Themes in American History

One thing that was very important to New York City in the mid 1800s was that the city need a source of water for its growing inhabitance. Likewise Boston and other major cities faced a simular situation. Chudacoff wrote on page 50 “In 1835, New York voters solidly approved a project to bring water to the city through an aqueduct form the Croton River.” And then later “In 1845, an act passed by the Massachusetts General Assembly enable Boston to construct it’s own water system.” I believe that New York set the standard for the growth of most large cities with its implmentation of a necessitiy such as running water. This increase the standards of public health and contrubute considerably to the population growth in both New York and Boston.

Comments Off on New York / Boston

In the 1800’s, much like New York City, many developing states began to become increasingly populated. Because of the westward expansion, areas such as the Midwest; Chicago in particular attracted many immigrants to the area during this period. Their main water supply was lake Michigan. They got their drinking water here. As the city grew, the garbage did as well and factories began to throw their waste into the Chicago river. The city felt that it was absolutely necessary to built a proper sewerage system. The dirty water had taken a toll on the rising population in the mid 1800’s, killing hundreds of people. A disease called Cholera decimated the population and many blamed the Irish immigrants. This project was the biggest construction project of this era. It required the city to be elevated 10-15 feet vertically to allow the sewers to drain into the river. ( http://www.sewerhistory.org/chronos/new_amer_roots.htm )

Comments Off on Chicago’s Sewer System

Slavery in NYC and New Orleans shared many similarities but had significant differences.The shared in common the methods of punishment to slaves that rebelled such as hanging as well as methods of control . ” By The early 1700s most towns North and south had passed ordinances limiting the liberties of all nonwhites, slaves and free. These included curfews, regulations of movement on city streets and prohibition on certain purchases.”( Chudacoff  pg19).

Nevertheless These two cities differed in the development of these control methods as the mid 1700s approached. There was a larger ratio of slaves to the white population of  in New Orleans than in New York (Chudacoff pg 18). Consequently, to control the slave population New Orleans created a formalized system whereby which slaves could buy there freedom, this along with tighter regulations on the lives of all blacks New Orleans officials hope would cause division in the black communities and ultimately provide systematic control. “They expected that the chance of liberation would give stake in the system to a small but growing number of slaves who made money from gardening, working, hunting or nursing the sick”.(Chudacoff pg 19) While this method of control was not needed in NYC because of the small ratio of blacks to whites.

Comments Off on Methods of Slave control in NYC and New Orleans

Richmond, Virginia, like New York, was a fast growing city between 1800 and 1860. Of course it didn’t grow as quick as New York. There are a variety of things that the two cities had in common even though New York was more business-related, whereas Richmond was more of a plantation/farm-based city. Richmond was following the same path as New York, having their first City Hall built in 1816, says visitrichmondva.com. In the 19th century, slavery was common in both of these cities. It’s obvious that a city as large as New York would need slaves to help regulate the flow of business and in Virginia, there were over a hundred slaves per plantation. Fortunately, slavery was abolished in New York in 1827. On the other hand, in the South, farming was a big part of daily life and they needed slaves and it was impossible for them to free a slave. “Only in Richmond, where slave manpower was essential to iron and tobacco provessiong, did a large proportion of slaves still persist in 1860” (Chudacoff 64). Due to their selfishness to keep slaves, Virginia joined the Confederacy, the states that supported slavery. Havoc broke loose in the mid 19th-century when the slave-free North, also known as the Union, and pro-slavery South clashed in a war known as the Civil War. The outcome of this war shaped the way for slavery for years to come. According to visitrichmondva.com, Richmond actually became the capital of the Confederate States. As common as Richmond was, it’s population didn’t burst until the mid to late 19th century, whereas New York experienced a sudden population growth starting from the 1820s, onward. “The establishment and expansion of the COnfederate government’s bureaucracy helped to triple the population of Richmond” (Chudacoff 74).

Slave auction in Richmond, Virginia on September 27th, 1856.

Comments Off on Richmond, Virginia

During the 1840’s, New York City and Cincinnati experienced a major exponential increase in their population growth due to the migration of Germans and Irish.  German culture continued throughout the decade influencing churches, newspapers, and many other institutions.  Cincinnati’s economic growth and development was made possible by-thousands of immigrants to the area.  The addition of the Erie Canal lead greater economic growth as merchants sought out new investments in the Western expansion.

During the 1830’s, Cincinnati became an important city for the national debate of slavery.  Ohio utilized the city to promote anti-slave movements due to it’s position; west from the Ohio River from Kentucky.  Many who opposed against the end of slavery were the Irish because they feared the growing competition between freed African Americans.   Similar to New York City during the 1830’s, as the Irish and African Americans competed for land and jobs.

Comments Off on Similarities between NYC and Cincinnati

Boston and NYC’s histories have been different from their founding. Boston was founded among the first Puritan colonies. These people were escaping religious persecution in England. NYC, on the other hand, was founded by a massive corporation for the sake of profit. John Winthrop had a vision for Boston to be as “a city upon a hill,” where the members were exclusive and had special favor from god (Chudacoff 59). In fact, many non-puritan leaders were persecuted for their beliefs. His vision failed, as the cities population nearly doubled around the time of the revolutionary war, and exploded in the 19th century. Boston was also a hub for anti-British ideals. The events that lead to the revolution like the Tea Party and the massacre happened in Boston. New Yorkers seemed primarily concerned with making money, and until the British began taxing unfairly, didn’t mind who ruled. After the war had ended, the differences in ideals became apparent in slavery. Boston almost immediately banned slavery whereas NYC took a few decades as the practice was still profitable.

Comments Off on NYC vs. Boston

Slavery existed in both cities -New York and South Carolina. During 19th century, cities are growing in the North. The slaves in northern cities like New York worked primarily as domestic servants, while the slaves in the South Carolina were working in the plantations. In 1810 African American had constituted over 10 percent of the population in New York City. (Chudacoff p66) Agriculture was very important to the South’s economy. In South Carolina, most of the plantations grew cotton and those plantations required large numbers of slaves. Compared to the South Carolina, the North’s economy was based on trade and merchandising. The households in New York City were wealthier so they could hire one or two slaves as servants. In New York City there was more numbers of slave-owners but in South Carolina there was more numbers of slaves working there. Slavery was officially abolished in New York in 1827. On the other hand it became nearly impossible to free a slave in South Carolina after 1820. The state had one of the most stringent slave codes in the country. The slavery even kept expanding in South Carolina in 1840s. (Lesesne p457) Slavery existed in America for more than 200 years, until the thirteenth amendment to the U.S. constitution was passed in 1865. After that, slavery was definitely abolished throughout the country.

The photograph was taken on Smith's Plantation, Beaufort, South Carolina.

Lesesne, H. (2003). South Carolina. In S. I. Kutler (Ed.)Dictionary of American History, (Vol. 7). (3rd ed., pp. 453-457) New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons Retrieved June 16, 2011,
from Gale Virtual Reference History Collection

Comments Off on Slavery in New York City and South Carolina

Similarity:  1. The success of transportantion in NYC and Philadephia made other imitators to follow: For the transportation,  the first turnpike–Philadelphia-Lancaster Turnpike was built by private stock companies and financed by private investments and toll revenues, opened in 1794 between Lancaster and Philadelphia. Due to successof the turnpike, it caused many imitators to follow. In New York alone, privately operated turnpike companies had completed 4,000 miles of toll roads by 1820. (Chudacoff p.36). Similarly, Eirc Canal was under construction from 1817 to 1825 and officially opened on October 26, 1825.  It proved an enormous success upon its completion in 1825. Shipping costs from Lake Erie to New York dropped by more than  90%. The success of Erie Canal  spawned may imitators to follow as well as the turnpike. Two thousand miles of canals were built during the 1830s, include a ridiculously expensive Main Line from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh.

2. In New York, the upper 4 percent owned 49 percentof the wealth in 1828 and 66 percent in 1845. SImilar concentrations of wealth could be found in Philadephia. (Chudacoff p.44).

3.  The proportion of  African Americans diminished in NYC and Philadelphia: African Americans had contributed over 10 percent of the population in New York City in 1810; by 1860, they represented only 1.5 percent of all New Yorker. In Philadelphia, more than 12 percent of the population was black in 1830; by 1860, that proportion had dropped to less than 4 percent.  (Chudacoff p.66)

Differnence: Under pressures reulting from the yellow fever epidemics, Philadelphia constructed the country’s first major PUBLIC waterworks. while other cities included NYC which purchased water from PRIVATE companies. and the quality of the water system was low because few private corporations were willing to commit huge amounts of captial to the construction and mainltenance of an elaborate water system.

Comments Off on Similarity and difference between New York City and Philadelphia

By the 1850s, more than half the residents of Boston and New York City were foreign born, and Philadelphia 30 percent of household heads were born in Europe. Major concentration of Irish immigrants cound be found in New York, Boston Philadelphia and San Francisco, and strong German communities emerged in Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis and Milwaukee (P.65)

New York and Boston are both city of seaside, they are the fastest growing cities during 18^th century, and attract new immigrant from European country, like Irish, German. By 1850s, more than half of the residents of Boston and New York City were born in Europe.  The huge number of European immigration makes changes to society, like religion.  One of the differences between New York City and Boston is the density in urban side. The Populations of New York grow from 202,589 to 515,500 and Boston growth from 61392 to 136880 in 1830 to 1850. By 1850, there were 135.6 persons per acre in New York, 82.7 in Boston.  New York has much higher immigration population and density in urban area than Boston.

Comments Off on New York and Boston

Throughout the  19th century, the primary occupation of people living in Kentucky was farming whereas for New Yorkers was manufacturing and constructing. All the dirty and hard works like producing hemp, and processing tobacco were attended to by slaves. The number of slaves appeared  to relate to the production of market-oriented crops and not to the amount of land owned and farmed. Also the small farming tasks were performed by slaves.Although  slaves were free and not owned, they had been given the most difficult tasks than any others. In contrast to kentucky, New York was one of the developed city where prominent Americans used to live there. As there were  many renowned individual living in the city, they  were able to import and own the slaves even just to make their standard in the society.

The demand for slaves were mainly for manufacturing, construction, and other household works. In contrast to New York, between 1850-1860 Kentucky used to export more slaves than did any other states (wikipedia ,”Slaves in Kentucky”). African American slaves used to be exported through Tennessee and Mississippi river from kentucky to New York and other states. During 19th century as all people living there were engaged to farming and crop production, there were no people owning any slaves. There was no demand for slaves whereas in New York, the demand was higher for the purpose of manufacturing, construction etc. The business was mostly depending on the slavery trade.

1 Comment »

Chicago, one of America’s greatest cities, saw a drastic change during post civil war era. One of the reasons for this major change was both geographical and economical. Since the war ended and the South had lost the war, many business entrepreneurs and investors saw a great deal of potential in Midwestern cities like St. Louis and Chicago. According to Chudacoff, “Chicago grew with the aid of railroads, and as a web of tracks extended in all directions towards Chicago, the trains began cutting into St Louis’s commercial hinterland (Pg 81).” Chicago certainly had an advantage that was crucial for transportation of trade through an east-west route making it more accessible and convenient for farmers to ship grain and livestock to New York. Chicago also grew in population in 1840, becoming the ninth most populous city in America.  The greatest change that occurred in comparison to New York however, was the construction of railroads that had entered into the city through thirty different lines. Having a reliable source of transportation allows the city to quickly and thoroughly move people and goods from one place to another. The city was able to flourish with the railroads but as well with the geographical spread of the city as well. The city was harboring by the Great lakes and with the State of Illinois pinpointing on the canals, Chicago emerged as the City by the Lake. New York was now able to reach Chicago by both land and water. Both cities emerged as the major cities of modern day with many cultural and economical factors that are driving the force of America today.

Comments Off on The Tale of Two Cities: New York and Chicago

A free black community of institutional complexity was a particularly new feature of urban life. As free African Americans moved to cities to look for employment opportunity, they also made the society more complexity and influence the urban economy system. New York and Philadelphia are both the city that attracted the free African American came to look for their new lives. Especially in New York City, the free African American population was more than 8 percent of the city’s total. Although the society of the cities were dominated by the white men, there still a group of African Americans fought for their rights and created their own community. In Philadelphia, the Angola Beneficial Society was established in 1808, the African Insurance Company in 1809, the Sons of Africa in 1810, and the African Female and Male Benevolent Societies in the following years. By the 1820s in Philadelphia, African Americans had created an institutional life that was richer and more stable than that of the lower-income whites with whom they shared neighborhoods. As well as in a mixed uptown area in New York City, where small craft shops bordered on larger factories, a group free blacks who were able to purchase cheap house supported two black Methodist churches and a racially mixed Episcopal church, and the “Colored Scholl,” (Chudacoff, P69) These indicated that the social lives of Africa Americans had something changed due to the society and the economy development.

Even both New York City and Philadelphia demanded the labor of free African Americans. But the requirements for the labors were different. In most northern seaports, most free African –American men worked as laborers or mariners, but a few worked as artisans, servile or dirty labor like barbering and butchering. In New York City, free slaves were more than twice as likely to posses a skill than in Philadelphia. (Chudacoff,p68). Because New York City had diversity commerce like manufactory and small business, it needed different kinds of labors. Such as the White New York artisans relied heavily on the skilled labors.

No matter how difference roles the Africa Americans played in the different cities during, they were the import part of the American history and they contribute to the American economy.

Comments Off on New York City VS Philadelphia

The difference between New York City and Cincinnati is that while NYC is a trend setter, Cincinnati is not. Cincinnati sought out council for plans to construct a sewer system from NYC to improve their city (Chudacoff 47).  Although it would be wise to seek out advice from other developed cities, it denies Cincinnati to be considered as a truly independent city. In some circumstances, certain ideas may only work for certain areas which could also lead to many drawbacks because it may hinder more than help the city.

What could be considered a similarity between New York City and Cincinnati is that both cities heavily rely on water transportation for their commercial success. While New York City had the transatlantic connection and the Erie Canal, Cincinnati had the Ohio River and Mississippi River to conduct majority of its business. Both cities found great success through their ports, which also helped them boom in both population and wealth. Just as New York City is considered to be the best city of the east coast, Cincinnati was coined the “Queen of the West” (Chudacoff 37-38).

Cincinnati

New York City

Comments Off on NYC and Cincinnati 1800-1860

As more immigrants started coming Philadelphia and New York, the population of African Americans started decreasing. Before coming to US, Irish immigrants were unaware of racial discrimination against African Americans.  After learning that fact Irish people refused to work with African Americans. As a result African Americans started losing their jobs and employment rate of Irish people increased. More European immigrants started moving in these cities due to development and job opportunities population of African American decreased. “African Americans had constituted over 10 percent of the population in New York City in 1810; by 1860, they represented only 1.5 % of all New Yorkers. In Philadelphia, more than 12 % of the population was black in 1830; by 1860, that proportion had dropped to less than 4 percent.” (Chudacoff, pg66).Between 1820 and 1830, ferries and bridges helped in developing cities, lands across Manhattan and Philadelphia get accessible and that increased the population of these areas doubled and tripled in just single decade. That was another reason of decrease in population of African Americans in these cities. Such a Large scale immigration of Irish people took place main due to potato blight. “The potato blight that struck Ireland in 1845-1847 destroyed the food supply for countless families “(CHUDACOFF, Pg 64). As a result 1.7 million Irish fled to US. By the 1850’s, more than half the residents of Boston and New York city were foreign born, and Philadelphia 30 percent of household heads were born in Europe.” (CHUDACOFF, Pg 64).

Comments Off on African Americans in NYC and Philadelphia

A characterization of a dichotomy between an urban-industrial North and a rural-plantation South before civil war would exaggerate actual conditions. But the southern city like Savannah was neither nonurban nor antiurban, which resembled northern city, especially, New York City in their commercial functions and social complexity . Savannah businesspeople did, however, depend on northern cities, especially New York City’s capital and markets. (Chudacoff, pg78, 6th Ed)

Comparing with New York City, Savannah suffered more damage from the civil war. The union army’s blockade ports, the breakdown of transportation system as a result of military activity, and wartime inflation exacerbated patterns of urban hardship, especially food shortages. All of these slowed down the development of economic in Savannah. But New York City’s economic was rapid develop in the 1850s (Chudacoff, pg80, 6th Ed).

Comments Off on New York City VS. Savannah before and after the civil war

Immigrants had an important impact on many cities of the Untied State. For example, New York is a diversity city

which accepted many immigrants from over the world; especially people from Europe, Germany and Ireland, and so on

in 1820-1860. Immigrants contributed labor force for the development of New York City. They were used to work at

factory and port for delivering goods.

The first purpose was getting rich fast for people ,who went to  California in 1845-1863. Because of gold rush, many

immigrants moved into California, therefore it became a bigger and wealth city gradually. At the time, most immigrants

were from China. They were in order to get rich and have a better life, most people abandoned their families and moved

to California. However, later on, they became a particular force which built railroad from west to central of the

Untied State with gold rushed up.

Comments Off on New York Vs California

New York state was one of the most populated states pre-Constitution, which is why she had such an influence in the development of America. Since the days of Hamilton, New York was seen as a symbol of capitalism and the “American dream” through a vibrant economy. Hamilton was an inspirational lawyer with the mind of a true businessman. Wall Street was established when President George Washington was inaugurated. The path of NYC seemed to be one of entreprenural, investing, and trading. With this came manufacturing and small sweatshops (nothing like the high rises we see today). I think it was part of New Yorkers destiny to “keep up with the Jones’” because already by 1845, the upper 4% of owned 49% of the cities wealth (Chudacoff, pg. 48). This monetary difference caused the beginnings of the division between the upper and lower classes and the establishment of a middle class. “Housed in mansion, transported in private carriages, clothed in the finest fabrics, fed the choicest delicacies, waited on by servants…the wealthiest residents could remove themselves from contact with the new urban masses (pg. 48). This lifestyle and urbanization contrasted greatly with those cities Out West mainly because of geography and also because of the identity of the settlers.

“Many an optimistic urban speculator from the East came West holding a deed only to find his property located in a mosquito invested swamp (Chudacoff, 42). This explains how the successes of the few still inspired risk takers to make it big in a new and foreign city with lots of rising opportunity. Like New York, the wealth individuals had affected their style of living. And in cities Out West money paid for property and land improvements (Chudacoff, 43). This is an example of a privatized system that had no issue providing special treatments for the people that could afford, while in other cities, like New York, local governments paid for water supplies, firefighting equipment, canals and turnpikes. The beginning of Westward expansion was after the War of 1812 and the construction of an intercontinental railroad. New York and the original thirteen colonies already had an economic advantage, so the Western Territories had to catch up quickly in population and wealth. Geographically, the West had all of these great rivers and waterways that would be of value to them with the introduction of steamships.

1 Comment »

Mobile and New York City were two remarkable cities during the 19th century. In the north New York dominated the trading scene as one of the most popular and business driven ports along the East Coast. While in the south New York City’s “younger brother” Mobile, Alabama was one of the largest international seaports on the Gulf Coast.

They both had some key attributes that made them similar. They both started out as cities that prospered because of their geographical location. New York City prospered because it was easily accessible from the Atlantic ocean. Which made it easy to commute back and forth to Europe. While Mobile was situated on a prime spot near the Gulf of Mexico, making is easily accessible by boats coming from Atlantic Ocean. This also made it easy to exchange goods and slaves with the West Indies and Africa.

Like any two brothers New York City and Mobile had their disagreements on certain issues. For example, when it came to slavery and African Americans New York City and Mobile had differing views. While NYC decided to start gradually freeing slaves in 1799, Mobile did not decide to free its slaves until another 20 years later in 1819. This was mainly because Mobile was a city that relied on slaves to pick cotton, which was the city’s main export. While in NYC there was more of a demand for skilled labor to work in factories.

2 Comments »

Until the 1850’s many American cities were called “walking cities”. Boston and New York were called “walking cities” because of its size.  Those cities extended about 2 miles from the city’s core. A regular person could walk 2 miles in 30 minutes and that’s why New York and Boston were called walking cities. People in those cities walked to work, shops and schools. Walking was the most common mode of transportation back then. (  Chudacoff, pg. 57-58)

One difference between New York and Boston was their number of people per acre. New York had almost double population than Boston by 1850. In New York there were 135.6 persons per acre and in Boston 82.7 persons per acre. People from all over the world were coming to New Nation trying to find a better job or living. New York draw in much more people than Boston did. Over the time density of people was much higher in New York than in Boston and more families or single people occupied a single apartment or house. (Chudacoff, pg. 59)

Comments Off on New York and Boston

One similarity about New York and New Orleans that existed between 1800 and 1865 was the conflict between new immigrants and native-born residents together with the foreign-born expansion in the population. As a result, “by the 1850’s, more than half the residents of Boston and New York City were foreign born.” (Chudacoff 74) According to Chudacoff these new comers where Europeans:  “Major populations of Irish immigrants could be identified in New York, Boston and Philadelphia…”(74) This new group of immigrants added their culture and customs in these cities. Chudacoff states these new immigrants “brought their cultural traditions of work and leisure, spirituality and sociability, which often came into conflict with those of native-born residents.”(74)  One example of these traditions was their drinking and the Catholic religion. Similarly, in New Orleans  “by 1860, 40 percent of New Orleans population was foreign born.” (Chudacoff 74) The immigrants in New Orleans, French and Spanish brought with them their traditions of carnival, “…with maskers, Harlequins, and Punchinchellos parading the streets with guitars, violins and other instruments in the days before lent.”(Chudacoff 74) As a result, this caused the hatred of the native-born residents. According to Chudacoff: “By the 1830s and 1840’s, New Orleans revelers were throwing flour and pieces of brick as well as candies and cake and apples and oranges to people along the parade route..”  Referring Mardi Gras as a “vulgar and tasteless” celebration (74) To the contrary, one difference between these cities was that New York was a Protestant city while New Orleans was Catholic. “An early wave of Irish immigrants, fleeing British persecution at the end of the 1700s, landed in New Orleans and became well integrated into the economy and social life of the city. The first St. Patrick’s Day celebration was held in 1809. Irish social and benevolent organizations were formed, and Irish theater thrived.  (neworleansonline).  On the other hand, New York didn’t see the Irish population in that way:  “native –born enthusiasm for temperance translated into passionate anti-Catholicism, sharply splitting the working classes along ethnic lines and turning neighborhoods into battlegrounds.” (Chudacoff 75)

1 Comment »