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.

Human Dignity

In the 18th and 19th centuries Slavery was a huge part of american Society. Both sides that were against and for slavery had strong arguments supporting their position on the topic. Much controversy and many arguments were caused because of slavery because while some didn't see it, it took away a slave's freedom, but also their dignity, and individuality. While slavery clearly wasn't moral it was a huge part of the American economy, and was responsible for 2.28 billion pounds of cotton, 57% of the nations export revenue by 1860. Because of this slavery quickly became entrenched in America. While covering this topic in class we looked at articles of the constitution, and maps of the growth of slavery in america, as well as researching important figures of this time period and watching a movie about the life of a slave, to help us answer our essential questions for this lesson.

Slavery was constantly increasing and become more and more necessary to the Country's economy during the 19th century. By looking at maps of this increase of both slave population and cotton production on a website called Mapping history, it is clear that the number of slaves in america directly correlated with the amount of cotton being produced. While cotton was insignificant in 1790 and only 1.5 million pounds were produced, and the slave population was only around 690,000, the amount of cotton produced increased greatly to an astonishing 2.28 billion with a slave population of 3.95 million. A main reason for this increase was because of Eli Whitney's invention of the Cotton Gin, a machine that separated the seeds from the raw cotton, and made the cotton production process significantly quicker. This invention caused the price and number of slaves to increase. While it is clear that slavery was a huge part of the country's economy it was also part of the American Government. Many parts of the constitution regarded slaves and their rights. In Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3  of the Constitution it states,  "No person held to service in on estate, 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 whom such service or labour may be due." this article is saying that if a slave escapes from a slave state to a state that prohibits slavery, they are not free of their owner, but they must return to them.

Not only did this slavery based system effect both the Economy and the government, but also human dignity, and it ignores human characteristics such as individualism, pride, and freedom. The system of slavery destroyed human dignity and many other  human characteristics by treated the slaves as though they were property and not people. While some noticed that this was wrong and did what they could to stop slavery, some people, like George Fitzhugh believed that slavery was necessary for society. Fitzhugh states in his book Canniblas All, "The negro slaves of the south are the happiest, and, in some sense, the freest people in the world. The children and the aged infirm work not at all, and yet have all the comforts and necessities of life provided for them." What Fitzhugh is saying proves how slavery ruins human dignity because the slaves aren't allowed to live on their own and they have everything handed to them as though they wouldn't be capable of doing it themselves. As well as loosing their dignity slaves also lost their humans characteristics, because by entry this system of slavery one completely lost their individuality, and were no longer treated like humans. one specific example of this is in the movie, prince among Slaves, which we watched in class, when prince Abdul Rhaman was captured into slavery and had it long hair cut short, so that he would be like all the other slaves, destroying his symbol of his high rank in his country, and therefor ruining his pride, and individual identity. Slavery completely took away a person dignity because they were forced into a system  that they had no individual identity.  


 

Equality for All

Recently in class we finished a unit on the Woman’s reform and how in the mid-19th century this movement was started in an attempt to gain equality for women.  our essential questions for this lesson 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?we started our lesson by looking at an image called the sphere or women, and analyzed it highlighting all the jobs of a women were represented in the picture.  We  read, The intimately oppressed to get a better understanding of the rights that women had during the time period. We also read, Laws and practices to get a better understanding of the rights that women had during the time period. Lastly we looked at articles for the Seneca Falls Convention to learn about what action that women took during the movement.  During the woman's reform women were treated differently than men and there were many different views upon equality for women, and their roles in society.

illustration from Godey's  Lady's Book, March  1850 Found at: http:// www.assumption.edu/ whw/workshop/ untitled1.html http://www.edline.net/files/_AIGmX_/90f5674f15c6c9f63745a49013852ec4/Activity_8_-_Lesson_Notes.pdf  acsessed, Febuary 2,

2015

In the mid-19th century women were treated very differently than men. It was believed that it was a woman's job to stay home and take care of the house and family. A women had the responsibilities of taking are of children as well as teaching them, especially daughters for they didn't go to school like young boys did. Along with taking care of any kids a woman also had to take of any pets. She was in charge of making clothes for the family, as well as fixing them. However, if a woman wanted to get a job outside of the house the only one that was available was a teacher, and often times she would get paid significantly less than a man doing the same job. There were many different views and opinions about women's equality, and while some supported woman's equality others believed that women should stick to their specific gender roles. the Oneida Whig states, “If our ladies will insist on voting and legislating, where gentlemen, will be our dinners and elbows?” This quote proves that many were against the woman's reform because they strongly believed that all women should stay home so that they can cook and clean and take care of the family. While some feared what would happen if women didn't stay with their gender specific role, and strongly didn't support the reform, others who did support the expansion of woman's rights. in The National Reformer it states, “They may ridicule, but not reason away the facts and arguments there set forth.” This quote shows that the people who supported woman's rights believed that all women deserve to be treated equally, and that men can ridicule them, and they can believe that don't deserve to be treated equally, but they don't have any good reasons against why women should be equal.

While women role in society today has changed greatly from what it was in the mid-19th century, 21st century society still views women and men very differently. in the Pantene commercial, "Labels Against Women" the different views of men and women are portrayed. while i don't agree with all of the circumstance in the video, i do believe that some of them are common in society today. I agree that a woman working a full time job with a young child and a man doing the same is viewed differently. the women is thought of as selfish because she has a child to take care of and she is staying up late to finish her work, leaving her with less energy to take care of the child, whereas the man is viewed as dedicated because he has a child to take care of and he is still spending time that he could be resting trying to do his job to earn money for the family. one of the circumstances that i don't agree is prevalent in society today is the man and women politician who are viewed as persuasive versus pushy. this commercial does a good job of showing how differently men and women are perceived and how people label them. Although we have come along way on the road to equality for men and women from the mid-19th century men and women are still treated differently in today's society.

 

A Natural Right

The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. "Religion and Social Reform".  The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/first-age-reform/resources/religion-and-social-reform-social- reform. (accessed January 2015).

Horace Mann is writing about public education and he believes that everyone has the right to an education so it should be provided for them. His purpose in producing this document is that he is trying to persuade people that public education is necessary and should be available to anyone. This is a very believable and trustworthy source. It was written in the 19th century, which is the time period in which the education reform took place. It was written by Horace Mann Who was the first person to be elected as the board member of education, and it was accessed from a History data base.

When this document was written the education reform was taking place. The idea of public schools and that everyone could get an education for free was still developing during this time. Horace Mann wanted to make sure that everyone was given the opportunity to get a proper education, and he went town to town observing schools. The schools he was were poorly built, and they had a lack of teachers and supplies. This document tells us that Horace Mann was a very important person during the education reform because he strived to make sure that public education was available, and he wanted to fix all the problems that currently existed within public schools. He super headed the common school movement, ensuring that every child received a basic education that was funded from taxes. He brought better books and supplies into schools to better the students educations as well. While this document does do a good job showing that public schools weren't really available to everyone and that is was Horace Mann was trying to fix, it doesn't show the problems within the schools that existed. It also doesn't tell us anything about how the problem of education was fixed.

  

In this document Horace Mann claims that everyone has the right to an education, and he says that it is important that they do so because it will effect their future and better their society. He uses the reasoning  that Massachusetts always solves their problems instead of trying to prevent them, and that if they provide public education the knowledge the children gain from their education can help solve problems. He believes that if everyone got an education it would encourage them to be good, and to do good for their society. He uses words such as great, immortal, and describes education as a natural right to prove that education truly is important not only to the children themselves but for the greater good of society, and therefor it is a necessity.

 

Recently in class we learned about 7th president of the United States, Andrew Jackson, who was the first to be elected through the democratic process. the three main parts of his presidency that we focused on were the Indian removal, Spoils system, and Bank War. After splitting into groups and analyzing documents and watching videos about one of the three specific topics, each group created a short video project to answer our essential question, Is Andrew Jackson long-standing reputation as “the people’s president” deserved? my group was assigned the Bank War, and we created our video on goanimate.com, using speaking avatars to discuss the topic.  

Andrew Jackson Project by ma.staffier on GoAnimate
The bank war was Jackson effort to destroy the second national bank because he believed that it was gaining too much power all in the hands of few people and that the bank was a threat to their independence and liberty. The rich and powerful were bending the rules for their own benefit which is a threat to the whole system, and Jackson believed that the bank was giving the wealthy people and unfair advantage. The bank had the power to control peoples lives and the political system and because of this Jackson wanted to get rid of it, however people thought that Jackson’s plan to blow up the bank was insane. By getting rid of the Bank Jackson believed he was looking out for the middle and lower classes, and at the same time doing the opposite for the upper class. He didn't really deserve his title based on the bank war because he wasn't doing good for everyone just a group of people.  

The Indian removal was a plan created by Jackson where he had to the goal of moving the native Americans off of their land, and push them to the west so that he could expand leaving more room for white settlers. The Indians didn't want to move because they feared what would happen if they did. A law was passed in congress that made it possible for them to subject the Indians with their own laws. While forcing natives off their homeland may sound very harsh Jackson claimed that by him relocating the Indians that he was actually helping them and that if he set land aside for them it would forever be theirs and they would be safe from the white setters. the Indian removal act resulted with a total loss of 10,000 Cherokee Indians. From the point of view of the white settlers in the situation of the Indian removal Jackson deserved his title because he is doing good in their favor, however from point of view of the Indians he didn't because he pushed them off of land that was rightfully theirs and caused many deaths.  

Lastly, The Spoils System was a system developed by Jackson where after a political party won an election all of the supporters would be given jobs in order to keep them supporting that party. because of this system Jackson ended up firing 919 officials, and gave a job that was a government position to a criminal because he was a supporter , and 1.2 million dollars ended up being stolen from the government. Because of The Spoils System Andrew Jackson doesn't deserve his title because he made bad decisions that ended up hurting more than it helped.