Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans in the Wild Wild West

  In class we studied the tumultuous history of the Native Americans and Buffalo soldiers as well as policies instituted in regard to them. The buffalo soldiers were military regiments of black men tasked to guard the expanding western territories instead of having to become sharecroppers which was essentially slavery again. These men were named buffalo soldiers for their indomitable spirit and bravery, reminding the natives of buffalo. Buffalo soldiers were not treated fairly however, they were given the run down or older horses, as well as materials and they were tasked with patrolling the most dangerous areas of the west. The Native Americans who inhabited the plains were mostly peaceful, living in tribes following buffalo across the plains and generally minding their own business. The Natives were unfortunately seen as a problem for the U.S. government as they inhibited expansion out west. So, the government methodically stripped away their rights and forced them to comply with the use of force and legislation.

      The essential question we came up with is "Was the discrimination that the Buffalo soldiers and Native Americans faced intentional or did the White settlers and federal government actually believe that what they were doing was just?" Helen Hunt wrote about the discrimination the Natives faced in her book "A Century of  Dishonor". She points out the flawed setup the government has made to try and keep the Natives in their place "There is not among these three hundred bands of Indians one which has not suffered cruelly at the hands either of the Government or of white settlers. The poorer, the more insignificant, the more helpless the band, the more certain the cruelty and outrage to which they have been subjected". The Natives were forced to live in poverty and shunned by other Americans while the government profited off their demise. This continued even after she wrote this book.  The Dawes act of 1887 was considered one of the most significant pieces of legislation to affect the Native Americans. The Dawes act was enacted to set aside some land for Natives to live on as reservation land while the rest of it went to the ever greedy U.S. government. This was awful for the Natives, they were forced to be confined on a small amount of land and comply with all the governments demands, they were essentially prisoners. For Buffalo soldiers, the government gave little sympathy. These men were tasked with the most dangerous areas of the west and given the worst supplies to do it with.

By observing all the evidence presented by the documents, I think the government had mixed priorities. On one hand, it seems as though they are at least trying to give the natives a place to live in instead of killing them on the spot and they did offer military positions to black soldiers instead of dissolving their branches after the way. However, the government heavily discriminated against both parties. The Natives, after they were forced out of their lands and many slaughtered, were herded onto reservations and were paid little mind otherwise. Many of these reservations did not get proper funding and became problematic. Buffalo soldiers were discriminated against with their smaller wages and inadequate equipment compared to their white counterparts. Buffalo soldiers were also given dangerous areas to patrol. The U.S. government was mostly discriminatory towards the Native Americans and Buffalo Soldiers

   

Carnegie and Rockefeller

                 The Last lesson we learned about in class was on Carnegie and Rockefeller, two businessmen who lived in the 1800's and helped to advance the United States' industry. As a class, we watched a couple videos about the two, looking at different viewpoints on each of them. Some people believe they were bad men who only worked for their own benefit while others believed they actually cared about their workers and other people. after we took notes on the video, we split up and looked at each of their biographies. From this we had to decide on an essential question and answer it. We came up with the question "are John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie Robber Barons or Captains of Industry." A robber baron is someone who profits off of sneaky business tactics such as bribery and buying others out of business, and a captain of industry is a business owner who pours their effort into advancing the industry and being as productive as possible.
                  Lets start off by looking at Andrew Carnegie. Carnegie is the classic example of a "rags to riches" story, he grew up poor in Scotland and 13 years later would move to the U.S. with his family. Carnegie worked his way up, starting as a telegraph operator and using that skill to impress a railroad owner landing him a job at the Pittsburgh railroad. Later, during the Civil War, he helped manage the Union's telegraph and rail lines. After that, he invested heavily in the steel production industry. With some greatly needed help from a steel guru in Britain named Sir Henry Bessemer, Carnegie was able to establish his company as one of the best steel producers in the world and was able to take control of the industry. After being successful for many years and at one point being the second richest man in the world, Carnegie sold his company and dedicated his life to philanthropy, giving back to America and helping to advance education. Next is John D. Rockefeller. Rockefeller grew up a pretty normal life and was able to go to school and pursue business after that. He saw the growing interest of oil in Cleveland especially. As time went on, he bought up most of his competitors and he and  his associates formed the Standard Oil Company. However, to maintain his status as top dog of the oil industry, Rockefeller employed cutthroat business tactics and circumvented the law often. despite this, later in life, he gave away a lot of his money to help fund education and medical advancements.                    Both of these men were great business leaders who helped shape America to become the prosperous nation we know today. Also, they donated large amounts of money so that they could influence a better future for America. However both acquired their wealth at the loss of other's wealth and sometimes used bad business tactics to get what they wanted. I think that these men should not be classified as one or the other, but rather I think they were both Robber Barons and Captains of Industry.

Freedom from above or below

During class, we looked at official documents written by president Lincoln during the civil war and other sources. By looking at the documents, we saw that Lincoln became increasingly willing to admit that the war was about slavery. We discussed whether freedom came from the actions of the slaves themselves or from the government to answer the essential question: 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 argument for freedom from above can be made by the fact that Lincoln passed the emancipation Proclamation which made slavery unlawful. Also, the union army went through the south freeing slaves that they came across on plantations. Another way freedom from above could be considered valid is that Lincoln shifted the focus of the war from being about protecting the union to freeing the slaves and made it clear that was the whole reason for the war.

Freedom from below is the idea that the slaves themselves gained their freedom through their actions. There is a lot of evidence to support this idea such as blacks fighting in the military to gain their freedom. Many free blacks in the north felt compelled to fight for the union and earn freedom for all slaves in America. Also, slaves that were freed from plantations in the south made themselves a nuisance to the union army so that they would be seen and force the government to do something about it. In president Lincoln's second inaugural address, he acknowledged the former slaves for their struggle and perseverance during the war to fight for their freedom and make the government notice them.

By analyzing both options, I believe that freedom came from below. Without the direct actions the slaves took to try and grasp freedom, they would've never got it. We see at the beginning of the war, Lincoln says that he is only trying to protect the Union and he does not care about slavery and I think he would've kept that mentality all the way through the war if it had not been for the efforts of the slaves.  Also, by fighting in the army, those slaves showed the rest of the union that they were seriously fighting for something serious. Finally, the most influential act the slaves performed is making themselves be heard by being a nuisance. Union leaders had to write to Lincoln asking what to do which made the Emancipation Proclamation a very good idea.

a picture displaying the slaves being freed

Civil war battles scavenger hunt

             To learn more about the battles in the civil war, each person in the class took a battle and researched it. They then put that research into a Google document and created a QR code that linked to it. Next we hung up our QR codes around the school and left a clue to find the next code at each place. After that, we proceeded to go around scanning the codes and taking the information from them.  Finally, we analyzed the battles and, based on the theater (east, west, naval), we said which army dominated over the other in a program called padlet.

Created with Padlet

               After doing the activity, we had enough information to answer the first essential question; who was the ultimate victor in each of the theaters and were they winning all along. In the western theater, the Union was the clear victor. First of all, they won almost all the battles fought there and there were only a few major losses. Also, they outnumbered the confederates in almost every battle And they had a strong infrastructure behind them with a network of railroads to supply them with munitions. In the eastern theater, the confederates held firm control in the beginning of the war, while the union gained ground later in the war. At first, the the confederates used superior strategy such as ambushes to rout the union forces. Also, a lot of military schools were in the south creating a strong army for the southerners.  Then, the union started to win when the confederates tried to push into the north like at the battles of Gettysburg and Antietam and they furthered their victories as they pushed the confederates into the south. Finally, in the Naval theater, the Union had dominance over the confederates. This was mostly do to the fact that the union had a pre-established navy and greater numbers than the confederates. overall, the union won the most in the three theaters, which makes sense because the Union won the war.

a depiction of the battle of Gettysburg

               Between all theaters there were similarities in the battles which produced the same outcomes. First of all, in almost all of the victories , the side which won had the other side outnumbered. Also, a lot of union victories happened because they were better supplied with munitions from their larger railroad system. A confederate advantage that caused them to win a lot of their battles is that they were on the defensive side, letting the union come to them. Finally, a commonality between many victories is the side that came up with a better strategy succeeded.

The Election of 1860

           The Election of 1860, the stage was set for a grueling political war waged by four candidates vying to become president. The two most opposed and popular candidates were Abraham Lincoln representing the Republican party and Stephen Douglas from the Democratic party. Lincoln, who was against slavery ended up winning the election. Some of the Southern states were none to happy about this and thus seceded from the union.Now, lets look at how the results of the election showed the divisions that slavery caused. Lincoln naturally collected all of the votes from the free states because his motive was to get rid of slavery. Douglas, on the other hand, obtained most of the votes from southern states who were strongly opposed to Lincoln's ideas and wanted to live their lives how they had been. The North and South were already so polarized because of the events leading up to this time which included the Dred Scott decision, John Brown's raid on Harper's ferry and other slavery-based events that we have described in our video below.
       

The Dawn of the Civil War

    An infographic is a representation of data using graphics that is easy to understand. With this in mind I set out to make my infographic as understandable and informative as possible. First, I explored the programs that I could use to make it, I found that Infogram was the perfect tool to help me achieve that.  Infogram has a really user friendly and ergonomic interface that just about anyone can pick up in a matter on minutes. It reminded me of PowerPoint and Excel mashed into one program so it was very familiar to me. I then used the resources provided on edline to  gather the information i thought was most important to answer the essential question. I broke it up into chucks and used graphs and a little bit of text to inform the reader about the topic. Overall I liked creating an infographic because it is easy and conveys your thoughts to the reader in an organized and unique fashion.

North vs. south: A polarized nation | Create infographics

Sources:

http://www.edline.net/pages/Reading_HS/Classes/1415_10212101/Unit_6_-_The_Civil_War/Activity_1_-_Stats___Strategie

http://www.edline.net/files/_CDHeg_/849bf0de56cb0eae3745a49013852ec4/Resources_Pie_Charts.pdf

http://www.edline.net/files/_CCBWz_/21e469c533466ada3745a49013852ec4/Strengths_of_the_North_and_the_South_Reading.pdf

Slavery: the Elephant in the Room

     America in the 1800's was a divided nation even though most people did not realize it. This was because slavery was the elephant in the room in politics. People knew it was a major issue however nobody wanted to directly address it until the problem escalated. In class, we studied all the events leading up to the Civil War which had to do with slavery, and we compiled them into a timeline (below).
     These events show how slavery consumed a majority of decisions which were made by our congress. For example the caning of senator Sumner was anti-slavery because when Preston Brooks hit Sumner with his cane, it showed pro-slavery as violent and unruly, widening the gap in America's politics. On the contrary, an event which favored slavery was Bleeding Kansas. This event refers to the fighting between free soilers, a group who wanted nothing to do with black people, and pro slavery settlers. the two groups fought for control of Kansas, wanting to make it into a free state or slave state respectively. An event which affected both sides of the argument was the famous debate between sen. Lincoln (yes the president) and sen. Douglas. Both political giants faced off and preached their views, Lincoln claiming that the majority shouldn't be able to take away someone's life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Finally, another two-way decision is the Kansas-Nebraska act. This act created the territories of Kansas and Nebraska in which slavery was decided by popular sovereignty in exchange for a northern Trans-Continental railroad.  The benefits for the north was that anti-slave settlers could get out west and settle easier and the benefits for the south were that it abolished the Missouri compromise now making slavery potentially legal in northern states. Overall, slavery was clearly a huge issue in 19th century politics but was not directly discussed in most congress meetings.

timeline

timeline

Antebellum Slavery

     During  the later part of the eighteenth century, slavery seemed to be on the decline. The American and French Revolutions gave many slaves an opportunity to escape servitude and become free. Also, revolutionary ideas spread throughout the Caribbean, Spanish America and the United states, convincing many slave owners to let their slaves go. However, during the early nineteenth century, slavery underwent a huge boom in the southern part of the United States and Spanish territories in the New world. The reason for this boom was mostly due to Eli Whitney's latest invention, the Cotton Gin. The Cotton Gin vastly sped up the cotton cleaning process allowing for garments to be made faster. To keep up with the demand of cotton, many more slaves were imported to the United States. To put it in perspective, in 1790, the entire South produced about 1.5 million pounds of cotton and in 1860 the South produced nearly 2.3 billion pounds of cotton. By 1860, slavery had become firmly entrenched in the South due to the increased cotton demand.
 
     By basing slavery on race, the race which is forced into slavery loses all their dignity because they are considered inferior to the race which put them there. For example, prince Abdul Rahman was considered royalty in his community in Africa until he was taken into slavery in Missouri where he was nothing more than slave. Also, His owner cut off his long  hair which was a strong symbol of pride and importance in his culture. Rahman had his dignity stripped away by being put into slavery. This system of race based slavery ignores intelligence thoughts and morality and just categorizes people based on skin color. This shows how flawed and fundamentally wrong slavery is.

   

Fear of women

     In class, we have been learning about reforms in the 1800's in America. Most recently we learned about the Women's Reform. Our essential questions were:  How did mid ­19th century American society react to women's demands for equality? Does 21st century society still react differently to men and women? To answer these questions we read a couple of different articles and even watched a modern day commercial. Another thing we did was look at this picture to determine if it was an accurate representation of a women's life during the 1800's.
     The first article we read and took notes on was called the Intimately Oppressed by Howard Zinn. With this article we picked out passages and asked questions about them so that our fellow classmates could answer them and further our understanding of the reform. Next, we read The Rights of Women: Laws and Practices which talked about the social restrictions placed on women during the 1800's. Then, we compared those restrictions to the resolutions proposed in the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, a document drawn up by the Seneca Falls convention that detailed the rights that women wanted to have and pointed out how they have been oppressed. Using all this information, we answered the first essential question. Society reacted to women's demands for equality by both accepting it and denying it, some men were afraid that by letting women have rights society would collapse and other people wanted women's rights because they knew it would be beneficial to everyone. To help answer the second essential question, we watched a Filipino Pantene add showing how society views women based on their jobs or actions. The answer we came up with was that people do view women differently but a lot less so than in the 1800's and they are not as public about it. Overall, the women's Reform was very effective in giving women more rights and allowing them to play a bigger part in society.

Education Reform primary sourceing

HORACE MANN ON EDUCATION AND NATIONAL WELFARE
.... According to the European theory, men are divided into classes,—some to toil and earn, others to seize and enjoy. According to the Massachusetts theory, all are to have an equal chance for earning, and equal security in the enjoyment of what they earn. The latter tends to equality of condition; the former, to the grossest inequalities. Tried by any Christian standard of morals, or even by any of the better sort of heathen standards, can any one hesitate, for a moment, in declaring which of the two will produce the greater amount of human welfare, and which, therefore, is the more conformable to the divine will? The European theory is blind to what constitutes the highest glory as well as the highest duty of a State....
. . .

Education then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is a great equalizer of the conditions of men,—the balance wheel of the social machinery. I do not here mean that it so elevates the moral nature as to make men disdain and abhor the oppression of their fellow men. This idea pertains to another of its attributes. But I mean that it gives each man the independence and the means by which he can resist the selfishness of other men. It does better than to disarm the poor of their hostility toward the rich: it prevents being poor. Agrarianism is the revenge of poverty against wealth. The wanton destruction of the property of others -- the burning of hay-ricks, and corn-ricks, the demolition of machinery because it supersedes hand-labor, the sprinkling of vitriol on rich dresses -- is only agrarianism run mad. Education prevents both the revenge and the madness. On the other hand, a fellow-feeling for one's class or caste is the common instinct of hearts not wholly sunk in selfish regard for a person or for a family. The spread of education, by enlarging the cultivated class or caste, will open a wider area over which the social feelings will expand; and, if this education should be universal and complete, it would do more than all things else to obliterate factitious distinctions in society...

Source: Horace Mann, twelfth annual report to Massachusetts Board of Education.

      Horace Mann, known as the father of American education, wrote this document while he was Secretary of Massachusetts State Board of Education addressing the board. He wrote it just as an annual report to reflect on the state of the schools in Massachusetts and inform the other board members. Written by the leader of the education reform, this document can be trusted and gives us a good picture of Horace's job. At the time when this was produced, the education reform was beginning with Horace Mann at the forefront, trying to create the public school system we have today. The document shows us that Horace had a position of power in the board and was trying to influence other members. Also, we see that the European way was to have people divide into a class system. This document is just the tip f the iceberg when it comes to education reform, there are many more aspects of the reform that are not covered by the document. In writing this report, Horace is trying to convince the school board that education must be given fairly to each student and everyone must have the same opportunities in the public school system. Mann says "all are to have an equal chance for earning, and equal security in the enjoyment of what they earn." This means that everyone is equal in their education. Horace speaks very eloquently and his words are very powerful which illustrates how much he cares about creating equality in education. Although the education reform was much more than this, the document gives great insight into Horace's ideals.