Buffalo Soldiers in the Heart of America

This week in History Class, we watched 6 short videos about Buffalo Soldiers, the African-American Cavalry Soldiers that were used to protect settlers as they moved west, and to support the westward expansion. Each group in our class was assigned a topic to take notes on, and we created a shared Google Doc to collaborate.  After watching the videos, we analyzed three documents, Excerpts from the 1887 Dawes Act,  Helen Hunt Jackson's Century of Dishonor 1881, and a visual of the Federal Native American Policies.  

After taking 2 days worth of notes, we came together as a class to come up with this weeks essential question.  Many students had the same ideas, so we combined all of them to create the question; during westward expansion, did the impact of federal policy towards Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans match the intent?  I do not believe that the government's intent of the policies matched the impact that they left on Native Americans.

As it can be seen in the picture below, the policies began with Pres. Andrew Jackson initiating the Indian Removal in 1830. When it was realized that the Indians were not going to move out of their places of origin without putting up a fight, Buffalo Soldiers were placed on the Great Plain to fight the Native Americans, in hopes of gaining their land for the rest of the country. As the fighting was happening, the government set up new plots of land intended for the Indians to move to. This was very unfair towards the Natives; as this was a completely new and different way of life- something that would take time and work to become accustomed to. The federal policies put in place by the American Government benefitted themselves, just not the Native Americans (like it was supposed to).

American Frontier Policies

Mixing Business and Charity

Did the captains of industry have a positive or negative impact on the public?

For the most part, the captains of industry had a positive impact on the American society.   Andrew Carnegie was an Irish philanthropist that invested a large amount of money in his successful steel industry. John Rockefeller, was a wealthy business man that was a supporter of the Union Army during the Civil War.

Carnegie and Rockefeller were also known as “robber barons”, men who bribed government officials, destroyed rival business, and built personal armies.  

Carnegie was born a poor Scottish man, and eventually became one of the richest Americans of his time by establishing himself in the steel business. Carnegie was a mostly well-liked man, and he also donated a lot of his money towards education, which included promoting the building of public libraries.

Rockefeller was not a very well-liked businessman, because he was known to take “immoral” risks.  With the ambition to become the richest American man, he helped start up his father’s oil business.  As he became more and more successful, he strived to create a monopoly in the oil industry, and did so by buying out other companies that were competing against him.  Many Americans considered his actions both unfair and greedy, but he did do some good deeds.  In Rockefeller’s lifetime, he donated about half a billion dollars to education funds and charities.  

After watching ABC-Clio videos on some of America’s most successful businessmen, I came to the conclusion that both Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller made a positive impact on society.

"John D. Rockefeller had to perform a delicate balancing act to maintain his reputation as a philanthropist while living the live of a wealthy businessman."
Political Cartoon of John Rockefeller
http://www.ushistory.org/us/36b.asp

The Change They Wished to See

In class before spring break, we studied 4 Lincoln documents and watched a Ken Burns video in order to answer the questions; 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?   The "above" group consisted of the higher-class Americans, the small population of wealthy people, and the "below" group referred to the large population of lower-class Americans, like slaves and the less wealthy people.  

In president Abraham Lincoln's open letter,  he says "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."  In this case, freedom would be coming from above, from the most powerful American at the time.  Although Lincoln did not blatantly say that he 100% wanted to free the slaves, he hinted at his opinion.  

In an 1862 letter from General Ambrose E. Burnside to Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, freedom seems to come from below.  Ambrose is telling Stanton about how his city is "being overrun with fugitives from surrounding towns and plantations", who are putting pressure on pro-slave advocates.  The "below" group is seen here taking control of their problems, and provoking a change for themselves.  

For our last activity, we created a linear graph to show who stirred up change in different events and documents.  I think that the "below" group had a stronger effect on ending slavery, because they were more passionate and made their points more personal.  

A Photo of My Group's Linear Graph

Hunting for Knowledge

Last week in History, my class did a lesson called Civil War Scavenger Hunt.  Our two essential questions were;  Who was the ultimate victor in each of the theaters of war: East, West, Naval? and What are some commonalities you can identify in the reasons for the results of the battles?  Working alone, each student received 1/20 civil war battle names.  Using reliable sources, everyone had to research their assigned battle and find the date and location, the victor, which theater it took place in, at least 2 details, and an image.  Unfortunately, I was not in school the day our class researched battles.  For homework that night, each student created a public Google Document with their information.  Then, students created a QR Code, which linked to their doc.  In class the next day, they hung up their QR Code somewhere in the school, and the person before them indicated the location in their doc.  Luckily, Zack Sahagian let me tag along, and filled me in on what I had missed.  

Zack researched battle #14, the Battle of Chickamauga.  Zack clearly presented the information that his classmates needed to know, by stating the date, name, theater, and victor.  You can view Zack's work here.  

So, who was the ultimate victor in each of the theaters of war?  After viewing all of the different documents, we created a Padlet, "an online bulletin board", and used it to share ideas with our peers.  Our class mostly agreed that the Union dominated the western theater, by winning the Battle of Shiloh by outnumbering the Confederate Army, and the Siege of Vicksburg by being more prepared than the South.  Our class did not agree on the victor of the eastern theater.  David made a good argument in favor of the Confederate Army by saying "The Confederacy dominated the Eastern Theater. At the Battle of Fredericksburg, the Union suffered 13,300 deaths."  On the other hand, Alex H. made an equally good argument in favor of the Union Army by saying The Union dominated the Eastern Theater, as they had many more resources and manpower for the job. Some examples are the Battle of Gettysburg, where the Union managed to come out on top even after 20,000+ casualties."  You can view our ideas below.

Created with Padlet

What are some of the commonalities in for the results of the battles?  In the Battle of Shiloh and the Battle of Fort Sumter, an army ran out of supplies, which means they were not prepared enough.  Another commonality I noticed was between 4 separate battles, there was an issue with being outnumbered, both the Union outnumbering the Confederacy and vice-versa.  

1 year in 158 seconds

How were the results of the Election of 1860 representative of the deep divisions over slavery?  This broad question with many answers can be justified in just 2 minutes, 38 seconds.  In class, we formed groups of 2 or 3, and researched a source to answer our essential question.  Within the major source, we found many useful primary sources to answer the question.  Then, Amelia, Nora and I created  short video, embedding our sources and speaking over them.  Below, I have attached the video.

Interactive Information

The North vs. The South:        THE CIVIL WAR | Create infographics

Last week in Honors History 10, our class researched the statistics of the beginning of the civil war. With many resources that Mrs. Gallagher gave us, we were able to compare and contrast several aspects of the north and the south in 1861; the populations, economies, military strategies, advantages and disadvantages. The essential question we were asked to answer was: How did the differences between the North and the South affect each region's strategy and success in the Civil War? With the given sources, I created an infographic on Infogram, a visual, interactive image to represent information and data. I found that broadcasting information in this way is much easier to comprehend and appreciate. The interactive aspect of the infographic makes the differences and similarities between the Union and the Confederacy very clear. I am very thankful that Mrs. Gallagher introduced me to this new tool, I will definitely be using it more often.

The Elephant in America

Last week in Honors History 10, we learned about the last cause of the civil war. This final lesson was called "The Elephant in the Room", and idiom for the indisputable but ignored issue of slavery in America. In class, we organized ourselves into small groups, and learned about the events that took place in the newly formed western US. The north and the south began to disagree with how to distribute slavery in the country.

The first picture is of my groups timeline, consisting of 8 major events that lead up to the debate over slavery and the civil war. The events above the timeline are the cons of abolishing slavery, and the events below the line are the pros of abolishing slavery. Most 19th century southerners supported the events above the timeline, while most 19th century northerners supported the events below the line. 

4 of the 8 major events were the Missouri Compromise, Bleeding Kansas, the Caning of Charles Sumner and the Dred Scott Decision.  

The Missouri Compromise was a multi-part compromise created by Henry Clay in an attempt to resolve the conflicts between the north and the south.  The first two  solutions were that the new southern state, Missouri, would enter as a slave state, as long as the new northern state, Maine, entered as a free state.  Another compromise was that slavery would not exist above the 36 degree latitude line in Missouri.  

'Bleeding Kansas' refers to the riot that broke out in Lawrence, Kansas, where a group of pro-slavery southerners attempted to rebel against the anti-slavery advocates.  John Brown and his sons ended up massacring 5 of the pro-slavery men.

 The Caning of Charles Sumner took place right after Sumner's fiery 2-day speech on the slavery conflict, in which he targeted Andrew Butler, the senate of South Carolina.  Butler's nephew, Preston Brooks, beat Sumner in his chamber with a cane in response to the speech.

Dred Scott was a Missourian slave who traveled to Illinois with his owner because of his owner's relocation.  Illinois was declared a free state, which meant Scott was living on free soil.  After a long period of time, Scott and his owner were again relocated back to the slave state of Missouri.  In Missouri, Scott's owner died.  Scott went to court, seeking freedom because he had lived on free soil for such a long time, and had no living owner.  The case got bought to the US Supreme Court, where Scott was never granted freedom, because the court ruled him as a non-citizen, granting him no rights. The effects of this decision were that slaves were denied the right to sue in court, enslaved people could not be granted freedom by living on free soil, and the Missouri Compromise was ruled unconstitutional (because all territories were technically open to slavery).

Making the timeline was a really helpful way to understand the events that lead up to slavery, and to see how they had effects on each other.  

Speeding Slavery

Although slavery has not been around for many years, it will always be a problem and will continue to cast a shadow on the world forever.  In the early 19th century, the total slave population had risen to approximately 1,191,000.  Slaves were in demand because of the booming cotton business.  Slaves were rapidly being brought into the country and transported to the new states of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Louisiana.  In 1820, the U.S. was producing about 160 million pounds of cotton a year, and cotton accounted for 32% of the nation's export revenue, mostly in the south.  As new lands were being opened, slaves were being brought into the country to be scattered there.  With the intensity of the cotton business increasing, the slave population nearly doubled.  Halfway through the 19th century, the cotton industry was the largest in the south, producing about 1,000,000,000 pounds of cotton.  The slave population had risen to about 3.2 million.  Every decade, the amount of cotton produced had risen greatly, as had the slave population.  

The Founder's Constitution mentioned slavery in many articles.  One clause that stood out was  "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.".  This means that if a slave were to escape from their master and into a free state, the slave would not be considered free.  If the slave were to be caught, they were to be returned to their owner.  This law made it clear that slaves were not treated as people whatsoever, more like property.  

The Founder's Constitution

In class, we also read an article called Cotton is King: Slavery is Entrenched in American Society.  It said that people in the American society genuinely believed that slavery was in decline, with so many slaves escaping and being freed.  In 1793, a man named Eli Whitney invented a revolutionary machine called the cotton gin.  The invention of the cotton gin made it easier to take the seeds out of cotton, making it an easier crop to produce.  Whitney's invention doomed the slaves, giving them more work to do.  As I pointed out earlier, the cotton industry grew greatly, as did the slave population.  

Whitney's Original Patent for his Cotton Gin

Next in class, we focused on one of the more difficult parts of slavery: morality.  Nothing about slavery is moral in any way.  It is just the opposite.  In the 19th century, and person of color or of African was considered a slave, not a person.  For example, we watched a docudrama called Prince Among Slaves, a story of Prince Abdul Rahman, from Futa Jallon, Africa.  Prince was very influential in his land, and had many responsibilities.  He ended up being captured, taken to America and sold to a white master in Mississippi.  The whites regarded him as any other slave, and treated him pretty poorly.  Little did they know, he was a man of power and wealth back at his home where he should've been.  This documentary showed that the whites did not care about slaves' personal lives or family lives, they just treated them like slaves. 

After the docudrama, our class split up into groups and each researched an abolitionist.  John Brown was a militant abolitionist who led a raid on a federal armory called Harpes Ferry, in hopes of giving the stolen weapons to slaves so they could become free from their masters. He was very opposed to slavery. Brown also took part in the underground  railroad, gave land to free African Americans and eventually established the League of Gileadites, a group formed with the intention of protecting black citizens from slave hunters.  Brown was a ruthless man, but he had good intentions.   

John Brown and a some descriptions
of him.

Caught in the Imperfection

Since the beginning of time, men have always been deemed superior to women.  In the mid-19th century, women in America had to do certain things, and were excluded from some things that only men could do.  Women spent most of their time indoors at home, raising children and completing household chores.  Below, the photo shows a typical 1800s mother, taking care of her baby,  entertaining her other children, and maintaining a calm environment.  It is clear to see that the father is not home helping his wife.  Gender equality has been a long struggle, and is still a problem today.

A Typical 19th-Century White Woman in Her Home

  
The Seneca Falls Convention and Society's Reaction
In 1848, the first women's rights convention was held in New York.  There, women's voting rights were publicly addressed for the first time.  Also, the Laws and Practices of Women were demanded to be changed.  The Laws and Practices of Women clearly stated that women didn't have the same rights as men, women weren't supposed to speak publicly, and in some states, it was even legal for a man to beat his wife.  Most American men reacted negatively; they enjoyed being superior.  Some newspapers offered their opinions, too.  The Oneida Whig paper wrote very negative things about the demands.  However, on August 30, 1848, the National Reformer published an article supporting the Seneca Falls Convention.  The National Reformer wrote: "...we would ask but for one valid reason why woman should be deprived rights as an intelligent being...".  Finally, women's rights advocates had their voices heard and understood by logical humans.

Inequality Today
I must begin this last piece by stating that I am in no way a feminist, nor am I a "meninist".  In the video we watched in class, you could see a man and a woman being described with the same words, but being represented differently.  In most cases, the man's representation was positive, and the woman's was negative.  Being only 15, I have never experienced the wrath of gender inequality, but the female and male extremist advocates make me not want to stand up for my own gender.  I do not believe that women should be treated like they were treated in 1848, but I strongly believe that women need to recognize they are strong, and should fight for themselves as individuals, not attack the entire male gender for something not everyone has done.  Many women are fighting for equal rights, and they are certainly making more of an impact today than they did in 1848, but the world will never be perfect.....

Philippines Pantene Commercial 2013-

Women Against Labels

Truth about Temperance

Jewett, Charles. "The Effects of Drunkenness." 1841. TeachUSHistory.org

During the time this image was created- the early/mid 19th century- many Americans supported the Temperance Movement- moderation in drinking alcohol or total abstinence from alcohol.  Amelia Bloomer was publishing articles in newspapers about how she believed that people had the power to change themselves.  Neal Dow was the man to get alcohol banned in Maine, also known as the "first dry state".  Many people believed that excessive drinking was interfering with relationships, especially the negative effect on families.  This image provides a good insight to those who were not a part of a family with abuse.  Images such as this one would be published in newspapers to make people aware of alcohol's consequences.  Although this image is pretty graphic, it was the truth, and it could not be ignored.