The Roosevelt Corollary

Foreign intervention in Latin American resurfaced as an issue in U.S. foreign policy at the turn of the century as European governments began to use force to pressure several Latin American countries to repay their debts. For example, British, German, and Italian gunboats blockaded Venezuela’s ports in 1902 when the Venezuelan government defaulted on its debts to foreign bondholders. Many Americans worried that European intervention in Latin America would undermine their country’s traditional dominance in the region. As part of his annual address to Congress in 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt stated that in keeping with the Monroe Doctrine the United States was justified in exercising “international police power” to put an end to chronic unrest or wrongdoing in the Western Hemisphere. This so-called Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine contained a great irony: whereas the Monroe Doctrine had been sought to prevent European intervention in the Western Hemisphere, the Roosevelt Corollary justified American intervention throughout the Western Hemisphere.

Questions for understanding:
How does Roosevelt justify American intervention in the Western Hemisphere? What national interests are involved?

The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine
Theodore Roosevelt’s Annual Message to Congress
6 December 1904

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

The Nation continues to enjoy noteworthy prosperity. Such prosperity is of course primarily due to the high individual average of our citizenship, taken together with our great natural resources; but an important factor therein is the working of our long-continued governmental policies. The people have emphatically expressed their approval of the principles underlying these policies, and their desire that these principles be kept substantially unchanged, although of course applied in a progressive spirit to meet changing conditions.

….
Foreign Policy
In treating of our foreign policy and of the attitude that this great Nation should assume in the world at large, it is absolutely necessary to consider the Army and the Navy, and the Congress, through which the thought of the Nation finds its expression, should keep ever vividly in mind the fundamental fact that it is impossible to treat our foreign policy, whether this policy takes shape in the effort to secure justice for others or justice for ourselves, save as conditioned upon the attitude we are willing to take toward our Army, and especially toward our Navy. It is not merely unwise, it is contemptible, for a nation, as for an individual, to use high-sounding language to proclaim its purposes, or to take positions which are ridiculous if unsupported by potential force, and then to refuse to provide this force. If there is no intention of providing and keeping the force necessary to back up a strong attitude, then it is far better not to assume such an attitude.
The steady aim of this Nation, as of all enlightened nations, should be to strive to bring ever nearer the day when there shall prevail throughout the world the peace of justice. There are kinds of peace which are highly undesirable, which are in the long run as destructive as any war. Tyrants and oppressors have many times made a wilderness and called it peace. Many times peoples who were slothful or timid or shortsighted, who had been enervated by ease or by luxury, or misled by false teachings, have shrunk in unmanly fashion from doing duty that was stern and that needed self-sacrifice, and have sought to hide from their own minds their shortcomings, their ignoble motives, by calling them love of peace. The peace of tyrannous terror, the peace of craven weakness, the peace of injustice, all these should be shunned as we shun unrighteous war. The goal to set before us as a nation, the goal which should be set before all mankind, is the attainment of the peace of justice, of the peace which comes when each nation is not merely safe-guarded in its own rights, but scrupulously recognizes and performs its duty toward others. Generally peace tells for righteousness; but if there is conflict between the two, then our fealty is due first to the cause of righteousness. Unrighteous wars are common, and unrighteous peace is rare; but both should be shunned. The right of freedom and the responsibility for the exercise of that right can not be divorced. One of our great poets has well and finely said that freedom is not a gift that tarries long in the hands of cowards. Neither does it tarry long in the hands of those too slothful, too dishonest, or too unintelligent to exercise it. The eternal vigilance which is the price of liberty must be exercised, sometimes to guard against outside foes; although of course far more often to guard against our own selfish or thoughtless shortcomings.

If these self-evident truths are kept before us, and only if they are so kept before us, we shall have a clear idea of what our foreign policy in its larger aspects should be. It is our duty to remember that a nation has no more right to do injustice to another nation, strong or weak, than an individual has to do injustice to another individual; that the same moral law applies in one case as in the other. But we must also remember that it is as much the duty of the Nation to guard its own rights and its own interests as it is the duty of the individual so to do. Within the Nation the individual has now delegated this right to the State, that is, to the representative of all the individuals, and it is a maxim of the law that for every wrong there is a remedy. But in international law we have not advanced by any means as far as we have advanced in municipal law. There is as yet no judicial way of enforcing a right in international law. When one nation wrongs another or wrongs many others, there is no tribunal before which the wrongdoer can be brought. Either it is necessary supinely to acquiesce in the wrong, and thus put a premium upon brutality and aggression, or else it is necessary for the aggrieved nation valiantly to stand up for its rights. Until some method is devised by which there shall be a degree of international control over offending nations, it would be a wicked thing for the most civilized powers, for those with most sense of international obligations and with keenest and most generous appreciation of the difference between right and wrong, to disarm. If the great civilized nations of the present day should completely disarm, the result would mean an immediate recrudescence of barbarism in one form or another. Under any circumstances a sufficient armament would have to be kept up to serve the purposes of international police; and until international cohesion and the sense of international duties and rights are far more advanced than at present, a nation desirous both of securing respect for itself and of doing good to others must have a force adequate for the work which it feels is allotted to it as its part of the general world duty. Therefore it follows that a self-respecting, just, and far-seeing nation should on the one hand endeavor by every means to aid in the development of the various movements which tend to provide substitutes for war, which tend to render nations in their actions toward one another, and indeed toward their own peoples, more responsive to the general sentiment of humane and civilized mankind; and on the other hand that it should keep prepared, while scrupulously avoiding wrongdoing itself, to repel any wrong, and in exceptional cases to take action which in a more advanced stage of international relations would come under the head of the exercise of the international police. A great free people owes it to itself and to all mankind not to sink into helplessness before the powers of evil.

Arbitration Treaties–Second Hague Conference
We are in every way endeavoring to help on, with cordial good will, every movement which will tend to bring us into more friendly relations with the rest of mankind. In pursuance of this policy I shall shortly lay before the Senate treaties of arbitration with all powers which are willing to enter into these treaties with us. It is not possible at this period of the world’s development to agree to arbitrate all matters, but there are many matters of possible difference between us and other nations which can be thus arbitrated. Furthermore, at the request of the Interparliamentary Union, an eminent body composed of practical statesmen from all countries, I have asked the Powers to join with this Government in a second Hague conference, at which it is hoped that the work already so happily begun at The Hague may be carried some steps further toward completion. This carries out the desire expressed by the first Hague conference itself.

Policy Toward Other Nations of the Western Hemisphere
It is not true that the United States feels any land hunger or entertains any projects as regards the other nations of the Western Hemisphere save such as are for their welfare. All that this country desires is to see the neighboring countries stable, orderly, and prosperous. Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship. If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power. If every country washed by the Caribbean Sea would show the progress in stable and just civilization which with the aid of the Platt Amendment Cuba has shown since our troops left the island, and which so many of the republics in both Americas are constantly and brilliantly showing, all question of interference by this Nation with their affairs would be at an end. Our interests and those of our southern neighbors are in reality identical. They have great natural riches, and if within their borders the reign of law and justice obtains, prosperity is sure to come to them. While they thus obey the primary laws of civilized society they may rest assured that they will be treated by us in a spirit of cordial and helpful sympathy. We would interfere with them only in the last resort, and then only if it became evident that their inability or unwillingness to do justice at home and abroad had violated the rights of the United States or had invited foreign aggression to the detriment of the entire body of American nations. It is a mere truism to say that every nation, whether in America or anywhere else, which desires to maintain its freedom, its independence, must ultimately realize that the right of such independence can not be separated from the responsibility of making good use of it.

In asserting the Monroe Doctrine, in taking such steps as we have taken in regard to Cuba, Venezuela, and Panama, and in endeavoring to circumscribe the theater of war in the Far East, and to secure the open door in China, we have acted in our own interest as well as in the interest of humanity at large. There are, however, cases in which, while our own interests are not greatly involved, strong appeal is made to our sympathies. Ordinarily it is very much wiser and more useful for us to concern ourselves with striving for our own moral and material betterment here at home than to concern ourselves with trying to better the condition of things in other nations. We have plenty of sins of our own to war against, and under ordinary circumstances we can do more for the general uplifting of humanity by striving with heart and soul to put a stop to civic corruption, to brutal lawlessness and violent race prejudices here at home than by passing resolutions and wrongdoing elsewhere. Nevertheless there are occasional crimes committed on so vast a scale and of such peculiar horror as to make us doubt whether it is not our manifest duty to endeavor at least to show our disapproval of the deed and our sympathy with those who have suffered by it. The cases must be extreme in which such a course is justifiable. There must be no effort made to remove the mote from our brother’s eye if we refuse to remove the beam from our own. But in extreme cases action may be justifiable and proper. What form the action shall take must depend upon the circumstances of the case; that is, upon the degree of the atrocity and upon our power to remedy it. The cases in which we could interfere by force of arms as we interfered to put a stop to intolerable conditions in Cuba are necessarily very few. Yet it is not to be expected that a people like ours, which in spite of certain very obvious shortcomings, nevertheless as a whole shows by its consistent practice its belief in the principles of civil and religious liberty and of orderly freedom, a people among whom even the worst crime, like the crime of lynching, is never more than sporadic, so that individuals and not classes are molested in their fundamental rights–it is inevitable that such a nation should desire eagerly to give expression to its horror on an occasion like that of the massacre of the Jews in Kishenef, or when it witnesses such systematic and long-extended cruelty and oppression as the cruelty and oppression of which the Armenians have been the victims, and which have won for them the indignant pity of the civilized world.

Theodore Roosevelt

The Philippine-American War

Philippine-American War

“After the Treaty of Paris ended the Spanish-American War, a curious situation existed in the Philippine Islands. The U.S. occupation force of 11,000 men (mostly volunteers) was in Manila completely surrounded by about 20,000 Filipino insurgents. The Americans, led by Major General Ewell S. Otis (“Colonel Blimp”) and the insurgents, led by Emiho Aguinaldo, had lived through two months of an unofficial cease-fire. On the night of February 4, 1899, the itchy trigger finger of a 1st Nebraska Volunteer Infantry private set the Insurrection in motion.

“General Otis had several immediate problems: The most pressing was the fact that, by law and Army Regulations (now that the Spanish-American War was officially over) he had to send home all his volunteer troops, almost 75% of his available force. Surprisingly, however, almost all the volunteers chose to stay until regular Army replacements arrived. Tropical diseases were also taking their toll of the Americans. At times, nearly one-third of the U.S. troops were on the sick lists.

“Nevertheless, Otis and his subordinates, Major General Arthur MacArthur (father of Douglas) and Brigadier General Thomas N. Anderson, began preparing for a campaign against the insurgents. MacArthur’s command consisted of the 1st Montana, 10th Pennsylvania, 1st South Dakota, 1st Colorado, 1st Nebraska, 20th Kansas, 3rd U.S. Artillery (acting as infantry), and two batteries of the Utah Light Artillery. General Anderson’s troops were the 1st Washington, 1st Idaho, 1st California, 14th U.S., 1st North Dakota, two batteries of the 6th U.S. Field Artillery, and the 4th U.S. Cavalry (on foot).

“The volunteers were armed with the single-shot, black powder, breech-loading .45-caliber Springfield rifle. The U.S. Regulars carried the.30-caliber Krag-Jorgensen repeater, using smokeless powder. The artillery had some 3.2 inch breech-loading quick-fire cannons and a few three-inch mountain guns. There were also several Gatling and Hotchkiss machine guns with the infantry units. Some additional fire support came from the shallow-draft gunboat Laguna de Bay. She was covered with bullet-proof plating and was armed with two 3-inch guns, two 1.65-inch Hotchkiss revolving cannons, and four Gatling guns. The U.S. Navy monitor Monadnock thundered in the distance and threw an occasional 10-inch armour-piercing shell at the enemy lines. The noise was usually more effective as the shells tended to bury them-selves in the ground without exploding. The insurgents were armed with rifles varying from modern Mausers to ancient muzzleloaders. All men carried the bob, a 20inch long jungle knife described as “a cross between a butcher knife and a hatchet”. Aguinaldo’s men had few artillery pieces, a couple of Krupp guns captured from the Spanish and some old muzzle-loaders. They had no machine guns, and ammunition was scarce and unreliable.

“By March of 1899, the Americans had cleared the insurgents from the vicinity of Manila and had captured the rebel capital of Malolos. Aguinaldo’s “government” had fled northward into the mountains. Several other minor skirmishes occurred between June and October, but no major battles. By October of 1899, all the volunteers had been replaced by the 24th (Negro), 16th, 34th, and 22nd U.S. Infantry; a cavalry brigade consisting of eight troops of the 3rd, and nine troops of the fourth U.S Cavalry; and an artillery battery of four Hotchkiss l2pdrs manned by two companies of the 37th U.S. Infantry. To this force was added the 6th U.S. Field Artillery, the 3rd U.S. Artillery (still acting as infantry), and the 14th U.S. Infantry which were already in the Philippines. These last three units comprised the experienced core of the new all-regular Philippine field army. Other units which arrived during the next year included the 6th, 13th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 20th, 23rd, 25th, 27th, 29th, 33rd, 35th, and 43rd Infantry Regiments.

“On October 19, 1899, some 900 insurgents were routed at San Isidoro. In November, a captured message revealed the location of Aguinaldo’ new “capital” at Bayombong. A forced march with few supplies was made by Brigadier General Samuel Young’s cavalry brigade in an attempt to corner the rebel leader. A blunder by an American officer, however, allowed Aguinaldo to escape. Most of his troops, however, were killed, captured, or scattered into the jungles. One final pocket of resistance was cleaned up and the formal insurrection was over. Otis was so confident of his success that, in December of 1899, he sent three gunboats, two infantry regiments, and some artillery to the south to open up the hemp ports for commerce

“Aguinaldo, still at large, had declared a guerrilla war against the Americans in a secret society. The Katipunan (“Worshipful Association of the Sons of the People”), was formed and practiced ritual terror against the U.S. troops and their Filipino friends for 18 months. As an example, in the first four months of 1900, 442 guerrilla skirmishes cost the Americans over 450 men killed or wounded. Finally, on March 22, 1901, after a rather suspenseful undercover infiltration of Aguinaldo’s headquarters in the mountains near Palanan had succeeded, the insurgent chieftain was captured.

“One final flare-up of resistance occurred in September of 1901 when 48 men and officers of Company C, 9th U.S. Infantry, were chopped to pieces by bolo-wielding villagers in Balangiga. The U.S. Army was outraged and reacted by burning villages, capturing or killing suspected insurgents, and confiscating crops. Several U.S. officers were court-martialed for their ruthlessness during this final campaign. By July of 1932, all the Christian areas of the Philippines had been pacified. U.S. troop strength was reduced from 70,000 to 34,000 and the newly formed Philippine constabulary took over many of the police duties. On July 4, 1902, President Roosevelt proclaimed an end to hostilities

“The Insurrection cost the U.S. about $8,000,000. More than 100,000 men had been used, fighting in 2,811 actions, losing 4,243 killed and 2,818 wounded. Filipino losses have been estimated at about 16,000 killed in combat and, perhaps, another 100,000 dying of famine and disease.”

“Uniforms of the Campaign:”

“U.S. Troops – Khaki campaign (slouch) hats, dark blue “sack” coat, light blue or khaki pants. Brown or grey belts and equipment. Later in the campaign the all khaki “tropical service” uniform with brown belts began to appear.

“Insurgents – Straw hat or sometimes a grey or white felt hat with black band, long loose fitting jacket, usually white. Pants were of many colours, but rust red and grey seemed most prevalent. The only equipment was a leather haversack for ammunition, rations, and personal items.”
Sources:

Dupuy, Colonel R. Ernest and Baumer, Major General William H., The Little Wars of the United States, Hawthorne Books, New York, 1968.

Scruby, Jack, “Asiatic Colonial Wargames”, The Miniature Parade, Volume 11, Number II, October 1968, pp 3-6.

Wolf, Leon, Little Brown Brother, Doubleday, Garden City, 1968.

Terms for chapter 28– Progressivism and the Republican Roosevelt

Here are the terms for chapter 28. Terms check on Thursday, January 24.

progressives, laissez-faire, Henry Demarest Lloyd, Thorsten Veblen, Jacob Riis, Theodore Dreiser, popular magazines, muckrakers, Lincoln, Steffens, Ida Tarbell, “money trust,” David G. Phillips, Ray Stannard Baker, John Spargo, patent medicines, “Poison Squad,” direct primary, initiative, referendum, recall, graft, Australian ballot, 17th Amendment, suffragists, city-manager system, Wisconsin, Robert La Follette, Hiram Johnson, Charles Evans Hughes, Women’s Trade Union League, National Consumers League, Children’s/Women’s Bureau, Florence Kelley, Muller v. Oregon, Louis Brandeis, Lochner v. New York, Triangle Shirtwaist Co., WCTU, Frances Willard, “wet”/”dry,” 18th Amendment, “Square Deal,” coal strike of 1902, arbitration, Dept. of Commerce and Labor, trust-busting, Elkins Act, Hepburn Act, Northern Securities decision, William H. Taft, Upton Sinclair/ The Jungle, Meat Inspection Act, Pure Food and Drug Act, Desert Land Act, Forest Reserve Act, Carey Act, Newlands Act, Gifford Pinchot, Sierra Club/John Muir, Hetch Hetchy, Environmentalists, “rational use” policy, “wilderness was waste,” “multiple use resource management,” Bureau of Reclamation, “Roosevelt Panic,” Aldrich-Vreeland Act, William Jennings Bryan, “dollar diplomacy,” Manchurian railroad, Nicaragua, “rule of reason,” Standard Oil Co., US Steel, “Mother of Trusts,” Payne-Aldrich Bill, Richard Ballinger, New Nationalism, Victor Berger

Questions for understanding:

— Analyze the goals of the Progressive movement, using legislation for examples.
— Examine the relationship between Progressivism and previous political or reform movements.
— Outline the birth of the conservation movement under Theodore Roosevelt. How did Roosevelt’s experiences make him amenable to conservationism? How is conservationism different from environmentalism?
–Why did the Republican Party split in 1912?

–How did Taft and Roosevelt differ on trust-busting?

Excerpt: The Shame of the Cities

From The Shame of the CitiesLincoln Steffens

Perhaps the most influential of the muckrakers was Lincoln Steffens. Steffens’ articles were published in McClure’s magazine in 1902 and 1903 and then collected in The Shame of the Cities, published in 1904.

Questions for understanding:

1. What is Steffens’ opinion regarding businessmen?

2. What is Steffens’ opinion regarding politics in America?

3. What influence did Steffens think business had on politics?

4. Were Steffens’ criticisms accurate in 1904? Are they accurate now?

Now, the typical American citizen is the business man. The typical business man is a bad citizen; he is busy. If he is a “big business man” and very busy, he does not neglect, he is busy with politics, oh, very busy and very businesslike. I found him buying boodlers in St. Louis, defending grafters in Minneapolis, originating corruption in Pittsburgh, sharing with bosses in Philadelphia, deploring reform in Chicago, and beating good government with corruption funds in New York. He is a self-righteous fraud, this big business man. He is the chief source of corruption, and it were a boon if he would neglect politics. But he is not the business man that neglects politics; that worthy is the good citizen, the typical business man. He too is busy, he is the one that has no use and therefore no time for politics. When his neglect has permitted bad government to go so far that he can be stirred to action, he is unhappy, and he looks around for a cure that shall be quick, so that he may hurry back to the shop.

Naturally, too, when he talks politics, he talks shop. His patent remedy is quack; it is business. “Give us a business man,” he says (“like me,” he means). “Let him introduce business methods into politics and government; then I shall be left alone to attend to my business.” There is hardly an office from United States Senator down to Alderman in any part of the country to which the business man has not been elected; yet politics remains corrupt, government pretty bad, and the selfish citizen has to hold himself in readiness like the old volunteer firemen to rush forth at any hour, in any weather, to prevent the fire; and he goes out sometimes and he puts out the fire (after the damage is done) and he goes back to the shop sighing for the business man in politics. The business man has failed in politics as he has in citizenship. Why? Because politics is business.

That’s what’s the matter with it. That’s what’s the matter with everything,—art , literature, religion, journalism, law, medicine,—they’re all business, and all—as you see them. Make politics a sport, as they do in England, or a profession, as they do in Germany, and we’ll have—well, something else than we have now,—if we want it, which is another question. But don’t try to reform politics with the banker, the lawyer, and the dry-goods merchant, for these are business men and there are two great hindrances to their achievement of reform: one is that they are different from, but no better than, the politicians; the other is that politics is not “their line”. …

The commercial spirit is the spirit of profit, not patriotism; of credit, not honor; of individual gain, not national prosperity; of trade and dickering, not principle. “My business is sacred,” says the business man in his heart. “Whatever prospers my business, is good; it must be. Whatever hinders it, is wrong; it must be. A bribe is bad, that is, it is a bad thing to take; but it is not so bad to give one, not if it is necessary to my business.””Business is business” is not a political sentiment, but our politician has caught it. He takes essentially the same view of the bribe, only he saves his self-respect by piling all his contempt upon the bribe-giver and he has the great advantage of candor. “It is wrong, maybe,” he says, ‘but if a rich merchant can afford to do business with me for the sake of a convenience or to increase his already great wealth, I can afford, for the sake of living, to meet him half way. I make no pretensions to virtue, not even on Sunday.”

And as for giving bad government or good, how about the merchant who gives bad goods or good goods, according to the demand? But there is hope, not alone despair, in the commer-cialism of our politics. If our political leaders are to be always a lot of political merchants, they will supply any demand we may create. All we have to do is to establish a steady demand for good government. The boss has us split up into parties. To him parties are nothing but means to his corrupt ends. He ‘bolts” his parry, but we must not; the bribe-giver changes his party, from one election to another, from one county to another, from one city to another, but the honest voter must not.

Why? Because if the honest voter cared no more for his party than the politician and the grafter, then the honest vote would govern, and that would be bad—for graft. It is idiotic, this devotion to a machine that is used to take our sovereignty from us.

If we would leave parties to the politicians, and would vote not for the party, not even for men, but for the city, and the State, and the nation, we should rule parties, and cities, and States, and nation. If we would vote in mass on the more promising ticket, or, if the two are equally bad, would throw out the party that is in, and wait till the next election and then throw out the other parry that is in—then, I say, the commercial politician would feel a demand for good government and he would supply it. That process would take a generation or more to complete, for the politicians now really do not know what good government is. But it has taken as long to develop bad government, and the politicians know what that is. If it would not “go,” they would offer something else, and, if the demand were steady, they, being so commercial, would “deliver the goods.”

Florence Kelley Speaks Out on Child Labor

Florence Kelley Speaks Out on Child Labor and Woman Suffrage,
Philadelphia, PA, July 22, 1905.

Questions for understanding:
1. What are Kelley’s criticisms regarding child labor?
2. What connection does she make about labor laws and the right of women’s suffrage?
3. Think: Why would “no labor organization in this country ever [fail] to respond to an appeal for help in the freeing of children [from labor]?

We have, in this country, two million children under the age of sixteen years who are earning their bread.  They vary in age from six and seven years (in the cotton mills of Georgia) and eight, nine and ten years (in the coal-breakers of Pennsylvania), to fourteen, fifteen and sixteen years in more enlightened states.
No other portion of the wage earning class increased so rapidly from decade to decade as the young girls from fourteen to twenty years.  Men increase, women increase, youth increase, boys increase in the ranks of the breadwinners; but no contingent so doubles from census period to census period (both by percent and by count of heads), as does the contingent of girls between twelve and twenty years of age.  They are in commerce, in offices, in manufacturing.
Tonight while we sleep, several thousand little girls will be working in textile mills, all the night through, in the deafening noise of the spindles and the looms spinning and weaving cotton and wool, silks and ribbons for us to buy.
In Alabama the law provides that a child under sixteen years of age shall not work in a cotton mill at night longer than eight hours, and Alabama does better in this respect than any other southern state.  North and South Carolina and Georgia place no restriction upon the work of children at night; and while we sleep little white girls will be working tonight in the mills in those states, working eleven hours at night.
In Georgia there is no restriction whatever! A girl of six or seven years, just tall enough to reach the bobbins, may work eleven hours by day or by night.  And they will do so tonight, while we sleep.
Nor is it only in the South that these things occur.  Alabama does better than New Jersey.  For Alabama limits the children’s work at night to eight hours, while New Jersey permits it all night long.  Last year New Jersey took a long backward step.  A good law was repealed which had required women and [children] to stop work at six in the evening and at noon on Friday.  Now, therefore, in New Jersey, boys and girls, after their 14th birthday, enjoy the pitiful privilege of working all night long.
In Pennsylvania, until last May it was lawful for children, 13 years of age, to work twelve hours at night.  A little girl, on her thirteenth birthday, could start away from her home at half past five in the afternoon, carrying her pail of midnight luncheon as happier people carry their midday luncheon, and could work in the mill from six at night until six in the morning, without violating any law of the Commonwealth.
If the mothers and the teachers in Georgia could vote, would the Georgia Legislature have refused at every session for the last three years to stop the work in the mills of children under twelve years of age?
Would the New Jersey Legislature have passed that shameful repeal bill enabling girls of fourteen years to work all night, if the mothers in New Jersey were enfranchised? Until the mothers in the great industrial states are enfranchised, we shall none of us be able to free our consciences from participation in this great evil.  No one in this room tonight can feel free from such participation.  The children make our shoes in the shoe factories; they knit our stockings, our knitted underwear in the knitting factories.  They spin and weave our cotton underwear in the cotton mills.  Children braid straw for our hats, they spin and weave the silk and velvet wherewith we trim our hats.  They stamp buckles and metal ornaments of all kinds, as well as pins and hat-pins.  Under the sweating system, tiny children make artificial flowers and neckwear for us to buy.  They carry bundles of garments from the factories to the tenements, little beasts of burden, robbed of school life that they may work for us.
We do not wish this.  We prefer to have our work done by men and women.  But we are almost powerless.  Not wholly powerless, however, are citizens who enjoy the right of petition.  For myself, I shall use this power in every possible way until the right to the ballot is granted, and then I shall continue to use both.
What can we do to free our consciences? There is one line of action by which we can do much.  We can enlist the workingmen on behalf of our enfranchisement just in proportion as we strive with them to free the children.  No labor organization in this country ever fails to respond to an appeal for help in the freeing of the children.
For the sake of the children, for the Republic in which these children will vote after we are dead, and for the sake of our cause, we should enlist the workingmen voters, with us, in this task of freeing the children from toil!

Chapter 27 Outline– due January 15

Chapter 27 Outline– Imperialism

I. Describe the various US interests in Asia.
—–A. Philippines
———-1. Philippine-American War
———-2. Aguinaldo
———-3. Philippine Commission
———-4. Taft
———-5. “benevolent assimilation”
—–B. China
———-1. John Hay and the Open Door
———-2. Boxer Rebellion
—–C. Japan
———-1. Russo-Japanese War and the Treaty of Portsmouth
—————a. effect on Roosevelt
———-2. Gentlemen’s Agreement
—————a. racial considerations
———-3. Root-Takahara Agreement

II. Describe the various US interests in Latin America.
—–A. Isthmian canal controversy
———-1. Why do we need it?
———-2. Nicaragua pros and cons
———-3. Panama pros and cons
—–B. Treaties
———-(explain the terms and signatories of the three treaties)
—–C. How does Panama gain its “independence?”
———-1. “cowboy diplomacy”
———-2. Who was Philippe Bunau- Varilla? Whose interests did he really represent?
———-3. What does it trade for its freedom?
———-4. Canal Zone
—–D. Venezuela
—–E. Why did we intervene in the Dominican Republic in 1905?
—–E. Cuba again
—–F. “preventive intervention,” aka the Roosevelt Corollary
———-1. “Bad Neighbor” policy and the “Colossus of the North”

III. What were the political repercussions of imperialism and expansion?
—–A. racial arguments informing imperialism and anti-imperialism
—–B. McKinley and imperialism
—–C. William J. Bryan and imperialism
—–D. Roosevelt and imperialism
———-1. “Big Stick”- explain
—–E. Why did America become a world power? Summarize.

Chapter 26 Outlines

Outlines Chapter 26 APUSH

These are due Monday, January 7.

You will fill in the details using numerals and lower case letters.

I. Explain how Native Americans were eliminated as a threat to westward expansion.
—–A. Plain Indian culture
—–B. Why did warfare intensify between tribes? What role did US settlement policy play?
—–C. Treaties and the start of the Reservation system
—–D. Indian Wars with the US Army
—–E. How was the buffalo used as a means of control?
—–F. What was the Dawes Act and its effects?

** Go onto the internet and research what happened to the money the tribes were supposed to receive for their surrendered lands. Use keywords such as “Indian trust fund Interior Department” Write a summary in your own words for extra credit.

II. White settlers move into the Great Plains and Rockies
—–A. Homestead Act
—–B. Commercialization of farming
—–C. Cattle Industry
—–D. Mining Industry
—–E. Inventions and techniques that make the Plains profitable
—–F. Turner’s Frontier Thesis- what does impact does the frontier have on American culture and development?

III. Economic hardship for farmers
—–A. Deflation- what is it? Why is tt bad?
—–B. Causes of farm debt
—–C. Natural disasters
—–D. Fighting the trusts, especially the Railroads
—–E. The Grange—an attempt to organize farmers
—–F. Greenback Labor Party
—–G. Populism