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

Slavery Took Over the 19th Century

One of the causes of the Civil War was the increase in slavery in American Society.  Slavery was huge in the 19th century because the people thought it was necessary in order to have a successful economy.  Although some people opposed slavery, they still used it because they didn't know any other way to run the economy.  

Slavery became entrenched in American society by the early 19th century.  One reason it became so entrenched was because of its mention in the Founders' Constitution.  Article 1 stated, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."  This still promotes slavery and legalizes it as long as each enslaved person is taxed at such a price that doesn't exceed ten dollars.  People then began to trade slaves and use them more and more.  Statistics show that the amount of slaves in America increased from 69,000 in 1790, to 3,954,000 on the eve of the civil war.  That shows how big of an increase in slavery there was over time.  Another thing that caused slavery to become entrenched in American society was the invention of the cotton gin.  Cotton was not even considered as a commercial crop in 1790. By 1860, cotton had increased across the South. With the increase in cotton being planted, more and more labor was needed, so Southern planters began transporting large numbers of African-American slaves westward into the new cotton lands, where the planters used their social, political, and economic power to keep slavery legal. This resulted in a sharp demarcation between the Southern states.  The slave labor helped produce large amounts of economically valuable cotton.  Meanwhile, the rest of the nation, where the economy was more diversified and slave labor had been outlawed.  The website Mappinghistory     has a virtual tutorial showing the spread of slavery and cotton from 1790-1860.  There were many things that caused slavery to become entrenched in American society by the early 19th century.

A system of slavery based on race affects human dignity because it shows that the people within the system see people who look different or have different backgrounds as inferiors.  This shows that these people have no empathy and marginalize people based on their skin color.  It also means that they don't have good morals especially if they allow people to be treated so poorly because they are "different."  Systems like these ignore many human characteristics.  All humans are equal no matter what skin color or beliefs they have.  Just because someone appears different on the outside it doesn't mean that they aren't equal to everyone else and it certainly doesn't mean that they should be enslaved.  Overall, when a society uses a system of slavery based on race it affects human dignity because it shows that the people don't have empathy or good morals.  Systems like these tend to ignore human characteristics such as the fact that everyone is equal and should be treated equally.  Also, they tend to ignore that people have rights and should not be treated like animals.    

In conclusion, slavery became entrenched in the 19th century because of the mention of it in the Founder' Constitution and the invention of the cotton gin.  When societies use systems of slavery, it shows that the people don't really have a dignity and that they don't have empathy or great morals.  Lastly, these systems tend to ignore characteristics of humanity such as the fact that everyone is equal and that no one should be treated differently.    

Gender Equality

In the 19th century, and even before that in our history, women have been looked at as inferiors or less than men.  They have been separated from the rest of society and kept from doing many things that men could do.  In the 19th century there was nothing equal about the rights of women and men.


 In 1848, at the Seneca Falls Convention, many women and some men abolitionists gathered to demand the right to vote for women.  It was known as the first organized woman's suffrage gathering.  At the Seneca Falls Convention, the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions was published.  It listed all of the grievances in the ways women have been wronged.  The resolutions were demands from the women.  This was one of the ways the women tried achieving gender equality.  In a list of the laws and practices that women were forced to follow called "Rights of Women", it shows just how extreme the restrictions were on women in the 19th century.  One of the laws legalized the ability for a man to beat his wife.  Another stated that it was considered improper for women to speak in public.  Those are just a few examples of how disgusting and unreasonable the restrictions really were.  In the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, these restrictions along with many others were demanded to be abolished.

Although the abolitionists put up a fight for better treatment and gender equality, the men were not on the same page.  After word got around about the Seneca Falls Convention, tons of newspaper articles discussed the event.  The men were very unhappy with the women's actions and in one particular article, it stated, "We are sorry to see that the women, in several parts of this state, are holding what they call, 'Woman's Rights Conventions,' and setting forth a formidable list of those Rights, in a parody upon the Declaration of Independence."  This shows that men saw the movement as completely unnecessary and inappropriate.  Below is the news article which is full of the opinions of the men based off of the Seneca Falls Convention.          





Now a days, gender equality has become a lot better than it was in the 19th century.  All of the ridiculous restrictions that existed during that time don't apply to women today.  However, there are differences between certain aspects of men and women.  For example, when men go out with women a lot and have fun they gain reputations as being "cool" but when girls do the same thing they get judged and called mean names.  Another instance is in the athletic world.  Girls are looked at as inferior to boys when it comes to sport because boys are "tougher" and "stronger".  Although there are no restrictions like the extreme ones women faced in the 19th century, there are definitely judgments and stereo types towards women today.
 

Link to YouTube video describing how women are looked at in society: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K2kfgW7708&feature=youtu.be

Tanner, John.  Mechanics Mutual Protection.  Edline.








  

Early Democracy in the U.S.

Essential Question: How should we define democracy?  How democratic was the united states in the early 1800's?

      Democracy is defined as a system of government that arose in the United States in the early 1800's.  It is defined as a system of government in which the people have a say and they vote for the rulers and the laws.  To learn information about democracy in the U.S. in the 1800's, we began by looking at a painting which takes place in the center of town where all the people gather to vote.  In the picture, one of the men running to be leader is trying to get more votes by bribing people with booze.  Even though everyone supposedly has the right to vote in a democratic government, the women and colored people were not allowed to.  Therefore, to answer the second part of the essential question, the United States was not entirely democratic in the early 1800's, since not everyone was able to vote.  Also, since alcohol was a HUGE problem for the people of that time(it still is today), it made it a lot harder for the best man running for president to be actually elected since most of the people went for the man running that was bribing them with alcohol.  My groups thoughts on democracy are shown in the video we created.  Click the link and enjoy!      

Prison Reform

“…The great evil of our present Insane Asylum System lies in the fact, that insanity is there treated as a crime, instead of a misfortune, which is indeed a gross act of injustice…” —Elizabeth Parsons Ware Packard, The Prisoner’s Hidden Life, p. iii.

Parsons Ware, Elizabeth Packard. Opinionated Wives, to the Asylum: The Case of Elizabeth Packard. http://www.ushistoryscene.com (January 12, 2015)

The author, Elizabeth Parsons Ware Packard, was sent to live at an asylum for a very unjust reason, as were many of the other people that were admitted to asylums during the 19th century.  Packard was sent to the asylum because her husband, who was a minister, got angry when she disagreed with many of his teachings.  This shows that people were sent to asylums for extremely unnecessary reasons.  Packard wrote a novel called The Prisoner's Hidden Life, which described what really went on in the asylums and how unjust they were.  The source above was obtained from her story.  The source is believable because Elizabeth Parsons Ware Packard seemed to have been a normal 19th century woman for the most part because everyone is entitled to their own opinion and she wasn't afraid to stand up for what she believed in.  Therefore the source is trustworthy because she had no reason to lie about the way she felt toward asylums and the unjustness since she had personal experience with them.  During this time, there were other people who saw the cruelty of the asylums as well as Packard.  For instance, Dorothea Dix was a woman who lived during the 19th century and she visited many asylums and jails to investigate and observe the treatment of the people there.  She would then make reports to legislatures in hopes of improving the treatment of the people.  This shows that other people during this time also felt wrongly towards the asylums.  Although the source is limited to a small portion of the book it was obtained from, it still gives an overlook on what the rest of the story entails.  The author claims that it is evil for the insane people to be treated as though they have committed a crime for being who they are.  Although there is no reasoning to support Packard's statement in this source, the evidence of her having to live in an asylum for time is enough.  Packard was trying to convince people to stop treating the mentally insane as though they are bad people and to be treated fairly.  In conclusion, this source is very reliable when studying the prison reform.