During the 2nd of our 3 week creation of the questions for our Honors History class final exam, we created 40 more questions for the topic of Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans. To start the week, we watched the ABC-Clio videos and took notes on a Google Doc shared by the entire class. The class took notes on key people, important events, key terms, and main ideas just like last week.
Buffalo soldiers were Union African Americans who were part of the nation's army. Native Americans are considered to be the first groups of people that were living in the Great Plains and more of Western America. They lived in peace because there were no enemies living out in Western America of course before Westward Expansion occurred. They were very dependent on Buffalo for their resources. They would use the meat for food, the skin for clothing, and the bones for hunting weapons and other tools. There were vast ceremonies and other rituals. Being a kid as a Native American seems to be more fun than being a kid today; at least when you look at the first time. Children would get to spend time playing games and doing certain activities also being taken by their fathers learning how to hunt. Women would often make the clothing and it was also more common that women would find the herbs and plants for medicines though the plants were somewhat useful, there was never an actual cure to an illness. For a boy, becoming a man was probably the most exciting time of his life as he would complete a puberty ceremony into adulthood.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was a law that said Indian tribes in the South had to leave where they were and move west of the Mississippi River or they will live under the laws of white Americans which really means they could be treated poorly, beaten, raped, and go into slavery when it was still legal just about 25 years prior to the Civil War. However, Andrew Jackson was a pro-slavery guy and certainly wouldn't make a law to protect the Indians that stayed if they decided to. The reason for this expansion; just so Jackson and the "real Americans" in which he called about 100,000 more could have more land to settle with. While many of the Indian tribes did move westward just out of either fear or not wanting violence, they were reluctant to do so because the territory where Jackson was making them move to which he did say if they did so without conflict they would be able to live in peace, the land was unknown, and there were fewer natural resources that they could use. Then in the 1840's, there was the great gold rush that brought more and more whites westward. This resulted in whites settling on the new Indian territory, you know the territory that Jackson promised there would be no problems had they moved there peacefully. From the 60's to the 90's, American Indian wars occurred in the great plains as Gold was discovered in the Dakotas. Immigrants were abusing the Sioux tribe until they decided that they had enough and fought back. Congress in the 1860's created the 6 regiments making Buffalo Soldiers. They fought against the Indians for years until 1876 when the government ordered all Indians to return to their reservations though many took a long time to reach the plains and others were ignored leading to more confrontation amongst natives and whites.
We looked at other documents. One document called A century of dishonor discusses the Indians' experiences throughout all of the expansion. One quote says "These Indians found themselves surrounded by gold seeking settlers from the East." At this point, whites were already settled in the new areas for Indians and conflict was already arising. It was too late for the government to do anything that would have a huge affect on the problems. And the only thing that they would consider doing is making the Indians move again most likely because of a circumstantial change in this case, the gold that was being found all over the western part of the country. The Indians followed the order of Jackson by moving westward and by doing that, it was agreed that they would live in peace. Yet, when gold suddenly rises out of the ground, the rules change because it's a new circumstance and the government sees an opportunity to make money and are completely oblivious to the law they had created on Indian Removal. The fact the word Removal is linked to the word Indian and is a law gives off the feeling that the main purpose of the law is to slowly and gradually diminish total Indian population making it look like it is only pushing them out west. There was also the General Allotment Act which tried to get Indians to embrace American culture so maybe this is a sign that some policies didn't bring the worst if followed or not. In 1890, at Pine Ridge, over 150 Sioux Indians were killed in a massacre between American Indian ghost dancers and the U.S. army and Buffalo Soldiers. While the policies may have led to some good things, I personally believe that some policies like Jackson's had long lasting affects that would destroy the native in the long run and may have been discriminatory towards them while others did not have discrimination put within them yet the enforcement of the policies led to it anyways.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Sunday, June 7, 2015
Industrial Experts
This week in our Honors History class, we began preparing for the final exam. For our midterm back in January, we were given two hours to write two essays. We were given time to prepare the notes two weeks prior to midterm week. However in May, we finished a five page research paper and our teacher didn't want us to have to do what we did for midterms. Instead, we will have an actual exam. But, from last week until Finals, we will be studying new lessons and creating notes and questions to be put on the final. For each lesson, the class divided amongst our groups has to create 40 questions each week. This week's lesson was called Carnegie and Rockefeller. To begin the unit, the class made a Google Doc accessed by everyone in the class, and the groups were assigned certain categories. We got the notes from watching a series of video clips on ABC-CLIO. The categories were main ideas, key people, important events, and essential terms. After taking the notes, the class had to come up with an essential question for the lesson, which was 'How did the actions of monopolistic leaders such as Carnegie and Rockefeller affect the common American workers?'
John D. Rockefeller was born in 1839. He was a part of the creation of the petroleum industry. He was a strong supporter of the Union army in the Civil War. Also, he donated nearly $500 million dollars to advancements of education and medicine. He became a business powerhouse by 1870. He then founded the Standard Oil company which became a monopolistic corporation in oil production. He continued to find ways to make more money and put other oil producers out of business clinching a nationwide monopoly. As he proceeded to do this, the public started to think that he was making all of this money and trying to be the only producer just for his own good. People also believed that he was trying to be a business icon with the motive of not doing good for the public, just for himself and trying to end his competition. In an interview with William Hoster, he says "I believe the gift of god is the power to make money." He also said "I believe it is my duty to make money and still more money." This statement shows a rich non charismatic man who just wants power but while he made this much, yes he put towards himself but also to charities as he did prior to 1870s. He also did provide jobs to the millions of Americans while at the same time putting so many others out of work. But donating 500 million to charity is a huge contribution. I believe he did help American workers because while he may have made other companies lose jobs, he certainly did provide much more.
Andrew Carnegie was a Scottish rich man in the United States. He began his life in poverty and as he got older into adulthood, he became more powerful as he controlled the U.S. steel industry. He had a huge role in the telegraph as he wad the first man to be able to operate messages by differentiating wire transmission sounds. He now could read messages via sound. He became an operator of the country's telegraph lines and then eventually becoming the superintendent of the military telegraph lines. He was a coordinator of rail transportation for the Union in the Civil War. Once he got into the Steel Industry in the 1870s, he gained popularity amongst workers and people because there was a huge need for steel. It boosted during the war and he became one of the leaders in production in the United States. He provided millions of jobs as his corporation became more powerful. This also took other jobs away but there were other popular steel companies in the U.S. that weren't selling prior to Carnegie's existence in the industry. However, once his company boosted, so did theirs but they still were not as popular as him though very high up on the ladder. Carnegie was a huge creator of jobs for the American workers. He was also fair to the workers in terms of conditions and working hours. He was a much more decent man than Carnegie was in terms of fairness to the workers. Carnegie provided stable paying and well conditioned but very physical jobs for American workers and he had a positive impact on the commoners of the nation.
John D. Rockefeller was born in 1839. He was a part of the creation of the petroleum industry. He was a strong supporter of the Union army in the Civil War. Also, he donated nearly $500 million dollars to advancements of education and medicine. He became a business powerhouse by 1870. He then founded the Standard Oil company which became a monopolistic corporation in oil production. He continued to find ways to make more money and put other oil producers out of business clinching a nationwide monopoly. As he proceeded to do this, the public started to think that he was making all of this money and trying to be the only producer just for his own good. People also believed that he was trying to be a business icon with the motive of not doing good for the public, just for himself and trying to end his competition. In an interview with William Hoster, he says "I believe the gift of god is the power to make money." He also said "I believe it is my duty to make money and still more money." This statement shows a rich non charismatic man who just wants power but while he made this much, yes he put towards himself but also to charities as he did prior to 1870s. He also did provide jobs to the millions of Americans while at the same time putting so many others out of work. But donating 500 million to charity is a huge contribution. I believe he did help American workers because while he may have made other companies lose jobs, he certainly did provide much more.
Andrew Carnegie was a Scottish rich man in the United States. He began his life in poverty and as he got older into adulthood, he became more powerful as he controlled the U.S. steel industry. He had a huge role in the telegraph as he wad the first man to be able to operate messages by differentiating wire transmission sounds. He now could read messages via sound. He became an operator of the country's telegraph lines and then eventually becoming the superintendent of the military telegraph lines. He was a coordinator of rail transportation for the Union in the Civil War. Once he got into the Steel Industry in the 1870s, he gained popularity amongst workers and people because there was a huge need for steel. It boosted during the war and he became one of the leaders in production in the United States. He provided millions of jobs as his corporation became more powerful. This also took other jobs away but there were other popular steel companies in the U.S. that weren't selling prior to Carnegie's existence in the industry. However, once his company boosted, so did theirs but they still were not as popular as him though very high up on the ladder. Carnegie was a huge creator of jobs for the American workers. He was also fair to the workers in terms of conditions and working hours. He was a much more decent man than Carnegie was in terms of fairness to the workers. Carnegie provided stable paying and well conditioned but very physical jobs for American workers and he had a positive impact on the commoners of the nation.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Granted From Above or Below?
As the Civil War was coming to an end, slavery in America would also be. Now, when the South officially surrendered the last of its troops, it didn't mean that slavery was automatically abolished. For slavery to be abolished, it would have to pass through the Senate and the House of Representatives and eventually to President Lincoln. The conclusion of the war marked the South's decision to allow slavery to be up abolition if passed through the United States' Government. On April 8th, 1864, the a Senate passed the abolition bill and it was them passed by the House on January 31st, 1865. It was then passed by Lincoln the next day and put into the Constitution symbolizing the official abolition of slavery in the United States. This was the official grant of freedom from Lincoln, the man at the very top. However, other sources can tell us otherwise. Many documents that we read over and analyzed in our class have different opinions on whether or not the freedom the slaves gained came from above or below. As a class, we analyzed an image called Freedom to the Slaves. The man kneeling down is most likely thankful because he is being freed. The children are either too young to understand or are thankful as well. Now, I believe that many slaves felt that freedom should have been granted years before this image depicts. The mother is probably thinking it is nearly too late for us to live a life every person wants, but at least my children will be free and grow up like everyone else. The image is an example of freedom from above. Then, our groups analyzed the documents of Lincoln. Now, in his open letter, he says that the goal of the war in his mind was to keep the United States the way it was and he would do it any way he could as he says “If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. Abolishing slavery was behind saving the Union on the importance ranking. Lincoln’s main goal was to save the Union as he said in his letter. He also said how what he does about slavery is done to help the Union so his personal beliefs are centered around the Union. After watching the Ken Burns video, we determined that fugitive slaves were a lot to deal with as Union troops moving into the South could not support them. Slaves followed the troops and the Unionist military did not have food and other necessities they needed. They also could not provide them weapons to fight and would have a shortage if they met Confederates with the fugitive slaves. Now, with the North invading the South, Lincoln did not make it public that he intended to abolish slavery as a result of the war because he would lose Delaware, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland who were loyal to the Union but were slave states. They would not fight for the Union if they knew the main cause of the war was to end slavery.
Freedom from above means someone with higher authority or power grants freedom to those enslaved below them. In Lincoln’s open letter, he states “What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do it because I believe it helps save the Union….I intend no modification of my often expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.” He is focused on saving the Union but he knows the slaves must be freed which shows freedom from above. The, we read his Emancipation Proclamation. It also shows freedom from above because, well, he basically said all current and future slaves (offspring of female slaves) would be forever free. In the Gettysburg Address of 1863, he stated “Fourscore and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedication to all men being equal. Lincoln cared very much about the slaves and he wanted them to be free. He believed many had fought for slaves to be free and were very nobly advanced. Now, many sources can argue that freedom came from below which is when the slaves themselves work together and stand up for themselves to make change. Documents X and Y say a slightly different story. Document X is a letter from General Ambrose E. Burnside to Edwin M. Stanton in March of 1862. “They are now a source of anxiety to us, the city is being overrun with fugitives from surrounding towns and cities. This shows freedom from below because all of the slaves made themselves a hassle to deal with and they gained freedom that way because the troops could not put up with it. Document Y is a photo showing slaves making a difference and standing up for rights they deserve on a Southern plantation in Missouri.
While official freedom came from above, the real reason why Lincoln got more focused on slavery as the war started to come to an end is because of the slaves working as a whole and fighting for what they believed in. Therefore, freedom was fought for which was recognized by as well as freedom being granted from above.
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Civil War
In this lesson, we learned about all of the battles during the Civil War. To learn about each, everyone in the class got a different battle on a chart of battle descriptions numbered 1-20. Every student has to find a scholarly source to get information on their his/her battle. We had to find the name of the battle along with the date(s), the theater in which it occurred, the victor, and the reasons for the results that occurred. Then, we were instructed to create a QR Code and print it out on a piece of paper making a sign. The next day, everyone took their signs and put them in different locations of the school. Each person had to know the location of the battle number above his/her battle so that when people scanned in, they could find the next sign's relative location. On the scavenger hunt, when we scanned into each code, we had to copy and paste the information that the code brought us to into our Google Doc so that way, we would have all of the information about each battle. The next day, we used Padlet and everyone posted the information on two battles. There were two clear patterns forming as everyone made entrees about who dominated the Eastern and Western Theaters. The Eastern Theater was from the Appalachian Mountains to the coast. The Western Theater was west and beyond of the mountains. There was also the Naval Theater which was in the ports and on the ocean.
The first pattern was dominance by the Union in the Western Theater. The majority of battles that occurred in the Western Theater were won by the Union. In the battles of Fort Donelson and Shiloh, the Union had soldiers that were very familiar with the area and they were able to surround the Confederate troops and forced their surrender. Also, the battle of Chattanooga Tennessee had the Confederates unorganized and struggled from poor communication and were defeated by the Union. Another example would be at the battle of Vicksburg and Henry Fort. The Union had stronger lines and stronger tactics of warfare. At the battle of Baton Rouge, the Union had more men which was a huge advantage over the outnumbered Confederates. In the Eastern Theater, battles like the Battle of Chancellor and the Battle of Fredericksburg were won by the Confederates. In the Battle of Spotsylvania, the Confederates had planned well ahead building fortifications and entrenchments allowing them to defeat the Union. A major battle won by the Confederates was the Battle of Fort Sumter where the Confederates were well composed and well supplied. They launched an air attack on the fort which destroyed it. In the Naval Theater, the Union dominated. In battles such as the Battle of Fort Henry/Henry Fort, the Confederate owned fort only had outdated guns as weapons. It was an easy target located on the Tennessee River as the Union used superior weapons to blast the Confederates. Also, the Battle of Fort Donelson was located on a river and the Union had large gunboats to surround the Confederacy with the rivers around them.
<iframe src='//padlet.com/embed/m6kisgud7emr' frameborder='0' width='100%' height='480px' style='padding:0;margin:0;border:none'></iframe><div style='border-top:2px solid
In all of the battles, the victors won with similar strategies. The Union in their victories in their battles had outnumbered the Confederates. Also, Union victories could fall into the responsibility of outdated or unsupplied weapons fought with by the Confederacy. That could also go against them as well in the Battle of Fort Sumter and the Union troops couldn't defend themselves against a raging Confederate siege. However, the majority of Battles were won by the Union because of a more soldiers and more supplied weapons.
Battle of Chattanooga Photo:
Image Citation:
"Battle of Chattanooga." Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, 10 Nov. 2014. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.
The first pattern was dominance by the Union in the Western Theater. The majority of battles that occurred in the Western Theater were won by the Union. In the battles of Fort Donelson and Shiloh, the Union had soldiers that were very familiar with the area and they were able to surround the Confederate troops and forced their surrender. Also, the battle of Chattanooga Tennessee had the Confederates unorganized and struggled from poor communication and were defeated by the Union. Another example would be at the battle of Vicksburg and Henry Fort. The Union had stronger lines and stronger tactics of warfare. At the battle of Baton Rouge, the Union had more men which was a huge advantage over the outnumbered Confederates. In the Eastern Theater, battles like the Battle of Chancellor and the Battle of Fredericksburg were won by the Confederates. In the Battle of Spotsylvania, the Confederates had planned well ahead building fortifications and entrenchments allowing them to defeat the Union. A major battle won by the Confederates was the Battle of Fort Sumter where the Confederates were well composed and well supplied. They launched an air attack on the fort which destroyed it. In the Naval Theater, the Union dominated. In battles such as the Battle of Fort Henry/Henry Fort, the Confederate owned fort only had outdated guns as weapons. It was an easy target located on the Tennessee River as the Union used superior weapons to blast the Confederates. Also, the Battle of Fort Donelson was located on a river and the Union had large gunboats to surround the Confederacy with the rivers around them.
<iframe src='//padlet.com/embed/m6kisgud7emr' frameborder='0' width='100%' height='480px' style='padding:0;margin:0;border:none'></iframe><div style='border-top:2px solid
In all of the battles, the victors won with similar strategies. The Union in their victories in their battles had outnumbered the Confederates. Also, Union victories could fall into the responsibility of outdated or unsupplied weapons fought with by the Confederacy. That could also go against them as well in the Battle of Fort Sumter and the Union troops couldn't defend themselves against a raging Confederate siege. However, the majority of Battles were won by the Union because of a more soldiers and more supplied weapons.
Battle of Chattanooga Photo:
Image Citation:
"Battle of Chattanooga." Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, 10 Nov. 2014. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
The One that Started it All..
The Election of 1860 ignited the start of the civil war. It is also responsible for being the reason for the deep divisions of slavery. These divisions can help explain the reason behind the events of the Fugitive Slave Act and Bleeding Kansas. The photo below shows how the country was mostly divided between Lincoln and Breckenridge. Lincoln was against slavery and won every Northern State. Breckenridge saw slavery as a priority so the Southern states supported him. Steven A. Douglas only was victorious in one state along with the New Jersey mess. He split Jersey with Lincoln. Douglas believed that people should vote on whether slavery should exist or not. Missouri supported him because people crossing into Kansas to fight where pro slavery. John Bell wanted to make no changes to the Constitution, which meant he thought slavery should stay so he won the states as you can see are between pro and anti-slavery. Lincoln went on to win the election with just the support from the North. The class groups then analyzed the five images of Civil War Art. One of the images drawn (shown in our video) shows an American flag in the sky on April 11th, 1861. That was the night before the confederate attacks on Fort Sumter. Lincoln's men on April 12th fought the rebellions which was the official start of the Civil War.
Link to our Educreations Video
https://www.educreations.com/lesson/embed/30080837/?ref=embed"
Link to our Educreations Video
https://www.educreations.com/lesson/embed/30080837/?ref=embed"
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Who has the Keys to Success?
The pull of the trigger to start the Civil War had been inching closer and closer during the 1850's. Our class learned about the North's and the South's statistics and how their strategies. We analyzed many documents to figure out how each sides' differences could help lead them to victory. The first document my group looked at was a railroad and slave density document. It showed the railroad system and the entrenched slavery cotton production in the South. The next one was called Slavery by the Numbers. It gave facts about what the slaves did, how many there were, and what typical master was. We then looked at the Resources for each side. There were many pie charts that showed each advantage including population, slave population, and industrial and agricultural advantages. We also read the Strengths of the North and South. It showed what each side was particularly strong in and how they could benefit from them.
After the document analysis, everyone in the class had to make their own Infographic. The point of making it was to show how the important advantages of each side could affect the outcome of the Civil War. There were many important points. One was population where the North occupied 75% of the entire United States' population so that way, they could send people to go to war and have others stay back and help work farms and industries. Another important point was the railroad mileage. The North had 22,000 miles of railroads which is 13,000 more miles than the South at only 9,000. The North had a big advantage here because they were able to transport more people, goods, but most importantly weapons and ammunition for fighting. The next big point was the agricultural resources. In our previous units, we have determined that slavery was entrenched in Southern-American society to produce substantial amounts of cotton and crops. By the 1860s, the South had produced 2.28 billion pounds of cotton reaching a revenue of almost $200 million dollars in exports. The South sold to foreign countries and the North. The North's textile mills needed cotton for production and their economy would decrease dramatically had the South stopped selling cotton to them. The South had the power to do that if they wanted to. However, that would also lead to their economy degenerating as well. Lastly, there was the war plan. The North had a very clever strategy called the Anaconda Plan. The North cut off the oceanic ports of the South and stopped the shipping through the Mississippi River. That meant that goods nor weapons and supplies could be imported. The South used an act of attrition, and they waited for an attack from any direction inland. The North overall had more advantages than the South did. Oh, and they also had the right kind of people, like the ones that wanted to abolish slavery, not keep it.
Link to my Piktochart
https://magic.piktochart.com/output/4854999-untitled-infographic
After the document analysis, everyone in the class had to make their own Infographic. The point of making it was to show how the important advantages of each side could affect the outcome of the Civil War. There were many important points. One was population where the North occupied 75% of the entire United States' population so that way, they could send people to go to war and have others stay back and help work farms and industries. Another important point was the railroad mileage. The North had 22,000 miles of railroads which is 13,000 more miles than the South at only 9,000. The North had a big advantage here because they were able to transport more people, goods, but most importantly weapons and ammunition for fighting. The next big point was the agricultural resources. In our previous units, we have determined that slavery was entrenched in Southern-American society to produce substantial amounts of cotton and crops. By the 1860s, the South had produced 2.28 billion pounds of cotton reaching a revenue of almost $200 million dollars in exports. The South sold to foreign countries and the North. The North's textile mills needed cotton for production and their economy would decrease dramatically had the South stopped selling cotton to them. The South had the power to do that if they wanted to. However, that would also lead to their economy degenerating as well. Lastly, there was the war plan. The North had a very clever strategy called the Anaconda Plan. The North cut off the oceanic ports of the South and stopped the shipping through the Mississippi River. That meant that goods nor weapons and supplies could be imported. The South used an act of attrition, and they waited for an attack from any direction inland. The North overall had more advantages than the South did. Oh, and they also had the right kind of people, like the ones that wanted to abolish slavery, not keep it.
Link to my Piktochart
https://magic.piktochart.com/output/4854999-untitled-infographic
Friday, March 6, 2015
Laws are Being Passed, but Not One Helps the Big Problem
There were may causes to the Civil War. Slavery entrenched in our society and the country's morality of slaves were the overall reason. Between the span of 1850 to 1859, many events occurred that got the attention of the government. All of these events led to acts or laws being passed resolving it. However, no one was really focusing on the big picture and that was slavery itself. The 'elephant in the room' which was our class lesson is the debate over slavery for 19th century American politics. In class, we read and learned about all of the events that took place. Prior to these events, we learned about the Missouri Compromise that took place in 1820. The South wanted fair representation in Senate so the compromise split the northern free and the southern slave states to 11 each. However, all territory north of the 36 degrees 30 minutes latitude line would be free states. Then came the gold rush in the unclaimed area of California in 1849. California requested to join the union as a state in 1850. This would be unfair to either the North or South because one side would have more representation than the other. Henry Clay then proposed a five part compromise. The first part was Texas. Texas got to claim land in dispute and were given $0.01 billion (just a complicated way to say $10 million). They were given this to pay off their debt to Mexico from the previous Mexican-American war. This helped pro-slavery. The second was part was the matter of Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and Utah. The decision on whether or not they would be slave states would be determined by the inhabitants when applying for statehood. This also favored pro-slavery. Third was the abolishment of the slave trade (buying and selling) in D.C.. Although slavery was still allowed there, this favored anti-slavery. Then California got to join the nation as a free state which obviously satisfied anti-slavery. Lastly was the Fugitive Slave Act which overall stated that if a slave escaped to the North, they were not free and they had to be returned to their owner. So, if you were a slave, you were a slave no matter where you were and this went for pro-slavery. Another big event that occurred was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Senator Steven Douglas wanted to have a northern transcontinental railroad. However, the land which it was going to pass through would only be beneficial to slave labor. He suggested that slave labor should extend into Kansas and Nebraska but that would violate the Missouri Compromise. However, the act did pass and it made it much easier for southern slave owners to extend northward over the line. This benefited pro-slavery because slavery was extending and American politicians passed the act without worrying about the Missouri Compromise. This helps show that the 'elephant in the room' is the decisions and laws within slavery, not just slavery as a whole.
(I give permission to Liam Dwyer, Ben Fischer, Jamie Callahan, and Julia Pustizzi to use this image. We all helped make it but it was created by me. Just so Mrs. Gallagher knows.)
Clearly, slavery as one big topic was being ignored by American politicians. The Kansas-Nebraska Act led to more hell revolving around slavery. Bleeding Kansas of 1856 is safe to say probably the most violent of these acts. Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner gave a speech that lasted two days. It was called The Crime Against Kansas. The bold senator was an anti-slavery advocate and he criticized southerners attracting and forcing slavery upon these territories. He made insults to Senator Andrew Butler. Butler's insane nephew Representative Preston Brooks took it to heart and two days after Sumner's speech, Brooks went to Sumner's desk and brutally beat him with a cane. People in the South honored him and this made the North very angry. Southern advocates also burned down the anti-slavery capital which was Lawrence, Kansas. The other capital was for Pro-slavery was Lecompton, Kansas. In return, another group of insane people only this time from the North roused five pro-slavery supporting men from their beds, dragged them to their homes, and executed them in front of their families. This event you could say favored both pro and anti- slavery because both sides inflicted violence on the other. One last event was the Dred Scott case in 1857. Dred Scott was born into slavery. He was a slave in Missouri. However, the importation of slaves was illegal at that time. This led to him filing a lawsuit against his owner because he and his wife had lived in states where slavery was illegal. He wanted to apply for citizenship but his slave owner would not let him. However in his case, the United States Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 against the his case. This definitely favored pro-slavery because now slaves could not become citizens nor sue in court. Slaves were slaves no matter where and the Missouri compromise turned out to be something that kept going further and further away in the distance. This is what eventually led northerners to the attack which was the beginning of the Civil War. All of these events help show that the 'elephant in the room' is slavery as one, but it the surrounding aspects caused by slavery and no one saw nor cared and probably there were politicians that didn't want to care but want to make it seem like they did.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Slavery's Trail Left Behind
Slavery was one of the biggest shames that America has in its history. We know that it impacted black Africans via slave trade but what did it provided for America was substantial. To be clear, today, no one supports getting these benefits to the American economy if it means getting them through slavery because it is 100% wrong. However, it was not the same in the early 1800's. In this unit, we learned that slavery became entrenched in American society in the early 19th century. As a class, we read three parts from the Founders' Constitution. The most controversial quote from the three is Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3. It states "No person held to Service or Labour in one state, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence under the Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered upon Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." Notice how they intentionally do not mention the word slave. All of the clauses said what slaves were and weren't allowed to do, but this one basically said if you are an escaped slave and wherever in America that you are, you are still a slave. Slavery was now becoming the face of America. The transfer from the late 18th century to the early 19th would show a general decrease in slaves simply from revolting or running away and the South was constantly discussing abolishing slavery and searching for a new way to cultivate their plantations. The south was all about cotton. On the coast, cotton with easily removable seeds grew but inland tended to grow cotton with sticky green seeds which took long to remove. This cost money for the landowners. The south was in need of an invention to fix this problem or the economy would start to descend. Then a man named Eli Whitney traveled to the South and saw the desperation of the landowners. He then invented the Cotton Gin. Between 1792 and 1794 when it was invented, the price of slaves doubled. By 1825, field hands that had brought $500 each in 1794 were now worth $1,500. Slave numbers increased also. 33% more slaves were in the U.S. in a decade and 29% more the following decade preceding. The efficiency of cotton now increased the number of slaves which had a total of up to nearly 4 million slaves almost 70 years after the invention which at the time of had a total slave population of only nearly 700,000.
1790 1860
America's slavery was impacting the country's economy but it also affected the human dignity from a system based on just race. The class was divided up into groups and each got an pro or anti slavery activist to help understand what was going on in the period before the Civil War. This guy was my group's advocate. So, if you read the quotes that he said, you can see which side he was on. This psycho's name is George Fitzhugh. He was a social therapist (certainly would not want him to be mine if I needed one), he published two books; Sociology for Slavery and Cannibals All!!. One of his many articles was Slavery Justified (1848). One of his insane theories was "liberty and equality are not only destructive to morals, but to the happiness of society." He went on and on giving lectures on how it benefits the poor and that slaves had care-free lives which means that they aren't human, they're property. The thesis from his excerpt is "The Negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and, in some sense, the freest people in the world." He said they should feel blessed that they are owned because they have better lives than everyone else. It's just so contradicting. Slaves were mistreated, beaten, and being a slave is so depressing. Being free allows happiness. Being enslaved leads to depression. And, he is not saying this just to side with pro slavery, he actually believes in these ideas which is even scarier. Now, there was anti slave advocate who I don't think has too much sanity either. His name is John Brown. He was raised in an abolitionist family, he participated in the underground railroad, and he lead 18 men in a multi race uprising which was crushed by local authorities. He was captured, 2 men were killed in the uprising, and he tried and found guilty for treason and was executed. He was a man who would kill slave owners to free slaves. He hoped to free slaves, but his attempts failed. People in the north either saw him as an icon or they saw him as a man with the right intentions but he went about it the completely wrong way. People in the south were scared out their mind of him. Now, there was one man who was an anti-slave advocate and had sanity. His name was Frederick Douglass. He gave a speech on the 5th of July, 1852. His speech called Americans hypocrites for celebrating an American holiday of independence while the nation has the biggest slave population of any other.
Days later in class, in our groups, we read an article on slavery in Futa Jallon, Africa and compared it to slavery in Natchez, Mississippi. In Futa Jallon, slavery was based on religion, slaves had some property rights, offspring is not necessarily destined to be a slave, slaves were not a commodity, negotiations for wants and needs were available, and they worked to obtain their own food. In Natchez, slavery was based on race, slaves had no rights, offspring is destined to become a slave, they were bought and sold, slave owners were always in charge, and the slaves were fed. Although in Mississippi, they were treated as if they were not even human and they did tireless work throughout the day with no rest, and they were constantly beaten. We watched a film called Prince Among Slaves. It's the story of a man named Abdul Rahman. He was a prince in Africa given the head of a military commander. However, his tribe was attacked by another tribe. They were beaten and were chained to each other. They had to walk 100 miles to a coast, and they were sold to white slave traders for rum, tobacco, and gun powder. They then sailed the Atlantic on a slave ship under the deck where it was hot, dirty, and very crowded. They were chained to each other and were naked. When they get to the U.S. Rahman and another slave get sold to Thomas Foster; a white landowner. Once they get to Foster's plantation, Rahman tries to convince Foster that he was a prince in Africa. Foster neither cares nor believes him but nicknames him Prince. Rahman then runs away after having his hair cut by Foster but he realizes he can't survive otherwise so he goes back to the farm and shows a sign of submission by putting Foster's wife's foot on his neck. Foster doesn't punish him. Rahman has knowledge of cotton so he basically makes it the best cotton producing plantation in the South. People and politicians start writing about him and eventually gets freed. The government steps in because rumors that he is a Moorish prince gets out and the government was willing to send him back to Africa even though he doesn't live in Morocco which they do not know. He wants to raise money to free his wife and children but he comes up short and it is found out by the government that he isn't from Morocco so they drop out. Although, he has to take the chance given to him to sail back to Africa because Andrew Jackson is going to be elected soon and he was pro slavery. So, he sailed back alone and returned to Africa but became sick and died at age 67. But what is shown here is that human characteristics of slaves were ignored in Mississippi and they were treated as property, not as humans.
1790 1860
America's slavery was impacting the country's economy but it also affected the human dignity from a system based on just race. The class was divided up into groups and each got an pro or anti slavery activist to help understand what was going on in the period before the Civil War. This guy was my group's advocate. So, if you read the quotes that he said, you can see which side he was on. This psycho's name is George Fitzhugh. He was a social therapist (certainly would not want him to be mine if I needed one), he published two books; Sociology for Slavery and Cannibals All!!. One of his many articles was Slavery Justified (1848). One of his insane theories was "liberty and equality are not only destructive to morals, but to the happiness of society." He went on and on giving lectures on how it benefits the poor and that slaves had care-free lives which means that they aren't human, they're property. The thesis from his excerpt is "The Negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and, in some sense, the freest people in the world." He said they should feel blessed that they are owned because they have better lives than everyone else. It's just so contradicting. Slaves were mistreated, beaten, and being a slave is so depressing. Being free allows happiness. Being enslaved leads to depression. And, he is not saying this just to side with pro slavery, he actually believes in these ideas which is even scarier. Now, there was anti slave advocate who I don't think has too much sanity either. His name is John Brown. He was raised in an abolitionist family, he participated in the underground railroad, and he lead 18 men in a multi race uprising which was crushed by local authorities. He was captured, 2 men were killed in the uprising, and he tried and found guilty for treason and was executed. He was a man who would kill slave owners to free slaves. He hoped to free slaves, but his attempts failed. People in the north either saw him as an icon or they saw him as a man with the right intentions but he went about it the completely wrong way. People in the south were scared out their mind of him. Now, there was one man who was an anti-slave advocate and had sanity. His name was Frederick Douglass. He gave a speech on the 5th of July, 1852. His speech called Americans hypocrites for celebrating an American holiday of independence while the nation has the biggest slave population of any other.
Days later in class, in our groups, we read an article on slavery in Futa Jallon, Africa and compared it to slavery in Natchez, Mississippi. In Futa Jallon, slavery was based on religion, slaves had some property rights, offspring is not necessarily destined to be a slave, slaves were not a commodity, negotiations for wants and needs were available, and they worked to obtain their own food. In Natchez, slavery was based on race, slaves had no rights, offspring is destined to become a slave, they were bought and sold, slave owners were always in charge, and the slaves were fed. Although in Mississippi, they were treated as if they were not even human and they did tireless work throughout the day with no rest, and they were constantly beaten. We watched a film called Prince Among Slaves. It's the story of a man named Abdul Rahman. He was a prince in Africa given the head of a military commander. However, his tribe was attacked by another tribe. They were beaten and were chained to each other. They had to walk 100 miles to a coast, and they were sold to white slave traders for rum, tobacco, and gun powder. They then sailed the Atlantic on a slave ship under the deck where it was hot, dirty, and very crowded. They were chained to each other and were naked. When they get to the U.S. Rahman and another slave get sold to Thomas Foster; a white landowner. Once they get to Foster's plantation, Rahman tries to convince Foster that he was a prince in Africa. Foster neither cares nor believes him but nicknames him Prince. Rahman then runs away after having his hair cut by Foster but he realizes he can't survive otherwise so he goes back to the farm and shows a sign of submission by putting Foster's wife's foot on his neck. Foster doesn't punish him. Rahman has knowledge of cotton so he basically makes it the best cotton producing plantation in the South. People and politicians start writing about him and eventually gets freed. The government steps in because rumors that he is a Moorish prince gets out and the government was willing to send him back to Africa even though he doesn't live in Morocco which they do not know. He wants to raise money to free his wife and children but he comes up short and it is found out by the government that he isn't from Morocco so they drop out. Although, he has to take the chance given to him to sail back to Africa because Andrew Jackson is going to be elected soon and he was pro slavery. So, he sailed back alone and returned to Africa but became sick and died at age 67. But what is shown here is that human characteristics of slaves were ignored in Mississippi and they were treated as property, not as humans.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
America Before It was Great
In 19th century America, women were not treated with fairness and equality with men. The standard life of a woman basically was taking care of the house. This included cleaning, cooking, child support, and tidying up the garden or yard if the family did not have a slave. An illustration clearly demonstrates the role of woman in the 1800's accurately and inaccurately. The most inaccurate is how perfect everything looks, calm and chill as I like to say. But seriously, it's not even like this today and was so not like it back then. Three children plus a dog and this woman is standing there with looking all so serene when she should be multitasking. My female neighbor is more stressed than this, and she doesn't even have kid. However, the accurate parts of the picture speak for themselves. The books show it was the mother's job to educate the children. There are also toys in the back. There are only two because that's probably how many a family's child had. This family is an upper class family because they have furniture and non necessities that other middle class and poor families didn't have. Women were always under expectations set for them and that would lead to serious requests and demands.
It's very simple. If we were to go back in the 19th century and mention Women's rights, people would not have a good understanding of what we meant because they basically didn't have any rights at all. A good example is how husbands if they wanted to or had a terrible day at work could come home and beat their wives just to release stress and nothing would come of it. Change was needed. Laws and Practices were most of the laws for women. Women speaking in public was considered improper, and as I mentioned earlier, men using their wives a human punching bags was perfectly acceptable. Women also could not own property in the U.S.. It is a shame that it used to be that way. The Seneca Falls Convention basically pushed rights for women through. Voting was brought up and demanded. Abolitionists like Frederick Douglass, Elizabeth Stanton, and Susan Anthony attended and they realized working in the abolitionist movement made them much more aware of the rights they were never entitled to so they were able to go out and launch movements of equality and have credibility to it to have an effect. The Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions were basically what the name was, sentiments and resolutions to the problems from Laws and Practices.
Nationwide reactions to women's push for fairness and equality were quite different. Newspapers had daily articles on the reform movements. Responses were positive and negative. The Oneida Whig on August 1st, 1848 had a negative reaction to the reform movements. It basically said if women get certain rights that men have, then women will be like men and they don't want that. They don't want to be like us men.... A positive reaction to the push for reforms was the National Reformer which was published on August 10th, 1848. It states "They are women who know the wrongs as well as rights all human beings." and "They are composed largely, too, of working women--such as have felt their degradations and oppressions and are determined to throw them off." This newspaper unlike the Oneida Whig was supportive of the reform movements. With the reformers that I mentioned before buzzing and raising awareness and articles being published, people around the country were finally seeing what their country's reputation looked like and how it needed a change.
Today in this country, no matter where you are, who you are, you are treated as an equal to your perspective. However, you are not necessarily viewed as an equal. It is exactly like this for women. Women are still today separated from men by the general public. Now, differences among men and women are acceptable and unacceptable. For example, men and women using different bathrooms is completely 100% appropriate. Now, let's talk terms in jobs. If you heard Senator Elizabeth Warren's victory speech in 2012, she said that she would fight for lower taxes on middle class working families being crushed, big banks being more regulated and having less power, and then she said "< I can't believe I have to say this in 2012; equal pay for equal work for women." A personal experience would be for my mother. She is a marketing manager for an architectural environmental cleanup testing group. She does so much more work than some of her co workers and she gets paid less just because she is a woman. Another example we could use for today is for women in the media. I'll use sportscasters. If a man knows sports, he'll get the job easy just based on his knowledge of that media's coverage. For women, it all depends on their looks. They have to know the game but if it came down for a news program choosing between a man who knows sports and a woman who knows sports inside out and she was not necessarily good looking, the man would get the job. If it came down to deciding between two women whereas one knows sports inside out and isn't great looking and a woman who isn't as good sports knowledge wise but is gorgeous, the beauty queen will get the position just for her looks. A great example of views of men compared to views of women is in this video below. Take a look for yourself and see if you agree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOjNcZvwjxI&feature=youtube
It's very simple. If we were to go back in the 19th century and mention Women's rights, people would not have a good understanding of what we meant because they basically didn't have any rights at all. A good example is how husbands if they wanted to or had a terrible day at work could come home and beat their wives just to release stress and nothing would come of it. Change was needed. Laws and Practices were most of the laws for women. Women speaking in public was considered improper, and as I mentioned earlier, men using their wives a human punching bags was perfectly acceptable. Women also could not own property in the U.S.. It is a shame that it used to be that way. The Seneca Falls Convention basically pushed rights for women through. Voting was brought up and demanded. Abolitionists like Frederick Douglass, Elizabeth Stanton, and Susan Anthony attended and they realized working in the abolitionist movement made them much more aware of the rights they were never entitled to so they were able to go out and launch movements of equality and have credibility to it to have an effect. The Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions were basically what the name was, sentiments and resolutions to the problems from Laws and Practices.
Nationwide reactions to women's push for fairness and equality were quite different. Newspapers had daily articles on the reform movements. Responses were positive and negative. The Oneida Whig on August 1st, 1848 had a negative reaction to the reform movements. It basically said if women get certain rights that men have, then women will be like men and they don't want that. They don't want to be like us men.... A positive reaction to the push for reforms was the National Reformer which was published on August 10th, 1848. It states "They are women who know the wrongs as well as rights all human beings." and "They are composed largely, too, of working women--such as have felt their degradations and oppressions and are determined to throw them off." This newspaper unlike the Oneida Whig was supportive of the reform movements. With the reformers that I mentioned before buzzing and raising awareness and articles being published, people around the country were finally seeing what their country's reputation looked like and how it needed a change.
Today in this country, no matter where you are, who you are, you are treated as an equal to your perspective. However, you are not necessarily viewed as an equal. It is exactly like this for women. Women are still today separated from men by the general public. Now, differences among men and women are acceptable and unacceptable. For example, men and women using different bathrooms is completely 100% appropriate. Now, let's talk terms in jobs. If you heard Senator Elizabeth Warren's victory speech in 2012, she said that she would fight for lower taxes on middle class working families being crushed, big banks being more regulated and having less power, and then she said "< I can't believe I have to say this in 2012; equal pay for equal work for women." A personal experience would be for my mother. She is a marketing manager for an architectural environmental cleanup testing group. She does so much more work than some of her co workers and she gets paid less just because she is a woman. Another example we could use for today is for women in the media. I'll use sportscasters. If a man knows sports, he'll get the job easy just based on his knowledge of that media's coverage. For women, it all depends on their looks. They have to know the game but if it came down for a news program choosing between a man who knows sports and a woman who knows sports inside out and she was not necessarily good looking, the man would get the job. If it came down to deciding between two women whereas one knows sports inside out and isn't great looking and a woman who isn't as good sports knowledge wise but is gorgeous, the beauty queen will get the position just for her looks. A great example of views of men compared to views of women is in this video below. Take a look for yourself and see if you agree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOjNcZvwjxI&feature=youtube
Monday, January 12, 2015
Enough, Enough, Enough, Enough, Enough, Enough!!!!
Today, to many people alcohol is considered a luxury usually used after a long hard day of stress and work and the one thing to settle all that is one 'nice cold refreshing beer right out of the bottle' and that's enough for one day or week. To some, it's a necessity where a week or day or an hour cannot go by without it and 'the world will end god forbid it collapses.' And to few, it's a temptation where one realizes he or she needs to stop drinking excessively but that evil soul inside is overpowering your body and your mind to keep drinking making it an addiction. It happens to be a common problem here in America today. However, if you think today it's a big problem, look at late 19th century - early 1930's. This was a time when alcohol was basically a product sold everywhere on the street and in back to back stores. It is exactly like buying a soda from a vending machine anywhere today. This was going to tear our country apart if it wasn't dealt with immediately. That's when activists grew awareness and started writing in newspapers and protesting the consumption of alcohol. People like Amelia Bloomer and Neal Dow are known for starting the movement. Bloomer started a newspaper called the Lily which raised awareness to the problem and ways to decrease it. Dow had a different approach by using violence and his military tactics using force to prevent consumption. He got it banned in Maine. But, America had a constitution and was a very stable country when it came to general government. This country could not have people using military force to prevent something that was 'legal'. Then came a man named Henry Bowen who printed a paper called A Mirror for the Intemperate. It raised awareness and to create prohibition like the Lily but it showed what life was like without alcohol how alcohol consumption lead to economic waste, polluted youth, poverty, crime, and domestic violence. Imagine what America would be like if people were coming home drunk and beating on their families, children walking around looking of more alcohol disoriented, and crime everywhere you look, and to imagine it being all legal, it was time for a change and the act of prohibition to be put into place. Prohibition banned the sale and manufacture of alcohol by law until the problems were fixed. That's how Henry Bowen, Amelia Bloomer, Neal Dow, and all the people who raised awareness ended the crisis of alcohol. If these people individually raised awareness and helped change America, so can you. It is amazing what the power of just one can accomplish.
Excerpt from Primary Source; The Mirror for the Intemperate
Parents into whose hands this my dying declaration may fall will perceive that I date the commencement of my departure from the paths of rectitude and virtue, from the moment when I become addicted to the habitual use of ardent spirits—and it is my sincere prayer that if they value the happiness of their children—if they desire their welfare here, and their eternal well being hereafter, that they early teach them the fatal consequences of Intemperance!
Source Citation:
Excerpt from Primary Source; The Mirror for the Intemperate
Parents into whose hands this my dying declaration may fall will perceive that I date the commencement of my departure from the paths of rectitude and virtue, from the moment when I become addicted to the habitual use of ardent spirits—and it is my sincere prayer that if they value the happiness of their children—if they desire their welfare here, and their eternal well being hereafter, that they early teach them the fatal consequences of Intemperance!
Source Citation:
Bowen, Henry. "A Mirror for the Intemperate, Ca. 1830." A Mirror for the Intemperate, Ca. 1830. January 1, 2009. Accessed January 12, 2015. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/first-age-reform/resources/mirror-for-intemperate-ca-1830.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)