The Buffalo Soldier and the White Man

In class this week, we went over several documents and videos involving the westward expansion as well as the new policies that the government imposed to force the native Americans out of their land to free up space for the Americans. As a class, we decided on the essential question being: "Did the government have good intentions when enacting policies for westward expansion? In what ways did these policies impact the natives and buffalo soldiers?" The question of whether or not the government had good intentions is subjective. There can be multiple viewpoints regarding the answer to this question, and in this blog post, I will go in depth on what the intentions of the government truly were.

To answer the essential question, I believe the government did have a good intentions, but didn't realize the impact that their actions would truly have on the Native American tribes. For example, when president Andrew Jackson initiated the policy of Indian removal during the 1830s, tribes such as the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole natives were already forced out of their land towards the west of the Mississippi River. Soon after, during the 1840's California gold rush, settlers began to trespass on the Native Americans rightful land, and encountered hostility from the Native Americans. The settlers demanded military protection because of this, immediately striking up the possibility of more hostile encounters between the settlers and native Americans. The following years, war proceeded amongst the Indian plains, and the American government implemented a new type of soldier: the Buffalo Soldier

 Buffalo soldiers were highly discriminated against, as they were black troops that were essentially sent to do the dirty work of the white troops, while being given the supplies that no other troops wanted. These include old and disobedient horses, along with faulty rifles and ruined uniforms. It is believed that the government knew exactly what they were doing when establishing black regiments into the army, purposely being discriminatory against the buffalo soldiers themselves. This answers the essential question, showing that although the American government wanted to expand westward for the good of the American people, they did not consider the lives involved in the process of doing so.

In conclusion, I believe this information is accurate. It shows the long-term discrimination that has being going on and the difference between how black and whites lives were treated. The difference between white troops and the buffalo soldiers were so extreme, and thought of as extremely unfair towards those in the black regiment. In my opinion, I fully agree with this belief, as these troops were sent to war with their lives on the line to serve their country. Regardless of skin color, the men that went to war should've been treated with equal respect from all groups of people.

To learn more about the buffalo soldiers as well as the policies enacted, click the following link to go to a diagram showing the timeline of these events.

 http://www.edline.net/files/stream/2CCF071593645104-0000014DC410FB41/ABC-CLIO+Federal+Native+American+Policies+Visual.gif

Rockefeller and Carnegie: Robber Barons or Captains of Industry?

In class this week, we took an individual route as a class as opposed to having a teacher teach the main content. Instead, we taught ourselves the first of three final units. In this self taught unit, we watched several videos and read several documents about the industrial legends Carnegie and Rockefeller. We learned about important people, events, and key terms to help us understand whether or not the tactics and ploys of these men made them Robber Barons, or Captains of Industry.

As our class soon begun to find out, whether or not Carnegie and Rockefeller were Robber Barons remains an open ended question and is based purely off of what one thinks the representation of a Captain of Industry should look like. A Captain of Industry is a positive term used to label an industrial leader who was well liked among the population and has good intentions in what he or she does. Conversely, a Robber Baron is the opposite of that, meaning that the industrial leader is seemingly corrupt and is not well liked among the general population. After reading thoroughly through the biographies of Carnegie and Rockefeller, I agree fully with the general belief that Rockefeller was the epitome of a Robber Baron. Being a very competitive man, Rockefeller was all about monopolies, vertical integration, and taking over or pushing out many oil companies until he was the prominent oil company in the area. Because of this, the public did not like him very much and viewed him as an infamous Robber Baron.

Primary Source of a classic cartoon illustrating the interpretation of a Robber Baron

Carnegie, on the other hand, was the paragon of a typical Captain of Industry. He was very well liked from the mere beginnings of his business occupation, and earned great respect from his peers as he continued to advance in his career. His main belief in life was this: the first half of a man's career involves making as much money as he can, and the second half involves giving back to the community. Both he and his wife were great benefactors towards man companies throughout their industrial careers. In the end, I belief Carnegie and Rockefeller became polar opposites of a each other, being a Captain of Industry and a Robber Baron respectively.

In conclusion, I believe these common beliefs of Carnegie and Rockefeller hold true to themselves, as both of their practices are the perfect example of what a good businessman should and shouldn't do. I believe all sources were reliable and offered fantastic insight on the lifestyle and practices of both industrial leaders. Between the two, I believe Carnegie had the better lifestyle practices as opposed to Rockefeller, and deserves more recognition as a great man with great ethics.

Rockefeller Biography

Carnegie Biography

Freedom From Above or Below

In this unit, our class dove into the topic of whether or not freedom of slavery come from influential forces from above (Caucasian ethnicity) or below (African American ethnicity). During class, we broke up into several smaller groups in order to identify and analyze certain documents that took place in the middle-late 1800's. Once our groups concluded analyzing the documents, we continued to further analyze these different events as a class by watching videos and taking notes in three major categories. There were a few categories that the responses fell into: the goals of war, the position of freeing slaves, and evidence of Lincoln's personal feelings of slavery. 

The image our class analyzed when discussing whether or not freedom comes from above or below

The most common thought throughout society is that Lincoln did the majority of freeing throughout the middle-late 1800's. This is partly true, however, the enslaved people held their own when it came to freedom themselves. For example, our class analyzed the document "Enslaved
People Force the Issue", in which slaves were proactive about forcing the Union soldiers attention upon them. They did this by flooding the town with fugitive people and causing a ruckus, thus bringing great anxiety upon the soldiers. The soldiers eventually brought this problem to higher power, which resulted in the fugitives protection using a system of guards and watchmen. This effectively shows the actions of the fugitives to gain the attention of the soldiers, further proving that there was freedom from below. On the contrary, this action could also be seen as freedom from above in the sense that

In my opinion, freedom can come from either above or below depending on the situation. For example, choosing to play a college sport for a team of your liking  typically requires "freedom from below" in the sense that one must be proactive in getting the desired team's attention. They must reach out, send highlight films, emails, and notes to grab the attention of coaches or scouts from that school. In contrast, freedom can come from above in the sense that the colleges can pick and choose who they want as a player or a student. The colleges, in the end, being the higher power, make the final choice as to whether or not a player will come and play for their team.

Freedom From Above or Below Document  

Civil War Scavenger Hunt

In this section of the unit, our class was discussing 2 essential questions which asked about which sides dominated which theaters: "Who was the ultimate doctor in each of the theaters of war: East, West, or Naval?" and "What are some commonalities you can identify in the reasons for the results of the battles?" To help in our understanding of these questions, our class broke up into small groups and set off on a scavenger hunt around our school to understand who won which wars, as well as what gave the winning side the advantage in doing so. 

Battle of Gettysburg

Battle of Shiloh

The victors throughout each battle in the civil war varies depending on the theatre. For example, the Union mostly dominated the western theatre while the confederacy mainly dominated the eastern theatre. The naval theatre went back and forth, but in the end, the union came out on top. Reasons for these victories and losses varied from battle to battle. For example, the confederates won the Battle of Good Harbor (east) simply because they focused in on causing as much damage as they possibly could in a short amount of time. According to the information we found during the scavenger hunt, the confederates frontal assault caused at least 7000 casualties within an hour. On the contrary, the Union army outnumbered and outgunned the Confederate army by a large margin during the Battle of Fort Henry (naval) They caused enough damage to make the Confederates surrender.

In my opinion, I believe that each army did conquer their respective theaters. However, near the end of these streaks of wars, union began to take the upper hand when it came to winning battles in the eastern theaters. Otherwise, I feel like the class as a whole correctly determined which army conquered which theatre. I trust most all of the sources as we were required to use primary sources when finding the results of battles we were given. All In all, I feel this was the correct approach and was a fun twist on a way to learn about several battles during the civil war.

Class Responses to the essential questions

Election of 1860: Divisions of Slavery

In this unit, our Honors History 10 class was discussing how the results of the 1860 election corollated to the divisions of slavery. The election was divided into two main parties: Lincoln, the republican who believed that slavery should be contained, and Breckinridge, the southern democrat who believed that slavery should have absolutely zero limits. Between these two major parties were Douglass, the northern democrat who believed slavery should be determined through sovereignty, and Bell, who supported the constitutional Union and everything that it originally provided, including slavery itself. The north mainly voted for Lincoln while the south, Breckinridge. In class, we were directed to the Civil War in Art link, which gave us brief summaries over several major events during the election of 1860. For an example, the photo below was shown to the public during the 1860's to help the view the war through the eyes of the Confederate and Union Soldiers. 

These images struck a strong sense of patriotism in the hearts of many during the 1860's. Our final project required us to make a video summarizing all of the events that the Civil War in Art link provided. Enjoy! 

North vs. South Infographic

This infographic explains some of the advantages the North had over the South in the conflict between slave states and free states. I chose to highlight these specific statistics as I feel they provided the major significant advantages that lead the North to victory. Railroads allow faster and more efficient transport of goods, services, and people while manufacturing rate and food supply provided an abundance of materials soldiers would need to fight. The south, however, did have some advantages that were not included. For example, the majority of Military Schools were placed in the south, lending the South more experience in war. However, the North outnumbered them greatly thus leading them to a victory

Slavery - The 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?Slavery was ultra controversial over the early 19th century due to the fact that the United States was essentially divided 50/50 in terms of which sides supports slavery and which side supports freedom of slaves. How were sides once chosen in the 19th century and what decisions were made to get there? In 1820, Missouri made the compromise to split the states 11/11 in terms of freedom; states above the 36 degree 30 minutes line where not included in the supporting of slavery, with the exception of the southern border of Missouri.

 Over time, many problems arose regarding the claim of new territory and which side it would support. For example, there were questions over whether or not California should be included in the states as a free state, destroying the idea of the Missouri compromise. The solution to this question was that California would be let into the union as a free state, however, the fugitive slave act was imposed which said that any runaway slaves should be returned to the north. Another problem involved whether or not the capital of the Union, DC, should be considered a slave state. The solution required that slavery was abolished but it was still permitted in other areas.

In 1853, the U.S. Paid 15 million dollars for Nevada, California, Utah, and most of Arizona. Only 5 years later did the U.S. Pay another 10 million for a smaller strip of land, which was ideal for the transcontinental railroad for the Southerners. On the other hand, the Kansas-Nebraska act benefited the north as it placed another transcontinental railroad in Chicago which helped the north extend into the west. In the end, many debates were held over which states would support freedom and which states wouldn't, leading to many more problems in the future.