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 

Women's Reform

           Throughout history it is a common theme for males to be seen as superior when compared to females. In class we went deeper into this theme by studying the Women's Reform. To get a better understanding we read various texts like The Intimately Oppressed: Chapter Six, Laws and Practices, the women's Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, and the reactions towards the declaration. We also observed the painting, Sphere of Women. In the end we were asked two important questions, how did mid-19th century society react to women's demands for equality and does 21st century society still react differently to men and women?
           Addressing the first question, mid-19th century society believed that women were the inferior gender. It was thought that women were only good for taking care of the house and of the children.

http://www.edline.net/files/_AJHub_/71395ea097afa89d3745a49013852ec4/Sphere_of_Women.jpg

The painting above is the Sphere of Women. The painting depicts the "true duties" of a women. Duties include keeping everyone in the household calm, bearing children, caring for children, mending broken objects, educating the children, cooking, and cleaning. Among all of these duties women were supposed be be humble and never expect public recognition, so it was a surprise when women made it publicly known that they wanted their rights. Society reacted in the form of several newspaper articles. While some articles supported the women's rights movement many of them resented the movement. One newspaper, called The Mechanics Advocate, printed a response that was against the reform. They stated that the movement is wrong and that women, "will instantly feel that is unwomanly, and that to be practically carried out." The article also states two reasons to why women should be in subjection,

"1. Adam was made before Eve.

  2. Eve sinned before Adam."

All in all, society's reaction to women's demands for equality was to laugh at the women. Society stayed firm in believing that women were supposed to be completely pure, teaching the men good morals and keeping them in line.

           The 21st century society's reaction is however a little different. An example can come from The Intimately Oppressed and modern day hospitals. The Intimately Oppressed briefly talks about females as doctors. The passage is, "My first medical consultation was a curious experience. In a severe case of pneumonia in an elderly lady I called in consultation a kind-hearted physician of high standing. .. . This gentleman, after seeing the patient, went with me into the parlor. There he began to walk about the room in some agitation, exclaiming, "A most extraordinary case! Such a one never happened to me before; I really do not know what to do!" I listened in surprise and much perplexity, as it was a clear case of pneumonia and of no unusual degree of danger, until at last I discovered that his perplexity related to me, not to the patient, and to the propriety of consulting with a lady physician!" The male couldn't believe that a women was working in the medical field. Now compare this story to Carol W. Greider. Greider is a United States molecular biologist that works in hospitals and at Johns Hopkins University. She discovered that telomeres are protected from progressive shortening by the enzyme telomerase and was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. She works in a male dominant field of profession but nobody blinked an eyelash when she made her life changing discovery or when she accepted the Nobel Prize because she was a woman. It was normal for women to have respected roles in important fields. It shows how accepting the 21st century is to women's demands for equality. It also proves that society has come a long way by placing men and women on an equal playing field.

Social Reforms

           Recently, we talked about the different reform movements that were happening. Each reform related to a different social problem. The social reforms were the Protestant Revival, Transcendentalism, Temperance, the Education Reform, and the Prison Reform.
           One of the leaders of the Education Reform was a man named Horace Mann. Mann was the elected secretary of the newly-created Massachusetts Board of Education. He also believed that every child could receive an education because their education would be funded by local taxes. This idea is referred to as the Common School Movement.
           In 1846, Mann wrote a letter to the Massachusetts Legislature about the topic of education. Below are two, key paragraphs from the letter.

"Education Document 1: Horace Mann, 1846 to the Massachusetts Legislature

I believe in the existence of a great, immortal, immutable principle of natural law... Which proves the absolute right to an education of every human being that comes into the world; and which, of course, proves the correlative duty of every government to see that the means of that education are provided for all...

Massachusetts is parental in her government. More and more, as year after year rolls by, she seeks to substitute prevention for remedy, and rewards for penalties. She strives to make industry the antidote to poverty, and to counter-work the progress of vice and crime by the diffusion of knowledge and the culture of virtuous principles."

           Mann's obvious stance on this event is that education should be obtainable to everyone. One's gender, social class, beliefs, etc. shouldn't impact the outcome of their education. The purpose that this letter serves is to inform the Legislature the problem with the education programs. It stresses how valuable an education can be by stating that it is the difference between the social classes and an education can squish most crime. When Mann wrote this letter most children were working instead of going to school, along with many others. Those who chose or didn't have the opportunity to go to school received a basic knowledge upon reading, writing, and math. It was thought that, "a good education was reserved for the wealthy who could afford tutors and private schools". The letter teaches you that education isn't being taken as serious as it should be. However, the letter doesn't teach you who was directly involved in the issue. It only states a vague description of "every human being that comes into the world". Also, it doesn't create a complete picture of the historical event because it is vague. It is vague because it was written to an audience of people who were familiar with this topic and didn't need a lot of background information. Mann is trying to convince the legislature to open up the education system though. He states that he believes that, "the correlative duty of the government to see that the means of that education are provided for all". For him to be writing this letter it means that to him, the government isn't doing their jobs. This is a reliable primary source because Horace Mann is documented to have played an intricate role in the Education Reform and the website it comes from specializes in history. Meaning, history is the main focus and is run by true historians.

Sourcing

Mann, Horace. “Education Document 1: Horace Mann, 1846 to the Massachusetts Legislature.” Unveiling History. Accessed January 19, 2015. http://unveilinghistory.org/wp-content/lessons/2013/donohue/B_document-set.pdf.

Latin American Revolutions

            The Latin American Revolutions are important to think about because it goes hand in hand with many ideas of independence for each class that are still relevant today. The Latin American Revolutions also brought up the question, "Why is it essential to acknowledge human value regardless of race? How are the events in the Latin American Revolutions evidence of this social imperative?"

Race as % of the Population in Latin America

This is the social rank of each group in Latin America social structure

            To go deeper into the essential question, the impact of race on the Latin American Revolutions for independence, we discussed the social ladder in the area. (Part of this was filling out the graph above) We learned that the social ladder has African Slaves on the bottom and Peninsulares on the top. In the middle there are the Indians, the Mulattoes, the Mestizos, and the Creoles. Then, we created a timeline of the Gran Columbia Revolution. Lastly, we compared the similarities and the differences with other groups who covered different revolutions.

Timeline of Key Events of the Gran Columbia Revolution

            My group covered the Gran Columbia Revolution. One commonality my group found in the jigsaw with the other two groups, who covered the revolutions in Brazil and Mexico, was that all of the revolutions ended with independence. Independence was the ultimate goal for all three of the revolutions. Secondly, all of the revolutions were guided by strong leaders. For the Gran Columbia Revolution they had Bolivar. Brazil had Pedro and King John VI. Finally, Mexico had Miguel Hidalgo. We also found some differences between the revolutions. The first difference was that Brazil resulted in an empire and Mexico ended in a republic. Our second difference was that the Portuguese monarchy came to Brazil to rule but Bolivar had dictatorial powers over Caracas. These revolutions all took separate ways to independence but race was always a constant issue in all three. In Gran Columbia Bolivar's main goal was to liberate New Granada from Spanish control. In Brazil Jose was killed at first because he didn't have an elite status. Also, Pedro tried to make Portuguese people the only people with power. Lastly, Miguel called for the end of the 300 years of racial equality.

            We think we have come a long way from these differences caused by race but in  reality almost nothing has actually changed. In today's society we are more judgmental than the revolutions were. They mainly judged based on race. We discriminate based on race, heritage, religion, physical features, personalities, style, etc. November 22, 2014 a Cleveland police officer shot a 12 year old African American boy. He died the next day. The boy was carrying an air-soft gun when the officer fired within two seconds of arriving on the scene. The agreement was that the officer didn't give the boy to explain himself before shooting him in the torso. He shot because he thought the young child was a threat based on the color of his skin. (http://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7275297/tamir-rice-police-shooting) Based on this story and many other instances similar to this one, I believe the issue of race in our lives is still important to consider. We can't go around making assumptions based on how someone looks because it could end with fatal results. We all deserve the same chances because when it all comes down to it, we are the same on the inside. Why should the outside determine the inside?

Andrew Jackson

            President Andrew Jackson held a certain reputation when he was in office. He was known as the people's president. During the presidency three major events occurred that made some people question if he really was the people's president. These three events were The Bank War, The Indian Removal, and The Spoils System. In class we split into six groups and every two groups were given one of these events. We were supposed to analyze the given documents and then create a presentation explaining the occurrence. Every presentation had to answer the essential question which was, is Andrew Jackson's long-standing reputation as "the people's president" deserved? Why? Why not?
            My group was assigned The Indian Removal. The Indian Removal was when Jackson forced Indians to leave their land. He wanted them to move West because he didn't want them to be squeezed out by white settlers and have the tribes be wiped out. (http://www.edline.net/files/_6YHDu_/53222985c1e5c5883745a49013852ec4/IndianRemoval1.jpg) The Indians didn't like this idea because they felt it was unjust to kick them out afetr everything they have done for the whites. (http://www.edline.net/files/_6YHFl_/a79ada70e840f8f33745a49013852ec4/IndianRemoval2.jpg) Down below is my group's slide show presentation explaining this devastating time for the Indians in greater detail.

  

          The Bank War and The Spoils System were covered by the other groups. The Bank War happened when Jackson thought that the banks had to much power. He wanted multiple smaller banks rather than one large bank. Many people didn't agree with him though. Daniel Webster was one of the people who disagreed. He felt that getting rid of the main bank would lead to economic collapse. Ironically, several years later there was an economic collapse. The collapse was caused by paper money having to regain its value without the help of the banks. The Spoils System was when the efficiency and the effectiveness of the government decreased. A spoils system is when a political party gives government jobs to voters and supporters after an election victory. It can also be called Rotation in Office. Basically, Jackson gave out jobs based on loyalty and not on skills. He believed that there was nothing wrong with change and just because a person has been doing their job for a long time doesn't mean that they deserve it over someone less experienced.

            Overall, I think that Andrew Jackson didn't deserve his long-standing reputation as the people's president. In The Indian Removal he forced the Indians to pick up their whole lives and move to unfamiliar land. In The Bank War he let the economy fail. In The Spoils System he ran a corrupt government and ended up dragging down the office as a whole. I feel like he had the right idea and wanted the rights between the poor and the rich to be balanced. He also wanted everyone to have a say but he just went about it in the wrong way. A classmate of mine commented on how he ruled and I couldn't agree more with it. She said, "He doesn't deserve to be the people's president because he was the people's president only to the people who liked him."

Rise of Democracy

            In class we read about the rise of democracy. There were six primary sources to help us familiarize ourselves with the topic. Before we started we split into smaller groups though. In the small groups we analyzed the sources to answer the essential question, "How do we define democracy? How democratic was the U.S. in the early 1800's?" To show that we could answer the questions each group put together a presentation. My group decided to make a poster demonstrating that we understood the material. 

Overview of the whole poster

Close up of The Dorr War Primary Source (with analysis)

Close up of the Data- Voting Chart 1 Primary Source (with analysis)

Close up of the Data- Voting Chart 2 Primary Source (with analysis) and the definition of democracy 

Close up of the Art- Country Election Painting Primary Source and the Art- County Election Painting Article Primary Source (with analysis) 

Revolutions of 1830 and 1848

            There were many revolutions in 1830 and in 1848. These revolutions were known as the Decembrist Revolt, the 1830 revolution in France, the 1848 revolution in France, the Frankfurt Assembly, and the Hungary Revolution. Some of these revolutions can be seen as a failure or as a success. We were asked the question, "Were the revolutions in 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded? To answer this question we were divided into six groups and each group did one of the revolutions. We read the background documents and analyzed all of the primary sources to get a better understanding of our revolution. Once everyone finished we came together to share what we learned about our specific revolution. To make sure everyone knew the basics of each topic the groups made a SurveyMonkey for the class to take.

            My group was assigned the Frankfurt Assembly which took place in Germany, 1848-1849. The goal of the Frankfurt Assembly was to unite Germany under a constitution.This was a goal set by the liberals and the nationalists of Germany. Johann Gustav made a comment about Germany uniting and getting power at the Frankfurt Assembly. He said, "We need a powerful ruling house. Austria's power meant lack of power for us, whereas Prussia desired Germany unity in order to supply the deficiencies of her own power" (Primary Source #1: Johann Gustav: Speech to the Frankfurt Assembly, 1848). The conservative Prussian king, King Fredrick William IV opposed the idea. Originally, the king was offered German power but he ended up declining the offer. He declined the offer because it came from the people, who had no power, not the princes, who have most of the power. It was said that, "The King made it perfectly clear that he had no intention of allowing his god-given rule to be diminished by a piece of paper, namely a constitution" (Primary Source #3: Between Myself and My People... 1848). The King ended up sending in Prussian military forces to dissolve the assembly. The Frankfurt Assembly ended up with reformers clashing with military forces, causing hundreds to be killed and sent to jail. Meanwhile many Germans fled their homeland to go to America. My group's SurveyMonkey can be found at:https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/T76BN7C. Down below are some screenshots from the SurveyMonkey for examples of some of the questions were on each questionnaire.

            We found that the majority of the class could answer these basic questions just from reading the Background Essay and the Primary Sources for the Frankfurt Assembly.

            A big part of the lesson was to decide if the revolution was success or a failure. That is also what the essential question was all about. I think most of the revolutions were either leaning towards being a failure or had a neutral impact. of  were more of a success instead of a failure. For example, the Frankfurt Assembly was more of a failure than a success because it ended in war and the deaths of many German citizens. Also, people had to flee their homeland in order to survive the attacks from the Prussian military. An example of a revolution with a neutral impact would be the French Revolution of 1848. The revolution left the middle class both feared and distrusted, while the working class nursed a deep hatred for the bourgeoisie. This happened because prior to this there was an attack on rioting workers and 1,500 people were killed before the government crushed the rebellion. The only revolution that I think was a complete and utter failure would be the Decembrist Revolt. The Decembrist Revolt ended in the ruler opening fire on his people who were protesting in the streets. Almost everyone in the crowd was killed and the people who survived didn't benefit in any way. Instead they were simply thrown into jail. This is my opinion on the essential question, "Were the revolutions in 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded?"