Intentional & Unitnetional

After the time of the civil war, Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans were discriminated against by the white settlers and the government. Buffalo soldiers were African American soldiers also known as the United States Colored Troops. These soldiers were needed by the federal government during the Indian Removal Act. This act was enacted  by president Andrew Jackson and was meant to move native American Tribes who were settled in southern areas more to the west so that the whites could colonize these areas, and expand the nation. Many of the Native American believed that this act was unfair, and they tried to act against it. the circumstances in which the native American were forced into were terrible and many of them lost their lives along their awful journey west. While the native american did try to stop this from happening, the Indian Removal Act was successful because of the Buffalo Soldiers, however, the conditions in which the Buffalo soldiers were put under were also terrible and they were very discriminated against. Our essential question for this topic was, 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? To find the information we used to create this question and learn more about the discrimination against these two groups we took notes together as a class on PBS and ABC-Clio videos about the buffalo Soldiers and the Native Americans, and we also read excerpts of primary source documents including Helen Hunt Jackson's Century of Dishonor, and The Dawes Act 1887.  

while the discrimination can be viewed as either intentional or unintentional, I believe that the discrimination against these Buffalo Soldiers and Native American was both intentional and unintentional in different circumstances. One case in which the discrimination against the Native Americans was unintentional was because the white settlers viewed them as people who needed their help in order to survive, and they believed that what they were doing was just simply to help them. we see this in Helen Hunt jackson’s book, A Century of Dishonor when she states, “subsist by hunting, fishing, on roots, nuts, berries, etc., and by begging and stealing”. here she is saying that the Native American who were not receiving help from the government had to beg and steal to stay alive. Because they saw them as helpless they thought they were doing an act of justice by helping them. On the other hand, in some cases the discrimination was intentional. the federal government and white soldiers wanted to have complete control over the land in which the Indians once had control over. In the Dawes Act it states, “ ...any reservation or any part thereof of such Indians is advantageous for agricultural and grazing purposes, to cause said reservation, or any part thereof, to be surveyed, or resurveyed if necessary, and to allot the lands in said reservation in severalty to any Indian located thereon in quantities…”. this quote tells us the the government gave themselves the power to slip up native American's land and distribute it in a way so that they had complete control over how much land they could own. This is an example of intentional discrimination because here the government wasn't helping them because they were helpless, they were helping them so they could take advantage of the land that they owned.while the white settlers believed that they were “Friends of the Native Americans”, some actions they took were still unjust.   

As well as the discrimination against the Native Americans, there was also both intentional and unintentional discrimination of the Buffalo Soldiers. In one case the government may have believed that what they were doing was just by providing them a job other than sharecropping, which was much like slavery, and giving them clothing, food, and shelter. However, they also discriminated intentionally against these Buffalo soldiers because they were being used to do work that no one else wanted to do. Some of the jobs that they had as Buffalo Soldiers included, fight against the native Americans, difficult labor such as laying down electrical line and clearing the paths for the Native Americans, as well as risking their lives in the most dangerous battles. Because of the horrible conditions of their jobs, in this case the discrimination was intentional. even though they provided the soldiers with many resources believing that they were helping them, they also intentionally discriminated against them in some way.  Both the Buffalo soldiers and the Native Americans were treated with discrimination, that was intentional and unintentional, from the White settlers and the federal Government.

Captains of Industry

After the time of the civil war and during the reconstruction, John D Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie were two very important people to the American economy. As businessmen during this time it was very debatable whether these men were robber barons or captains of industry, and many had different opinions on the matter. A robber baron during this time period was considered to be someone who was an American capitalist who acquired a fortune in business by ruthless means, and who were corrupt businessmen competing to be the at the top in their business. On the other hand, a captain of industry was considered to be a business leader, who while making a  personal fortune, contributed greatly to the country and its economy in ways such as increasing productivity, expanding markets and providing jobs. For this unit we created our own essential question which was, were Carnegie and Rockefeller robber barons or captains of industry? To learn more about this topic and gather information to not only construct our essential question,but also answer it, we first watched a series of videos and as a class collaborated by taking notes on different topics in a Google Doc. We then read background summaries on Carnegie and Rockefeller, as well as looked at some primary sources and once again took notes.

Carnage and Rockefeller were captains of industry. Even though both men were not liked by everyone, because of their competitiveness with other companies, and their occasional use of illegal tactics and immoral business techniques, both men did give back greatly to our country and its economy. Rockefeller believed that it was his duty to give a portion of his earnings back to the community. In an interview he once stated, “”...I believe it is my duty to make money and still more money and to use the money I make for the good of my fellow man according to the dictates of my conscience.” Rockefeller is saying that the money he was making was in the benefit of others because those profits allowed him to give back to the community, however he knew that it is his business to try to make the most money, and be the top business. one example of a way in which he gave back to the community, other than providing oil and jobs through his company, was that he once donated $500 million to schools, science and medicine. this proves that while Rockefeller was trying to make the most money, he was putting all of his profits to good use, and they were benefiting others than himself.  Like Rockefeller, Carnegie had similar motives during business career. in his essay, wealth, Carnegie states, “...[it is the] matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community /the man”. Carnegie is saying that he believes it necessary for him to consider all surplus revenues as a way to give back to those who have helped him. Also, Carnegie used his excess wealth to provide for the wants of those who depended on him.

Both Carnegie and Rockefeller are captains of industry because they did many things to give back to others. Today many companies do the same thing, by giving back to society in many different ways. For example TOMS donates shoes to those in need, the sun glasses company, Panda, gives a free eye exam and prescription glasses for school-aged children, and even bigger companies such as Walmart donate millions of dollars worth of food each year to those in need. Overall, while both Carnegie and Rockefeller thought it was crucial to try and strive for being on the top , in order to be successful in the business world, they found it even more important that they use their success in way that would be beneficial to others and the community, just like many other companies do today.  

A Voice for Equality

Slavery was one of the biggest issues during the civil war, and while  it appeared as though people of the upper class were granting slaves their freedom, however the slaves may have fought themselves for their own freedom. to learn more about freedom being granted from either above or below, meaning that either people of upper rank freed those below them or those below on the social pyramid helped to free themselves.First, we defined freedom from above and freedom from below by looking at a social pyramid, then we analyzed several documents that including evidence about the goal of the war, Abraham Lincoln’s position on freeing slaves, as well as his personal opinions on war. These documents included, An Open Letter to Horace Greeley, The Emancipation Proclamation, The Gettysburg Address, and The Second Inaugural Address. We also watched videos to help expand our knowledge on these documents and the subjects in which they covered. Lastly, using the notes we took on each of the documents, and our knowledge from our class discussion on them we compiled a list of which documents proved freedom from above and which proved freedom from below.  All of these activities helped us to answer our essential questions for this unit which were, Who ‘gave’ freedom to enslaved Americans? Did freedom come from above or below? and, to what extent were Lincoln’s actions influenced by the actions of enslaved Americans?

Abraham Lincoln had great influence on slavery, and if it weren't for him and the actions, slavery wouldn't have been able to be abolished. Lincoln declared the Emancipation Proclamation as well as the 13th amendment to help put an end to slavery. Lincoln fought to free the slaves, and in the Open Letter to Horace Greeley he stated that slavery had become the main cause of the war. Abraham Lincoln Fighting to free the slaves can be seen as freedom from above, for he was highest on the social pyramid, and therefore the freedom was coming from above the slaves. However, Lincoln wouldn't have done this if it weren't for the slaves standing up for themselves and making it know that they wanted freedom because they deserved it just as much as anyone else. In one of the documents we examined, document x, slaves had left their plantation and gone to Chickasaw Bayou. this shows that the slaves themselves were taking action, and therefore that the freedom was coming from below because the slaves, who were at the bottom of the social pyramid, where fighting for their own freedom. I think that freedom came equally from above as it did from below because the enslaved people initiated the action by standing up and showing what they believed in by fighting for themselves, but these thoughts and feeling couldn't ever had been reinforced if it weren't for Lincoln's power, and the actions that he took to abolish slavery.

Today, there are also many issues throughout society that are fought by people below and made more well-known by people above. One recent example of this would be Bruce Jenner who recently came out as being a transgender. While transgenders have been fighting to become recognized as equals,someone like Bruce Jenner who is well known has made it more possible for this to become a reality, and he has become a voice and an icon for transgenders everywhere, just like how Abraham Lincoln used his superiority,and popularity to make it known what the slaves were fighting for and ultimately becoming a voice for the slaves and their equality.

 

Civil War Scavenger Hunt

During the civil war there were many important battles fought all which took place in one or more of the three theaters, eastern, western, and naval. To learn about each of them we did a scavenger hunt in class. Each person was assigned one of the battles, in which we then made a Google doc for including information such as where and when the battle took place as well as the victor, theater and two other facts that explained why the victor won. We then made a QR code for that Google doc that we placed somewhere in the school. Each Google doc had information as to where the proceeding one was located so that we could easily find all the information. Using the information we collected from the scavenger hunt we then made a Padlet where the class collaborated to decide where the theater for each battle was located and why, and used this information to answer our essential questions.

Each of the three theaters was dominated by a different victor.  In the east the  overall victor was the confederacy, because they used their surprise attack tactics to win battle such as the battles of Bull run and the battle of Chancellorsville. The union was the overall victor for the western theater. because the union had an advantage in their numbers of soldiers, they were able to win battles such as the battles of fort Henry, fort Donelson, and the battle of Shiloh. Lastly, the union was also the victor for the naval theater. With a well trained and stronger army and once again their greater number, Ulysses S. grant had some great tactics that helped the union to dominate the battles that took place in the naval theater.

After completing the scavenger hunt and the padlet it was more clear why each side won in the different theaters. Overall, the union was the main victor of the war because they had a better military with more soldiers, good strategies, and resources, which helped them to be successful in defeating the confederacy in most of the battles. The confederacy had won the battles they did because of their defensive strategies. I really enjoyed this lesson because doing the scavenger hunt was a fun and effective way to learn the information about all the battles

Battle of Mission [i.e., Missionary] Ridge, Nov. 25th, 1863, Cosack & Co. lithograph from McCormick Harvesting Co., c1886.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Missionary_Ridge

.

Division From Slavery

For this lesson we covered the topic if the election of 1860, and hoe it was affected by slavery and the divisions in which it caused. Our essential question was, how were the results of the election of 1860 representative of the deep division over slavery? Before the civil war the country was divided by views on slavery, which by looking at the map of the results of the election of 1860 it is clear that the north and west supported Lincoln who was anti-slavery, and the south supported Breckenridge who was pro-slavery. The middle region of the country supported Douglas and bell. Douglas supported popular sovereignty and bell believed in keeping everything the same. The clear separation between the northern and southern states indicate that the election of 1860 was representative of the deep division over slavery.

In class we used Educreations to make a video about the events that took place leading up the the election. Before we could create this project we first watched a crash course video by John Green on the topic, and then did research on a website called, Civil War in Art where we analyzed artwork and took notes on how it connected to the event in which it represented. Lastly we compiled the information we gathered along with the artwork to create a short documentary.

North VS. South

advantages in the north and south during the civil war | Create infographics

During the civil war and the division between the northern anti-slavery states, and the southern pro-slavery states, each side had their advantages that the other lacked. I used an info graphic to show these advantages and disadvantages of the offending north and the defending south by compiling statistics into charts and graphs and analyzing war strategies. Some information that i chose to include in my info graphic includes, the population of both the north and south as well as the slave population, the number of industrial workers, railroad mileage, and the amount of manufactured goods. i finished off my info graphic by  explaining the strategies of both the north and the south. The process of creating this info graphic helped my to look at the statistics of the north and the south, allowing me to realize how it applied to the advantages of each side and why it is significant.   

Ignoring Slavery

In the early 19th century was a huge debate in american society. There were two groups of people that this debate split our country into, the pro-slavery side which was generally located in the south, and the anti-slavery side, which was generally located in the north. Our essential question for this lesson was, How did we know the debate over slavery was the “elephant in the room” for american politics in the early 19th century? To learn more about these debates and answer our essential question we  looked at many of the events that took place during this time period and compiled

the information into a timeline. The events that 

we learned about on our timeline help to prove

that slavery was “an elephant in the room” 

because while it was a big debate whether 

or not states should be free or slave states , 

the idea of slavery itself was somewhat ignored.

The first event that proves slavery to be “an elephant in the room” during the early 19th century is the Compromise of 1850.  prior to this event there had been 11 slave states, and 11 free states for 30 years because of the Missouri compromise. however, in 1850, California requested to join the nation as a free state, which inevitably would throw off the balance of free and slave states. to solve this issue Henry Clay proposed the 5 part compromise. this compromise let California be organized as a free state, but also organized New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Nevada without the mention of slavery. Also because of this compromise the slave-trade in DC was shut down, and the fugitive-slave act was passed in order to satisfy the imbalance of adding another free state. Another event that proved slavery to be “ an elephant in the room” was the Gadsden purchase. The US paid $10 million for a strip of land known as the Gadsden purchase, which would be used to build the transcontinental railroad. By doing this more pro slavery settlers would come and settle there, which would later affect the vote of whether or not the land would be free or pro slavery. Both these acts, the Compromise of 1850, and the Gadsden purchase focused on the idea of  determining whether or not states would be free or slave states. Because of this no one actually discussed and debated about what should be done about slavery, making it the elephant in the room.  

A third event that proves slavery to be “an elephant in the room” is Bleeding Kansas. In 1856 Kansas was a new territory filing for statehood, and because both pro-slavery and anti-slavery advocates wanted the land to support their side, two capitals were set up, one a free capital and another a slave capital. This resulted in violent battles being fought over which side would get to have the land. Lastly, The caning of Charles Sumner is an event that took place that help to prove that slavery was “an elephant in the room”. Charles Sumner a senator during this time, spoke a two day speech about his views on slavery in Kansas titled, Crime Against Kansas. In his speech he stated, “Such is the Crime and such the criminal which it is my duty to expose; and, by the blessing of God, this duty shall be done completely to the end.” Because his speech was directly targeting those who were pro-slavery specifically Andrew Butler, his nephew, Preston Brooks, beat Sumner with a cane.  These two events help us to see that slavery was indeed, “an elephant in the room” because slavery was a somewhat ignored topic,that was never resolved which eventually lead to violence because no one knew any other way to solve the issue.