Chapter 9 Documents-APUSHistory
Eric Canal
In the days before the railroads, canals were seen as thebest way to move both people and goods into the interior.
Map of the Erie Canal
The Erie Canal was one of the most
difficult engineering challenges of its time. No
one had ever built a canal more than thirty miles
long before 1817. The Erie Canal was 363 miles
long from Albany to Buffalo with 83 locks. …
The engineers have to clear the land, build locks
for boats to move through different water levels,
build the towpath for mules and make bridges. A
ton of flour transported from Buffalo to Albany
would cost $100 by land; but only $10 by canal.
The Erie Canal soon made New York City the
largest and wealthiest city in the nation.
Canal_Map.
http://northcoastcafe.typepad.com/north_coast_c
afe/canal%20map.jpg. Digital Image. 26 Feb.
2010.--- Map of the Erie Canal.
Cotton Mills/Lowell Mills
America’s first “factory town”,
Lowell m Massachusetts
boasted several cotton mills.
Textile factory owners at
Lowell recruited farm girls
from New England, subjected
them to strict rules, and
transformed their” company
town” into the “Manchester
of America”. Here, the cotton
mills at Lowell, Massachusetts
are shown in the 1850’s.
Pearson Education Inc.
The Harbinger, Female Workers of Lowell (1836)
We have lately visited the cities of Lowell [Mass.] and Manchester [N.H.] and have had an opportunity of examining the factory system more
closely than before. We had distrusted the accounts which we had heard from persons engaged in the labor reform now beginning to agitate
New England. We could scarcely credit the statements made in relation to the exhausting nature of the labor in the mills, and to the manner in
which the young women-the operatives-lived in their boardinghouses, six sleeping in a room, poorly ventilated.
We went through many of the mills, talked particularly to a large number of the operatives, and ate at their boardinghouses, on purpose to
ascertain by personal inspection the facts of the case. We assure our readers that very little information is possessed, and no correct
judgments formed, by the public at large, of our factory system, which is the first germ of the industrial or commercial feudalism that is to
spread over our land. . . .
In Lowell live between seven and eight thousand young women, who are generally daughters of farmers of the different states of New
England. Some of them are members of families that were rich in the generation before. . . .
The operatives work thirteen hours a day in the summer time, and from daylight to dark in the winter. At half past four in the morning the
factory bell rings, and at five the girls must be in the mills. A clerk, placed as a watch, observes those who are a few minutes behind the time,
and effectual means are taken to stimulate to punctuality. This is the morning commencement of the industrial discipline (should we not
rather say industrial tyranny?) which is established in these associations of this moral and Christian community.
At seven the girls are allowed thirty minutes for breakfast, and at noon thirty minutes more for dinner, except during the first quarter of the
year, when the time is extended to forty-five minutes. But within this time they must hurry to their boardinghouses and return to the factory,
and that through the hot sun or the rain or the cold. A meal eaten under such circumstances must be quite unfavorable to digestion and health,
as any medical man will inform us. After seven o'clock in the evening the factory bell sounds the close of the day's work.
Thus thirteen hours per day of close attention and monotonous labor are extracted from the young women in these manufactories. . . . So
fatigued-we should say, exhausted and worn out, but we wish to speak of the system in the simplest language-are numbers of girls that they
go to bed soon after their evening meal, and endeavor by a comparatively long sleep to resuscitate their weakened frames for the toil of the
coming day.
When capital has got thirteen hours of labor daily out of a being, it can get nothing more. It would be a poor speculation in an industrial point
of view to own the operative; for the trouble and expense of providing for times of sickness and old age would more than counterbalance the
difference between the price of wages and the expenses of board and clothing. The far greater number of fortunes accumulated by the North
in comparison with the South shows that hireling labor is more profitable for capital than slave labor.
Now let us examine the nature of the labor itself, and the conditions under which it is performed. Enter with us into the large rooms, when the
looms are at work. The largest that we saw is in the Amoskeag Mills at Manchester. . . . The din and clatter of these five hundred looms,
under full operation, struck us on first entering as something frightful and infernal, for it seemed such an atrocious violation of one of the
faculties of the human soul, the sense of hearing. After a while we became somewhat used to it, and by speaking quite close to the ear of an
operative and quite loud, we could hold a conversation and make the inquiries we wished.
The girls attended upon an average three looms; many attended four, but this requires a very active person, and the most unremitting care.
However, a great many do it. Attention to two is as much as should be demanded of an operative. This gives us some idea of the application
required during the thirteen hours of daily labor. The atmosphere of such a room cannot of course be pure; on the contrary, it is charged with
cotton filaments and dust, which, we are told, are very injurious to the lungs.
On entering the room, although the day was warm, we remarked that the windows were down. We asked the reason, and a young woman
answered very naively, and without seeming to be in the least aware that this privation of fresh air was anything else than perfectly natural,
that "when the wind blew, the threads did not work well." After we had been in the room for fifteen or twenty minutes, we found ourselves,
as did the persons who accompanied us, in quite a perspiration, produced by a certain moisture which we observed in the air, as well as by the
heat. . . .
The young women sleep upon an average six in a room, three beds to a room. There is no privacy, no retirement, here. It is almost impossible
to read or write alone, as the parlor is full and so many sleep in the same chamber. A young woman remarked to us that if she had a letter to
write, she did it on the head of a bandbox, sitting on a trunk, as there was no space for a table.
So live and toil the young women of our country in the boardinghouses and manufactories which the rich an influential of our land have built
for them.
http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/1482/1517621/primarysources3_9_2.html
Henry Clay, "Defense of the American System" (1832)
I have now to perform the more pleasing task of exhibiting an imperfect sketch of the existing state of the unparalleled
prosperity of the country. On a general survey, we behold cultivation extended, the arts flourishing, the face of the country
improved; our
people fully and profitably employed, and the public countenance exhibiting tranquility, contentment and happiness. And
if we descend into particulars, we have the agreeable contemplation of a people out of debt, land rising slowly in value,
but in a secure and
salutary degree; a ready though not extravagant market for all the surplus productions of our industry; innumerable flocks
and herds browsing and gamboling on ten thousand hills and plains, covered with rich and verdant grasses; our cities
expanded, and whole villages springing up, as it were, by enchantment; our exports and imports increased and increasing;
our tonnage, foreign and coastwise, swelling and fully occupied; the rivers of our interior animated by the perpetual
thunder and lightning of countless steam-boats; the currency sound and abundant; the public debt of two wars nearly
redeemed; and, to crown all, the public treasury overflowing, embarrassing Congress, not to find subjects of taxation, but
to select the objects which shall be liberated from the impost. If the term of seven years were to be selected, of the greatest
prosperity which this people have enjoyed since the establishment of their present constitution, it would be exactly that
period of seven years which immediately followed the passage of the tariff of 1824.
This transformation of the condition of the country from gloom and distress to brightness and prosperity, has been mainly
the work of American legislation, fostering American industry, instead of allowing it to be controlled by foreign
legislation, cherishing foreign
industry. The foes of the American System, in 1824, with great boldness and confidence, predicted, 1st. The ruin of the
public revenue, and the creation of a necessity to resort to direct taxation. The gentleman from South Carolina, (General
Hayne,) I believe, thought that the tariff of 1824 would operate a reduction of revenue to the large amount of eight
millions of dollars. 2d. The destruction of our navigation. 3d. The desolation of commercial cities. And 4th. The
augmentation of the price of objects of consumption, and further decline in that of the articles of our exports. Every
prediction which they made has failed-utterly failed. Instead of the ruin of the public revenue, with which they then sought
to deter us from the adoption of the American System, we are now threatened with its subversion, by the vast amount of
the public revenue produced by that system. . . .
If the system of protection be founded on principles erroneous in theory, pernicious in practice-above all if it be
unconstitutional, as is alledged, it ought to be forthwith abolished, and not a vestage of it suffered to remain. But, before
we sanction this sweeping denunciation, let us look a little at this system, its magnitude, its ramifications, its duration, and
the high authorities which have sustained it. We shall see that its foes will have accomplished comparatively nothing, after
having achieved their present aim of
breaking down our iron-founderies, our woollen, cotton, and hemp manufactories, and our sugar plantations. The
destruction of these would, undoubtedly, lead to the sacrifice of immense capital, the ruin of many thousands of our
fellow citizens, and incalculable
loss to the whole community. But their prostration would not disfigure, nor produce greater effect upon the whole system
of protection, in all its branches, than the destruction of the beautiful domes upon the capitol would occasion to the
magnificent edifice which they surmount. Why, sir, there is scarcely an interest, scarcely a vocation in society, which is
not embraced by the beneficence of this system.
It comprehends our coasting tonnage and trade, from which all foreign tonnage is absolutely excluded.
It includes all our foreign tonnage, with the inconsiderable exception made by the treaties of reciprocity with a few
foreign powers.
It embraces our fisheries, and all our hardy and enterprising fishermen.
It extends to almost every mechanic and: to tanners, cordwainers, tailors, cabinet-makers, hatters, tinners, brass-workers,
clock-makers, coach-makers, tallow-chandlers, tracemakers, rope-makers, cork-cutters, tobacconists, whip-makers, papermakers, umbrellamakers, glass-blowers, stocking-weavers, butter-makers, saddle and harness-makers, cutlers, brushmakers, book-binders, dairy-men, milk-farmers, black-smiths, typefounders, musical instrument-makers, basket-makers,
milliners, potters, chocolatemakers,
floor-cloth-makers, bonnet-makers, hair-cloth-makers, copper-smiths, pencilmakers, bellows-makers, pocket bookmakers, card-makers, glue-makers, mustardmakers, lumber-sawyers, saw-makers, scale-beam-makers, scythe-makers,
wood-sawmakers,
and many others. The mechanics enumerated, enjoy a measure of protection adapted to their several conditions, varying
from twenty to fifty per cent. The extent and importance of some of these artizans may be estimated by a few particulars.
The tanners, curriers, boot and shoe-makers, and other workers in hides, skins and leather, produce an ultimate value per
annum of forty millions of dollars; the manufacturers of hats and caps produce an annual value of fifteen millions; the
cabinet-makers twelve millions; the manufacturers of bonnets and hats for the female sex, lace, artificial flowers, combs,
&c. seven millions; and the manufacturers of glass, five millions.
It extends to all lower Louisiana, the Delta of which might as well be submerged again inthe Gulf of Mexico, from which
it has been a gradual conquest, as now to be deprived of the protecting duty upon is great staple.
It effects the cotton planter himself, and the tobacco planter, both of whom enjoy protection.
The total amount of the capital vested in sheep, the land to sustain them, wool, woolen manufacturers, and woollen
fabrics, and the subsistence of the various persons directly or indirectly employed in the growth and manufacture of the
article of wool, is estimated at
one hundred and sixty-seven millions of dollars, and the number of persons at one hundred and fifty thousand.
The value of iron, considered as a raw material, and of its manufacturers, is estimated at twenty-six millions of dollars per
annum. Cotton goods, exclusive of the capital vested in the manufacture, and of the cost of the raw material, are believed
to amount annually, to about twenty millions of dollars.
These estimates have been carefully made, by practical men of undoubted character, who have brought together and
embodied their information. Anxious to avoid the charge of exaggeration, they have sometimes placed their estimates
below what was believed to be
the actual amount of these interests. With regard to the quantity of bar and other iron annually produced, it is derived from
the known works themselves; and I know some in western States which they have omitted in their calculations. . . .
When gentlemen have succeeded in their design of an immediate or gradual destruction of the American System, what is
their substitute? Free trade? Free trade! The call for free trade is as unavailing as the cry of a spoiled child, in its nurse's
arms, for the moon, or the stars that glitter in the firmament of heaven. It never has existed, it never will exist. Trade
implies, at least two parties. To be free, it should be fair, equal and reciprocal. But if we throw our ports wide open to the
admission of foreign productions, free of all duty, what ports of any other foreign nation shall we find open to the free
admission of our surplus produce? We may break down all barriers to free trade on our part, but the work will not be
complete until foreign powers shall have removed theirs. There would be freedom on one side, and restrictions,
prohibitions and exclusions on the other. The bolts, and the bars, and the chains of all other nations will remain
undisturbed. It is, indeed, possible, that our industry and commerce would accommodate themselves to this unequal and
unjust, state of things; for, such is the flexibility of our nature, that it bends itself to all circumstances. The wretched
prisoner incarcerated in a jail, after a long time becomes reconciled to his solitude, and regularly notches down the passing
days of his
confinement.
Gentlemen deceive themselves. It is not free trade that they are recommending to our acceptance. It is in effect, the British
colonial system that we are invited to adopt; and, if their policy prevail, it will lead substantially to the re-colonization of
these States, under
the commercial dominion of Great Britain. . . .
Gentlemen are greatly deceived as to the hold which this system has in the affections of the people of the United States.
They represent that it is the policy of New England, and that she is most benefitted by it. If there be any part of this Union
which has been most steady, most unanimous, and most determined in its support, it is Pennsylvania. Why is not that
powerful State attacked? Why pass her over, and aim the blow at New England? New England came reluctantly into the
policy. In 1824 a majority of her delegation was opposed to it. From the largest State of New England there was but a
solitary vote in favor of the bill. That enterprising people can readily accommodate their industry to any policy, provided
it be settled. They supposed this was fixed, and they submitted to the
decrees of government. And the progress of public opinion has kept pace with the developments of the benefits of the
system. Now, all New England, at least in this house (with the exception of one small still voice) is in favor of the system.
In 1824 all Maryland was against it; now the majority is for it. Then, Louisiana, with one exception, was opposed to it;
now, without any exception, she is in favor of it. The march of public sentiment is to the South. Virginia will be the next
convert; and in less than seven years, if there be no obstacles from political causes, or prejudices industriously instilled,
the majority of eastern Virginia will be, as the majority of western Virginia now is, in favor of the American System.
North Carolina will follow later, but not less certainly. Eastern Tennessee is now in favor of the system. And finally, its
doctrines will pervade the whole Union, and the wonder will be, that they ever should have been opposed.
http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/106/109133/ch10_a2_d1.pdf
The Monroe Doctrine (1823)
…In the discussion to which this interest [Russia's on the northwest coast] has given rise, the occasion has been judged
proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American
continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be
considered as subjects for the future colonization by any European powers. . . .
…The political system of the Allied Powers [Holy Alliance] is essentially different in this respect from that of America.
This difference proceeds from that which exists in their prospective [monarchical] governments; and to the defense of our
own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most
enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it,
therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we
should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our
peace and safety…
…With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power, we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But
with the governments [of Spanish America] who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose
independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition
for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition
toward the United States…
…Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that
quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers;
to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to
preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power,
submitting to injuries from none.
But in regard to those [American] continents, circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible
that the Allied Powers should extend their political system to a portion of either continent without endangering our peace
and happiness. Nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own
accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we
look to the the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each
other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. it is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties
to themselves, in the hope that other powers will pursue the same course.
[Baltimore Chronicle, Editorial] We can tell . . . further that this high-toned, independent, and dignified message will
not be read by the crowned heads of Europe without a revolting stare of astonishment. The conquerors of Bonaparte, with
their laurels still green and blooming on their brows, and their disciplined animal machines, called armies, at their backs,
could not have anticipated that their united force would so soon be defied by a young republic, whose existence, as yet,
cannot be measured with the ordinary life of man.
This message itself constitutes an era in American history, worthy of commemoration. . . . We are confident that, on this
occasion, we speak the great body of American sentiment, such as exulting millions are ready to re-echo. . . . We are very
far from being confident that, if Congress occupy the high and elevated ground taken in the Message, it may not, under
the smiles of Divine Providence, be the means of breaking up the Holy Alliance.
Of this we are positively sure: that all timidity, wavering imbecility, and backwardness on our part will confirm these
detested tyrants in their confederacy; paralyze the exertions of freedom in every country; accelerate the fall of those young
sister republics whom we have recently recognized; and, perhaps, eventually destroy our own at the feet of absolute
monarchy. From Messages and Papers of the Presidents, ed. J. D. Richardson, National Archives and Records Administration, (1896), II, 209,
218-219
Rules for Husbands and Wives
(1830)
Mathew Carey
Introduction
As you read this selection, think about the different opinions about women's roles in the home, the family, and society in general. How have those
roles changed over time?
Questions to Consider
1. Explain Carey's view of gender relations in the early nineteenth century.
2. Does Carey's view about this issue reflect the majority opinion of his time?
3. Do you think that applying Carey's rules to nineteenth-century marriage would have changed the family power structure? Explain your
answer.
4. Would these rules be acceptable in today's society? Why or why not?
Source
Having seen various sets of maxims for the conduct of married life, which have appeared to me to contain some very injudicious items, degrading to
wives, sinking them below the rank they ought to occupy, and reducing them in some degree to the level of mere housekeepers, and believing them
radically erroneous, I annex a set which appear more rational and just than most of those which I have seen:
1. A good husband will always regard his wife as his equal; treat her with kindness, respect and attention; and never address her with an air of
authority, as if she were, as some husbands appear to regard their wives, a mere housekeeper.
2. He will never interfere in her domestic concerns, hiring servants, &c.
3. He will always keep her liberally supplied with money for furnishing his table in a style proportioned to his means, and for the purchase of dress
suitable to her station in life.
4. He will cheerfully and promptly comply with all her reasonable requests, when it can be done, without loss, or great inconvenience.
5. He will never allow himself to lose his temper towards her, by indifferent cookery, or irregularity in the hours of meals, or any other
mismanagement of her servants, knowing the difficulty of making them do their duty.
6. If she have prudence and good sense, he will consult her on all great operations, involving the risque of ruin, or serious injury in case of failure.
Many a man has been rescued from destruction by the wise counsels of his wife. Many a foolish husband has most seriously injured himself and
family by the rejection of the advice of his wife, fearing, lest, if he followed it, he would be regarded as ruled by her! A husband can never procure a
counsellor more deeply interested in his welfare than his wife.
7. If distressed, or embarrassed in his circumstances, he will communicate his situation to her with candour, that she may bear his difficulties in mind,
in her expenditures. Women sometimes, believing their husband's circumstances to be far better than they really are, expend money which cannot
well be afforded, and which, if they knew their real situation, they would shrink from expending.
1. A good wife will always receive her husband with smiles,—leave nothing undone to render home agreeable—and gratefully reciprocate his
kindness and attention.
2. She will study to discover means to gratify his inclinations, in regard to food and cookery; in the management of her family; in her dress, manners
and deportment.
3. She will never attempt to rule, or appear to rule her husband. Such conduct degrades husbands—and wives always partake largely of the
degradation of their husbands.
4. She will, in every thing reasonable, comply with his wishes—and, as far as possible, anticipate them.
5. She will avoid all altercations or arguments leading to ill-humour—and more especially before company.
6. She will never attempt to interfere in his business, unless he ask her advice or counsel, and will never attempt to control him in the management of
it.
Should differences arise between husband and wife, the contest ought to be, not who will display the most spirit, but who will make the first
advances. There is scarcely a more prolific source of unhappiness in the married state, than this "spirit," the legitimate offspring of pride and want of
feeling.
Perhaps the whole art of happiness in the married state, might be compressed into these two maxims—"Bear and forbear"—and "let the husband treat
his wife, and the wife treat her husband with as much respect and attention, as he would a strange lady, and she a strange gentleman." And surely this
is not an extravagant requisition.