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