The end of the frontier: the United States in 1890 Flashcards
The dominance of laissez-faire:
The organisation of the post-Civil War economy in the United States was dominated by the ideas of ‘laissez-faire’: free competition, individual enterprise, and the minimum of state interference in the economy. The ideas of laissez-faire were often interlinked with Social Darwinism, which applied Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution through the ‘survival of the fittest’ to the sink-or-swim values of commercial competition and free markets. From 1865 to 1890, laissez-faire capitalism drove forwards the massive expansion of the economy and the ride of the great ‘barons’ of American business in steel, oil, sugar, tobacco, public utilities and, above all, the railroads. But laissez-faire ideas spread more widely than the economy. They were closely linked to frontier values of rugged individualism and self-reliance, of hard work and thrift, and of the United States as a ‘land of opportunity’. In the years from 1865 to 1890, laissez-faire ideas reigned supreme in America in the great free-for-all economic rivalries of big business and in the settlement of the West
The most prominent American theorist of Social Darwinism and extreme laissez-faire ideas was William Graham Sumner, Professor of Political Science at Yale University. Sumner regarded millionaires as ‘the naturally selected agents of society’. Sumner’s positive view of laissez-faire was supported by many leading churchmen, who argued that ‘Godliness is in league with riches’. Such views were reinforced by the often lavish philanthropy of super-rich individuals like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller
Laissez-faire (‘hands off or ‘leave it be’):
Laissez-faire was an economic philosophy that originated in France and Britain in the eighteenth century, especially in the theories of Adam Smith in his influential book The Wealth of Nations. Laissez-faire became a dominant influence in the growth of capitalism in the later nineteenth century. It emphasised the importance of market forces and free competition, with minimum regulation or state interference
The consequences of laissez-faire:
Laissez-faire was supposed to ensure that anyone, great or small, could make their fortune if they had the right abilities, work ethic, and/or luck. Similarly, laissez-faire allowed everyone an equal right to fail. But ‘free’ competition was often an illusion at odds with reality. In some areas of the economy, such as textiles and the garment industry, small and medium-sized firms competed and prospered in competitive markets. But the dominant tendency was the consolidation of competing enterprises into large-scale units which rapidly became monopolies
These big businesses did not succeed because of competition: they ruthlessly limited any chance of genuine competition by merging with actual or potential rivals and driving small firms out of business. Cornelius Vanderbilt’s consolidation of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad into an integrated, monopolistic network was a classic example of this. John D. Rockefeller openly admitted that his Standard Oil Trust ‘wanted only the big ones, only those who have already proved they can do a big business. As for the others, unfortunately they will have to die’
On the surface, Rockefeller’s words reflect the brutal realities of the free market, but the markets that he and other industrial giants created were far from ‘free’. Firstly, they were rigged in favour of the large-scale enterprises. Secondly, they were by no means free of ‘state interference’. Big businesses fought hard, and mostly successfully, to avoid state regulation, but they depended heavily on government support for business. State and federal governments set tariffs at the levels business wanted, passed laws to approve railroad and banking schemes, and turned a blind eye to corruption and malpractice
Andrew Carnegie, of the giant US Steel corporation, wrote a book entitled The Triumph of Democracy: Sixty Years’ March of the Republic, in which he marvelled at the success of America and the great achievements made possible by the ideas of laissez-faire. By the 1880s, however, there was a strong reaction against such ideas. Critics of laissez-faire denounced its materialism, its uncontrolled speculation, its corruption, and its tendency to trample over the ‘little man’
The reaction against laissez-faire:
The rising power of the railroads and other big business monopolies aroused criticism and opposition, with demands for state regulation. Several state governments were pushed into passing regulatory legislation by pressures from small farmers, especially the Granger movement, and by the emerging trade unions representing industrial workers, above all the Knights of Labor. But the legislation was rarely effective, and was undermined in 1886 by a conservative judgement by the Supreme Court in favour of the railroad companies. The federal government did little to disturb the dominance of big business, and Congressmen were widely seen as ‘in the pocket’ of the ‘robber barons’ and open to bribery and corruption
Protests against laissez-faire capitalism attracted a lot of support from small farmers in the South and West. The Granger movement had gained 850,000 members by 1885 as local Granges were organised. Pressure from the Granges resulted in increased regulation of railroads and firms controlling the storage and distribution of corn and wheat. Lobbying by the Granger movement brought about a favourable Supreme Court ruling against the State of Illinois in 1877, though this was later nullified by a pro-business Supreme Court ruling in 1886
There were similar protests from industrial workers. The leader of the Knights of Labor, Terrence Powderly, campaigned hard for the eight-hour day and for other restrictions on employers. The Knights of Labor gained a mass membership in the 1880s. At Haymarket Square in Chicago in May 1886, a peaceful Knights of Labor demonstration turned into a major riot when bombs were thrown. 11 people were killed, including 7 policemen. The growing strength of labour unions was shown by the formation of the American Federation of Labour in 1886
The Knights of Labor:
The Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor was a nationwide trade union organisation, first formed in 1869. By the mid-1880s it had more than 100,000 members
Terrence Powderly (1849-1924):
Terrence Powderly was an Irish American lawyer who was leader (Grand Master Workman) of The Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor - the first nationwide trade union organisation - from 1879 to
1893. He was one of many union leaders in favour of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, which aimed to protect jobs against cheap immigrant workers. Powderly wrote numerous books and articles criticising laissez-faire policies and demanding the reform of business and working practices. He was made Commissioner General of Immigration in 1897
Further opposition to laissez-faire:
Many social reformers and academic theorists joined the attack on laissez-faire. Mark Twain’s novel The Gilded Age, published in 1874, was one early example. Henry George wrote Progress and Poverty in 1879, proposing the abolition of private land ownership. His book sold 2 million copies. The American Economic Association (AEA) was formed in 1885 to promote ‘scientific’ economic ideas (heavily influenced by German universities). Henry Carter Adams wrote an article for the AEA in 1887, entitled The Limits of Laissez-faire. These works had considerable influence on political and public opinion and laid the foundations for the strength of Progressivism
Satirists and cartoonists also shaped opinion. Artists such as Thomas Keppler in Puck magazine and Thomas Nast in Harper’s Weekly produced a stream of vivid and hard-hitting cartoons that publicly criticised the high-and-mighty bosses and caught the popular imagination
By the late 1880s, the weight of the attacks on the excesses of laissez-faire was beginning to push reluctant politicians to take some action. During the 1880s 27 states, mostly in the South and West, passed laws aimed at curbing cartels and trusts. In 1887 Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act to outlaw restrictive monopolies, and an Interstate Commerce Commission was set up to investigate and regulate railroad companies. Both Republicans and Democrats committed themselves to take action against the trust; the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed in 1890
But the battles over laissez-faire were by no means over. From the 1890s there were even stronger protests against the evils of big business, from Populists, Socialists and Progressives. Congress and the Presidency continued to grapple with the political problems of regulating the power of business, for another generation, especially during the terms of office of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. But the national mood had changed by 1890 and this was linked to the impact of the end of the frontier
The Turner Thesis:
In 1893, a young historian from Wisconsin, Frederick Jackson Turner, gave an address to the American Historical Association in Chicago. This setting out of the ‘Turner ‘Thesis’ - the idea that American democracy had been shaped by the attitudes and values associated with the western frontier - made an enormous impact on historians and on the public. Turner was announcing that the moving frontier, part of American life since the very first settlements, was now over, that the great empty spaces of the American West had been filled by settlement and civilisation, and that America had truly become a nation from sea to sea
The end of the frontier and its impact:
The Turner Thesis had little to do with economic theory, but it had many affinities with laissez-faire thinking. Turner spoke in glowing terms about the values of free enterprise, of hard work and self-help, and of minimal interference by government. He emphasised these virtues as essentially American in character, and went out of his way to reject the European (often German) ideas that had influenced the academic critics of laissez-faire, such as the American Economic Association
Turner’s Thesis was not only very American, it was also extremely masculine and extremely white. Modern historians and sociologists have attacked Turner for paying little attention to gender, race or class, and for ignoring the victims of the frontier experience, especially Native Americans. But Turner’s view of the end of the frontier has remained influential ever since
The ‘end of the frontier’ was both physical and psychological. The territorial consolidation of the nation was all but complete. Transcontinental railways linked together the whole country. Most of the Western states had been granted full statehood (though Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma did not achieve this until 1912). West coast cities such as San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle were becoming modern urban centres. The Indian Wars had ended, symbolically, with the suppression of the Ghost Dance Rebellion of the Lakota Sioux at Wounded Knee Creek
Now that the dreams of American ‘continentalism’ and Manifest Destiny had been fulfilled, an era had ended. ‘The West’ had always represented limitless space and limitless opportunities, and had moulded the rugged individualism of the American character as people like Frederick Jackson Turner saw it. What, if anything, could replace the lure of the West in stimulating American dynamism now that the moving frontier had come to a full stop?
The United States in 1890:
In 1890 America could no longer be described as an unfinished nation. Territorial consolidation had been achieved. The American economy had been revolutionised since 1865 and was poised for even more dramatic growth in the 1890s. The divisive political legacy of the Civil War had been replaced by a stable and resilient two-party system. Millions of immigrants had been absorbed into a thrusting, urbanised society
The sense of success and national self-confidence in America was real but it was not universally shared. There were still social tensions and ethnic divisions. There were extensive pockets of poverty and deprivation in densely populated cities. There was a rising tide of industrial unrest and agitation by militant union leaders, socialists and anarchists. The position of African-Americans had not been resolved and racial tensions festered in the South. Social reformers and muckraking journalists campaigned passionately against evils such as alcohol, business corruption and discrimination against women. Many of these social tensions would persist long after 1890. The growing pains of a great nation were not yet over
Despite these continuing divisions, America was still a magnet for immigrants hopeful of a better life. Most Americans believed they were fortunate to live in such a prosperous, democratic and optimistic society. In foreign affairs, too, there was idealism and optimism. The United States had remained free from foreign entanglements, was protected by two great oceans, and had secure borders with Mexico to the South and Canada to the North. Many Americans felt that the natural next step would be outward expansion, taking American commerce and American values to the world
