LAD #25: Dawes Act

LAD #25: Dawes Act

The Dawes Act is split into eleven sections and it was made to allow Indians to own individual plots of land and for them to have the the same property rights as Americans. In Section 1, it gives the President the power to allot land to Indians based on a series of guidelines, to improve agriculture and grazing on the reservations. Section 2 states that the Indians can chose the plots of land they want, and it goes over the rules when two pick the same plot or when someone entitled to land does not choose a plot. Section 3 determines the who the agents are that oversee these procedures. Section 4 states that Indians that do not live on a reservation can apply the same guidelines to unclaimed land. Section 5 goes over how the land will be held by the government for the Indian and his heir for twenty five years, at which point the patent can essentially be renewed. It also discusses the nuances of the government re-purchasing the land from the Indians and forms of equitable payment. Section 6 states that the Indians are subject to the laws of the states they reside in, but also that they will be given equal protection under the law as U.S. citizens. Section 7 says that the Secretary of the Interior can do as he sees fit to fairly distribute land where irrigation affects it. Section 8 specifies which territories are not included. Section 9 states that the treasury allotted one hundred thousand dollars to the purchase of this land if the Indians choose at any point to sell it. Section 10 maintains the government's ability to sequester this land for railroads, telegraphs, etc. Finally, Section 11 states that this act does not stop the relocation of a certain tribe.

This reminded me of the Trail of Tears, the horrible relocation of the civilized five Indian tribes of the Southeast. This act shows some improvement in the treatment of Indians, but still shows the interference of the American government in the lives of the Indians. 

LAD #24: Cross of Gold

LAD #24: Cross of Gold

Bryan opened his speech by stating that he fighting for a honorable cause, that of humanity, that his battle was not about people, but principles. He claimed that the issue being debated was perhaps the most hotly contested issue in American history, the issue over money in America. Bryan then went on to say that the government must also represent the pioneers at the heart of the country and not just the big businessmen on the East Coast. He stated that their fight was one in defense, not on the offensive. Next, Bryan evoked Jackson, stating how he and his faction of the Democratic Party were against large accumulation of wealth, and how he supported the income tax. He defended the tax by stating that men should be willing to pay their fair share for a government that protects them. Bryan then transitions again to the right of the government to coin money, stating that it should be the responsibility of the government, not the banks. At this point, Bryan's speech begins to gain more momentum as he starts talking about the issue over the gold standard or bimetallism. He describes the gold standard as extremely deadly for many Americans. He then describes how many gold standard supporters have fallen out of favor, like McKinley. He then says that history is not in favor of the gold standard because no country has ever officially accepted in. According to him, if it was so great, then it would already be in use and there would be no plan to make an international agreement to move to bimetallism. He then begins to wrap up his speech, stating that America relies on the masses, that without the farms, the cities would not survive. He describes a resurgence of independence and how America should pave the way for England, not the other way around. He states that he is willing to fight against the gold standard on whatever grounds. Finally, he finishes by evoking Christian imagery with the description of crucifixion on a gold cross.

This reminded me of Andrew Jackson's specie circular policy, in which the use of hard money was enforced, as opposed to the soft money being issued from wildcat banks. This is similar because Jackson was returning to a stable form of currency, like the people that supported the gold standard, who opposed Bryan.

LAD #23: Populist Party Platform

 

LAD #23: Populist Party Platform

The Populist Party Platform is broken into three main parts, the Preamble, the Platform, and the Expression of Sentiments. In the Preamble, there overall issues America and the government are discussed. The issues of corruption, poverty among the working class, bad working conditions, and the inability to unionize are all mentioned. The devaluation of silver is also mentioned, as is the desire to use silver more to make transactions easier due to a greater supply of currency. Finally, the Preamble concludes with the party's desire to attain equality for all and eliminate injustice and poverty. Next is the Platform. In this section, they state that they are pro-unions, want the money to go to those who earn it and make the products, and that government should own the railroads. They also mentioned some economic policies, like wanting the unlimited use of silver and gold for coins, more money in circulation, a graduated income tax, less money in government, and government banks for the people. They also state that they want telephone and telegraph companies controlled by the government. Finally, they say that they want the excess land given to the railroads to be used for settlers. The last section is the Expression of Sentiments, in which they state they plan to create a free, just, and secret ballot, to use to income tax to reduce other taxes, to make pensions for veterans, improve working conditions, restrict immigration, abolish mercenary groups like the Pinkertons, limit the term amount of the president to one, and more.

This reminded me of the Know Nothing Party because the Know Nothing Party also wanted to restrict immigration. Even though it was for a different reason, the Populist Party also wanted to decrease immigration into America.

LAD #22: McKinley's War Message

LAD #22: McKinley's War Message

McKinley prefaces his message to Congress by stating that it is his Constitutional duty to inform them on his opinions, in the case on the War in Cuba and Spanish-American relations. He then continues to say that the conflicts in Cuba have caused the U.S. to have to deal with establishing neutrality policies, and that some of the atrocities of war have actually offended the American people. He also mentions the economic consequences of the conflict for Americans that invested in Cuban trade, saying that this in fact has caused unrest in America. McKinley believes that no side can win without one or the other being completely destroyed/exhausted, and he says that the U.S. will not accept that outcome. Next, McKinley refers back to his statements in December. He states what options the U.S. has and that recognizing independence or belligerence would cause problems and that annexation is not even being considered. Then, McKinley says that a proclamation of neutrality would also accomplish nothing because it would recognize the insurgents as belligerents. He eventually comes to the conclusion that the right decision is to forcefully end the war as a third party. He states that the U.S. is in fact justified in doing so for four reasons. One, the close proximity to Cuba makes it America's responsibility. Two, the rights and lives of Americans in Cuba need protection. Three, the conflict is detrimental to American trade and commerce. Finally, the most important, four, the conflict is a "menace to our peace," and American ships are at risk of seizure close to home. Next, he discusses the USS Maine, which was destroyed by a submarine mine in Havana, killing 258 soldiers. McKinley says that that proves the need to intervene. According to him, the length of the conflict proves that it will not end by itself, so he asks Congress for the power to use the military to intervene. He adds at the end that the Spanish are willing to stop the fighting and make peace.

This reminded me of how the United States entered World War I after the sinking of the Lusitania because submarines had attacked a ship with Americans aboard. This is similar to the destruction of the USS Maine leading to the Spanish-American War.



LAD #21: Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth

http://i0.wp.com/listabuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/andrew-carnegie.jpg

LAD #21: Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth

The document begins by discussing the way the wealth gap and the difference in standard of living between the rich and the poor had increased up to that point, how the upper class mansions were contrasted by the working class homes and apartments. Carnegie then says that it is a good thing, and that if the world were to go back to the way it was, with everyone living in "squalor," it would be very detrimental to society. Next, he questions what the proper way to distribute wealth is, clarifying his definition by excluding competence, wages needed to provide for oneself and one's family. Carnegie offers three options. The first, passing on wealth to family, he scorns, stating he does not agree with passing on wealth to a few based on the vanity of the dying owner. In fact, he says that it is bad for the people receiving the money because it puts an unnecessary responsibility on them. The second possibility is to give the money to the public when they die. This plan only makes it less likely that the wishes of the former owner are carried out. He then mentions how estates are deservedly taxed heavily after death because the former owner was clearly very selfish in life. According to Carnegie, the only good plan is for the rich to live modestly and then use their money for the good of the public through trust funds while they are alive. He argues that it is much more beneficial for large amounts of wealth to be in the hands of a few than smaller amounts in the hands of all.

 http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/karl_marx.jpg

This reminded me of Karl Marx and Communism because Carnegie's ideas on the distribution of wealth contrast those of Marx to a great extent.