American History 101: The Homestead Strike of 1892

Throughout the history of the United States the relationship between labor and management has been one of the most important and contentious relationships at the same time.  The upper level of corporate management has to keep pushing forward, creating the next opportunity and squeezing every ounce of productivity out of their workforce.  At the same time, the worker has to be treated fairly, paid a reasonable wage and able to feel safe in their working environment.  The juxtaposition of these two forces hit a major pothole in their journey in 1892 when the management of Carnegie Steel and the workers at the Homestead plant could not come to an labor agreement that both sides were happy with.  The result was a conflict that not only damaged relations between labor and management of Carnegie Steel, but had a negative lasting impact on the power that labor unions would have throughout the steel industry and the rest of the country for decades to come.

Homestead Steel Mill, Circa 1890

The Homestead Strike of 1892 was prefaced by three previous strikes at the Homestead plant, and the end of their current collective bargaining agreement.  In the previous two strikes that had occurred at Homestead, the workers moved towards and were eventually represented by Amalgamated Association of Steel Workers.  At the end of the previous strike, Carnegie Steel had acquiesced control over the day-to-day activities on the floor of the plant to the workers.  However, as the time ticked on towards the end of the collective bargaining agreement, Carnegie Steel found itself under more pressure to produce enough to steel to meet the demand.  In order to meet that demand Carnegie began to run its open hearth steel production system twenty four hours a day.

Andrew Carnegie

Andrew Carnegie and his plant manager Henry Frick knew that they did not want to relive the strike of 1889 that produced their current collective bargaining agreement.  Carnegie and Frick also knew that they needed to regain control of the plant in order to continue to be profitable enough to keep their doors open.  In spite of the growing popularity of steel, Carnegie’s steel was a premium product, and there was some concern as to how long the Navy and other companies would pay the premium price for it.  The board of directors at Carnegie Steel concerns manifested in a push to increase profitability on each run of steel, and they could feel the breath of financiers such as J.P Morgan breathing down their necks.  One of the first things that Carnegie did was order Frick to have the plant running non-stop and increase production in order to build up a reserve of steel, just in case a strike occurred.  With the long hours that the workers had previously been putting in, this represented a marked safety issue for the workers.  There had already been several accidents, and in early 1892 four workers died on the factory floor in workplace related accidents as a result of the increased output schedule. 

There were a number of moves that Carnegie and Frick made as they prepared to negotiate, and even during negotiations, but none more eye-raising then Andrew Carnegie’s decision to take a trip to Scotland at this time.  While he played golf he left negotiations with the workers to Henry Frick.  Frick was hired because of his hard-nosed approach to workplace management, and to give Carnegie’s company a more cut-throat approach to doing business that had been very successful during the 1880’s.  However, the newspapers and popular opinion at the time was that Carnegie was “a coward.  And gods and men hate cowards.”  Whether or not it was accurate, Carnegie used his absence from the negotiations as a way to distance himself from the disaster that was created by Frick’s mishandling of the situation.

Henry Frick began to negotiate with the union representatives in February of 1892.  Frick’s attitude towards the negotiations was a mirror of Carnegie’s attitude to drive the union out of the plant.  They knew that the union was not going to sit quietly and allow the working conditions and pay scale to remain the same now that Carnegie Steel’s fires never went dark.  Frick had permission from Carnegie to cut off negotiations with the union at any time, but Frick continued to negotiate with the union until the end of April.  At the end of April in 1892, Frick grew tired of the back and forth and told the union that if a contract agreement had not been reached by the end of May that Carnegie Steel would no longer recognize the validity of the union.  At that time Frick offered a pay raise and said, “We do not care whether a man belongs to a union or not, nor do we wish to interfere.  He may belong to as many unions or organizations as he chooses, but we think our employees at Homestead Steel Works would fare much better working under the system in vogue.”  Today this may seem like a harsh move by Frick, however at the time Carnegie and other moguls of industry did not recognize the workers right to be represented.  They still felt the management had all the power in deciding working conditions and wages, in spite of Carnegie’s public support for unions. 

With no deal having been struck, Frick ceased negotiations with the union on June 1st.  By the end of June, 1892 Carnegie Steel officially locked the workers out of the steel mill, preventing them from working all together.  This was Frick’s first move in creating what would be seen as an aggressive denial of the right to work, and pouring gas on the smoldering fire of the angry workers.  When Amalgamated met on the evening of June 30, 1892, the union officially decided to go on strike.  And with their decision to go on strike, they also decided that they would create a blockage around the plant to prevent strikebreakers from running the plant until the strike and lockout had been settled.  Frick knew he could not let this stand, he knew that he has to re-open the plant.  Frick attempted to hire replacement workers, but they were turned away at the gate by the striking workers.  Frick called in the local sheriff’s department to assist the newly hired workers, but the striking workers would not move and made it clear that they would never allow non-union workers to work at the plant.  The events at Homestead began to get national attention, and other steel mills took notice.

After the local sheriff’s attempts to disband the workers Frick made a fateful decision.  Without the less aggressive counsel of Andrew Carnegie, Frick decided to fight a campfire with a blow torch and contracted the Pinkerton Detective Agency to drive the striking workers from the property.

Burning of the Pinkerton Barge

The series of events that followed stand today as one of the worst confrontations in a labor dispute in American history.  Over three hundred Pinkertons arrived just outside Pittsburgh around 10:30 p.m. on July 5.  And at around 4:00 a.m. on July 6, 1892, three hundred armed Pinkertons attempted to make landfall from the river with the replacement workers in-tow.  While there are a conflicting stories as to who fired first, rifles began to erupt from both sides and blood began to spill as Pinkertons began firing directly into the crowd of workers.  The townspeople came to help defend the workers, and a canon was set up to try and sink the Pinkerton’s barge.  The battle went on for several hours before the workers attempted to burn the bridge, and blow it up with dynamite.  In spite of these attempts failing, it was becoming increasingly clear as the day wore on that the Pinkerton force was not making any headway.  As daylight shone over the plant the union president William Weahe appealed to the sheriff to force Frick to the bargaining table to stop the violence.  Frick refused the meeting because he was hoping that Governor Pattison would call out the state militia to help the Pinkertons.  By the time the state militia came, the Pinkertons had already surrendered.  And the workers met with the militia, unarmed, on July 12, 1892.  After nine died, and dozens of others were injured, the militia was able to remove the workers, and Frick quickly staffed the plant with non-union employees.

While the strike was harmful for Carnegie Steel in terms of its bottom line, the damage done to labor unions and the workers was devastating.  During the strike, other factories were watching and began to shun the unions in their own organizations.  The factories in Pennsylvania and Ohio refused to deal with workers who were associated with the Amalgamated Association.  By 1899 Frick was able to rid the plant of every worker associated with Amalgamated, and it signaled the beginning of the end of Amalgamated and other labor unions.  By the end of 1900, not one steel mill employed union workers in Pennsylvania.  And in spite of the efforts at Homestead to create a safe working environment and fair wages for workers who were being abused by a system that undoubtedly favored big business, the power of unions was nullified completely until the unions all disbanded and reorganized at United Steelworks in 1942.  In essence, the Homestead Strike of 1892 destroyed the workers right and ability to negotiate fair wages and working conditions as a group until after World War II.

~~~
Bruce holds a degree in Computer Science from Temple University, a Graduate Certificate in Biblical History from Liberty University and is working towards a Masters Degree in American History at American Public University.  He has worked in educational and technology for over 18 years, specializes in building infrastructures for schools that work to support the mission of technology in education in the classroom.  He also has served as a classroom teacher in Computer Science, History and English classes.  

Bruce is the author of five books: Sands of Time, Towering Pines Volume One:Room 509, The Star of Christmas, Philadelphia Story: A Lance Carter Detective Novel and The Insider's Story: A Lance Carter Detective Novel

American History 101: Presidential Executive Orders

There seems to be an unending flap over how many and how often President Obama uses the executive orders that are at his disposal.  President Obama has been embroiled in controversy regarding executive orders that were about immigration law, gun control and several other issues.  Many people fear that the executive order power gives the President the ability to completely bypass Congress and take unilateral power.  And to some degree that is true, at least temporarily until Congress reacts.

But let's not forget the several landmark moments in American history that came about directly from the use of executive orders from the White House’s desk, including one Supreme Court decision that limited one presidential executive order issued by Harry Truman.  The constitutional base for the executive order is the president’s broad power to issue executive directives. According to the Congressional Research Service, there is no direct “definition of executive orders, presidential memoranda, and proclamations in the U.S. Constitution, there is, likewise, no specific provision authorizing their issuance.”

But Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests executive powers in the President, makes him the commander in chief, and requires that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Laws can also give additional powers to the President.  The order is a directive from the president that has much of the same power as a federal law. And like a federal law, Congress can pass a new law to override an executive order, subject to a presidential veto.

Every President since George Washington has used the executive order power in various ways, except one.  President William Henry Harrison did not issue one executive order!  Of course, he course he was only President for one month (March 4, 1841 - April 4, 1841).  Washington’s first orders were for executive departments to prepare reports for his inspection, and a proclamation about the Thanksgiving holiday.

In terms of executive orders, quality counts as much as quantity, and several significant Obama executive orders have some conservatives rallying around a lawsuit against the president, as well as threatening impeachment or a government shutdown.

There have been significant decisions made via executive orders and presidential proclamations.

President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War using executive orders in 1861. Lincoln cited his powers under the Constitution’s Suspension Clause, which states, “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion and invasion the public safety may require it.”

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney (the same judge who ruled on Dred Scott), in his role as a federal circuit judge, ruled that Lincoln’s executive order was unconstitutional in a decision called Ex Parte Merryman. Lincoln and the Union army ignored Taney, and Congress didn’t contest Lincoln’s habeas corpus decisions.

Two other executive orders comprised Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln was fearful that the Emancipation Proclamation would be overturned by Congress or the courts after the war’s end, since he justified the proclamation under his war time powers. The ratification of the 13th Amendment ended that potential controversy.

President Franklin Roosevelt established internment camps during World War II using Executive Order 9066. Roosevelt also used an executive order to create the Works Progress Administration.

And President Harry Truman mandated equal treatment of all members of the armed forces through executive orders.  However, Truman also saw one of his key executive orders invalidated by the Supreme Court in 1952, in a watershed moment for the Court that saw it define presidential powers in relation to Congress.  nThe Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer that an executive order putting steel mills during the Korean War under federal control during a strike was invalid.  “The President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker,” Justice Hugo Black said in his majority opinion.  It was Justice Robert Jackson’s concurring opinion that stated a three-part test of presidential powers that has since been used in arguments involving the executive’s overreach of powers.  Jackson said the President’s powers were at their height when he had the direct or implied authorization from Congress to act; at their middle ground – the Zone of Twilight, as he put it, when it was unsure which branch could act; and at their “lowest ebb” when a President acted against the expressed wishes of Congress.

The use of executive orders also played a key role in the Civil Rights movement. In 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower used an executive order to put the Arkansas National Guard under federal control and to enforce desegregation in Little Rock. Affirmative action and equal employment opportunity actions were also taken by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson using executive orders.

President Roosevelt issued the most executive orders, according to records at the National Archives. He issued 3,728 orders between 1933 and 1945, as the country dealt with the Great Depression and World War II.  President Truman issued a robust 896 executive orders over almost eight years in office.  And let us not forget that Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge and Theodore Roosevelt all issued over 1,000 executive orders while in office!

President Obama has issued almost 300 orders so far in his presidency. His predecessor, President George W. Bush, issued 291 orders over eight years, while President Bill Clinton had 364 executive orders during his two terms in office.  While some may continue to debate the validity of allowing one man the ability to make law, this essential Presidential power is here to stay so long as the system of checks and balances exists.  And even though the President can write law, Congress and the Supreme Court can overwrite it -- change it or strike it down all together.  Fear not American people, the one thing that continually changes in this country is the law.


~~~
Bruce holds a degree in Computer Science from Temple University, a Graduate Certificate in Biblical History from Liberty University and is working towards a Masters Degree in American History at American Public University.  He has worked in educational and technology for over 18 years, specializes in building infrastructures for schools that work to support the mission of technology in education in the classroom.  He also has served as a classroom teacher in Computer Science, History and English classes.  

Bruce is the author of five books: Sands of Time, Towering Pines Volume One:Room 509, The Star of Christmas, Philadelphia Story: A Lance Carter Detective Novel and The Insider's Story: A Lance Carter Detective Novel

Learn More!

American History 101: The First Crematory in America

The subject of death and how America has dealt it with is a rich and fascinating subject.  Did you know that in 1861, when the Civil War broke out, the United States had no idea how to deal with massive amounts of death?  The Civil War brought ideas such as identification of the dead using dog tags, and a system by which the next of kin were notified by the government.  After over 600,000 Americans died in the war between the states, the images of the massive death, decay and disease were fresh in the minds of every American -- including Dr. Francis LeMoyne.  So when people in his community (Washington, PA) began to get sick with the same symptoms, and then die, Dr. LeMoyne began to search for the cause.  And the more he researched, the more convinced he was that the rituals used to inter and bury bodies was unsanitary, and the cause of the sickness and death.  He believed that when it rained, contaminates would run off from the burial sites into the rivers.  The people of the area would drink and cook with that water, and thusly would become sick from the tainted water.

LeMoyne looked to Europe as a solution for the problems sprouting in western Pennsylvania, he found that there were several crematories in Europe and felt that this was a more sanitary way to deal with the dead.  If the bodies of the dead were cremated, there would be no decomposition in the soil which caused the contamination of the local water supply.  LeMoyne approached the trustees of Washington and offered to pay for the construction of a crematorium on cemetery property but the trustees dismissed the idea out of hand.

Dr. LeMoyne believed in his idea so much that he not only put up his own money, but he set out to build the crematory on his own land.  In 1876, Dr. LeMoyne enlisted to help of John Dye, a local resident, and constructed a crematory on Gallows Hill based on only the most basic of information on how they were built in Europe.  Dye constructed a 30 by 20 foot building with two rooms at a cost of $1,500.  One room was a reception room for families to hold a funeral and reception, and the other was the oven room.  The oven room contained the oven in

which bodies were cremated.  The oven was designed by LeMoyne himself, and the flames would never touch the body.  The furnace was initially powered by coal, but later pipes were run and it was fueled by gas.

Baron de Palm was the cremated on December 6, 1876, becoming the first person to be cremated in the United States.  Baron de Palm was a recent immigrant from Austria, and thusly he was familiar with cremation.  When he passed away in New York, his remains were sent by train to Washington, PA.  The event was reported in newspapers all across the country.  Unfortunately, the cremation of Baron de Palm did not create acceptance of this new practice.  Quite the opposite.  LeMoyne was seen as a crazy old man with devilish ideas.  He was persecuted so much that he was eventually banished from his church.  LeMoyne did not take it all lying down, he even penned an essay that defended the practice of cremation that pulled from information found in the Bible to justify cremation as a valid way to dispose of dead bodies.  Even his citing the cremation of Saul and his sons wasn't enough to sway the heavily religious community.

By the time LeMoyne's crematorium was built and operational, the doctor was 78 years old.  In a twist of irony, Dr. LeMoyne passed away in October of 1878 and was the third person to be cremated here.  Today the small
unassuming building still sits on old Gallows Hill just off South Main Street in Washington.  It closed its oven in 1901 after 41 cremations and it maintained as a museum by the Washington County Historical Society.

LeMoyne's Crematory Today - Image courtesy of Patriot Portraits.

** The last image is used courtesy of George Neat and Patriot Portraits.  Please visit Patriot Portraits on Facebook.

~~~
Bruce holds a degree in Computer Science from Temple University, a Graduate Certificate in Biblical History from Liberty University and is working towards a Masters Degree in American History at American Public University.  He has worked in educational and technology for over 18 years, specializes in building infrastructures for schools that work to support the mission of technology in education in the classroom.  He also has served as a classroom teacher in Computer Science, History and English classes.  

Bruce is the author of five books: Sands of Time, Towering Pines Volume One:Room 509, The Star of Christmas, Philadelphia Story: A Lance Carter Detective Novel and The Insider's Story: A Lance Carter Detective Novel 

American History 101: The Electoral College - What's Wrong?

America is a government for the people, by the people... right?

Isn't that what you are taught in high school?  And in high school, do you remember that chapter in your American History text about the Electoral College?  No?  Not really?  Or maybe a little?

Since we are doing our every four year circus of electing a new President here in 2016, I thought as we move towards primary season it was worth revisiting the Electoral College: what it does, what it means to you as a voter, and the problems with this system.

In a nutshell: your vote for President of the United States does not count the way you think it does.

The Electoral College is the group that elects the President and the Vice President of the United States every four years.  Period.  There is no discussion... there is no debate.  These voters directly cast votes that are supposed to represent the will of the people of the state that the represent.  This usually happens -- but not always.  By most state's laws, the electors are expected to vote in accordance with the popular vote.  However, this is not enforceable in 21 of the 50 states.  Only 29 states have direct control over how their electors vote, while 21 have laws that compel them to vote in accordance with the popular vote.  In most of these states, if an elector does not vote the way his electorate has dictated, they are charged with a misdemeanor and fined.  But the vote is not changed.  This has happened in 19 elections in American history and 3 since 1988.

Electoral College Votes by State, 2012

The number of votes each state has is based on the total population of that state.  So, for example, Pennsylvania has a lot more electoral votes, 20,  (and a bigger say in who is elected) than Delaware, 3, does.  And these numbers change with every census that goes out.  That's the main reason why you should tell the census folks how many people live in your home.  That makes sense, right?  But what happens in California (55 votes) when Barack Obama gets 51% of the vote, and John McCain gets 49%?  If you said Barack Obama gets all 55 votes, you're right.  In 48 of the 50 states, the votes all go to the "winner" of the state based on the elector's vote, not necessarily the popular vote.  Today, only two states (Maine and Nebraska) can split their votes based on the actual popular vote -- what you and I would consider "the will of the people".  And, in the end, the candidate that wins the absolute majority of the electoral votes (270) becomes the next President of the United States.  And on four occasions in American history, the President elected by the Electoral College was *not* the President elected by the people.  Most of you will remember the last time this happened, in 2000 when George Bush was elected even though Al Gore had slightly more votes.  It is worth mentioning that in 2000, Barbara Lee Simmons did not cast her vote according to the will of her electors.  She was the Electoral College Representative from the District of Columbia.

While I won't go into detail in this post, the United States originally had straight popular elections.  But there were many problems with those elections -- one of which that spurred major election reform was the Election of 1824 that I previously BLOGged about.  

In essence, the Electoral College exists to further the operation of the government in more of a "status quo" and to ensure the smooth transition of power (See Election of 1824 for why), to boil it down more -- the government does not trust the American people to pick the President and Vice President.  So... what's really wrong with the Electoral College? Oh, so much...

Unfair Voting PowerThe way in which the Electoral College is designed gives an inordinate amount of power to specific states.  It really favors smaller states, giving more power to each individual vote.  For example, each individual vote in Wyoming counts 4 times as much as those in Texas.  Because Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes for 532,000 people while Texas has 32 votes for 25,000,000 people.  That is one vote for every 117,000 people in Wyoming, while Texas has one vote for very 715,000 people.  Sorry gang, that's not "one person, one vote" at all.

Here is a link to an article that goes into more detail about this disparity.

Winner Take All
As mentioned above, the Electoral College not only favors small states by giving more power per vote, but it also takes those votes and simply throws them at the person who gets one more vote.  Because of this, politicians are forced to campaign more in states where the votes count more.  So the mid-range vote states such as; Arizona (11), Georgia (16) and Indiana (11) are often less important to the candidates than California (55) and even Delaware (3).  This is because these states are often seen as not worthy of the campaign resources.  This also helps to disillusion voters.  For example, Pennsylvania is primarily a Democratic state as far as voting for the President goes.  Republicans may feel that their vote won't count at all because if the Republican candidate gets 49.9% of the vote, they will not receive any Electoral College votes.

Unbound Electors
There is no federal law that requires electors to vote in accordance with their electorate.  However, 29 states and the District of Columbia do have legal control over their electors vote in the Electoral College.  This means that their electors are bound by state law to vote for the candidate that has won the popular vote in their state.  However, even with these laws in place, the vote does not get changed should an elector not follow the law.  And they are often only charged with a misdemeanor and fined.  The election of 2000 had this happen in the District of Columbia.  And what of the other 21 states?  There are no laws that compel their electors to vote in any way other than what they feel is right.

Just think about that for a minute.  And the consider how much your vote next November will actually matter.  Here is a list of states in which there are laws that compel the vote.  If your state is *not* on this list, your vote is nothing more compelling then sitting in a bar and telling the bartender who you want to be President.

Reinforcement of the Two Party System
With all of the screaming for a "third party" -- why don't we have one?  The Electoral College is one good reason.  Since 1860, no party other than the Republican or Democrat has won a Presidential election.  Before that, we had Federalists, Whigs, Democratic-Republicans and other parties who were on the ballot and a real force in elections.

However, since most states are "winner take all" states, voters often can not get past the "lesser of two evils" mantra.  The vote for what they know because they think that voting for an independent or Libertarian candidate would be a wasted vote.  And they are more-or-less right, since it can be mathematically speaking voting for Donald Trump as an independent in 2016 could certainly impact the Republican candidates chances for any electoral votes.  Why the Republican Party is so weak is a different discussion, however this pushes people do always vote for the R or the D because they think it makes their vote mean more.  

And, in essence, it does.  However, consider what would happen if everyone voted for someone other than the R or the D... who would get elected?  We know that in 21 states -- all bets are off.  Pennsylvania could still vote Democrat with no repercussions!

The President Does Not Have To Be Who We Voted For
This is the culmination of all of the above... who you vote for really does not count.

Consider the election of 2000 as an example.  I will openly tell you I voted for George Bush.  Fine.  But George Bush did not win the popular vote.  In 1824, John Quincy Adams did not win the popular vote.  In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes did not win the popular vote.  These are failures of our electorate system -- and the Electoral College itself.  Yes, it has evolved with this nation as it has grown.  Yet... even today after 240 years the system still fails to represent the will of the people in a fair and balanced way.  Some people say, "it's the best we can do" -- but is it?  Are you willing to take that as the end of the story?

I am not.  We can do better!

~~~
Bruce holds a degree in Computer Science from Temple University, a Graduate Certificate in Biblical History from Liberty University and is working towards a Masters Degree in American History at American Public University.  He has worked in educational and technology for over 18 years, specializes in building infrastructures for schools that work to support the mission of technology in education in the classroom.  He also has served as a classroom teacher in Computer Science, History and English classes.  

Bruce is the author of five books: Sands of Time, Towering Pines Volume One:Room 509, The Star of Christmas, Philadelphia Story: A Lance Carter Detective Novel and The Insider's Story: A Lance Carter Detective Novel 

Learn More!

American History 101: The Panic of 1873

The Panic of 1873 was triggered by a number of different events.  The government was giving away land in the west, which kicked off a boom in railroad construction.  There was a lot of money invested in that railroad construction, and the railroad industry became the second largest employer in the United States outside of farming.  All of this growth was sparked by a sudden jump in investments and lending in the industry, which increased the creation of factories and other facilities that the railroad could not support.  The speculation in the industry grew faster then the industry itself.

One of the chief events that contributed to the Panic of 1873 was the combination of the  Coinage Act of 1873 and the German Empire’s decision to stop making silver coins.  This act moved the United States to a gold standard to back its currency, when previously it had been a currency backed by gold and silver.  This caused an immediate depression on the price of silver, which was mined in the Western United States.  Add to this Germany’s decision in 1871 to stop making their thaler coins, which were silver coins that were produced from United States silver, and the demand for United States silver dropped exponentially.

Then in September of 1873, the Jay Cooke & Company declared bankruptcy throwing the entire American lending establishment into a tailspin.  Cooke & Company was one of the largest lenders in the United States banking industry, and was heavily invested in the railroad.  When they saw that the railroad was not paying dividends on the investments fast enough, they made an attempt to sell several million dollars in Northern Pacific Railway bonds, but could not find any buyers.  They needed additional capital to fund the Northern Pacific Railway which had broken ground in 1870, but when they could not sell the bonds the word on the street was that they had no credit left to

extend.  Partially because of the rumors, efforts to secure a large government loan failed and they were forced to declare bankruptcy. 

The failure of Cooke & Company triggered an avalanche of bank failures.  In response, the New York Stock Exchange closed in an effort to stop the collapsing of the entire economy.  The New York Stock Exchange remained closed for ten days in September 1873.  This also caused other banks to fail, factories to close and fifty-five of the nations railroads to close their doors.  Within one year, another sixty would declare bankruptcy.  The combination of the closing of the factories, railroads and bank failures caused unemployment to skyrocket to 8.25% in 1875.  Because of the difficult economy, wages were being cut drastically.  This caused the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, which in turn caused the lumber market to crash and tailspin several lumber companies into bankruptcy.    

~~~
Bruce holds a degree in Computer Science from Temple University, a Graduate Certificate in Biblical History from Liberty University and is working towards a Masters Degree in American History at American Public University.  He has worked in educational and technology for over 18 years, specializes in building infrastructures for schools that work to support the mission of technology in education in the classroom.  He also has served as a classroom teacher in Computer Science, History and English classes.  

Bruce is the author of five books: Sands of Time, Towering Pines Volume One:Room 509, The Star of Christmas, Philadelphia Story: A Lance Carter Detective Novel and The Insider's Story: A Lance Carter Detective Novel 

Learn More!
		>