U.S. Government vs. Buffalo Soldiers vs. Native Americans

This week, continuing the plan we began with our last unit on Carnegie and Rockefeller, we learned about Buffalo Soldiers and their role involving Native Americans. In order to do this, we first watched videos that introduced us to major ideas, subjects and events of this period. Then, we read several primary and secondary sources relating to the topic. Then, as a class, we created the essential question: Was the discrimination that the Buffalo soldiers and Native Americans faced intentional or did the White settlers and federal government actually believe that what they were doing was just? While they may have thought their treatment of the Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans was just, the federal government treated the two minority groups as if they were inferior and behaved towards them in a degrading manner.

Buffalo Soldiers, black Americans coming off of the civil war, were not treated in the same way as their white peers; even so, the U.S. government still believed this treatment was just. By joining the army in their fight against Native Americans, they were simply avoiding the fate of sharecropping, in which they would be put back into a situation similar to slavery. However, being a Buffalo Soldier was not a whole lot better. In addition to completing their duties as soldiers, they also were forced to lay out electric line as well as cut out the path for other troops. The soldiers were also not highly valued. Though there name comes partly from their “very aggressive and successful” natures, they were often put in dangerous situations, being greatly outnumbered by the Native Americans they were fighting. The U.S. may have thought they were being fair by creating 6 regiments of soldiers and providing them with food, work and shelter. However, there were too many things working against Buffalo Soldiers to truly call their treatment “just”.

Timeline of Events

Native Americans were also discriminated against by the U.S. Government, though for very different reasons than for those whom they were fighting. After the civil war, Americans flooded into the Great Plains, in the search for both gold and new settlements. What they did not think about prior to this, however, was the fact that Native Americans had been living in these places longer than even the first English settlements. Therefore, they decided that to rid themselves of this problem, they would exterminate the tribes that were in their way. To do this, the government implemented the strategy of total war. Their goal was to attack the buffalo and horses, and deplete their food and clothing supply. Then, they would attack the actual people along with their homes. Obviously, the Native Americans did not take kindly to this, and decided to fight back. In response to this, the United States decided to offer the land west of the Missouri River in exchange for their consent to stop fighting. Additionally, the Dawes Act tried to promote an assimilation of Native American and United States culture. However, no matter how much the government attempted to make the situation just, it simply wasn’t. All the Native Americans wanted was for things to continue the way they had for so long, but they were ultimately kicked out of their homes and forced to abide by U.S. Law.

Rockefeller Barons and Carnegies of Industry?

In class recently, we have decided to take an unorthodox approach in preparing for finals week. Instead of taking a teacher made test or writing essays, we will be making the final ourselves. In order to do this, each week there will be a newly assigned topic introduced. With this topic, we will first watch introductory videos, then read both primary and secondary sources. After gaining a firm understanding, we will make an essential question for the unit to be answered in a blog post. Then, we will make 40 multiple choice questions based on the topic to be put onto the final. This week, the topic we learned about was Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller with the essential question: Were Carnegie and Rockefeller robber barons or captains of industry? Overall, while the lines may be somewhat blurred, it is fair to say that both had a fairly positive impact and should be considered captains of industry. 

While robber barons are seen as corrupt and greedy in creating monopolies and not caring about the consumer, captains of industry are viewed as positively advancing the economy. Carnegie and Rockefeller both did a lot to push forward their economy, and were part of a period of industrial growth from the years 1865-1900. Undoubtedly, both were of exorbitant wealth; Rockefeller peaked at $900 million, which was more than the entire federal budget, while Carnegie made $480 million in the sale of his steel company, a deal worth $310 billion today. Even so, the fact that they are captains of industry does not solely refer to their affluence, but also how they used/what they did with what they earned. Under leadership from Rockefeller, the oil industry made great bounds, as did the steel industry with Carnegie. Additionally, the two helped struggling consumers as Rockefeller lowered oil costs and Carnegie developed a process for higher quality steel at lower cost. Also, on a separate note, both were very charitable individuals; Rockefeller donated millions of dollars to the advancement of education and the sciences while Carnegie also funded education as well as libraries. Even with all of these positive qualities, however, the two were not without a few downfalls. Rockefeller was suspected of using illegal tactics and immoral business practices, such as bribing politicians. Carnegie, on the other hand, invested the majority of his fortune in the production of steel during the depression of the 1890’s; instead, he could have invested in people and other things that would have helped the growing depression. Nonetheless, these are simply a few small flaws among many great actions and honorable decisions made by these businessmen, and they shouldn’t discount the good deeds they committed or hurt their respectable images.

In today’s world, perhaps the most similar person to Rockefeller or Carnegie is the current richest person in the world, Bill Gates. As the founder of Microsoft, Gates has a net worth of $79.2 billion; while this pales in comparison to the earnings of Carnegie or Rockefeller, it is much more difficult to earn those (adjusted) numbers in modern times. Anyhow, Gates should also be considered a captain of industry rather than a robber baron. He is an extremely charitable individual who contributes to the fights against diseases of all forms, from malaria to STDs. In his lifetime, he has donated a whopping total of over $36 billion. Like Carnegie and Rockefeller had, Gates uses his money to make good change rather than bad.

Freedom From Multiple Directions

Recently in class, we have been learning about power from above and below, in relation to the topic of slavery. The first thing we did in this lesson was look at an image called “Freedom to the Slaves”. In this image, which can be seen to the right, shows Lincoln granting a slave freedom. However, in analyzing the image, it became clear that it was not necessarily the most trustworthy and/or realistic. Due to being enslaved for so many years, a slave would not have been so grateful to Lincoln after being freed; instead, one would’ve probably been filled with anger wondering why this change took so long to occur. After looking at this image, we defined the terms "from above" and "from below", along with what makes the terms different from each other. Then, we examined four documents (Lincoln's Open Letter to Horace Greeley, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Gettysburg Address, and Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address), and in each of these documents, we found one quote for each of the following: Goal of War, Lincoln's Position on Freeing Slaves and Evidence of Lincoln's Personal Feelings on Slavery. After doing this we looked at Documents X & Y, and analyzed them as well. Then, with all of the information collected during the lesson, we categorized each of the sources as being evidence for either evidence from above or below. Freedom from above was exhibited in the Emancipation Proclamation, the Gettysburg Address, and Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address, while freedom from below was shown in Documents X & Y. The sole document that does not fit into a category is Lincoln's Open Letter to Horace Greeley.

Lincoln’s open letter to Horace Greeley, written early on in the war, exhibits neither freedom from above nor below. In fact, the document itself is not entirely about slavery, focusing more upon the union and what it needed for success. In the letter, Lincoln writes, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.” By writing this, Lincoln shows that at this time, freeing slaves was not of the highest importance in his mind. The thing that he wanted most was simply a better future for the union, which at that time may or may not have been dependent on the emancipation of slaves.

Many of the other Lincoln documents exhibited freedom from above. These showed Lincoln, as well as others with power over the country, as those who gave freedom. The image mentioned above shows this, because Lincoln himself is shown freeing slaves from their chains and giving them freedom. In addition to the image, Lincoln also gave many speeches (given after his open letter) in which he presented himself as wanting to free slaves. In the Emancipation Proclamation Lincoln stated, “all persons held as slaves within any state or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free”. In addition to this, he also said the freeing of slaves was “an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity”. This clearly shows both Lincoln’s drive to free slaves as well as his belief that this was important to the country as a whole. The Gettysburg Address had Lincoln proclaiming that, “Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.” While this again shows Lincoln’s belief that the freedom of slaves would strengthen the country, he also said that “The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract”. By saying this, Lincoln argues that the abolishment of slavery is a just cause, and that those who fight for this cause are brave and honorable. Lastly, in his second inaugural speech, Lincoln stated, “These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war”. In this, Lincoln directly acknowledges that the war’s true center was slavery, and that the abolition of slaves was the main goal. Though his feelings changed over time, Lincoln’s eventual view was that slavery should be abolished.

Freedom from below is the opposite circumstance of freedom from above; instead of the freedom coming down from those with power, freedom is fought for by those who seek it. Document X, which is a letter from General Burnside, shows panic caused by slaves fighting back. In the letter, it is written that “They seemed to be wild with excitement and delight— they are now a source of very great anxiety to us; the city is being overrun with fugitives from surrounding towns and plantations”. Due to taking matters into their own hands, the slaves were able to push themselves forward in the fight for freedom, rather than waiting for an executive to do something about their situation. Document Y, which can be seen to the top right, shows slaves that have left their plantation in order to meet with union soldiers. Again, the slaves are fighting for themselves, and their own freedom, rather than waiting for someone else to come up with a solution to their problem.

In all, freedom to the slaves came mostly from above. Without Lincoln’s help, no true advances could be made in the fight for freedom. Both forms did exist, but Lincoln’s involvement had the most impact. Also, power coming from above and below is still a topic which is relevant today. The riots occurring in Baltimore bring attention to a significant issue in today’s world: police brutality,

and the question of how far is too far. This is definitely an example of power coming from below, as those who are feeling oppressed are fighting back in order to be heard and make a difference. In other news of late, Bruce Jenner recently came out as transgender. Due to being such a high profile television personality, Bruce was able to present his story in front of many who were unfamiliar with this subject before, bringing awareness to a topic that few had really known much about. In a way, he has become a voice for an entire community, and has become an example of power coming from above.

Sources:
http://www.edline.net/files/_DMF17_/2238431140fb386a3745a49013852ec4/Freedom_from_Above_or_Below_Documents.pdf

http://www.edline.net/files/_DMF2g_/25617cd6768f5fcd3745a49013852ec4/Docs_XY_Above__Below.pdf

http://www.edline.net/files/_DMF3y_/abfc09536fdb31443745a49013852ec4/Freedom_to_the_Slaves.jpg
http://www.ibtimes.com/baltimore-riots-2015-city-residents-struggle-under-poverty-income-inequality-mass-1899732

Scavenging a Hunt Through the Civil War

QR Code to Google Doc

Google Doc

The civil war consisted of many bloody battles, which were able to sway the momentum and give both the north and south the upper hand at different points. Due to their importance, our class recently completed a scavenger hunt with them. In order to do this, each student in the class was assigned one of 20 important battles of the civil war. With this battle, each was supposed to record the battle name, place, date, victor, and theater (east, west, or naval), along with the main reasons for the outcome of the battle. With this Google Doc, we created a QR Code (with a bit.ly) and placed them around the school, numbered 1-20. Each QR Code had instructions to the next, thus creating a sort of “hunt”. After completing the hunt and examining the data, it became clear that there were certain trends regarding the victor of the battles (either the union or confederacy) and the theater in which the battles took place (east, west or naval). These trends were put on a Padlet (shown below). In the end, a conclusion can be made that the confederacy were the ultimate victors of the east while the union dominated the western and naval battles.

The ultimate victor of the western battles was the union, mainly due to having a larger army. In the Battle of Shiloh, the confederacy was simply overwhelmed by the numbers that the union had. After the initial attack by the union, the confederacy launched a fairly successful counterattack, but the many waves of union soldiers stopped the confederacy from causing too much damage. Additionally, in the Battle of Vicksburg, the Confederate chief’s sole choice was to retreat from battle after suffering 29,491 casualties and not being able to keep up with the union’s size. In all, the confederacy could not keep up with the union, not by lack of strategy, but simply by lack of soldiers.

In addition to the west, the union also dominated in the naval battles of the civil war. This can be attributed to the fact that the union had an advantage in being the aggressors as well as poor confederate defense and preparation. The Battle of Fort Henry had the confederacy running out of ammunition, and many of the soldiers were fresh recruits with little training. Also, the location of the fort was poor, due to being very exposed as well as on low ground. In addition to the Battle of Fort Henry, the Surrender of Fort Donelson also involved poor confederate strategy. Instead of deciding to retreat from the fort prior to union attack, General Gideon Pillow put his troops back into their posts. Due to, again, a poor location, the union were able to come out of the battle victorious. Overall, the confederacy was generally dominated by the union in the naval battles due to having to defend from all directions, as well as not having adequate preparation.

Though the western and naval theaters had a clear victor in the union, the victor of the eastern theater is more ambiguous. Either side could have been argued as being more successful in that theater; even so, the confederacy seems to just edge out the union. In the war, the main motivations of the confederacy were to defend, hold their ground, and make sure that the no big changes would occur in the country due to union victory. Because of this, the confederacy were able to achieve their goal in the east. In the second battle of Bull Run, the union was simply overwhelmed by confederate strategy, which consisted of a completely unexpected counterattack. This led to a large loss of union soldiers as well as being held off from their goal. Additionally, the Battle of Fredericksburg also showed the confederacy with a better strategy than that of the union. With poor communication inside the union army, the confederacy were able to create a choke point which led to an easier way to defend their position and, ultimately, victory. Though the confederacy may not have led many attacks in the east, they were still able to defend themselves (unlike the results of the west and navy) through their stronger strategy.

In class, a scavenger hunt was a great way to learn this material. It made the lesson enjoyable and gave a way to learn the material without having to sit in a classroom taking down notes. Creating the Google Doc gave a way to learn the intricacies of your own battle, and finding the others around the school presented many patterns while teaching the material without going into too much detail.

Created with Padlet

A Nation Divided

Pre Civil War, the United States was filled with tension revolving around the topic of slavery. Views on the topic changed by region, which can be seen in the results of the presidential election of 1860. As can be seen in the image to the right, the Northwest and West supported Lincoln, while the South supported Breckinridge. Lincoln was against slavery while Breckinridge believed there should be no laws against slavery. This clearly shows the division of beliefs, from antislavery views in the North to pro-slavery views in the South. Apart from those two candidates, however, Missouri supported Douglas. Missouri would support Douglas because of their geographic proximity to Kansas and Nebraska, with Douglas’ support of popular sovereignty. These people believed in popular sovereignty and wanted to make decisions based on slavery for themselves. Lastly, the border states (Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia) supported Bell. Bell believed in keeping the country the same as it was, with no major changes made to the system. The people of the border states supported this viewpoint because they didn’t want to be in the middle of any fighting between the north and south that would come of attempts to make change.

After learning this information, our class was to make a video about the election and its surrounding events through their primary sources. To do this, we used the site Civil War in Art for research and Educreations to create the actual video, which is below.

Sources:

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/Joseph_Ryan/Articles/Buchanan-Fort-Sumter-1860/James-Buchanan-Fort-Sumter.html

http://www.virginiamemory.com/docs/Scott_family.jpg

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/Joseph_Ryan/150-Year-Anniversary/Election-November-1860/Presidential-Election-November-1860.html

http://www.civilwarinart.org/exhibits/show/causes/introduction/the-election-of-1860-and-seces

http://www.edline.net/files/_CJKPB_/20eb6e3d67b5015b3745a49013852ec4/Election_of_1860_Lesson_Notes.pdf

North v. South at the Dawn of the Civil War

North v. sOUTH AT THE DAWN OF THE CIVIL WAR | Create infographics

With the data above, a conclusion can be made that the northerners were advantageous to southerners heading into the civil war. The first and arguably most important statistic was the total number of people in each region, and the north more than doubled the south. This is a very important statistic due to the need of troops, and a need for help in other areas as well. Also very important were the resources available to both sides. The north greatly overpowered the south in all three of these areas, which were railroad mileage, yearly value of manufactured goods and number of industrial workers. A larger railroad mileage made transportation easier when the north needed supplies or troops, the value of manufactured goods helped with funding while being used against the south, and a larger industry allowed for more workers to produce useful weapons and gunpowder. However, even with all of these benefits, the south had a great advantage on their side as well: slaves. Slave labor produced many of the country’s needs at the time, and could be crucial as the south would have many materials that the north didn’t. Even so, the north’s benefits still far outweighed the south’s, giving them an advantage going into the war.

Sources:

http://www.edline.net/files/_CCBWz_/21e469c533466ada3745a49013852ec4/Strengths_of_the_North_and_the_South_Reading.pdf

http://www.edline.net/files/_CCBWZ_/257d654637b0aff83745a49013852ec4/Slavery_by_the_Numbers.pdf

http://www.edline.net/files/_CDHeg_/849bf0de56cb0eae3745a49013852ec4/Resources_Pie_Charts.pdf

http://www.edline.net/files/_CCBV6_/39d28344c59e45213745a49013852ec4/Railroad_and_Slave_Density_Maps.pdf

The Elephant in the Room

Slavery was a major part in the United States in the early 19th century, and created much tension between the north and south due to differing beliefs regarding the topic. Due to this tension, several events (based in the argument of slavery) occurred leading up to the civil war. In class, we made a timeline of these events, placing those which were anti-slavery above the line and pro-slavery below the line. A conclusion can be made that during this time, slavery was the “elephant in the room”, due to the events which took place and the motivations with which they were fueled.

The Compromise of 1850 was a result of the tension between the north and south regarding slavery, with both sides arguing for their cause and what was viewed as “equal”. The compromise occurred as a result of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, along with the gold rush to California. After the Missouri Compromise balanced the number of slave states and free states, the gold rush complicated matters. Due to its growing population, California requested to become a free state; as there was already a balance between the number of slave and free states, California would only undo what had been done in the past. Due to this, the five-part Compromise of 1850 was created. In the Compromise, there were two portions which were anti-slavery, and three which supported slavery. The first part of the Compromise which opposed slavery stated that the slave trade would be illegal in Washington D.C., while slavery itself would still remain legal. In addition to this, the Compromise also stated that California would be a free state. The first pro-slavery part of the compromise was for Texas to be paid $10 million in exchange for some land, but with this money it would be able to pay off its debt to Mexico. With this, the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Utah would be organized without slavery mentioned. As these territories are in the southwest portion of the country, they would be surrounded with slavery advocates and most likely be influenced by them. The last part of the Compromise was added in order to counteract the imbalance created by the admission of California as a free state; the Fugitive Slave Act. This required the common people to assist in the recovery of fugitive slaves. With this, slaves would not have the rights to a jury trial.

http://www.discoverseaz.com/History/Gadsden.html

A couple years earlier, in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the United States paid $15 million for a region consisting of Nevada, California, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico. Five years later, a much smaller plot of land was purchased for $10 million dollars; this land was known as the Gadsden Purchase. With this land, the U.S. planned to build a transcontinental railroad, which would give those in the south easier access to the west. This event was one which supported slavery due to the location of the railroad. It would make it easier to move slaves, as well as pro-slavery citizens, to the west and new parts of the country.

Four years after the Gadsden Purchase, Dred Scott, an enslaved man living in Missouri, sued his owner. He and his wife Harriet made the argument that they were free, due to previously living in a state in which slavery was illegal. The case made it to the Supreme Court, where a 7-2 ruling was made against the Scotts’. With this ruling came three lasting effects which had a great impact on slaves. One was that slaves could no longer sue in court, due to not being citizens of the country. The second was that slaves could not win freedom by simply moving to or living in a free state or territory, which hurt movements such as the underground railroad which had previously relied on this principle. Lastly, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was ruled unconstitutional. Due to this, slavery was no longer illegal, in any state. The ruling, and the three effects that came of it were all pro-slavery, and hurt slaves’ chances for freedom in the future.

A final event which exhibited the tensions between the north and the south was John Brown’s Raid at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia. John Brown attacked the federal arsenal there, hoping to seize the weapons and give hope to the enslaved that they could rebel against their captors. Brown and his followers had hopes of ending slavery and bringing a moral renewal to the states. However, the raid was unsuccessful, and Brown was hanged because of his role in the attack. With his death, racial tension was further revealed through the reaction to Brown’s death. Northerners hailed Brown as a martyr of justice, while southerners were outraged and denounced him as a criminal who had tried to spark a rebellion.

All of the previously mentioned events were fueled by the racism in the United States at the time; however, the fact that nothing major happened after these events proves that it was not being fully discussed in government for its physical implications and the dangerous things that were happening in society. Because of this, it can be viewed as the “elephant in the room”.