Discrimination against Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans

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?

       For the last few weeks of school, the class has adapted to a new procedure than that of our usual.  It begins with someone creating a Google Doc and then sharing it with everyone in the class.  Then we create an essential question, analyze the given primary and secondary sources on the topic, and watch videos.  All the while we take notes on our assigned section for everyone to then learn the information.  

      We began last week with learning about the Buffalo soldiers and Native Americans who were discriminated against greatly.  The government thought that it would be best to allow Americans to expand westward into Native American territory, enforcing them to evacuate by using total war tactics against them.  Also, Shaman flooded the area with troops in attempt to wipe the remaining Native Americans out.  This meant that they had to leave their homes where they had lived their entire lives in comfort and tradition to go farther west and into other unknown territories.  




                                     
Image of the Buffalo soldiers.   http://www.buffalosoldiersw.com/id7.html





      After this arrangement of forcing them out of their territories, new laws were enforced upon the Native Americans and Buffalo soldiers.  Carlyle schools were created to educate the Native Americans and Indians were encouraged to leave behind their roots and to blend in with the Americans.  Everybody believed that the Natives should be assimilated into society.  The Native American's land was split up and sold for use.  

     The discrimination toward the buffalo soldiers and Native Americans was intentional because the white settlers and government knew that "assimilating" an entire ethnicity of people and their way of life was wrong, but proceeded to do so.  They did this because they wanted everyone to be the same and for there to not be any differences.  Also, because they wanted to extend the boundaries for more civilization and make use of the land for themselves.


    

Essential Question: Were Carnegie and Rockefeller robber barons or captains of industry?

To learn about Carnegie and Rockefeller's roles in the 19th century of America, we began class differently than our usual process. The class was broken up into the small separate groups and we all had to create an essential question together and then get it approved by Mrs. Gallagher. This was very interesting because normally we are given the essential question upon introduction of the unit. We came to find that the definitions of the terms mentioned in the essential question were... a.) Robber Baron- seen as corrupt, unsportsmanlike, bribed government officials, bought out or destroyed rivals, created giant monopolies and trusts, citizens had a love hate relationship with them, and b.) Captains of Industry-business leaders.  

This is an image of Carnegie and Rockefeller.

http://sites.psu.edu/rcldiacont/2013/09/20/billionaire-anomalies-the-robber-barons/

Next, as a class we viewed the multiple ABC-Clio videos to provide us with information on the two men and their roles during the 19th century. Each group had the responsibility of taking notes on a certain topic that was frequently mentioned throughout the videos. These topics include main ideas, key people, important events/key dates, and essential terms. As a class, we created a google doc with everyone on it to share our notes. This made it easier for everyone to enjoy the videos and learn all of the information without having to scramble down all sorts of notes the whole time.

After gathering all of the evidence and information on Carnegie and Rockefeller, it seems most appropriate to remember them as captains of industry. They both made tons of accomplishments that helped America to grow. For instance, Andrew Carnegie built hundreds of libraries which helped to educate the public and offer different sources for people to read. He was also known for his huge production of steel in the U.S. which was very important since steel was so widely used. Carnegie used vertical integration which controlled transportation, manufacturing and sales. All of these things helped to rebuild America which makes Carnegie a captain of industry.

Rockefeller was also a captain of industry for similar reasons to Carnegie. Rockefeller had a standard oil company and with this he helped to advance the economy by buying rival companies. He also helped the consumer and supported education. Both of these men helped improve America economically and industrially which made them captains of industry, not robber barons.

From Whom Did Freedom Come From?

The essential question: 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 American's

     In class, we focused on the essential question and deciding whether freedom given to the enslaved Americans came from above or below.   We also focused on Abraham Lincoln's actions and how they were influenced by the enslaved American's.  To better our understanding on the subject, we began by looking at an image of Abraham Lincoln freeing an enslaved man.

'Freedom to the Slaves'
http://www.edline.net/files/_DMF3y_/abfc09536fdb31443745a49013852ec4/Freedom_to_the_Slaves.jpg


  We then discussed what a social pyramid is and what it means for freedom to come from above or below.  Next, everyone looked at either Document X(letter from General Ambrose E. Burnside to Secretary of War Edwin M Stanton) or Document Y(the engraving).  These documents provided different examples of the actions the slaves were taking and how people reacted to them.  Lastly, we watched the Ken Burns Civil War Clips which described how the fugitive slaves began following the Union Army and Lincoln's actions that made differences and those that didn't.

   For example, in Document X, General Ambrose E. Burnside describes how all of the slaves from nearby plantations are looting the town that Burnside and his men took over.  He and his men were very anxious because there was such a large amount of  "fugitive"slaves whose behavior was wildly inappropriate since they were taking things from the residences and hiding from their overseers.  In this case the freedom comes from below since the slaves took action by escaping their plantations and looting the towns.

  Next, in the engraving, the slaves from Jefferson Davis' slaves just up and left his plantation and went to the bayou because they knew that the Union soldiers would be there and that they would provide protection. This is yet another instance of freedom from below since the slaves made the clever decision to not only escape their plantation but to run somewhere that they would be surely safe.


Engraving, “Slaves from the plantation of Confederate President Jefferson Davis arrive at Chickasaw Bayou, Mississippi,” 1863
 http://www.edline.net/files/_DMF2g_/25617cd6768f5fcd3745a49013852ec4/Docs_XY_Above__Below.pdf

  In life today, the freedom coming from either above or below is still an issue.  There are so many examples that could be said to describe how unjust society is today in certain aspects.  For example, there have been numerous instances in this past year such as the one in South Carolina where a colored man was killed on the spot /violently dealt with for no valid reason by a white officer.  Also, a recent popular topic is the Bruce Jenner gender change.  There was just an interview on Bruce Jenner where he told millions of people about the struggles he faced before he came out about being a woman and the horrible ways he is being treated by the public now.  He stated how it was impossible to get out of his home without the paparazzi snapping photos of his every move and harassing him about his gender identity.  These are just a few instances that show there really isn't any total freedom in the world today especially because of racism and gender identity acceptance.





  

Civil War Battle Scavenger Hunt

Essential Questions: Who was the ultimate victor in each of the theaters of war: East, West, Naval?
What are some commonalities you can identify in the reasons for the results of the battles?

    To begin our research on the different battles within the Civil War, we each received one of the twenty battle descriptions.  Then, we had to find out key information for our assigned battle such as the victor, image, theater, date/place, and two bullets explaining the results of each battle.  Next, we created Google docs that can be shared and QR codes.  Our next step in the process was to discuss with the class where our battles will be placed throughout the school.  Finally, we were able to proceed with the scavenger hunt!

After completing the scavenger hunt over the course of two class periods, we all got together using Padlet to share our thoughts on the main victors of each theater.

Created with Padlet

Referring back to the essential question, there were clear victors in each of the theaters.  In the Western theater, the clear victor was the Union army because it had more access to supplies and a larger army than that of the Confederates.  Next, in the Eastern theater, the ultimate victor was not as clear as in the Western theater.  The Union army won many of the battles but so did the Confederates.  This was mainly because of the casualties on both sides.  Also, both sides had different strategies that were effective such as the ambushes by the Confederates and the cutting of railroads by the Union army.  Lastly, the Union army was the victor of the Naval theater because they had more supplies, men and a more organized navy. Overall, the Union army was the victor of both the Western and Naval theaters but the victor of the Eastern theater is unclear.

For example, at the Battle of Fort Henry, the Union army was victor due to the strong, organized navy.

Image.  Civilwartalk.com  

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/153-years-ago-this-friday-civil-war-battle-of-fort-henry.109216/

Different commonalities among the results of the battles are easy to tell for the Western and Naval theaters since the Union army was the victor in both.  The Union army was much larger, had more access to supplies due to all of the railroads close by.  These advantages clearly helped them defeat the Confederate army in both the Western and Naval theaters.  In the Eastern theater, the commonalities are not as constant.  The Confederate army often had not enough men but they had good military strategies.  Likewise, the Union army had good strategies.  Both armies had many casualties which weakened them at certain points.  

Election of 1860 and the Secession that followed

Essential Question: How were the results of the election of 1860 representative of the deep divisions over slavery?

     The essential question has to do with the secession of states due to the election of 1860.  We learned how election impacted the secession by looking at the Civil War in Art and reading the information provided with the artwork.  Then in pairs we created videos on the Educreation app to demonstrate our knowledge on the topic.  There were deep divisions over slavery and the results of the election show this because lots of states in the South were pro-slavery states while the ones in the North were totally against slavery.  The North obviously voted for Lincoln who was against slavery.  Meanwhile, Breckenridge, a Southern democrat who believed there were no limits on slavery obviously gained the votes from the Southerners who wanted to preserve slavery.  

This map shows the states that seceded and those that chose not to.  The states colored in yellow (Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia etc.) did not secede.  The states in the North colored in blue were all of the free states and in the South the states colored in red were the states that chose to secede.  The election of 1860 really caused a secession between the United States!

Here is the video my partner and I created:







The Civil War in Art.  http://www.civilwarinart.org/exhibits/show/causes/introduction/the-election-of-1860-and-seces

https://www.educreations.com/lesson/view/election/30122505/?s=S4CQ5U

North vs. South: Strategies and Successes in the Civil War

sUCCESS IN CIVIL WAR: dIFFERENCES BETWEEN NORTH AND SOUTH | Create infographics

There were many aspects of the North and South that caused their strategies to differ in beginning of the Civil War. Some of the most obvious ones were the difference in population and infrastructure. The North had a much greater population (21.5 million) than the South ( 9 million). Also, the North had twice as many railroads as the South which made the movement of supplies, food, and troops easy. Both the population size and the advanced infrastructure were two advantages the North had over the South. The North also had more money and was able to sustain its economy. I created graphs and used the fact and figures option to display these facts visually on my infogram. I chose these facts to be in my infogram because they showed how many advantages the North had over the South. Although the South had some advantages like having most of the nation's trained officers, it still wasn't enough for them to beat the North. This activity helped me understand the situations faced by the Union and Confederacy at the beginning of the war because both the North and South had may differences and advantages over each other.

Slavery is the Elephant in the Room

 

Slavery is the Elephant in the Room!

      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?  The phrase "elephant in the room" means that an obvious truth is either not being addressed or is being ignored.  The obvious truth is that slavery is wrong in every way possible.  The politics and many others refused to accept this and instead were debating over which states would be free states and which states would be slave states.  They didn't spend any time trying to end slavery which is what clearly should have happened because they were so absorbed in the naming of states.  In class, to better our understanding of the matter, we looked at evidence for different events that had occurred during the 19th century involving slavery.  We then created a timeline to complete the activity which made all of the events easier to look at since they were all laid out together in order of occurrence.     

These are the timelines I created!

One of the first instances during the 19th century where slavery was the "elephant in the room" was in the Compromise of 1850.  The Compromise was created due to several points that were at issue.  A quote, "The United States had recently acquired a vast territory -- the result of its war with Mexico. Should the territory allow slavery, or should it be declared free? Or maybe the inhabitants should be allowed to choose for themselves? ".  This is just one of the points that shows how utterly inhumane the people were because all they cared about was whether the states were "free" or "slave-states".  None of these points had anything to do with slavery being wrong or the fact that it should be abolished.

  Next, in the crime against Kansas speech, Sumner stated strongly what his beliefs were on slavery.  He stated, "It 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."  Although Sumner clearly showed in this excerpt and throughout the whole speech that slavery was wrong, not everyone listened.  The government still only cared about naming the states as either free states or slave states.  This shows how slavery was the "elephant in the room" because Sumner had the audacity to say it in front of so many people at his speech but the government still didn't care change its current ways.  

Another instance where slavery is the "elephant in the room" is the Dred Scott decision.  Dred Scott was a Missouri slave who traveled in the north with his slave owner who was elderly and sick.  When Scott's slave owner died, he argued that he and his wife Harriet were now free because they were in the north free states.  This case got so big that it was brought to trial.  In the end, SCOTUS ruled 7-2 against the Scott's.  There were then three effects of the Dred Scott decision on the slavery debate.  First, slaves were unable to sue in court since they technically were not citizens.  Next, enslaved people could not win freedom simply by living in a free state or territory.  Lastly, the Missouri Compromise was ruled unconstitutional and all territories were opened to slavery. The Dred Scott decision clearly ignores the fact or realizing that slavery in itself was completely wrong and instead SCOTUS focused on how "wrong" it was that an enslaved man and woman wanted freedom since they were in the free states.  

Newspaper article focusing on the Dred Scott decision.

Lastly,  John Brown's raid depicts an event that was planned in the hopes of ending slavery but was instead put to an end by the U.S. troops.  On October 16, 1859, Brown and 21 men including 5 African Americans attacked the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry, Virginia.  They hoped to seize weapons from the arsenal so they could supply the slaves for the rebellion.  Brown claimed he had a dream of an uprising of enslaved Americans that would end slaver, punish slave holders, an lead the United States to moral renewal.  The U.S. troops put an end to it violently and Brown was sentenced to being hanged.  This is an example of someone standing up for what they believed was wrong and being hanged for it.  Brown knew slavery was wrong but no one else was willing to accept it or doing something like he did.

            John Brown 

   In conclusion, slavery was the "elephant in the room" for American politics in the early 19th century.  Based on all of the evidence that was analyzed, slavery clearly was being ignored in all of the issues.  The main focus seemed to be whether the states were declared "free" or "slave states."  Even when John Brown acted out in hopes to ending slavery, the U.S. troops immediately put an end to it and he was hanged!  Politics really ignored the fact that slavery was wrong and needed to be abolished which is why slavery was definitely the "elephant in the room" during the 19th century.  

Citations: 

Dred Scott, image, class notes, edline.net   http://www.edline.net/files/_BYIYQ_/a95c65dcd7b8c02c3745a49013852ec4/Elephant_in_the_Room_Lesson.pdf

John Brown, image, class notes, edline.net   http://www.edline.net/files/_BYIYQ_/a95c65dcd7b8c02c3745a49013852ec4/Elephant_in_the_Room_Lesson.pdf

SOURCE: The Works of Charles Sumner, vol. IV (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1870- 1873), pages 125-249.

The Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Act, website article, www.pbs.org  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html