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.