American History Articles

Article / Updated 10-28-2024

Women's suffrage was a controversial subject as women's roles developed in society. By the time the twentieth century arrived, American feminists had been seeking the right to vote for more than 50 years. The suffrage movement was fanned even hotter in 1869, when African American males were given the right to vote through the Sixteenth Amendment, while women of all races were still excluded. One place where women were increasingly included was in the workplace. As the country shifted away from a rural, agrarian society to an industrial, urban one, more and more women had jobs — eight million by 1910. Moreover, they were getting better jobs. In 1870, 60 percent of working women were in domestic service. By 1920, it was only 20 percent, and women made up 13 percent of the professional ranks. Women were getting out of the house for more than just jobs, too. In 1892, membership in women’s clubs was about 100,000. By 1917, it was more than one million. And women’s increasing independence was reflected in the fact that the divorce rate rose from 1 in every 21 marriages in 1880 to 1 in 9 by 1916. Because women had always had nontraditional roles in the West, it wasn’t surprising that Western states and territories were the first to give females the right to vote: Wyoming in 1869, Utah in 1870, Washington in 1883, Colorado in 1893, and Idaho in 1896. By 1914, all the Western states except New Mexico had extended the voting franchise to women. By 1917, the suffrage movement was building momentum. In July of that year, a score of suffragists tried to storm the White House. They were arrested and taken to the county workhouse. President Woodrow Wilson was not amused, but sympathetic, and pardoned them. The next year, a constitutional amendment — the Nineteenth — was submitted to the states. When ratified in 1920, it gave women the right to vote in every state. Despite the significance of the Nineteenth Amendment, many leaders of the women’s movement recognized that the vote alone wouldn’t give women equal standing with men when it came to educational, economic, or legal rights. “Men are saying, perhaps, ‘thank God this everlasting women’s fight is over,’” said feminist leader Crystal Eastman after the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified. “But women, if I know them, are saying, ‘now at last we can begin.’”

Article / Updated 10-20-2023

When you look at the problems the British had and then look at the dilemmas the Americans faced, it’s no wonder the American Revolutionary War took eight years. In the early years at least, probably as few as a third of Americans supported the revolution. About 20 percent, called loyalists or Tories after the ruling political party in Britain, were loyal to the crown, and the rest didn’t care much one way or another. Because they weren’t professional soldiers, many of those who fought in the American army had peculiar notions of soldiering. They often elected their officers, and when the officers gave orders they didn’t like, they just elected new ones. The soldiers signed up for a year or two, and when their time was up, they simply went home, no matter how the war — or even the battle — was going. At one point, the colonial army under George Washington was down to 3,000 soldiers. They also weren’t big on sticking around when faced with a British bayonet charge. Many, if not most, battles ended with the Americans running away, so often that Washington once observed in exasperation that “they run from their own shadows.” Regional jealousies often surfaced when soldiers from one colony were given orders by officers from another colony, and there was at least one mutiny that had to be put down by other American units. The American soldiers were ill-fed, ill-housed, and so poorly clothed that in some battles, colonial soldiers fought nearly naked. About 10,000 soldiers spent a bitter winter at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, literally barefoot in the snow, and about 2,800 of them died. “The long and great sufferings of this army are unexampled in history,” wrote the army’s commander, George Washington. They were also paid in currency called continentals, which became so worthless the phrase “not worth a continental” became a common American saying for decades after the Revolution. Because the money was so worthless, unpatriotic American merchants often sold their goods to the British army instead, even when American troops wore rags and starved. Others cornered the markets on goods such as food and clothing, stockpiling them until the prices rose higher and higher. As a result, desperate army leaders were forced to confiscate goods from private citizens to survive. About the best thing the Americans had going for them was a cause, because men who are fighting for something often fight better. Indeed, as the war wore on, the American soldier became more competent. By the end of 1777, a British officer wrote home that “though it was once the tone of this [British] army to treat them in a most contemptible light, they are now become a formidable enemy.” The fact that there were 13 colonies was also an advantage because it meant there was no single nerve center for which the British could aim. They conquered New York, they took Philadelphia, and still the colonies fought on. America also had rapid growth in its favor. “Britain, at the expense of 3 million [pounds] has killed 150 Yankees in this campaign, which is 20,000 pounds a head,” observed Ben Franklin early during the fighting. “During the same time, 60,000 children have been born in America.” But maybe most important, the Americans were lucky enough to choose an extraordinary leader and smart enough to stick with him. Not only that, he looks good on the dollar bill.

Article / Updated 10-20-2023

The first thing the British had going for them when it came to fighting the Americans was a whole bunch of fighters. The British army consisted of about 50,000 men. They “rented” another 30,000 mercenary German soldiers. In addition, they had the best navy in the world. And the people the Brits were fighting, the colonists, had no regular army, no navy at all, and few real resources to assemble them. But, as America itself was to find out about two centuries later in Vietnam, having the best army and navy doesn’t always mean that much. For one thing, the British people were by no means united in a desire to rein in the colonies. When war broke out, several leading British military leaders refused to take part. Some British leaders also recognized the difficulty of winning a war by fighting on the enemy’s turf thousands of miles from Britain, especially when the enemy was fighting for a cause. “You may spread fire, sword, and desolation, but that will not be government,” warned the Duke of Richmond. “No people can ever be made to submit to a form of government they say they will not receive.” Three factors contributed to Britain’s ultimate downfall: The British political leaders who did support the war were generally inept. Lord North, the prime minister, was a decent bureaucrat but no leader, and he basically did what King George III wanted. And some of the British generals were nincompoops. One of them, leaving for duty in early 1777, boastfully bet a fair sum of money that he would be back in England “victorious from America by Christmas Day, 1777.” By Christmas Day, he had surrendered his entire army. Britain couldn’t commit all its military resources to putting down the rebellion. Because of unrest in Ireland and the potential for trouble with the French, who were still smarting from their defeats by the British in the New World, Britain had to keep many of its forces in Europe. Because the Brits didn’t take their opponents seriously, they had no real plan for winning the war. That meant they fooled around long enough to give the Americans hope. And that gave the French a reason to believe the colonials just might win, so they provided the Americans with what proved to be indispensable arms, money, ships, and troops.

Cheat Sheet / Updated 10-19-2023

This Cheat Sheet provides key dates that outline some of the most important events in U.S. history, which is as complex and fascinating as the people who populate the country.

Article / Updated 08-10-2023

From the beginning, the Trump administration was mired in scandals that have undermined his presidency. The constant wave of scandals has resulted in negative coverage of his presidency, overshadowing his economic and foreign policy successes. Instead of being able to focus on domestic and foreign policy, President Trump has constantly dealt with putting out fires often caused by his own actions. The two biggest scandals were the Russia and the Ukraine scandals. The Russia scandal Almost as soon as Donald Trump had assumed the presidency, the Russia scandal broke out. It involved some of the president’s closest aides, including his national security advisor. During the 2016 presidential election, Russian operatives hacked Hillary Clinton’s server and later also the server for the Democratic National Committee. U.S. intelligence would later find out that the Russian government was actively trying to interfere in the U.S. presidential election by creating dissent among the U.S. public and trying to undermine Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. In May 2017 Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, who had been leading an investigation into links between the Russian government and Trump associates. Comey later testified that he was fired after he refused to drop the investigation of President Trump’s National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who had resigned after only 24 days in office after it was discovered that he had lied to Congress about meetings with the Russian Ambassador to the United States. Former FBI Director Robert Mueller was appointed in May of 2017 to investigate whether there was any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether the Trump campaign had attempted to obstruct justice. The findings of the investigation were released in April 2019 and stated that while there was clear interference by the Russian government in the 2016 presidential elections, there was no clear evidence that the Trump campaign had conspired with the Russian government. The report does note that while there was no evidence the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government, it clearly did benefit from Russian interference. The findings on obstruction of justice were less clear. Mueller concluded that he could not charge a sitting president with a crime because a sitting president cannot stand trial. Only Congress can charge and then impeach and even remove a president. According to the report: “The investigation does not conclude that the president committed a crime; however, it does also not exonerate him.” In other words Mueller took the easy way out and left it up to Congress to take the next or no steps. The Ukraine scandal After having weathered the Russia scandal, it looked like President Trump’s presidency was safe until the 2020 election. However, in September 2019, the Ukraine scandal broke out. The scandal involves President Trump’s alleged attempts to coerce Ukraine into providing information on his possible democratic challenger Joe Biden and his son Hunter. According to the charges, President Trump threatened to withhold $400 million in military aid from Ukraine, unless it reopened an investigation into Hunter Biden’s activities in Ukraine. An anonymous whistle blower brought this to the attention of Congress and the media, and in September 2019, the House of Representatives began hearings on whether President Trump solicited foreign intervention in the 2020 campaign. This would be an impeachable offense. Full impeachment hearings were started on October 31, 2019. These were open to the public and were nationally televised. On December 18, 2019, the House of Representatives voted 230 to 197 to impeach President Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. President Trump was the third president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were the other two. After being impeached by the House of Representatives, the Senate started on January 16, 2020, to debate whether to remove President Trump from office. On February 5, 2020, the Senate acquitted President Trump by a 52 to 48 vote. It is now up to the U.S. electorate to decide whether he deserves a second term.

Article / Updated 08-04-2023

During the mid-1760s, America and Britain had managed to confine their differences to rhetorical battles and bloodless economic boycotts. But the conflict took a decided turn after the Boston Massacre in 1770 and the Boston Tea Party in 1773. In early September 1774, an extraordinary collection of American colonists gathered in Philadelphia. There were 56 of them, from all the colonies except Georgia (whose inhabitants were facing a war with Creek Indians, needed the support of British troops, and therefore didn’t want to irritate government officials in London). All of the 56 were males. About half of them were lawyers. Some, like John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, were among the wealthiest men in America. Others, like Sam Adams of Massachusetts, were so financially strapped friends had to chip in and buy him a decent set of clothes for the convention. There were well-known figures, such as George Washington, John Adams, and Patrick Henry, and men largely unknown outside their colonies. One (Benjamin Harrison of Virginia) would be the father and great-grandfather of future U.S. presidents. Another (Stephen Crane of New Jersey) would be bayoneted to death by German mercenary soldiers during the Revolutionary War. A third (Edward Rutledge of North Carolina) would be, at the age of 26, the youngest man to sign the Declaration of Independence. These men were delegates to what became known as the First Continental Congress. They had been sent by colonial assemblies to, in the words of the Massachusetts assembly, “a meeting of Committees from the several Colonies on this Continent … to consult upon the present state of the Colonies, and the miseries, to which they are, and must be reduced, by the operation of certain Acts of Parliament respecting America… .” Getting down to business The first order of business was to make it clear to British authorities that they were not immediately planning a revolution. Delegates wrote to General Gage in Boston to assure him they were trying to find “the most peaceable means for restoring American liberty.” After narrowly rejecting a conciliation plan proposed by Joseph Galloway that called for creation of an American parliament that would work with the British version, delegates drew up a Declaration of Rights and Grievances addressed directly to King George III. This was basically a laundry list of all the complaints America had made since passage of the Stamp Act nine years before. They asked the king to drop the Coercive Acts. Several delegates wrote essays suggesting the colonies deal only with the king and completely ignore Parliament. More ominously, they agreed to a mutual defense pact — if one colony should be subjected to violence by British troops, the others would come to its aid. They also endorsed a series of resolutions from Massachusetts (delivered to the convention via a Paul Revere horseback ride), known as the Suffolk Resolves. These called for completely ignoring the provisions of the Coercive Acts, establishing armed militias in each town, and requiring citizens to “use their utmost diligence to acquaint themselves with the art of war as soon as possible.” A serious boycott Finally, the congress approved a total boycott of British goods, in a united resolution called The Association. This boycott went far beyond previous boycotts. Under it, nothing from British sources — up to and including slaves — would be imported as of Dec. 1, 1774. Furthermore, no American goods would be exported to Britain — although after protests from their delegates, rice from South Carolina and tobacco from Virginia were exempted. The export ban was delayed until the following year so “as not to injure our fellow-subjects in Great Britain, Ireland and the West Indies.” Finally, British goods already in the colonies would not be bought, sold or consumed. “We do for ourselves, and the inhabitants of the several colonies, whom we represent, firmly agree … to abide by the agreements,” the resolution concluded. On Oct. 26, they went home, with the understanding they would reconvene in Philadelphia on May 10, 1775, if necessary. It was. 'Let it begin here' It was Britain’s serve in the ping-pong political battle straddling the Atlantic. Hoping to preserve peace, William Pitt, now Earl of Chatham, proposed a sweeping rollback of almost every act that had angered the Americans. But mindful of a still-furious king, the House of Lords resoundingly rejected it. British Prime Minister Lord Frederick North (who served from 1770 to 1782) then offered a half-a-loaf Conciliatory Resolution, which said that if a colony would contribute to its own defense and pay for civil and judicial administrations within its borders, it would be exempt from paying taxes — except those necessary for the regulation of commerce. The proposal, approved by Parliament in February 1775, did not reach the colonies for several months, after the fighting had begun. It was summarily rejected when it got there anyway. Prodded by King George, North also pushed Parliament into declaring Massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion and authorized more troops to be sent to the colonies. The so-called Restraining Acts limited trade between all of the British Empire and the colonies and prohibited New England fishermen from working in the cod-rich seas off Newfoundland. Parliamentary members sympathetic to the Americans warned that Britain might be biting off more than it could chew. “You cannot furnish armies, or treasure, competent to the mighty purpose of subduing America,” said Edmund Burke. “But whether France and Spain will be tame, inactive spectators of your efforts and distractions is well worthy of the consideration of your lordships.” Burke’s warning was echoed by General Gage, the Massachusetts governor who was also in command of His Majesty’s army in America. “If you think ten thousand men are enough,” he wrote Lord North, “send twenty; if a million (pounds) is thought to be enough, give two. You will save blood and treasure in the end.” Squirreling away supplies Meanwhile, in the colonies, efforts were being made to enforce the economic boycott — and prepare for war. To accomplish the first of these tasks, committees were appointed in every county to oversee adherence to the boycott, as well as discourage colonists from taking government jobs, particularly in Massachusetts. Names of those who were suspected of violations were publicized, and the offenders faced social ostracism, and sometimes worse. While the occasional tarring and feathering did take place, the threat of physical violence was usually implied more than employed. Shunning by one’s neighbors was usually enough. One Massachusetts man who had been appointed a councilor to the governor walked into a church service one Sunday, only to see all his fellow congregants walk out. He thereupon declined the appointment. While enforcing the boycott, the Sons of Liberty group and militia, known as Minute Men because they were to respond quickly to any call to arms, staged surprise raids on British supply depots and made off with arms and ammunition. They took care not to shoot, daring the British troops to fire first. The tactic followed the advice of Sam Adams: “Put your enemy in the wrong and keep him so. It is a wise maxim in politics as well as in war.” Riding with Revere The colonists also kept a constant eye on the movements of British troops. One of their most effective spies was the son of a French immigrant who had established himself as a master silversmith in Boston. Paul Revere also made false teeth and surgical instruments — and was good on a horse. In mid-April 1775, General Gage received orders from London to arrest the colonial dissident leaders Sam Adams and John Hancock and seize any arms collected by the colonists. Gage was also directed to use force, if necessary. So, on the evening of April 18, Gage ordered a force of 700 men to march from Boston to the village of Concord, about 20 miles away, arrest Adams and Hancock if they found them, and destroy a cache of arms suspected to be there. Revere, however, got wind of the plan, and set out to warn the countryside that the British were coming. It was a harrowing trek. After crossing the Charles River at night in a small boat, he outrode British pursuers and made it to the small town of Lexington, about seven miles from Concord. There he warned Adams and Hancock. With two other men, Thomas Dawes and Dr. Samuel Prescott, he then set out for Concord. The trio ran into a mounted British patrol. Prescott escaped by leaping his horse over a stone wall and made it to Concord, where the militia was able to hide most of the guns and ammunition. Revere and Dawes were briefly detained, but were somewhat inexplicably released after the troops took Revere’s horse. (Of the three riders, Revere is the one everyone remembers mainly because of a wildly popular 1861 poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.) The 'shot heard round the world' At the village of Lexington, the British force was confronted by a group of about 75 militia under the command of John Parker. A farmer and veteran of the French and Indian War, Parker initially ignored the British officer’s command that the Americans put down their arms. Instead, according to the later account of a man under his command, Parker replied, “Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.” Outnumbered 10 to 1, Parker was in the process of changing his mind when a shot was fired — by which side is unknown — and a volley of gunfire followed. Eight of the colonists were killed and ten wounded. The British troops then moved on to Concord, where they destroyed several cannons that had been too big to hide. By that time, however, hundreds of militia had arrived, and as the British troops began moving back toward Boston, they fired on the Americans, who returned fire. What had been an orderly withdrawal by the British now became a somewhat disorderly retreat. “We retired for 15 miles under incessant fire,” a British officer recounted, “which like a moving circle surrounded us wherever we went.” Shooting from behind rocks and inside houses, the American militia killed or wounded more than 250 of the king’s soldiers, while suffering about 90 casualties themselves. The battle was immortalized in an 1836 poem written by Ralph Waldo Emerson, called “Concord Hymn:" “By the rude bridge that arched the flood, / Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled, / Here once the embattled farmers stood, / And fired the shot heard ’round the world.” Stirring poetics aside, the long war of words between Mother Britain and her American children was over. The war of blood and death had begun.

Cheat Sheet / Updated 06-21-2023

This Cheat Sheet focuses on 50 key dates in the history of first ladies of the United States. These events mark the unique and continuing evolution of the office of First Lady and the first ladies themselves.

Cheat Sheet / Updated 06-09-2023

One of the remarkable aspects of the American Revolution is the staying power of the basic structure of government the founding fathers laid down. That doesn’t mean, however, that the structure was either simple or perfect. To help you understand a bit more about the complexities — and flaws — in the governmental building blocks they used, here are “backgrounders” on three of those blocks: the Electoral College, reapportionment (gerrymandering), and amending the U.S. Constitution. Just for fun, check out the mini-biographies on two interesting Americans from the period, Noah Webster and John Jacob Astor, and enjoy some non-government trivia you can use to amuse your admirers and annoy your enemies.

Article / Updated 06-06-2023

Today, the president performs many roles in society. The president has become the preeminent politician in the United States. Some of his presidential duties and roles include: Head of state: The president symbolizes the United States. Other countries judge the United States by what kind of president the U.S. public elects. Commander in chief: The president heads the U.S. military. The public looks to him to commit troops into combat. The public also holds him accountable for the successes or failures of military operations. Chief foreign policy maker: The president is expected to make foreign policy, meet foreign leaders, and negotiate treaties. The public holds him responsible for successes and failures in foreign policy. Chief executive: The president is in charge of the federal bureaucracy, which includes the cabinet departments, the Office of Management and Budget, and the military — more than 4 million people altogether. Chief legislator: Today, the president is responsible for most major legislation. He proposes the budget and uses his veto power to shape policy. The president acts, and Congress usually reacts to his policies. Crisis manager: Whenever crisis strikes the country, the U.S. public looks to the president to act. After the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001, the public expected the president, not Congress, to react. It was George W. Bush and his advisors who explained to the public and Congress what had happened, as well as what measures the government would take. Leader of his party: The public, as well as party supporters, look at the president as the leader of his party. If the president does well, the public will usually reward his party in the elections. If he performs poorly, the public will usually punish his party, especially in off-year (non-presidential) elections. Today, the president is the chief politician in the United States. However, he still has to share his powers with Congress on many occasions, and Congress can keep his power in check, if necessary. The president’s power of shaping public opinion The greatest power a U.S. president has is not found in the Constitution. It is the power to persuade and convince the U.S. public. If the president can get the public behind him, he becomes unstoppable. Congress cannot and will not oppose him if he can show Congress that the public supports him on a certain issue. For this reason, the power to shape public opinion is a great one. Persuading the people Theodore Roosevelt was the first U.S. president to take advantage of the power of public opinion. He used the presidency as a bully pulpit — a forum to use his influence to promote his causes — and preached to the U.S. public in an attempt to gather public support. When Congress began to stifle his progressive reforms, he toured the United States and attempted to convince the public of the integrity of his programs. With the public behind him, Congress had a tough time not agreeing to his agenda. Woodrow Wilson, a political scientist, recognized this power and continued in Roosevelt’s tradition. He, too, traveled around the country to rally support for his policies. In addition, Wilson established the tradition of holding regular press conferences, and addressed Congress directly by giving his State of the Union address in person to Congress. Wilson transformed the State of the Union address into the public spectacle it still is today. He set the precedent of using the media to disseminate his speeches to the U.S. public. Making use of the media With the invention of the radio, and later television, the power to persuade, or shape public opinion, gained new importance. Radio made it possible to reach the U.S. public easily, without ever leaving the White House. The first president to take advantage of this was Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s. A week after presenting his first inaugural address, FDR began addressing the U.S. public directly over the radio with his famous fireside chats, which he used to explain his policies and foster trust and confidence in the public. Roosevelt continued this practice throughout his presidency, delivering a total of 27 fireside chats. John F. Kennedy used television for similar purposes. He became our first television president. Kennedy and his advisors had figured that the best way to reach the public was through television appearances heavily laden with political messages. Nothing was more successful in gaining the support of the U.S. public than a well-timed, well-written, and well-delivered speech. Kennedy was also the first president to allow his press conferences to be covered on live television. (Eisenhower had his press conferences taped and reserved the right to edit them before they were broadcast.) Kennedy delivered 64 live press conferences before he was assassinated. Today, using television to reach the public is common. Inaugural addresses, State of the Union addresses, and press conferences are all designed to reach out to the U.S. public and convince people that the president’s policies merit their support. Clearly, a well-written and well-delivered speech can sway public opinion in a president’s favor. This in turn facilitates his dealings with Congress. While television is still the major tool to communicate with a majority of Americans, social media has become more prevalent. It was first widely used by President Obama, who started an AMA (ask me anything) thread on Reddit to target young and minority voters. The strategy was so successful in both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections that it has been copied by every candidate running for higher office. Who could imagine President Trump not using Twitter? Today, campaigns use social media, such as Twitter, Facebook, and even Instagram and Snapchat, to target specific groups of voters. Studies have shown that the use of social media can increase voter turnout and impact political opinions especially for millennials (18 to 24). Older voters are more immune to social media messages. With social media being so successful and so much cheaper compared to television, it would not be surprising to see it overtake television as the major campaign tool in the future.

Article / Updated 05-19-2023

Ronald Reagan figured that if you cut taxes on companies and the very wealthy and reduced regulations on business, they would invest more, the economy would expand, and everyone would benefit. Of course, this approach, based heavily on the views of economist Milton Friedman, a Reagan advisor, would require cutting government services, which would most affect Americans on the bottom of the economic ladder. But the benefits would eventually “trickle down” from those on the top of the ladder to those on the bottom. At least, in theory. So, early in his administration, Reagan pushed through a package of massive tax cuts, and the economy got better. Unemployment dropped from 11 percent in 1982 to about 8 percent in 1983. Inflation dropped below 5 percent, and the gross national product rose. While Reaganistas were quick to point to the president’s policies as a great deal, critics pointed in a different direction. Although Reagan had cut taxes, he and Congress had failed to cut government spending. In fact, he greatly increased spending on military programs. Because the government was spending far more than it was taking in, the national debt rose from about $900 billion in 1980 to a staggering $3 trillion in 1990. Moreover, most of the benefits of Reagan’s trickle-down approach failed to trickle, priming the pump for another economic downturn after he left office.