Buffalo Soldiers & Native Americans

            Westward Expansion was enacted by the government in order for them to have more control over America. It started with the United States creating more colored troops. They soon realized that they needed more army presence in the West, so they created even more colored troops. The soldiers in these troops earned respected, food, and a steady job. This caused even more African Americans to move out to the Great Plains. The Native Americans that previously lived on the land called the new, colored troops Buffalo Soldiers. The Native Americans and Buffalo Soldiers fought on several occasions. After a while people started developing an interest in the Great Plains and many wanted to control it. For example, Total War was a common practice, used by government, to wipe out the tribes that lived on the Great Plains. The way the government handled Westward Expansion brought up the question, did the government have good intentions when enacting policies for Westward Expansion? In what ways did these policies impact the natives and buffalo soldiers?

            To answer this essential question we went through similar steps of the prior week. First, we assigned each group a topic to focus and take notes on as we analysed the information given. The same groups were assigned the same topics they were given last week. For example, my group had key people last week, so we had key people this week as well. After everyone had their topic we watched a series of video clips on ABC Clio. These videos were almost identical to the videos last week, except the main focuses were different. Then, in our small groups, we examined a flow chart from ABC Clio. The chart depicted important events during Westward Expansion in chronological order. Finally, we looked at two primary source documents. The documents were Helen Hunt Jackson's Century of Dishonor 1881 and Excerpts from Dawes Act 1887.
            Answering the essential question, yes, the government had good intentions while enacting the policies; however, they didn't execute their ideas strongly. An example of someone having good intentions but a poor execution is Henry Pratt. Pratt created a system of schooling called the Carlisle School System. The system focused on the annihilation of all Indians. He said, "Kill the Indian in him and save the man". It sounds harsh to say, but this was what people thought wholeheartedly during this time period. The belief was that they were doing helping the Native Americans by putting them through this system or by placing them in reservations. Also, the Dawes Acts supported the idea of stripping away Indian culture to replace in with Americanized ideas. The purpose of the acts forced Indians to submit to American ideas and adapt to the life of a farmer. If they chose to do so they were rewarded with land and U.S. citizenship. Sadly, the acts had a negative impact and resulted in the Wounded Knee Massacre. More than 150 Sioux were killed when this battle ended and Native Americans continued to resist white culture. In conclusion, there were better ways to get the desired results that the government yearned for. Instead of a gradual change they chose a sudden, harsh, and violent change that was forced upon those impacted by Westward Expansion.

"Burial of the dead after the massacre of Wounded Knee. U.S. soldiers putting Indians in a common grave; some corpses are frozen in different positions. South Dakota.

            The policies forced upon the Native Americans and the Buffalo Soldiers by the government had a negative impact on their way of life. For the Native Americans, a negative impact, was the drastic loss of land that they had to face. The loss of land is due to the Allotment Program, a response to government policies. The program said that the Native Americans' land would be divided up. Meaning individuals would get their own land, but 90% of the land went to the general public. This made it so the Natives had less land than what they started with. Also, it isn't fair to take away land that the Natives believed belonged to no one. The Buffalo soldiers, during expansion, were in charge of mapping territory, repairing forts, laying out miles of telegraph, and going into battle against unruly Native tribes. This made the soldiers undesirable to the Natives being forced off their land and caused a deep resentment between the two. However, the life of a Buffalo soldiers wasn't easy. Because of the government's dreams of expansion they placed the Buffalo Soldiers as "less important", in comparison towards the regular, white regiments. Buffalo Soldiers got the old, ratty uniforms, the weak horses, they fought in places no one else wanted to fight in, and they did whatever no one else wanted to do. The government's unjustified policies enacted during Westward Expansion caused negative impacts on the lives of Native Americans as well as the Buffalo Soldiers.

Rockefeller & Carnegie

            Many years after the Civil War ended, there was immense industrial growth in America. Due to the growth in industry there was a growth in the need for immigrant workers. Trusts and monopolies became common in the country and people known as captains of industry rose in power as well as in influence. During this time period there were two main captains of industry, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. While Rockefeller dominated in oil, Carnegie made his fortune in steel production. Although both men were huge business icons, not everyone agreed with how they ran their companies. Some referred to the two men as robber barons. These different opinions resulted in the question, should John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie be classified as robber barons or captains of industry?
            To answer this essential question the class divided into four groups. From those groups we were assigned a topic. The topics were Main Ideas, Key People, Essential Terms, and Important Events. We then proceeded to watch a series of short videos and take notes on our assigned topic. Next we read Rockefeller's biography as well as Carnegie's and again, took notes on our assigned topic. Once we were done with the biographies, we read through a document called Primary/Secondary Sources Lesson and took notes. After all the reading and note taking were done, as a class we made one,big Google Document and compiled all of our found information onto it.
            John D. Rockefeller, a man "mad for oil", deserves the title of a robber baron. An example of him being a robber baron can be found in his overall business strategy. His strategy was to keep his production costs low and waited until a business started to struggle. Once he saw them begin to struggle, he would come in and buy out that company. This strategy is how he created his monopoly across the country. Although this way of business was smart on Rockefeller's behalf, it was unjust and unfair for him to prey on other's misfortune. He believed that God had given them "great gifts" so that they could drill and refine oil. Rockefeller was also known for bribing politicians to ensure that most things went in his favor. This action shows his corrupt views on the economic system. He claimed that , "someday I'll be the richest man in the world." This statement came true when he ended his career with $900 million, making him the richest man in American history. Even though he retired with great wealth it was believed that everything he did, whether it was buying out businesses or even donating to charity, was motivated by his personal greed for more money. I agree with this statement because every one of his moves seemed calculated to benefit him in just the right and why I call him a robber baron as opposed to calling him a captain of industry.

"This political cartoon by Udo J. Keppler appeared in the September 7, 1904, issue of "Puck." It shows J.D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil tank as an octopus with many tentacles wrapped around the steel, copper, and shipping industries, as well as a state house, the U.S. Capitol, and one tentacle reaching for the White House, as it crushes the competition."

            Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish steel producer, can be proudly mentioned as a captain of industry. Carnegie spent millions of dollars to advance the education system as well as donate excess money on public needs, libraries, etc. He had a main belief when it came to what he was going to do with his fortune, the Gospel of Wealth. Briefly, the Gospel of Wealth was the idea that every man was made rich by God and has the duty to use his fortune for the good of the people. Also, he believed in rewarding his workers by recognizing their talent and hard work by promoting them in the ranks of management. As Carnegie traveled extensively though Europe he picked up the title of the best read and traveled American businessman of his time. Sadly, his well earned reputation was ruined by the Homestead Strike that happened at one of his steel plants in Homestead, PA. In my opinion the strike was a tragedy, but it doesn't cancel out all of the good Carnegie had previously done for the country and that is why I believe he deserves to be called a captain of industry rather than a robber baron.

Freedom from Above or from Below?

           Gaining the freedom for all enslaved Americans was the main goal of the Civil War. Throughout the war different actions were taken to ensure the overall freedom for these enslaved American slaves. Actions were taken by both President Lincoln and the current slaves. The actions that were taken raise very important questions. Who 'gave' freedom freedom to enslaved Americans? Did freedom come from above or below? To what extent were Abraham Lincoln's actions influenced by the actions of enslaves Americans? Various pieces of art and documents aided in the understanding of these sets of questions. The pieces of art were a picture entitled "Freedom to the Slaves" depicting Lincoln giving the freedom and an engraving entitled "Slaves from the plantation of Confederate President Jefferson Davis arrive at Chickasaw Bayou, Mississippi" depicting slaves standing up for what they want and getting their freedom on their own. The documents were President Lincoln's reply to Horace Greeley, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Gettysburg Address, the Second Inaugural Address, and Document X which is examples of enslaved people forcing the issue. I believe that the freedom came from both above and below. Without one the other wouldn't have been able to get their point across efficient enough.
            I believe it came from above because President Lincoln was the one who changed the war's purpose. At first, he declared that the purpose was to save the Union from perishing, but later changed it to earning the freedom of enslaves Americans. In the Gettysburg Address he declared, "That this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that the government of the people, by the people, shall not perish from the earth. This was the first time Lincoln acknowledged abolition movement influencing the war. Even though he was afraid to lose the loyalty of the border states to the Confederacy he changed the goal of the war to benefit his citizens. If he never did this the enslaved Americans would have no supporters from above and no one would take them seriously.

"Freedom to the Slaves"

President Lincoln giving the enslaved Americans their freedom

            Although President Lincoln made the first, official move his actions were influenced greatly by the current enslaved Americans. The slaves would walk off the plantations they were working at to follow the Union army. While following them they would constantly pester the army. As a result, the army would go to their superiors to ask what to do about the slaves that were following them. The superiors then turned to the government because they didn't know what to do as well. These chain reactions forced Lincoln and the government to do something to stop the constant pestering the Union army was enduring.

            Also, I believe that the enslaved Americans had a lot to do with their new found freedom causing freedom from below. The way they got their freedom was to take action by marching into the city and overrun it. They overran it by taking the things that appeal to them and living in empty buildings that they found. Their actions ensured that their freedom came from below because the whole thing started with the slave's actions that are forcing higher powers, such as the president, to react to the scenes they are causing.

            

           

Civil War Scavenger Hunt

            The Civil War started on April 12, 1861 and lasted until April 9, 1865. During this time frame there were several separate battles being fought to decide who would be the victor, the Union or the Confederate. The topic of winning introduces two essential questions, who was the ultimate victor in each of the theaters of war; East, West, Navel and what are some commonalities that can be identified in the reasons for the results of the battles? Finding answers to these two questions took a of preparation that eventually lead to an around the school scavenger hunt. First, each student was assigned a battle from the war. For example, someone was assigned the Battle of Baton Rouge and the person next to them would be assigned to the Battle of Cold Harbor. There were twenty battles in all. Next, based on the description of the battle, we had to figure out what battle we had, where and when it took place, the victor, the theater it took place in, and two main reasons why the battle ended the way it did. After we had all of the required information we put it onto a Google Doc and added a picture that was relevant to our battle. Then, we made a bit.ly link and a QR code for the poster. Finally, we had to communicate with the person who had the battle before and after us so we could write down directions. All that was left was to do the scavenger hunt.
            There were three theaters of war during the Civi War. There was the West, the East, and the Navel.  The Union dominated the Western and the Naval theater while the Confederacy dominated the Eastern theater. The Union was able to control the Western theater because of their large army and their overall strength compared to the Confederate army. For example, in Sherman's March to the Sea the Union was able to destroy what they did because the South didn't have enough soldiers nor where they strong enough to stop them. In Savannah, the army fled to avoid clashing with Sherman's men. The Union was able to be the ultimate victors in the Naval for the same reasons, they were larger and were a lot stronger than the South. In most of the Naval battles the Union outnumbered the Confederate in the number of ships they had. In the Battle of Baton Rouge the Union shelled the Confederate ships and the Confederate ships' engines broke. This caused the Confederate to surrender. On the other hand, the Confederate dominated the Eastern theater because they had powerful attacks and suffered from less casualties. Their strategy was to cause as much damage as they can in a short period of time. This was demonstrated at the Battle of Cold Harbor. The Confederates frontal assault caused 7,000 casualties in one hour.
            Even though the Union army and the Confederate army are very different from each other, there are some commonalties as to why each side won the battles that they did. The Union's pattern was to use their numbers as their strengths. As the war progressed the South got weaker and weaker. This proved as an advantage to the North and they used it to win the war. The South was known for attacking hard. Each time they won a battle it was because they worked for the win and didn't play nice.

Election of1860

            Were the results of the Election of 1860 representative of the deep divisions over slavery? This was the essential question that was presented at the beginning of class. To be able to answer this question we watched a Crash Course video that explained how the issue of slavery caused divisions in the Fugitive Slave Law, railroads, Republicans, Bleeding Kansas, Dred Scott vs. Sanford, and in the opinions of John Brown. Then, we looked at a map depicting what stated voted for which candidate. For example, the people who voted for Lincoln made sense because he was against the expansion of slavery (anti-slavery) and most states that voted for him were Northern States (anti-slavery). They also wanted to keep things how they are and not be caught in the middle. The map helped us learn the answer because it clearly showed that there were deep divisions over slavery and the divisions can explain the results of the Election of 1860. Finally, we made a short video that shows the story of the Election of 1860 through pictures.

Educreations Video Link

The people who voted for Lincoln made sense because he was against the expansion of slavery (anti-slavery) and most states that voted for him were Northern States (anti-slavery). They also wanted to keep things how they are and not be caught in the middle. 

Educreations Video Citations

Citations: Dred Scott Decision Image- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford Jefferson Davis Image- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis Attack on Fort Sumter image- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Battle_of_Fort_Sumter Other images- http://www.civilwarinart.org/exhibits/show/causes/introduction/the- election-of-1860-and-seces

North VS. South: Advantages During the Civil War

            The Civil War was fought by the Northern side of America and by the Southern side of America. The war was fought over the growing issue of slavery. The North was against it and the South supported it. The North and The South were very different from each other and that brought up the essential question, How did the differences between the North and the South affect each region's strategy and success in the war? To answer this question we all made separate infographics to display what we thought the advantages were. In my infographic I chose to present the topic as, North VS. South: Advantages in the Civil War. Also, I split the infographic into two sections, advantages of the North and advantages of the South. For the North I chose to include population, railroad mileage, and number of factories. I chose these statistics because I thought they were the three main reasons why the North was so successful in the war. For the South I chose to include leadership, military tactics, and morale. These were included in the infographic because they are important to the South, but also because the South was unable to get ahead in other areas except for cotton growth. I didn't think cotton growth affected the war as much as the other three did. Overall, I think the reason why the North was more successful in the war than the South was because of their population. Population was so important because it meant the North would be able to hold its own against the South and still have men available to stay home and look after business related topics. Also, the South didn't have this advantage because instead of free men doing the work they had slaves doing it. The people with normal jobs wouldn't want to go to war because they wouldn't want to leave work due to money. This left the South in a vulnerable state.

Infographic

~THE NORTH~ | Create infographics

Elephant in the Room

            Slavery was a popular debate topic for American politics in the early 19th century. The North didn't feel it was morally just to keep the practice of slavery alive. On the other hand, the South supported slavery because they used the slaves to work the cotton fields. Also, the debate brought up the essential question, "How do we know the debate over slavery was the "elephant in the room" for American politics in the early 19th century?" To answer this question we researched various events that were related to the debate. For example, The Compromise of 1850 and the Crime Against Kansas Speech. Then, we took all of the information and put it into a timeline to neatly display the data.
            We can conclude that slavery was the "elephant in the room" because it was an obvious problem that no one could come up with a concrete, final, and fair solution for it. All the ideas acted upon were only temporary because the issue of slavery kept coming back. The Compromise of 1850 holds an example of a temporary solution, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed. Since all runaway had to be returned back to their previous owner it made it seem like everything was under control. But problems started to occur when not every slave was returned and more and more kept escaping to the North.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850

Fugitive Slave Act Poster

            New problems quickly raised from the previous problem. The Gadsden Purchase of 1853 was another short term answer. Since the purchase made it easier for the South to transport others to settle and vote territories to be slave states it meant that slavery would expand and become a bigger issue. To solve this problem the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed. Now the North had a chance to transport anti-slavery people into states where population votes slave status. This still wasn't a permanent solution though. Charles Sumner can prove that these two acts weren't the final solution. While giving a speech he managed to anger Preston Brooks. Brooks then proceeded to beat Sumner with his cane. Brooks proved that slavery was still a massive issue that was never addressed properly and has the ability to cause civilized men to resort to violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner

The Caning of Charles Sumner

            If slavery wasn't the "elephant in the room" politicians would have been able to finalize a decision on slavery instead of putting the topic aside time after time.

Final Timeline