Jake Sherman Group 6

Obviously Henretta sees a social issue with this time period. And after reading chapter 10, I see it too. The United States was progressing in many areas of society, and was degrading in others. From the movement of women from the kitchen to the classroom we saw progression. From the Second Great Awakening where sober people flooded the parks to share ideas and discuss religion, one could arguably say "we progressed". The standard of living increased thanks to ingenuity, wonderful geographic positioning, along with an abundance of natural resources. We progressed. A representative democracy in action. We progressed. However the hypocrisy of how people viewed and valued each other tends to lead me to think that we really weren't progressing much at all. Let's take Chapter 9's issue of how and why to be pro-abolitionist. Let's look at how the Second Great Awakening provided momentum for the abolitionist movement and women's rights. Or, at least the same ideology that slavery was wrong and women are to be treated as ladies. White women heard of the atrocities befalling enslaved women and sought to end the horrific treatment of women. The whole country saw the treatment of slave children and how abuse was a common occurrence. People gasped at the idea that families were ripped apart with the stroke of a pen and the exchange of some money. The northerners were sick with the idea of chaining someone down and forcing them to work for no money. And what did the northerners do about it? They spoke out against it. But then turned around and did nearly the same thing to their neighbors as soon as the economic advantage was in their backyard. Children were chained to machines. Women were forced to work long hours in textile mills for little to no money, often trying to repay debts brought on by this same "revolution of technology and industrial gain" And these families were torn apart by the stroke of a pen, and the exchange of so little money. So seeing the reaction of the northerners to the southerners before this economic and technologic boom, we could argue that the northerners were the instigators of progression, they brought about the Second Great Awakening. They fought for women's rights. The despised the idea of slavery. And the southerners were just a bunch of money grubbing farmers....right?But after this industrial revolution started picking up, could we say the northerners were simply trying to cash in on cheap labor the same way the southerners did? Who is really fighting for human rights? The north or the south?

Would you pin this time period as a social progression or a social digression?

With money flowing into the country and development booming, can we say that the reason we are a superpower today is all due to those women and children who worked long hours in the textile mills?

Nathan "I should have ducked" Buss, Group 6

Well as I'm sure you're all aware, Chap. 10 of Henretta is all about the economic revolution. Henretta outlines how America went from being completely reliant on Britain for production, to being not only self-reliant, but feared competition to Britain. What strikes me is how the revolutionary spirit seemed to carry over from the war and into our economic attitude. The American North seemed to grasp the potential of America at a very early time. While the South was clinging to the increasingly archaic ideals of slavery, the North was clawing its way to become the economic power-house of the western world. Northern venture capitalists were doing whatever it took to seize the American dream and take advantage of opportunities, including stealing British technology and improving upon it. Their fervor was so compelling that they were even able to entice British defectors to illegally immigrate to America and contribute to the industrial technology. Not all technology came from Britain, but much of it was invented in America. Instead of being comfortable in their ways, Americans not only jumped on the bandwagon of the industrial revolution, but were pivotal in contributing to that revolution. During the early stages of the textile movement, women (often young girls) were exploited and used for cheap labor in textile factories. This exploitation and cheap labor made it possible for factories to compete with established British manufacturers and gave some women a feeling of independance rarely experience in this time. Was this exploitation justified? Would the industrial revolution been possible without it?

Thanks to these new technologies, a new class of workers was created and nurtured by the Labor Movement. Skilled workers went on strike and demanded higher pay and better conditions. The industrial revolution and technology gained also led to the transportation movement and rapid growth in industrial towns. What cased the South to be largely left out during the Industrial Revolution? Without slavery would the South have balanced its agricultural economy with production? Was the conflict with the North over the slavery issue what caused Southerners to be short sighted and not persue a more production based approach? It seems to me that a circular logic crippled the South's ability to adapt to a changing world and would eventually not only pass them by, but leave them unequipped to deal with the future of their lifestyle.