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**
**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?
Teapot Dome scandal
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSubquestion C:
ReplyDeleteIn 1919, the number of immigrants in America was only about 141,000, but by 1921 there were 805,000, and no sign of ceasing. Congress was pressured by nativists to pass the Emergency Quota Act of 1921. This act set a maximum number of immigrants allowed in America from any one foreign country. Later, the National Origins Act of 1929, reduced the number of immigrants to 150,000 per year.
I think that this was a smart move by Congress. The goal was to drastically cut the European immigration rate, and the chart on page 598 (Danzer), shows that there were less immigrants (for the most part, especially Italy) in 1929 than there were in 1921.
Subquestion C: After world war one unskilled labor in the U.S decreased. Immigrants would generally fill these jobs and nativists were getting angery because they felt that they were there before the immigrants and they deserve the job. As well racist ideas had an influence on attitudes toward immigration. So the nativists proposed that fewer immigrants be let into the United states. The number of immigrants in 1919 in 141,000. Then in 1921 there was a huge jump to 805,000. With the nativists pressuring them Congress decided it was time to limit immigration. So they passed the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 which set up a quota system. The law limited immigration from each european nation to 2 percent.
ReplyDeleteI think that this was a smart change. With all the pressure from the nativist i think it made them much happier. If congress didn't limit immigration i think it cold have led to conflict down the road. The nativists weren't just worried about their jobs but they had negative feelings that were fueled by the fact that some people involved in postwar labor disputes were immigrant anarchists and socialists. Some Americans believed they were revolutionary radicals and were communists.
Sources:
The Americans by Danzer
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/courses/so11/race/quota_acts.htm -nice graph on this website about immigrants.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,846255,00.html
The Kellogg-Briand Pact was not an effective tool for diplomacy because there was no way to enforce it. (Danzer 597) Had there been a clause that had provided an economic way to enforce that pact that would have solely hurt the nation in question - such as a refusal to import and import goods to the country - then it could have proved more effective. In contrast if it had called for the military to be used to avoid war then the pact would prove to be hypocritical and I can see no reason why any person would want to sign it.
ReplyDeleteThe following is a quote from History.com explaining some of the problems of that pact that existed because of the variety of interpretations that were allowed.
“The signatories allowed themselves a great variety of qualifications and interpretations, however, so that the pact would not prohibit, for example, wars of self-defense or certain military obligations arising from the League Covenant, the Monroe Doctrine, or postwar treaties of alliance. These conditions, in addition to the treaty's failure to establish a means of enforcement, rendered the agreement completely ineffective.” (History.com)
As you can see, the agreement was said to have been rendered, “completely ineffective” by this variety if interpretation.
The following passage is an excerpt from the Nobel Piece Prize Award Ceremony on December 10, 1930, during which Frank Billings Kellogg was award the Nobel Piece Prize for his work on the Kellogg-Briand Pact. It talks of how Briand gave the draft of the treaty to the U.S. Ambassador in Paris. An how Kellogg changed the treaty from one between the U.S. and France to one that involved almost the whole world.
“The movement in favor of the «outlawry of war», to proclaim war illegal and to label it a crime, had gained increasing support in the U.S.A. ever since the end of the World War. Mr. Briand, France's great champion of peace, made a point of choosing a memorable date in the American calendar - April 6, 1927 - the tenth anniversary of the entry of the United States into the war, to declare himself a disciple of that movement: «If there were any need between these two great democracies [the United States and France] to testify more convincingly in favor of peace and to present to the peoples a more solemn example, France would be ready publicly to subscribe, with the United States, to any mutual engagement tending, as between those two countries, to ‹outlaw war›, to use an American expression.»
And on June 20, 1927, Briand handed to the American ambassador in Paris a draft of a treaty of perpetual friendship between the two countries. According to the draft, the two parties would solemnly declare that they condemned war and renounced it as an instrument of their national policies.
On the other side of the Atlantic, Frank B. Kellogg, the U.S. Secretary of State, elevated this proposal to the status of the world pact to which we pay tribute today in the person of its author: «The Government of the United States is prepared, therefore, to concert with the Government of France with a view to the conclusion of a treaty among the principal Powers of the world, open to signature by all nations, condemning war and renouncing it as an instrument of national policy in favor of the pacific settlement of international disputes.»”
Sources:
http://www.history.com/topics/kellogg-briand-pact
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1929/press.html
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=k000065
The Americans
James, you have great analysis. Can you reduce your post 15% (in the future)? I'm afraid others won't read something so long...am I wrong? Folks?
ReplyDeleteKirby: that Time article is s-w-e-e-t! I'll bring it in for folks tomorrow. Nice work!!
ReplyDeleteKelly Sullivan
ReplyDeleteQuestion D
After World War 1 president Warren G. Harding had to solve problems of war debts, arms control, and the reconstruction of war-torn countries. After the war most citizens wanted a return to normalcy. He brought together four major naval powers and four smaller nations with interests in the Far East to a confrence in Washington D.C. There Charles Evans Hughes talked with the 4 major naval powers and urged them to get rid of a significant part of there ships for a 10 year break. This shows me he was trying to keep everyone and peace and let the citizens know he was listening.
Sources.
The Americans by Danzer
Video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXETeWS6ub8
^ return to normacly speech
I feel like Harding went about choosing his cabinet the wrong way entirely. According to Danzer, this already had happened in the past with U.S. Grant, where "His corrupt friends used their offices to become wealthy through graft. Choosing the Ohio Gang was purely insensible. I can understand choosing political friends for the cabinet to some extent, those who agree on policies and are actual honest politicians. I don't understand hiring untrained buddies. this shows that Harding was just a good-natured man with little political knowledge. Albert B. Fall was also an obvious wrong choice in the end. The Teapot Dome scandal was appalling. The decision to switch the control of the oil to the interior department, as all the oil would be under their control. The way Fall took advantage of this though was terrible. Harding unfortunately did not have the proper knowledge of politics to lead effectively.
ReplyDeleteI thought this political cartoon was effective.
(I dont know how to post a picture but look at the link below link and scroll down a little bit, it is the steamroller, rolling over Harding's administration.) This effectivly shows how this was a terrible blow to him and his administration. The new negative attitude towards his administration, and his actions to elect these people hurt him.
sources:
http://sites.google.com/site/presidentshardingandcoolidge/
Danzer "The Americans"
The appointments that Harding made showed that he was a man with good intentions. Although working with his friends ended up hurting him really bad, he also appointed some very good people for the job; such as Andrew Mellon. Mellon helped reduce the nations debt by cutting income taxes and cutting public spending (Andrew Mellon article).
ReplyDeleteSometimes even w hen you want to get the most out of your career or responsibility, it is tempting to want to get your friends in on your job. Perhaps Harding really believe that his friends could be fit for the job. Lucky for Harding, the public saw him as "a good natured man," and still respected him up until his death.
Sources:
The Americans
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmellonA.htm
James, that's a power entry, perhaps our best yet.
ReplyDelete