20-2 "Normalcy" and Isolationism
pp. 596-600
Essential Question: Were the policies of the Harding administration good for America?
Subquestions:
a. Was the Kellogg-Briand Pact an effective tool for diplomacy?
b. What was the importance of Harding's tariff policies?
c. Why did Congress change immigration laws in the 1920s? Were these smart changes? (explain)
d. What do Harding's appointments say about his judgment?
Extra: Your opinion:
a. What does Ernesto Galarza mean in One American's Story when he talks about the difference between trust and credit? Is this a universal point of view (true for everyone), or is it particular to the new-immigrant experience?
b. Do you think a man like Harding (as described on p. 596) could get elected today? Explain.
c. Was the Dawes Plan a good idea? Can you think of any modern parallels to it?
Starter Sources:
**Ch. 20 Classzone**
**Teacher Tube**
**Quota system**
**Scandals of Harding administration**
Believe it or not, there are videos about the scandals of the Harding administration--can you find them? Or political cartoons?
What do Harding's appointments say about his judgment?
ReplyDeletePresident Harding is considered by most historians to be the least successful president. The appointments of Andrew Mellon and Herbert Hoover did a great deal to help America. By 1923 the national debt had fallen by 1/3. (Danzer) But Harding proved to be very poor in judgment when he chose the "Ohio Gang" his poker playing friends in his cabinet. He also chose Albert B. Fall who caused the nation a great deal of embarrassment in the teapot dome scandal. It was a disgrace to Hoover, who said..." But my damn friends... they're the ones that keep me walking the floor nights."
In a DBQ article that had a cartoon for the teapot scandal and it really shows viewers what a scandal it was and how powerful the corruption of Hardings administration was.
http://www.historyteacher.net/USProjects/DBQs2000/APUSH2000-DBQ-20.htm
The U.S. had been growing an anti-immigrant attitude or nativist sentiment ever since the 1880's. New immigrants had been arriving from the southern and eastern parts of Europe. There feelings had been growing because people had been involved in post war disputes and were immigrant anarchists and socialists. Many Americans believed them to be radicals and Communists. The demand for unskilled labor had decreased after the war and nativists felt that there shouldn't be so many immigrants in the U.S. By 1921 the number of immigrants in the U.S. had risen to a heart stopping 805,000. COngress decided to create the quota system. This established the maximum number of immigrants allowed into the U.S. from foreign countries. In 1924 the law limited immigration from the European countries to 2% of the nationals living in the U.S. in 1890. The quota system also discriminated against Roman Catholics and Jews along with others in eastern and southern Europe. The system did not apply to the western hemisphere however and many immigrants from Canada and Mexico began crossing the border. The U.S. wanted fewer immigrants to enter into their country and the quota system ultimately achieved their goal of cutting off eastern and southern Europe almost completely.
ReplyDeleteHere is a picture of what U.S. immigration looked like in 1921 and then in 1926.
http://www.phschool.com/curriculum_support/taks/images/PWU4ques10-11.jpg
By judging Harding by whom he appointed, you could say he was smart, however, I believe he was a downright imbecile. Of course, it wasn’t everyone he appointed. For example, in appointing Charles Evans Hughes Secretary of the State (and later chief justice of the Supreme Court), Herbert Hoover as Secretary of Commerce, and Andrew Mellon secretary of the treasury, he managed to reduce the National debt by one third. So why is he an idiot? Because of the OTHER members he appointed. Evidently, his cabinet also included the so-called Ohio gang, the president’s, “rowdy, poker-playing cronies from back home”(Danzer, pg 599). And as a result, members like Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty and Interior Secretary Albert B. Fall, caused Harding, and the entire freaking country for that matter, a whole lot of embarrassment. See, the main problem was that Harding had no freaking idea what he was doing. He didn’t grasp the things he was supposed to deal with as President. As a result of his stupidity, his “great” friends from back home used their positions in office to become wealthy through graft, which is basically a technical term for “they stole it from the government”. So you see why I think he’s a complete idiot……
ReplyDeleteWhat do Harding's appointments say about his judgment?
ReplyDeleteIt is a widely known fact that Warren was a very unsuccessful president. His appointments were only another downfall in his presidency. It seems he played favorites when hiring the, so called, Ohio Gang. Albert B. Fall and Attorney General Harry Daugherty went on to embarrass the administration. Hall, especially, shamed the administration during the Teapot Dome Scandal. “Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall, a Kentuckian, rented government lands to oil companies in return for personal loans. Fall was found guilty of this illegal action and was sentenced to prison in 1931.”(Ohio Gang) The list of offenses goes on and on. Now, there were some upsides to Hardings’s cabinet. The Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon, reduced the country’s debt by 1/3. Now there are a few other successes, but it is clear that Harding’s judgement was poor. I do not think that Harding fully understood his duty as President of the United States. He favored friends in his cabinet, rather than those who were right for the job.
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=2086
What do Hardings appointments say about his judgement?
ReplyDeleteWarren G. Harding was a good natured man. "Harding had a magnetic quality that made both men and women like him. His was not the charisma of a leader but the simple attractiveness of a friendly and engaging individual." http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Grant-Eisenhower/Warren-G-Harding-Presidential-appointments-and-style.html. When it came to knowledge and judgement that was not his strong point. Harding did a good job with appointing Mellon and Hoover who helped bring the nation back together. In 1923 Andrew Mellon became secretary of the treasury and helped decrease the national debt by one third. However Harding used poor judgment by appointing his "poker playing cronies from back home," known as the "Ohio Gang." ( Page 559 Danzer ) One of the biggest wrongdoings was the "Teapot Dome scandal." ( Page 600 ). The man to cause such problems was Albert B. Fall. Fall leased the land to two private oil companies. He soon became the owner of $350,000 in bonds and cash. This caused a serious amount of corruption and self humiliation for Harding. I believe that Harding made a very poor choice in appointing his friends. Since he did appoint them it lead to many terrible outcomes that made him look bad, such as the Teapot Dome scandal.
http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Grant-Eisenhower/Warren-G-Harding-Presidential-appointments-and-style.html
Why did Congress change immigration laws in the 1920s? Were these smart changes? (explain)
ReplyDeleteCongress cahnged immigration laws in the 1920's becuase some people felt that the immigrents in Europe had communist feelings and were revolutionary radicals. Congress changed the immigration laws to the Emergancy Quota Act that would establish the amount of people who could enter the United States from any one foregin countires. Personaly I do not think that this was such a great idea. I understand that the whole idea of communisum was a big threat to the nation and that the "native" americans felt that they were taking their jobs, but in the text Donzar also says that over a million Canadians and at least 500,000 Mexican crossed the nations boarder, so it was not like they were limiting the imigration rates in the United States, becuase others not form Europe could come in as much as they want.
Also it says that the friendship between Japan and the United States got crushed a bit from this Act which is sad becuase Theodore Roosevelt created such a great friendship with them. Japan expressed "anger over the insult" that they could not enter the United States. Anybody in the Western Hemisper the Act did not apply to, so just keeping Europe out to mee seems not very smart to do just becuase of the scare of communisum.
SQa: Was the Kellogg-Briand Pact an effective tool for diplomacy?
ReplyDeleteNo, it failed. Well okay, it worked a little bit in the beginning. The US was very happy about it (because y’know, we love it when people agree with us) but then money troubles caused tension. Britain and France were having a hard time repaying their $10 billion debt to the US (Danzer, p597). They had only two options: export goods to the US or take some of the reparations paid by Germany for WW1. The former didn’t work because of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff. The latter also failed because the money from Germany that the French and British paid the US was already technically theirs to begin with. This caused feelings of resentment between the three countries. To quote HistoryCentral.com, “Within 12 years, all of the signatories were involved in the world’s largest scale war.”
http://iphone.historycentral.com/TheTwenties/Kellogg-Briand.html
Kim Pepper- What was the importance of Harding's tariff policies?
ReplyDeleteThe Harding administration was intent on an isolationist foreign policy while countries such as Britain and France were having trouble paying off their loans. They could either export more goods to the US or pay reparations. None of these choices worked. What made them more impossible was the Fordney-McCumber Tariff, which raised the tax on imports to almost 60% to protect American businesses from foreign competition. This struggle of loans led French troops to march into Germany, and in the end had Britain and France hold a grudge on the US for not paying their fair share of loans on the war. Danzer quotes, "Their people had died while America profited!"
On page 599 Danzer says that Warren Harding appointed some great people at certain positions. Harding appointed people who had a lot of knowledge about the areas which the seats required. One of these people was the secretary of State Charles Evans, he went on to become the justice of the Supreme Court. Also the Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon and one of the wealthiest men in the country, who paid back about 1/3 of the national debt. But his other selections known as the “Ohio Gang” were questionable. This gang consisted of Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall and Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty. These men were good friends of Harding and later their scandals would lead to the embarrassment of Harding’s administration. These show that Harding made good and bad decisions. In my further research I learned that Harding had a baby with a women in an extramarital affair. This all shows that the decision making of was poor in many aspects.
ReplyDeletehttp://americanhistory.about.com/od/warrengharding/p/pHarding.htm
Great job answering the EQs, folks. Really nice blend of Danzer, outside sources and your own voices. I've noticed two things we should work on: 1. a lot of repeat info, and 2. L-O-N-G posts. If the goal is to assemble an awesome collective response, how can we address the two items I mentioned? Also, how can we retain the high quality of learning that SQ3Rs can facilitate? Suggestions?
ReplyDeletep.s. Welcome Kim! Nice to see you posting!!
ReplyDelete20-2 "Normalcy" and Isolationism
ReplyDeletec. Why did Congress change immigration laws in the 1920s? Were these smart changes? (explain)
"Nativist sentiment, and anti-immigrant attitude, had been growing in the U.S. ever since the 1880's..." Congress in response to the Nativist pressures, changed the immigration laws. Nativists feelings were fueled because "...some of the people involved in postwar labor disputes were immigrant anarchists and socialists" Many Americans belived that the immigrants were actually revolutionary radicals and commnuists. Because of the nativists pressure congress changed the laws to limit immigration from Europe. There was an Emergency act of 1921 that set up a quota system. Only a certain amount of immigrants from Europe could enter the U.S. This act discriminated against alot of people- Roman Catholics and Jews- and the Japanse. This could have been a bad decision because It caused "much ill between the 2 nations" (Japan and America". That could have caused some conflicts and bigger problems.
Was the Kellogg-Briand Pact an effective tool for diplomacy?
ReplyDeleteI think that the Kellogg-Briand pact was a good idea in theory and could have worked because by international law nations renounced using war as a foreign policy, but with no way to enforce this law on other nations it was an ineffective policy(Danzer 597). It wasn't able to prevent events like the Japanese invasion of Manchuria(1931) the Italian invasion of Abyssinia(1935) and in couldn't stop the German Soviet invasion of poland. So it was really just empty words that was another diplomatic option for nations.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/kbpact.htm
Kelley S.
ReplyDeleteWhy did congress change immigration laws in the 1920's? Were these smart changes?
Congress changed the immigration laws, because there was less of a need for unskilled workers which were mainly immigrants. So the "nativists" thought fewer should be allowed into the United States. Also racists such as Madison Grant influenced the attitudes toward this "problem". Also the number of immigrants went up alarmingly between 1919 and 1921, it went from 141,000 to 805,000, thus making congress pass the emergency quota act of 1921. I think these were smart decisions, but for the wrong reason. They were smart, because they helped control over population. I don't think that their reasons should have been racist or that they didn't need as many workers anymore.
Ideally, the Kellogg-Briand Pact was a huge step toward democracy. In 1929 the pact was signed by almost the entire world (64 nations) and banned war as national policy. (Danzer, page 597). Even to me, this seems like a solid plan to end war especially after the scar that was WW1. Notice how I said SEEMS. The downside to this pact was there was no way to ensure the countries stayed true. There was no part of the contract that allowed the use of military against any country in violation of the agreement. (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/kbpact.htm) While this pretty much renders the pact nothing more than a formal pinky swearing, it makes sense. How could the punishment for war be the world will attack you? That would contradict the very purpose of the pact. Obviously this tool didn’t work very well (see world war 2), but it was an important step in the right direction. No piece of paper will ever solve war, but it got the ball rolling with talks of world peace.
ReplyDelete