Recent orders
International Trade Short Response
Americans purchase of products from foreign nations made using cheap labor is very different from allowing the immigration of low-cost labor into the U.S. Immigration impacts the supply of labor in a country. This is because it increases the employees or workers in a given sector of the economy. Immigration also increases competition for the existing jobs in some sectors. Increasing the pool of labor in the US means that the competition for existing job opportunities is higher. It would also mean that there would be a decrease in the amount of skilled labor in the market. In the short run, wages would be reduced as employers would prefer low-cost labor over the existing expensive employee pool. Additionally, allowing low-cost labor into the country would reduce the levels of skilled labor in the economy.
Undocumented workers offer little risk to employers. These employers are under less scrutiny because they help in reducing the cost of production. Undocumented workers are in the country illegally, and therefore are more likely to be treated differently. Overall, employers help t sustain the economy through production in various sectors of the economy. The government must keep them happy to keep the economy running, as opposed to treating them worse than the undocumented immigrants.
Response to Peer 1:
I agree with your assertion that buying products made in foreign countries using cheap labor is different than allowing low-cost labor to immigrate to the United States. The host economy is changed in terms of culture and economic activities. These elements are important to the American population. I agree with your position that America’s racial past predisposes immigrant groups, leading to a need for foreigners coming in adding on to the array of culture in the nation. Therefore, purchase of foreign products is significantly different from bringing in cheap labor from foreign nations.
Similarities and differences of the populist and progressive movements
American History
Student’s Name
Institution of Affiliation
Date
Question 1: Similarities and differences of the populist and progressive movements
Populism and progressiveness tend to be similar in that both claim to be acting for the good of everyone, especially ordinary people. Also, both political movements tend to promise the enrichment of the lives of ordinary people, and therefore, they promise to make legislations that directly affect their lives positively (Yack, 2019).
Despite the similarities, populism and progressiveness tend to have various differences. In regard to origins, the populist movement originated from farmers who formed the political party to help the farmers drive economic change. Progressiveness on the other hand was a movement of the elite, originating from the urban middle class who united against the political system. In regard to the goals of formation, the populist movement was formed to help reform the economic system, while the progressive movement emphasized political reforms as they were against the political system. In regard to the time period, the populist movement arose in the last decade of the 19th century, but the progressive movement was founded in the early 20th century (DeWitt & Pearson, 2017). Based on this, the populist movement was founded before the progressive movement.
Another difference between the populist and progressive movements regards ideas. The populist movement was founded on the ideas on reforms in the economic sector which included regulation of banks and industries, reforms in the civil services, and eight hours of work for labor. The populists believed that bankers and industrialists negatively influenced the government, and therefore, most of the policies driven by them were against the farmers to destabilize them economically. The progressive movement, on the other hand, was founded on political reforms as well as the associated vices such as inflation and corruption in the business class. Progressives are more inclusive and thus are more genuine in helping each member of the society to have an equal chance to be successful – promotes democracy, unlike populism which emphasizes what makes us different – violates democracy (Waisbord, 2018).
Question 3: Reconstruction
The reconstruction failed due to various reasons. For example, lack of unity in the government took away the focus of reconstruction, and these distractions led to its failure. Also, individuals entrusted with managing money for the reconstruction efforts misused them, and thus, it could not be a success without the essential resources. Another major reason for failure is that the Southern states were too poor to manage the reconstruction programs. Finally, the Republicans made radical legislations, which failed to protect former slaves from white persecution, and by this, it failed to redress the inequalities of slavery in the South (Jones, 2018). Despite the failure, the Reconstruction brought some positives, especially on the African Americans. For example, African Americans experienced rights and freedoms which they had previously been deprived of. They could vote, file lawsuits, own property, hold a political office, legally marry and sign contracts and finally, they could receive an education.
Another positive feature of the Reconstruction is that it restored the United States into a unified nation (Bateman, Katznelson & Lapinski, 2018). All the former confederates were involved in the drafting of the new constitution and pledged their loyalty to the unified government. Also, the Confederates acknowledged the 13th, 14th, and Fifteenth Amendments. The Reconstruction was a partial success and a failure. It failed to bring both social and economic equality for the former slaves and this can be attributed to Lincoln’s plan which was considered to be too lenient. Lincoln planned to reintegrate the Confederates states back to the Union through the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, granting the Southerner’s presidential pardons except for political leaders who took an oath of allegiance to the Union. Another obstacle is the government conflict between the legislative and executive branches that halted the progress on the status of freed slaves.
References
Bateman, D. A., Katznelson, I., & Lapinski, J. S. (2018). Southern nation: Congress and white supremacy after reconstruction (Vol. 158). Princeton University Press.
DeWitt, B. P., & Pearson, S. A. (2017). The progressive movement: A non-partisan comprehensive discussion of current tendencies in American politics. Routledge.
Jones, M. S. (2018). Birthright citizens: A history of race and rights in Antebellum America. Cambridge University Press.
Waisbord, S. (2018). Why populism is troubling for democratic communication. Communication Culture & Critique, 11(1), 21-34.
Yack, B. (2019). Of Scribes and Tribes: Progressive Politics and the Populist Challenge. Critical Review, 31(3-4), 440-453.
The California gold was discovered by James Marshall, a carpenter at Sutters Mill in the Sacramento Valley prompting miners f
American History
Name
Course
Course Instructor
DateThe California gold was discovered by James Marshall, a carpenter at Sutter’s Mill in the Sacramento Valley prompting miners from China, Australia and Europe. This was after the Mexican war that saw America ending up with Texas, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and California. The wave of 49ers who were fortune seekers came from all over the world and greatly influenced the economy and social life of California and America at large. Although a few of the 49ers made fortune out of the gold, some of them found other means of living particularly after the gold became scarce (Lewis, 2010).
Discovery of gold in California and Nevada drew thousands of miners to join the Gold Rush and the mining equipment was moved from one location to the other. It was one of the greatest adventures in human history that contributed to the development of California. The Gold Rush largely improved America in terms of trade, shipping and communications such as railroad lines built to the Pacific Coast ( Lewis, 2010). Additionally, the event changed the culture of America particularly the faster settling of the west that sealed the doom of the Indians west of the Mississippi. The diversity of young intelligent men from around the world brought in different ways of gold mining.
I chose the 1849 Gold Rush because of its association with the development of both California and America. The Gold Rush has brought in new ideas and cultural change that has greatly influenced America. Having toured California and the gold mining site, I felt that 1849 Gold Rush was alive and worth talking about.
Compromise of 1850
The compromise included a series of bills passed to address slavery issues where the slavery matters were to be decided by popular sovereignty in admitting the new states. Moreover, the bills prohibited slave trade in Columbia settled a Texas boundary dispute as well as establishing a strict fugitive slave trade. By 1950, many slavery disagreement issues tainted the relationship between the Northerners and the Southerners. There were tensions whether the newly acquired western land after the Mexican War would allow slavery. The Congress further passed Fugitive Slave Law that decreased the number of slaves escaping to the North annually but the North was unhappy with the law (Stegmaier, 2012).
Compromise of 1850 was very significant in the American history since it contributed to the Civil War. The Southern and Northern politics were heightened during this place and the compromise seemed to undermine a divided nation on the slavery issue. Slavery was a serious issue in America and addressing it was very sensitive in congress. The Compromise of 1850 showed how concerned some legislators were in addressing the plight of the slaves. It further showed how southerners strongly defended the issue of slavery. It attempted to settle the slavery question though it allowed the slaves to work for the South although it prohibited slave trade in Washington DC (Stegmaier, 2012).
The Compromise of 1850 played a significant role in heightening the tension between the Southerners and the Northerners that finally contributed to the Civil War particularly the introduction of the Fugitive Slave Act. The north was not impressed and they had to stop the act and they felt that the slaves should be returned to their rightful owners who escaped from the Underground Railroad. The south wanted to have the slaves back but they had to prove that they were the rightful owners because lack of evidence would lead to freeing of the slaves. This agreement was either temporal because the South later wanted to separate from the North. Crisis continued to pile due to the increased level of dissatisfaction that prompted anger that turned to rage and rage to violence. Southerners were always alert to protect their peculiar institutions even after the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) and the struggles that followed over the bleeding Kansas where the group began to shoot.
However, Compromise of 1850 rather delayed the civil war by trying to create peace between the two factions. It succeeded in accomplishing its intentions at that particular moment of holding the union together even though it was a temporary solution. The Compromise of 1850 led to more other bills such as the Kansas-Nebraska act although this was largely disliked and it led to violence in Kansas. However, it delayed the Civil War by delaying the splitting of the biggest Union that was hugely feared by Americans (Stegmaier, 2012).
The Compromise of 1850 is very significant today in referring to the developments of the Civil War. It reminds Americans on the seriousness of the slavery in America and the division that was not only based on political parties but on the slavery issues in the Congress. The Compromise of 1850 is an evident of the role the political class can help in saving a situation such as tension between regions, both locally and internationally. It reminds Americans on the compromises people can always arrive into to create peace.
References
Lewis, F. (2010). Gold rush, 1847-1850. S.l.: Xlibris Corp.Stegmaier, M. J. (2012). Texas, New Mexico, and the Compromise of 1850: Boundary dispute and sectional crisis. Lubbock, Tex: Texas Tech University Press.