Kendra Pierce

Kendra Pierce

April 14, 2013

History 1700

Section 53

The Union broke up because they could not decide which states should be free states or slave states. During this time cotton was the “cash crop”. Cotton exportation was the most valuable in the world. Economic power was translated to political power in the South, they wanted room to grow more crops and buy more slaves but the North was fighting for free labor.

Slaves in the South were being treated inhuman. Many slave owners used brutal force because they were scared of what the slaves were capable of. They thought if they instilled enough fear into the slaves they would not “disobey” or try to escape. The fugitive slave law of 1850 stated that a slave could be accused of being a fugitive and not be able to defend themselves in any way. Because of this fugitive slaves left for Canada so they would not be caught under the Fugitive slave law. This made the South angry. Congress decided blacks had no rights and could never be citizens of the United States. Many people are mentioned as examples of the effects of North versus South. These people include, Nat Turner, Solomon Northrup and Harriot Jacobs and Dred Scott.

The North continued to fight against slavery but the South was still in favor of it. It was a battle of slave labor or free labor/ North versus South. The north began writing books and creating a movement against slavery. They wrote about slave stories and used them to “fight” back against the south. The anti slavery movement included both blacks whites. Among the blacks that were a part of this was Freddrick Douglas, he was labeled as one of the most powerful anti slave speakers in history. There was also help from the Underground Railroad which was set up by antislavery activist who would hide run away slaves and help them travel to different places. This along with the north’s personal liberty laws which state the south could not use authority to catch free blacks and take them back to slavery made the south furious. Violence was erupting in Congress meetings; they were sitting on the brink of a Civil War when five states finally broke away from the Union.

2. According to the film how was Gustavus Swift able to expand his original business into a “Big Business”? Do you think Gustavus Swift was a “captain of industry” or, a “robber baron”? ExplainGustovus Swift was able to expand his business to a “big business” for many reasons. He was able for make beef affordable by joining the ice business. His strategy was to insulate railroad cars to allow him to ship his meat to different cities without it going bad. The railroad conspired against him, so he changed his route and went through Canada to get to New York. Using this route he was able to pick up ice on the way. People were surprised at the way he distributed his meat, they wanted fresh beef. They started calling his beef embalmed. When people started boycotting his meat, he opened his own small town shop which drove other locals out of business. Bankrupt business people in need of a job came to work for him as distributors.

Gustovus Swift was also was very frugal, he watched everywhere his money went and didn’t leave any extra to be spent carelessly. An example of his spending habits is having his wife wait 30 years before allowing her to buy curtains for their home. He was very frugal with his meat as well; he found a way to use every part of the animal. Hoofs were used to make Jell-O, hair was used to stuff cushions, and tails were used for paint brushes. He began to see the profit from all the additional product sales and he knew he had to increase production.

Another business strategy he used was an increased work load and decreased pay. The workers were not happy about this and went on strike. Without hesitation they were replaced immediately. Unskilled immigrants and children from countries such as Poland, Greece, Western Russia, and Scandinavia were hired to replace the previous workers. They sped up the process of cut up beef but also cut wages. Most immigrants were glad to have a job at all.

His main business innovations were to slaughter the cow then ship the dressed beef instead of shipping cows that are “wasting space. When obstacles such as the railroad turning on him arouse, he did not back down. He simply chose a new route and continued on his way. He was a very hands on manager. This allowed him to see first hand what was happening in his business. What needed to be improved and what was working. This helped his business expand. The last factor that expanded his business was taking a large job of butchering a cow and minimizing it to many small jobs. This increased production as was soon known as the disassembly line. His company had started branches in every important city, and did not need to rely on anyone other then his company to get the job done and meat distributed.

For the most part I could almost agree that Gustovus Smith was a captain of industry. He was very creative in the way he managed his business. He made the most out of everything he could. Not only did he go against people when then tried to shut him down but he expanded in every way he could. He put them out of business and then offered to employ them. He created a disassembly line to get the most use out of the workers as well as the most time efficient process for butchering. He teamed up with the Canadian railroad and took it upon himself to get the meat distributed without having to ship the whole cow. This saved time, space and money. The thing that topped it off was that every part of the animal was used. Absolutely nothing went to waste. This was a very creative way to generate income in addition to what his business already was involved in.

The labor side of it pulls me to say he was a robber baron. By employing immigrants and children and paying them much less then they should have been paid, in addition to requiring they work long hours was robbing the town of work. It was putting other companies out of business as well as taking up available jobs. In my opinion, these are signs of a selfish person running an unfair business. Although he was creative in the business he conducted he was not doing it in way that others could stand a chance against him. A personal capable of treating people this way could never escape the robber baron title.

3. Why do the black petitioners believe that owning land is essential to the enjoyment of freedom? In what ways does the sharecropping contract limit the freedom of laborers? What do these documents suggest about competing definitions of black freedom in the aftermath of slavery?For years the black people spent countless hours outside cultivating and harvesting the land for whites, their jobs were to maintain the land. When blacks were given land after they were freed, I would imagine it being a way of saying “you have as many rights as others now…. here is your land to prove it“. During the time of slavery land equaled power, the more land you had the more powerful you were. For a black person to own land after the times of slavery, there had to be some sense of accomplishment that they defeated the impossible. The document states “Here is where we have toiled nearly all our lives as slaves and treated like dumb driven cattle. This is our home, we have made these lands what they were, we are the only true and loyal people that were found in possessions of these lands.” (2^nd paragraph line 1-3) Blood, sweat, tears, and life of loved ones had contributed to the very soil that was given to them. Taking that back would be another way to show they are just “dumb driven cattle”. I would imagine from the words of the text that during the time of slavery, their goal was to better their conditions. By the government not allowing them to own the land that was once given to them they see it as not bettering their conditions.

Sharecropping sounds like a lawful form of slavery. It binds the workers to do the same/similar work that they were doing as slaves but this time they will be compensated in the form of receiving part of the crop when the season has ended. They are to “plant, cultivate, and raise under the management control and Superintendence of said Ross, in good faith, a cotton, corn and oat crop” (Doc 2, second paragraph, line 7-8) All other expenses will be paid by the laborer and if any of the expenses are paid by the Ross family the laborers must repay them with portions of the crop after it is harvested. They are required to work 10 hour days, if any days are missed they get docked out of their share of the crop. The laborers are also held accountable for acting obedient, honest and respectful to the land owner and his property/stock or they will again be docked from their share of the crop.

The aftermath of freedom had to be such an overwhelming feeling. I would guess that some of them would take any freedom that they could get while others pushed to see exactly how much freedom they were entitled to. Just as the first document suggests that they felt like the land was in a sense owed to them and they would fight for it, the second sounds like the laborers were just glad to be getting something out of it. They may perform the same or similar work but they are being compensated. That alone could be enough reassurance to some individuals that they are free. I see it similar to personalities; some people can be bold, argumentative and have no problem standing up for what they believe while others are content and set back, they take what they can get. I would guess that there was some type of fear still haunting some of them, that if they pushed the limits to far things would start having negative effects again.