Apush Agriculture to Industry Questions

Agriculture to Industry Questions

Why has the Plains Indians’ resistance to white encroachment played such a large part in the popular view of the West?

The Plains Indians’ resistance to white encroachment played such a large part in the popular American view of the West because it shows native americans as dangerous and cruel rather than fighting for their lives, as well as glorifying cowboys and the whites in the “wild wild west”. The most prominent example of this resistance is ambush on Captain Fetterman on the Bozeman Trail by a Sioux War Party, killing eighty-one soldiers and civilians under Fetterman’s command and brutally mutilating their corpses. The Fetterman Massacre caused a series of small indian triumphs in the plain wars, but ultimately they all were forced into submission by the U.s. government, who used these “massacres” as a propaganda of sorts to “awaken a feeling of bitter feeling toward the savage perpetrators” (597). In fact, any fight won by native americans was considered a massacre, yet any won by the U.S. was considered a battle. This stereotype of native americans being cruel and dangerous still has some societal grounding today, as shown when Native Americans protesting peacefully to keep their sacred land and stop a potentially contaminating oil pipeline from going near their drinking source at Standing Rock are considered to be causing trouble and complaining. And yet again, much like back then, the US neglected the native americans’ pleas for help and trampled over any “treaties” made.

Why was the “passing of the frontier” in 1890 a disturbing development for many americans? Was the frontier more important as a particular place or an idea?

The passing of the frontier in 1890 was a disturbing development for many americans because the frontier symbolized the american dream for many. This idea of being able to move west and make yourself to be richer and better than you were with more room to climb up the social ladder was mesmerizing and fantastical, and it pushed many americans to work hard, though the receiving of land through the Homestead Act was not as it seemed and usually ended in failure (unbeknownst to the population). Many americans became “disturbed to find that their fabled free land was going or had gone” (610). Besides just the idea of the frontier intertwining with the American Dream, it was also used as a backup plan for many. Your business failed? Move to the west. You have crippling debt? Move west. The frontier was a crutch for the americans that they could use if they needed, and many Americans fell when it was gone. The frontier was more of an idea than a particular place. It was manifest destiny, and a symbol of opportunity as well as a romantic ideal for Americans.

3. What were the costs and benefits of the industrial transformation of the post-Civil War Era?

Though there were many costs of post-civil war industry, there were also many benefits. One of these said benefits was the use of american ingenuity to transform industrialization. For example, Eli Whitney’s interchangeable parts made production faster, thomas Edison’s light bulb that “transformed ancient human habits” by changing sleep schedules to around seven hours a night, and Bell’s invention of the phone. Another benefit was the building up of urban areas. Cities got larger with lots more people coming in (either as immigrants or from rural farms). Another benefit was increased foreign trade, especially because of America’s huge steel production that highly coveted around the world. This brought in more revenue and therefore more money for the USa. LOastly, industrialization gave more economic opportunity to women in that more jobs were created for them such as a typewriting or being a stenographer, though most women only worked out of necessity. The post-Civil War industrial transformation had countless costs as well. One of these costs is wide economic injustice. Rich people became richer and exploited the poor by providing horrendously low wages that were not liveable, falling into “the hands of the money power, as represented by the railroad plutocracy” (537). This economic injustice in turn created class division and tension between the social classes, which could possibly end up in riot or revolution. Another cost of this industrialization was horrible living conditions and worker exploitation. Workers in factories were paid minimal wages, worked very dangerous jobs with no compensation if they lost an arm, had a longer than eight hour workday, and had absolutely no rights whatsoever. Another cost of this industrialization was the creation of monopolies, as exemplified by Rockefeller’s Standard oil and carnegie’s steel. These monopolies caused outrageous prices, furthering the class gap in terms of money.

4. Should industrialists like Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and Rockefeller be viewed as “robber barons” or “captains of industry”?

Monopolistic, rolling-in-money millionaires such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt should be viewed as “robber barons”. They used the scientific darwin’s theory to justify their richness and their cruel methods to becoming rich. All these millionaires were ironic in that they thought of themselves as philanthropic and believed that “the wealthy [were] entrusted with societies riches” (543) to give to charities and who they thought needed it, yet they overworked and severely underpaid their own workers. They were ferocious monsters that stopped at nothing to stay at the top. They even manipulated free capitalism by creating monopolies by buying out other companies. How can this be seen as good? These men stole, lied, and weaseled their way out of so many things, even stooping as low as to use the fourteenth amendment, an amendment created for african americans to have some equality, to argue their corporation was a “person” and couldn't be deprived of its property. They took a law removing some oppression if any from african americans and used it to justify their monopolies and the crushing of an and all unions that stood in their way.

5. Was the growing class division of the time a threat to american democracy? Why or why not?

The growing class division of the time was a threat to American Democracy because it created tension and possible fighting between social classes. The rich saw poor people as not even human beings, and treated them as so. They thought, they really thought that “those who stayed poor must be lazy and ;lacking in enterprise” (543) even though they paid the poor so lowly that there was no real chance of them moving up the ladder. In fact, the dream of moving up the ladder was rare if nonexistent.