1)Why do you think the National Government refused to be ...



1)Why do you think the National Government refused to be more proactive (involved) or protective (concerned) for the environment or workers' rights by the end of the 1800's?

A nation has multiple concerns at anytime during its existence. For the U.S. a primary concern was the development of the national economy and the need to create a nation that was powerful in the world. To build the national economy the federal government supported the activities of the industrialists above those of all others, including conservationists (who wanted to stop timber and railroads to protect the land) and workers (who wanted employers to be more humane and would, therefore, interfere with production) (Carney, 2006). The need to support the economy was more important than conservation or safe workers.

References

Carney, T.P. (2006). Big Business and Big Government. CATO Institute. Retrieved October 14, 2010, from

2) Historians have longed debated whether Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, et al., were ORGANIZATIONAL and INDUSTRIAL GENIUSES or ROBBER BARONS. What do you think? Relatively good men? Incredibly evil? A little of both, but more one way than the other? Please address this issue in the Discussion Area.

These men were geniuses and robber barons. They had the skill and ability to do what none before them had accomplished – vast industrial complexes. Their tactics, however, were often cruel and destroyed local and smaller businesses. These men engaged in deals to benefit their own bank accounts even when they hurt the United States and deeply sacrificed public safety (Carlson, 2002). They purposely destroyed competition and developed monopolies that would have created a permanent upper class. They had genius, but deception and lies are always wrong, and they knew that and did it anyway, more evil than genius.

References

Carlson, P. (2002). High and mighty crooked; Enron is merely the latest chapter in the history of American scams. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 14, 2010, from

3)Given the greed and aggressiveness of the other superpowers of the day, could the U.S. have done anything other than enter the competition for annexing new colonial territory? Could it have permitted its European rivals to gobble up most of the Earth's raw material-producing areas? Did a colony stand a better chance for humane treatment and eventual independence while being controlled by the U.S. or by one of our European (or Japanese) competitors?

The nineteenth century was less than one hundred years after the Revolutionary War. AT the time only control over natural resources could help nations achieve world power and the U.S. wanted to become a world power. If it had failed to gain colonial control over many nations surrounding it the British or others in Europe would have and the U.S. would have been threatened by colonial powers at its doorstep (Hoar, 2003). Humanity and independence were not better with one leader or another, it only mattered on natural resources and how hard natives were to fight for independence.

References

Hoar, W. P. (2003). Manifest destiny: many 19th-century Americans believed their young nation was destined to extend the benefits of freedom and opportunity across the continent--from sea to shining sea. The New American. Retrieved October 14, 2010, from

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download