A Life in the 20th Century

Description

According to the Gilder Lehrman website:

"Distinguished American historian and counselor to presidents, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. had a ringside seat to the most pivotal moments of the 20th century. Schlesinger's Journals: 1952-2000, the second volume of his journals, were published in 2007 to great acclaim. The Gilder Lehrman Institute presents a 2001 Historians' Forum that he delivered on the first volume of his journals, A Life in the Twentieth Century: Innocent Beginnings, 1917-1950. Schlesinger focuses particularly on how perceptions of progress, government, and human nature changed in the face of the two World Wars and the rise of government forms that challenged democracy."

Introducing Taxation

field_image
Drawing, Tax law, 1974, Art Wood, LOC
Question

How did the federal government raise money in the early years of the United States?

Answer

The founders pondered this question from the very beginnings of the republic. Although the Articles of Confederation directed each state to contribute money voluntarily in proportion to the land values within the state, there was no provision compelling the states to pay. Many states initially contributed little or nothing toward the federal government’s operations. Raising revenue became much easier after Americans ratified the U.S. Constitution, but taxation continued to present challenges.

One potential revenue source involved the sale of western lands. In his plan to organize the Northwest Territory—that area north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi—Thomas Jefferson proposed that Congress give the land away rather than selling it, because future taxes would provide a return on the new nation’s investment. However, when legislators laid out the process by which the territories became states in the Northwest Ordinances of 1784, 1785, and 1787, they directed that the land be sold. Although land sales helped to raise some revenue, it was not enough to make the new nation solvent.

Fortunately, the United States Constitution gave Congress the teeth to compel states and individuals to pay taxes.

Fortunately, the United States Constitution gave Congress the teeth to compel states and individuals to pay taxes. There was no income tax, so most federal revenue came from customs duties, land sales, and taxes levied on goods such as distilled spirits, slaves, and tobacco. In 1789, Congress created the Department of Treasury to manage the nation’s money, and the Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed innovative ways to collect revenue. Some of his ideas, such as granting subsidies to domestic manufacturers and imposing tariffs on imported goods to encourage “buying American,” were too controversial for Congress to implement. However, Congress enacted some of his other proposals, such as a Bank of the United States, which held all federal money. The federal government owned 20% of the bank’s stock, and private investors purchased the rest of the stock.

Congress also approved Hamilton’s suggestion to levy a 25% tax on whiskey, placing the payment burden on farmers, who paid the tax when they delivered grain to the distillery. Starting in 1791, farmers on the western edge of several states petitioned Congress for relief. After winning only small concessions, they mounted increasingly aggressive demonstrations against the tax. Unrest escalated in July of 1794, when 7,000 farmers marched toward Pittsburgh to protest the whiskey tax. President Washington and Secretary Hamilton led 13,000 soldiers to Western Pennsylvania to quell the rebellion. When forces arrived in September of 1794, the demonstrators were gone. Two men were convicted of high treason but Washington later pardoned them. Even after the government put down the rebellion, the whiskey tax proved difficult to collect, and Congress repealed it after Jeffersonian Republicans came to power in 1800.

Taxes, custom duties, and many other means of generating revenue bred resentment among citizens long before the Revolution, yet Congress had to find ways to collect the revenue required for the government’s operation. Despite the best efforts of Congress and others, however, Americans have never embraced taxes. In fact, most still look upon them as, at best, a necessary evil.

For more information

Envisaging the West: Thomas Jefferson and the Roots of Lewis and Clark. University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Center for Digital Research in the Humanities.

“Tax History Museum.” The Tax History Project. Paul Milazzo and Joseph J. Thorndike.

Bibliography

Adams, Charles. These Dirty Rotten Taxes: The Tax Revolts that Built America. New York: Free Press, 1998.

Brownlee, W. Elliott. Taxation in America: A Short History. New York: Cambridge UP, 2004.

Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. New York: Penguin Press, 2004.

Forsythe, Dall W. Taxation and Political Change in the Young Nation, 1781-1833. New York: Columbia UP, 1977.

Onuf, Peter S. Statehood and Union: A History of the Northwest Ordinance. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1987.

Weathering the Storm

Description

According to BackStory:

"In 1815, a volcanic eruption in Indonesia sent enough ash into the sky to disrupt the world’s weather for the next year. In New England, 1816 became known as 'The Year Without a Summer.' Snow fell in June and July. Crops and animals died. Tens of thousands of people picked up and left; their search for greener pastures became an early chapter in a larger story of westward expansion.

This week on BackStory, we tackle extreme weather: how we’ve tried to predict it, control it, make sense of it. Along the way, we discover that our responses to wind, sleet, and rain have said as much about us as about the natural world."

Why Was the Boston Tea Party Not Stopped by British Troops?

field_image
Destruction of Tea at Boston Harbor, lithograph N. Currier, 1846
Question

Why were the Sons of Liberty not stopped by British troops as they boarded three ships in Boston Harbor on Dec. 16, 1773 (Boston Tea Party)? Were there no Redcoats patrolling the area? How long did the Boston Tea Party last? An hour, two hours? Why weren't they apprehended?

Answer

The tea was on three privately owned merchant ships. One hundred and fourteen chests were on board the Dartmouth, the first ship to arrive in port. The other two ships, the Eleanor and the brig Beaver carried 228 chests between them, along with other cargo. As the ships sailed into Boston Harbor, they each passed by Castle William to the south, which was under the command of a British officer and had upwards of a hundred cannon. When the ships came into the harbor, but before they docked, port officials boarded them. That meant that they had officially reached port and that their movements were now under the command of port officials instead of their captains.

Behind the tea-laden ships, British Admiral John Montagu brought a squadron of warships to prevent the colonists from forcing the ships back out to sea before they were unloaded. This put the captains (and the ships' owners) in a bind. If the tea wasn't unloaded, customs weren't paid. And if the ships tried to sail back out of port, Montagu would stop them and charge them with failing to pay customs on their cargo that was due, according to him, because they had already entered port.

After a few days, the colonists had the ships come in close to Griffin's Wharf. The Sons of Liberty organized a continuous watch of the vessels. Twenty-five men on each shift ensured that the ships were not unloaded under the cover of darkness, or at least to sound an alarm if there was an attempt. The ships' captains came ashore and left the mates on board. The situation remained the same for more than two weeks.

Inside Castle William

Thomas Hutchinson, the royal governor of colonial Massachusetts, clearly understood that the colonists were angry, but he did not anticipate that they would damage the cargo. He was counting on the fact that after 20 days without having paid customs, the customs authorities—with the assistance of British sailors and soldiers—could legally impound the tea from the ships, and then, from Castle William, disburse it in small amounts to a few merchants who could resell it. This would circumvent the colonists' effort to make sure that the tea did not enter Massachusetts. Hutchinson and the apprehensive merchants who were willing to receive the tea had holed up with the troops in Castle William.

Boston was not under martial law, so soldiers were not policing the city, although Hutchinson could have brought a detachment of soldiers in, had he known beforehand the particulars of a threat. He did not post a military guard at the wharf, however, perhaps to avoid provoking a confrontation with the crowds keeping watch there.

On December 14th, when the 20 days of waiting were almost up, Hutchinson wrote his brother Elisha about the excited Bostonians, "I hardly think they will attempt sending the tea back, but am more sure it will not go many leagues: it seems probable they will wait to hear from the southward, and much may depend on what is done there." (Hutchinson, 96) Yet Hutchinson also believed the colonists might take some form of direct action if an attempt was made to land the tea onto the wharf.

Down at the Wharf

Just after six o'clock on the night of December 16, 1773, a group of about 60 men daubed their faces with burnt cork, coal dust, or donned other makeshift disguises, armed themselves with hatchets, and formed a raiding party. Some of them styled themselves "Indians."

They made their way to the wharf. The Sons of Liberty's watch was already there, and still others joined them, either to assist or simply to see what was happening. The raiding party formed three groups of 50 each, and boarded all of the nearly deserted ships at about the same time. They met no resistance.

Lendall Pitts, the commander of the group that boarded the brig Beaver, "sent a man to the mate, who was on board, in his cabin, with a message, politely requesting the use of a few lights, and the brig's keys—so that as little damage as possible might be done to the vessel;—and such was the case. The mate acted the part of a gentleman altogether. He handed over the keys without hesitation, and without saying a single word, and sent his cabin-boy for a bunch of candles, to be immediately put in use." (Thatcher, 181–2).

The moon shone brightly too, so their work was well lit. The night was very quiet and neither the crowd on the wharf nor the raiding party spoke much. Onlookers at the wharf, as well as the men on some of the closer British ships, however, quite distinctly heard the sounds of the chests being staved in.

The party quickly brought the 342 chests of tea (a total of 90,000 lbs.) onto the deck. They split them open and threw the tea and the chests overboard into the harbor. The party took care that no other property on board the ships was harmed, and that none of the raiders took away any of the tea. They even swept the decks clean of loose tea when they were done. They worked quickly, apprehensive of a possible attack from Admiral Montagu's squadron, part of which was only a quarter of a mile away.

Montagu watched the affair from the fleet, but he took no action because of the cargo ships' position next to the wharf. "I could easily have prevented the Execution of this Plan," he wrote the following day in a report, "but must have endangered the Lives of many innocent People by firing upon the Town." (Labardee, 145) Instead, he rowed ashore and watched from a building nearby, even briefly exchanging taunts with the Indians.

The tea party lasted three hours, finishing around nine o'clock. The raiding party then formed in rank and file by the wharf, and, shouldering their hatchets, marched, accompanied by a fifer, back into town, dispersed, and went home.

The next morning a large, winding mound of loose tea still floated in the harbor, and a party of colonists rowed out in boats and sank it down into the waters with their oars. The British fleet witnessed this, too, but did not interfere.

The disguised men's identities were kept secret by their fellow Bostonians, and Governor Hutchinson was unable to charge the members of the raiding party, but Parliament responded five months later (news traveled back and forth across the ocean very slowly then) with a series of measures meant to force Boston to heel.

Bibliography

Benjamin Bussey Thatcher ("A Bostonian") et al, Traits of the Tea Party; being a memoir of George R. T. Hewes, one of the last of its survivors; with a history of that transaction; reminiscences of the massacre, and the siege, and other stories of old times (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1835).

Peter Orlando Hutchinson, The Diary and Letters of His Excellency Thomas Hutchinson, Esq. (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, & Co., 1884). Benjamin Woods Labaree, The Boston Tea Party (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964).

Taxation to Revolution kmconlin Tue, 11/30/2010 - 20:46
field_image
Impress, Acton, Conservative and Unionist Central Office, 1968, Higher unemploym
Question

What taxes were the colonists required to pay by the British around the years 1760-1776?

Answer

After British victory in the Seven Years War (1756-1763), Parliament attempted to better organize the British Empire. Among other things, Parliament, led by the ministry of George Grenville, enacted the Sugar Act of 1764 and the Stamp Act of 1765, and so for the first time taxed the British North American colonies. The Sugar Act amended the Molasses Act of 1733 by lowering the duty on French West Indian molasses from 6d per gallon to 3d. Reducing the duty made purchase affordable and so encouraged what the higher duty had discouraged.

The colonists denounced the Sugar Act. They reasoned that British subjects had a sacrosanct right to have their property protected. The power to tax threatened property unless the taxing body was chosen by the tax payers and also had to pay the same taxes it required others to pay. The British House of Commons met neither requirement when it taxed the colonies, and so the colonists concluded that taxation without representation violated property rights.

The colonists made the Stamp Act unenforceable

The colonists made the same argument in response to the Stamp Act. But the Sugar Act was enforced primarily on the oceans and by the navy, meaning that the colonists could not physically prevent the tax from being assessed. The stamp tax required that to be legal most paper products—newspapers, court documents, marriage licenses, wills, even playing cards and dice—carry an official stamp. To work the tax depended on colonists within colonial communities selling the stamps, making suspected stamp distributors vulnerable to the pressure of their neighbors. The Grenville ministry announced the stamp tax in February 1765 to go into effect in November. In the intervening months the colonists protested, rioted, and intimidated anyone suspected of taking the office of stamp distributor. Led by the Sons of Liberty, the colonists made the Stamp Act unenforceable before it even began. In 1766 the new Rockingham ministry repealed the Stamp Act but only amended the Sugar Act lowering the duty to 1d per gallon. The experience showed that the colonists opposed all parliamentary taxation but that they could much more easily prevent internal taxes than external ones.

The Chatham ministry came to power in 1767 and enacted new taxes, the Townshend Acts, that year. These external taxes taxed lead, glass, paint, and especially tea. The Townshend Acts provoked the same ideological criticism and led colonists to have grave concerns that British liberty was not safe within the empire. Because the taxes were external they were much harder to prevent but by 1769 the colonists had organized a boycott movement. Growing tensions caused troops stationed on the western frontier to be reassigned to Boston, which led to the famous Boston Massacre on March 5, 1770. The new first minister, Lord North, had already decided to repeal most of the Townshend Acts, which were threatening to tear apart the empire.

It was reasoned that no colonists could fear an act that made them drink cheaper tea

In 1770 North repealed all of the acts except for the tax on tea, the most lucrative of the taxes. The remaining tax kept relations tense and suspicious. Finally in 1773 North sought to resolve the impasse. He replaced the last Townshend Act with the Tea Act of 1773. The act was meant to bail out the East India Company, make clear Parliament’s authority to tax the colonies, and make the price of tea cheaper for colonists than it had been before. North reasoned that no colonists could fear an act that made them drink cheaper tea. He was wrong and the Boston Sons of Liberty threw 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor on December 16, 1773. The Boston Tea Party destroyed tea worth £11,000 or about $1.5 million today. That was the last tax Parliament ever imposed in the colonies. The Tea Party caused the passage of the Coercive Acts of 1774, which were punitive laws meant to punish Massachusetts, but were not taxes. The Coercive Acts led to the first and second Continental Congresses and, ultimately, to the declaration of independence. So taxes did not cause the American Revolution, but taxation without representation did create a climate of suspicion and fear that provoked the events which did.

For more information

Carp, Benjamin. Defiance of the Patriots: The Boston Tea Party and the Making of America, first edition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.

Jensen, Merill. The Founding of a Nation, A History of the American Revolution 1763-1776 Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.

Picturing the American Revolution

Bibliography

Maier, Pauline. From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992.

Morgan, Helen and Edmund S. Morgan. The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to Revolution Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1995.

Thomas, P.D.G. (Peter). Townshend Duties Crisis: The Second Phase of the American Revolution, 1767-1773 Claredon Press, Oxford University Press, 1987.

Scholars in Action: Analyzing an 1804 Inventory

Article Body

Note: Unpublished because content moved to Examples of Historical Thinking.

Scholars in Action presents case studies that demonstrate how scholars interpret different kinds of historical evidence. This 1804 inventory lists the possessions of Thomas Springer of New Castle County, DE. Legal documents, such as tax records or probate inventories, often provide our only information about the lifestyles of ordinary people during the colonial and early national periods.

Such listings of household possessions, from a time when household goods were not widely mass produced, can illuminate a fair amount about a family's routines, rituals, and social relations, as well as about a region's economy and its connections to larger markets. This inventory also contains items that suggest attitudes and policies toward slavery in the Mid-Atlantic states.

Panic of 1873

Question

What was the economic and social impact of the Panic of 1873?

Textbook Excerpt

Textbooks differ in their treatment of the Panic in significant ways. Most tie the depression to the national political controversies surrounding Reconstruction. Too often, textbooks combine the Panic with the political scandals which rocked the Grant administration. While certainly a source of the political crisis facing Republicans in the 1870s, the roots of the Panic run far deeper than merely Grant’s poor political skills.

Source Excerpt

Limited by the amount of gold held in the U.S. Treasury, access to currency and credit contracted sharply, interest rates skyrocketed, and investors were forced to pay off their high stakes gambles (made with cheap paper dollars) with hard-earned gold. Sources bring to light the integral nature of bimetallist theory and its effect on the economy rather than the political climate and scandal that surrounded the Federal Government.

Historian Excerpt

The Panic of 1873 stands as the first global depression brought about by industrial capitalism. It began a regular pattern of boom and bust cycles that distinguish our current economic system and which continue to this day. While the first of many such market “corrections,” the effects of the downturn were severe and, in 1873, unexpected. In 1873 modern economic adjustments were unknown and the ability of national authorities to control the money supply was immature. As a result, the Panic of 1873 led to the longest recorded economic downturn in modern history.

Abstract

Most Americans are familiar with the Great Depression, beginning in 1929, and the economic safety nets established in response to the crisis, such as Social Security and the right to collective bargaining, from 1933 to 1938. Some know of the equally dire economic conditions, starting in 1893, and how this spurred federal progressives like Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson to strengthen public oversight of corporate trusts, child labor, banking, monetary policy, and tariffs. Yet almost no one knows of the profound economic collapse that struck the United States following the Civil War or its equally substantial effect upon the social and political trajectory of the nation. The Panic of 1873 began in Europe, but quickly spread to the United States producing 65 months of depressed economic conditions.

Slavery

Question

What was it like to be a slave in 19th-century America?

Textbook Excerpt

Textbooks treat slavery as primarily an economic institution in which slaves were regarded by their owners as property yet insisted on their own humanity.

Source Excerpt

Taken in its entirety, the letter [from Rachel O’Connor to her sister Mary, January 11, 1836] reveals that hate and cruelty existed alongside love and affection in the slave South.

Historian Excerpt

Historians are less inclined to ask what it was like to be a slave in the abstract than to draw from the historical record to ask what it was like to be a particular enslaved person, say Frederick Douglass or Sally Hemings, to name two of the most famous.

Abstract

Two textbooks for high school students, Appleby et al’s The American Vision (AV) and Boorstin et al’s History of the United States (HUS) offer subtly contrasting answers to this important historical question, but both share a basic narrative voice, characteristic of textbooks, that limits their ability to highlight controversy, explore ambiguity and irony, or raise the problem of how we know what we think we know about slave life. This essay takes a close look at the textbooks’ interpretations of the law of slavery, the relationship between masters and slaves, and their use of primary sources, including the Confessions of Nat Turner.

America on the Move, Part One: Migrations, Immigrations, and How We Got Here

Description

Students and Smithsonian National Museum of American History curators give a tour of the exhibition "America on the Move," which looks at how immigration and migration impacted American history and at the role of various forms of transportation.

To view this electronic field trip, select "America on the Move, Part One: Migrations, Immigrations, and How We Got Here" under the heading "Electronic Field Trips."

The Early Conservation Movement

Question

Was it successful for everyone?

Textbook Excerpt

Most begin by describing how industrialization marred the environment and wasted natural resources. They then describe how President Theodore Roosevelt secured new laws that gave the federal government power to curb environmental abuses and manage natural resources.

Source Excerpt

Sources show how conservation laws designed to protect wasteful and damaging uses of natural resources created entirely new categories of crime. They redefine traditional “pioneering” activities such as carving farmland out of the public domain, building log cabins, and hunting animals for food as the crimes of squatting, timber theft, and poaching. They also reveal how conserving Yosemite and the Grand Canyon for public enjoyment carried significant costs for Native Americans who called these places home.

Historian Excerpt

Historians describe the conservation movement as significantly more diverse, both geographically and politically, than textbook accounts suggest. They tend to emphasize the movement’s strong ties to the larger Progressive movement, explore conservation’s national scope, and highlight the work of local grassroots leaders. Historians have also emphasized the significant human costs and unintended environmental consequences of key conservation policies.

Abstract

Textbooks celebrate the conservation movement as an unalloyed success: New forestry laws prevented widespread clear-cutting, erosion, and fires. Game preservation laws protected wildlife from overhunting. Reclamation laws reformed the haphazard use of scarce water resources in the American West, enabling agricultural expansion. Preservation laws protected areas of scenic beauty from privatization and tacky commercial development. Yet historians have depicted the conservation movement much more broadly—and have assessed its legacy more critically. Why?