No Justice, No Fun

The essential questions for this lesson on Westward Expansion were: Did the government have good intentions when enacting policies for westward expansion? And in what ways did these policies impact the natives and buffalo soldiers? To begin this lesson we watched videos on the topic. Our class was divided into four groups and each took notes pertaining to a different topic while watching the videos, my group had main events. After the videos were completed, we looked at primary sources and a timeline regarding the Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans. Then we put our heads together to come up with the essential questions. Finally, we made questions for our final exam.

The government did have good intentions when putting in place the policies for westward expansion. The government made a sad mistake though. They thought of the majority and wanted to please them by enlarging the country but they didn’t think of the minorities: the minorities who at the time were much more concerned with obtaining more rights rather than more land. The government awarded many Medals of Honor to the Buffalo soldiers, proving that the government was trying to pretend that they treated the colored troops well, when they really did not. The Buffalo Soldiers, much like the Native Americans, tended to get the short end of every deal. These soldiers were given the tired horses, the used uniforms, and the hard jobs that the white troops did not want to deal with. But, since most of the Buffalo Soldiers had no jobs to go back to at home, they were stuck with whatever they were given.

For Native Americans, the impact of the Westward Expansion policies were horrifying, The most direct and obvious impact was the lost of land in reservations due to the Dawes Act of 1887. “Be it enacted…That in all cases where any tribe or band of Indians has been, or shall hereafter be, located upon any reservation created for their use, either by treaty stipulation or by virtue of an act of Congress or executive order setting apart the same for their use…” The Dawes Act assigned a certain amount of land per person instead of a singular plot for each tribe, greatly reducing the size of land left to the Native Americans. This whole idea of owning land went against the Native American belief that nature cannot be owned. So, the assignment of land made them lose that part of their culture. Another terrible system that also striped Native Americans was the Carlisle Indian Industrial School, made for the Native American children that promised to "kill the Indian in him and save the man." Another impact of Westward Expansion on the Natives was a loss of peace. They were being moved into smaller and smaller spaces, and this movement brought confrontation. Helen Hunt Jackson wrote in her 1881 book A Century of Dishonor, “There is not among these three hundred bands of Indians one which has not suffered cruelly at the hands either of the Government or of white settlers. The poorer, the more insignificant, the more helpless the band, the more certain the cruelty and outrage to which they have been subjected.” And this confrontation lead to violence that was commonly believed to be because of how untamed a Native American really is, when really it was the white men who were the monsters. Helen Jackson also wrote: “Every crime committed by a white man against an Indian is concealed and palliated. Every offense committed by an Indian against a white man is borne on the wings of the post or the telegraph to the remotest corner of the land, clothed with all the horrors which the reality or imagination can throw around it,” (A Century of Dishonor, 1881). The impact of Westward Expansion policies was extremely detrimental for the Native Americans. They lost their land, culture, peace, and on top of all that, they were made into monsters. 

Today, more attention is being paid to the minorities, but as is to be expected, things are still not perfect. One of Social Media's positive attributes is that it lets, for the most part, people hear about the news as it is happening. Social Media does this better than the actual news because the news picks and chooses what it wants people to know. Something will come up on Social Media that is not talked about on the news and everytime this happens I am shocked that the news is choosing to leave people ignorant when the purpose of the news is to inform people. It makes no sense to me because usually the things they leave out are the "controversial" problems affecting a minority. It is this kind of selective reporting that leads to the ignorance that will stop advancements in social justice. 
 

Angels or Devils: The Gilded Age

The Essential Question for the lesson on Carnegie and Rockefeller was created by the students this week. What we came up with was: Should Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller be classified as robber barons or captains of industry? The structure for this lesson was divided into days. On the first day we watched videos explaining the Gilded Age, or time period following the Reconstruction after the Civil War. Then on the second day we decided on the essential question and then we began writing our blog posts. On the third day the class decided on how to create the forty exam questions we would need to have completed on the fourth day.

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

John D Rockefeller is a Robber Baron because he meets most of definition. Rockefeller bought out his rivals after destroying them. His method was to lower his prices until his competition could not match them and went bankrupt. John D Rockefeller was also known to bribe politicians. To keep his prices low, Rockefeller treated his workers poorly. In the end, he had become the head of a massive oil monopoly. All these actions of Rockefeller are what make him a Robber Baron.

Andrew Carnegie is not a Robber Baron. Instead, Carnegie is a Captain of Industry because he does not fit as much of the definition as Rockefeller. In Carnegie's “Wealth”, published in 1889, his main point is that those with wealth have a duty to those that do not. “…the man of wealth thus becoming the mere trustee and agent for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves.” Carnegie is no hypocrite, and donates a lot of his money to fund public needs like libraries and other organizations that advance the cause of education, eventually founding the Carnegie Mellon University. Another positive attribute of Andrew Carnegie is that he believed in meritocracy, promoting his workers based on their skills. Carnegie’s one slip up was the Homestead Strike. Beginning on the 29th of June in 1892, the strike made the public aware of Andrew Carnegie’s plot to terminate the iron and steel workers’ union. However, the rest of his life, Carnegie was apologetic. In a letter he wrote to William E. Gladstone, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, on September 24th of the next year, Carnegie admitted, "This is the trial of my life (death's hand excepted). Such a foolish step - contrary to my ideas, repugnant to every feeling of my nature. Our firm offered all it could offer, even generous terms. Our other men had gratefully accepted them. They went as far as I could have wished, but the false step was made in trying to run the works with new men." By writing this, it is clear that Carnegie regrets what he has done.

Today, while governments are still trying to stay out of economies, the two things still have a big effect on one another. In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan might not be re-elected due to Turkey's current poor economy. This year's Turkish General Election will be on Sunday, June 7th. The President's political party, the Justice and Development Party, first came to power after a financial crisis and has since won six elections in a row. This year, the belief that the economy is poorly run, might sway voters to elect a different party. If Laissez-Faire worked the other way, economy staying out of government, the Justice and Development Party might not be so uneasy about tomorrow's election.

What's Up With That?

“If our society really wanted to solve the problem, we could; it’s just that it would require everybody saying, ‘this is important; this is significant.’ And, that we don’t just pay attention to these communities when a CVS burns, and we don’t just pay attention when a young man gets shot or has his spine snapped, but we’re paying attention all the time because we consider those kids our kids.” —President Obama on the situation in Baltimore

__________________________________________

There were three essential questions for this lesson: Who "gave" freedom to enslaved Americans? Did freedom come from above or below? To what extent were Abraham Lincoln's actions influenced by the actions of enslaved Americans? The first thing we did to go about answering these questions was looking at image of Lincoln "giving" freedom to an enslaved man. Then we defined "from above" and "from below" by looking at a social pyramid, and inferring where different people in 19th century America would fit in this pyramid. Next we analyzed different documents. We looked at several written by Lincoln: the Open Letter to Horace Greeley 1862, the Emancipation Proclamation 1863, the Gettysburg Address 1863, and his 2nd Inaugural Address 1865. We also looked at two that were not written by Lincoln: a Letter from General Ambrose E. Burnside to Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton 1862, and an engraving of slaves leaving the plantation of Jefferson Davis 1863. Then we examined a second image of slaves getting freed as compared to the first a statue with Abraham Lincoln, this time it was a statue of slaves helping themselves. This was a depiction of slaves helping themselves from the bottom of the social pyramid. 

Freedom finally occurred with the addition of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, an action made by "above" people. However, I believe there is the chance slavery might not have been abolished at that time if not for the actions of the slaves themselves. Change usually occurs when people from the bottom make a loud enough fuss that the above feels they need to react by changing their ways. In the letter from General Ambrose E. Burnside to the Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton, written on March 21, 1862, Burnside writes, "...after the enemy & citizens fled from the town, were committed by the negroes, before our troops reached the city...the city is being overrun with fugitives from surrounding towns and plantations...” This letter is an example of freedom from the bottom being effective. The slaves want little else but to be free, so they draw attention to themselves. Soon after that, the Secretary of War (a man with a high position in government) is being notified by a General. By drawing attention to themselves, the slaves forced the Union government to act on their behalf. This, and actions like it are what eventually led to the passing of the 13th Amendment, freeing all slaves in the United States of America.

If no fuss is made, no attention is drawn to the real problem. During this time, everyone seemed to be pretending that the Civil War was about preventing succession and not at all related to slavery. Abraham Lincoln admits this in his Second Inaugural Address in 1865. "One eighth of the whole population was colored slaves...These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than restrict the territorial enlargement of it." This statement, almost an apology from President Lincoln for skirting the truth before, clues in anyone that was, at this late stage of the war, still clueless. One important thing to learn is that the Government is no good at changing for the better on its own. It is the people who notice and are affected by a problem who are capable of instigating change. Then it is up to the government to listen and respond in favor of these people, granting them what they fought for, and ending the need to fight.

http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/peds/description_of_strat.htm

Sometimes, change comes after someone gets hurt. My mother has notices more attempts at making the crosswalks on Main Street safer now that someone was recently struck by a car. Other times, even after someone is hurt or killed, the government remains unresponsive. Most recently in Baltimore with poor Freddie Gray, died after being arrested under questionable circumstances.  These “protests from below" that have started in Baltimore after this death, are calling for an acknowledgement and end of police brutality. The protesters are in a position where they feel the most effective way to change unfair police brutality is by acting violently themselves. By destroying things they cannot be ignored by the government or the media. The obvious motive for these protestors is the hope that the government will make some kind of change to prevent unjustified deaths like this in the future. These people are speaking out against unfair targeting by local police. Progress starts from the people. In the quote from Obama that began this post, he points out it does not have to be this way. However, the government is not known for going out of its way to fix something that affects the bottom of the pyramid without first anyone in the bottom coming forward and asking for change. In most cases the cry for help must be extremely loud to have any chance at procuring even a little change.   

http://www.newsweek.com/photos-baltimore-riots-freddie-gray-325873


Works Cited 

Graham, David A. The Mysterious Death of Freddie Gray, April 22, 2015. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-mysterious-death-of-freddie-gray/391119/

Lincoln, Abraham. President Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865 (Excerpts) 

http://www.edline.net/files/_DMF17_/2a87c9edb0c248bf3745a49013852ec4/Freedom_from_Above_or_Below_Documents.pdf

Reprinted in Berlin, Ira, Barbara Fields, Steven Miller, Joseph P. Reidy, and Leslie S. Rowland, eds. Free At Last: A Documentary History of Slavery, Freedom and the Civil War. New York: New Press, 1992, pp. 34–35.

Civil War Scavenging

There were two essential questions to go along with the Civil War Scavenger Hunt lesson: Who was the ultimate victor in each theater of the war: East, West, and Naval? and, what are some commonalities you can identify in the reasons for the results of the battle? To start the hunt, each person in class was assigned a different battle in the Civil War; I got the Second Battle of Manassas. Then we were told to make a Google Doc with a rundown of our battles. After that we each printed out a QR code that linked to our battle information. The next day we all hung up our QR codes around the school and we began the hunt. We had a day and a half to run around the school.

The distinct victor in the Naval Theater was the Union. This is because the United States of America had a much more developed military navy than the Confederate States of America, which had only been established just before the breakout of the war. The battles of Fort Henry and Baton Rouge were examples of Union victories in the Naval Theater. The Confederates were the victors in the Eastern Theater. Their "winning" tactic was causing a lot of damage to the Union army in a short time. This way, the Confederates went away with a smaller number of casualties than the Union. The Second Battle of Manassas and the Battle of Fredericksburg are two battles in the East in which the Confederates display these tactics. The Western theater was dominated by the Union. In this theater the number of Union soldiers greatly outnumbered the number of Confederate soldiers and the Union was armed with better resources and superior strategy. The Battles of Vicksburg and Chattanooga are examples of Union victories in the Eastern theater. My entire class shared their voice on this subject on the Padlet below.

Created with Padlet

For the most part I enjoyed the scavenger hunt because it is difficult not to have fun when wandering around the school. It was refreshing to be learning at your own pace. What was lacking for me was a sense of closure, because I did not have time to finish the hunt. I think that it would have been easier to finish if the consecutive QR codes had been hung up relatively closer to one another. Instead of for example having 2, 9, and 14 on the fourth floor, it would have been kinder to the scavenger if 13-15 had been on the fourth floor. At the same time, that might take some of the fun out of it. Having the freedom to choose where to place my battle was one of the things that made the scavenger hunt enjoyable. Overall, the scavenger hunting was a pleasant way to spend the morning. 

The Beginning of War

In the American Presidential Election of 1860, when the votes came in, the divisions between North and South were evident in the way the states voted. My class explored deeper into this topic, as displayed by the video bellow. To introduce this lesson, we watched a Crash Course video by John Green. Next we looked at a map depicting the election results and figured out why certain places wanted certain men to be president. Then we explored the website Civil War in Art to learn about the other events that led up to the Civil War. With this information, and the pictures on the website and some other pictures we found, we created our video explaining these events on Educreations. 

Works Cited 

"Causes of the War." The Civil War in Art : Teaching & Learning Through Chicago Collections. Accessed March 19, 2015.

Pictography

Bombardment of Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, 1861, Currier and Ives, Lithograph, 10 x 14 in., Chicago History Museum, Gift of Charles B. Pike, ICHi- 22041. http://www.civilwarinart.org/archive/fullsize/a54ed8277f9a6e2e046b74109784ccc0.jpg

"DredScott", Louis Schultze. Original image New source. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/DredScott.jpg

Fugitive Slave Law, East Tennessee State University, http://www.etsu.edu/cas/tahg/pictures/CivilWar/Images/FugitiveSlaveLawBroadside.jpg 

Our Banner in the Sky, 1861, Frederic Edwin Church, Oil paint over photomechanically produced lithograph, 7 1/2 x 11 3/8 in., Terra Foundation for American Art, Daniel J. Terra Collection, 1992.27.  http://www.civilwarinart.org/archive/fullsize/a8fab6c309064177439d618d021bab58.jpg 

“The Harper's Ferry Insurrection” November 18, 1859, Martin L. Lawrence, Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper. No. 207 Vol. 8, Engraving from photograph, Oversize A 5 .34 Vol. 8, Newberry Library. http://www.civilwarinart.org/archive/fullsize/ee1b655e87126a5801cbcacd5be40af9.jpg 

“The Seceding South Carolina Delegation” December 22, 1860, Mathew Brady, Page 801, Harper's Weekly: A Journal of Civilization Vol.4 No.208, Engraving from Photograph, Folio A 5 .392 Vol. 4, Newberry Library. http://www.civilwarinart.org/archive/fullsize/a291ecd5376f8105b1c5f1b914a96312.jp

Civil Military Strategy

I chose to start with the information on the factories and then move on to railroads because the factories make what is in the railroad cars. Knowing about the factories aids in the understanding of why railroads were an important asset. After I had done that, I realized my infogram was completely lacking Southern advantages so I decided to have the last section before Military Strategy dedicated to cotton. Cotton was, in my opinion, the South’s greatest advantage.  Cotton's importance to the Southerners is fully understood when looking at their military strategy--a fundamental part of which is cotton. What I enjoyed about making the infogram was combining information from different sources. That way, it seemed like I was sure to be getting more of the bigger picture and not just a single idea of what was going on. Lots of things need to be taken into account on both sides, Union and Confederate, to truly see who had the advantage in the Civil War.

Bloody Foreshadowing

The question for this lesson: How do we know the debate over slavery was the "elephant in the room" for American politics in the early 19th century? To find the answer, this entire past week we have been working on a timeline of events leading up to the American Civil War. The information from the timeline came from several places: a primary source in the form of a song, our textbook, and different websites. The timelines start with the Compromise of 1850 and go through several pro-slavery and anti-slavery events up to John Brown’s raid of the federal arsenal in Harper’s Ferry, Virginia in 1859.
Though few wanted to bring up the topic of slavery, it was lurking in the background for much of early 1800s American politics.

With the Missouri Compromise of 1820, slavery was at the forefront of a political decision.  When Maine wished to enter the nation as a free state, it was one of the first signs that the pro-slavery/anti-slavery system the United States had would soon threaten their unitedness. Maine entering as a free state would disrupt the equal balance of the Senate-- 20 pro-slavery Senators and 20 anti-slavery-- making it 22 anti to 20 pro. To fix this dilemma, Missouri entered as a slave state, but still, not everyone was satisfied. Missouri seemed like an omen to many Northerners who wanted slavery to stay as far south as possible. Many northerners felt slavery was too close for comfort, so the Missouri Compromise resulted in the drawing of a line at 36°30' parallel. All the states above the line could from then on only be admitted as free.

http://socialstudieswithasmile.com/Kensasnebraskaact.html 

This simple creation of the Missouri Compromise line proved that it could be removed as suddenly as it came. Thirty-four years after its creation, with the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the Missouri Compromise line was no more. The new idea, instead of trying to keep the Senate equal was popular sovereignty, or letting the people in the territory vote on allowing slavery or not. This would possibly give way to slave states above the Missouri Compromise line. Prior to the passing of this act, a Transcontinental Railroad was being looked into. With this railroad that would pass through Stephen Douglas’ hometown of Chicago, IL and a lot of other Northern states, it would be easy for the Northerners to shuttle in people against slavery to sway the votes the way they wished. This is another instance of an early 19th century example of political decisions being affected by slavery.

With each political act put into effect, the government had to be sure to make both sides of the slavery argument happy, but it was well known after the 1856 Canning of Charles Sumner, that within the government of the “United” States, slavery was something people could get into heated debates over. In a speech called The Crime Against Kansas, delivered to the Senate on May 19^th and 20^th by Charles Sumner, he said, “It [popular sovereignty in Kansas] is the rape of a virgin Territory, compelling it to the hateful embrace of Slavery; and it may be clearly traced to a depraved desire for a new Slave State, hideous offspring of such a crime, in the hope of adding to the power of Slavery in the National Government.”[i] This fiery abolitionist speech, in which Sumner calls out the Senator of South Caroline, Senator Andrew Butler, more than was wise, earned Sumner a beating from Butler’s nephew, Preston Brooks, a day later. This was in the end, though an antislavery man was beaten with a cane, something beneficial for abolitionists. It made people pro-slavery look evil, if they are willing to beat another man over a speech.

Harper's Ferry, August 5th, 2014, Courtesy of John Richards

Another instance of violence is John Brown's raid in 1859 of the Harper’s Ferry federal arsenal. Brown, with a group of 21 men, five of which were African Americans, seized the arsenal hoping to use the weapons to arm slaves and start a massive uprising. However, he and his men were stopped by Col. Robert E. Lee (who was not yet employed by the Confederacy). The troops Lee commanded stopped the raid, killing half of John Brown’s men, including two of his own sons. After this, John Brown was hanged, convicted of treason. His story, however, does not end there. Northerners applauded his actions, and Julia Ward Howe even wrote a song about him.

“He captured Harper's Ferry with his nineteen* men so true,

He frightened old Virginia till she trembled through and through,

They hung him for a traitor, but themselves the traitor crew,

His soul is marching on.”[ii]

John Brown's Fort, August 5th, 2014, Courtesy of John Richards

Though without lyrics, this tune, congratulating John Brown, is still preformed today under the name of The Battle Hymn of the Republic. Slavery was always affecting political decisions in the early 1800s, whether the politicians realized it or not. This great disagreement threatened to tear the country apart, and that’s just what it did.

*Maybe nineteen fit better than twenty-one in the rhythm of the song?

---

[i] “The Crime Against Kansas: The Apologies for the crime; The True Remedy” Charles Sumner, speech delivered to the United States Senate, 19-20 May 1856, from The Works of Charles Sumner, vol. IV (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1870-1873), pages 125-249.

http://www.edline.net/files/_BWH0Y_/bec3f3c203c0dd623745a49013852ec4/The_Crime_Against_Kansas.pdf   

[ii] “John Brown’s Body,” Best Loved Songs of The American People, Edited by Denes Agay, Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New York, 1975. http://www.edline.net/files/_BWH6Y_/34d057293fe602533745a49013852ec4/John_Browns_Body_Lyrics.pdf