The Gilded Age, which spanned from about 1877-1900, was a period of rapid change in the U.S. The American government spread its power nationally and internationally in ways that benefitted some US citizens but disadvantaged the rest—few truly profited from the rapid entrepreneurship and growth that occurred. However, the structural oppression against people of color at that time is difficult to discern not just due to how subtle their maltreatment was, but because society perceives that era as one of liberation and economic gain for the disadvantaged. On a whole, during the Gilded Age, the American state functioned as a vehicle of oppression both nationally and internationally by using economic gain to justify their treatment of people of color.

The U.S. government first oppressed Native Americans to access their land for monetary gain and justified their brutal treatment by stating that it was necessary to ‘civilize’ them. Around the end of the Civil War, settlers realized that there were large swathes of resource-rich land they hadn’t touched or explored to the West, but “various Indigenous groups controlled most of the continent west of the Mississippi River deep into the nineteenth century”, and the attempts at expansion created clashes with the Native Americans who resided on that land (The West). For example, after discovering that the Navajo lived “on some of the most valuable lands acquired by the United States”, the U.S. military forced them into “a series of forced marches to the reservation at Bosque Redondo” in which the conditions were horrible, “disease was rampant, and thousands of Navajos died” (The West). The thousands of acres of resource-rich land the white settlers gained by displacing the Navajos was more than enough to justify what is now called The Long Walk. Even further, they believed that their actions were beneficial to the indigenous peoples, even though they resulted in the deaths of thousands of Native Americans. While seizing the land, the American state simultaneously enacted policies such as allocating Indian lands to individual Native Americans rather than to tribes in order to “encourage American-style agriculture and finally put Indians who had previously resisted the efforts of missionaries and federal officials on the path to ‘civilization’” (The West). The actions the American state took ultimately had an economic motive, but by justifying the atrocities it committed upon Native Americans with the idea that they were being ‘civilized’ and assimilated into ‘proper’ society, the government gained the false perception of being a vehicle of liberation for the indigenous peoples that continues to this day.

The American state used economic gain to justify the oppression of Black Americans and immigrants in America because they were a threat to the wealthy, white upper class. At a time when the socio-economic and political dynamics of the U.S. were rapidly changing, a new theory called Social Darwinism, which found that “the inequality of outcomes was to be not merely tolerated but encouraged and celebrated,” was used by both wealthy businessmen and the government to justify the abusive treatment of poor laborers, many of whom were Black Americans and immigrants (Capital and Labor). The government did nothing to protect the poor workers, instead implicitly supporting the wishes of the wealthy, white upper class who employed the laborers. The government also turned a blind eye to the lynchings of Black Americans when they formed unions. A dispatch from the Mississippi Colored Farmers Alliance in 1889 found that when a group of farmers formed a union, “the white store-keepers and planters banded themselves together” and about forty Black Americans “were murdered before the work ceased” (Mississippi Colored Farmers Alliance). At times, lynchings were even publicized so that white vendors and rail lines could profit off of the suffering of Black Americans. Lynchings would become “public spectacles attended by thousands of eager spectators” where “rail lines ran special cars to accommodate the rush of participants” and “vendors sold goods and keepsakes” (Life in Industrial America). The government tolerated these lynchings not because of the working-class status of the Black laborers, but because of their race. While unions formed by white laborers did face repercussions—such as when “state militias were called in support of” rail companies during a series of strikes—the government did not perpetrate such brutalities upon the white laborers (Capital and Labor). Instead, they simply broke the strikes up and then put the employees back to work. The contributions of state militias in breaking up strikes and the presence of many government officials at the lynchings not only signifies the difference in how black and white laborers were treated by their employers but highlights how the American state acted as a vehicle of oppression against Black Americans to justify the economic gain of their wealthy, white vendors and businessmen.

While the government stated that imperialism was necessary to liberate people of color in other countries, it put those people under a new form of oppression to ease trade for the Americans. In 1899, Secretary of State John Hay realized that “it was in the economic interest of American business to maintain China for free trade”, and thus, Americans started “to venture into the seas and claim islands for the United States” (American Empire). In the Philippines, investors “recognized the opportunities the Philippine Islands presented for access to Asian markets” and enticed the government to go to war in that area to gain more control over the Asian markets, ultimately conquering the area (American Empire). The American government, unheeding of the fact that the Philippines wished to be free, then fought the Philippine-American War for multiple years, waging a brutal conflict that was justified with the governmental assertion that colonial rule was for the good of the Filipinos. Ultimately, a colonial government was put in place, stripping the Filipinos of any control they had and placing them directly under the oppressive, dictatorial hand of the U.S. government solely for expanding international trade.

The government did not just intervene internationally to preserve trade, but also to protect the business interests of its richest Americans regardless of the impact on the poorer people of color. During the early 20th century, American capitalists invested money in Mexico, but when the Mexican people revolted against their authoritarian government in 1910, their investments were put at risk. To preserve their money, “Americans with investment interests pleaded for governmental help” until the U.S. stepped in and forcibly overthrew the new government, uncaring of the fact that their coup of the Mexican government would go on to kill many Mexicans (American Empire). Thus, not only did the American tradition that justified “interventionist actions in Latin American politics because of their potential bearing on economic investments” begin, but it set a precedent for future interactions with Latin American countries that continued well into the Cold War (American Empire). The American state proved in this circumstance that regardless of the impact their interventions would have on the Latin Americans, military intervention could be justified to protect American investments.

The political and military actions of the American government during the Gilded Age benefited some US citizens, but ultimately, the state acted as a vehicle of oppression against people of color both nationally and internationally using economic justifications. Whether it was to facilitate trade in the Pacific, protect the business interests of its rich white investors and businessmen, or give land and resources to its people, the American state set a precedent for xenophobia and racism on a governmental level that society struggles to recognize due to the perception of the Gilded Age as a period of salvation for the disadvantaged. Ultimately, this precedent helped to dictate governmental actions for the next few decades and still sets biased standards in the 21st century.

Bibliography

The American Yawp Reader. https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/16-capital-and-labor/dispatch-from-a-mississippi-colored-farmers-alliance-1889/.

The American Yawp. http://www.americanyawp.com/index.html.