Unfair Treatment

.

Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans

For class, the essential question that was created “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?”. Buffalo soldiers were African Americans that joined the military while native Americans were the native people living on American soil before sailors traveled to the new land. In class to learn about the events that occurred for this question to arise we took notes on videos and articles.

The treatment of these soldiers were not fair, and the same goes for the native Americans. The soldiers were forced to head into battles where they were  extremely outnumbered by their opponents. They had to lay out electric wire and also cut paths for other troops. In other words they were the suppliers of the army as well as the expendable group to the military. Most of these soldiers did not even really want to fight, a lot of them just wanted to avoid sharecropping that would put them in an even worse situation than being a soldier. The U.S. government were not treating the black population fairly whatsoever and this can even be seen through the treatment of the Buffalo Soldiers.In addition, the native Americans were not treated fairly as well. They were pushed off their land, killed and treated extremely poorly. The U.S. government treated them as savages and did moved them off to reservations. They put them under government watch in hope that they would become part of the society. They were even encouraged to forget their roots and become Americans. This once again is poor and unjust treatment by the U.S. government.

In my opinion I think that the U.S did not treat them fairly at all and I even believe that they thought they were just. America’s beginnings were quite, interesting and there was a lot of bias and discrimination at the very start.  All of the sources that we gathered from seem credible and I would not question their accuracy.

http://www.american-indian-artwork.com/native-american-picture.htm

Robber What?

Carnegie & Rockefeller

The essential question that was asked to us was “Were Carnegie and Rockefeller robber barons or captains of industry?”. Carnegie and Rockefeller were wealthy businessman that benefited from the newly expanding American economy.Rockefeller was able to successfully monopolize the oil business while Carnegie did the same to the steel business, they were able to control prices and flow of products. Robber barons and captains of industry were terms used to describe the owner's businesses that were able to successfully take control over a given product. Robber barons was negative term while captain of industry was positive.In class we watched ABC Clio videos as well as read articles to learn about Carnegie and Rockefeller.

Both these businessmen were very successful. They each had made a large sum of money, but how were they seen from an onlooking eye? First of all, lets start with Carnegie. He was known for the production of steel in the U.S. Carnegie used a lot of his money on other things besides his business and himself. He built libraries and the “Gospel of Wealth”. The “Gospel of Wealth” is the term used to represent how much he gave back to society. He made orphanages and donated to museums. Carnegie can definitely be seen as a captain of industry because he was able to fuel the economy, but also he was not seen as negatively by the public as one would expect a person of high power to uphold. Rockefeller was also seen more of a captain of industry than a robber baron even though the press continually attacked him because of his monopoly over oil. Rockefeller was also willing to lower prices and try to help the consumer in any way that he could. He gave money to education and helped industry to grow in America.  

In my opinion I do not believe that they were robber barons because gave they back to society. This in turn makes them captains of industry because they fueled the American economy as well as give back to society.  

http://www.sonomatech.com/assets/industry/Industry_300x200.jpg

Where Did Freedom Come From?

Recently,  our class has been discussing where slavery came from and who gave it to the people. The questions that were asked to us were 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? To answer these questions we looked at documents that held quotes from the time. In addition we analyzed a photograph of Lincoln with a black man kneeling before him.  

Now whether freedom came from the higher or lower parts of society is a difficult question to answer.  The lower part of society had more people to show the strength of their cause,  but Lincoln and other people of the higher class was much more influential.  They also had more power to free the blacks of the U.S.A. Abraham's actions were very influential and a lot of his decisions he thought of the african slaves on his soil. Lincoln was able to call the shots and even though if he knew that the south would not like his decisions he knew he had to support the slaves anyway.  This can seen through the Civil war.  He took action and by the end of the war blacks would be free from their chains , but have to endure stereotypes, discrimination,  and unfair treatment nonetheless.  The slave population was not able to be as powerful as the president in the decisions they made,  which is why freedom came from above.

In my opinion I think that freedom started with the slaves and ended with Lincoln.  The slaves started to push the boulder down the hill,  then Lincoln brought in war and political power to do the rest. All the sources seem trustworthy,  and I trust them for the most part. It makes sense that slaves started the freedom of themselves and that people with more power finished it.

http://www.edline.net/files/stream/2CCF070452E21064-0000014CAFD896FD/Freedom+to+the+Slaves.jpg

Civil War Battles

The battles of the civil war led to the victor which way of life would be accepted.  Both the North and the South wanted a different future for America,  and this war would decide it all.  In war each side had their own advantages and disadvantages that helped to decide the outcome at each battle.  To learn more about each individual skirmish every student was assigned one battle to research.  Then they linked their findings in a bit.ly and a qr code.  The posters that held this information were scattered around the school to create a civil war scavenger hunt. The question that was assigned to us to answer with our cumulative information was What are some commonalities you can identify in the reasons for the results of the battles? Basically we had to create connections between battled in terms of why each side won.  The majority of the north victories are due to their ability to outlast the south.  Their manufacturing allowed them to keep their troops supplied while the south struggled to give guns out to all their troops.  Population numbers also let the north to continually be fueling their army while the south's numbers began to dwindle.  As the war continued to north stayed as strong while the south became weaker and weaker.  The south however had better trained troops and also an advantage for they just had to stop the north from winning.  The confederate's strategy was to just stop the north from advancing to situations where the south had a defensive advantage they would usually win. The other essential question was who was the ultimate victor in each of the theaters of war:  East,  West,  Naval? The east was difficult to say the one side dominated.  In the beginning of the war the south was likely to win while as the war dragged on the north was more likely to win.  The west was won out by the north because of their strategical advantages.  Their manufacturing,  railroads and population size let them usually beat the south.  The naval battles were dominated by the union due to the fact that they had a preexisting navy before the war started.  This gave them a huge advantage in any battles near or on water.

http://www.hsunews.com/civil-war-display-at-hsu/

http://padlet.com/KerryHawk02/2015BTheaters

Election of 1860

Were the results of the election of 1860 representative of the deep divisions over slavery? This question was asked to us in class. We watched a Crash Course video to get an understanding of the Election. Basically, to get some context over the situation. We looked at different primary sources of the time and we made a video describing what we found and in our notes. Specifically we looked at Art during the civil war to draw our conclusions. 

https://www.educreations.com/lesson/embed/30146288/?ref=embed&s=QqTtCx

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

North vs. South

My Info graphic's main goal was to display the information simply, but to explain the differences of either sides of the Civil war. I decided to only use graphs because I felt that they are the most efficient way to display information. The statistics that I chose were the main components that made one side strong. For example I showed the difference in Cotton production and population between the North and South. The population of the South is much smaller than the North, but the South controls Cotton production. The info graphic made it easy for me to see both sides of the war so that I could clearly see what each side had at their disposal.

A "game" of CHess: the battle between north and south | Create infographics

Why is there an Elephant in Alabama?

In the beginnings of the United States slavery was a main component to the society and the economy created by settlers of America. As time continued some felt that slavery was still needed and that it was necessary for slaves to exist. Others thought they should not even be around black people and that America should be a white only country. The side that won out today was neither slavery nor white supremacy, but the abolition of slavery entirely. This change took many years to occur and even a war to settle this conflict once and for all. Speaking about this topic became a problem in itself becomes of the sorrow and destruction that followed slavery in its wake.  The waters of america become filled with waves and no politician wanted to be the first one to dive in. Looking back into American history how do we know the debate over slavery was “the elephant in the room” for politicians in the U.S.A?

Politics in particular started to become a balancing act around 1820. As new territories started to be founded in the west both the north and south wanted to maintain power in congress. The south and the north both had the same number of states which meant that those who wanted slavery to be abolished and those who wanted slavery could both have their say. The Missouri compromise kept this balance and created an even split of 11 states to both the south and north. Similarly, in 1850 California attempted to be recognized as a state. Henry clay, senator of Kentucky, predicted this dispute and he proposed a 5-part compromise. After the victory in the Mexican war America had acquired more land. The land would be broken up into New Mexico,Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. These territories would let those who populate them decide whether or not they would be slave states or anti-slave states. In addition, the compromise would prohibit slave trade in Washington D.C, but one could keep their slaves if they had some preceding the bill. The Fugitive Slave Act was also drafted required slaves to be returned to their masters no matter the circumstances, and when the slave was caught a trial would occur and if the judge let the slave go free he would receive $5 and receive $10 if given back to the master. The 1850 compromise let the population decide whether or not the west would be anti-slavery or slaves states, stopped slave trade in the capitol (even though they allowed it), and encouraged the capture and favored those who returned the runaway slaves to their master. The Kansas Nebraska act was followed the 1850 compromise and allowed the north to build a railroad into the west, but the north was now allowed to own slaves. For the most part the north did not start to have slaves, but the borders of the south to the north did see some slave plantations.

American politicians tackled handling the dispute of slavery by avoiding to solve the problem directly. Most solutions did not drastically change slavery in America. The majority of ideas involved trying to sway what the population wanted so that eventually either slavery or anti-slavery won out. This would allow the politicians to avoid the topic and let the population choose what they wanted.

The class work was as followed, reading articles, creating a timeline of laws and bills that were passed, and class discussions on the information.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html

Article on 1850 Compromise

http://socialstudieswithasmile.com/Kensasnebraskaact.html

Slavery and its roots in the 19th Century

Slavery was once sadly a normal part of American society. It was not uncommon for people to own slaves or even to sell them to neighbors and give them to your family. How was it that slavery was able to become entrenched in American society, both economically and politically by the 19th century?

This question can be answered by looking into the constitution. For one, in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1  The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. This states that the importation of slaves can not be prohibited or taxed before 1808. After 1808 congress is able to put a tax on the importation of slaves, but the tax can't be above $10 per slave. This act of congress shows that slavery importation is not against the law, and has become economically sound that the government is willing to tax slave trade. In politics slavery was hardly ever disputed on whether or not it should exist in America. Most politicians had slavery and they became too important to the nation's economy to try to dispute whether slavery should be abolished or not.

How does a system of slavery on race affect human dignity? The dignity of the race that are able to be slaves is greatly diminished. Slavery gives unfair and unjust power to the owner of a slave for a slave is someone that is owned by another person. This power that is given to the owner is taken away from the slave diminishing the slaves persona  and personality. This system tends to ignore all characteristics regarding a human’s inner thoughts, ideas, and personality. A robot can be given a slave’s task and complete it just the same as a slave would. Slavery ignores who the person is and takes the body to do the work the owner doesn't want to do. The story of Prince is a prime example of this phenomenon. Prince became a slave in America and was used to work the fields and deliver crops to the market, but until later they found that he was an African Prince.  Slavery was an awful and cruel and it shall continue to be abolished and destroyed in the rest of the world.

http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US18-00.html

shows how important economically slaves were to the cotton production in the south

Women's Rights

How did mid 19th century American society react to women's demands for equality? Even though women started to have a strong movement to gain women's rights, men are still viewed as being better than women. Women still had to do a majority of duties around the house, while men went to work. Women had take care of children and dogs, make clothes, and other housework. The women also had to entertain everyone in the house as well. Laws were also set up so that women are not treated the same as men.  It was considered improper for women to speak in public, and until 1839 women were not allowed to own any property. In a majority of states it is legal for a husband to beat his wife, and women could not vote on any state in the union. These are just some of the many unfair laws that are set up by the government. Does 21st century society react differently to women and men. Personally, I feel that it is mostly equal treatment between men and women, but there are certainly some differences. For example the treatment of women and men when it comes to dating and relationships they can be seen as very different. If a man goes on a lot of dates he is considered  as more of a positive than if a women were to go on a lot of dates. A Philippines commercial shows some of these differences on how women and men are thought as in the same scenarios.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K2kfgW7708&feature=youtu.be
http://www.edline.net/files/_AIGnD_/6df91fdbe19f85633745a49013852ec4/Laws_and_Practices.pdf

Temperance Primary Source

The Inverse Square Blog. August 5, 2005. Accessed January 12, 2015. https://inversesquare.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/best-recent-save-the-planet-idea-water-use-division/

The author had no clear opinion on the event, but used the picture in his blog. The author used this picture to make a joke about water and alcohol and used the picture to grab the attention of the reader. The author isn’t very trustworthy from looking at the site, but doesn't say anything about the temperance movement that would be questionable. The picture itself is a political cartoon made promote the “Woman’s Holy War”. The goal of this poster is to try and promote other people to stop drinking alcohol altogether and to introduce people of this movement. The picture shows how strongly people tried to promote the abstinence of drinking, as well as create a force behind their ideas. The limits of the document is that it is a picture and it is limited by how people view the image. The cartoon does not give you a complete picture of the event, it merely shows the propaganda of the movement. The author does not have an opinion on the picture and does not use any supporting evidence. The author is only using the cartoon to make a joke that he came up with.