Discrimination, or Well-Intentioned?

            In class this week, we learned about the westward advance, mostly focused on Buffalo Soldiers and the Native Americans they encountered. Tribes like the Cherokee and the Sioux had their homelands invaded by the American westward expansionists. The Buffalo soldiers were African American soldiers who had fought with the Union in the Civil War, and decided that being a soldier would be a better life than going back to the States, which were still very intolerant to blacks. Both the Buffalo Soldiers and the Tribes they encountered were discriminated by the United States Government, through racial classification. However, was the discrimination fully intentional?
            The Buffalo soldiers were groups of black Civil War soldiers, who figured that being a soldier was better then returning to their old lives, due to the rise of sharecropping, a very unpopular method of work. This caused these soldiers to be deployed by the Government to go westward and clear the way for settlers to expand the United States borders. Clearing the way meant getting rid of Native American Tribes, through any means. The Buffalo Soldiers earned their name by clearing the midwest of the main source of food for the Native Americans: the buffalo. The soldiers cleared hundreds of thousands of buffalo from the Great Plains, reducing the population so greatly that the Native Americans greatest food supply was nearly exterminated. However, as much as the Buffalo soldiers did for the Government by clearing the way for new expansion, they were still the subject of racial discrimination. White Buffalo Soldiers still thought that they were above the blacks, and treated the black soldiers as inferior, even though they did the exact same job.
            The Native Americans, on the other hand, were very racially discriminated. The US Government, through the buffalo soldiers, rid the Native Americans of the food source, their human rights, and their land. Native American tribes were exiled to lands far away from the Great Plains. Resistance did come from the tribes, but it was often crushed by the Buffalo Soldiers. The United States government did not negotiate with the Native Americans, and ushered in the Indian Removal Act, which caused all Native Americans to live in reservations set up by the government. However, some of the Government intentions were good in their eyes. They wanted to give the Native Americans the opportunity to become civilized, albeit through removing their cultural identity. They put them in reservations and gave them new clothes, new education, and new lives. All of which were American "civilized" style. The Dawes act was passed by the Government, allowing the Native Americans to own their own land, as long as they became civilized by American standards. Children were given education, and schools were eventually set up for them.
            Although the Government did provide some benefits to the Native Americans for doing what they wished, the United States government did use the Buffalo soldiers to tear the Native Americans from their homes and migrate them somewhere else. They removed their cultural identity and tried to make them into new people, who were normal by American standards. The fact that they gave them education and the right to own land does not make up for the act of romoving their culture and taking their homes.

Rockefeller and Carnegie

In the mid to late 1800s, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie became two of the most successful men of their time. These two controlled the market in oil and steel, respectively, by gaining a monopoly over the market. In class, we spent the week watching videos on Rockefeller and Carnegie's lives and reading documents about them. We then split ourselves into groups and analyzed specific aspects of each mans life.

One of the main questions asked was how monopolistic leaders, like Carnegie and Rockefeller, affected the lives of the common worker. Each man affected the men who worked for them both negatively and positively.The way they accumulated such large companies was through buying out their competitors, and if they did not comply they would run the companies out of business. As ruthless as this is, it got them to the top, dominating the economy of their product. Causing so many businesses to go out greatly affected the working force in a negative way: so many workers were unemployed. This caused Rockefeller and Carnegie to be called "Robber-barons", or very corrupt company officials that bribed and cheated their way to the top. This was supported in the fact that Rockefeller, for example, bought out all the competition. While there was no more competition, Standard Oil, Rockefeller's company, had nobody to try and compete with, thus bettering the economy. However, it did put many people out of work.

Andrew Carnegie also had a good and bad side when coming to public criticism. Like Rockefeller, he also had a monopoly, but his was over the steel industry. Carnegie was born in Scotland and immigrated to America. Here he became a very successful steel company owner. He made a huge profit of money from the business, but then came the famous Homestead Strike. When profits skyrocketed for Carnegie Steel, but workers were given just a puny salary increase. This lead to strikes and protests outside the mill. Carnegie traveled to Scotland on vacation, and ordered his partner Clay Frick to close the mill. Frick did not, and instead brought in strikebreakers and Pinkerton guards to protect the. This resulted in a bloody fight, and ultimately the Pennsylvania militia was sent in to lessen the conflict. While this negatively impacted Carnegie's reputation among the workers, he did give away over $300 million to various charities towards the end of his life.

While both men seemed at first glance greedy, power hungry businessmen who only wanted the money for themselves, but did do good things for workers and other various causes. However, the amount of donations given to outside causes outweighs the hate that was given towards the two, which may have also been caused by jealousy for their wealth.

Battles of the Civil War

In class, we went on a scavenger hunt throughout the school to learn about several battles of the Civil War. The day before the actual hunt, each student chose a battle and were given some basic information about the battle: Name, location, date(s), victor, etc. We then went home and created a google doc with the information on it, and used bit.ly to create a QR code for the document and a URL. Everyone printed out a piece of paper with the battle name, URL and QR code and brought it to class the next day. As a class we put them in places all over the school and tried to find a scan each one, then copy down the information. After all the battles had been scanned, we looked at patterns involving the area of the battle, the victor, and why they won. Our teacher created a Padlet and we discussed our essential questions and their answers.

The Civil War spanned across much of the country, but it can easily be sorted into three theaters: East, West, and Naval. Each side had an advantage over the other in each theater. For instance, in the naval theater, the north's strong economy compared to the south combined with their already existing navy led to the a northern domination on the sea. In the eastern theater, the Confederates were the main victors. It was the Confederates use of terrain and positioning in many battles that gave them this advantage. When the two armies met at the battle of Cold Harbor, the Confederates used the forested area to hide their troops and ultimately ended up winning. It was until the Battle of Gettysburg that the Union started to achieve victory in the East. On the west, the Union won significantly more battles than the Confederates due to their strategy. It involved many sieges, such as Vicksburg, where the Union surrounded and bombarded the city until they surrendered. The Union was ultimately able to win the war with their Anaconda plan, but the Confederates almost made a punch into breaking the Union through their eastern domination.

Each theater of the war had very similar tactics used in each of their battles. In the west, the Union ended up surrounding their enemies until they surrendered. In the east, the Confederates beat their opponents to the battle location and set up fortifications, or out maneuvered the Union. Although, towards the end of the war after Gettysburg, the Union had the Confederates on the back-foot, using momentum from the Battle of Gettysburg.


http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-war-in-america/april-1861-april-1862.html

Freedom from above and below

It is the middle of the Civil War, the War over slavery that divided the United States into two opposing sides. While the Confederate and Union soldiers are slugging it out on the battlefield, President Lincoln decides to make a choice that will greatly affect the course of the war. On January 1st, 1863, Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves all over America. The south, naturally, refused to recognize Lincoln as their president and therefore was outraged that he would dare try to free slaves, which was a part of their way of life. This week in class, we first analyzed a drawing of Abraham Lincoln with a family of slaves, as he is freeing them. This is an example of freedom from above, where a higher authority, in this case the President, is granting freedom to the enslaved. We then wrote on the drawing what we thought each character would say, for example, Lincoln might say "You and your family are now free peoples of the United States" or something along those lines. We then looked at four Lincoln Documents and analyzed how his opinion changed on the goal of the war as it went on. We also watched a PBS video on slavery in the US.
We also learned about another way that freedom is gained, freedom from below. This is when the enslaved people, usually due to their advantage in numbers, gain freedom by themselves via protests or other means. To analyze this method, we looked at two documents, a letter and a picture. The letter is from a Union officer who explains that slaves who have abandoned their plantations are following the Union troops and making an issue. This is an attempt to get the attention of the government to turn to the issue of slavery, as the soldiers would be slowed down by the runaway slaves. In the picture, it is a depiction of the slaves who worked on Confederate President Jefferson Davis' plantation all leaving and going to a Union camp. These both are examples of freedom from below, as the slaves are trying to become free by their own means and taking action. But when the slaves were eventually freed, was it because of freedom from above or below?
In 1863, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, stating that all slaves in the United States were free. Up until this point, the Union was being defeated overall in the war. Lincoln knew he had to wait until they won a considerable victory in the war, otherwise it would make the Proclamation look like a final attempt at coming back into the war. Instead, it appeared as a new motivation for the Union when they turned the tide of the war. Since all slaves were free in the North, they were no longer fighting to keep the Union together, but to free the slaves everywhere. Now, since the South did not recognize Abraham Lincoln as their president, they did not recognize the Emancipation Proclamation, and would not free their slaves. In fact, they were outraged! How dare the North try to change their way of life. While this was happening, slaves everywhere had heard the news and began to leave plantations everywhere. This may have greatly influenced Lincoln's actions, as the complaints from Union officers eventually worked their way up to him. It wasn't until the battle of Gettysburg that President Lincoln said the famous speech, The Gettysburg Address, starting with the famous quote, "Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." This is often acknowledged as the moment when the slaves were freed and the war over. It may seem as though the slaves were entirely freed by Lincoln's actions, however the slaves did have a large role in harassing Union soldiers to bring Lincoln's attention to the issue of slavery and giving the war a new goal. When the slaves were freed, it was freedom from above and below.

Why did the North win?

How did the differences between the North and the South affect each sides strategy during the Civil War?
To analyze this question we created an infographic:

Why did THE north win the war? | Create infographics

Created this infographic helped me personally understand the topic much better. I am a visual learner by nature and the charts and diagrams helped me put into perspective the advantages that each opposing side had. The first diagram shows the huge advantage that the North had in population: almost twice as many people. The second diagram shows that the South had a huge population of slaves and the North had almost none at all compared. The South would be able to better produce its exports and make money to sustain an army. However, the next chart shows three categories: Industrial Workers, Manufacturing Plants, and Railroad Mileage; all of which the North had a huge advantage in. This means that they would be able to produce more weaponry and supplies and get it to the front-line faster. The south, however, had a simpler strategy compared to the North. The South just had to defend its borders and keep their way of life from the Union invaders. The South also had the best leadership and morale. However, this was not enough compared to the North's enormous advantage in numbers, and once they blockaded the Confederates, the War was heavily in their favor, despite the advantages that the South had.

Elephant in the Room

 How do we know the debate over slavery was the "elephant in the room" for American politics in the early 19th century? To answer this question we created timelines after reading about the major events that lead up to the Civil War. We then divided the events that were more pro-slavery (South) and more anti-slavery (North). The pro-slavery events are on the lower half of the line, and the anti-slavery events are on the upper half of the timeline. After reviewing these events, it is clear to see that American politicians were trying to pretend that slavery was not a problem, even though it clearly was based on the events that took place leading up to the Civil War. Thus, slavery became the "elephant in the room" all over America.
 By analyzing the events taking place, it can be seen that the tension between the North and South over slavery increases as the start of the Civil War approaches. For instance, the Gadsden Purchase in 1853, which mainly benefited the South because it opened up a new railroad in the area allowing slave owners to move more easily, created a new way for slave owners to expand their industry.
 Another Major event that happened was Bleeding Kansas. After the territory of Kansas had been allowed to chose whether to be a free or slave state by popular sovereignty, settlers from both the north and south rushed into the new land by the thousands. Naturally, fighting broke out between the two sides, and a number of people were killed. The northern capital that was established was burned to the ground, and in response, John Brown and a group of others took five southern men from their beds and massacred them in front of their families.
 A very large court event that became known as the Dred Scott Decision took place in 1857. Dred Scott and his wife sued a slave owner who tried to take them into slavery, saying that since they had come from free ancestors, they should not go into slavery. This case went to the Supreme Court, and in their verdict, they stated, "On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them. The court think the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained. And if it cannot, [Dred Scott] could not be a citizen of the State of Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its courts." The court issued that since Scott cannot legally be a citizen of the US, he cannot have the right to sue in court. This was a very controversial verdict, and further increased the tension between the North and the South.
 Right before the start of the Civil Was, John Brown, the same who massacred the southern men in Bleeding Kansas, gathered a group of abolitionists and free blacks and attacked the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry, hoping to get weapons to instigate a rebellion of slaves. Instead, Brown and his men were captured and tried for treason, then later killed. Brown was seen as a martyr in the North, and a murderer in the South. This caused the issue of slavery to fully become the elephant in the room for American Politics, and eventually led to the bombing of Fort Sumter and the beginning of the Civil War.

Antebellum Slavery

In 19th century America, a major part of society was the presence of slavery. Slaves were the ones who worked the plantations in the south, and did most of the other labor. The economic, social, and political power was mainly controlled by those who owned 20 or more slaves. This was because cotton was becoming a major export of the southern US, especially after the invention of the cotton gin, which increased cotton production. The more cotton that was being produced, the more slaves that were needed. This led to more cotton being produced, which made more money, which allowed for more slaves. This cycle eventually led to slavery becoming economically entrenched in American society. There is an interesting website with graphs showing how as cotton growth expanded in the south, the number of slaves did as well.
Link: http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US18-01.html
A system that becomes so dependent on slavery for not only its economic power, but its social structure greatly affects human dignity. The government begins to classify the slaves by only the color of their skin, and not their skills or intelligence. This has been the way in America ever since Columbus landed in the Caribbean in 1492, he immediately enslaved the native peoples because of their race. The Americas have always been a land where one race thinks that they are better than the other, while overlooking their personal/physical traits.
Human dignity ultimately becomes corrupted by a system such as this. One example of this corruption is even written in the US Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, where it reads "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included in the Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." This eventually became know as the "Three-fifths rule" where blacks only counted as three fifths of a person when filing taxes and the number of Representatives in Congress. This showed that the government only classified the slaves based upon their race, and did not give them rights whatsoever.

Picture: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9294424