//

	Discovery is the act of locating a formerly unknown area. The Spanish explorer Christopher Columbus is generally credited with the discovery of the New World. His famous journey to the New World in 1492 was the first in history to result in continued interest and exploration of this area; however, this journey served not to discover the New World, nor to prove the spherical nature of the Earth.
	The spherical nature and even the approximate circumference of the Earth were known to the ancient Greeks. The New World was first discovered by humans when nomads crossed the land bridge that once connected Asia and Alaska. The descendants of these nomads would soon populate all of the Americas only to be "discovered" as Indians by Columbus many thousands of years later. Columbus was even preceded in his own era by Norse and Oriental explorers. What distinguished Columbus' journey was its focus on conquest, a focus which would continue into the nineteenth century.

//

THE SONS OF LIBERTY

	In the year 1765 British Colonel and colonial sympathizer Isaac Barre delivered an apostrophe to the House of Commons in protest of the Stamp Act. Near the end of his speech, he referred to the colonists in America as "these sons of liberty." It was from this speech that American radical protest groups drew their name. These groups were organized by wealthy politicians to direct protest into a nonviolent resistance against the Stamp Act. The Sons of Liberty were not at all secretive, as is commonly accepted, for they were not a secret society. It was through their blatant and public defiance of law that the Stamp Act was ultimately repealed.
	In March of 1765 Parliament passed the Stamp Act, slated to go into effect on November first of that year. This law had been conceived by Britain's new Prime Minister, George Grenville, and was enacted to raise revenue to help offset the large national debt England had acquired defending her colonies during the French and Indian War (Miller 131).
	In imposing the Stamp Act, however, Grenville made a drastic error. He abandoned the British tradition of taxing the colonies based on their social and economic divisions (Miller 129). Instead he provided them with a universal grievance which swept aside their petty jealousies in a wave of anger against Great Britain. The Stamp Act was the first internal tax placed on the colonies, and one Grenville considered appropriate in view of the high taxes paid by native Britains.
	Colonial objection to the Stamp Act was based upon an argument of principle. First put to letter by the House of Burgesses in the Virginia Resolves, these rejected Parliament's authority to levy tax on the colonies (Pole 186). This opposition was made on the basis that the colonists had no representation in Parliament. Grenville argued that the colonists were represented through the membership of Parliament, in the same way as all subjects of the Crown. This fundamental argument, first realized with the legislation of the Stamp Act, would survive until the Revolution.
	Parliament ignored the Virginia Resolves, as it had ignored numerous petitions sent in protest of the Stamp Act before it was initially passed. This did nothing but further incur the colonist's anger. Soon, this rebellion would be shaped by the most influential protest group in American history. For the Sons of Liberty realized that the Stamp Act contained, in all its brilliant design, an inherent weakness; it depended upon a supply of stamps.
	The first organized Sons of Liberty arose in Boston, directed by politician Samuel Adams. These protesters called themselves the Loyal Nine, after the original number of members (Cass 12). Sam Adams was not one of the nine, however, and never became an actual Son of Liberty. The Loyal Nine held large public meetings, and had newspapers print warnings to anyone who would enforce the Stamp Act.
	August 14, 1765 saw the first rioting. The Loyal Nine, by direction of Sam Adams, hung in effigy Andrew Oliver, who had been appointed stamp master of Massachusetts Bay province. That night a mob, led by the Sons of Liberty, carried the effigy around the Town House, where the Governor and Council were sitting. They proceeded to destroy the building which Oliver was erecting as a stamp office, and then marched on to Oliver's home, beheaded the effigy, and broke many of his windows. Oliver promptly resigned as stamp master. This event was celebrated in New England for many years as the day "Liberty arose from her long slumber." Later that August, the Loyal Nine ransacked the home and library of Oliver's brother-in-law and Massachusetts councilman Thomas Hutchinson. Hutchinson was privately opposed to the Stamp Act, but supported it out of duty to the Crown (Cass 15).
	In spite of their involvement with riots, the Sons of Liberty did not consider themselves violent protesters of the Stamp Act. They saw themselves as protectors of England's Constitution, protectors of the mob, and held that rage and uncontrolled violence had no place in their movement. For it was the Sons of Liberty in Charles Town who dragged rioting sailors to jail in late 1765 (Egnal 230). No member of the Loyal Nine was permitted to carry a firearm, probably by order of Samuel Adams (Cass 85).
	Perhaps the best example of this philosophy occurred when a crowd of angry Boston radicals confronted customs informer Ebenezer Richardson. He panicked and fired into the crowd killing an 11-year-old boy. Son of Liberty William Molyneux, who had been involved in organizing the protest, saved Richardson from the wrath of the crowd (Pole 187).
	In an attempt to stifle the attacks upon stamp masters such as Andrew Oliver, Grenville began appointing American stamp masters. This did not save them from persecution. "A foreigner we could more cheerfully endure," exclaimed a Son of Liberty, "because he might be supposed not to feel our distresses; but for one of our fellow slaves, who equally shares in our pains, to rise up and beg the favor of inflicting them -- is that not intolerable?" (Miller 136)
	Few stamp masters ever sold a stamp. William Coxe of New Jersy resigned without even making an effort to take office. Zachariah Hood of Maryland fled to New York after the Maryland Sons of Liberty, known as the Maryland Liberty Boys, had destroyed his store, burned him in effigy, and threatened his life. Hood rode his horse to death on the way, only to be harassed into resignation by the Sons of Liberty in New York (Miller 137).
	Colonel Mercer, Virginia's stamp master, found himself hanging in effigy on nearly every street in Williamsburg. His father wrote newspaper articles condemning the Stamp Act and anyone who might support it. After the Governor of Virginia refused to accept his resignation, Colonel Mercer announced to a mob that he would not act as stamp master. The people of Williamsburg held a "splendid ball" that night to celebrate (Maier 177).
	New Hampshire's stamp master, George Meserve, arrived in Boston to find the port filled with Sons of Liberty and angry people. By resigning his commission before he stepped foot on land, he was guaranteed safe passage through Boston. Not satisfied, the New Hampshire Sons of Liberty burned his commission so that he could not change his mind. Of this Meserve wrote, "I did not know whether I should have escaped from this mob with my life, as some were for cutting off my head, others for cutting off my ears and sending them home with my commission." (Miller 133)
	The situation became so severe that property owners required stamp masters to fully insure houses they occupied. Stamps could not be stored in safety. The Governor of Maryland forbid his cargo of stamps be unloaded. Instead, he ordered the shipmaster to take the stamps and "head for deep water."(Miller 133) Many young women, calling themselves Daughters of Liberty, refused to recognize any suitor who was not outrightly opposed to the Stamp Act. In South Carolina, the stamps were entrusted to the garrison of men at Fort Johnson. This fort fell without resistance to 150 Sons of Liberty who burned the stamps (Miller 144).
	Not a single stamp master was left to take office on the first of November. Colonial operations did not stop, however, due to the lack of stamps. The Sons of Liberty pressured officials to accept issue documents without stamps. Thus, vital transactions were continued despite the unavailability of the watermarked paper required by law, and soon the Stamp Act was effectively dead.
	In the midst of this Stamp Act crisis, George Grenville had been replaced as Prime Minister by the Marquis of Rockingham. The fantastic disregard for the Stamp Act, and a boycott against British goods raised by a group of New York merchants, convinced Rockingham to recommend that the Stamp Act be revoked. With this recommendation and at the avid urging of speakers such as William Pitt, a noted opponent of the Stamp Act, Parliament repealed the hated law as it passed the Declaratory Act in March of 1766 (Pole 188).
	Although the Declaratory Act upheld the principle upon which the Stamp Act had been created, the colonists ignored it. Designed to affirm Parliament's power to tax the colonies, it was phrased so loosely that one might have regarded it in almost any manner he would have liked (Miller 157). Many colonists dismissed it as an act designed to spare Parliament the humiliation of the Stamp Act's repeal. The Sons of Liberty disbanded, and celebration put an end to the Stamp Act crisis.
	Through careful examination of the events involving colonial resistance to the Stamp Act, it is clear that its repeal was the result of the highly successful campaign carried out by the Sons of Liberty. It was the public action of this group which directly prevented the distribution of stamps so vital to the collection of the tax. The Stamp Act crisis was the first test of American resolve against the British Empire, and it stirred a nest of conflicts which were manifest in the Declaratory Act and would resurface in the years to come.

//

Commanger, Henry. "The Constitution: Was It An Economic Document?"
American Heritage, December 1958 Volume X Number 1.

	One of the most fundamental functions of a government is the protection of property. This is an issue which was of prime importance to early Americans as they proceeded to form a government, though it is less considered by today's citizen, who expects his property to be secure and ignores the Savings and Loan crisis. Perhaps the most significant expression of this issue's influence on the Constitution was Charles A. Beard's work of 1913, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.
	It is in this work that Charles Beard concludes that the Constitution is "essentially" an economic document designed by the framers to protect the property of the rich. It is this document which Henry Commanger evaluates about 45 years later, and it is this word "essentially" which he uses to sarcastically criticize An Economic Interpretation. Commanger concludes that the Constitution is an "essentially" political document created by the framers to address two political issues, that of the distribution of power between governments, and that of enforcing this distribution.
	It was failure to address these two goals which caused the collapse of the British empire. The Declaratory Act was an example of this failure. As Commanger quotes Edmund Burke, "No people is going to be argued into slavery." It was failure to address the second goal of sanctioning the distribution of power which caused the failure of the Articles of Confederation. It is Commanger's contention that the goal of the framers was to solve these two problems, not to create a government in which they could establish an aristocracy. Extensive quoting of various framers is used to support this claim.
	After exploring the framers intentions through various quotes, the author deftly turns his focus on their product, the Constitution. The author makes it clear that although Beard identifies sufficient economic bias among the framers, he does not support his thesis by citing the Constitution. The author examines each section of this document which has economic implication and establishes firm political rationale for each of these. He goes on to show that the Constitution is, in fact, designed to work against an aristocracy. He cites the complex list of checks and balances, and notes that it was the intention of the framers to prohibit income tax.
	Commanger concludes by stating that the Constitution is "essentially" a political document, and lends final support to his thesis by reminding the reader that the Constitution is designed not just to control the power of the masses, but to control power in any form. He includes a quote of James Madison, "All those with power must be distrusted to some degree."
	The article, though quite a bit longer than it needed to be, was quite successful in its task. In 1958, An Economic Interpretation remained a powerful influence on the historical view of the Constitution, and to write so bluntly against it was quite a remarkable deed. The author had obviously done extensive research based on his use of rare quotes. The last paragraph of this essay is an eloquent one, "The Constitution was not a document describing a government cunningly contrived to protect the interest of property, but one capable of extending to its citizens the blessings of liberty."

//

	"Hamilton's economic program stirred a rivalry between the merchant and agrarian classes, northern and southern interests, and the East and West that would portend the Civil War." This statement, though quite correct, must be approached with caution. Hamilton's economic program did indeed agitate a rivalry between North/South and merchant/agrarian interests, but it was only part of a long series of events that contributed to a Civil War which was not to take place for several decades. It is the rivalry caused by the difference of interests due largely to geographic location which caused the Civil War. Any attempt to trace the war directly to Hamilton's economic program would be hopelessly unrealistic.
	Alexander Hamilton was a staunch supporter of central government. Framer of the constitution and veteran of the Revolutionary War, he had little loyalty to any particular state or political party. His economic plan was created with the goal of promoting the Union and restoring a crippled economy left untouched by the government under the feeble Articles of Confederation.
	The assumption of state debt is second only to the national bank as the most disputed of Hamilton's economic plans. It is considered an act which served to separate the North, which owed a large debt, and the South, which had paid off the bulk of its debt. Here we see a boundary between North and South prematurely drawn. South Carolina owed a large portion of its debt at the time of Hamilton's proposal. Assumption of the state debt was a most necessary step in cementing the Union under the new government. Without it, the Union might not have survived until 1861.
	How often is the whiskey rebellion cited as a precursor to the Civil War! Yet, this was not a rebellion strictly over an excise tax. This was a rebellion caused by frustration at a perceived lack of representation in the new government. A tax on tea might have done just as well! Less often cited is the creation of the permanent debt. This policy stopped speculation on government bonds, established the government's credit, and secured the commitment of investors. How valuable was this to a young United States?
	Hamilton knew his policies caused division among various interests in America. He knew that many of his programs angered many farmers. He also knew that the future of the American economy was not to be in agriculture, and he found it the lesser of two evils to support merchant interests.
	The Civil War was fought over the conflict of interest caused by geographic location. The South required slave labor to grow labor-intensive crops such as cotton which could not be grown in the North. The nation's reaction to Hamilton's economic policy was merely a reflection of this conflict of interest. Nearly all policies between 1800 and 1861 would stir this conflict. Hamilton's were among the first to make history.

//

	"There were two Thomas Jeffersons. One was the private citizen who had philosophized in his study. The other was the public official who made the disturbing discovery that bookish theories worked out differently in the noisy arena of practical politics." This statement carries to an extreme the fact that Thomas Jefferson made several compromises between conflicting aspects of his political philosophy. This was perhaps "disturbing" to some, but probably not to Jefferson himself. To further investigate these compromises, let us examine three frequently cited inconsistencies in Jefferson's politics.
	The first of these is Jefferson's use of military action against Tripoli. Despite his belief that America should be free from entangling alliances, he was inclined to fight for several reasons. One of these was that a victory against the Barbary pirates would establish the United States as a respectable world influence. Although Europe had succumbed to this minor shipping hassle, Jefferson could not use taxpayer dollars to appease a band of pirates, certainly not after their mistreatment of the American flag. Expense was also a factor. Jefferson believed that battle would cost less than the fee demanded by the pirates. To Jefferson, these benefits were worth the brief and uneventful war that was likely to result.
	The second of these inconsistencies involves the Louisiana Purchase. Here Jefferson had to choose between two of his political doctrines: that America should be free from entangling alliances and that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly. The fact that Louisiana belonged to Spain was of little concern with respect to entangling alliances. However, French control of this territory opened up a vast ocean of trouble because of the British influence in Canada. The purchase would also make possible another of Jefferson's ideas, that America should one day possess an "empire of liberty" that would stretch from Atlantic to Pacific coastlines. When faced with the opportunity to acquire this property for such a nominal price, Jefferson overlooked amendment to the Constitution in favor of "loose interpretation".
	The final of these three inconsistencies is the creation of the Embargo Act. Here Jefferson judged that America must remain neutral, even if it meant interpreting the Constitution "loosely". Jefferson saw that America could not afford the consequences of war with such a great military force as Britain or France. The Constitution makes no provision for the creation of an embargo, so he charged Congress to use their right to control trade as justification.
	In these three examples we see that Thomas Jefferson made carefully balanced compromises. In his decisions there can be found no patterned neglect against a certain "bookish philosophy". He does not believe any one of his ideas are wrong or too idealistic to be applied to the "real world". Instead, he is forced to choose between them. Compromise -- this is the principle upon which the government of the United States was founded.

//

	The conflict between France and Britain became the first of a long series of foreign situations in which the United States became "entangled". It was pressure from the American people which forced the country into war, and it was Britain, not France, with whom war was declared. Let us examine the factors involved in this choice.
	The first factor was the residual dislike of England which remained from the Revolutionary War. The Declaration of Independence states plainly that the American people held no malice toward the people or government of England. This was not true. After the revolutionary period there remained a mild, yet ever-present, dislike of Britain. It seemed natural for the United States to go to war with its previous enemies and side with its previous allies.
	The second factor was that although both France and England instituted strong policies against neutral states, England snobbishly left her Orders in Council stand despite the French repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees. Of course, France had only repealed these in formality, not in practice, but Madison had already recognized this repeal under Macon's Bill Number 2.
	A third factor, which was the most intolerable to the American people, was the British policy of impressment. This practice, executed extensively over a period of years, symbolized everything about England that America rebelled against: the snobbish control of freedoms by the crown.
	These and other factors determined that we should make war with Britain. The Chesapeake incident was the straw which broke the camel's back, a focused blow against the United States military. This is the event which thrust America into war, a war for which it was not prepared.

//

	The "Era of Good Feelings" was a term created by a Boston newspaper to describe the status of American politics in 1817, the year of President Monroe's inauguration. This was an period characterized by strong feelings of political unity and self-sufficiency. However, these "good feelings", like the newspaper which heralded them, were only "paper-thin". It was but a reaction to the war of 1812, the resulting peace with Britain, and the abolishment of the Federalist party. This "Era of Good Feelings" began to collapse only two years after its conception as a result of the renewal of the National bank, Madison's veto of the internal improvements bill, and a number of decisions made by the Supreme Court under John Marshall. It was to be the beginning of an era characterized by internal strife which would continue to escalate until the Civil War.
	The era of "good feelings" began with the treaty of Ghent. This treaty did not establish status quo ante bellum, it created very important, but less specific, boundaries for America. These were important because they served to solidify the country as a more definite geographical entity. The battle of New Orleans was also significant in the creation of the Nationalist sentiment during the era. Americans convinced themselves that the victory was the result of some genius on their part when it was caused more by incompetence on the part of England.
	Perhaps more important to the "Era of Good Feelings" than the war of 1812 was the political aftermath, the disappearance of the Federalist party. While Federalist influence was far from gone, people believed that the party system had been put to rest, and that the grand vision of political unity -- as it had appeared in Monroe's inaugural address -- had been achieved. The spirit of Monroe's tour of 1817 reflected this as he was greeted by a friendly New England.
	Despite all hopes of unity and self-sufficiency manifest in Henry Clay's American System, the true state of disunion was revealed by various political decisions. One of these involved the 1816 charter of the second Bank of the United States. Western citizens had long felt that the Bank, with which many of them carried a large debt, was an institution designed to keep them in debt. Another controversial action was Madison's veto of the internal improvements bill. In favor of federal aid himself, Madison vetoed the bill only because he believed that it was not within the power of Congress to legislate.
	The Supreme Court also issued several decisions which had important bearing on the era of disdain which was beginning to emerge. These are cases which increased the power of the federal government significantly and set important precedent for future argument between federal and state government. The case of Dartmouth College v. Woodward defined the integrity of contract and supported industry on a federal level. The case of McCulloch v. Maryland decided that no state has the power to tax a federal agency.
	Lastly, the issue of slavery may be identified as one which caused great internal strife. The abolitionist movement, still in its infancy, was less of a factor in this than was the issue of representation of slave states. The South was concerned about their influence in both the House and the Senate. The Union at the time had an equal number of slave and non-slave states. This balance was a most crucial one. To preserve it, the Missouri Compromise was born. Missouri would become a slave state only if Maine would become a state within a year. Preserved at the time, that balance of representation would soon become key in politics and contribute to the Civil War.
	Upon careful examination, one may see that the "Era of Good Feelings" was a mirage, only "paper-thin". It was but a delay in grave strife which is evident in the few examples above. Monroe proclaimed in his inaugural address that nothing could be done to improve the republic upon which the United States was based. In fact, the republic was suffering greatly from a separatist movement, one that had existed since before the Revolutionary War, and one that would drive America into Civil War.

//

	"Chief Justice John Marshall's rulings established precedents for national supremacy over state rights, defined the roles of the Court and Congress, and provided a constitutional foundation for the economic growth of the United States." This statement is absolutely valid. It makes three assertions. The first and third, of supremacy over state rights and providing a foundation for economic growth, may be seen in the case of Dartmouth College v. Woodward. The second, of defining the role of Court and Congress, may be seen in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland.
	In the case of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, the state of New Hampshire wished to make Dartmouth, a private institution, into a state university. Dartmouth College claimed that they were protected by their charter. John Marshall decided in favor of Dartmouth College. His decision was based on the fact that the Constitution forbids state interference with contract. This case established the federal government  superior to the state government of New Hampshire. Due to this precedent, the national government was now responsible for insuring the integrity of contracts.
	This case also created a foundation for the economic growth of the United States. It established not only the integrity of contract, but also the integrity of private institution. The extent of government involvement with private industry was an important issue during the industrial period. 
	In the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, the state of Maryland wished to tax the Baltimore branch of the second Bank of the United States. Not only did this case question a state's right to tax a federal agency, it questioned the right of the federal government to establish a bank. Marshall applied "loose" interpretation of the Constitution by ruling that Congress had the power to establish a bank and that Maryland could not levy tax against it. This case not only defined the power of Congress, it established the Court as having the authority to define this power.

//

	The Civil War was the greatest political and social upheaval America had known since its revolution. The aftermath of this upheaval left the country with problems its government was not designed to handle. When President Johnson took office in April of 1865, Congress was split over how to proceed with Reconstruction. It was his responsibility to resolve this conflict and lead the nation certain action. However, due to his stubborn and politically ignorant nature, Johnson unified the conflict in Congress against the Presidency and indirectly brought about his own impeachment.
	In March of 1868, Congress brought nine charges against the President by impeachment. These describe violations of three things: the Tenure of Office Act, the Army Appropriations Act, and the "high duties of office." The integrity of the impeachment process spared Johnson removal from office, an action which would have forever changed the American republic.
	The Tenure of Office Act, passed in 1867, was an attempt to limit Johnson's power within his cabinet. It prevented Johnson from removing any cabinet member who took office during his administration without the approval of the Senate. This was a blatant test of the Constitution, and of President Johnson, and Congress knew it. For it was passed not only to keep Johnson from replacing his Secretary of War, but also to test his stubborn nature. Perhaps the radicals were pleased in August of 1867 when Johnson replaced Stanton with Grant without Senate approval. This would be the straw that broke the camel's back, the event which finally gave the radicals what they needed to impeach the President.
	The Army Appropriations Act was created with similar intent as was the Tenure of Office Act. It was designed to limit Johnson's power as commander in chief. It ordered the President and his Secretary of State to issue all orders through the General of the Army.
	The third charge brought against Johnson was a vague one indeed. To impeach the President on the grounds that he had been "unmindful of the harmony which ought to exist between executive and legislative branches" seems to admit conspiracy.
	It is clear, upon examination of the charges levied against Johnson, that his impeachment was based in some political battle, not in any grave threat to the office of President such as "treason, bribery, or other high crimes." Had Johnson been removed from office, it would have established a president by which Congress could have exercised unchecked power. The role of future Presidents would by reduced, perhaps, to a mere formality due to the political power of Congress and this precedent.

//

Lader, Lawrence. "New York's Bloodiest Week."
American Heritage, June 1959 pp.44-54.

	The of July of 1863 saw the first nationwide military draft. This draft was ordered by Congress on March the third of that year in order to supplement the ranks of the Union Army. On Saturday, the eleventh of July, the provost Marshall of New York let loose the draft upon that city, a draft which would spark the greatest riot in it's history.
	Historian Lawrence Lader, a native New Yorker, freelance writer, and specialist on antebellum New England abolitionism, writes a straightforward article on this riot, "New York's Bloodiest Week." In this article, he attempts to inform the historically illiterate of this great riot. Although he makes little effort to explain the cause or the impact of this riot, he does produce a highly readable chronological story of the actual event.
	Although Lader does not address the topic directly, it is implied that the cause of the riots had little to do with the draft. The introduction of the draft merely set off a wave of anger in a people convinced that the rich were trying to undermine their prosperity. Even in the inflationary period of the Civil War, many people found their low wages met with high prices. The draft was perhaps, "the straw that broke the camel's back" in a long line of what the people considered outright violation of their right to equal treatment. The $300 exemption plan, which only the rich could afford, only served to further anger the people, is a prime example of this.
	The rioting lasted from early Monday the thirteenth until Friday morning when the Mayor announced that the crowds had dispersed. During this time period, an angry mob of near 50,000, mostly Irish males, took revenge upon any group they could pin their economic troubles on. This group would be the Blacks. During a four day period countless lynchings took place. The crowd even went so far as to burn a black orphanage and beat the fleeing children.
	Lader makes no endeavor to conceal the fact that his account of the riot is designed to be highly colorful. In it, he paints the mob as a force of pure evil, the town law enforcement as a incompetent and useless decoration put up by a powerless town government, and the Negro as the white man's scapegoat. Perhaps Lader enjoys the concept of a prejudice North.
	Lader is successful at pointing out the perspective of the New Yorker and his reaction to the riots. For this he turns to a rich and well-researched collection of quotes from Newspapers, and even the diaries of various private citizens. He is also quite successful at telling the story with respect to the city officials faced with the task of controlling such a mob with only a standard police force of 800 officers.
	Overall Lader has produced an excellent and enjoyable account of this most embarrassing event in antebellum America, an event not discussed in satisfactory depth by many texts. Along the way, however, he has left the reader with a number of loose ends. Most striking of these is the conspicuous neglect of the riot's effect on history. Lader does nothing to explain the result of this event. He leaves us abruptly, only to observe that of the 79,975 men conscripted from New York, all but 2,300 were exempted on physical grounds, or paid the $300, about the number that died as a result of the riots.

//

	By 1900 America had reached the epitome of her industrial trend, one which began in the days of Alexander Hamilton. Americans realized, as Hamilton had, that industrialization of the economy was the key to national prosperity. They also realized that Jefferson had correctly seen industrialization as dangerous to the American democracy.
	By 1900 America had fully industrialized her economy. The gold rush was over, and the vision of the utopian frontier had been dispelled. Agriculture gave way to the industries of internal transit and communications. Electricity had made possible the telegraph, the telephone, trolleys, and incandescent light. Railroads had defeated the map and even changed the way Americans kept time. Steel replaced iron. These industries created thousands of wealthy Americans and caused an enormous surge of immigration. Despite the resulting over-crowding, few Americans would argue that industrialization had not made their nation a prosperous one.
	However, the economy was not the only thing to be industrialized during this time. The American democracy had suffered from this overzealous period, just as Jefferson had warned. The huge corporations and trusts that were formed to control America's industry, had extended their influence into Congress. This influence prevented Congress from creating any anti-trust legislation stronger than the anemic Sherman anti-trust act. American cartoonists painted these trusts as giant Senators against whom elected officials had no power. In the cities where industrialization was greatest, so was the corruption of government. Political "machines" arose under the control of bosses. These bosses balanced political power and fought state legislatures for control of the cities.
	American democracy, as established by the Constitution, suffered during this time of industrialism. Americans had been swept away in a great wave of economic upheaval, and gave up much of the democracy given to them by the framers of the Constitution. The greatness of America as a world power and her success as an industrial leader was their reward.

//

	The late 19th century saw the coming of the industrial age, and with it, the ascent of the middle class. Industrialization meant more goods and lower cost, and more white collar jobs. Although the true cultural revolution was to come later, changes in the family unit, consumer behavior, and leisure time activity between 1860 and 1900 brought fundamental change to the lives of most Americans.
	During the late 1800's the American family began to evolve into what we know it as today. This period saw the advent of the nuclear family, as opposed the larger family of the antebellum period. The family life of most Americans was also affected by the shorter work week, and the wave of consumer goods reaching the middle class. Americans began to take pride in their home, and it's interior furnishings. The home was viewed as a place of retreat.
	Consumer behavior was also wildly affected by industrialization. A flood of products affordable to the middle class suddenly became available. What could not be bought outright was often bought on credit, something which was uncommon in the middle class before this time. Perhaps the most significant change in consumer behavior, however, was the mail order catalog. Pioneers like Montgomery Ward and Warren Sears made products available to rural America. Farmers now had access to the booming cities.
	The third factor in this fundamental change was the change in leisure time activity. For the first time in American History, the importance of recreation was an object of American society, as demonstrated by the uprising of amusement parks. This time was also marked by a revival of the art, theater, and changes in music. The shorter work week, mentioned above, was a major force in defining this leisure time. Perhaps most important, however, was the lightening of the domestic burden.
	Before the industrial era, countless hours of the daily schedule were devoted to the purchasing and preparation of food, and the care of laundry. Industry, however, removed much of this burden by 1900. Prepared foods such as breakfast cereals and soups were now readily available, and improvements in stoves aided in preparation. The sewing machine made clothing affordable in quantity, and the washing machine cleaned it. Along with incandescent light, the telephone, and indoor plumbing, everyday life became easier and thus allowed for more recreation.
	In conclusion, this period marked important changes in society which would pave the way for the cultural revolution of the 1920's. The industrial era created the example after which our current lives are patterned. For the first time since the revolution, the American dream had been realized.

//

THE SHIFT OF BANKING FROM PRIVATE INDUSTRY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
A RE-EVALUATION OF THE PANIC OF 1907

	The Industrial Revolution created the need for an efficient method of money distribution in the United States, a need which President Jackson had not foreseen when he prevented the recharter of the National Bank. The end of the 19th century saw this need filled by the rise of such financial giants as John Pierpont Morgan. History has sensationalized the role of these men, in particular J.P. Morgan, beyond the limits of reason, maintaining that their absolute control over the nation's economy extended through the progressive period to be broken only by the creation of the Federal Reserve. In reality the influence of these men steadily declined as the national economy grew out of their means during the progressive period. Their importance as financiers of the American economy was long dead by the time the Federal Reserve came to be. It was the inability of the investment bankers to finance the nation's growing economy, as is evident in their failure to contain the panic of 1907, which resulted in the Federal Reserve.
	John Pierpont Morgan was born into wealth in Hartford, Connecticut, on April 17, 1837. His father, Junius Spencer Morgan, owned a prestigious banking firm in London, which he left to his son in his death. This provided young Morgan with European banking connections which would prove vital to his success in American banking. Morgan was a religious man who upheld high moral standards in all of his deals. In 1905, Morgan purchased for the Erie Railroad a controlling interest in the smaller Cincinnati, Hamilton, and Dayton Railroad. When he found its accounting to be fraudulent, however, he purchased the shares back from Erie and forced CH&D into bankruptcy at a loss of 12 million dollars to J.P. Morgan and Co. (Gordon 81). Having seen the corruption of New York under Boss Tweed, Morgan would never trust government. Although he despised physical exercise of any kind, he lived to be 75, an old man in his time.
	J.P. Morgan had a passion for order, and it was his uncanny ability to organize upon which his wealth was based. Morgan first turned his ability to organize on the railroads. His first big deal was the sale of over 87 percent of the shares in the New York Central Railroad to European investors for William Vanderbilt. By keeping the proxies of the new shareholders he secured himself a seat on Central's board (Gordon 84). This began the profitable business of interlocking directorates, the practice of trading investment services for seats on company boards.
	Morgan extended this idea across entire industries. Among his creations are AT&T, General Electric, Westinghouse, and Western Union. By far his largest work, however, was the 1901 creation of U.S. Steel, which he capitalized at 1.5 billion dollars. This giant corporation controlled over 68 percent of the nation's steel production in that year. 
	The height of Morgan's power was in 1895, however, when the populist push for free silver had investors around the country demanding gold for their U.S. financial assets. The resulting panic brought the federal gold reserves to the point of depletion. A bewildered President Cleveland turned to Morgan, who organized an overseas sale of government bonds which raised 3.5 million ounces of gold and effectively saved the federal government from financial collapse (Greider 273).
	The influence of Morgan and the New York investment bankers was great in the 19th century, but it was the 1901 formation of U.S Steel that marked the beginning of their steady loss of power in the economy. Despite its distinction of being the world's first billion dollar corporation, U.S. Steel's share of the national market declined rapidly from its first year of production, never to even approach the tremendous market share it held at its formation (Kolko 37). By this time Morgan had capitalized his corporations far beyond his or anybody else's means to finance them; he often held as little as one percent of a company's stock as a controlling share (Kolko 143). Many corporations, such as General Motors, were turning away from investment banking in favor of internal financing.
	Indeed, even in his own time, the extent of Morgan's economic power was ridiculously overestimated. Morgan and his associates were accused of being a "money trust," a term coined by the Wall Street Journal. This group could presumably determine on a daily basis the prosperity of the national economy. It was assumed that this "money trust" could control interest rates, control the amount of trade on the New York exchange, and start and stifle panics hoping to make large profits by loaning money to depleted banks at high interest rates. The fear of such a "money trust" became so great that it resulted in two Congressional investigations, one of which brought J.P. Morgan himself to testify.
	Morgan was shocked into disbelief by the accusations brought against him. He testified that, "All the banks in Christendom could not control money -- there could be no money trust." Morgan was right, of course. Not even at the peak of his influence could his or any group of private bankers manipulate money to such an extent (Greider 271). The insinuation that the "money trust" was responsible for starting panics was an insult to Morgan. Any banker would be a fool to poison the very environment which provided his prosperity. The idea of a "money trust" was dismissed by Congress and was forgotten with the creation of the Federal Reserve. But the Federal Reserve was not formed to prevent the "money trust" from doing the nation's banking; it was formed because the nation's banking was not being done (Greider 271). The greatest proof we have of this is that Morgan failed to contain the panic of 1907.
	October 21, 1907 found J.P. Morgan in his library with a handful of New York's most influential bankers. They were gathered to discuss the run on the Knickerbocker Trust Company that had started earlier that day. The group decided to wait until the next day before they interfered. The next day the run became worse and found Morgan wiring the Secretary of the Treasury, George Cortelyou, to come to New York. Cortelyou came, and agreed to deposit extra Federal money in New York banks.
	By Thursday Knickerbocker's 60 million dollar reserve was left with only 500,000 dollars, and people continued to flood the streets, waiting in line to withdraw their money (Garraty 318). Morgan raised 25 million, which lasted until Friday, when several New York trusts again approached collapse. Morgan rallied another 13 million to finish the day. The next week the situation had not improved, despite Morgan's issue of 30 million in bonds that Monday. That weekend New York was again threatened with economic collapse when time loans taken out for Tennessee Coal and Iron fell due and TC&I's stock could not be exchanged at a rate high enough to pay the loans. Morgan responded by having U.S. Steel purchase TC&I with an exchange of U.S. Steel stock, which had held its value. The panic ended with U.S. Steel absorbing TC&I (Garraty 323).
	Such ends the historical account of the panic, which seems to give much credit to Morgan and little on Cortelyou or the Federal Government. Although Morgan and his fellow bankers made a remarkable contribution to relieve the situation, the panic could not have been stopped without the help of the government. Unlike previous panics, Morgan could no longer contain the run on money to New York. The panic of 1907 effected the entire nation; people all over the country withdrew money from local banks in record proportions. Roosevelt, who had foreseen the crisis in September, had millions of dollars in Federal deposits distributed throughout the nation, and limited government withdrawals (Greider 274). By the time U.S. Steel merged with TC&I (a measure which Morgan begged Roosevelt to allow), Cortelyou had deposited 63 million in New York banks. After the panic was "over", Cortelyou had another 150 million deposited through November (Greider 274). Unlike the aid Morgan provided, onto which he tacked his standard six percent fee, these federal deposits acted like interest-free loans. We see that J.P. Morgan was hardly the "one man federal reserve" historians have called him (Garraty 317).
	As the panic of 1907 was the beginning of the end for private control of national banking, the Federal Reserve Act was the end of the end. The Act established a method for distributing money to banks much the way Cortelyou did in the panic of 1907. Contrary to common belief, Morgan and his affiliated bankers were in favor of the Federal Reserve Act. Morgan and his assistant, George Perkins, had worked with Congress during the debate over the Aldrich Bill, and the J.P. Morgan and Co. openly encouraged the action of the Federal Reserve.
	Investment banking as Morgan had known it would soon be gone as well. Not long after his death, the Clayton Antitrust Act forbade interlocking directorates. The final blow was dealt in 1933 with the Glass-Steagall Act, which forbade any member of an investment banking firm to sit on the board of directors of any client company.
	Through examination of the events of the Progressive era, it is clear that the great investment bankers did not triumph in the panic of 1907, but displayed their dependence on the Federal Government. The Federal Reserve was created out of need for the effective banking of a national economy which had steadily grown out of the hands of these investment bankers.

//

	Woodrow Wilson's first term as President of the United States was a highly successful one. Wilson was a highly ideological man; he had a vision of how a thing ought to be and systematically attacked the issue until it conformed to his vision. The issues of the tariff, federal banking, regulation of industry, and social justice are excellent examples of his highly effective and ideological approach.
	Wilson's first significant action as President was to present his tariff message to Congress. Despite partisan controversy, Wilson's skilled politics quickly resulted in the Underwood-Simmons tariff, which called for a tremendous cut in tariff rates. Even before the aftermath of the tariff dispute had been cleared away, Wilson attacked the banking issue. Here he was able to expedite a compromise and pass the Federal Reserve Act. This act created the first practical banking system since Andrew Jackson had destroyed Hamilton's bank.
	Wilson chased the trust issue. He corrected for the vague Sherman Anti-Trust Act by passing the Clayton Act in 1914. This bill came down hard on trusts and supported organized labor by permitting strikes. Wilson also took a firm stand on social justice. The Keating-Owen act, for example, discouraged child labor by prohibiting the interstate transport of products made by children.
	Here we see President Wilson's ideology impact America in a profound way. We see an agenda based upon strong conviction and realized through political wit. Besides Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson is the only other Progressive President to truly advance American democracy.

//

Macklis, Roger M. "The Great Radium Scandal."
Scientific American, August 1993 pp.94-99.

	On Thursday, March 31, 1932, Eben M. Byers died, the victim of a mysterious illness which would later be linked with the thousands of bottles of the patent medicine Radithor, which he had consumed over a five year period of time. The author, who is chairman of the department of radiation oncology at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, wrote this article after he stumbled upon some empty bottles of Radithor in a medical antique shop. In this article he attempts to show, while exposing the almost humorous absurdity of the patent medicine obsession, that the event of Byers death resulted in modern medicinal regulation.
	Eben M. Byers was an upstanding New Yorker. A millionaire socialite, powerful athlete, and well-known ladies' man, he personified the roaring twenties. Soon after his return from the 1927 Harvard-Yale golf tournament, he complained of a pain in his arm that would not go away. His doctor suggested he try Radithor, a tonic of triple-distilled water and radium, billed to cure high blood pressure, impotence, and more than 150 other "endocrinologic" maladies. Soon Byers began consuming several bottles a day. He told his friends that it made him feel "invigorated" again. Soon he was sending the elixir to his friends and even feeding the expensive remedy to his race horses.
	Fascination with radiation therapy began in the late 18th century when it was found that water from certain European hot springs, long touted for their healthful properties, contained radium. It was found that mild doses of radium would rejuvenate vitamin-starved rats for a short period of time. It was speculated that radiation might stimulate the endocrine glands, which, in 1923, were found to regulate the body's use of sugar. William Bailey, a Harvard dropout who went under the self-assumed title of Doctor, jumped on this theory and turned it into the greatest of his numerous scams.
	The praise of a New York Times article which read, "Science To Cure All Living Dead," together with testimony from enthusiasts like Byers, made Bailey a rich man. Bailey jumped at the chance to present his theories at legitimate gatherings. At a meeting of the American Chemical Society in Washington D.C. he shouted, "We have cornered aberration, disease, old age, and in fact life and death themselves in the endocrines! In and around these glands must center all future efforts for human regeneration!" Bailey followed the success of Radithor with such products as the Radioendocrinator, a leather harness filled with radium to be worn around the neck, which cost 1000 dollars. Bailey also marketed the Bioray, a radioactive paperweight advertised as a "miniature sun"; the Adenoray, a radioactive belt clip; and the Thoronator, a refillable "health spring for every home or office."
	The FDA issued warnings regarding such patent medicines, but it had no legal power. It was the Federal Trade Commission which charged Bailey, on February 5, 1930, with false advertising. It was around this time when Byers began complaining of aches and pains. Before long his teeth began to fall out. By the end he could neither speak nor walk. His bones were decaying; holes were forming in his skull. After his death, his bones, when placed on film, left an exposure. Citizens soon came forward to turn in their radioactive medicines. Health officials pulled radioactive products from store shelves. Soon the FDA was given new legal powers regarding the regulation of medicines.
	Although Macklis is successful in telling us a very interesting story, he fails in explaining how the death of Eben Byers actually affected legislation. Obviously, the circumstances of Byers' death might have resulted in loss of public interest in radioactive medicine, but the events which resulted in the federal regulation of medicine, as we have today, are not explained. To compound this ridiculous oversight, Macklis presents his story without any regard for either chronological or logical order. Instead, he tells us a story broken by idle commentary and cluttered by gaudy overuse of the adjective.
	The most resounding question in this reader's mind, however, concerns the actual benefit of radioactivity. Macklis describes the Major of New York, reluctant to give up his radioactive medicine because it made him "feel so good." Why were the vitamin-starved rats rejuvenated? Does radioactivity stimulate the endocrine glands? Modern science has answered these questions, but Macklis has not.
	What we are left with, then, is an article published in a prestigious journal which neither presents any new scientific information, nor provides any coherent historical information. Such an article is useful only because it tells us about an interesting true event, but not that it tells us of this event in any compelling or constructive manner.

//