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

Antebellum Slavery

            Slavery, people who are the legal property of another and are forced to obey them. Slavery was a big part of the South in the 19th century. Slaves were the ones who picked the 2.28 billion pounds of cotton that was grown on the plantations. During class we discussed three major points in the topic of slavery in the 19th century. The three points are slavery becoming economically entrenched, the system of slavery affecting human dignity, and the human characteristics that slavery tends to ignore.
            How did slavery become economically entrenched in American society by the early 19th century? Slavery didn't become economically entrenched right away because cotton was an insignificant crop prior to 1800. So no one needed additional help to work the cotton fields, but by 1860 cotton was by far the most lucrative, agricultural commodity in the entire nation (http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US18-00.html). By 1860 the South grew 2.28 billion pounds of cotton and cotton became 57% of the nation's revenue at $191.8 billion. The slave population at this time was 3,954,000 and slaves were widespread throughout most of the South (http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US18-01.html, http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US18-02.html). These statistics prove why slavery became entrenched in American society. The reason behind it being that since cotton gives the U.S. more than half its yearly revenue the nation's government, in Washington, couldn't afford to alienate slavery because without slavery there wouldn't be enough workers to produce all of the cotton. This made Southern crop planters feel economically powerful, politically confident, and encouraged to keep trading and purchasing slaves (http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US18-01.html).
            How does a system of slavery based on race affect human dignity? An example of slavery affecting human dignity can be found in the Founder's Constitution. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 states, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." For slaves, this means that they will not be fully represented and they will be accounted for as 3/5 of what other (free) people are worth (for tax and representation purposes). This affects dignity because dignity is all about being worthy of honor and respect. Saying that a human being will not be seen as the whole person that they are, in the eyes of the government, is degrading and the person saying it shouldn't be honored nor respected. It shouldn't be right to be able to put a limit on someone's worth based on if they are a slave or not. 
            What human characteristics does such a system tend to ignore? Frederick Douglass touched upon this subject in his "The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro" speech he gave in Rochester, New York, July 5, 1852. He believed that the system of slavery ignored the basic human right of freedom for all. He linked this belief to the Fourth of July because the Americans are celebrating their freedom, but not everyone is free in the U.S.. He described the American's ignorance towards freedom as a, "hollow mockery". 

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

Frederick Douglass, former slave and leader of abolition movement