The True Intent of Westward Expansion Polices

This week in class, we continued with our independent student learning, on the topic of buffalo soldiers and native Americans. The buffalo soldiers were African American troops that were created because the government felt that there was a need for more of an army presence in the Midwest. These soldiers mapped out territory, repaired forts, and had a steady job with food and respect- to an extent. These factors made many African Americans move to the great plains for the job, because it was not the type of opportunity that they commonly got in other places. While the term “buffalo soldiers” was not their official name, this is what they were called by native Americans because they fought many of these tribes.  In addition to the buffalo troops, the government created many policies with the goal of more westward expansion. One of these was the allotment program, which divided up the native Americans land, so each individual would own some part of the land, as opposed to a whole tribe owning a large amount. This may have seemed like a good idea, but it was not the way that the native American culture worked, and even more, 90% of the land was given to the public, not back to the native Americans. The essential question that we created for this unit was  “Did the government have good intentions when enacting policies for westward expansion? In what ways did these policies impact the natives and buffalo soldiers?” Using informative videos as well as pictures and documents, I was able to come to a conclusion.

buffalo soldiers riding through the desert 

On the surface, the concepts behind westward expansion and buffalo soldiers seem like a great idea, especially for expanding the land and power of the united states. But, if you looked deeper than the policies and titles, it is clear that this was in fact a violent and inhumane way to expand the united states. The intentions may have been innocent and good, but the way that they were carried out left a trail of destruction, violence, and countless losing their families, homes, and lives as they knew it. Of course, the intention of this expansion westward was not violence and war, but when you take tribe's land and all that they stand for, a fight against it is inevitable. in the 1860s, gold was discovered in this region, which caused the number of immigrants to increase drastically. This made the simple lives of the native Americans even more complicated and the violence towards them to leave their homes even worse. In 1868, the Second Treaty of Fort Laramie was signed, which promised the native Americans possession of the Dakota region if they stopped fighting. Many people agree to this, and move to the reservation led by Red Cloud. Others, including leaders Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, refuse to leave.In 1876, the U.S government orders all native Americans to go to designated reservations, but the native Americans ignore this order. This leads to the Battle of Little Bighorn. After all of this violence, the U.S government enacted the Dawes Act, which stated, “To each head of a family, one-quarter of a section; To each single person over eighteen years of age, one-eighth of a section; To each orphan child under eighteen years of age, one-eighth of a section;” While this act had good intentions, to make sure that the native Americans did not lose any more of their land, it disregarded the way in which the native American tribes lived. Unlike a normal American, they lived together and shared their land, something that the Dawes act took away from them.
I personally believe that at its core, the policies that the U.S government created for westward expansion were made from good intentions. But, I think that their disregard for the native Americans and their culture and land caused an unnecessary and horrible amount of violence towards these people. The buffalo soldiers, a minority themselves, were placed in this position because of the circumstances. The job that they had was not one that was appealing to a white man, and therefor it was put on them to do the work that the white man don't want to do. In the end, these policies for westward expansion caused a great amount of suffering to the native Americans, and regardless of the U.S governments intentions, the outcome and execution of these policies was something inhumane.



Sources:
Quote: http://www.edline.net/files/_FFJNJ_/72e885a0a31113a13745a49013852ec4/Excerpts_from_Dawes_Act.pdf
Image: http://www.discoverseaz.com/History/BufSold.html

Carnegie and Rockefeller: Feeding or Robbing the People?

After our long Civil War unit came to a close, we only had a few weeks left of school, so in order to get the most information in, we changed the way our class was run a little. Each week, we begin a new topic, and as students create an essential question, and 40 multiple choice questions pertaining to the topic that will go on our final exam. This week, we looked at Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller, the two biggest business man in the late 19th century. During this time period, these big business man were referred to as “robber barons” or “captains of industry” by the people, depending on if they liked them or not. A captain of industry was a leader, and they fought each other for full control of their business, also known as having a monopoly. A robber baron was essentially a captain of industry that someone may not like, they were seen as corrupt and cruel, and destroyed their business rivals and treated workers poorly. The essential question for this lesson was “Should Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller be classified as robber barons or captains of industry?”

I believe that regardless, these men are captains of industry, since they were leaders during this time period. The question of whether or not they are also robber barons is one that has a less clear answer. Both Carnegie and Rockefeller were outstanding philanthropists, giving back to society in many ways. Andrew Carnegie donated millions to education, built libraries, and founded Carnegie Mellon University. John D. Rockefeller donated over 500 million dollars to education, science and medicine. Both men held the ideology that there were made rich by God, and because of this had the obligation to give back to the less fortunate. Carnegie said “I believe the power to make money is a gift of God ... to be developed and used to the best of our ability for the good of mankind. Having been endowed with the gift I possess, 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.” While these acts of charity would make these men seem like only captains of industry, and not robber barons, this is not all that they did. Both of their reputations were ruined by their greed and disregard to others. Rockefeller bribed politicians and did what he could to buy out or put his competition out of business, two prominent characteristics of a robber baron. Andrew Carnegie's reputation was ruined by the Homestead Lockouts, one of the largest labor disputes in American history. Many people were very angered by this, an article said “Ten thousand "Carnegie Public Libraries" would not compensate the country for the direct and indirect evils resulting from the Homestead lockout." In my opinion, it is clear that regardless of their roles as philanthropists and however much they gave back, their actions and morals still categorized them as robber barons. Their primary goal was gaining wealth, and they were not inspired by the needs of others, but only by their personal greed.
When I first thought about the essential question, my immediate answer was that these men were not at all robber barons. I was blinded by their incredible donations to society, and I hadn't realized that while this is an unbelievable amount to donate in any ones eyes, when you are as wealthy as these men were, it wouldn't effect them very much. I noticed how greedy their actions were, and how much disregard they had for others on their way to the top. I was shocked to realize how someone who gives so much can actually be so cruel. We looked at an image that I thought represented one person doing such opposite things.

This image shows Carnegie in a “double role”. On one side, he is cutting workers pay, and on the other, giving back to people. This makes me believe that his charity work was not at all out of his goodness, but solely so that he would appear good to those around him, when he in fact was cutting workers pay just the same. I can conclude from this lesson that these men purposefully made themselves out to look like selfless philanthropists, but this was all an act to cover up their robber baron ways.

Sources

Quote 1: John D. Rockefeller in an interview with William Hoster, quoted in God's Gold (1932) by John T. Flynn

Quote 2: Editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, early August, 1892.

 Image 1: "Forty-Millionaire Carnegie in his Great Double Role," The Saturday Globe, 9 July 1892; from David P. Demares

 

 

Freedom For the People, From the People

In this activity, we looked at the ways in which slaves were granted freedom, and the steps that were taken to get to this result. The essential questions for this lesson 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 find out the answers to these questions, we looked at four letters/speeches from Abraham Lincoln to look at his professional and personal opinion on slavery at different times during the war.

But first, we looked at this picture of Lincoln, who seemed to be personally giving slaves their freedom, as the slaves were kneeling next to him thanking. From this picture, it appears as though the slaves freedom came completely from “above”, as Lincoln is the one giving it. But, once we looked more closely at documents describing slaves actions during the war, it is clear to see that the freedom in fact began from “below”. If the slaves had not forced the issue of slavery upon those above them, than those above them, i.e President Lincoln, would not have put so much of an emphasis on the topic. To answer the essential question, while the freedom was “given” by those above them, the actions to make this freedom possible were directly influenced and an effect of the enslaved americans. It is surprising and strange to learn that those who receive the freedom are also the ones who are giving it. This is not technically true, and on paper it is obvious that Abraham Lincoln, with his Emancipation Proclamation and other documents and speeches supporting slavery, is the one who gave the slaves freedom. But the only reason that the had done this was because the slaves made themselves so much of a problem he was forced to deal with it.

The first document that we looked at was an excerpt from President Lincolns reply to an Open Letter from Horace Greeley, in which he states that his "paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or to destroy slavery." (1)The letter makes it very clear that the primary intention of the war is not at all to abolish slavery, but just to keep to union together. He goes on to say that if this can only be done with abolishing slavery, he will, and if can be done without abolishing slavery, then he will not abolish it. As time goes on, his speeches and letters begin to show a different story from that of this first letter. In the second document, the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln officially grants freedom to all slaves. He still does not recognize that the war is about slavery, stating that the emancipation is "a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion"(2) - meaning that the slaves were granted their freedom because of a rebellion they created, and therefore were the reason that they were given this freedom. In the last document we looked at, President Lincolns Second Inaugural Address, in 1865, the truth that the war was about slavery is finally said. Not only that, but Lincoln says that the war was a caused by the slaves persistent fight for their freedom. "These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war." (3)

The people who the issue directly affects will always be the people who work the hardest to resolve the issue, in whatever protest they may be fighting for. The slaves "made a nuisance of themselves" and did what they could to get the attention of those in power, and those that could official abolish what they were fighting against, slavery. In todays world, it is extremely easy from people to fight for issues that they believe in with all of the technology and connectivity that is available. Hashtags have been created for countless causes, and spread throughout the world through twitter. Feminism beliefs have been shared by the message #heforshe, with many celebrity feminists supporting and spreading awareness of the cause. Racism and police brutality towards blacks has been expressed and fought against by #blacklivesmatter. Because many individuals whom are personally affected by these issues shedding light upon them, more people are able to see and possibly do something about it. The outrage of so many about the current police brutality and riots has made those from above, who have power, to be forced to do something about it. The civil war was over 150 years ago, and we are still facing a modification of its cause today. It may look different, but the objective is the same, racial equality in the united states. And although it may look different, the question of who is giving the freedom can be answered in the same way. Regardless of who signs the documents and writes the laws for this racial equality to happen, the reason that it will happen is because of the many individuals from "below"- not in power or government, that forced those from "above" to make the change. 

Citations:

Image of Lincoln: http://www.springfieldmuseums.org/the_museums/fine_arts/collection/view/288-freedom_to_the_slaves_proclaimed_january_1st_1863_by_abraham_lincoln_president_of_the_united_states_proclaim_liberty_throughout_all_the_land_unto_all_the_inhabitants_thereof

Quotation 1- Excerpt from President Abraham Lincoln’s Reply to an Open Letter from Horace Greeley, New York Tribune, 1862 http://www.edline.net/files/_DMF17_/2a87c9edb0c248bf3745a49013852ec4/Freedom_from_Above_or_Below_Documents.pdf

Quotation 2- The Emancipation Proclamation, January 1, 1863 (Excerpts) http://www.edline.net/files/_DMF17_/2a87c9edb0c248bf3745a49013852ec4/Freedom_from_Above_or_Below_Documents.pdf

Quotation 3- President Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865 (Excerpts) http://www.edline.net/files/_DMF17_/2a87c9edb0c248bf3745a49013852ec4/Freedom_from_Above_or_Below_Documents.pdf

Hunting for Civil War Battles

To learn about the various battles of the civil war, each student chose a battle to individually research. A photo of the battle, and information such as the location, theater, victor and reason for the outcome was all put into a google doc. We then created a shareable link for the document, and put it into a QR code and a bit.ly, and put that and our battle name onto a poster that was hung somewhere in the school for others to find on the “scavenger hunt” Each battle also gave directions to get to the next battle, which was somewhere else in the school. After we had all walked the school in search of the battles, and taken notes on each, we came back to class to discuss our findings. We did this using the website padlet, where everyone could submit their answers for the entire class to see. Each person submitted their answers to the essential question, and it was helpful to see everyones response and helped me personally to understand it more.

The QR code to my battle, The Battle of Bull Run!

The first essential question was “Who was the ultimate victor in each of the theaters of war: East, West, Naval?” This question was clear for us to answer after seeing all of the battles, their victors and their theaters. The ultimate victor for the eastern theater was the confederacy. The confederacy won the Second Battle of Bull Run, the Battle of Fredericksburg, the Battle of Chancellorsville, as well as the Battle of Good Harbor. The ultimate victor for the western theater was the union. The union won the Battle of Fort Henry, the Battle of Fort Donelson, the Battle of Shiloh, the Battle of Vicksburg, and the Battle of Chattanooga. The union was also the ultimate victor for the Naval theater. A commonality of the reason for the outcome of the battles is the losing side was outnumbered. For example, in the Battle of Fort Henry, the Union was the victor because they outnumbered the confederacy, and the confederacy was poorly armed and had outdated weapons.  In some instances a surrender is because of a great number of casualties. For example, in the Second Battle of Bull Run, the union had 5,500 more casualties than the union, and therefore retreated.  

My classes padlet, discussing the ultimate victor in all three of the theaters

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

I enjoyed doing this activity and thought that it was a unique way to gather information on the battles.I thought that it was interesting to walk around the school to discover the information, and find out battle by battle how the war was going. I enjoyed walking around the school to learn about this lesson, and it made it easier and less difficult to learn about, rather than sitting in a classroom taking tedious notes. Each battle had clear information about it and a picture, making it easier to understand, opposed to searching for and through information on each of these battles individually. Overall, I really enjoyed this activity and found it a great way to learn without sitting in a chair looking at a screen for an hour.

The Civil War Art: People, Places, and Battles

Art was an important aspect of the civil war. It allowed people to express and represent their views as well as the events of the civil war in a platform that all could see. It also allowed people who may otherwise not be able to understand what was happening during battles to have a clear visual of these scenes. We looked online on the website civilwarinart.com to see some of these images, as well as their importance to the civil war. Through these pictures, it is easier to see the events that led up to the civil war and how and why they occurred in this way. 

The fugitive slave act of 1850 further divided the north and the south by forcing northerners to enforce laws that they did not support. The act stated that anyone who saw a  fugitive slave, who had escaped to a free state for however long, was required by law to turn them in. Most northern whites were in favor of the abolition of slavery, and even helped slaves to escape. This new law meant that not only could they not help slaves to escape, but they could not let slaves that they were aware of continue to live in the free state. Even if someone was not a slave, if just one person claimed that they were, then they would be put into slavery. To even further take away the freedoms of slaves, they were not allowed to go to court. 

John Brown was one of the most famous abolitionists of all time. His methods to end slavery were very violent, extreme and controversial- even to other abolitionists. In Harpers Ferry, Virginia, he raided a weapons storehouse called the Federal Armory with the plan to use these weapons with the help of slaves to bring them to freedom. The plan was quickly quickly stopped when he was captured and eventually tried for treason. This event, as well as others that John Brown planned caused an even stronger divide between the north and the south. The southerners saw these violent and extremist actions of an abolitionist and began to view all abolitionists- and the north- in this way. They used John Brown as a reason that the south should secede from the union.   

 

 

 

 

This image is a poster that tells the outcome of the Dred Scott vs. Sandford case. Dred Scott wanted to sue the United States because he said that he should be free, since he and his wife lived with their owner in a state where slavery is outlawed. The supreme court denied him his freedom, and even more so stated that regardless of if former slaves now lived in slave states or not, they could never become full citizens. This also meant they they were not allowed to sue in federal court. This decision infuriated abolitionists and further divided the north and the south.

 

 

This newspaper cover has the faces of the southern congressmen who resigned their seats after president Abraham Lincoln was elected. They felt that in order to ensure the continuation of slavery in their states, seceding from the union was necessary. The first to secede was North Carolina, and all of the other southern states followed. The president of the newly formed confederacy was Jefferson Davis. 

This map of the united states shows how all of the states were just before the civil war began. Red states were the first to secede from the union, before Lincoln was elected, green are states that seceded after Lincoln was elected, yellow is slave states that did not secede, and blue states are free states. 

In April 1861, confederate troops attacked Fort Sumter. Artist Frederick Edwin Church painted this American Flag as the sunset as a patriotic response to the attack. A meaning behind this painting was that the American Flag was in the heavens, as if the union was guided by a higher purpose. 

The civil war began on April 12th, 1861, when troops from South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter. This bombardment continued for two days, until Major Robert Anderson surrendered, and the federal troops boarded confederate troops as prisoners. President Lincoln responded to this by calling for 75,000 soldiers in order to put down this "rebellion" Fort Sumter then fell, and a New York printing for called Curier and Ives made this colorful lithograph to pay tribute to this event. The prints were cheap, and therefore very popular, as people were very intrigued and interested to see what was happening in the battlefield. 

This image is an engraving of the confederate attack on the unions Fort Sumter. The attack lasted for 33 hours. President Lincoln had previously reinforced the fort with supplies which Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard believed was an act of war, so he open fired. This image was in the Frank Leslie’s Magazine, a magazine that hired artists around the country create drawings of the civil war, and send them to the magazine. The staff chose the best pictures and copied them by engraving for printing. This method allowed many people to see images and a new perspective on the war and battle zones. 

 

The Civil War Through Graphs

To better understand the statistics and advantages that the north and south had leaving up to the civil war, I created an infogram displaying this  information. This visual representation helped to see the information more clearly and compare the north and south more easily. For the population and resources of the north and the south, I chose to show the graphs with their percentages side by side. This way, it was clear to see how they related to each other. For each sides motivations, strategies and advantages, I made a slide explaining them. I really enjoyed putting the information from this lesson in this infogram, and I think that it helped enhance my understanding of the topic. By putting the information into a visual and creative presentation, it helped me make connections and see how each aspect affected the others.

The Elephant of America: Slavery in the 19th Century

Slavery in the United States was a large problem for many. In the North, abolitionists were strongly against slavery, and more importantly, the spread of it. Pro slavery advocates in the south felt strongly about slavery as well, and the spread of it. To look at the sharp divide of views on slavery in America, and how these views affected each other, we made a timeline of the events pertaining to slavery that led up to the civil war.We split the timeline up based on if something was a proslavery event or anti slavery. In looking at these events, we found the answer to the essential question for this lesson, "How do we know the debate over slavery was the "elephant in the room" for American politics in the early 19th century?" Meaning, how do the events that took place show what a big and controversial issue slavery was in America politics, and how it was being ignored. The timeline and explanation for each event that my group created is below.

The first event that we looked at was the Compromise of 1850. To understand the issues discussed in this compromise, it is necessary to understand what happened 30 years before. Maine wanted to become a free state, but this would make the ratio of slave and free states uneven. To resolve this issue, Missouri became a slave state in the Missouri compromise. This was done so that that the free and slave states would have equal votes in senate. In 1850, California wanted to join the union as a free state, once again disrupting the ratio of free and slave states. In the compromise of 1850, proposed by Henry Clay, this, as well as other issues were resolved. The first issue was the United States has won territory from Mexico and had not been resolved as free or slave territory. The solution for this was wait and allow the inhabitants of the new territory to decide if they wanted to be a slave or free state. Then next issue was if California would be allowed to be a free state. The decision allowed this, but in turn created the fugitive slave act, which required anyone who say a runaway slave to turn them in. The next issue was the state of Texas believed that had more territory than they truly did. The solution forced Texas to give the territories back, but in return received 10 million dollars. Lastly, the nations capital, Washington D.C allowed slavery and had a very large slave market. The solution to this was to abolish the slave trade, but allow slavery in D.C.

The borders of California, joined as a free state in the compromise of 1850

In 1854, the Kansas Nebraska Act was passed, with benefits to both the north and the south. The act violated the Missouri compromise because it allows for the possibility of slavery extending north of the line that was previously agreed on. This was a good thing for pro slavery advocates, because it meant that they could expand slavery northward, furthering the amount of slavery, making it harder to abolish. The act also had benefits for the north, since the lands position on slavery would be decided by its people, the transcontinental railroad would make it easier for anti slavery advocates to move there. With the possibility of slavery still up in the air, and in the hands of the settlers, was inevitable that settlers with differing views would have a lot of tension. In 1856, Bleeding Kansas showed just how far people would go for their cause. On May 21st, a group of pro slavery advocates burned down building in Lawrence, Kansas, a primarily abolitionist town. On May 24th, an abolitionist names John Brown massacred 5 proslavery settlers in the Pottawatomie Massacre. Another violent instance was when Charles Sumener, a senator for Massachussetts gave a speech titled "The Crime against Kansas" advocating against slavery and against all of the violence happening in Kansas. He blamed the violence on senator Andrew Burke, saying that he knew that this violence would occur when he made his decisions on Kansas. Burkes nephew, angered by the speech, approached Sumner and beat him with a cane. Sumner never returned to full health after this attack.

A comic about "Bleeding Kansas" and the issues that is created

The morality of slavery and black lives in general was ignored at all costs, something that can be seen from the Dred Scott Decision. Dred Scott was a slave who filed a suit against his owner, saying that he should be free. The reasoning behind the suit was that he had lived with his owner in a state where slavery was illegal. The court ruled against Scott, and in response to this denied slaves the rights to sue in a court because they were not citizens. Even worse, people who had been slaved no longer could gain their freedom by living in a free state, and the Missouri compromise was ruled unconstitutional.

As time went on in the 19th century, slavery became a more popular topic, and was discussed more. The "elephant in the room" stopped being a huge issue that was always ignored and never discussed, and became something that impossible to ignore, and therefore necessary to discuss. An example of these discussions was the Lincoln- Douglas debates in 1858. It was a series of seven debates that discussed at length the issue of slavery in the United States. As the united states expanded, slavery was something that had to be discussed. An issue with drastically different views, it was of course easier to ignore the problem. Finally during the 1850s slavery became a slightly more popular topic, and although it was an impossible task to find a solution that would please all the citizens of the united states, it was something that was being discussed.




Sourcing:
Picture of California: http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/graphics/compromiseof1850map.jpg

Bleeding Kansas Comic: http://mtviewmirror.com/bleeding-kansas/#prettyPhoto