IOHS UNITED STATES HISTORY – CENTRAL EVENTS 2012

TEXT

CAPT MILLER

PREHISTORIC AND EARLY EUROPEAN AMERICA

It is well accepted by the majority of archaeologists that the first prehistoric people to inhabit North and

South America came over a land bridge from Siberia (today called by scientists Beringia), where the

Bering Strait now exists. These people did not realize they were coming to a new continent, but were

following big game herds for survival. The “bridge” was miles wide, and the appearance was not of a

constricted area.

It also is accepted that this nomadic immigration took place in several waves (perhaps three), not all at

once, thousands of years ago ... but when?

Until recently, the earliest human habitation of the Americas fully accepted by archaeological scientists

was dated to 11,000-11,500 BC (13,000-13,500 BP). These settlers were called the Clovis people, named

after an archaeological find at Clovis, New Mexico. Their distinctive fluted flint spear or knife points are

found all through America. Some archaeologists call the Clovis point the first great American invention.

Its design enabled ancient man to kill the giant beasts of that day and raised warfare to a more deadly

practice.

Probably the most exciting site in North America that has been excavated is Meadowcroft rock shelter in

Pennsylvania. There, DR Jim Adovasio conducted meticulous digging that produced dated artifacts older

than Clovis. It effectively spoiled the “Clovis First” theory. Meadowcroft dating, being older than Clovis,

is now accepted by the mainstream of archaeologists.

Newly accepted dramatic evidence from a site at Monte Verde, Chile dates to about 12,500 BC. Other

excavation sites lead to pushing the date back further. Research just completed in 1999 indicates that at

least three waves of settlers crossed over to the Americas, with the first wave coming more than 20,000

years ago. It is currently speculated that humans might have been in the New World as long as 40,000

years ago.

At a still controversial site in Virginia, called Cactus Hill, artifacts were found which seem to be pre-

Clovis, and, a flint point was found which a few archaeologists contend connect the New World with the

Solutrians in Europe, opening up a whole new idea of the peopling of America.

This period of man’s earliest times in America is called by archaeologists the Paleo Period; it extends

forward from the first arrival in America, until about 8,500 BC.

Further recently discovered charcoal from what could have been a fire pit at Monte Verde has been

radioactive carbon dated to 33,000 years ago, but these last findings will have to undergo more scrutiny

and debate by archaeologists.

There were over 140 distinct and separate languages among the Indians by Columbus’s time. Some

language experts estimate it would have taken at least 30,000 years to develop such a variety.

It is important to recognize that the Indians of Columbus’s time had no lore or recollection of these

ancient peoples, and the lineage is indistinct and lost in time.

Either sometime during the Paleo period or even before people coming to America, Paleo man made a

very important invention, allowing these early family groups to experience some security in the obtaining

of food, and protection from predators and enemies This innovation was the atlatl (pronounced AHT”-

LAH-TULL); it was a weighted stick, fabricated with a hook in one end into which the feathered shaft

end of a dart could be placed, and a handle or leather hoop on the other. Held in the spearman’s throwing

hand, it gave him a mechanical advantage, extending in effect the length of his arm, which allowed

hunters to stand off and kill game from an extended distance, rather than be forced to kill a huge

mammoth or bison with a spear. It meant hunters could stalk game and strike from surprise, thus

dramatically increasing the meat brought home. It also, of course, allowed man to kill man, and was the

first significant arms escalation.

The bow and arrow was not developed in the New World until about 400AD.

There were rich empires in the Americas, south of the present US:

The last of the great empires in the Andes was the Incas. Conquered by the Spanish commanded by

Pizarro.

The Maya were in Central America (Mexico/Belize/Guatemala). They developed a vast system of

city states. They were fascinated by mathematics, discovered the concept of the zero. They were in

decline when found by the Spanish.

The Aztecs were in Mexico around present day Mexico City. They particularly practiced human

sacrifice because they believed the sun required large quantities of human blood so that it would

reappear from the underworld each day. They were feared by the other Indian tribes they subjugated.

Conquered by the Spanish led by Cortez.

North of Mexico, the Indian population was only one tenth that of Mexico and the Inca empire. There

were large communities that lived in pueblos in the US southwest, that were found and conquered by the

Spanish. There were cultures that rose in the Mississippi Valley that were farmers and traders.

By the time Columbus discovered America, no Indians knew anything about their prehistoric

background.

Contrasting this with Hawaii, the original Hawaiians were Polynesian (originally ebbing across the

south Pacific from southeast Asia), probably via the Marquesas Islands for the first wave. They reached

the islands as early as 400AD, and were followed 400 to 500 years later by and second wave of

immigrants from Tahiti. Captain James Cook of Britain is credited as being the frst European to visit the

islands, in 1778.

In mainland America, the Europeans found:

The Iroquois, an alliance of farming people who dominated the northeast in the 1500s and 1600s. The

French became their enemies because the French fought the Iroquois with the Iroquois’ traditional

enemy the Huron.

In the southeastern US, the Creek, Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole, and Chicksaw formed another

confederation called the Five Civilized tribes.

Indians and Europeans had different points of view. But there had always been conflict and war, both for

Indians and Europeans. For the Indians, there had been brutal warfare and competition over hunting

grounds and space. The Europeans did not bring a new evil to America, in this regard. European diseases

for which the Indians had no immunity killed far more than war.

*The principal issue that the American Indians came to have with the English colonists was the

expansion of colonial farms in Indian lands.

The Middle Ages existed in Europe from @ 500AD to 1500. It was feudalistic; powerful lords gave lands

to nobles in exchange for loyalty. Travel generally was unsafe; people stayed near where they lived.

The Europeans’ crusades to the Holy Lands enhanced their thirst for exotic oriental goods, and gave them

a spirit of adventure. The modern nations of Europe had their beginnings, and there was commercial

rivalry.

The Renaissance was 1400AD to 1500, and this was a rebirth of interest in Greek and Roman culture and

knowledge. Civilization was relearning what it had lost during the “Dark Ages.”

The Renaissance spirit of curiosity and adventure in Europe helped launch the bold voyages of the Age of

Exploration.

Europeans were motivated to send travelers across unknown oceans, because:

1. Europeans wanted luxury goods from Asia.

2. European monarchs hoped to enrich and strengthen their countries.

3. The Roman Catholic Church sent missionaries to bring Christianity to millions of new souls.

The joint stock company shared the risk among investors and spurred on commercial travel and hope for

trade.

Europeans came to have these voyages of exploration, because:

New technology greatly made voyages of exploration possible:

Development of precise maps.

Understanding the nature and shape of the world

The compass.

Astrolabe and quadrant, for latitude. By measuring height of sun and stars above the horizon.

New ship designs: carrack and caravel.

The Italian city states had a monopoly on European trade with the orient.

Portugal had a long Atlantic coastline and a great seafaring tradition. In the early 1400s, Prince Henry of

Portugal founded a school for mariners. He sent ships down the west coast of Africa.

SLAVERY: The first African slaves were taken to Portugal (Europe) in 1441. (More to follow)

1487 & 1488 Dias from Portugal was blown around tip of Africa. Named Cape of Good Hope.

1499 After Dias, Vasco da Gama again rounded the Cape and sailed to India. The riches of the Orient

were now open to the Portuguese. Da Gama’s ships had traveled 24,000 miles. The sea route he opened

challenged the other European nations to make their open explorations.

Mayflower Compact – What is it?

The Mayflower Compact is a written agreement composed by a consensus of the new Settlers arriving at New Plymouth in November of 1620. They had traveled across the ocean on the ship Mayflower which was anchored in what is now Provincetown Harbor near Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The Mayflower Compact was drawn up with fair and equal laws, for the general good of the settlement and with the will of the majority. The Mayflower‟s passengers knew that the New World‟s earlier settlers failed due to a lack of government. They hashed out the content and eventually composed the Compact for the sake of their own survival. All 41 of the adult male members on the Mayflower signed the Compact. Being the first written laws for the new land, the Compact determined authority within the settlement and was the observed as such until 1691. This established that the colony (mostly persecuted Separatists), was to be free of English law. It was devised to set up a government from within themselves and was written by those to be governed.

Mayflower Compact – What did it say? The original document is said to have been lost, but the writings of William Bradford‟s journal Of Plymouth Plantation and in Edward Winslow‟s Mourt’s Relation: A Journal of the Pilgrims at Plymouth are in agreement and accepted as accurate. The Mayflower Compact reads:

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."

Mayflower Compact – Who signed it and why? One of the first lists of the Mayflower Compact‟s signers was provided by William Bradford‟s nephew, Nathaniel Morton. The names are published in his 1669 New England’s Memorial. They are also posted by the Avalon Project of Yale University. Some of the more familiar names includes are those such as: John Carver, William Bradford, Edward Winslow, William Brewster, Isaac Allerton, Myles Standish, and John Alden. When creating the Mayflower Compact, the signers believed that covenants were not only to be honored between God and man, but also between each other. They had always honored covenants as part of their righteous integrity and agreed to be bound by this same principle with the Compact. John Adams and many historians have referred to the Mayflower Compact as the foundation of the U.S. Constitution written more than 150 later. America was indeed begun by men who honored God and set their founding principles by the words of the Bible. They lived their lives with honesty, reliability, and fairness toward establishing this country “for the sake of its survival.” A great many of America‟s Founding Fathers have been quoted in regard to living by Biblical values. Edmund Burke (1729-1794), outstanding orator, author, and leader in Great Britain, defended the colonies in Parliament. "There is but one law for all, namely, that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator." Patrick Henry (1736-1799), five-time Governor of Virginia, whose "Give me liberty or give me death" speech has made him immortal, said: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly, nor too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. . . ." Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), third U.S. President, chosen to write the Declaration of Independence, said: "I have little doubt that the whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator, and, I hope, to the pure doctrines of Jesus also." He proclaimed that it was the God of the Bible who founded America in his 1805 inaugural address: "I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in this country."

Mayflower Compact (1620)

The following is a very careful letter-for-letter and line-by-line transcription made by me of the

Mayflower Compact, as it is found in the original page of William Bradford's History Of Plymouth

Plantation. Spelling and punctuation have not been modernized. The original from which this

transcription was made can be seen in the graphic at the bottom of this page.

In ye name of God Amen· We whose names are vnderwriten,

the loyall subjects of our dread soueraigne Lord King James

by ye grace of God, of great Britaine, franc, & Ireland king,

defender of ye faith, &c

Haueing vndertaken, for ye glorie of God, and aduancemente

of ye christian ^faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to

plant ye first colonie in y

e Northerne parts of Virginia· doe

by these presents solemnly & mutualy in ye presence of God, and

one of another, couenant, & combine our selues togeather into a

ciuill body politick; for ye our better ordering, & preseruation & fur=

therance of ye ends aforesaid; and by vertue hearof, to enacte,

constitute, and frame shuch just & equall lawes, ordinances,

Acts, constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought

most meete & conuenient for ye generall good of y

e colonie: vnto

which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witnes

wherof we haue herevnder subscribed our names at Cap=

Codd ye ·11· of Nouember, in y

e year of y

e raigne of our soueraigne

Lord king James of England, france, & Ireland ye eighteenth

and of Scotland ye fiftie fourth. An

o: Dom ·1620·|

SIGNERS:

John Carver Edward Tilley Degory Priest

William Bradford John Tilley Thomas Williams

Edward Winslow Francis Cooke Gilbert Winslow

William Brewster Thomas Rogers Edmund Margesson

Isaac Allerton Thomas Tinker Peter Brown

Myles Standish John Rigsdale Richard Britteridge

John Alden Edward Fuller George Soule

Samuel Fuller John Turner Richard Clarke

Christopher Martin Francis Eaton Richard Gardinar

William Mullins James Chilton John Allerton

William White John Crackstone Thomas English

Richard Warren John Billington Edward Doty

John Howland Moses Fletcher Edward Leister

Stephen Hopkins John Goodman

History behind the Mayflower Compact

The Mayflower Compact was signed on 11 November 1620 on board the Mayflower, which

was at anchor in Provincetown Harbor. The document was drawn up in response to

"mutinous speeches" that had come about because the Pilgrims had intended to settle in

Northern Virginia, but the decision was made after arrival to instead settle in New England.

Since there was no government in place, some felt they had no legal obligation to remain

within the colony and supply their labor. The Mayflower Compact attempted to

temporarily establish that government until a more official one could be drawn up in

England that would give them the right to self-govern themselves in New England.

In a way, this was the first American Constitution, though the Compact in practical terms

had little influence on subsequent American documents. John Quincy Adams, a descendant

of Mayflower passenger John Alden, does call the Mayflower Compact the foundation of

the U.S. Constitution in a speech given in 1802, but this was in principle more than in

substance. In reality, the Mayflower Compact was superseded in authority by the 1621

Peirce Patent, which not only gave the Pilgrims the right to self-government at Plymouth,

but had the significant advantage of being authorized by the King of England.

The Mayflower Compact was first published in 1622. William Bradford wrote a copy of the

Mayflower Compact down in his History Of Plymouth Plantation which he wrote from

1630-1654, and that is the version given above. Neither version gave the names of the

signers. Nathaniel Morton in his New England's Memorial, published in 1669, was the first

to record and publish the names of the signers, and Thomas Prince in his Chronological

History of New England in the form of Annals (1736) recorded the signers names as well, as

did Thomas Hutchinson in 1767. It is unknown whether the later two authors had access to

the original document, or whether they were simply copying Nathaniel Morton's list of

signers.

The original Mayflower Compact has never been found, and is assumed destroyed. Thomas

Prince may have had access to the original in 1736, and possibly Thomas Hutchinson did in

1767. If it indeed survived, it was likely a victim of Revolutionary War looting, along with

other such Pilgrim valuables as Bradford's now lost Register of Births and Deaths, his

partially recovered Letterbook, and his entirely recovered History Of Plymouth Plantation.

The term "Mayflower Compact" was not assigned to this document until 1793, when for the

first time it is called the Compact in Alden Bradford's A Topographical Description of

Duxborough, in the County of Plymouth. Previously it had been called "an association and

agreement" (William Bradford), "combination" (Plymouth Colony Records), "solemn

contract" (Thomas Prince, 1738), and "the covenant" (Rev. Charles Turner, 1774).

This is the "Mayflower Compact" as written by Mayflower passenger William Bradford

into his manuscript History of Plymouth Plantation about 1630.

Colonial Life In America - The Colonials Colonial life in America was very difficult for the hopeful settlers who came to escape poverty, persecution, and to gain religious freedom. Later came the adventurous explorers and those sent by European Nations to begin business ventures in this uncharted new land. They eventually settled into the original 13 colonies now known at the States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Georgia.

Colonial Life In America - The Hardships The settlers did not know how to live in the rugged wilderness and had no experience in preparing for the harsh, bitter cold winters. They faced many hardships such as knowing little about how to hunt for game or how to plant crops on this new soil. As a result, many succumbed to malnutrition and diseases. In Massachusetts, for example, the Plymouth settlers, spent most of their first winter (1620–21) on board the Mayflower. It took a great deal of time to clear the land and erect adequate shelters. The following winter, the Pilgrims were able to live on land but it was under extremely primitive conditions. Many were sick and all were hungry. Nearly one-quarter of them died before a ship from England brought fresh supplies. They relied heavily on their faith and spent much time in prayer. In time, the colonists learned how to live in the wilderness through trial and error and with the help of an English speaking warrior named Squanto and the Wampanoag Chief, Massasoit. By the 1700s, small cities and towns were established. The colonists slowly developed their own customs and lifestyles. Eventually they began to feel that this new land was now their true home. Life in colonial America centered on the family. Most of the following took place at home in the very earliest years of the settlements:

work

play

schooling

learning a craft or trade

worshiping

Large families were common and necessary in colonial days. Everyone was needed to get all the work done. The father was considered the head of the family. He made all of the family decisions and earned a living by farming and other crafts such as blacksmithing. Women worked in the home raising children, preparing meals, making clothes, preserving food for winter, fetching water and scrubbing clothes. They made their own candles, soaps, and most other basic items. None of this was easy and often done without the proper tools. Much of their dawn to dusk work was merely for day to day survival.

Colonial Life In America - Forming a Nation After concerns of survival, came the Colonists desires and struggles to form a fair and democratic government. The tyranny that some of them came from made this a priority. Those who survived had a very difficult life but they had determination and steadfast faith that this would be a great land. Many died before their time, but for most of them, their faith in God and the Bible is what helped them persevere. They were grateful to God for sending the Indians who taught them how to survive in this new land. It was through their faith and determination that America was born a free, democratic, and Christian nation.

Declaration of Independence – The Official Transcript The Declaration of Independence of the original thirteen states of the United States of America is maintained by the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, DC. The official transcription is available at www.archives.gov.

Declaration of Independence – The Text The Declaration of Independence reads as follows: IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Declaration of Independence – The Signers The Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776. The 56 signatures on the Declaration of Independence appear in the following order and positions: Column 1 Georgia:

Button Gwinnett Lyman Hall George Walton

Column 2 North Carolina:

William Hooper Joseph Hewes John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge Thomas Heyward, Jr. Thomas Lynch, Jr. Arthur Middleton

Column 3 Massachusetts:

John Hancock Maryland:

Samuel Chase William Paca Thomas Stone Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe Richard Henry Lee Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Harrison Thomas Nelson, Jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee Carter Braxton

Column 4 Pennsylvania:

Robert Morris Benjamin Rush Benjamin Franklin John Morton George Clymer James Smith George Taylor James Wilson George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney George Read Thomas McKean

Column 5 New York:

William Floyd Philip Livingston

Francis Lewis Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton John Witherspoon Francis Hopkinson John Hart Abraham Clark

Column 6 New Hampshire:

Josiah Bartlett William Whipple

Massachusetts: Samuel Adams John Adams Robert Treat Paine Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman Samuel Huntington William Williams Oliver Wolcott

New Hampshire: Matthew Thornton

Declaration of Independence – A Revolutionary Document (Use Library of Congress link) At its core, the Declaration of Independence was declaring a revolutionary system of governance in the name of God.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Humbled men were now declaring that true life, liberty, and meaningful pursuit can only exist in a nation where the baseline is our Creator. Real independence is only possible when we‟re fully dependant on God. "We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come." (Samuel Adams, during his signing of the Declaration of Independence) "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." (John Quincy Adams)

The American Revolution

The American Revolution (1775-83) is also known as the American Revolutionary War and the U.S. War

of Independence. The conflict arose from growing tensions between residents of Great Britain's 13 North

American colonies and the colonial government, which represented the British crown. Skirmishes

between British troops and colonial militiamen in Lexington and Concord in April 1775 kicked off the

armed conflict, and by the following summer, the rebels were waging a full-scale war for their

independence. France entered the American Revolution on the side of the colonists in 1778, turning what

had essentially been a civil war into an international conflict. After French assistance helped the

Continental Army force the British surrender at Yorktown, Virginia, in 1779, the Americans had

effectively won their independence, though fighting would not formally end until 1783.

Document A

The Boston Massacre

By Paul Revere

(C) 1995 --American Antiquarian Society

Document B

The Boston Tea Party

By Sarony Major

(C) 1999 National Archives Administration

Document C

Treaty of Paris Article V

Written by: D. Hartley, John Adams, B. Franklin and John Jay

(C)1995 --Facts on File, Inc.

It is agreed that the Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states, to

provide for the restitution of all estates, rights and properties, which have been confiscated, belonging to

real British subjects, and also of the estates, rights and properties of persons resident in districts in the

possession of his Majesty’s arms, and who have not borne arms against the said United States. And that

persons of any other description shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen

United States, and therein to remain twelve months, unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the

restitution of such of their estates, rights and properties, as may have been confiscated; and that Congress

shall also earnestly recommend to the several states a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws

regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent, not only with justice and

equity, but with that spirit of conciliation, which on the return of the blessings of peace should universally

prevail. And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states, that the estates, rights and

properties of such last mentioned persons, shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons who

may be now in possession, the bona fide price (where any has been given) which such persons may have

paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights or properties, since the confiscation. And it is agreed, that

all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements, or otherwise,

shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their rights.

Document D

Galloway’s Plan of Union, 1774

(C)1995--Facts on File

That there shall be a new election of members for the Grand Council every three years; and on the death,

removal or resignation of any member, his place shall be supplied by a new choice, at the next sitting of

Assembly of the Colony he represented.

That the grand Council shall have power to choose their Speaker, and shall hold and exercise al the like

rights, liberties and privileges, as are held and exercised by and in the House of Commons of Great

Britain.

That the President-General, by and with the advice and consent of the Grand-Council, hold and exercise

all the legislative rights, powers, and authorities, necessary for regulating and administering all the

general police and affairs of the colonies, in which Great-Britain and the colonies, or any of them, the

colonies in general, or more than one colony, are in any manner concerned, as well civil and criminal as

commercial.

That in time of war, all bills for granting aid to the crown, prepared by the Grand Council, and approved

by the President General, shall be valid and passed into a law, without the assent of the British

Parliament.

Document E

First Continental Congress -October 1774

Resolved, that the following acts of Parliament are infringements and violations of the rights of the

colonists; and that the repeal of them is essentially necessary, in order to restore harmony between Great

Britain and the American colonies, viz.:

The several Acts which impose duties for the purpose of raising a revenue in America, extend powers of

the admiralty courts beyond their ancient limits, deprive the American subject of trial by jury, authorize

the judges’ certificate to indemnify the prosecutor from damages that he might otherwise be liable to,

requiring oppressive security from a claimant of ships and goods seized before he shall be allowed to

defend his property; and are subversive of American rights.

Document F

Give Me Liberty Speech by Patrick Henry, 1775 (Letter to the President)

(C)1995 -Facts on File

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be

stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a

British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction?

Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the

delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if

we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions

of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are

invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles

alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to

fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.

Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the

contest. There is no retreat, but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be

heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable - and let it come! I repeat, sir, let it come!

Document G

The Radicalism of the American Revolution, by Gordon S. Wood

In the decades following the Revolution, American society was transformed. By every measure there was

a sudden bursting forth, and explosion - not only of geographical movement but of entrepreneurial

energy, of religious passion, and of pecuniary desires. Perhaps no country in the Western world has ever

undergone such massive changes in such a short period of time. The Revolution resembled the breaking

of a dam, releasing thousands upon thousands of pent-up pressures. There had been seepage and flows

before the Revolution, but suddenly it was as if the whole traditional structure, enfeebled and brittle to

begin with, broke apart, and people and their energies were set loose in an unprecedented outburst.

Nothing contributed more to this explosion of energy than did the idea of equality. Equality was in fact

the most radicals and most powerful ideological force let loose in the Revolution. Its appeal was far more

potent than any of the revolutionaries realized. Once invoked, the idea of equality could not be stopped,

and it tore through American society and culture with awesome power. It became what Herman Melville

called "the great God absolute! The center and circumference of all democracy!" The "Spirit of Equality"

did not merely cull the "selectest champions from the kingly commons," but is spread "one royal mantle

of humanity" over all Americans and brought "democratic dignity" to even "the arm that wields a pick or

drives a spike." Within decades following the Declaration of Independence, the United States became the

most egalitarian nation in the history of the world, and it remains so today, regardless of its great

disparities of wealth.

Document H

The Thirteen Colonies in 1763

(C) 1995 --McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Document I

State Claims to Western Lands and Cessions to National Government, 1782

(C) 1995 --McGraw-Hill, Inc.

SAMPLE ESSAY

A revolution is an event that forever changes the life and politics of a certain people. These revolutions

often have different degrees that they go to, from little change at all to very radical. The Revolutionary

War that occurred in the United States is an example of a revolution that was very radical. This war

forever altered the social, political, and economic structure of the colonies, illustrating how radical the

revolution really was. The American Revolution was actually a very radical revolution that completely

changed all aspects of society.

The Revolutionary War was a social revolution because the colonies began to see themselves as

interdependent rather than being subject to the will of the British government. The historian Gordon

Wood said "The Revolution resembles the breaking of a dam, releasing thousands upon thousands of pent

up pressures. There had been seepage and flow before the Revolution, but suddenly it was as if the whole

traditional structure, enfeebled and brittle to begin with, broke apart, and people and their energies were

set loose in an unprecedented outburst." This completely changed all of the social culture that had existed

before the revolution. It altered the complete structure of the relationship between England and America,

illustrating how radical the revolution really was. For example in Thomas Paine’s Common Sense he used

the metaphor of a satellite that was no more fit to rule the sun than England was to rule the American

continent. It didn’t make sense to the people that such a small country like Britain would be controlling

them when they were so much larger and so far away. Most of the governors that were in charge of

America had never even set foot on the continent. Patrick Henry made an important statement when he

said "The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!" He is saying that breaking from

England is a natural course to follow. The colonists were just obeying human nature in their wants to be

independent and self-ruling. For the first time in history the colonists began to think for themselves and

unite as one power and stand up against English rule.

The colonists were tired of being used by Britain for monetary gain. They were ready to make major

changes in their economic system. This was evident in the engraving of the Boston Massacre done by

Paul Revere. The colonists chaffed under the constant array of acts, such as the Stamp Act and the Sugar

Act, and went to do the customs houses to protest their oppression. This showed how badly they wanted

to change what they considered the unjust taxation that Britain had forced upon them. Another open

revolt based on economics was the Boston Tea Party. This was caused solely by what the colonists saw as

a tax used only to save an English company. Another example of how greatly the economy was altered

was the huge change in the borders of the colonies. Previously, Britain had limited how far the colonists

could expand. With the end of the revolution, the colonists rapidly began to expand westward, not

stopping until they reached another ocean to hem them in. This change in borders completely altered the

entire economy of the colonies. It allowed them much greater land to farm in and also helped their

population expand. Not only that, it was a complete break from the Proclamation of 1763 which had set

the western border on the colonies. The Boston Massacre and the rapid expansion of the colonies

illustrate how much the colonists chaffed under England’s rule and how radical the economic revolution

in America really was.

The government of the colonies was also completely altered after the revolution. The complete alteration

of the form of government can be seen in Galloway’s Plan of Union. Previously, the colonists had

absolutely no say in the election of the Parliament that ruled them. They now had formed a plan that

called for the open election of their own ruling body, one that would not be affected by the Parliament in

England. This illustrates what a complete reversal the governing style that the colonists had gone through.

Another example of the political change that the colonists experienced were the resolves passed by the

First Continental Congress. This departure from previous governing style can be seen when the Congress

said, "The several Acts which impose duties for the purpose of raising a revenue in America, extend

powers of the admiralty courts beyond their ancient limits, deprive the American subject of trial by jury,

authorize the judges’ certificate to indemnify the prosecutor from damages that he might otherwise be

liable to, requiring oppressive security from a claimant ships and goods seized before he shall be allowed

to defend his property; and are subversive of American rights." The colonists also feared the power of

Parliament as was stated in the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms. This said that

there had to be some limiting of the power that the government could hold over an individual. These

complete departures from the previous governing style that England had used illustrate how radical the

political revolution that occurred in America really was.

The structure of America was forever changed by the Revolutionary War. This was exemplified socially

by things like Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, and the radicalism of Patrick Henry. The desire for

economic change was illustrated by The Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party. And the change in

political life was demonstrated by things like Galloway’s Plan of Union, and the resolves of the First

Continental Congress. The revolution in America was actually very radical, with their belief that "you

can’t let the tail wag the dog."

We have it in our power to begin the world over again.

A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now.

The birthday of a new world is at hand.

Throwing off the British monarchy on July 4, 1776, left the United States with no central government. It had to

design and install a new government–and quickly. As early as May 1776, Congress advised each of the colonies to

draw up plans for state governments; by 1780, all thirteen states had adopted written constitutions. In June 1776, the

Continental Congress began to work on a plan for a central government. It took five years for it to be approved, first

by members of Congress and then by the states. The first attempt at a constitution for the United States was called

the Articles of Confederation.

This first constitution was composed by a body that directed most of its attention to fighting and winning the War

for Independence. It came into being at a time when Americans had a deep-seated fear of a central authority and

long-standing loyalty to the state in which they lived and often called their "country." Ultimately, the Articles of

Confederation proved unwieldy and inadequate to resolve the issues that faced the United States in its earliest years;

but in granting any Federal powers to a central authority–the Confederation Congress–this document marked a

crucial step toward nationhood. The Articles of Confederation were in force from March 1, 1781, until March 4,

1789, when the present Constitution went into effect.

The Constitutional Convention

The year was 1787. The place: the State House in Philadelphia, the same location where the

Declaration of Independence had been signed 11 years earlier. For four months, 55 delegates

from the several states met to frame a Constitution for a federal republic that would last into

"remote futurity."

The Central Features of the Virginia Plan

Text of the Virginia Plan

On May 29, Edmund Randolph introduced the Virginia Plan containing 15 Resolutions.

Echoing, Madison's Vices of April 1787, he itemized five reasons why the Articles of Confederation must be radically altered.

1. "It does not provide against foreign attacks."

2. "It does not secure Harmony to the States."

3. "It is incapable of producing certain blessings to the States."

4. "It cannot defend itself against encroachments." 5. "It is not superior to State constitutions."

The single most important reason why the delegates were gathered was because of what

Madison referred to as the multiplicity, mutability, and injustice of legislation at the state

level. To correct these deficiencies, the Virginia Plan removed the state legislatures both

structurally, and in terms of powers, from any place in the new continental arrangement. Most importantly,

1. The National Legislature should consist of two branches.

2. The people of each State should elect the First Branch of the National Legislature.

The Second Branch of the National Legislature should be elected by the first.

3. The National Legislature shall have power "to legislate in all cases to which the

separate States are incompetent," and "to negative all laws passed by the States,

contravening in the opinion of the National Legislature the articles of Union."

4. The National Legislature shall elect a National Executive.

5. The Executive and a number of National Judiciary will form a Council of Revision.

This Council will review laws passed by the National Legislature and have the power

to reject the laws, unless the National Legislature can pass the act again.

6. The National Legislature will create the National Judiciary. The structure will consist

of one or more supreme tribunals and inferior tribunals. Judges will be appointed for

life, during good behavior.

7. State Legislatures, Executives, and Judges are to be bound by oath to support the

Articles.

8. The new plan for government should be ratified by the people, through assemblies of

representatives chosen by the people.

Why was the New Jersey Plan Introduced?

9. On June 11, Roger Sherman proposed a compromise: rather than have proportional

representation of the people in both the House and the Senate, why not agree to

proportional representation in the House and equal representation for each state in

the Senate? The rejection of this compromise, led the New Jersey, Connecticut, New

York, and Delaware delegations, and Mr. Martin from Maryland, to propose the New

Jersey Plan.

10. Madison's Notes for June 15th records the following: "Mr. Dickinson said to Mr.

Madison you see the consequence of pushing things too far." The 11 Resolutions of

the New Jersey Plan restored the single chamber structure of the Articles, where

each state was represented equally regardless of the size of its population. As far as

powers were concerned, the power to tax and the power to regulate interstate

commerce were added to the powers that the union had under the Articles.

11. It is tempting to see the introduction of the New Jersey Plan as an attempt by the

small states to fight off the impending victory of the large state supported Virginia

Plan. But this is to simplify too much. There were some "large minded" men from

small states—Dickenson for example—who were willing to meet the Madisonians half

way, but to no avail.

12. What are the principles, if any, that undergird this Plan? On June 16, for example,

Pinckney observed, rather cynically, that no principles were involved: "the whole

comes down to this, as he conceived. Give N. Jersey an equal vote, and she will

dismiss her scruple, and concur in the Natil. system." But Pinckney, to the contrary

notwithstanding, there are two "scruples" involved.

13. The first scruple concerns the rule of law. On February 28, 1787, the Confederation

Congress endorsed the meeting of a Grand Convention, "for the sole purpose of

revising the articles of confederation and reporting to Congress and the several state

legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in

Congress and confirmed by the States, render the federal constitution adequate to

the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union." The defenders of

the New Jersey Plan pointed to this mandate and suggested that the Virginia Plan

was illegal. The second principled position was the question of prudence, namely, the

improbability that the Virginia Plan will be adopted. The defenders of the New Jersey

Plan argued that it would be more likely to be adopted by the electorate than the

never before imagined Virginia Plan. On June 16, Lansing, in support of Patterson,

stated: "The Scheme is itself totally novel. There is no parallel to it to be found."

14. The New Jersey Plan supporters had to contend with the question, why are states

qua states entitled to equal representation? There are two answers. 1) The colonies

became the States and the States have been equally represented in every

continental scheme from the start, so why the move to alter tradition? 2) The

Declaration of Independence declared the independence, equality, and sovereignty of

each state. And the Treaty of Paris recognized the independence of the states as part of the principles of the peace.

The Slave Trade

No issue is more in need of careful consideration than the slavery question, because no

issue is more likely to impeach the entire Founding enterprise than the slavery issue.

Unfortunately, historians have a way of reading history backwards rather than forwards and

when we read the slavery issue backwards it looks like in the most critical area—Article I,

Section 9 on the Slave Trade—the delegates are unequivocally and perpetually endorsing

the institution of slavery. It is as if Judge Roger Taney, in the Dred Scott Case—the

Constitution embraces the perpetual enslavement of African Americans—has the story

correct and Abraham Lincoln, in his debates with Douglas—the Framers intended to put

slavery in the course of ultimate extinction—has it all wrong. There is no evidence that

either Taney or Lincoln read Madison's Notes. When we turn to the evidence in Madison's Notes, which position makes more sense?

We need to ask a prior question: how did Article I, Section 9 get to be the way it is? Was

there unanimity among the delegates, was there even a discussion, and if, so, was there anybody who put up the slightest resistance to the continuation of slavery?

On August 6, the Committee of Detail Report was presented to the delegates. Article VII,

Section 1 itemized the powers of Congress and sections two through seven placed

limitations on the powers of Congress. Section 4 stated that:

No tax or duty shall be laid by the Legislature… on the migration or importation of such

persons as the several States shall think proper to admit; nor shall such migration or

importation be prohibited.

This is clearly a slaveholder's document: Congress is forbidden forever from prohibiting the

slave trade and any incentive through taxation is also prohibited. This section is the result of

a demand from the North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia delegations to think practically rather than in terms of humanity and religion.

On September 17, the delegates signed the Constitution, Article I, Section 9 of which states

the following:

The Migration or Importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think

proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand

eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such importation.

Note that the final version permits Congress to eliminate the slave trade in 1808—which it

did effective January 1, 1808—and permits Congress in the meantime to discourage the

trade by taxation. Also the final version limits the Congressional prohibition to the existing

States thus inviting the future restriction of slavery in the territories. In this regard, it is

important to note that the Confederation Congress restricted slavery in the Northwest

Territories in exchange for the return of fugitive slaves. The delegates adopt this Ordinance solution as part of Article IV.

What took place between August 6 and September 17? Rutledge of South Carolina argued

on August 21, "Interest alone is the governing principle with Nations. The true question at

present is whether the Southern States shall or not be parties of the Union." Sherman and

Ellsworth, moreover, recommended not making the slave trade a divisive issue: "Slavery in

time will not be a speck in our Country." Luther Martin disagreed: slavery "was inconsistent

with the principles of the revolution." On August 22, Mason supported Martin's position:

"Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a

Country." Dickinson, from Delaware, considered slavery "as inadmissible on every principle of honor & safety." And Randolph stated, "he could never agree to the clause as it stands."

On August 25, the delegates received a Committee compromise recommendation to permit

Congress to prohibit the slave trade in 1800. Pinckney moved to alter this to 1808.

Madison's response was prophetic: "twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be

apprehended from the liberty to import slaves." The first time the slavery issue was raised

in the convention is by Madison on June 6. There in his itemization of the causes of faction,

or the unjust use of power, he says "that we have seen the mere distinction of colour made

in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever

exercised by man over man." G. Morris from Pennsylvania, on August 25, was rather blunt:

why not say that this part of the Constitution was a compliance with… North Carolina, South Carolina & Georgia."

The delegates agreed to the 1808 prohibition by a vote of Ayes 7, Noes 4. The 4 noes were

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia and they voted "no" because they thought

that 1808 was too compromising. Lincoln, and not Taney, has the weight of the Founders on his side of the argument.

Comparing the Articles and the Constitution

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

The United States has operated under two constitutions. The first, The Articles of Confederation,

was in effect from March 1, 1781, when Maryland ratified it. The second, The Constitution,

replaced the Articles when it was ratified by New Hampshire on June 21, 1788.

The two documents have much in common - they were established by the same people

(sometimes literally the same exact people, though mostly just in terms of contemporaries). But

they differ more than they do resemble each other, when one looks at the details. Comparing

them can give us insight into what the Framers found important in 1781, and what they changed

their minds on by 1788.

The following is a comparison, detailing the similarities and differences between the

Constitution and the Articles.

Formal name of the nation Articles: The United States of America

Constitution: (not specified, but referred to in the Preamble as "the United States of America")

Legislature Articles: Unicameral, called Congress

Constitution: Bicameral, called Congress, divided into the House of Representatives and the

Senate

Members of Congress Articles: Between two and seven members per state

Constitution: Two Senators per state, Representatives apportioned according to population of

each state

Voting in Congress Articles: One vote per state

Constitution: One vote per Representative or Senator

Appointment of members Articles: All appointed by state legislatures, in the manner each legislature directed

Constitution: Representatives elected by popular vote, Senators appointed by state legislatures

Term of legislative office Articles: One year

Constitution: Two years for Representatives, six for Senators

Term limit for legislative office Articles: No more than three out of every six years

Constitution: None

Congressional Pay Articles: Paid by states

Constitution: Paid by the federal government

When Congress is not in session... Articles: A Committee of States had the full powers of Congress

Constitution: The President can call for Congress to assemble

Chair of legislature Articles: President of Congress

Constitution: Speaker of the House of Representatives, Vice President is President of the Senate

Executive Articles: None

Constitution: President

National Judiciary Articles: Maritime judiciary established

Constitution: Federal judiciary established, including Supreme Court

Adjudicator of disputes between states Articles: Congress

Constitution: Supreme Court

New States Articles: Admitted upon agreement of nine states (special exemption provided for Canada)

Constitution: Admitted upon agreement of Congress

Amendment Articles: When agreed upon by all states

Constitution: When agreed upon by three-fourths of all states

Navy Articles: Congress authorized to build a navy; states authorized to equip warships to counter

piracy

Constitution: Congress authorized to build a navy; states not allowed to keep ships of war

Army Articles: Congress to decide on size of force and to requisition troops from each state according

to population

Constitution: Congress authorized to raise and support armies

Power to coin money Articles: United States and the states

Constitution: United States only

Ex post facto laws Articles: Not forbidden

Constitution: Forbidden of both the states and the Congress

Bills of attainder Articles: Not forbidden

Constitution: Forbidden of both the states and the Congress

Taxes Articles: Apportioned by Congress, collected by the states

Constitution: Laid and collected by Congress

Ratification Articles: Unanimous consent required

Constitution: Consent of nine states required

The institution of slavery is as old as civilization. Many nations and empires were built by the muscles of slaves.

But what kinds of people were enslaved, and why? In ancient civilizations, slaves were usually war captives. The victors in battle might enslave the losers rather than killing them. Over time, people have found other reasons to justify slavery. Slaves were usually considered somehow different than their owners. They might belong to a different race, religion, nationality, or ethnic background. By focusing on such differences, slave owners felt they could deny basic human rights to their slaves.

And despite many efforts to end slavery, it still exists today. Some 27 million people worldwide are enslaved or work as forced laborers. That's more people than at any other point in the history of the world.

Who was enslaved? What rights did slaves have? How could slaves gain their freedom? The answers are different for every society with slaves. Click on any of the highlighted areas of the map to explore a few of the many slave-based societies in history.

Millions of Africans were transported across the Atlantic and sold into slavery in the Americas. Very few had the chance to describe their experience to the world. One who did was an African named Olaudah Equiano. He was of the Ibo people and lived in the kingdom of Benin(present-day Nigeria). He wrote an amazing autobiography that described his life's journey from freedom to slavery and back to freedom again.

Olaudah Equiano was born into a wealthy West African family in 1745. His family was Ibo. They lived far from the sea, in an area now part of Nigeria.

Olaudah Equiano's father was a village chief. He had seven children and many slaves, so Equiano grew up in a slave society. But it was a different kind of slavery, as Equiano noted in his autobiography:

With us the slaves do no more work than other

members of the community, than even their master;

their food, clothing and lodging were nearly the same as

ours, except that they were not permitted to eat with

those who were free-born; and there was scarcely any other difference between them than a superior degree of

importance, which the head of a family possesses.

When he was eleven, Equiano was captured by African slave traders:

One day, when all our people were gone out to their works as usual, and only I and

my dear sister were left to mind the house, two men and a woman got over our walls,

and in a moment seized us both, and, without giving us time to cry out, or make

resistance, they stopped our mouths, and ran off with us into the nearest wood. Here

they tied our hands, and continued to carry us.

The slave traders separated Equiano from his sister and sold him several times, from one African master to another. Equiano's first owner treated him well. But he was determined to escape. "I was strengthened by the mortifying circumstance of not daring to eat with the free-born children."

He was soon sold again, and then again, when a wealthy widow purchased him. With her family, Equiano discovered how slavery differed from one African society to another:

The next day I was washed and perfumed, and when meal-time came, I was led into

the presence of my mistress and ate and drank before her with her son. This filled me

with astonishment, and I could scarcely avoid expressing my surprise that the young

gentleman should suffer me, who was bound, to eat with him who was free. Indeed, everything here made me forget that I

was a slave.

Equiano soon began to think the family would adopt him. His contentment was shattered early one morning when he was awoken and taken away yet again. Eventually he found himself on the Africa's Atlantic coast for the first time in his life. There he saw a slave ship anchored offshore.

But he had no idea what lay ahead. No Africans had ever returned from the Americas to tell of their fate.

When I looked around the ship and saw a large furnace of

copper boiling, and a multitude of black people, of every

description, chained together, every one of their countenances

expressing dejection and sorrow, I no longer doubted of my

fate; and, quite overpowered with horror and anguish, I fell

motionless on the deck, and fainted. . . I asked if we were not

to be eaten by those white men with horrible looks, red faces

and long hair?"

The journey from Africa to America was called "The Middle Passage." It was the middle leg of the triangular slave trade which began and ended in Europe. No African expected the misery and horror it held. Slavers packed three or four hundred Africans into a lower deck— the ship's cargo.

The cargo hold was tiny— a person couldn't even stand up in it. The air in the hold was hot and stale. The smell of sweaty bodies and human waste made the air even more unpleasant.

The stench of the hold while we were on the coast was

It was so intolerably loathsome, that it was dangerous to remain there for any time, and some of us had been permitted to

stay on the deck for the fresh air; but now that the whole ship's cargo were confined together, it became absolutely

pestilential.

The closeness of the place, and the heat of the climate, added to the number in the ship, which was so crowded that each

had scarcely room to turn himself, almost suffocated us. This produced copious perspirations, so that the air soon became

unfit for respiration, from a variety of loathsome smells, and brought on a sickness among the slaves, of which many died.

The shrieks of the women, and the groans of the dying, rendered the whole a scene of horror almost inconceivable.

Disease and death were common. Up to 25 percent of a slave ship's Africans died during the voyage. The captain and crew struggled to keep their valuable cargo alive. They forced the Africans to dance on deck for exercise. Sometimes they force-fed Africans who would rather die than suffer further.

The slave ship carrying Olaudah Equiano and hundreds of other Africans finally reached port. Their destination was the English colony of Barbados. Soon they were put up for sale:

On a signal given (as the beat of a drum), the buyers rush at once

into the yard where the slaves are confined, and make choice of

that parcel they like best. The noise and clamor with which this is

attended, and the eagerness visible in the countenances of the

buyers, serve not a little to increase the apprehension of terrified

Africans, who may well be supposed to consider them as the

ministers of that destruction to which they think themselves

devoted. In this manner, without scruple, are relations and friends

separated, most of them never to see each other again.

No one purchased Equiano, who was still just a boy of 12. So he was shipped north to a plantation in Virginia. There he was shocked to see the instruments used to control and punishment slaves:

A black woman slave was cruelly loaded with various

kinds of iron machines; she had one on her head which

locked her mouth so fast that she could barely speak,

and could not eat or drink.

Equiano was soon sold again. His new owner was a lieutenant in the British navy named Michael Henry Pascal. Pascal gave him a new name: Gustavus Vassa. Equiano refused to answer to this name at first. Pascal slapped him with each refusal, and soon he relented.

Under Pascal, Equiano learned to be a sailor. He spent much time in England, where managed to educate himself as well. He even fought for Britain in the Seven Years' War.

I began to consider myself as happily situated, for my

master treated me always extremely well; and my

attachment and gratitude to him were very great. I soon

grew a stranger to terror of every kind, and was, in that

respect at least almost an Englishman.

After seven years, Equiano had grown comfortable with his fate. So he was shocked once again when his owner sold him. His buyer was Captain James Doran to the West Indies. But Equiano challenged the sale:

I told him my master could not sell me to him, nor to anyone else. 'Why,' said he, 'did not your master buy you?' I

confessed he did. 'But I have served him,' said I, 'many years, and he has taken all my wages and prize-money, . . . besides

this I have been baptized, and by the laws of the land no man has a right to sell me.' And I added that I had heard a lawyer

and others at different times tell my master so.

But Doran was not persuaded:

Captain Doran said he had a method on board to make me [behave]. I was too well convinced of his power over me to

doubt what he said; and my former sufferings in the slave-ship presenting themselves to my mind, the recollection of them

made me shudder.

Doran brought Equiano back to the Caribbean and sold him to a Quaker merchant from Philadelphia named Robert King.

King treated Equiano well. But Equiano had tasted freedom and couldn't accept a slave's life anymore. His urge for freedom grew even greater when King put him to work aboard a Caribbean slave ship.

It was very common in several of the islands, particularly in St. Kitts, for the slaves to be branded with the initial letters of

their master's name; and a load of heavy iron hooks hung about their necks. Indeed on the most trifling occasions they

were loaded with chains; and often instruments of torture were added.

But Equiano refused to give up. He began trading glasses and other objects on the side. Eventually he saved 40 pounds (equal to about $3,700 today). That was enough to purchase his freedom.

Before night, I who had been a slave in the morning, trembling at the will of another, was become my own master and

completely free. I thought this was the happiest day I had ever experienced.

As a freeman, Equiano continued working as a sailor for years. He traveled widely, but his personal struggle against racism and slavery continued. One day, a ship's captain decided to sell Equiano:

I simply asked him what right he had to sell me? But, without another word, he made some of his people tie ropes round

each of my ankles, and also to each wrist, and another rope around my body, and hoisted me up. Thus I hung, without any

crime committed, and without judge or jury; merely because I was a free man, and could not by the law get any redress

from a white person in those parts of the world. I was in great pain from my situation, and cried and begged very hard for

some mercy, but all in vain. Not one white man on board said a word on my behalf.

Equiano hung from the mast all night long. In the morning, he begged to be released. Since his body was blocking the sails, the crew brought him down. The ship's carpenter persuaded the captain to put Equiano ashore. There he thanked God for "this unexpected deliverance" and found another ship bound for Jamaica.

Eventually Equiano turned to the abolitionist cause. He became a public speaker in his adopted home of England. In 1789, he wrote his autobiography, The Interesting Narrative of The Life of Olaudah Equiano, or Gustavus Vassa, The African. It was an immediate best seller— the first anti-slavery book to reach a wide audience. Equiano became England's leading spokesperson for blacks and the abolition of slavery.

Olaudah Equiano died in 1797. Ten years later, Britain and the United States abolished the slave trade.

SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES

Below is an article which provides an excellent overview of slavery in the United States as it relates to the Civil War.

This page by no means provides all the information of how slavery impacted the Civil War. Explore the history, laws

and issues referenced through this site and beyond to better understand the ideas of the day and motivating factors.

The first imported Africans were brought as indentured servants, not slaves. They were required, as white indentured

servants were, to serve seven years. Many were brought to the British North American colonies, specifically

Jamestown, Virginia in 1620. However, the slave trade did not immediately expand in North America.

Slavery in British North America

1642: Massachusetts becomes the first colony to legalize slavery.

1650: Connecticut legalizes slavery.

1661: Virginia officially recognizes slavery by statute.

1662: A Virginia statute declares that children born would have the same status as their mother.

1663: Maryland legalizes slavery.

1664: Slavery is legalized in New York and New Jersey.

The Development of Slavery

The shift from indentured servants to African slaves was prompted by a dwindling class of former servants who had

worked through the terms of their indentures and thus became competitors to their former masters. These newly

freed servants were rarely able to support themselves comfortably, and the tobacco industry was increasingly

dominated by large planters. This caused domestic unrest culminating in Bacon's Rebellion. Eventually, chattel

slavery became the norm in regions dominated by plantations.

Many slaves in British North America were owned by plantation owners who lived in Britain. The British courts had

made a series of contradictory rulings on the legality of slavery[99] which encouraged several thousand slaves to flee

the newly-independent United States as refugees along with the retreating British in 1783. The British courts having

ruled in 1772 that such slaves could not be forcibly returned to North America (see James Somersett and Somersett's

Case for a review of the Somerset Decision), the British government resettled them as free men in Sierra Leone.

Early United States law

Through the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (also known as the Freedom Ordinance) under the Continental Congress,

slavery was prohibited in the territories north of the Ohio River. In the East, though, slavery was not abolished until

later. The importation of slaves into the United States was banned on January 1, 1808; but not the internal slave

trade, or involvement in the international slave trade externally.

Aggregation of northern free states gave rise to one contiguous geographic area, north of the Ohio River and the old

Mason-Dixon line. This separation of a free North and an enslaved South launched a massive political, cultural and

economic struggle.

Refugees from slavery fled the South across the Ohio River to the North via the Underground Railroad, and their

presence agitated Northerners. Midwestern state governments asserted States Rights arguments to refuse federal

jurisdiction over fugitives. Some juries exercised their right of jury nullification and refused to convict those indicted

under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

The Dred Scott decision of 1857 asserted that one could take one's property anywhere, even if one's property was

chattel and one crossed into a free territory. It also asserted that African Americans could not be citizens, as many

Northern states granted blacks citizenship, who (in some states) could even vote. This was an example of Slave

Power, the plantation aristocracy's attempt to control the North. This turned Northern public opinion even further

against slavery. After the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, armed conflict broke out in Kansas Territory, where

the question of whether it would be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state had been left to the

inhabitants. The radical abolitionist John Brown was active in the mayhem and killing in "Bleeding Kansas." Anti-

slavery legislators took office under the banner of the Republican Party.

Civil War

Approximately one Southern family in four held slaves prior to war. According to the 1860 U.S. census, about

385,000 individuals (i.e. 1.4% of White Americans in the country, or 4.8% of southern whites) owned one or more

slaves. However, ninety-five percent of blacks lived in the South, comprising one third of the population there as

opposed to one percent of the population of the North. Consequently, fears of eventual emancipation were much

greater in the South than in the North.

In the election of 1860, the Republicans swept Abraham Lincoln into the Presidency (with only 39.8% of the popular

vote) and legislators into Congress. Lincoln however, did not appear on the ballots in most southern states and his

election split the nation along sectional lines. After decades of controlling the Federal Government, the Southern

states seceded from the U.S. (the Union) to form the Confederate States of America.

Northern leaders like Lincoln viewed the prospect of a new Southern nation, with control over the Mississippi River

and the West, as unacceptable. This led to the outbreak of the Civil War, which spelled the end for chattel slavery in

America. However, in August of 1862 Lincoln replied to editor Horace Greeley stating his objective was to save the

Union and not to either save or destroy slavery. He went on to say that if he could save the Union without freeing a

single slave, he would do it. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 was a reluctant gesture, that proclaimed

freedom for slaves within the Confederacy, although not those in strategically important border states or the rest of

the Union. However, the proclamation made the abolition of slavery an official war goal and it was implemented as

the Union captured territory from the Confederacy. Slaves in many parts of the south were freed by Union armies or

when they simply left their former owners. Many joined the Union Army as workers or troops, and many more fled to

Northern cities.

Legally, slaves within the United States remained enslaved until the final ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to

the Constitution on December 6, 1865 (with final recognition of the amendment on December 18), eight months after

the cessation of hostilities. Only in the Border state of Kentucky did a significant slave population remain by that time.

The Fugitive Slave Law of 1793, often refered to as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, was the

result of an Interstate legal battle between Penssylvania and Virgina which took place at the time. The text of the law

is below, crafted to provide teeth to the elements of the Constitution which protected slavery. The last line sums up

the affect of the law on runaway slaves.

ART. 4. For the better security of the peace and friendship now entered into by the contracting parties, against all

infractions of the same, by the citizens of either party, to the prejudice of the other, neither party shall proceed to the

infliction of punishments on the citizens of the other, otherwise than by securing the offender, or offenders, by

imprisonment, or any other competent means, till a fair and impartial trial can be had by judges or juries of both

parties, as near as can be, to the laws, customs, and usage's of the contracting parties, and natural justice: the mode

of such trials to be hereafter fixed by the wise men of the United States, in congress assembled, with the assistance

of such deputies of the Delaware nation, as may be appointed to act in concert with them in adjusting this matter to

their mutual liking. And it is further agreed between the parties aforesaid, that neither shall entertain, or give

countenance to, the enemies of the other, or protect, in their respective states, criminal fugitives, servants, or slaves,

but the same to apprehend and secure, and deliver to the state or states, to which such enemies, criminals, servants,

or slaves, respectively below.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 - Be it enacted by the Senate and House

of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the persons

who have been, or may hereafter be, appointed commissioners, in virtue of any act of

Congress, by the Circuit Courts of the United States, and Who, in consequence of such

appointment, are authorized to exercise the powers that any justice of the peace, or other

magistrate of any of the United States, may exercise in respect to offenders for any crime

or offense against the United States, by arresting, imprisoning, or bailing the same under

and by the virtue of the thirty-third section of the act of the twenty-fourth of September

seventeen hundred and eighty-nine, entitled "An Act to establish the judicial courts of the

United States" shall be, and are hereby, authorized and required to exercise and discharge

all the powers and duties conferred by this act.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Superior Court of each organized Territory of the

United States shall have the same power to appoint commissioners to take

acknowledgments of bail and affidavits, and to take depositions of witnesses in civil causes,

which is now possessed by the Circuit Court of the United States; and all commissioners

who shall hereafter be appointed for such purposes by the Superior Court of any organized

Territory of the United States, shall possess all the powers, and exercise all the duties,

conferred by law upon the commissioners appointed by the Circuit Courts of the United

States for similar purposes, and shall moreover exercise and discharge all the powers and duties conferred by this act.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the Circuit Courts of the United States shall from

time to time enlarge the number of the commissioners, with a view to afford reasonable

facilities to reclaim fugitives from labor, and to the prompt discharge of the duties imposed by this act.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the commissioners above named shall have

concurrent jurisdiction with the judges of the Circuit and District Courts of the United

States, in their respective circuits and districts within the several States, and the judges of

the Superior Courts of the Territories, severally and collectively, in term-time and vacation;

shall grant certificates to such claimants, upon satisfactory proof being made, with authority

to ake and remove such fugitives from service or labor, under the restrictions herein

contained, to the State or Territory from which such persons may have escaped or fled.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of all marshals and deputy

marshals to obey and execute all warrants and precepts issued under the provisions of this

act, when to them directed; and should any marshal or deputy marshal refuse to receive

such warrant, or other process, when tendered, or to use all proper means diligently to

execute the same, he shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in the sum of one thousand

dollars, to the use of such claimant, on the motion of such claimant, by the Circuit or

District Court for the district of such marshal; and after arrest of such fugitive, by such

marshal or his deputy, or whilst at any time in his custody under the provisions of this act,

should such fugitive escape, whether with or without the assent of such marshal or his

deputy, such marshal shall be liable, on his official bond, to be prosecuted for the benefit of

such claimant, for the full value of the service or labor of said fugitive in the State,

Territory, or District whence he escaped: and the better to enable the said commissioners,

when thus appointed, to execute their duties faithfully and efficiently, in conformity with the

requirements of the Constitution of the United States and of this act, they are hereby

authorized and empowered, within their counties respectively, to appoint, in writing under

their hands, any one or more suitable persons, from time to time, to execute all such

warrants and other process as may be issued by them in the lawful performance of their

respective duties; with authority to such commissioners, or the persons to be appointed by

them, to execute process as aforesaid, to summon and call to their aid the bystanders, or

posse comitatus of the proper county, when necessary to ensure a faithful observance of

the clause of the Constitution referred to, in conformity with the provisions of this act; and

all good citizens are hereby commanded to aid and assist in the prompt and efficient

execution of this law, whenever their services may be required, as aforesaid, for that

purpose; and said warrants shall run, and be executed by said officers, any where in the State within which they are issued.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That when a person held to service or labor in any State

or Territory of the United States, ha: heretofore or shall hereafter escape into another State

or Territory of the United States, the person or persons to whom such service 01 labor may

be due, or his, her, or their agent or attorney, duly authorized, by power of attorney, in

writing, acknowledged and certified under the seal of some legal officer or court of the State

or Territory in which the same may be executed, may pursue and reclaim such fugitive

person, either by procuring a warrant from some one of the courts, judges, or

commissioners aforesaid, of the proper circuit, district, or county, for the apprehension of

such fugitive from service or labor, or by seizing and arresting such fugitive, where the

same can be done without process, and by taking, or causing such person to be taken,

forthwith before such court, judge, or commissioner, whose duty it shall be to hear and

determine the case of such claimant in a summary manner; and upon satisfactory proof

being made, by deposition or affidavit, in writing, to be taken and certified by such court,

judge, or commissioner, or by other satisfactory testimony, duly taken and certified by

some court, magistrate, justice of the peace, or other legal officer authorized to administer

an oath and take depositions under the laws of the State or Territory from which such

person owing service or labor may have escaped, with a certificate of such magistracy or

other authority, as aforesaid, with the seal of the proper court or officer thereto attached,

which seal shall be sufficient to establish the competency of the proof, and with proof, also

by affidavit, of the identity of the person whose service or labor is claimed to be due as

aforesaid, that the person so arrested does in fact owe service or labor to the person or

persons claiming him or her, in the State or Territory from which such fugitive may have

escaped as aforesaid, and that said person escaped, to make out and deliver to such

claimant, his or her agent or attorney, a certificate setting forth the substantial facts as to

the service or labor due from such fugitive to the claimant, and of his or her escape from

the State or Territory in which he or she was arrested, with authority to such claimant, or

his or her agent or attorney, to use such reasonable force and restraint as may be

necessary, under the circumstances of the case, to take and remove such fugitive person

back to the State or Territory whence he or she may have escaped as aforesaid. In no trial

or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in

evidence; and the certificates in this and the first [fourth] section mentioned, shall be

conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted, to remove such

fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of

such person or persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other

person whomsoever.

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly and willingly

obstruct, hinder, or prevent such claimant, his agent or attorney, or any person or persons

lawfully assisting him, her, or them, from arresting such a fugitive from service or labor,

either with or without process as aforesaid, or shall rescue, or attempt to rescue, such

fugitive from service or labor, from the custody of such claimant, his or her agent or

attorney, or other person or persons lawfully assisting as aforesaid, when so arrested,

pursuant to the authority herein given and declared; or shall aid, abet, or assist such person

so owing service or labor as aforesaid, directly or indirectly, to escape from such claimant,

his agent or attorney, or other person or persons legally authorized as aforesaid; or shall

harbor or conceal such fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of such person,

after notice or knowledge of the fact that such person was a fugitive from service or labor as

aforesaid, shall, for either of said offences, be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand

dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding six months, by indictment and conviction before

the District Court of the United States for the district in which such offence may have been

committed, or before the proper court of criminal jurisdiction, if committed within any one

of the organized Territories of the United States; and shall moreover forfeit and pay, by way

of civil damages to the party injured by such illegal conduct, the sum of one thousand

dollars for each fugitive so lost as aforesaid, to be recovered by action of debt, in any of the

District or Territorial Courts aforesaid, within whose jurisdiction the said offence may have

been committed.

Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the marshals, their deputies, and the clerks of the

said District and Territorial Courts, shall be paid, for their services, the like fees as may be

allowed for similar services in other cases; and where such services are rendered

exclusively in the arrest, custody, and delivery of the fugitive to the claimant, his or her

agent or attorney, or where such supposed fugitive may be discharged out of custody for

the want of sufficient proof as aforesaid, then such fees are to be paid in whole by such

claimant, his or her agent or attorney; and in all cases where the proceedings are before a

commissioner, he shall be entitled to a fee of ten dollars in full for his services in each case,

upon the delivery of the said certificate to the claimant, his agent or attorney; or a fee of

five dollars in cases where the proof shall not, in the opinion of such commissioner, warrant

such certificate and delivery, inclusive of all services incident to such arrest and

examination, to be paid, in either case, by the claimant, his or her agent or attorney. The

person or persons authorized to execute the process to be issued by such commissioner for

the arrest and detention of fugitives from service or labor as aforesaid, shall also be entitled

to a fee of five dollars each for each person he or they may arrest, and take before any

commissioner as aforesaid, at the instance and request of such claimant, with such other

fees as may be deemed reasonable by such commissioner for such other additional services

as may be necessarily performed by him or them; such as attending at the examination,

keeping the fugitive in custody, and providing him with food and lodging during his

detention, and until the final determination of such commissioners; and, in general, for

performing such other duties as may be required by such claimant, his or her attorney or

agent, or commissioner in the premises, such fees to be made up in conformity with the

fees usually charged by the officers of the courts of justice within the proper district or

county, as near as may be practicable, and paid by such claimants, their agents or

attorneys, whether such supposed fugitives from service or labor be ordered to be delivered to such claimant by the final determination of such commissioner or not.

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That, upon affidavit made by the claimant of such

fugitive, his agent or attorney, after such certificate has been issued, that he has reason to

apprehend that such fugitive will be rescued by force from his or their possession before he

can be taken beyond the limits of the State in which the arrest is made, it shall be the duty

of the officer making the arrest to retain such fugitive in his custody, and to remove him to

the State whence he fled, and there to deliver him to said claimant, his agent, or attorney.

And to this end, the officer aforesaid is hereby authorized and required to employ so many

persons as he may deem necessary to overcome such force, and to retain them in his

service so long as circumstances may require. The said officer and his assistants, while so

employed, to receive the same compensation, and to be allowed the same expenses, as are

now allowed by law for transportation of criminals, to be certified by the judge of the district within which the arrest is made, and paid out of the treasury of the United States.

SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That when any person held to service or labor in any

State or Territory, or in the District of Columbia, shall escape therefrom, the party to whom

such service or labor shall be due, his, her, or their agent or attorney, may apply to any

court of record therein, or judge thereof in vacation, and make satisfactory proof to such

court, or judge in vacation, of the escape aforesaid, and that the person escaping owed

service or labor to such party. Whereupon the court shall cause a record to be made of the

matters so proved, and also a general description of the person so escaping, with such

convenient certainty as may be; and a transcript of such record, authenticated by the

attestation of the clerk and of the seal of the said court, being produced in any other State,

Territory, or district in which the person so escaping may be found, and being exhibited to

any judge, commissioner, or other officer authorized by the law of the United States to

cause persons escaping from service or labor to be delivered up, shall be held and taken to

be full and conclusive evidence of the fact of escape, and that the service or labor of the

person escaping is due to the party in such record mentioned. And upon the production by

the said party of other and further evidence if necessary, either oral or by affidavit, in

addition to what is contained in the said record of the identity of the person escaping, he or

she shall be delivered up to the claimant. And the said court, commissioner, judge, or other

person authorized by this act to grant certificates to claimants or fugitives, shall, upon the

production of the record and other evidences aforesaid, grant to such claimant a certificate

of his right to take any such person identified and proved to be owing service or labor as

aforesaid, which certificate shall authorize such claimant to seize or arrest and transport

such person to the State or Territory from which he escaped: Provided, That nothing herein

contained shall be construed as requiring the production of a transcript of such record as

evidence as aforesaid. But in its absence the claim shall be heard and determined upon other satisfactory proofs, competent in law.

Enacted September 18, 1850

Louisiana Purchase - By a treaty signed on Apr. 30, 1803, the United States purchased from

France the Louisiana Territory, more than 2 million sq km (800,000 sq mi) of land extending from

the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains. The price was 60 million francs, about $15 million;

$11,250,000 was to be paid directly, with the balance to be covered by the assumption by the

United States of French debts to American citizens.

In 1762, France had ceded Louisiana to Spain, but by the secret Treaty of San Ildefonso (1800) the

French had regained the area. Napoleon Bonaparte (the future Emperor Napoleon I) envisioned a

great French empire in the New World, and he hoped to use the Mississippi Valley as a food and

trade center to supply the island of Hispaniola, which was to be the heart of this empire. First,

however, he had to restore French control of Hispaniola, where Haitian slaves under TOUSSAINT

L'OUVERTURE had seized power (1801; see HAITI). In 1802 a large army sent by Napoleon under

his brother-in-law, Charles Leclerc, arrived on the island to suppress the Haitian rebellion. Despite

some military success, the French lost thousands of soldiers, mainly to yellow fever, and Napoleon

soon realized that Hispaniola must be abandoned. Without that island he had little use for

Louisiana. Facing renewed war with Great Britain, he could not spare troops to defend the territory;

he needed funds, moreover, to support his military ventures in Europe. Accordingly, in April 1803 he offered to sell Louisiana to the United States.

Concerned about French intentions, President Thomas Jefferson had already sent James Monroe

and Robert R. Livingston to Paris to negotiate the purchase of a tract of land on the lower

Mississippi or, at least, a guarantee of free navigation on the river. Surprised and delighted by the French offer of the whole territory, they immediately negotiated the treaty.

Jefferson was jubilant. At one stroke the United States would double its size, an enormous tract of

land would be open to settlement, and the free navigation of the Mississippi would be assured.

Although the Constitution did not specifically empower the federal government to acquire new

territory by treaty, Jefferson concluded that the practical benefits to the nation far outweighed the

possible violation of the Constitution. The Senate concurred with this decision and voted ratification

on Oct. 20, 1803. The Spanish, who had never given up physical possession of Louisiana to the

French, did so in a ceremony at New Orleans on Nov. 30, 1803. In a second ceremony, on Dec. 20,

1803, the French turned Louisiana over to the United States.

(Article) Freedom & Emancipation

By: Nicholas Boston and Jennifer Hallam

Objections to slavery existed in the early colonial period.

But opposition to slavery did not develop into an organized

effort until the age of the Revolutionary War. As colonists

demanded the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of

happiness, they were forced to question and come to

terms with the hypocrisy of slaveholding in their emergent

free nation. Slaves also recognized the paradox of living in

a country busy promoting fundamental rights while

simultaneously holding blacks in bondage. Many of them

used this moment of uncertainty to secure freedom. When

the British forces called upon slaves to join their ranks and

promised them freedom in return, black men enlisted.

When the Colonial army made the same offer, black men

joined their lines as well. Others, men and women,

petitioned the courts for freedom, making their arguments

on the same philosophical grounds that the patriots used

to validate the war.

The Declaration of Independence.

Library of Congress, George

Washington Papers.

The Declaration of

Independence not only

declared the colonies free

of Britain, but it also

helped to inspire Vermont

to abolish slavery in its

1777 state constitution.

By 1804, all Northern

states had voted to

abolish the institution of

slavery within their

borders. In most of these

states, however, abolition

was not immediate.

Instead, gradual

emancipation laws set deadlines by which all slaves would

be freed, releasing individuals as they reached a certain

age or the end of a certain work period. This situation left

some African Americans lingering in bonded servitude.

Pennsylvania passed its Act for the Gradual Abolition of

Slavery in 1780. Yet, as late as 1850, the federal census

recorded that there were still hundreds of young blacks in

Pennsylvania, who would remain enslaved until their 28th

birthdays.

The clash between abolitionists in the North and

slaveholders in the South was a contributing factor in the

outbreak of the Civil War. Nevertheless, when fighting

broke, President Lincoln insisted that the war's sole

purpose was the preservation of the Union. In the early

years of the war, Lincoln's actions with regard to slaves

were motivated by military strategy and necessity.

Company E, fourth U.S. Colored

Infantry. Library of Congress,

Prints & Photographs Division, Civil

War Photographs.

In August 1861 he

accepted the First

Confiscation Act passed by

Congress, which declared

that slaves escaping to

union lines would be

considered contraband.

Before the passage of this

act, Union leaders had

turned away blacks

seeking to enlist and

returned escapees seeking

protection in the North to

their Southern masters.

Legally defined as

contraband, and therefore

subject to capture,

thousands of slaves fleeing the South could now be put in

the service of the Union army. The Second Confiscation

Act, passed shortly after the first, gave the president the

authority to recruit black men for the Union army.

Although freedom was given to those who fought, it was

considered a reward, not an intrinsic right.

In 1863, the nature of the Civil War shifted. On January

1st of that year, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation

Proclamation, freeing slaves in the Confederate states.

The Proclamation applied neither to slaveholding border

states that had remained loyal to the Union (Delaware,

Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri) nor to rebel states

subdued by Union forces prior to its issuance.

Nonetheless, its significance was profound. With the

Emancipation Proclamation, the struggle between North

and South transformed into a war to end slavery.

Concurrent with the war's end in 1865, the thirteenth

amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Slavery

THE CIVIL WAR

In the spring of 1861, decades of simmering tensions between the northern and southern United

States over issues including states' rights versus federal authority, westward expansion and

slavery exploded into the American Civil War (1861-65). The election of the anti-slavery

Republican Abraham Lincoln as president in 1860 caused seven southern states to secede from

the Union to form the Confederate States of America; four more joined them after the first shots

of the Civil War were fired. Four years of brutal conflict were marked by historic battles at Bull

Run (Manassas), Antietam, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg and Vicksburg, among others. The War

Between the States, as the Civil War was also known, pitted neighbor against neighbor and in

some cases, brother against brother. By the time it ended in Confederate surrender in 1865, the

Civil War proved to be the costliest war ever fought on American soil, with some 620,000 of 2.4

As they were emancipated in the first half of the

nineteenth century, African Americans in the Northern

states began to shape their lives as free people. They

changed the names that had been given to them as

slaves, they sought out educational opportunities, they

founded institutions to provide for their spiritual and

physical needs, and they formed communities that

provided social support as well as the

Cazenovia, New York, Anti-Slavery

Convention. Madison County

Historical Society, Oneida, New

York.

opportunity for cultural

growth. Moreover, many

of these African Americans

joined or established

societies dedicated to

freeing those blacks that

remained enslaved in

other parts of the country.

Although the abolitionists,

both black and white,

were not directly

responsible for ending the

U.S. system of slavery,

their support of the

Underground Railroad

helped thousands to

escape to freedom and

their vociferousness helped to define Northern attitudes

toward slavery.

was declared illegal in every part of the newly restored

Union. African-Americans across the nation were free.

million soldiers killed, millions more injured and the population and territory of the South

devastated.

The Civil War – Greatest Myth http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/videos#civil-

wars-greatest-myth

Events that Led to Civil War

American civil war

Fugitive Slave Act

bleeding Kansas

Dred Scott

Abraham Lincoln

While the Civil War was devastating for the United States in terms of human loss of life, it was also

the event that caused the American states to finally become united. What were the major events that

led to secession and the beginning of the Civil War? Here is a list of the top nine events that led

progressively towards the Civil War listed in chronological order.

1. The Mexican War Ended - 1848

With the end of the Mexican War, America was ceded western territories. This posed a problem: as

these new territories would be admitted as states, would they be free or slave? To deal with this,

Congress passed the Compromise of 1850 which basically made California free and allowed the people

to pick in Utah and New Mexico. This ability of a state to decide whether it would allow slavery was

called popular sovereignty.

2. Fugitive Slave Act - 1850

The Fugitive Slave Act was passed as part of the Compromise of 1850. This act forced any federal

official who did not arrest a runaway slave liable to pay a fine. This was the most controversial part of

the Compromise of 1850 and caused many abolitionists to increase their efforts against slavery. This

act increased the Underground Railroad activity as fleeing slaves made their way to Canada.

3. Uncle Tom's Cabin Was Released

Uncle Tom's Cabin or Life Among the Lowly was written in 1852 by Harriet Beecher Stowe. Stowe was

an abolitionist who wrote this book to show the evils of slavery. This book, which was a best seller at

the time, had a huge impact on the way that northerners viewed slavery. It helped further the cause

of abolition and even Abraham Lincoln recognized that this bok was one of the events that led to the

outbreak of the Civil War.

4. Bleeding Kansas shocked Northerners

In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed allowing the Kansas and Nebraska territories to decide

for themselves using popular sovereignty whether they wanted to be free or slave. By 1856, Kansas

had become a hotbed of violence as pro- and anti-slavery forces fought over the state's future. The

widely reported violent events were a small taste of the violence to come with the Civil War.

5. Charles Sumner is Attacked by Preston on the Floor of the Senate

One of the most publicized events in Bleeding Kansas was when on May 21, 1856 Border Ruffians

ransacked Lawrence, Kansas which was known to be a staunch free-state area. One day later,

violence occurred on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Pro-slavery Congressman Preston Brooks attacked

Charles Sumner with a cane after Sumner had given a speech attacking the pro-slavery forces for the

violence occurring in Kansas.

6. Dred Scott Decision

In 1857, Dred Scott lost his case proving that he should be free because he had been held as a slave

while living in a free state. The Court ruled that his petition could not be seen because he did not hold

any property. But it went further, to state that even though he had been taken by his 'owner' into a

free state, he was still a slave because slaves were to be considered property of their owners. This

decision furthered the cause of abolitionists as they increased their efforts to fight against slavery.

7. Lecompton Constitution Rejected

When the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed, Kansas was allowed to determine whether it would enter the

union as free or slave. Numerous constitutions were advanced by the territory to make this decision.

In 1857, the Lecompton Constitution was created allowing for Kansas to be a slave state. Pro-slavery

forces supported by President James Buchanan attempted to push the Constitution through the US

Congress for acceptance. However, there was enough opposition that in 1858 it was sent back to

Kansas for a vote. Even though it delayed statehood, Kansas voters rejected the Constitution and

Kansas became a free state.

8. John Brown Raided Harper's Ferry

John Brown was a radical abolitionist who had been involved in anti-slavery violence in Kansas. On

October 16, 1859, he led a group of seventeen including five black members to raid the arsenal

located in Harper's Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia). His goal was to start a slave uprising using the

captured weapons. However, after capturing several buildings, Brown and his men were surrounded

and eventually killed or captured by troops led by Colonel Robert E. Lee. Brown was tried and hanged

for treason. This event was one more in the growing abolitionist movement that helped lead to open

warfare in 1861.

9. Abraham Lincoln Was Elected President

With the election of Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln on November 6, 1860, South Carolina

followed by six other states seceded from the Union. Even though his views about slavery were

considered moderate during the nomination and election, South Carolina had warned it would secede

if he won. Lincoln agreed with the majority of the Republican Party that the South was becoming too

powerful and made it part of their platform that slavery would not be extended to any new territories

or states added to the union.

10. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.

With Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine

was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the

increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater

need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop

economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy

was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw

cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in

economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on

city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and

classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated

social order.

11. States versus federal rights.

Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and

those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized

government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The

thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when

problems arose, the weakness of this form of government caused the leaders of the time to come

together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong

proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting.

Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They

felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal

acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal

acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as

John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt

that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.

12. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.

As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with

the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free.

The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the

former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the

Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected

to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in

the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created

by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and

southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act that was discussed in number one

above. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created

two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they

would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where proslavery Missourians began to pour

into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called "Border Ruffians." Problems came to a

head in violence at Lawrence Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called "Bleeding

Kansas." The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when antislavery proponent Charles

Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina's Senator Preston Brooks.

13. Growth of the Abolition Movement.

Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for

abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events

including: the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John

Brown's Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring

fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states.

14. The election of Abraham Lincoln.

Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina

issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession." They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in

favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the

Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

The Civil War Begins

Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as president in March, 1861. On April 12, Confederate forces led by

General P.T. Beauregard opened fire on Fort Sumter which was a federally held fort in South Carolina.

This began the American Civil War.

The Civil War lasted from 1861 until 1865. During this time, over 600,000 soldiers representing both

sides were killed either by battle deaths or disease. Many, many more were wounded with estimates

of more than 1/10th of all soldiers being wounded. Both the north and the south experienced major

victories and defeats. However, by September 1864 with the taking of Atlanta the North had gained

the upper hand and the war would officially end on April 9, 1865.

Major Battles of the Civil War

First Battle of Bull Run – July 21, 1861. Location: Virginia. Confederate victory.

Battle of Fort Donelson – February 11-16, 1862. Location: Tennessee. Union victory.

Battle of Shiloh – April 6-7, 1862. Location: Tennessee. Union victory.

Second Battle of Bull Run – August 28-30, 1862. Location: Virginia. Confederate victory.

Battle of Antietam – September 16-18, 1862. Location: Maryland. While the result was not

an obvious victory for either side, the battle did give the North a strategic victory.

Battle of Fredericksburg – December 11-15, 1862. Location: Virginia. Confederate victory.

Battle of Chancellorsville – April 30-May 6, 1863. Location: Virginia. Confederate victory.

Siege of Vicksburg – May 18-July 4, 1863. Location: Mississippi. Union victory.

Battle of Gettysburg – July 1-3, 1863. Location: Pennsylvania. Union victory.

Battle of Chickamauga – September 18-20, 1863. Location: Georgia. Confederate victory.

Battle of Spotsylvania – May 8-21, 1864. Location: Virginia. Confederate victory.

Sherman’s March to the Sea (Savannah Campaign) – Late 1864. Location: Atlanta to Savannah. Union Victory

Battle of Appomattox Courthouse – April 9, 1865. Location: Virginia. Final Major Union Victory.

Aftermath of the Civil War

The beginning of the end for the confederacy was with General Robert E. Lee's unconditional surrender

at Appomattox Courthouse on April 9, 1865. Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army

of Northern Virginia to Union General Ulysses S. Grant. However, skirmishes and small battles

continued to occur until the last general, Native American Stand Watie, surrendered on June 23, 1865.

President Abraham Lincoln wanted to institute a liberal system of Reconstructing the South. However,

his vision of Reconstruction was not to become reality after Abraham Lincoln's assassination on April

14, 1865. The Radical Republicans wanted to deal harshly with the South. Military rule was instituted

until Rutherford B. Hayes officially ended Reconstruction in 1876.

The Civil War was a watershed event in the United States. The individual states after years of

reconstruction would end up joined together in a stronger union. No longer would questions

concerning secession or nullification be argued by individual states. Most importantly, the war officially

ended slavery.

RECONSTRUCTION PERIOD

The Reconstruction Period, an Overview

(1865-77)

Reconstruction was a period in U.S. history during and after the American Civil War in which attempts

were made to solve the political, social, and economic problems arising from the readmission to the

Union of the 11 Confederate states that had seceded at or before the outbreak of war.

As early as 1862, Pres. Abraham Lincoln had appointed provisional military governors for Louisiana,

Tennessee, and North Carolina. The following year, initial steps were taken to reestablish governments

in newly occupied states in which at least 10 percent of the voting population had taken the prescribed

oath of allegiance. Aware that the presidential plan omitted any provision for social or economic

reconstruction, the Radical Republicans in Congress resented such a lenient political arrangement under

solely executive jurisdiction. As a result, the stricter Wade-Davis Bill was passed in 1864 but pocket

vetoed by the President.

After Lincoln's assassination (April 1865), Pres. Andrew Johnson further alienated Congress by

continuing Lincoln's moderate policies. The Fourteenth Amendment, defining national citizenship so as to

include blacks, passed Congress in June 1866 and was ratified, despite rejection by most Southern

states (July 28, 1868). In response to Johnson's intemperate outbursts against the opposition as well as

to several reactionary developments in the South (e.g., race riots and passage of the repugnant black

codes severely restricting rights of blacks), the North gave a smashing victory to the Radical Republicans

in the 1866 congressional election.

That victory launched the era of congressional Reconstruction (usually called Radical Reconstruction),

which lasted 10 years starting with the Reconstruction Acts of 1867. Under that legislation, the 10

remaining Southern states (Tennessee had been readmitted to the Union in 1866) were divided into five

military districts; and, under supervision of the U.S. Army, all were readmitted between 1868 and 1870.

Each state had to accept the Fourteenth or, if readmitted after its passage, the Fifteenth Constitutional

Amendment, intended to ensure civil rights of the freedmen. The newly created state governments were

generally Republican in character and were governed by political coalitions of blacks, carpetbaggers

(Northerners who had gone into the South), and scalawags (Southerners who collaborated with the

blacks and carpetbaggers). The Republican governments of the former Confederate states were seen by

most Southern whites as artificial creations imposed from without, and the conservative element in the

region remained hostile to them. Southerners particularly resented the activities.

Gettysburg Address – The History

The Gettysburg Address was delivered by Abraham Lincoln on November 19, 1863 to dedicate the Soldiers‟ National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The Battle of Gettysburg was a decisive battle at the turn of the American Civil War, fought between July 1 and July 3, 1863.

Gettysburg Address – The Purpose The Gettysburg Address is one of the greatest speeches in American history. Although very short, President Lincoln used the speech to invoke the founders‟ principles of human equality and representative government. Lincoln also used the Gettysburg Address to reposition the American Civil War as a “new birth of freedom” that would finally establish true equality for the citizens of a united and free republic.

Gettysburg Address – The Text “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. “Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. “But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Gettysburg Address – The Dispute In recent years, the Gettysburg Address has faced some attempts at revisionist history. Although the text of the Gettysburg Address is recorded in contemporary newspapers, preserved manuscripts, and national monuments, some “modern scholars” have challenged the actual version delivered by Abraham Lincoln on November 19, 1863. Of course, it shouldn‟t come as a shock that the primary challenge relates to the two words, “under God.” The revisionist theory is that one of the five surviving manuscripts of the Gettysburg Address doesn‟t contain those two words, and the so-called “modern scholarship” points to this manuscript as the one, true version of the actual speech

Life during the Great Depression – The Voices of Children For most, it is difficult to imagine life during the Great Depression. While the Depression began at the end of the 1920s, the entire nation suffered most dramatically during the period 1929–1933. To obtain an eyewitness account of this era, we must listen to “the voices” -- the voices of those courageous children -- now in their 80‟s and 90‟s. This is their life during the Great Depression. My father, Bill, recalls being startled by loud cheering in the school nearby. It was the end of World War I and he was 3 years old. As a typical teenage boy, Bill focused on food and cars. “Street cars and Model T Fords appeared in the late 1920s. A lot of foods were becoming packaged and chicken houses were disappearing from backyards. Food was still very cheap. A loaf of bread cost 10¢. Then came the steamer and high-powered luxury cars (Pikes Peak Motor with high-gear capacity).” Dad‟s family was middle class, but the Depression affected everyone. “Food and jobs were hard to get and many people stood in lines for government hand-outs. A lot of people lived on powdered milk, dried beans, and potatoes.” In Chicago, a crowd of men fought over a barrel of garbage -- food scraps for their families.

Life during the Great Depression – The Heart of the Matter Most characteristic of life during the Great Depression was the widening gap between the “haves” and “have-nots.” Unemployment rose from a shocking 5 million in 1930 to an almost unbelievable 13 million by the end of 1932. It would be rural America that would suffer the greatest. Unemployed fathers saw children hired for sub-standard wages. In 1930, 2.25 million boys and girls ages 10–18 worked in factories, canneries, mines, and on farms. Children left school to support their families. The harsh reality of life during the Great Depression is vividly recalled by Travis (12 yrs) who found his father behind their Massachusetts house, crying and heartbroken. “My dad was the strongest man I knew, but the Depression brought him to his knees.” While starving children in the Appalachians chewed on their hands, nearly drawing blood, nursery school children in Philadelphia played an “eviction game.” Toy furniture would be piled up in one corner of the room, then picked up and moved to another corner. “We ain’t got no money for rent, so we move. Then we get the sheriff on us, so we move again.” Some middle-class families managed to hold onto their homes by taking in boarders, bartering, and stretching every available dollar. Robert recalls their Illinois home without ice (for ice boxes) or milk delivery, discontinued city water (only well water), and a disconnected gas range. Shacks and shanties, Hoovervilles, provided shelter for destitute families. Alice (10 yrs) lived far from the tarpaper huts. “Grandma and Grandpa would squeeze all of us kids in a car and drive us down to a Hooverville by the river. It made our hearts ache to see how bad off other kids were. Even if we only got sweets or fruit once a month, it made us think how lucky we were.”

African American Migration

When the Emancipation Proclamation was signed less than 8

percent of the African-American population lived in the

Northeast or Midwest. Even by 1900, approximately 90 percent

of all African- Americans still resided in the South. However,

migration from the South has long been a significant feature of

black history. An early exodus from the South occurred

between 1879 and 1881, when about 60,000 African-Americans

moved into Kansas and others settled in the Oklahoma Indian

Territories in search of social and economic freedom.

In the early decades of the twentieth century, movement of blacks to the North increased

tremendously. The reasons for this "Great Migration," as it came to be called, are complex.

Thousands of African-Americans left the South to escape sharecropping, worsening economic

conditions, and the lynch mob. They sought higher wages, better homes, and political rights.

Between 1940 and 1970 continued migration transformed the country's African-American

population from a predominately southern, rural group to a northern, urban one.

The movement of African-Americans within the United States continues today. Further research

in the Library's general and special collections could help assess how migration affected social

and economic changes in individual cities, towns, neighborhoods, and even families.

Statistical and Geographical Patterns

Maps As Tools in Tracing Migration

Patterns

Maps and atlases are useful tools in tracing

migration patterns. Probably the first atlases to

include maps portraying the distribution of blacks

in the United States were statistical ones based

on United States censuses. The bar graph from

the eleventh census shows the percentage of

whites and blacks for sixteen states at each

census from 1790 to 1890. The map shows the

proportion of colored people (a term used to

include blacks, Chinese, Japanese, and Indians)

and their distribution and density per square

mile.

Statistical Atlas of the United States, Based

upon the Results of the Eleventh Census, p.

18 Henry Gannett, ed. Washington: GPO,

1898 Bar graph Geography and Map

Division (95)

Statistical Atlas of the United States, Based

upon the Results of the Eleventh Census,

Map 29, Plate 11 Henry Gannett, ed.

Washington: GPO, 1898 Color map

Geography and Map Division (96)

Map Showing Distribution of Black

Population

By 1950, the black population comprised

approximately eleven percent of the population

of the United States, while black migrants

comprised forty percent of the population in

several of the U.S. major cities. This 1950 map

shows counties with 500 or more blacks and

their distribution, and graphically represents how

the black population had become concentrated in

northern cities during the first half of the

twentieth century.

Distribution of Negro Population by County:

Showing each County with 500 Negro

Population, 1950 Samuel Fitzsimmons

United States. Department of Commerce.

Bureau of the Census, Volume 11, 1950

Color map Geography and Map Division

(97)

The Roots of American Industrialization, 1790-1860

The Puzzle of Industrialization

In a society which is predominantly agricultural, how is it possible for industrialization to gain a foothold? One view is that the demand of farm households for manufactures spurs industrialization, but such an outcome is not guaranteed. What if farm households can meet their own food requirements, and they choose to supply some of their needs for manufactures by engaging in small-scale craft production in the home? They might supplement this production with limited purchases of goods from local craftworkers and purchases of luxuries from other countries. This local economy would be relatively self-sufficient, and there is no apparent impetus to alter it significantly through industrialization, that is, the growth of workshop and factory production for larger markets. Others would claim that limited gains might come from specialization, once demand passed some small threshold. Finally, it has been argued that if the farmers are impoverished, some of them would be available for manufacturing and this would provide an incentive to industrialize. However, this argument begs the question as to who would purchase the manufactures. One possibility is that non-farm rural dwellers, such as trade people, innkeepers, and professionals, as well as a small urban population, might provide an impetus to limited industrialization.

The problem with the "impoverished agriculture" theory

The industrialization of the eastern United States from 1790 to 1860 raises similar conundrums. For a long time, scholars thought that the agriculture was mostly poor quality. Thus, the farm labor force left agriculture for workshops, such as those which produced shoes, or for factories, such as the cotton textile mills of New England. These manufactures provided employment for women and children, who otherwise had limited productive possibilities because the farms were not economical. Yet, the market for manufactures remained mostly in the East prior to 1860. Consequently, it is unclear who would have purchased the products to support the growth of manufactures before 1820, as well as to undergird the large-scale industrialization of the East during the two decades following 1840. Even if the impoverished-agriculture explanation of the East's industrialization is rejected, we are still left with the curiosity that as late as 1840, about eighty percent of the population lived in rural areas, though some of them were in nonfarm occupations.

In brief, the puzzle of eastern industrialization between 1790 and 1860 can be resolved - the East had a prosperous agriculture. Farmers supplied low-cost agricultural products to rural and urban dwellers, and this population demanded manufactures, which were supplied by vigorous local and subregional manufacturing sectors. Some entrepreneurs shifted into production for larger market areas, and this transformation occurred especially in sectors such as shoes, selected light manufactures produced in Connecticut (such as buttons, tinware, and wooden clocks), and cotton textiles. Transportation improvements exerted little impact on these agricultural and industrial developments, primarily because the lowly wagon served effectively as a transport medium and much of the East's most prosperous areas were accessible to cheap waterway transportation. The metropolises of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and, to a lesser extent, Baltimore, and the satellites of each (together, each metropolis and its satellites is called a metropolitan industrial complex), became leading manufacturing centers, and other industrial centers emerged in prosperous agricultural areas distant from these complexes. The East industrialized first, and, subsequently, the Midwest began an agricultural and industrial growth process which was underway by the 1840s. Together, the East and the Midwest constituted the American Manufacturing Belt, which was formed by the 1870s, whereas the South failed to industrialize commensurately.

Synergy between Agriculture and Manufacturing

The solution to the puzzle of how industrialization can occur in a predominantly agricultural economy recognizes the possibility of synergy between agriculture and manufacturing. During the first three decades following 1790, prosperous agricultural areas emerged in the eastern United States. Initially, these areas were concentrated near the small metropolises of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, and in river valleys such as the Connecticut Valley in Connecticut and Massachusetts, the Hudson and Mohawk Valleys in New York, the Delaware Valley bordering Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and the Susquehanna Valley in eastern Pennsylvania. These agricultural areas had access to cheap, convenient transport which could be used to reach markets; the farms supplied the growing urban populations in the cities and some of the products were exported. Furthermore, the farmers supplied the nearby, growing non-farm populations in the villages and small towns who provided goods and services to farmers. These non-farm consumers included retailers, small mill owners, teamsters, craftspeople, and professionals (clergy, physicians, and lawyers).

Across every decade from 1800 to 1860, the number of farm laborers grew, thus testifying to the robustness of eastern agriculture (see Table 1). And, this increase occurred in the face of an expanding manufacturing sector, as increasing numbers of rural dwellers left the farms to work in the factories, especially after 1840. Even New England, the region which presumably was the epitome of declining agriculture, witnessed a rise in the number of farm laborers all the way up to 1840, and, as of 1860, the drop off from the peak was small. Massachusetts and Connecticut, which had vigorous small workshops and increasing numbers of small factories before 1840, followed by a surge in manufacturing after 1840, matched the trajectory of farm laborers in New England as a whole. The numbers in these two states peaked in 1840 and fell off only modestly over the next twenty years. The Middle Atlantic region witnessed an uninterrupted rise in the number of farm laborers over the sixty-year period. New York and Pennsylvania, the largest states, followed slightly different paths. In New York, the number of farm laborers peaked around 1840 and then stabilized near that level for the next two decades, whereas in Pennsylvania the number of farm laborers rose in an uninterrupted fashion.

Table 1

Number of Farm Laborers by Region and Selected States, 1800-1860

Year 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860

New England 228,100 257,700 303,400 353,800 389,100 367,400 348,100

Massachusetts 73,200 72,500 73,400 78,500 87,900 80,800 77,700

Connecticut 50,400 49,300 51,500 55,900 57,000 51,400 51,800

Middle Atlantic 375,700 471,400 571,700 715,000 852,800 910,400 966,600

New York 111,800 170,100 256,000 356,300 456,000 437,100 449,100

Pennsylvania 112,600 141,000 164,900 195,200 239,000 296,300 329,000

East 831,900 986,800 1,178,500 1,422,600 1,631,000 1,645,200 1,662,800

Source: Thomas Weiss, "U.S. Labor Force Estimates and Economic Growth, 1800-1860,"American Economic Growth and Standards of Living before the Civil War, edited by Robert E. Gallman and John Joseph Wallis (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1992), table 1A.9, p. 51.

The farmers, retailers, professionals, and others in these prosperous agricultural areas accumulated capital which became available for other economic sectors, and manufacturing was one of the most important to receive this capital. Entrepreneurs who owned small workshops and factories obtained capital to turn out a wide range of goods such as boards, boxes, utensils, building hardware, furniture, and wagons, which were in demand in the agricultural areas. And, some of these workshops and factories enlarged their market areas to a sub region as they gained production efficiencies; but, this did not account for all industrial development. Selected manufactures such as shoes, tin ware, buttons, and cotton textiles were widely demanded by urban and rural residents of prosperous agricultural areas and by residents of the large cities. These products were high value relative to their weight; thus, the cost to ship them long distances was low. Astute entrepreneurs devised production methods and marketing approaches to sell these goods in large market areas, including New England and the Middle Atlantic regions of the East.

Manufactures Which Were Produced for Large Market Areas

Shoes and Tin ware

Small workshops turned out shoes. Massachusetts entrepreneurs devised an integrated shoe production complex based on a division of labor among shops, and they established a marketing arm of wholesalers, principally in Boston, who sold the shoes throughout New England, to the Middle Atlantic, and to the South (particularly, to slave plantations). Businesses in Connecticut drew on the extensive capital accumulated by the well-to-do rural and urban dwellers of that state and moved into tin ware, plated ware, buttons, and wooden clocks. These products, like shoes, also were manufactured in small workshops, but a division of labor among shops was less important than the organization of production within shops. Firms producing each good tended to agglomerate in a small sub region of the state. These clusters arose because entrepreneurs shared information about production techniques and specialized skills which they developed, and this knowledge was communicated as workers moved among shops. Initially, a marketing system of peddlers emerged in the tin ware sector, and they sold the goods, first throughout Connecticut, and then they extended their travels to the rest of New England and to the Middle Atlantic. Workshops which made other types of light, high-value goods soon took advantage of the peddler distribution system to enlarge their market areas. At first, these peddlers operated part-time during the year, but as the supply of goods increased and market demand grew, peddlers operated for longer periods of the year and they traveled farther.

Cotton Textiles

Cotton textile manufacturing was an industry built on low-wage, especially female, labor; presumably, this industry offered opportunities in areas where farmers were unsuccessful. Yet, similar to the other manufactures which enlarged their market areas to the entire East before 1820, cotton textile production emerged in prosperous agricultural areas. That is not surprising, because this industry required substantial capital, technical skills, and, initially, nearby markets. These requirements were met in rich farming areas, which also could draw on wealthy merchants in large cities who contributed capital and provided sale outlets beyond nearby markets as output grew. The production processes in cotton textile manufacturing, however, diverged from the approaches to making shoes and small metal and wooden products. From the start, production processes included textile machinery, which initially consisted of spinning machines to make yarn, and later (after 1815), weaving machines and other mechanical equipment were added. Highly skilled mechanics were required to build the machines and to maintain them. The greater capital requirements for cotton mills, compared to shoes and small goods' manufactures in Connecticut, meant that merchant wholesalers and wealthy retailers, professionals, mill owners, and others, were important underwriters of the factories.

Starting in the 1790s, New England, and, especially, Rhode Island, housed the leaders in early cotton textile manufacturing. Providence merchants funded some of the first successful cotton spinning mills, and they drew on the talents of Samuel Slater, an immigrant British machinist. He trained many of the first important textile mechanics, and investors in various parts of Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York hired them to build mills. Between 1815 and 1820, power-loom weaving began to be commercially feasible, and this effort was led by firms in Rhode Island and, especially, in Massachusetts. Boston merchants, starting with the Boston Manufacturing Company at Waltham, devised a business plan which targeted large-scale, integrated cotton textile manufacturing, with a marketing/sales arm housed in a separate firm. They enlarged their effort significantly after 1820, and much of the impetus to the growth of the cotton textile industry came from the success entrepreneurs had in lowering the cost of production.

The Impact of Transportation Improvements

Following 1820, government and private sources invested substantial sums in canals, and after 1835, railroad investment increased rapidly. Canals required huge volumes of low-value commodities in order to pay operating expenses, cover interest on the bonds which were issued for construction, and retire the bonds at maturity. These conditions were only met in the richest agricultural and resource (lumbering and coal mining, for example) areas traversed by the Erie and Champlain Canals in New York and the coal canals in eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The vast majority of the other canals failed to yield benefits for agriculture and industry, and most were costly debacles. Early railroads mainly carried passengers, especially within fifty to one hundred miles of the largest cities - Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. Industrial products were not carried in large volumes until after 1850; consequently, railroads built before that time had little impact on industrialization in the East.

Canals and railroads had minor impacts on agricultural and industrial development because the lowly wagon provided withering competition. Wagons offered flexible, direct connections between origins and destinations, without the need to transship goods, as was the case with canals and railroads; these modes required wagons at their end points. Within a distance of about fifty miles, the cost of wagon transport was competitive with alternative transport modes, so long as the commodities were high value relative to their weight. And, infrequent transport of these goods could occur over distances of as much as one hundred miles. This applied to many manufactures, and agricultural commodities could be raised to high value by processing prior to shipment. Thus, wheat was turned into flour, corn and other grains were fed to cattle and pigs and these were processed into beef and pork prior to shipment, and milk was converted into butter and cheese. Most of the richest agricultural and industrial areas of the East were less than one hundred miles from the largest cities or these areas were near low-cost waterway transport along rivers, bays, and the Atlantic Coast. Therefore, canals and railroads in these areas had difficulty competing for freight, and outside these areas the limited production generated little demand for long distant transport services.

Agricultural Prosperity Continues

After 1820, eastern farmers seized the increasing market opportunities in the prosperous rural areas as nonfarm processing expanded and village and small town populations demanded greater amounts of farm products. The large number of farmers who were concentrated around the rapidly growing metropolises (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore) and near urban agglomerations such as Albany-Troy, New York, developed increasing specialization in urban market goods such as fluid milk, fresh vegetables, fruit, butter, and hay (for horse transport). Farmers farther away responded to competition by shifting into products which could be transported long distances to market, including wheat into flour, cattle which walked to market, or pigs which were converted into pork. During the winter these farms sent butter, and cheese was a specialty which could be lucrative for long periods of the year when temperatures were cool.

These changes swept across the East, and, after 1840, farmers increasingly adjusted their production to compete with cheap wheat, cattle, and pork arriving over the Erie Canal from the Midwest. Wheat growing became less profitable, and specialized agriculture expanded, such as potatoes, barley, and hops in central New York and cigar tobacco in the Connecticut Valley. Farmers near the largest cities intensified their specialization in urban market products, and as the railroads expanded, fluid milk was shipped longer distances to these cities. Farmers in less accessible areas and on poor agricultural land which was infertile or too hilly, became less competitive. If these farmers and their children stayed, their incomes declined relative to others in the East, but if they moved to the Midwest or to the burgeoning industrial cities of the East, they had the chance of participating in the rising prosperity.

Metropolitan Industrial Complexes

The metropolises of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and, to a lesser extent, Baltimore, led the industrial expansion after 1820, because they were the greatest concentrated markets, they had the most capital, and their wholesalers provided access to subregional and regional markets outside the metropolises. By 1840, each of them was surrounded by industrial satellites - manufacturing centers in close proximity to, and economically integrated with, the metropolis. Together, these metropolises and their satellites formed metropolitan industrial complexes, which accounted for almost one-quarter of the nation's

manufacturing (see Table 2). For example, metropolises and satellites included Boston and Lowell, New York and Paterson (New Jersey), Philadelphia and Reading (Pennsylvania), and Baltimore and Wilmington (Delaware), which also was a satellite of Philadelphia. Among the four leading metropolises, New York and Philadelphia housed, by far, the largest share of the nation's manufacturing workers, and their satellites had large numbers of industrial workers. Yet, Boston's satellites contained the greatest concentration of industrial workers in the nation, with almost seven percent of the national total. The New York, Philadelphia, and Boston metropolitan industrial complexes each had approximately the same share of the nation's manufacturing workers. These complexes housed a disproportionate share of the nation's commerce-serving manufactures such as printing-publishing and paper and of local, regional, and national market manufactures such as glass, drugs and paints, textiles, musical instruments, furniture, hardware, and machinery.

Table 2

Manufacturing Employment in the Metropolitan Industrial Complexes

of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Baltimore

as a Percentage of National Manufacturing Employment in 1840

Metropolis Satellites Complex

New York 4.1% 3.4% 7.4%

Philadelphia 3.9 2.9 6.7

Boston 0.5 6.6 7.1

Baltimore 2.0 0.2 2.3

Four Complexes 10.5 13.1 23.5

Note: Metropolitan county is defined as the metropolis for each complex and "outside" comprises nearby counties; those included in each complex were the following. New York: metropolis (New York, Kings, Queens, Richmond); outside (Connecticut: Fairfield; New York: Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Orange; New Jersey: Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Morris, Passaic, Somerset). Philadelphia: metropolis (Philadelphia); outside (Pennsylvania: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery; New Jersey: Burlington, Gloucester, Mercer; Delaware: New Castle). Boston: metropolis (Suffolk); outside (Essex, Middlesex, Norfolk, Plymouth). Baltimore: metropolis (Baltimore); outside (Anne Arundel, Harford).

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Compendium of the Sixth Census, 1840 (Washington, D.C.: Blair and Rives, 1841).

Also, by 1840, prosperous agricultural areas farther from these complexes, such as the Connecticut Valley in New England, the Hudson Valley, the Erie Canal Corridor across New York state, and southeastern Pennsylvania, housed significant amounts of manufacturing in urban places. At the intersection of the Hudson and Mohawk rivers, the Albany-Troy agglomeration contained one of the largest concentrations of manufacturing outside the metropolitan complexes. And, industrial towns such as Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo were strung along the Erie Canal Corridor. Many of the manufactures (such as furniture, wagons, and machinery) served subregional markets in the areas of prosperous agriculture, but some places also developed specialization in manufactures (textiles and hardware) for larger regional and interregional market areas (the East as a whole). The Connecticut Valley, for example, housed many firms which produced cotton textiles, hardware, and cutlery.

Manufactures for Eastern and National Markets

Shoes

In several industrial sectors whose firms had expanded before 1820 to regional, and even, multiregional markets, in the East, firms intensified their penetration of eastern markets and reached to markets in the rapidly growing Midwest between 1820 and 1860. In eastern Massachusetts, a production complex of shoe firms innovated methods of organizing output within and among firms, and they developed a wide array of specialized tools and components to increase productivity and to lower manufacturing costs. In addition, a formidable wholesaling, marketing, and distribution complex, headed by Boston wholesalers, pushed the ever-growing volume of shoes into sales channels which reached throughout the nation. Machinery did not come into use until the 1850s, and, by 1860, Massachusetts accounted for half of the value of the nation's shoe production.

Cotton Textiles

In contrast, machinery constituted an important factor of production which drove down the price of cotton textile goods, substantially enlarging the quantity consumers demanded. Before 1820, most of the machinery innovations improved the spinning process for making yarn, and in the five years following 1815, innovations in mechanized weaving generated an initial substantial drop in the cost of production as the first integrated spinning-weaving mills emerged. During the next decade and a half the price of cotton goods collapsed by over fifty percent as large integrated spinning-weaving mills became the norm for the production of most cotton goods. Therefore, by the mid-1830s vast volumes of cotton goods were pouring out of textile mills, and a sophisticated set of specialized wholesaling firms, mostly concentrated in Boston, and secondarily, in New York and Philadelphia, channeled these items into the national market.

Prior to 1820, the cotton textile industry was organized into three cores. The Providence core dominated and the Boston core occupied second place; both of these were based mostly on mechanized spinning. A third core in the city of Philadelphia was based on hand spinning and weaving. Within about fifteen years after 1820, the Boston core soared to a commanding position in cotton textile production as a group of Boston merchants and their allies relentlessly replicated their business plan at various sites in New England, including at Lowell, Chicopee, and Taunton in Massachusetts, at Nashua, Manchester, and Dover in New Hampshire, and at Saco in Maine. The Providence core continued to grow, but its investors did not seem to fully grasp the strategic, multi-faceted business plan which the Boston merchants implemented. Similarly, investors in an emerging core within about fifty to seventy-five miles of New York City in the Hudson Valley and northern New Jersey likewise did not seem to fully understand the Boston merchants' plan, and these New York City area firms never reached the scale of the firms of the Boston Core. The Philadelphia core enlarged to nearby areas southwest of the city and in Delaware, but these firms stayed small, and the Philadelphia firms created a small-scale, flexible production system which turned out specialized goods, not the mass-market commodity textiles of the other cores.

Capital Investment in Cotton Textiles

The distribution of capital investment in cotton textiles across the regions and states of the East between 1820 and 1860 capture the changing prominence of the cores of cotton textile production (see Table 3). The New England and the Middle Atlantic regions contained approximately similar shares (almost half each) of the nation's capital investment. However, during the 1820s the cotton textile industry restructured to a form which was maintained for the next three decades. New England's share of capital investment surged to about seventy percent, and it maintained that share until 1860, whereas the Middle Atlantic region's share fell to around twenty percent by 1840 and remained near that until 1860. The rest of the nation, primarily the South, reached about ten percent of total capital investment around 1840 and continued at that level for the next two decades. Massachusetts became the leading cotton textile state by 1831 and Rhode Island, the early leader, gradually slipped to a level of about ten percent by the 1850s; New Hampshire and Pennsylvania housed approximately similar shares as Rhode Island by that time.

Table 3

Capital Invested in Cotton Textiles

by Region and State as a Percentage of the Nation

1820-1860

Region/state 1820 1831 1840 1850 1860

New England 49.6% 69.8% 68.4% 72.3% 70.3%

Maine 1.6 1.9 2.7 4.5 6.1

New Hampshire 5.6 13.1 10.8 14.7 12.8

Vermont 1.0 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.3

Massachusetts 14.3 31.7 34.1 38.2 34.2

Connecticut 11.6 7.0 6.2 5.7 6.7

Rhode Island 15.4 15.4 14.3 9.0 10.2

Middle Atlantic 46.2 29.5 22.7 17.3 19.0

New York 18.8 9.0 9.6 5.6 5.5

New Jersey 4.7 5.0 3.4 2.0 1.3

Pennsylvania 6.3 9.3 6.5 6.1 9.3

Delaware 4.0 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6

Maryland 12.4 5.3 2.6 3.0 2.3

Rest of nation 4.3 0.7 9.0 10.4 10.7

Nation 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total capital (thousands) $10,783 $40,613 $51,102 $74,501 $98,585

Sources: David J. Jeremy, Transatlantic Industrial Revolution: The Diffusion of Textile Technologies Between Britain and America, 1790-1830s (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981), appendix D, table D.1, p. 276; U.S. Bureau of the Census, Compendium of the Sixth Census, 1840 (Washington, D.C.: Blair and Rives, 1841); U.S. Bureau of the Census, Report on the Manufactures of the United States at the Tenth Census, 1880 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1883).

Connecticut's Industries

In Connecticut, industrialists built on their successful production and sales prior to 1820 and expanded into a wider array of products which they sold in the East and South, and, after 1840, they acquired more sales in the Midwest. This success was not based on a mythical "Yankee ingenuity," which, typically, has been framed in terms of character. Instead, this ingenuity rested on fundamental assets: a highly educated population linked through wide-ranging social networks which communicated information about technology, labor opportunities, and markets; and the abundant supplies of capital in the state supported the entrepreneurs. The peddler distribution system provided efficient sales channels into the mid-1830s, but, after that, firms took advantage of more traditional wholesaling channels. In some sectors, such as the brass industry, firms followed the example of the large Boston-core textile firms, and the brass companies founded their own wholesale distribution agencies in Boston and New York City. The achievements of Connecticut's firms were evident by 1850. As a share of the nation's value of production, they accounted for virtually all of the clocks, pins, and suspenders, close to half of the buttons and rubber goods, and about one-third of the brass foundry products, Britannia and plated ware, and hardware.

Difficulty of Duplicating Eastern Methods in the Midwest

The East industrialized first, based on a prosperous agricultural and industrialization process, as some of its entrepreneurs shifted into the national market manufactures of shoes, cotton textiles, and diverse goods turned out in Connecticut. These industrialists made this shift prior to 1820, and they enhanced their dominance of these products during the subsequent two decades. Manufacturers in the Midwest did not have sufficient intraregional markets to begin producing these goods before 1840; therefore, they could not compete in these national market manufactures. Eastern firms had developed technologies and organizations of production and created sales channels which could not be readily duplicated, and these light, high-value goods were transported cheaply to the Midwest. When midwestern industrialists faced choices about which manufactures to enter, the eastern light, high-value goods were being sold in the Midwest at prices which were so low that it was too risky for midwestern firms to attempt to compete. Instead, these firms moved into a wide range of local and regional market manufactures which also existed in the East, but which cost too much to transport to the Midwest. These goods included lumber and food products (e.g., flour and whiskey), bricks, chemicals, machinery, and wagons.

The American Manufacturing Belt

The Midwest Joins the American Manufacturing Belt after 1860

Between 1840 and 1860, Midwestern manufacturers made strides in building an industrial infrastructure, and they were positioned to join with the East to constitute the American Manufacturing Belt, the great concentration of manufacturing which would sprawl from the East Coast to the edge of the Great Plains. This Belt became mostly set within a decade or so after 1860, because technologies and organizations of production and of sales channels had lowered costs across a wide array of manufactures, and improvements in transportation (such as an integrated railroad system) and communication (such as the telegraph) reduced distribution costs. Thus, increasing shares of industrial production were sold in interregional markets.

Lack of Industrialization in the South

Although the South had prosperous farms, it failed to build a deep and broad industrial infrastructure prior to 1860, because much of its economy rested on a slave agricultural system. In this economy, investments were heavily concentrated in slaves rather than in an urban and industrial infrastructure. Local and regional demand remained low across much of the South, because slaves were not able to freely express their consumption demands and population densities remained low, except in a few agricultural areas. Thus, the market thresholds for many manufactures were not met, and, if thresholds were met, the demand was insufficient to support more than a few factories. By the 1870s, when the South had recovered from the Civil War and its economy was reconstructed, eastern and midwestern industrialists had built strong positions in many manufactures. And, as new industries emerged, the northern manufacturers had the technological and organizational infrastructure and distribution channels to capture dominance in the new industries.

In a similar fashion, the Great Plains, the Southwest, and the West were settled too late for their industrialists to be major producers of national market goods. Manufacturers in these regions focused on local and regional market manufactures. Some low wage industries (such as textiles) began to move to the South in significant numbers after 1900, and the emergence of industries based on high technology after 1950 led to new manufacturing concentrations which rested on different technologies. Nonetheless, the American Manufacturing Belt housed the majority of the nation's industry until the middle of the twentieth century.

This essay is based on David R. Meyer, The Roots of American Industrialization, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003.

Life during the Great Depression – Lessons Learned First-hand recollections of life during the Great Depression must not be disregarded. Those “children‟s” voices now plead with us to recognize the symptoms of an economic CRASH and to react in time.

Credit mentality instead of paying cash. “Don’t spend money you don’t already have in your pocket.”

Rich grew richer at the expense of others. “Don’t pay someone else to provide something that you can learn to do or to make yourself.”

Abandonment of traditional values and frugality. “Never buy anything you can use – only what you can’t live without.”

Self-Indulgence and self-gratification by immediate acquisition of possessions. “Don’t buy anything until you have twice the purchase amount.”

High Expectations by gambling in the stock market. “It’s doesn’t matter how much money you can make, but how much money you can save!”

“Then he [Jesus] said to them, „Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man‟s life does

not consist in the abundance of his possessions‟” (Luke 12:15).

The people of the depression gained a new outlook on life and many survivors still hold those same

virtues today. They deny the self-indulgence and immediate gratification that come from material things.

Instead they focus on relationship -- with their family, with others, and most importantly, with God.

They realize that good can come from bad and meaning can come from tragedy. If you would like to help

children during depressed economic times throughout the world, we highly recommend our friends at

Compassion International.

END TEXT TO THE DEPRESSION – USE DOWNLOADED ATTACHMENTS FOR OTHER

ASSIGNMENTS.