hawley Bill to increase tariffs - hurt US trade - other countries retaliated

Hoover raised taxes - caused deflation

Hoover remained a believer in laissez-faire - believed government should not interfere in economy - also felt the economy

would rebound (in capitalist countries the economy has highs and lows)

Argument Hoover's response was adequate:

No one realized the depth of the Depression

Traditionally president didn't get involved in economy

Hoover tried to get states and private companies to invest in projects like roads

He created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to give loans to private industry and Home Loans Bank System to help

mortgagees

Hoover was blamed by many Americans for the depression - arguably he could have done more. However, many of the problems

happened before he was president

Why did Franklin Roosevelt win the

presidential election of 1932? (11)

Main reasons why FDR won:

Poor state of the economy - economy had been in depression for 3 years -

25% unemployment

FDR offered hope - promised a new deal for American people

Poor leadership of Hoover - Hoover introduced income tax, did not veto

Smoot-Hawley tariff, thought the business cycle would change, did little at

first to help the economy, etc. Hoover also lost support for his

mistreatment of the Bonus Army

FDR used new medium of radio - he was a good speaker - his campaign

focused on the underdog, and attacked the excesses of the rich

Democrats were united - Republicans were badly divided - FDR won in a

landslide

Why did the Roosevelt Presidency begin with

'100 Days' of action?

History - between election and inauguration of FDR (4 months) financial

situation in US got much worse. FDR decided radical action had to take place

FDR closed all banks for 4 days - to calm people down and to stop runs on

banks

Persuaded Congress to pass 15 major bills to address urgent social and

economic problems - never done previously or since

FDR was enormously popular at first - enabled him to do things that may

have been unconstitutional

Later years FDR became more cautious when faced with Congressional

opposition. In his first few weeks in office he was strong enough to take

drastic action

How successful were Franklin Roosevelt's

'100 Days of Action'?

Elements of FDR's first 100 days:

Fifteen bills, all approved by Congress, all aiming to provide relief

Recovery and reform in creation of alphabet agencies (AAA, CCC,NIRA)

Closing all US banks for four days

Taking US off the gold standard

Argument first 100 days a success:

Gave impression federal government would help the people and control big business

FDR came across as a dynamic national leader in contrast to relative inactivity of the Hoover

In mid-term elections (1934) - Democrats gained nine seats in Congress - is rare for president's

party to do this

Created the New Deal coalition of the white South, labor unions, and ethnic minorities of the North

Argument against:

the economy was slow to recover. Many argue that it was only entry into the Second World War

that restored the economy

How far did the New Deal mark the end of

laissez-faire values and policies? (7)

Evidence that the New Deal marked the end of laissez-faire values and policies

includes:

• The growth of federal state regulation of the economy, e.g. NIRA

• The growth of federal provision of economic activity, e.g. WPA

• The growth of federal organization of welfare benefits, e.g. Social Security Act

Evidence that the New Deal did not mean the end of laissez faire includes:

• Some regulation was intended to increase competition between private

companies, i.e. still leaving companies free to compete

• The private sector still dominated the US economy, free market individualism still

survived, e.g. the absence of a wealth tax

Political and judicial checks meant that the New Deal had to work within the

existing set of values and policies

Why did Franklin Roosevelt remain so popular

with the American people in the period from 1932

to 1941?

• The New Deal, which showed he was making major efforts to help the

people and not just the wealthy elites

• His communication skills, especially via his 'fireside chats'

• His political skills, e.g. dropping his court-packing plan

• The limitations of his presidential opponents:

- 1932 Herbert Hoover

- 1936 Alf Landon

- 1940 Wendell Willkie

• The problems facing the USA, both domestic and foreign, required an

experienced and competent leader

How far did the New Deal encourage

economic growth?

Great debate among economists (some parallels to Great Recession in 2008)

Purpose of New Deal - halt decline in economic growth and get Americans back to

work

Many reforms were tried - FDR did a lot of experimenting

By 1937 - economy had recovered from the depths of depression in 1933

Later in 1937 there was a contraction in the economy called the Roosevelt

recession

A full recovery and full employment only came with the outbreak of WW II

Argument - some credit New Deal with doing much to stimulate economic growth

while others dismiss its importance compared with the onset of war

Recent studies argue that New Deal emphasis on road building and improving

infrastructure helped but did not make a great deal of difference

Why have Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal

policies remained controversial?

Controversy continues to today

The left argue the New Deal:

Halted the collapse of US economy

Created a federal government more involved in the economy

Ensured greater economic equality and benefits for the disadvantaged

The left sees similarities between Roosevelt's New Deal and Johnson's Great Society in the effort to

provide welfare

The right argue the New Deal:

Delayed economic recovery in the 1930s

Undermined the key features of US capitalism and its reliance on self-help and rugged individualism

Caused inflation by getting off the gold standard

The right sees similarities with the Great Society in that both created large inefficient bureaucracies

How far did the New Deal bring about a

major shift in power towards the US

presidency?

Arguments that it did bring about a major shift in power include:

• The creation of many federal government executive agencies

• The great increase in the number of executive orders, i.e. presidential decrees

• The 100 Days and its various actions, though approved by Congress, were led by FDR

• FDR's unprecedented decision to stand for a third term in 1940, and his subsequent re-election

Arguments against the New Deal bringing about a major shift in power towards the US presidency

include:

• The checks and balances of the US constitution continued to work, e.g. Supreme Court judgements

against New Deal legislation

• The failure of FDR's court-packing plans

• The electoral limits on presidential power

• States' powers were not completely eroded

• The growth of political opposition

Why, in 1935, was a Second New Deal

introduced?

Second New Deal - more radical than First New Deal e.g. Social Security, Industrial

Relations, direct relief to the unemployed

Second New Deal necessary because:

US was still in recession - First New Deal had not sparked a recovery

Second New Deal focused more on stimulating consumer demand to help revive

the economy

There was growing criticism of the New Deal, especially from the left, e.g. Huey

Long and Dr. Townsend, for being too business-focused, and for not being radical

enough

There was a need to regain political momentum, especially given the US Supreme

Court's overturning of key New Deal reforms

The presidential election of 1936 was imminent

How different were the first and second New

Deals?

Short Answer - First focused on relief and recovery the second on

reform

First New Deal (1933-4) - included federal action to relieve

unemployment (Civilian Conservation Corps) and economic hardship

(Agricultural Adjustment Administration) - it stabilized the banking

system and abandoned the gold standard

Second New Deal (1935-8) - more ambitious focused on reform and

FDR's vision of future of US in Social Security Act (old age pensions)

and Wagner Act (new basis for labor relations)

Why did many left-wing liberals oppose the

New Deal? (5)

Left-wing liberals opposed the New Deal because:

it wasn't radical enough - it allowed existing inequalities, economic and

social

they believed FDR made too many concessions to the business classes

Huey Long, Democratic Senator for Louisiana - wanted federal government

to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor (Share Our Wealth plan) -

he was assassinated in 1935

Dr. Francis Townsend wanted federal aid for retired people - FDR did

introduce Social Security in for old people

Communists do not really count as liberals; their opposition was far more

fundamental than that of progressive liberals

Why did right-wing conservatives oppose the

New Deal?

Right-wing conservatives - were in Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party. Two

main organizations were American Liberty League and the Conservative Coalition

The right wing opposed the New Deal because:

Spending - New Deal cost too much money - right wing wanted to cut public spending,

balance the budget, and lower taxes

Improper competition - New Deal created public corporations (such as the TVA) which

competed with private corporations

Constitution - some laws were unconstitutional

States rights - many conservatives thought the federal government was legislating in

areas reserved for the states

Freedom - many conservatives thought there were too many laws and they interfered

with American's freedoms - made US more like communist or fascist countries

'The right-wing opposition to Roosevelt's New

Deal was more effective than left-wing

opposition.' How far do you agree?

Leading left-wing opponents - Father Coughlin, Francis Townsend and Huey Long

Leading right-wing opponents - American Liberty League and Conservative Coalition

Arguments against:

Left-wing opponents became more famous

Coughlin established a National Union for Social Justice in 1934 and a third party to contest the 1936 presidential elections

Francis Townsend gained national publicity for his proposal to introduce Social Security for the old

Long set up his Share Our Wealth movement in 1934, arguing for progressive taxation and great redistribution of wealth

Labor unions caused unrest in the 1930s

American Liberty League - conservative Democrats and leading industrialists - disbanded after FDR won in 1936

Arguments for:

Conservative Manifesto - a document praising private enterprise

Blocked anti-lynching law. Some candidates will include Supreme Court opposition to many New Deal reforms, but the

Supreme Court is a judicial not a political institution and so cannot be seen as either left wing or right wing

Why was the Tennessee Valley Authority

established?

TVA was established for 4 reasons:

Political - to show FDR could take on an ambitious project (dam the

Tennessee River) in the first 100 days of his presidency

Impoverished states - project focused on states hit hard by Great

Depression - the new authority could control flooding, prevent soil erosion,

and create electricity for a poor area

Government agency - TVA was a public not a private, profit-making

company - was intended to show that public bodies can work for the

benefit of the people

Model - TVA was intended to be a model to be applied to other problems -

it never really happened

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt was described as 'a

cautious politician'. How far did Roosevelt's

domestic policies in the 1930s support this view?

The quote challenges the usual view that Roosevelt was a radical reformer

Arguments to support:

FDR did little to help African Americans because he could not afford to antagonize

the powerful Southern Democrats in Congress

FDR did little to reduce the inequalities which many saw as a root cause of

America's social and economic problems. e.g. he maintained a balanced budget

which led to the Roosevelt Recession in 1937

Arguments that challenge:

Court Packing Plan was a radical effort to reshape US government (attack on

checks and balances)

Social Security Act was bold act in providing the elderly with benefits

Wagner Act was a radical attempt to set minimum wages and institute collective

bargaining with unions

Explain why critics of Franklin Roosevelt argue

that the New Deal was a serious threat to the

traditional values of the USA.

Traditional values of US - rugged individualism and the American dream

Critics argue:

federal government got too big e.g. rather than look for a job a person

could get one through the CCC

Farmers - rather than deal with their problems could some assistance from

the AAA

Old people - were bailed out of their problems by Social Security

Socialism - many critics argued US was becoming socialist

Taxes - New Deal burdened taxpayers with higher taxes

Note - In subsequent years the US government did get bigger and provide

even more benefits than FDR envisioned

Why did the US economy return to recession

in 1937? (1)

Known as Roosevelt recession - profits fell, investment fell, unemployment,

and 4 years of growth came to an end. Why?

Political explanation - believed by Roosevelt - was a conspiracy by a

'modern industrial oligarchy' against the New Deal. Key businesses had cut

investment and profits and laid off workers in protest against the New Deal

in an attempt to undermine it

Economic explanation - was simply the workings of the business cycle: after

four years of economic growth, some contraction was unavoidable

Combined explanation - federal government caused the recession by

tightening the money supply, cutting expenditures for WPA and PWA and

increasing taxes for the new Social Security program

Still learning (10)

You've started learning these terms. Keep it up!