Unjust Treatment to Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans

Recently in History class we have been talking about the Buffalo soldiers and Native Americans. To learn about these topics we used the same process as the week before, we watched various videos on ABC-Clio and PBS, we took notes on separate topics and eventually created our own essential question and exam questions. In this lesson we were trying to determine whether the discrimination towards the buffalo soldiers and Native Americans was intentional or if the white settlers and government believed what they were doing was just. While the federal government may have thought the things were doing were just, they were acting completely barbarous towards these two groups of people.

Buffalo soldiers at this time were black Americans who had just come off the civil war, they became soldiers because frankly they had to pick their poison; buffalo soldier or sharecropper. When being a sharecropper was much like being a slave, and not having any say, buffalo soldiers did not have it much better. They were forced to fight Indians in many instances, and did hard labor, such as laying out electrical lines and cutting paths for other soldiers. The government may have thought that compensating them with clothing, food, and shelter was fair, but it really was not. These men were faced with a large amount of controversy when carrying out orders simply because they were black, they also were put into battles that were highly unsafe obviously compromising many lives. Seeing as though the buffalo soldiers were put into many dangerous situations the resources that they were provided did not make the treatment just.

This is a timeline of the Indian removal and the tension that
grew between the westward expanding Americans and these
two groups of people.

After the Civil War there was gold found westward, and for this reason they expanded to the West taking over native american land. When this happened they were faced with conflict because of the people that they were exterminating on their way. To get rid of the native american tribes the american troops destroyed the natives food supply, homes, and even took lives in an effort to get them to move. At this point the government put into action The Dawes Act. This allotted a certain amount of land to each person, but these amounts of land were not what the native Americans had previously had, and most of the land was of no use to the people. After all of the total war, in effort to try to get natives to move; the native Americans became protected by the government, so they were enrolled in schools and encouraged to leave their native roots and traditions. All this was brought about by reformers who thought of themselves as “Friends of the Native Americans” so it is believed that they did want to give these people more education and in turn a better life, but on their way to this they destroyed a lifestyle and many lives for that matter, thus making what the government did unjust.

Captains of Industry or Robber Barons?

This week in class we have been doing things a little differently. To start of the lesson about John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie we watched several videos about the time period and the economic systems that were being put to use. In groups we would take shared notes on the videos and also on a few primary and secondary sources. After being filled in on what the focus and content of the lesson was, we, the students decided what our essential question would be for the week. We were to determine whether Carnegie and Rockefeller were robber barons or captains of industry. Robber barons were seen as corrupt, unsportsmanlike, bribed government officials, they bought out or destroyed rivals, and created giant monopolies and trusts. Citizens of the time had a love hate relationship with them. Captains of industry were simply business leaders who advanced the economy. These two men were both robber barons and captains of industry.

This shows Rockefeller's standard oil tank as an octopus strangling
its competitors, and the government.

Seeing future industry in oil Rockefeller quit the merchant business in which he was involved and began putting his prospects in oil in 1865. His business techniques attracted Flagler and he had the ability to negotiate lower shipping rates with the railroads, and then in 1870 the two men created the Standard Oil Company of Ohio. When Rockefeller’s strict strategies did bring the company extreme success, they damaged his reputation in the public. Some people believed that he and his partners used illegal tactics to get them to where they were, and eventually in 1892 antitrust legislation by Congress and Ohio supreme court forced Rockefeller to disband his companies. From this negative perspective John D. Rockefeller can be seen as a robber baron. Then again, Rockefeller’s wealth peaked at a highly impressive $900 million, this was more than the federal budget and qualified him as the most wealthy man in America’s history, but this money was not only spent for his own purposes but was also donated to charities and educational institutions. Throughout his years he was giving away millions of dollars for the advancement of education, medicine, and science. He also was willing to drop his prices, and this obviously has consumers following him constantly. As Rockefeller can be seen as a robber baron, he can be viewed as a captain of industry as well.

This image depicts Carnegie giving back on one side and
cutting wages on the other.

Andrew Carnegie was known for his strong production of steel in the U. S. With his addition to the industry it helped the country to surpass Great Britain in the production of steel. He also created a process where higher quality steel could be bought at lower costs. He became the first operator in the country to take messages by sound. Carnegie impressed Thomas Scott a businessman, who he saw frequently in telegraph offices, and eventually he became superintendent of the eastern military and telegraph lines. On top of all this by 1900 Carnegie’s wealth had reached an impressive 350 million, making him the second richest man in the world. And with this money, he built libraries, donated to education foundations, and promoted causes of peace. From this perspective it is clear that Andrew Carnegie was a captain of industry. On the other hand Carnegie could definitely be seen as a robber baron, he was also known for the Homestead Strike in 1892. This strike happened because of the wage cuts that were being delivered to the workers of the plant in Homestead, Pennsylvania. The laborers were fearing the loss of their jobs, and were obviously angry about the pay cuts, but within days the strike was broken and many were dead or injured. Another example of possibly unsportsmanlike business behavior was the fact that during the economic depressions Carnegie took advantage of the low prices and saw it as an opportunity to further his own businesses, while the rest of the country was plagued with poverty.

These two men both showed extreme talent in their industries, pushing and testing the limits of the economy. They donated to many foundations, for the causes of the community and for the purposes of giving back. From this point of view they can be seen as captains of industry, but they were also robber barons. In the case of Rockefeller, he had a tough reputation because of his cut-throat tactics, and was even suspected of using illegal methods. Andrew Carnegie cut the wages of hard working and poor workers so his company could advance. He also prospered off the overwhelming depression of the economy.

No Matter Which Direction, Freedom Became a Reality

The focus of this lesson was freedom. We were determining whether or not freedom to the slaves came from above or below. Above meaning from people that had more power and influence than the slaves; below meaning from the lower classes or the slaves themselves. Also we were aiming to answer the question of, To what extent were Abraham Lincoln's actions influenced but the actions of enslaved Americans? To answer these questions we took a look at a pyramid as a class. We discussed the ways of the social pyramid to understand the phrases "freedom from below" and "freedom from above". We also looked at a picture called Freedom to the Slaves, we then inserted speech bubbles that portrayed what the characters may say. Next we analyzed 4 Lincoln documents, and in each we were to find a quote that best showed the goal of the war, the position on freeing slaves, and evidence of Lincoln's personal feelings on slavery. As an example of this analyzation I will use Lincoln’s open letter to Horace Greeley in 1862, the goal of the war was to save the union. A quote that proves this is “"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or to destroy slavery." Lincoln’s position on freeing slaves was; he will make whatever decision regarding slavery that saves the Union, and a quote that shows this is "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 finally his personal feelings on slavery was that he wanted it done, but that could not be his first priority as president, as shown in this quote; "I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." After this activity we analyzed two other documents, Document X and Y, and determined what was going on in them; whether or not they fell under freedom from above or from below, and who was taking action. Lastly we looked at the 13th Amendment, this event was the one which formally abolished slavery in the U. S. The 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "Neither slavery not involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

This is an organizer that we made in groups that categorizes the different documents we analyzed into sections of freedom from above, freedom from below, and neither.

As president, slavery obviously could not have been abolished without Lincoln. By declaring the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th amendment he clearly freed many slaves. This could be seen as freedom from above, he had more power than anyone else and he used it to put an end to the unjust thing that is slavery. But without the slaves themselves rising up and voicing their opinions, Lincoln would have most likely done nothing, to avoid mixing his personal beliefs and political ones. In document X the slaves have left the plantation of the Confederate president and have arrived at the Chickasaw Bayou to speak with Union soldiers. This is a great example of freedom from below, they are taking charge and rising from the bottom and going to the top.

I believe that the freedom came just as much from above as it did below, when the rising up of the enslaved people was incredibly important, being that this action drove Lincoln to make his decisions, not much could have really been reinforced without the power from above, such as Lincoln himself. 

Nowadays there are many other issues that are brought about by those of “below” and reinforced or definitely helped by those of “above”. One example of this is Bruce Jenner and his recent coming out as transgender; he is an Olympic athlete, and a star on various Kardashian reality tv shows. Other transgender people have been fighting and protesting for equality, but now that a more popular and powerful voice has stepped out and represented the community equality is more possible. The story has had incredible coverage all over the place, and Bruce Jenner has become a voice for all transgender people, just like Lincoln became a voice for the enslaved people.

Theaters of the Civil War

Recently in History class we have been focusing on the Civil war. This particular unit we were investigating the different battles, the victors and the reasons for the victories. Our goal was to determine the ultimate victor of each theater of war: East, West, and Naval. We were also aiming to identify commonalities in the reasons for the results of the battles. To do this we set up a class scavenger hunt. Each person was given some information on a battle and then had to research further to find the date, the theater, and the location of their battles. Next we created a document on google docs that included all the facts we found. We then created a QR code and a bit.ly to put up somewhere around the school that our classmates would have to find and scan. When the document was accessed it would give a hint to where the next one was located, and we would advance to the next battle until we had all 20. My battle was the battle of Fort Henry, you can access my document here. The next day in class we created a padlet separated into the three theaters; West, East, and Naval.

Created with Padlet

In the padlet we discussed which region was the overall victor for each theater. Each student could post an entry in the column that corresponded to the theater they wanted, and they could then say who they thought the victor was with evidence from specific battles. The ultimate victor for the Western theater was the Union. First of all in many battles such as the battle of Vicksburg and the battle of Shiloh the Union clearly outnumbered the Confederacy. With more troops the Union was able to suppress the confederate forces. Also the Union had more manufacturing plants and transportation services, which supplied them with ammunition and other services. The Confederacy dominated in the Eastern theater for a couple reasons. For one, the union cut off some of the railroads and the confederacy could not get food or ammunition to confront the Union. The Union dominated in the Naval theater, because they had a more trained navy. Also in the case of the battle of Fort Henry the fort was on low land and was clearly exposed.

I thought that the Scavenger hunt was fun and helpful to learn. Walking around made it more exciting to find out about the battles and to complete the lesson. Analyzing the different overall victors on the class padlet with everyone's opinion was also helpful. I think that the scavenger hunt was a beneficial and fun activity.

Split Over Slavery

The essential question for this lesson was “How were the results of the  Election of 1860 representative of the deep divisions  over slavery?” This asks how the results of the election displayed how different people viewed slavery at the time. To answer this question we first watched a Crash Course video about this election. Next we looked at a map from the class lesson notes on edline. This map showed that Lincoln, who was against slavery and felt as though it should be contained, completely won over the north of the country. Douglas believed that the way slavery should be spread is only if the people decided on it, and the only state he managed to convince was Missouri. Breckenridge maintained that slavery should have no limits; he won over the majority of the South. Lastly Bell wanted to keep the union the way it was including all of the slavery going on in it; he won the in between states. Finally we made an explanatory video using educreations of The Election of 1860 that contained 5 images of events that helped aid the story from Civil War in Art, and 3 additional events.

The results of this election caused so many different reactions. The fact that some states seceded clearly shows how divided the South was over the slavery issue. The different politicians that won over each state also indicates how divided the nation was; The two more successful candidates of this election, Abraham Lincoln, and Breckenridge had the north and the south completely on opposite sides of the issue. This election demonstrates the deep divisions over slavery and causes a spark of a war.   


Sources:

http://www.civilwarinart.org/exhibits/show/causes/introduction/the-election-of-1860-and-seces

http://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm?id=196 

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/Homer_Letter/Homer_Lincoln_Inauguration.jpg 

http://www.edline.net/files/_CJKPB_/20eb6e3d67b5015b3745a49013852ec4/Election_of_1860_Lesson_Notes.pdf

https://nerdfighteria.info/video/crashcourse/roNmeOOJCDY 

Teaching with Infographics

North vs. South: Success in the Civil War | Create infographics

The point of this infogram was to teach people about the differences between the North and the South and how they affected each region's success in the Civil War. To start mine off I used population, this sets the scene as to how many people there are and what the Country’s total population was at the time. Next I compared each region's industrial assets; as in things like industrial workers, and value of manufactured goods. In this category it seems that the North pretty much dominated. Next I showed the major crops that each region was producing, these were corn and cotton, the North produced more corn, but in cotton production they were completely overshadowed by the South with a ratio of 0: 5,000,000. The next topic was war strategies, in this department the North came out on top as well. The south had a good idea, to pressure other countries into helping, and it would have worked if it hadn’t been for Egypt and India that could instead supply France and Britain with cotton. Finally in my infographic, I discussed the ultimate advantages of both sides. The North has more railroad mileage, factories and the majority of the population lived in the North. The South had more military colleges so this made the more trained military officials side with the confederacy, they also did not have to initiate any military action but only had to defend their front. Overall both sides had advantages and their were many different aspects of each side that gave them an upper hand on the war.

Unfair and Undiscussed: What Else but Slavery?

The unit that we have been working on in history has been about slavery and the civil war, most recently we have been discussing how slavery has impacted all of the systems in the U.S. The question that we were trying to answer in this section is; How do we know the debate over slavery was the “elephant in the room” for American politics in the early 19th century? The expression “elephant in the room” refers to an obvious truth that is either being ignored or going unaddressed. This applies to slavery because there were certain aspects of different situations involving slavery that people ignored to achieve what they wanted regarding the issue.

My groups timeline.

Clear and concise descriptions of the events shown on our timeline.

To answer this question, in small groups we created a timeline to analyze certain events that gave slavery the controversial reputation that it has. The first largely important event on our timeline is The Compromise of 1850, this was proposed by Henry Clay and it contained 5 parts. The first was that Texas had to relinquish part of its land and then they would be given $10 million this is money that would be used to pay off it's debt to Mexico. This satisfied proslavery advocates. The second part was that the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Utah would be later be determined slavery or a free state by the inhabitants when they applied for statehood. Next the compromise of 1850 stated that the district of Columbia slave trade would be abolished, although slavery would still be permitted. This satisfied anti-slavery advocates. The next part was that California it would be admitted as a free state. This obviously satisfied those that were against slavery. The last part of the compromise of 1850 was the fugitive slave act. This required citizens to assist in the recovery of fugitive slaves; and it also denied a fugitives right to a jury trial. All of these parts to the compromise of 1850 applied to slaves, but the decisions were made regarding the states and territories not the slaves themselves. The politicians and representatives should have paid more attention to the slaves part in the whole ordeal.

The Gadsden purchase occurred in 1853. The US paid $15 million for all of Nevada, California, Utah, and much of Arizona and New Mexico but this was the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The Gadsden purchase was where the US paid $10 million for a much smaller strip of land. This land would later be used as a route for the transcontinental railroad. This ridiculous purchase shows how slavery was ignored because the government was willing to spend this money on a tiny strip of land just so the railroad would satisfy proslavery advocates. The trains would transport people to these territories and then the classification of these states (slave state or free state) would be determined by popular sovereignty. Since this railroad would be in the south where more proslavery advocates live they would be able to move themselves to these new territories and claim these new states as slave states.

The Dred Scott decision occurred in 1857 this was where Jets got in and slave man living in Missouri filed suit against his owner. He argued that he and his wife Harriet were free because they had once lived with their owner in states and territories where slavery was ill legal. The Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 against the Scotts. The effects of this decision were that slaves, because they're not citizens were denied the right to sue in court. Enslaved people now cannot win freedom simply by living in a free territory or state. And the Missouri compromise was ruled unconstitutional and all territories are now open to slavery. Here the one act that was protecting the balance of slave states and free states was abolished; this shows that slavery was the elephant in the room because again the people who were proslavery were doing what they wanted and did not consider the effects on the system of slavery and slaves themselves.

Another event that took place during this time that clearly demonstrated that slavery was the elephant in the room was John Brown's raid in 1859. An anti-slavery activist John Brown entered Harpers Ferry Virginia and intended to start a slave revolt. This was unsuccessful but brown managed to drag five slaveowners from their beds and murder them. Brown was eventually put on trial for treason and hung but still people were avoiding discussing the topic of slavery and taking actions that would make it more and more difficult to discuss later on. Overall slavery was clearly the elephant in the room during this time and people would do whatever it took to avoid discussing and addressing it.