Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Native Americans and Buffalo Soldiers

     Our essential question this week was: In what ways did the U.S. Government discriminate against buffalo soldiers and Native Americans accidentally? And in what ways did they purposely discriminate?  This week we learned about the Buffalo Soldiers vs. Native Americans and the westward expansion.  Buffalo soldiers were African American soldiers form the Union army during the civil war.  They continued to be soldiers after the civil war.  The soldiers were given the name Buffalo Soldiers because they reminded the natives of a buffalo’s spirit.  The Buffalo soldiers were given the difficult assignments that most white soldiers wouldn’t have.  They were given poor transport, horses that were almost dead, and sometimes they had to walk 90 miles.  Even though the soldiers fought brave and hard, they were scorned upon by the people.  Despite serving their country, they were given no sympathy or kindness.    

     Buffalo soldiers shouldn’t be confused with Native Americans who inhabited the U.S.  In fact, they fought against each other in battle.  Before the Westward expansion, the Native Americans were leading normal lives that included rituals like the Sun Dance and Vision Quests.  Well, everyday normal lived for them.  Since the Native Americans lived on the Great Plains, they relied on buffaloes for pretty much everything like food and clothes. 

     
     After the Indian Removal Act in 1830, hundreds of thousands of Native Americans were moved off their homeland in the east to the west so that the American settlers would have more land.  In the 1840’s, the California Gold Rush brought more people westward and settlers began to trespass the Indian Territory.  They had hostile encounters and asked protection from the U.S. army.  Tension slowly led to the American Indian Wars on the Plains from 1861-1890.  In Dakota, Gold was found and the Americans abused the Sioux territory.  At this point, Congress ordered the Buffalo soldiers to fight against the Indians. 

     Personally, I don’t think the treatment of the Buffalo soldiers and the Native Americans was accidental.  Both were from different groups, but they were treated with the same cruelty.  The Buffalo Soldiers give their lives for the country, but they are treated like a piece of trash.  And how many times to the Native Americans have to be kicked out of their homes?  It’s as if the settlers don’t look at these men like humans, but as animals.  The basically viewed themselves as better people which is an irony because they are the ones being cruel and mean to the Native Americans and Buffalo soldiers. 


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html
http://www.buffalosoldiers-amwest.org/history.htm

Robber Barons or Captains of Industry?

     With the close of the civil war in 1865, America quickly became in industrial power house.  From 1865 to 1900, there was an escalating industrial growth.  In the growth of the industry, there was an expansion of railroads and steel production.  Immigrants were encouraged to come to the States.  The growth in immigration led to more industrial workers.  During this time, there was also a growth in corporations, trusts and monopolies.  Corporations were companies owned by the public.  Trusts were a number of companies that came together to control a single industry.  A monopoly is a single company that controls all of an industry.  With corporations and trusts, there were a few benefits.  They were both very efficient, time wasn’t wasted on ad campaigns or competition and products were created at a lower price for customers.  After learning the basics of the growing Industry, we learned began to learn about Robber Barons and Captains of Industries.  This led to the creation of the essential question: Were Carnegie and Rockefeller robber barons or captains of industry?

     John D. Rockefeller was a very important poor to rich figure during the late 1800’s.  In my opinion, Rockefeller was a Captain of Industry.  He did both positive and negative things for America.  In 1870, he founded the standard oil company.  While his success grew, Rockefeller put future in oil and bought most of his partners.  His company pioneered vertical immigration where a company secures a market by controlling all of the aspects of a product or service.  This limited competition and allowed the company to manage industries.  Little by little, Rockefeller made all oil companies in America his oil companies.  Despite buying and destroying rivals, Rockefeller also did many good things that should be recognized.  His unjust methods he improved the efficiency of the work.  He developed a system of drilling facilities, railroad delivery, and oil refineries.   This helped the customer and refined the economy.  Rockefeller also was big on philanthropy; the act of giving away millions of dollars for the advancement of medicine, education, and science.  By the end of his career, he donated an estimated $55 million to all kinds of charity.  Even though Rockefeller made very corrupt and sportsmanship like decisions, he did a lot for the people of America. 

     Andrew Carnegie was also a very interesting man who also had many positive and negative attributes.  Carnegie, too, in my opinion is a Captain of Industry.   Rockefeller, Carnegie came from a
poor family.  The more success and fame he achieved, he became a ruthless businessman and was regarded as an innovator for his own greed.  Carnegie also controlled raw material, transportation and manufacturing; vertical integration.  He was among the first to implement the production of steel.  The production of steel, under his control, soon surpassed the British.  Carnegie practiced the “Gospel of Wealth” where he had the moral obligation to use wealth for public good.  He donated money to research, Universities, and many libraries.  Despite being unfair with other business men, Carnegie used a lot of his wealth to help Americans prosper in health and education. 


     Both Rockefeller and Carnegie were not the kindest people in the world, especially towards their competition.  They wanted to become successful people and did as much as they could to get to the top.  But, despite the not so nice path they took, it is important to remember what they did for America.

http://www.britannica.com/biography/John-D-Rockefeller
http://carnegie.org/about-us/foundation-history/about-andrew-carnegie/

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Freedom from Above or Below?

This week in class, we researched a lot about Abraham Lincoln's actions and responses towards slavery and how it changed throughout the civil war.  Through analyzing Lincoln's many speeches and letters, we answered the essential questions: Who gave the 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?  Basically we had to conclude whether the significant decisions to enforce or abolish slavery come from the people on the top of the social pyramid or people from the bottom if the social pyramid.  We concluded that during the civil war, freedom came from the people inhabiting the top of the social class pyramid.  The slaves definitely influenced Lincoln's actions, especially towards the end of his presidency, but it was Lincoln whose actions led to the freedom of the slaves.  

Through analyzing Lincoln’s letters, we were able to record Lincoln’s change of perspective and we were able to identify when freedom came from above and when freedom came from below.  In Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln had written how his “paramount object in this struggle is to save the union and is not to either save or to destroy slaver.”  This letter was written in 1862, a year after the civil war and a year into Lincoln’s presidency.  Lincoln’s main goal then was to protect the union and he claimed he was indifferent to slavery. 

In his Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st, 1863, Lincoln stated how everyone held as slaves within any state would be forever free and that “the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons.”  Lincoln finally made this war about Slavery and the world was watching to see whether pro-slavery or anti-slavery would win.  France and Britain no longer considered allying themselves with the confederacy because these nations had already outlawed slavery.  No slaves were technically free in the south though and the president of the southern confederacy realized that they would have to step it up because they would not get any foreign help. 

In the Gettysburg Address in November of 1863, Lincoln states how his goal was to build a nation on a democratic government that can survive.  He states how “this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish.”  He claims how “the brave me, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it far above out poor power to add or detract.”  He declares how the men who fought for the abolishment of slavery should be honored and never forgotten because they fought for a strong and worthy cause. 

Finally in Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address in 1865, he finally states how the goal of the Civil War was and had always been to free the slaves, that the slaves “constituted a peculiar and powerful interest.  All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.”  He claimed how the war was being fought because they didn’t free the slaves in the beginning when they should have and now it was being fought to free them.  He realizes their mistake and says how they didn’t do anything sooner.  He felt as if god was punishing them for not taking action upon slavery sooner. 

Throughout the course of the civil war, freedom came from both above and below the social
pyramid.  My group felt that the Emancipation Proclamation, Gettysburg Address, and the 2nd Inaugural Speech provided the fight for freedom from above and the letter to Horace Greeley, certain parts of the Gettysburg Address and the Engraving came from below the social pyramid.  Our group finally concluded that the people in the bottom of the social pyramid definitely did contribute to their freedom, but we felt that they motivated the government and especially President Lincoln who took action.  During the civil war, we believed that the slave’s actions influenced President Lincoln’s statements, but it was the President’s actions that led to the official abolishment of slavery. 

Freedom from above or below is a very interesting point that still is a very good question to think about.  I feel like in modern society, freedom comes from below.  The actions that normal everyday people perform affect many things including laws and rules.  For instance, the authority of cops and officers is being questioned by civilians due to recent accidents.  People claim how cops are being too aggressive.  The people form riots and rebellions and make themselves heard.  It is not the government who make actions for us; we fight for our opinions and rights and make ourselves heard.  Many of the changes in modern society happen because we step up to the plate and make our voices heard.  

Sidney A. Alpert "Freedom to the Slaves/ (11.13 x 8.11) -S 

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Scavenger Hunt!!!!

Battle of Cold Harbor 
This week in class, I realized I didn't know my school as well as I thought I did.  Oh, I also learned about the victors of the civil war battles in certain areas of America.  There are three terms to categorize the places, theaters, that the battles took place in: Eastern, the east side, Western, the west side, and Naval, the waters.  To learn about the many battles in the civil war, our class worked together to create a scavenger hunt.  Everyone was responsible for a battle and we had to research certain pieces of information about the battle.  On a google doc, we added all the information, a picture of the battle, and a clue to where the battle after us was located in the school.  We created a QR code with a link to the google doc so that people could access the information through their devices.  The scavenger itself was an adventure throughout the school trying to find the next battle.  Once we had reached all the battles and had taken information from the google docs, we analyzed what we learned on a padlet.  We used the padlet to collaborate answers to the two essential questions: Who bad the ultimate victor in each of the theaters and what are oh one commonalities that can be identified in the reasons for the results of the battles.  

There was pretty much an ultimate winner in the battles in each of the theaters.  In the naval theaters, the Union dominated and defeated the confederates.  This is due to the fact that the union had a navy established before the civil war and they had more troops in the navy.  They had an organized army which gave them a huge advantage in any fight near or in the water. For example, in the battle of Fort Henry, the union was victorious because they had an organized naval army and good strategy.  In the western theater also, the union dominated because many times they used great military tactics and defense methods to fight the confederates.  In many of the battles, the union outnumbered the confederates in number of men and basic supplies like ammunition.  This allowed the union to overpower the confederates in battles like the Chattanooga Campaign and push their invasion deeper into the south.  The eastern theaters were a tug of war of victories between the union and the confederates.  The confederates won a lot of he the battles using surprise tactics.  For instance, in the battle of Chancellorsville, Lee and Jackson's 30,000 confederate troops flanked the right side of the union army while they were still in the woods.  The union army was stunned and even though they were able to kill Jackson, they ended up losing.  

The more we analyzed the victors of battles in the different theaters; we realized that a pattern was showing in the reason of victories.  The union soldiers were more experts in organized warfare.  They also had many advantages.  They had more access to rail roads which helped them transport people and items like food and supplies to different camps and sites.  Also, the Union was already composed of many military men ad had a upper hand in military strategies. The confederates were more definite in their morals in convictions and definitely more riled up.  They mostly stuck to tactics such as ambush that helped them in a lot of battles, but they weren’t enough.  It wasn’t clear in the beginning who would win; in fact, the confederates were winning many of the battles.  With their advantages and strategies though, the union army caught up quickly. 


Created with Padlet

Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed April 10, 2015. http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/coldharbor/cold-harbor-history-articles/10-facts/.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Election Time!


In last weeks lesson, we learned about how the election of 1860 represented the deep divisions of slavery.  Abraham Lincoln was a republican and he was against slavery.  douglas was a northern Democrat who believed that the expansion of slavery should be determined using popular sovereignty.  There were other important men who were against slavery though.  Breckenridge, a southern democrat, believed there should be no limits on slavery and Bell, a part of the constitution union, wanted to preserve the constitution and the Union as is; keeping slavery.  There were a lot of events that affected whether there should be slavery or not. In class my group and I created a video that explained the things that led up to the election of 1860 and the election itself.  




The Harper's Ferry Insurrection [John Brown, Now Under Sentence of Death for Treason and Murder, at Charleston, VA.]
The Seceding South Carolina Delegation
December 22, 1860
Mathew Brady
1822-1896
Our Banner in the Sky
1861
Frederic Edwin Church
Bombardment of Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor
1861
Currier and Ives - See more at: http://www.civilwarinart.org/items/show/63#sthash.3Wx6S02p.dpuf



Tuesday, March 10, 2015

What led to victory?

An infograph is an online application what allows users to present data and statistics in a very interesting and captivating way.  An infographic conveys messages using charts, graphs and very few words.  The message is short and sweet.  The infograph that I created shows the differences, strategies and advantages between the Union and the Confederates before the Civil War.  I analyzed different data and chose the statistics that clearly showed how different strategies and advantages affected the outcome of the Civil War.  



North vs. South | Create infographics



I used a lot of graphs and charts and used minimal words.  The words I used were to explain the strategies that were used in the war.  I used bright colors so that it would capture the viewers attention and interesting data that would be easy to remember.


I chose to use that facts that led to the outcome of the Civil War.  For instance, I included a pie chart that showed how there were a lot more industrial workers, railroads and a very high yearly manufacturing of goods.  These were important to show because they affected the war; the north had more people and also they have more railroads which means people and manufactured goods made by the industrialized workers can travel place to place easier.  After researching a lot about strategies and advantages of both the North and the South, it became clear that the North had the upper hand.  The North had the resources and the people to win the war.  

Monday, March 2, 2015

Unbalanced Scale

America in the 19th century spent most of its time fighting within itself about slavery and how to deal with it.  In the 19th century, there were many significant pro-slavery and anti-slavery events that occurred.  The past week in class, we studied in detail about many of the events that occurred and created a timeline.  In the timeline are the events that were against slavery and below the time line are the events that supported slavery.  Slavery was “the elephant in the room”; it was an obvious and very heavy problem that ignored, neglected and unaddressed. 

In 1820 the Missouri Compromise created an even split of 11 slave states and 11 free states.  This meant that slave states and free states had an even number of votes in the Senate.  It was also stated that all new territory north of the 36 degrees 30 minute latitude line will be free in the future.  In 1849, the Gold Rush made many lower and middle class citizens to travel west.  In 1850, California requested to join the Union as a free state.  This would create a few problems and disrupt the balance between slave and free state, but the 1850 Compromise proposed by Henry Clary came with solutions. 

First, the United States had recently acquired a vast territory (a result of its war with Mexico).  The question was whether the territory should allow slavery or whether it should be declared free.  According to the compromise, Texas would relinquish the land, but in compensation, be given 10 million dollars -- money it would use to pay off its debt to Mexico.  This is pro-slavery because you solidify the borders of a very large slave state.   Since California had grown in population since the gold rush, it had been decided that California would be admitted as a free state.  The territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah would be organized without mention of slavery. (The decision would be made by the territories' inhabitants later, when they applied for statehood.)  This is pro-slavery because the people who will mostly live in those states are in the south and people own slaves in the south.  In Washington, the slave trade would be abolished in the District of Columbia, although slavery would still be permitted.  This is anti-slavery because this sends a message that the country is moving in a different direction.  To pacify slave-state politicians, who would have objected to the imbalance the Fugitive Slave Act was passed.  It required citizens to assist in the recovery of fugitive slaves. It denied a fugitive's right to a jury trial.  This undermines the Underground Railroad where people who escape to the north will definitely be captured. 

Another significant event that happened was the Caning of Charles Sumner following the Bleeding Kansas.  Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts was a leading republican and a powerful anti-slavery voice in congress.  In 1856, Senator Sumner held a speech called “The Crime against Kansas.”  The speech bitterly attacked southerners for forcing slavery on the territory.  He made bold insults against Senator Butler of South Carolina.  Two days after his speech, Preston Brooks beat Charles Sumner in the Senate Chamber.  Preston Brooks was a member of the House of Representatives and Butler’s nephew.  He was angered by Sumner’s claims and was determined to defend the honor of the South.    

In 1857, the Dred Scott Decision became a big turning point in the rights of slaves in court.  Dred Scott, an enslaved man living in Missouri, filed a suit against his owner.  He argued that he and his wife, Harriet, were free because they had once lived in a free state with their owner.  The Scott’s lost 7 to 2.  Because of this trial, the Dred Scott Decision was made.  Slaves, because they were not citizens, were denied the right to sue in court.  Enslaved people cannot win freedom by simply living in a free territory or state and the Missouri compromise was ruled unconstitutional and all territories were opened to slavery.  Things weren’t looking so good for slaves; especially considering how the Dred Scott Decision, denied them certain rights.  There were still many influential people out there though that fought hard for the abolishment of slavery.   

John Brown was a fierce and intense abolitionist who believed in using violent and brutal means to end slavery.  The Northerners hailed Brown as a martyr to the cause of justice and the Southerners saw John Brown as a criminal mad man.  People like Fredrick Douglas were thankful for John Brown.  When Douglass met John Brown in 1847, he states that, “Though a white gentleman, [Brown] is in sympathy a black man, and is deeply interested in our cause, as though his own soul had been pierced with the iron of slavery.”  Henry David Thoreau claimed how no other man “in America has stood up so persistently and effectively for the dignity of human nature…” 

In 1859, John Brown attacked the federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia.  Brown and his followers hoped to seize the weapons from the arsenal and give them to enslaved people so they could rebel.  They had a dream; an uprising that would end slavery, punish slave holders and lead the United States.  They did not succeed though.  Troops killed half of John Brown’s men and Brown was sentenced to hand. 

Slavery was the elephant in America because it was a huge problem in the country, and yet people decided to push it aside.  They refused to believe that slavery was a problem.  It was like a scale that was never balanced.  Sometimes pro-slavery outweighed the anti-slavery and sometimes the opposite.  America was falling apart, fighting within itself.  This was the big gateway into the Civil War.   




Source: 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p1550.htm