Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans

In class the other day, we learned about the Buffalo soldiers in the American Civil War, and we created the following question about it to answer.  "Were federal policies towards Native Americans and buffalo soldiers intentionally discriminatory or well-intentioned?"  To answer this, we found multiple different examples that clearly add up to a discriminatory outcome.  Federal policies being discriminatory towards these minority groups had a hard hitting effect on the culture and way of life for the Native Americans.  As Americans took up westward expansion, they gave the tribes three choices; they could join American society and conform to it, they could be put on a small designated piece of land to live, or they could choose to fight back, which often resulted in their demise through the American's total war.  If Americans and their policies for dealing with Natives were aimed to help the Natives, they wouldn't have gone and slaughtered men women and children.  Native Americans often tried to negotiate with the U.S. Government to try to get an extension for their removal, but were ultimately turned down and forced off.  Another reason that federal policies were there to discriminate against people is because `many deals and agreements between the Natives and the Americans were broken, and while they were promised things such as some of their land to stay on it was often times only less than 10% of what it was before.  Though the Buffalo soldiers were given many more rights since they gained their freedom, they were still given lower jobs in the military compared to whites, and were forced to do the work that people normally didn't want to do such as telegraphing, mapping, and exterminating Natives.  All in all, federal policies employed by the government ended up discriminating both the Native Americans and the Buffalo Soldiers and created further tension between America and its cultural diversities.  

Buffalo Soldiers of the 25th Infantry Regiment, 1890

Rockefeller and Carnegie Post

In History class this week, we learned about two well known monopolistic leaders named Rockefeller and Carnegie who helped to shape the way that workers were treated.  The essential question we were told to answer was,"How did the actions of monopolistic leaders such as Rockefeller and Carnegie effect the common worker?"  The answer to this question can be found in events such as the Homestead Strike, as well as the actions and results of Rockefeller and Carnegie.

John D. Rockefeller was an entrepreneur who owned one of the largest oil companies called Standard Oil, and he helped to revolutionize the way workers were treated as his company employed thousands of people due to its sheer size.  Rockefeller and created jobs through his business, and this provided people with work, benefitting many. However, overtime Rockefeller developed his business into a monopoly, meaning that he was one of the largest or only businesses in that industry.  This gave him the power to treat his employees worse and worse, though he did give back to the community through philanthropy, which is the giving away of millions of dollars for the advancement of education, medicine, and the sciences in general. Rockefeller founded the General Education Board through this phlanthropy, and he did good for the people because he believed that God gave him the power to make money, so he wanted to use it for the good of others.

Andrew Carnegie, though also a philanthropist, ran into more complications between him and his workers. carnegie used strike breakers against his workers during a notorious strike known as the Homestead strike. Homestead was a steel mill built by Carnegie in 1881, and it was an industrial superpower in the steel industry, but workers of Carnegie went on strike. Carnegie used strike breakers to stop the strike and get the mills up and running again, breaking a promise he made with the workers. Carnegie also had plans to destroy the workers union within his business, and a partner of his used pinkertons to stop the strike, which were basically members of a private military. Carnegie believed that giving back to the community was important, so he gave money to schools, particularly black schools. Both John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie helped to bring about a new age of industry, and with this revolution came unionization and rights for workers, along with better school systems for the general public.

Civil War Battle Scavenger Hunt

The next unit we learned about in the Civil War were the major battles that shaped the future of the war. The essential question from class was, "Who were the ultimate victor In each of the following theaters; East, West, and Naval?" In order to learn about each of these battles, each person from class learned about one battle on their own and created a google doc that gave a summary of the battle which included information such as the theater, the victor, and why the victor won, as well as a hint to where the next QR code could be found. Then each person created a QR code that linked classmates to their Google doc so classmates could get to it. To start off the scavenger hunt,we put up these QR codes around the school, and then everyone went looking for them

The second essential question  from class was,"Who was the ultimate victor" and, "Who won each of the theaters? The first theater we are going to look over is the Naval theater. The Union dominated the Confederacy in the Naval theater, and the reason for this was because the Union had a much larger navy than the Confederacy, and they were able to produce more ships as they had more ports and factories than the Confederacy. The Union forces that had about 16,000 men, while the Confederacy had about 3,000 men, and this huge difference in power caused the Union to dominate in the Naval theater.  In the Eastern theaters, the Confederacy was primarily dominant because they were able to constantly ambush the Union and, a majority of the time, had them outnumbered. An example of this Confederate domination in the Eastern theater was at the second battle of Bull Run when the Confederacy only lost about 8,350 while the Union lost about 13,830 troops;a significant difference. The last theater we learned about was the Western theater, which was owned dominated by the Union because they always outnumbered the Confederates. An example of this Western domination by the Union is in the battle of Vicksburg and the Chattanooga Campaign. Some commonalities I noticed that decided the victor was that the victor usually had a much larger fighting force and had less casualties, and that when the tides were even, the victor had a strategy or advantage to be used against the other.  Overall, the Union was primarily dominant in the Civil War, as they were victorious in 2 out of 3 theaters

Freedom from Above or Below?

The essential questions we were told to answer were "Who 'gave' freedom to enslaved Americans? Did freedom come from above or below? To what extent were Abraham Lincoln's actions influenced by the actions of enslaved Americans?" We saw an image that represented Freedom from above called "Freedom of the Slaves". After this, we looked at some documents and analyzed them to find out what the goal for the war really was. Lastly, we watched a video and answer two questions from the video. The questions were, "How did fugitive slaves influence the government’s and Lincoln’s actions on slavery?"and, "What did Lincoln claim that he did not do more for abolition at this point in the war?"  To answer these questions, we needed to find out what the terms "Freedom from above" and "Freedom from below" actually meant, and what the differences were in them. Freedom from above occurs when people with more power and influence than the slaves help the enslaved people gain their freedom. Freedom from below is when the slaves themselves work together to make a difference on their enslavement without the help of government officials or people with influence. When it comes to Abraham Lincoln's place in the freedom of slaves, he certainly had an effect, but was it big enough to be considered freedom from above? During the Emancipation Proclamation he stated that all men are created equal in the following quote. "Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." The idea of Freedom from below was a large part of what the Civil war all about, and both document X and document Y are examples of it. Document X was a letter from General Burnside to the Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton which said, "They seemed to be wild with excitement and delight— they are now a source of very great anxiety to us; the city is being overrun with fugitives from surrounding towns and plantations— Two have reported themselves who have been in the swamps for five years." This quote accurately shows freedom from below because the slaves were making themselves be heard by purposely making a nuisance of themselves to the Union army.  Slaves from the plantation of Confederate President Jefferson Davis arrive at Chickasaw Bayou, Mississippi from 1863. This image is powerful because it shows slaves taking action and trying to make a difference by working as a unit. In my opinion there was more freedom from above because it was more common but I do think that Lincolns decisions were influenced by the actions of the enslaved people. The following is an image of slaves trying to take action and make themselves known to others, which is powerful because it is one of the first times in America that slaves have made a difference in the lives of white men.

1860 Election

In the next unit on the Civil War, we learned about the election of 1860, and were told to answer the question of,"How were the results of the Election of 1860 representative of the deep divisions over slavery?"  In class, we watched a crash course video on it, and learned that people had many different viewpoints on it.  Abraham Lincoln was a republican who was opposed to slavery, and felt that it should be contained and kept within control.  Stephen A. Douglass was a Northern democrat who believed that the expansion of slavery be decided by popular soverignity.  John Bell, a Constitutional Unionist, wasnted to preserve the Constitution, including slavery.  John C. Breckenridge was a southern democrat who said that all slaves were inferior to whites and that slavery should not be limited anywhere in the U.S. Breckenridge was expected to win the Southern states because slavery was the most popular in the South, and Lincoln was expected to win the North because they were already against slavery, but Lincoln ended up winning the election of 1860. We then analyzed five photographs and used educreations to create a video explaining the election of 1860.

Link to Video Here!

Battles Scavenger Hunt

Who was the ultimate victor in each of the theaters of war: East, West, Naval?
What are some commonalities you can identify in the reasons for the results of the battles? 

In order to learn who was prominent in specific regions of the U.S. During the civil war, we took a look at specific battles that occurred in the eastern region, western region, and in naval battles through a scavenger hunt around the school.  We had to create a google doc. on one of these battles, and write about it, but I wasn't here for this part so I only experienced looking for the QR codes that people posted that have the link to their battle.  Each person in the class has to find the persons number ahead of them and tell them where they were going to hide their QR code, and they wrote it down in their google doc.  After learning about these battles, we were told to answer the essential question of "Who was the ultimate victor in each of the theaters of war:East West, Naval?" And our class created a Padlet (see below)  that had each of our discoveries and interpretations for each theaters dominator.

Created with Padlet

To answer the question on who the dominators were for each theater,  the Union primarily dominated he Western and Naval battles, while the Confederates won a majority of the battles in the east up until the end of the war.  Examples of the Union being victorious in the west were the battles of  Shiloh and Fort Donelson, and naval battles include the battle of Baton Rouge and Vicksburg.  The confederacy won battles in the East such as the battles of Fredericksburg and Bull Run.  Some commonalities that I saw when looking at the results of the battles were things like one side being armed significantly more than the other side, and also the winning side commonly trapped the losers in a situation where they could not escape and were pinned down unable to do anything.  Most of the victories also resulted in surrenders as well, which proves that the battles were completely one-sided fights, and the losers were unprepared.  Also, the attackers one almost every time in these battles, which shows that most of the defenders were unprepared and unready for the attacks.  

Infographic Post

Advantages and Strategies That the North Had That Lead to Their Victory in the Civil | Create infographics

Infographic Original Link

The Elephant in the Room

In our last lesson of the causes of the civil war, we discussed a huge topic in America that can be called an "elephant in the room" which basically is about a topic that is large enough to matter but is ignored, and this lesson had to do with slavery in the early 19th century. We were told to answer the following question;"How do we know the debate over slavery was the 'elephant in the room' for American politics in the early 19th century?" In order to better understand this “elephant” we first needed to learn about events that contributed to it, one of which was the Missouri Compromise. The Missouri Compromise took place in 1820, and it split apart the 22 states; eleven being slave controlled states and 11 being free states, which gave both sides the same number of votes in the Senate. This Missouri Compromise stated that all states above the 36 degrees latitude line would be free states if they were to form in the future. Sometime around 1849, there was a huge gold rush in California, which caused people to flock there, and eventually it gained enough people to request stateship as a free state In 1950.  However, this caused an unbalance in the senate. so a man named Henry Clay proposed what was called a 5-part compromise. In order to understand what this compromise was, we looked at the article "The Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Act". This article listed the five parts to the compromise as the following.  The first part of it was that Texas would claim the disputed land and be granted 10 million dollars that it could use to pay off its debt to Mexico, which appeased pro-slavery people because it was further south, leaving a greater chance that it could become a slave state. The second part was the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah would be categorized, but their standing point would be determined by popular vote, and  the decision would be made by the people when they applied for statehood. The third part of the compromise was that slave trading would be removed in the District of Columbia, and even though slavery would still be allowed it satisfied anti-slavery advocates. The fourth part of the compromise was the agreement that California would be admitted as a free state.This, however, imbalanced the senate voting system, so the the Fugitive Slave Act was passed, which required citizens to help recover slaves that fled north, and it denied a fugitive's right to trial.  Not only that, but it made many things easier for slaveowners. Eventually, we were split into groups in order to construct a timeline of all of the events.  The debate over slavery was the 'elephant in the room' because all of the topics discussed had to do with balancing out state power and nothing to do with the s. Slavery was obviously the elephant in the room, and it needed to be a bigger deal to politicians.However, these aren’t the only things that make slavery “the elephant in the room.”

A Timeline of the Elephant in the Room

On the Timeline, we also uncovered more events, such as the Gadsden Purchase, Kansas-Nebraska Act, Bleeding Kansas, The Caning of Charles Sumner, The Dred Scott Decision, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, and John Brown's Raid. These events further prove that slavery was the elephant in the room, and was clearly a thing that was an obvious issue but was not discussed enough. The Kansas-Nebraska Act took place in 1854 and made the Missouri Compromise void, meaning that there could be slave states above the previously set line. This act made it easier for southerners to expand slavery northward, which allowed for them to grow more cotton and have more plantations. Another important event was Bleeding Kansas, started by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which resulted in a lot of violence and attacks between pro-slavery and anti-slavery advocates. Not only that, but the Caning of Charles Sumner proved that even the most civilized people would fight over slavery laws. In 1856, Senator Charles Sumner delivered a speech called The Crime Against Kansas,and he attacked southerners in this speech for forcing slavery on territories. He also made bold insults against a Senator and a member of the House of Representatives and this senators nephew  was angered by Sumner's remarks and was determined to defend the honor of the south. Two days after Sumner's speech, Brooks approached Sumner at his Senate desk and violently assaulted him with his cane. People across the south voiced their support for Brook, but Northerners were furious. Another event that proved slavery was the elephant in the room was the Dred Scott Decision in 1857. Dred Scott was an enslaved black man living in Missouri. He filed a suit against his owner, and argued that he and his wife were free because they had once lived in states where slavery was illegal, but the Supreme Court ruled against the Scotts, and there were 3 outcomes from the Dred Scott Decision. Slaves, because they were not citizens, were denied the right to sue in court. Enslaved people could not win freedom just by living in a free territory or state, and the Missouri Compromise ruled unconstitutional and all territories were open to slavery, which was a step in the wrong direction for the abolishment of slavery. What they were doing made no sense because the Missouri Compromise in 1820 was made to keep certain states free, but they got rid of the compromise in 1854 with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and then decided that  all territories were open to slavery, which shows that people only cared about political arguments and not about the slaves themselves, further proving that slavery was infact the “elephant in the room”

A Before and After Map of the Kansas-Nebraska Act’s effects.

Slavery Entrenched

Since the foundation of the United States, many problems have arisen in its society, such as temperance and domestic violence, but one of the biggest problems that Americans ever faced was slavery.  In class, we had to answer the following questions,”How did slavery become economically entrenched in American Society by the early 19th century?”,” How does a system of slavery based on race affect  human dignity?” and lastly, “What human characteristics does such a system tend  to ignore?”  Slavery became entrenched in american society because slavery was mainly used to harvest crops from the south, primarily cotton.  This cotton would then be transported into the northern states, where there were many manufactories for it to be refined and sold for a higher price.  Slavery became such an essential part of life particularly for the southerners, as it generated great wealth for them at little to no cost.  During this time period, people thought that slavery was declining, as shown in this article on cotton and slavery.  However, this was completely the opposite once the cotton gin was developed, and slave population soared, and the average price for slaves was estimated to have tripled between 1794 and 1825 because plantations could now process cotton dozens of times faster.  From 1800 until 1820,  the slave population in america rose to an estimated 62 percent!  In order to better understand this trend of population growth, we took a look at an interactive map that shows the increase of slavery in specific areas throughout that time period, primarily in the southern states.

A Picture before the cotton gin was developed.  

a picture after the cotton gin was developed.

After we learned about the growth of slavery and its causes, we decided to learn about how a system of slavery based on race affect human dignity, and what human characteristics does such a system tend to ignore?  In order to answer this question, we were then given a person who fought for or against slavery and learned about their actions, and I was assigned John Brown. John Brown was an abolitionist against slavery who murdered slave owners in response to their actions, and he did not believe that slavery could be solved peacefully, and pushed to arm slaves and cause rebellions.  His plan to arm these slaves was by attacking a southern military base in order to steal tons of muskets and ammunition, but his plan didn’t turn out so well and he and his men were either killed or captured and John ended up being  hung for his crimes. As a result of Johns failed attempt at starting a rebellion, he did became a martyr for the abolitionist’s cause.  Although his actions may have seemed completely idiotic, he helped to  inspire northerners to fight for the antislavery cause and helped to grow tensions that eventually lead up to the Civil War.

Finally, we were shown a movie called A Prince Among Slaves. In this video a young African prince named Abdulrahman is captured and is sold as a slave. Abdulrahman is treated cruelly, and is abused by his captors, whom completely ignore his royalty. Through his life, he proved himself to be a leader among slaves, and also saved the life of a white doctor who later tries multiple times to free him from his slavery.  After the government hears about him being a prince, they decide to set him free because they believe that he is Moroccan, who was one of America’s closest allies. The life of Abdulrahman shows the extreme dehumanization that slavery causes,which is shown through the course of his life. In the beginning, Abdulrahman was born to be a king but instead was forced into slavery for a majority of his life, and he never returned to his homeland.  Slavery is formed in such a way that character and individualism are ignored, and instead race is used to show whether or not somebody is worthy of respect, and was one of America’s greatest obstacles in its society.  

Women's Reform

In class the other day, we were asked the question of how American society reacted to womens' push for equality in the 29th century, and does 21st century America still treat women differently?
In order to better explore this belief, we looked into many reports of women fighting for their rights and equality, and discovered that many people today believe that by ignoring women's equality the issue would simply go away, but obviously they were wrong.  In July of 1848, the Senecca Falls convention was held with over 30 men and women pushing for gender equality, and in the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, women speak about how they have been oppressed by men and they call for change and equality for all.  I feel like in today's society, people think of both genders as being equal, yet women are still opressed when it comes to their abilities and expectations in life.

Was Andrew Jackson really the Peoples President?

Looking back on America's past, there is one president that is probably the most difficult to analyze, this president being Andrew Jackson.  Having his own era named The Jacksonian Era, you would think that he was certainly "the peoples president" being given this title.  But, between the Bank war, Indian Removal, and Spoils System, is he really the  peoples' president he is made out to be?

The Bank War was a political battle that was caused by issues regading the Second Bank of the United States.  Congress voted to reauthorize the bank's charter, but Andrew Jackson vetoed it, saying  the following in a message to Congress.
This shows that Jackson is a peoples' president because he wanted to make sure that the bank was completely under control of the United States, and that the ties between them were too few, and it also shows that he wants constitutionality for the poor people as well, and not just a monopoly for the rich.  Not only did the Bank War help to determine whether or not Jackson was the people's president, but the Indian Removal Acts helped to secure his place as well.

The Indian Removal act was certainly an act of a people's president, because although he forced natives off of their land, he allowed for his people to settle onto it by doing so.  Jackson sent letters to the Indians, almost like an eviction notice, to tell them that they would have to leave or they would have to follow the laws of American society, as well as pay taxes, which caused many natives to move and maintain their tribal traditions.  
Map of the land Jackson took from Natives

The Spoils System also helped to determine whether or not Jackson was the people's president, but it had some ups and downs to it. A spoils system is a practice where a political party, after winning an election, gives government jobs to its voters as a reward for working toward victory, and as an incentive to keep working for the party—as opposed to a system of awarding offices on the basis of some measure of merit independent of political activity.  Jackson decided to rotate officers through this system so that one person could not be considered greater than another.  However, Jackson messed up big when he elected Swartwout to office in his administration, who ended up stealing over a million dollars, and after being told by many people that he was a criminal Jackson ignored it.  
I would have to say that despite this mess up, Jackson is proven a people's president here because he developed the system of government which is widely used today, and this competition between parties has helped to develop our government. Overall, Jackson does fill the shoes he was given, and, despite some faults he made, was still a president for the people.  

Revolutions of 1830 and 1848

In class, we analyzed sources whether or not the Revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were really as much of a failure as historians claim they were? To kickstart the discovery of the answer to this question, we looked at a map of Europe in the 1800's,which marked areas where revolutions erupted, and it also showed which countries shunted them. We then created a scale based on the outcomes of the revolutions that gave us an idea as to whether or not a revolution was successful, and determined if one side gained more from the revolution than the other. After creating these scales, we broke into groups to learn more about specific revolutions, and we were assigned the Decembrist Revolt.

The Decembrist Revolt took place in Russia in 1825, and we as a group considered it to be a complete and total failure of a revolution.  The goal of the liberal revolutionaries was to bring Constantine to power because they knew that he would make changes in the country, but Constantine refused to take the throne even though it was rightfully his.  Instead, Constantine gave the throne to  Nicolas, who was a conservative, and this action gave a reason for a revolution.  In one primary source from the time of the Decembrists' revolt was written by Mikhail Fonvisin, a Decembrist in support of the revolution, in which he said, "slavery of the vast majority of Russians who had no rights, the cruel treatment of subordinates by their superiors, all manner of the abuse of power, everywhere arbitrary rule."  This displays how people were becoming upset with the way they were bein ruled over, and felt that much needed change would be brought by Constantine.  Another primary source from the time of the revolt was written by a person named Yakushki, a returning Napoleonic war veteran, which reflects on life back on Russia. "Seeing the insipid life in St. Petersburg and listening to the babbling of old men praising the past and depreciating every progressive step was unbearable. We were a hundred years from them.”  This shows that their lives are so dictated and unfair, and also that unless there was change in their country they would never be as strong and powerful as other countries like France were.  Overall, the Decembrists' revolt was probably the least successful revolt out of all of them, as the liberal revolutionaries were killed and achieved nothing.  It can be concluded that this revolt was pointless because the revolutionaries wanted Constantine to become the ruler, but he refused to take the throne, meaning that the entire revolt was pointless.  

The Decembrist Revolt was not the only revolution that occured during these tmes, but the French Revolution of 1830, the Frankfurt revolution, and as the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 also took place.  During the French Revolution of 1830, citizens wanted to keep a constitutional monarchy in place, but their king, Charles X, wanted to abolish it and restore a traditional monarchy.  This caused the people of France to rebel against him, setting up barricades and throwing things at soldiers that tried to break these barricades.  All of this turmoil in Paris caused Charles to flee to England, and the people of France elected a "citizen king" named Louis Phillippe, the Duke of Orleans, who allowed the constitutional monarchy to remain in place.  I consider this revolution to be a success, because the French people fought against tyranny and got to keep the country the way it was by standing up against this force.  I think the Frankfurt Revolution was a failure because the people wanted more political rights and more liberty, but many of them fled to other countries such as the United States, and to me it seems like a revolution isn't successful if people who were revolting fled to other countries.  Finally, the biggest failure of a revolution in my opinion is the Decembrist revolt.  The main reason the Decembrist revolt was such a failure is because they fought to try and crown somebody king who didn't want to be king, and hundreds of people were killed by the government, who was under Nicolas's rule.  Overall, it is obvious that not every revolution during this time period was a failure, and some were able to achieve some amount of success through their rebellion.  

The Temperance Movement

This political cartoon was in favor of the Temperance movement because it easily conveyed the belief that alchohol and the effect of ardent spirits on ones body.  The picture above represents all of the bad that comes out of excessive drinking and alchohol addiction, such as the destruction of the heart, liver, and stomach, and brain, and it also shows a demon-like figure taking money out of the mans pocket, as well as having the destroyed organs be hauled away by these demons.  In the background, a devil seems to be fuelling the distillery, showing that evil is present with the consumption of alchohol.  This image was used as propoganda in order to help influence the Temperance movement and help convince people to stop the heavy consumption of alchoholic beverages.  The artists of this image is saying that excessive drinking leads to poor health and poverty, and is trying to grab the attention of the viewer in order to try and convince them to drink in moderation.

David Claypoole Johnston, Ardent Spirits, (ca. 1837-1841)