Week Three - The Rise of the City and the Battle for Reform
Share an idea or two from this week's reading. What was most interesting to you? What was most strange? How does the reading this week fit into issues and discussions we have had in this class?
The 13th amendment abolished slavery, but it still existed through loopholes in our own constitutional writing. The 14th amendment gave equal rights to all men, but it was only imposed upon federal bodies, not individual. In the piece titled “Progress and Poverty” there is an issue of labor-saving technology furthering the gap between wealth and poverty. Individuals were holding back African Americans for decades, it only makes sense that these labor-saving technologies only furthered the community into poverty. It took away potential work that could advance their economic status while giving the more difficult jobs available to educated white men.
ReplyDeleteLabor-saving inventions, such as the railroad and steam boat, were inventions sought to help both the wealthy and the poor. However, these inventions rather replaced the men who needed jobs to provide for their families. As a result, this widened the gap between the rich and the poor. These people, also know as the Populist Party, expressed their feelings through the Omaha Platform, which was created to help the working-class Americans. Andrew Carnegie, a well known philanthropist and the second richest man in American History, believed that to fix this gap, the wealthy must give back to the poor, as stated in his article, "The Gospel of Wealth". - Jeremy Alpizar
ReplyDeleteI found the reading very interesting that a wealthy man like Carnegie believed the wealthy should give their fortune back to society for improvement. I agree with his belief, but it's very strange to me on how the government today doesn't really support that great idea on today's society. The lower class today is still struggling to make a living in life to support their families. For example, homelessness is one of the biggest problems in America. If the wealthy could give their fortune back by building a community for the homeless. This could stop beggars, and panhandlers from the downtown areas in America. Because helping the poor helps the body and mind to want to be successful. But the government is not really for that idea so you have "Robber Barron's", the kind of people President Theodore Roosevelt fought to get rid of. They take advantage of the people and keep wages low that don't meet the cost of living today so people are really working pay check to pay check. In class we talked about how Andrew Jackson was impeached, because he wasn't very supportive of the things the U.S. Congress were doing to help and protect the people. Then again, I think it's strange that the U.S. Congress today haven't impeached President Donald Trump for the uproar he is causing in the office. How can Congress not be against the things he is doing and he is putting the American people lives in danger.
ReplyDeleteOur class discussion revolved mainly around 'freedoms' that were actually well-manipulated injustices. In "What Social Classes Owe To Each Other", I found it interesting that William Graham Sumner made the point that society as a whole is supposed to contribute to small groups of society, but that groups of society are not necessarily expected to contribute back or to each other, and that some people took this to mean that their claims were a right against society and that they therefore had the right to the aid of other members of society to get what they wanted for them. What I found strange was that this led in turn to the freedom of society to receive aid turning into an injustice of being forced into providing that aid, but not being required to receive something in return for the aid given, virtually turning society into a slave to the desires of the people.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that will always astound me is how the writers in this period have such better vocabulary than most people nowadays. I enjoyed some readings more than others. I found George Progress and Graham Sumner's writings much more interesting than Carnegie's and Populist Party Platform simply because I was able to follow their train of thought more easily. What stood out to me is that, as we discussed in class, history sometimes seems to repeat itself. There are a few instances where the authors are calling for equality, similar to modern times where activists are currently demanding the same. Each author describes a dark time of pain and suffering in their own ways. That's a running theme throughout all of history and modern day. Sad to hear their thoughts, their cries, fighting battles with pen on paper when nothing seems to have really changed all that much.
ReplyDeleteAnneliese Kilpatrick
In our class discussion we talked about freedom, but what is freedom? There really is not a definite definition to this word, but when we hear the world we think "equality". We each have our own opinion of what freedom is, and they all may be right. In the article "Wealth" by Andrew Carnegie, he talks about the difference of poverty now and then. There used to be a equal relationship between the rich and the poor, whereas now the difference is noticeable and they aren't equals. I found it interesting how then they could live equally under the circumstances, and now it seems harder to be connected or even in the same room together. I found it strange that in "Progress and Poverty" they believed that once there was new technology that poverty or greed would not exist. When in actuality it really made no difference.
ReplyDeleteCarlia Miller
The piece I found the most interesting was William Graham Sumner's "What Do The Classes Owe One Another," in which he discusses how some will present difficult questions to others, then expect a solution from them. The reading I found to be the strangest was Henry George's "Progress and Poverty." I had never noticed before that with the creation of new inventions and life-changing technology, poverty, misery, and crime have been and will continue to increase. If this progress does not improve these conditions, then perhaps we are not making the right kind of progress.
ReplyDeleteDavid Mannon
The class topic for this week was mainly focus on freedom and its meaning. Although the idea of share cropping was extremely wrong, I feel that it was a very intelligent way for farms or previous slave owners to manipulate the law and get the service that wanted out of the slaves once they were so called set free. I found it very strange that some of the slave didn't want to leave to try and create life for themselves , but remained at the farms to worked for the owner. In the article "Wealth" by Andrew Carnegie, he explains how there was once equality found between the rich and poor. Today we see that there are no signs of equality between the two, in fact I found very difficult to believe that the two was even able to live conductively in the same area.
ReplyDeleteMicah Bridgeforth
I found it interesting that the readings had similarities that showed even with the progress we made as a society, we still had problems that should have been solved. For example, labor-saving inventions like the railroad and the steamboat were supposed to help both the rich and the poor. However, this actually provided less jobs for the men that needed them, which in turn increased poverty and widened the gap between the rich and poor. And at this time, the people who needed jobs were freedmen, not the rich white men. So, this ties back into our discussion about freedom because we discussed how the 13th Amendment abolished slavery and the 14th amendment made all men equal, but there were loopholes in these amendments that actually kept African Americans enslaved. These amendments were supposed to close the gap between rich and poor, but they actually widened it, just the same as the labor-saving inventions in "Progress and Poverty". In the article about Andrew Carnegie, he suggests that the wealthy should give part of their fortune back to the poor, and Carnegie is one of the richest men of this time. I found this interesting because he is also attempting to close the gap between the rich and poor, but in his efforts, the gap widens and the progress that was made is helping, but also hindering itself because the issues that are supposed to get solved are actually increasing. That is also what seemed to be happening during our discussion about freedom and we can also see that in issues of the modern day.
ReplyDeleteBrennon Lewis
I found it very interesting in Graham Sumner's what social class owe to each other very interesting. He believed that the upper class or the richer class should help out the lower class and society as a whole. I agree with this statement to an extent. I feel that the upper class has a moral responsibility to help out the lower class and the community. Although if the lower class or the unemployed doesn't want to work and have everything handed to them, then why should the upper class deal with the burden? Graham Sumner believed strongly that America shouldn't have social classes. He felt that it would be a burden and also create a very judgmental and prodigious nation. He believes strongly that the "poor" and the "weak" has a responsibility to themselves to create a better standard of living for themselves while having little help from the higher class if any, but if needed and the will to work hard, they can receive help if they are willing to put forth an effort. He and I believe that if Americans have the desire to work hard and put forth the effort social classes wouldn't exist and Americans can live in a more harmonious society.
ReplyDelete-Patton Lutz
To some people Andrew Carnegie was a robber baron, they may judge the way he gained all his wealth, and what he did with all his wealth. He was a captain of industry, he stood for what was right and gave almost all his fortune back into society. Andrew Carnegie did not believe in passing down money to the first son as many billionaires did to keep the wealth in their family. He much rather believed that all that money should not follow one to the grave and should be placed back into society where everyone can benefit from. "The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced." All of the readings share a common truth and that is shared wealth in the society and not a single group of people benefiting from the wealth but also those who are impoverished.
ReplyDeleteJuan Prado
After reading the four passages I found that the most entertaining and surprising was "The Gospel of Wealth" by Andrew Carnegie. Not only was I surprised about his beliefs and actions, but it made me open my mind more about our discussion we had in class about freedom. Freedom means a lot of things, but one major idea behind freedom is the right to spend one's money they earned how they want to. When most people think of robber barons they think of greedy, selfish, unethical business men. However, Andrew Carnegie challenges this stereotype. He believes wealth has changed, and that his era of rich and poor people are way different than how it use to be. He believes there is a huge difference now of what being poor is, and it is harder to improve your quality of life. Therefor, he believes in giving back his wealth to improve aspects of society after his death. Most millionaires give their money to their family. However, he wants to give back, which would shock most people. But this is what makes freedom so great, he earned his money in a free country and has the right to give back his money how he wants to. He is choosing to give back his money, and is not forced to do so. We should be thankful not only for our freedom, but for those people who give back and contribute to society. He sets the example for others to follow and he believes that all money has power, and it is not necessarily a bad thing. I believe he was impacted by seeing the Native Americans and how their poorest braves interact with the Chief. Through his writing he inspires others with the hope of society improving by eachother. I think he is a prime example of why not all rich people or robber barrons are bad, and we could actually learn from them.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Schrand
Our last class session, we discussed the time after the war which was called "The Reconstruction." A time where even after slavery there still was no equality. In the article " What Social Classes Owe Each Other", William Graham points out that the rich and high class expect the low class to do things for them, but the low class shouldn't expect anything in return. This is interesting to me, and I believe it touches on a stand point of equality simply because everyone should be treated equally, and not expect more because they are wealthy. As discussed in class, during the reconstruction there was still no equality for slaves. For instance, for a while they couldn't vote or find work. Today, not much has changed in the society, and it may be even worse.
ReplyDeleteTrakayah Taylor
The overarching theme in our discussions focused on social inequalities. In Carnegie's "The Gospel of Wealth", wealth inequality is addressed. Carnegie's solution to bridging the income gap between the rich and poor emphasized the idea of wealth distribution. In his text, he points out that the best way to improve impoverished communities is by providing its members opportunities to rise above poverty. According to Carnegie, the surplus of wealth from affluent communities should be redistributed to the lower class. In my opinion, this concept is ideal for improving our society. Although this idea is ideal , concepts such as Carnegie's could easily be exploited. As discussed in class, the Emancipation Proclamation was designed to abolish slavery. However, former slave owners often deceived African American workers into prolonged slavery through sharecropping.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Guevara
The Gospel of Wealth describes the responsibility of philanthropy by the upper class. I like that Carnegie is a wealthy man and wants to give back to the community. He used his wealth for the greater good of society. I also think its strange that rich people don't want to help out the less fortunate and give back to the community. I understand that they didn't help you get rich, but if you have a chance to make the community better or someone's life better you should do it if you had the power and wealth to do so.
ReplyDeleteLabor saving Inventions were designed to help both the rich and the poor. Andrew Carnegie believed that the rich should give back to the poor in order to fix the separation between the two. Andrew Jackson was impeached because he was against trying to help the poor. He was more about helping the rich become richer. In class, we talked about how freedom was not actually free. They forced the formal slaves to enslave themselves through sharecropping.
ReplyDelete-Brianna Patterson
The thing I enjoyed most about the readings was being given a view point from a different time period. In "Progress and Poverty" it says "could a man of the last century, have seen, in a vision of the future, the steamship taking the place of the sailing vessel." I found it interesting to think about how much we have advanced since the 1800's. Instead of talking about the invention of the railroad, today we're talking about cars that can drive themselves. Sometimes the best way to understand a time period is to see how it relates to present day.
ReplyDelete-Alex Smith
In class last week, we discussed the idea of freedom and asked the question, "What does it mean to be free?". In this weeks reading, Graham Sumner gives us his answer to this question. In his article, "What Social Classes Owe Each Other", Graham Sumner makes an interesting claim in the final paragraph. He contends that an individual who can have their labor demanded from them is not free. In fact, they are more akin to a slave. Which suggests, that Graham Sumners response to our question would be, to be free is to be able to choose how and when to use ones own labor.
ReplyDelete-Evan Waltersdorff
What I found most interesting in this weeks readings was the Populist Party Platform. They made broad and vast claims about United States Government. They claimed that corruption dominates government at every level, and that people can be sorted into two categories they call "tramps and millionaires." While I found the populist party platform interesting, it was also quite strange. They claimed that both major political parties do nothing but inflict suffering through "the influences that control" both political party. This level of corruption in the U.S. government would be more than strange, it would be down right scary.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the most interesting passage from this week's readings was definitely Andrew Carnegie's "The Gospel of Wealth". Carnegie differed from the typical mold of a 1800's to early 1900's business mogul. Most tycoons around this era were very selfish and would not even consider giving any of their money to help the underprivileged. Carnegie made all of his money himself, and in turn, could decide what he wanted to do with it. We have been learning about freedom in class so far. In America, some people were handed freedom and others had to fight the beliefs of early American society. Carnegie was given freedom because of his ethnicity. I believe that he used his freedom in a very positive way, educating and donating to the poor. One particular part of "The Gospel of Wealth" that was particularly interesting to me was when Carnegie wrote, "When visiting the Sioux, I was led to the wigwam of the chief. It was just like the others in external appearance, and even within the difference was trifling between it and those of the poorest of his braves(1)." This statement made by Carnegie really opened my eyes to a culture so different from what we are used to. I believed that this was the most interesting part of the readings. Along with being interesting, I believe that this is the most strange part of the readings because displays a culture that is so against the mold of modern society.
ReplyDeleteWhat I thought was interesting was that slavery was abolished, but people still figured a way around it. Former slaves would go back to their previous owners to work for little money, and were still being very mistreated. The former slaves would share crop for their bosses, but had nothing to harvest with. The owners created a system where they could rent out their tools to their workers for money. So the workers would harvest the crops, and use the owners tools. After they harvested they would get paid little money for their work, and after they got paid they had to pay their boss for using his tools. After they paid them that they did not have much money if any. Essentially they were still slaves, because the plantation owners figured a way to get pretty much free labor. I found it strange that Andrew Carnegie gave back to the people. Because people with his money, and wealth didn't give back to the people back then.
ReplyDeleteA lot of the first lecture was about freedom and what it means to be free. it revealed that being free during that time and in present day are very different from each other. Today everyone is their own person and has the same equal opportunities but back then, even if you became a "free" man you still had a lot of restrictions like not being able to vote and found ways to cheat the system like sharecropping in order to tie the blacks to the land without technically "owning" them. And in Graham Sumners' he talks about that a man who is demanded to do work for another man with no say is not a free man which ties into the lectures we have had. i was surprised to learn that a man as rich as Andrew Carnegie was actually a philanthropist and gave back to society.
ReplyDelete- madisen williams
What was most interesting for me about this section was that Carnegie seemed to be kind of a vigilante for the poor. It amazes me that with all the money he had, it didn't corrupt him like it does to so many others. He knew that the poor needed money far more than the rich did. The rich had no problem taking care of their families, so the fact that he believed in in sharing his wealth to help the poor be able to take care of their families better just blows my mind. He also invested his money into libraries so it was in private hands instead of public and I think that's extremely smart. I think he was definitely a very smart and humble man, regardless of his wealth and title.
ReplyDeleteDuring the lectures from this week, I found it interesting how much the Democratic and Republican parties have pretty much switched political positions over time. During the time of Reconstruction, the Democratic party opposed civil rights, while the Republican party was doing their best to grant them. The idea of the Republican party today has changed so much in comparison with the Republican party in the past, and likewise for the Democratic party. Also, the idea of freedom during this time was extremely misconstrued. True freedom would have been equality among all, regarding both opportunity and education. Republicans during this time wanted to free African American's, but did not have much of a plan as to how to grant true freedom.
ReplyDelete