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

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.