Andrew Jackson: The Settler's President

For the majority of the last few days, our class split up into six small groups and researched different topics to contribute to answering the question: s Andrew Jackson's long-standing reputation as "the people's president" deserved?  As a class, we focused on three of Jackson's largest involvements- the Spoils System, the Bank War, and my topic, the Indian Removal Act.  The Indian Removal Act was Jackson's moving of about 100,000 Southern Native Americans to the western part of the country, or present-day Oklahoma.  Jackson claimed that he was doing the tribes a favor, because he was trying to save them, but in reality, he was dooming them by giving them the choice to either move west to a foreign land with little resources, or stay in their homelands and abide by his rules, which included serving in the militia.  My group carefully analyzed a few sources about the Indian Removal Act and came up with an answer to the question: Jackson cared about his own American people, but did not regard the original Native Americans very much.

U.S. Democracy in the early 1800's

For the majority of last week, we worked in large groups to answer the questions: How should we define democracy and how democratic was the United States in the early 1800s?  Our group defined democracy as a system of government by the whole population or all of the eligible members of a state.  The people that make up a population get to vote on who they want to asssume the leadership role in their society.  After analyzing several sources, we came to the conclusion that the U.S. in the 1800's was not very democratic at all.   

This is the poster that our group created to support our answer to the essential questions.
It features data graphs of different states' voting methods,
quotes from different voters,
and a painting and it's description of an election. 

Racism: < Nineteenth Century-Now

Why is it essential to acknowledge human value regardless of race?  If I were to answer this question using my opinion and not facts, my answer would be simple: because every single person on this earth is a  a human.  However, in a lesson last week, as a class, we learned that in the 1800s, people of Mexico, Brazil and Gran Colombia did not think the same.  Each country took part in their own revolutions, and our class divided into three large groups and closely examined one of the three Latin American revolutions.  In each society, a social structure existed, with Peninsulares at the top only making up 1% of the population, followed by Creoles making up 23%, Mestizos making up 7%, Mulattoes being 8%, Indians being 50% and finally African Slaves making up 11% at the bottom.  

Social Pyramid in Nineteenth-Century Central and South America

Population Makeup of Nineteenth-Century Central and South America

My Group's Mexican Revolution Timeline:

January 1811: Mexican rebellion lead by Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla was defeated at Calderón. He was captured and executed. 

1820: Liberals took power in Spain and formed a new government that promised reforms to stop Mexican revolutions. Mexican conservatives wanted independence so they could maintain their positions and beliefs. 

Early 1821: Agustín de Iturbide, the leader of the Royalist forces, negotiated the plan of Iguala with Victor Guerrero. It made Mexico an independent and constitutional monarchy.  

August 24, 1822: Spanish Viceroy Juan de O'Donoju signed the treaty of Córdoba making Mexico officially a constitutional monarchy 

1822: Iturbide was proclaimed the emperor of Mexico

1823: Republican leaders Santa Anna and Guadalupe Victoria deposed Iturbide and set up a republic

Like every revolution, we found two commonalities among the Mexican, Gran Colombian, and Brazilian Revolutions.  All three of the revolutions that we studied took place in Central/South American lands ruled by Europeans.  Spain was ruling both Mexico and Gran Colombia, and Portugal had control of Brazil.  Luckily, another commonality is that all three revolutions were successful, and everyone had been granted the freedom that they sought for and deserved.  At the end of each revolution, the three countries emerged with three different governments.  Mexico was named a constitutional monarchy, although that was later overthrown and changed into a republic.  Gran Colombia became a republic, and Brazil also became a constitutional monarchy.  In each of the revolutions, someone rose to the leadership position, but they were all different people.  Mexican rebels were led by  Miguel Hidalgo i Iturbide, Gran Colombians were led by Bolivar, and the Brazilians followed in the footsteps of Pedro.

I am saddened to admit that race is still a problem to some people, especially people in the society I live in.  Recently, most of the country has been up in arms because of the tragic killing of Michael Brown.  In the small St. Louis, Missouri suburb of Ferguson, the 18-year old black man was fatally shot by a 28-year old white police officer, Darren Wilson.  Brown was walking down the street with another black friend, and it is said that Wilson asked them to stop, out of suspicion and without probable cause.  Brown and his friend both fled in opposite directions with hopes of avoiding the police, while Wilson continued to pursue Brown.  Some witnesses say that Brown had his hands above his head like he was asked to, but others say he did not cooperate with Wilson.  Nevertheless, Wilson fired twelve rounds of his handgun, seven of which struck Brown and ultimately killed him.  Within the last month, the Grand Jury pronounced Officer Darren Wilson not guilty, which sent Missouri into a state of emergency, and sparked hundreds of riots throughout the country.  A question still stands: Should the issue of race still be considered in our lives today?  The answer is clearly yes, but I think that race should not be observed as a big difference between people, but the fact that people have issues with different races than their own definitely needs to be addressed and stopped.