Americans and Indians

This week, again, we worked as a class to teach ourselves anew unit and prepare questions on it. We started off watching two videos, one from ABC Clio and one from PBS. While we watched the videos, my group ( same as last week), took notes on the main ideas of the Buffalo Soldiers. Next, we read and analyzed, again taking the main idea, a Native American Policies  Visual.(to the right). We also analyzed an excerpt from Helen Hunt Jackson’s book, A Century of Dishonor.Lastly, we analyzed excerpts from the Dawes Act (1887). With all of this knowledge, we could create an essential question. The we came up with is,  Did the government have good intentions when enacting policies for westward expansion? In what ways did these policies impact the natives and buffalo soldiers?

    The government did not have good intentions when they enacted many policies, like the Westward Expansion. They just wanted more land for themselves, and didn’t take into account what the Native Americans wanted. After the Westward Expansion, in the 1840s, the California Gold Rush took place. This sent people flooding into the west, ultimately intruding on the indians land. The Indians were hostile and the settlers demanded protection from the US Government. Failure to keep in mind the Native Americans wishes led to the American Indian Wars. An excerpt from the Dawes Act states, “ That in all cases where any tribe or band of Indians has been, or shall hereafter be, located upon any reservation created for their use, either by treaty stipulation or by virtue of an act of Congress or executive order setting apart the same for their use, the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, authorized, whenever in his opinion 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 “. This basically states that the land that the government set aside for Native Americans can now be used for government purposes. In order to prevent rebellion from the Native Americans, the government grants citizenship to the head of the household . The Native Americans then decide to start new lives as farmers.

    I believe that the government didn’t have good intentions. After the gold rush, the Indians were

very upset with the government and there was the Spanish American War. Then, whenever the

government wanted to impose on their land, they gave the Indians a small benefit. I believe that this

is cruel and the government should have treated the Indians better.

Captain of Industry or Robber Baron?

 This week in class we have been learning about the business strategies of Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. We watched a series of six videos explaining how they both used monopolies, trusts and corporations to become huge business successes. While watching the videos, we split the class up into 4 groups each with a different topic to take notes on. One group was main ideas, another was essential terms, another was important events and the last was key people. After we all looked over our information, we read biographies of both Carnegie and Rockefeller and again took notes in the previous categories. After we took all the notes on their biographies we joined as a whole class to make a essential question. We decided that the essential question is "Should Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller be classified as robber barons or captains of industry?"
    Both Rockefeller and Carnegie pioneered new business  tactics which revolutionized production and sales of resources. John D. Rockefeller should be classified as both a Robber Baron and a Captain of Industry. To start his own company Rockefeller quit being. a merchant and "bought out all his partners except Samuel Andrews, a move he later referred to as having "determined my career.", as he said in, "John D. Rockefeller Biography". His "ruthless and cutthroat business practices brought him tremendous wealth, however, his reputation with the public became severely damaged." The people saw him as a robber baron, however they weren't completely right. Rockefeller was also very into giving back to the community. "He quietly gave much of his money away to charities and educational institutions, often under the guidance of the Baptist church in which he had long been a lay leader. He gave money to Spelman College in Georgia to educate African-American women and founded the University of Chicago (ultimately giving it $80 million). He spent a good deal of his time establishing philanthropic institutions, most prominently the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, founded in 1901, and the Rockefeller Foundation, chartered in 1913 "to promote the well-being of mankind and the world." John D. Rockefeller had both characteristics of a robber baron and captain of industry but either way his new business techniques led the way to the businesses we have now.
          Andrew Carnegie was a captain of industry. Rather than buying out all other competitors, Carnegie used " advice and loans from Scott, and had begun to invest in telegraph, oil, iron, bridge, and railroad companies.". Carnegie also used different tactics to make his money, that weren't selfish and didn't affect others."He described the first incarnation of his famous investment policy as "putting all my eggs in one basket, and then watching the basket."' Carnegie also had relationships with other countries which furthered his strong business skills. Lastly, "He believed in rewarding talent and frequently promoted exceptional workers into the ranks of management. He made his senior executives partners, thus providing them with greater incentives to work hard and make the company profitable. Carnegie himself remained actively involved in the business and perhaps the hardest worker in the company, despite his enormous wealth and capable associates." ( Andrew Carnegie Biography)
         In the end, the Captains of Industry were held higher in the eyes of the public. However, during that time, it was all about the innovation of new ideas and business techniques. If you could create trusts like Rockefeller or Vertical Integration like Carnegie, you were all set to do well in the business world. Rockefeller was a robber baron to the public, but privately was a Captain of industry, were Carnegie was only a captain of industry. Both improved business greatly in America.

Freedom From Deep Down

 Last week, we learned about the effect of power from above, the government, or below, the slaves, and how it impacted the abolition of slavery. We read several documents, like The Gettysburg Address, and the Second Inaugural Address, and watched a few video clips to answer the essential question. The essential question is, "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?

       After reviewing all the material and lessons from class, it can be concluded that freedom of slaves came from below. Abraham Lincoln's goal was to keep the union intact, regardless of the affect on others, good or bad. In The Letter to Horace Greeley, it is stated by Lincoln, " 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 if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." This shows that the slaves hope of being freed had little effect on Lincoln's decision to free them, his only interest is keeping the union together. To strengthen this point, in the Second Inaugural Address, Lincoln says this regarding his position in freeing the slaves, "To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than restrict the territorial enlargement of it." Again, the union reuniting is much biter on Lincoln's agenda than actually freeing the slaves because of how cruel and wrong it is. When Lincoln establishes the Emancipation Proclamation it is mentioned, "all persons held as slaves within any state or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free", showing once again that the freedom of slavery is used as a tactic to stop rebellions and to reunite the union. Because freedom of slavery was just a war strategy, freedom didn't really come from above. The slaves, from below, worked extremely hard and persevered in order to gain their freedom. In the Engraving "Slaves from the plantation of Confederate President Jefferson Davis arrive at Chickasaw Bayou, Mississippi" 1863, you can see hundreds of slaves taking matters into their own hands, and settling with the union army, to bother them and force them to call attention to slavery. Slaves would follow the union soldiers in order to make their presence known, so the soldiers will draw attention to the issue of slavery to the government.

 

Slaves from the plantation of Confederate President Jefferson Davis arrive at Chickasaw Bayou, Mississippi

from edline.net

 

    Personally, I believe that freedom from below, is stronger than freedom from above, because it is a change that the people of the country want, not a forced rule, even if it is for the good. Recently, there has been many new stories about injustices in the police forces due to blacks. This past week there has been riots in Baltimore, Maryland. The people from Maryland, the below in this situation, are taking action against, what they believe to be unjust and unfair. This isn’t the only case of riots that have taken place because of mistreatment of African Americans. In Ferguson, Missouri, there were also many riots and protests due to the way police were treating blacks. It means so much more, that the people who feel strongly against something will stand up for it, rather than the president just make a law and dismiss it.

         

        

      

Civil War Scavenger Hunt

         This week in class, in between writing our civil war research papers, we had a little fun! We created our own civil war battles scavenger hunt. Each person in the class was assigned a battle of the civil war. We each created a google doc with the name of our battle, the location, the date, the victor: union or confederate, the theater; east, west, or naval, and two reasons why the victor of that battle won. After we created our own QR codes and bit.ly urls, we told the person with the battle before ours where we were placing our QR code and asked the person which the battle behind us where they were placing theirs. Next, we ran around the school looking for the battles in order, copy and pasting the information to answer the essential questions, Who was the ultimate victor in each of the theaters of war: East, West, Naval? What are some commonalities you can identify in the reasons for the results of the battles?

The Union and the Confederate both had victories in all three theaters. The union was

ultimately the victor of the Western theater and the Naval theater. They won battles such as Vicksburg and Chattanooga, by having superior strategy over the confederate. However, the Confederate was the victor in the Eastern theater. They won battles such as the battle of Fort Sumter and the Battle of Cold Harbor, by having a better strategy. There were many commonalties between the victors. The victor of all the battles had three main commonalities. They either won because of a smarter and more thought out strategy. They also may have won because the opposing side had less people, which created a much easier fight. Lastly, they may have won because the opposing side ran out of resources, like ammunition.

         I really enjoyed the scavenger hunt activity. It was a really interesting and fun way to learn about the Civil War. Sometimes the classroom can become boring and can start to feel monotonous. Getting to run around the school, and have fun, while still learning a lot about the Civil War was a really valuable class lesson. I hope to more lessons like this in the future, because I feel that it was very effective and also very enjoyable.

Election of 1860 in Media

          Recently, we have been discussing the Civil War in class. This week we have been specifically focusing on the Election of 1860. In a group we discussed 5 pictures, from Civil War in Art website. We wrote notes on each picture, all answering the question,  "How were the results of the  Election of 1860 representative of the deep divisions  over slavery?". Next, we found 3 more pictures to fit into our notes, we chose two of Abraham Lincoln and one of Jefferson Davis. We put all the pictures in an Educreations and answered the essential question. We answered, the Election of 1860 represented the deep divisions over slavery, because after Lincoln was elected, the South states joined the Confederate, with Jefferson Davis as a president. When Lincoln tried to reunite the union they still furthered themselves.

    LINK TO EDUCREATION: Educreation

Why did the North win the Civil War?

          The North and the South had very different strategies and statistics when it comes to the Civil War. The North had more necessary resources where the South had necessary military power. I chose to make a pie chart of the total and the slave populations in the North and the South, because it accurately describes the differences of the two divisions in the country. It shows that overall, the North had far more people which gives them advantages in the war, however the people of the North can chose if they want to fight. In the South, however, the majority of the population is slaves, which can be forced to fight in the war, creating a strong army. I chose to make another pie chart demonstrating the resources each half of the country had. I used this information because it proves that the North had more resources that they could use against the South in the war. Because they had more access to resources, they had access to weapons,like guns. that they could use against the South. This idea was also shown in the quote I used. It explains the advantages of having resources for the north. Lastly,I put a fact about the military forces in the South, because having military bases in the South, gives them an advantage over the North in the war.

Resources vs. strength: the civil war  | Create infographics

One HUGE Elephant

          As we know, slavery was a huge debate between the north and the south. It was considered the "elephant in the room" for the north and south and ultimately lead to the Civil War. The real reason that slavery was considered the "elephant in the room" is because the government was not willing to take part in the debate over slavery. They left it open to the people of the US to tackle and debate slavery. When the government refused to partake in the extensive dispute, the people handled it poorly, resulting in a great deal of violence.
         One prominent example of the negligence of the government is the Dred Scott case. When Dred Scott filed a law suit against his owner in 1857, saying he and his wife should be free because they had lived in free states where slavery was illegal. Instead of taking a real interest in the case, the supreme court ruled 7 to 2 against Scott because slaves weren't allowed to sue. The government unfairly pushed the Scott trial to the side because they didn't to deal with slavery and rebelling slaves. "Bleeding Kansas" was the governments version of quickly dealing with the problem then pushing it aside. In 1856, they broke Kansas into 3 sections, Free Soilers, Pro Slavery and Anti Slavery. Eventually, the "quick fix" that the separation was supposed to be, plummeted downwards resulting in a rebellion, giving the decision its name, "Bleeding Kansas".
         When the government ignores the slavery debate, the people take protests into their own hands.
 In 1856, Charles Sumner wrote a speech called "The Crime Against Kansas" highlighting that the southern states were forcing slavery onto the west. Upon hearing the speech, Preston Brooks stormed to Sumner's office and beat him with a cane, to defend the honor of the south. Another instance of people taking the dispute into their own hands is John Brown's Raid. In 1859, John Brown assisted by 21 men raided Harpers Ferry, Virginia. Before they could complete the raid, almost half of Browns men were killed, forcing the others to surrender. Brown was captured and hanged for treason, but he was still considered a martyr by northers.
          The governments ignorance towards slavery made the topic an "elephant in the room". When they ignore the injustice that slaves like Dred Scott face, the are forced to deal with much more pressing consequences of the debate. They have to deal with beatings, rebellions and raids. I the government had paid more attention to slavery in the beginning, they could have made much bigger steps towards resolving it, maybe even avoiding the Civil War.