Sharing Is Caring: The American Government Was Neither

After the Civil War, America found itself with a new goal: settling. And when gold was discovered in the Midwest, the incentive for settling became a lot shinier (literally). As we all know, when Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue, that chunk of land he mistakenly found himself upon was not uninhabited. And now, along with the weight of factoring newly freed slaves into society, America also had to deal with these horrible tribes they found taking up their new living space. Let’s just say Americans did not believe in the first come, first gets-to-stay-in-their-homes policy.

ABC-CLIO Federal Native American Policies Visual.
In the events detailed above, it's clear the settlers and American government
never respected the Native Americans and the land they had owned long
before the settlers came along.

Native Americans: Intention vs. Actions

The government has never been a fan of sharing, and that was true back when they were first settling the country. Many leaders looked at natives as a “barrier to civilization”. In an ABC-Clio video, my class and I learned about Henry Pratt, an American white man who was strongly opposed to the Native American lifestyle. He established schools for the children of tribes in an effort to “kill the Indian”. Pratt believed in order to save the man, the Indian inside of him must be killed. Another day in class we read the Dawes Act of 1887, a document clearly establishing white superiority, allowing them to control the lives of the Native Americans and where those lives could take place. The document ends by saying, “with consent of a majority of the adult male members of said tribe”. This means whites were not technically given the right to abuse Native Americans or force them out of their established living spaces without their consent. Did this stop us? Does it ever?? We continued removing and forcing these tribes out of their homes. The Dawes Act may have provided a safety around the Natives, protecting their tribes by requiring their consent, but this was not enforced and, from the looks of what I’ve seen, the government didn’t make any effort to protect the rights they said they would. In a more specific turn of events, the Second Treaty of Laramie in 1868, officially granted the Dakota territory west of the Missouri River to the tribes. Although this land was declared property of the tribes, this stopped no one, as settlers continued their way onto the Native Americans’ territories.

Buffalo Soldiers: Intention vs. Actions

An image from the PBS video we watched in class.
Buffalo soldiers were thrown onto the toughest terrain. Given only horses to
travel with, soldiers often ended up walking because riding horseback on such
terrain was dangerous. 

Buffalo soldiers were African American soldiers previously on the side of the Union in the Civil War who had decided to continue fighting for the American military. We learned in the ABC-Clio video that from the very start, these soldiers were not considered to be on the same tier as other soldiers. They were stationed in the roughest terrain; locations other soldiers refused to work in. The buffalo is an animal that can provide food as well as clothing to its hunter—this is more than can be said of the American government’s actions toward the Buffalo soldiers. Buffalo soldiers were not only sent through the rough terrain, but they were expected to civilize it, setting up railroads, telegraph lines, and to map the unknown territories. These soldiers shouldn’t have been sent blindly into questionable locations to begin with, let alone be forced to work in them for weeks at a time. In a PBS Video we watched in class, it was clear that no matter where these soldiers were stationed, they were never treated with the respect they deserved. When they were sent into already civilized locations, it wasn’t much better. There were significant prejudices against blacks even after slaves had been freed. They didn’t have the authority they needed to watch over established cities and towns because the people inhabiting these locations couldn’t see a black man as someone of authority. Whether in uncharted territories or established cities, Buffalo soldiers weren’t treated the way they deserved.

A Purposefully Impossible Intent

Looking at the documents from this time regarding Natives and Buffalo Soldiers, the government never stated that these peoples should be treated differently. They demanded that a tribe’s consent must be given before anything is done and that Buffalo soldiers would protect the country much like any other soldiers. Unfortunately, these ideas were not enforced. I believe that the government knew these intentions wouldn’t bode well for the tribes and soldiers. Tribes were removed with ease because the government showed no enforcement of the protection they gave to the tribes. And in terms of the Buffalo Soldiers, the government never established the authority they needed to succeed. The government may have said these groups should receive equal treatment, but they never enforced it, and because of that these groups were always at a disadvantage. 

Almost A Robin Hood: Stealing From The Middle To Give To The Poor

After the civil war, America needed to repair not only their homes, but also their economy. This took the power of innovators, now referred to as Captains of Industry. Some of these groundbreaking men consisted of Andrew Carnegie, J.P Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, and many others. Although these men worked effortlessly to bring an era of innovation alive, it’s debatable whether or not they were had a positive effect on America. Positive—because they brought in funds and work ethics which helped to inspired Americans towards a brighter future. Negative—because they showed little appreciation to their employees who helped to bring their ideas alive. Now the question is which of these effected Americans more?

Wow! These guys are great!

In class we watched an ABC Clio video which gave us an overview of the unit. Splitting into groups to take notes on a specific aspect of the video (main ideas, key people, important events, or essential terms) we got a general understanding of the success of these Captains of Industry. After the video we read through bios of Carnegie and Rockelfeller which went into the specifics of their industry. By the end of their careers, both men had made mass donations to charitable organizations bettering America after the war. They put the money they had worked hard to earn towards helping the poor. John D. Rockefeller in an interview with William Hoster, quoted in God's Gold (1932) by John T. Flynn, said, “I believe it is my duty to make money and still more money and to use the money I make for the good of my fellow man.” Throughout one of the toughest times in American history, The Great Depression, these men strived to make a life for themselves and provide for others. With their understanding of materials people couldn’t live without, Rockefeller working with oil industries and Carnegie producing steel, they set up businesses that would strive even in the toughest conditions. But were they using their power for good?

Maybe not so much…

"Forty-Millionaire Carnegie in his Great Double Role," The
 Saturday Globe, 9 July 1892; from David P. Demares.
To the right Carnegie gives money to charitable organizations,
to the left he lowers the wages of his employees. 

Watching the video recap of Carnegie and Rockefeller’s successes may have left us in awe of their drive and effective business tactics, but when we took a closer look at primary soures from this time period, we realized they may not have been the superheroes America needed. In a comic strip pictured to the left, it’s clear Carnegie was not as generous to his workers as he was to charities and other organizations. Carnegie may have been a saint towards those who were at a disadvantage compared to the rest of society, but during The Great Depression, the “rest of society” wasn’t at much of an advantage to begin with. Carnegie helped the lowest classes by donating his mass of wealth, but his employees’ unfair wages didn’t help the middle class with their own problems. Seeing as the middle class makes up a majority of society and that the economy was hurting during this time, a focus should’ve been put on the middle class. If they had received the wages and support Carnegie and Rockefeller were giving to the lowest classes, they would’ve been perpetuated into bettering their financial situations and stabilizing the economy for all classes. These captain of industry were, without a doubt, helping some parts of society, but it wasn’t the part of society that needed the most help at this time.

They were the best the Great Depression had to offer

Although these guys may not have given their workers a ticket to a bright and glorious future, they gave their workers something; which was more than most businesses were doing during this time. Most corporations were either firing the majority of their staff or shutting down the business altogether. Carnegie and Rockefeller at least gave their workers a steady income, even if that income wasn’t the best it could be. Given the circumstances of America’s economy during this time, the captains of industry provided their employees with more than most businesses: a stable job, and for that I believe they had a positive impact on America. 

The Bottom Got A Boost From The Top

An argument stands in society today regarding the slaves' victory during the civil war: did their freedom come from above or below? In other words, did the slaves earn their own freedom (from below) or was it given to them from a higher power (above)? This week we looked at primary documents that supported different sides of this argument and decided on our own where we believed the freedom was born. 

Freedom From The Top?

At this time Lincoln was the president, so if freedom were to come from above, it would come from him. We read a collection of his speeches which grew to specify his desire to free the slaves. At the beginning of the war, he declared his goal as bringing the union together. In Lincoln's reply to an Open Letter from Horace Greely in 1862, he said, "My paramount object in thus struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or to destroy slavery." Later in the war Lincoln comes out to clearly state his goal clearly to abolish slavery entirely. In his second inaugural address on March 4th, 1865, Lincoln said, "If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God., must needs come... he now wills to remove." This is saying that he believes slavery needed to happen, and no that it has happened it is his duty to remove it. He's going to work on removing slavery for the slaves- they can just chill out and wait for him to come to their rescue.

Engraving, “Slaves from the plantation of
Confederate President Jefferson Davis arrive at
Chickasaw Bayou, Mississippi,” 1863.

Slaves marching through the glances of military officials.

Or Freedom From The Bottom? 

Aside from Lincoln's subtle desire to end slavery, slaves were taking it upon themselves to earn their freedom. In order to get their point across, slaves forced themselves into present issues, such as marching into territory where military leaders were residing (shown in picture), which brought an urgency to the slave's noncooperation which had to be brought up with he president. They worked their message through the ranks and gained the president's attention. 

The Verdict Is In...

An exaggerated portrayal of a slave worshiping
Lincoln and all he has done as an abolitionist.

I believe slavery came from the top. In addition to Lincoln's efforts shown in the documents we read (described earlier in this post), the efforts of the slaves earning their freedom from below can be credited to the president as well. Although slaves were independent and gained the recognition of the president on their own, it was because of the personal beliefs of their president that their actions were so well received. Since Lincoln was opposed to slavery on his own terms, he supported he slaves actions to free themselves. If he had been personally opposed to abolitionists, he would have used his power to put an end to the slaves' revolts and prevented their message to get as far as it did. Although Lincoln was not looking for praise in response to his actions in assisting the slaves (shown in picture), he should be credited as the major reason slavery was abolished-- therefore, slavery came from the top. 

 

The Day C Block Was Set Free

What do you call a class of high schoolers roaming from floor to floor in a race for who can copy and paste the fastest? A #gallagherhistory scavenger hunt.

The week commenced with each student, or in my case a pair of students, picking a specific battle of the civil war to research. We chose from a list of descriptions and used the information given to find the battle. I picked the Battle of Fort Sumter. My partner and I set up a Google doc in which we typed up the following:

- Name of battle

- Place of battle

- Date

- Victor

- Theater (East, West, or Naval)

- Main reason(s) for results

Battle of Fort Sumter.
This is the picture featured for our battle.

The final bullet took some analyzing. We had to research the outcome of the battle and consider the state of both sides and the effect these had on the results. In the end, we complied all of this information in our Google doc and added a picture along with citations. 

We then created a new document which we would post up somewhere in the school. We inserted a QR code (made using the QR Reader app) that would link to our Google doc. But, because the QR readers and BYOD are fussy, we also added a shortened URL to our doc. We used bit.ly to customize the link and make it easier for our classmates to type in. Our finished document looked something like this. 

Once the documents were posted around school it was time to roam. We went from stop to stop taking down the information about each battle in our Evernote. Back into the classroom and it's time to analyze our findings. We set up a Padlet with three categories: East, West, and Naval. Each student individually chose a category and stated which side (confederate or union) he thought dominated in that theater. Within these results we found that the Union was the clear victor in the West and Naval theaters, but the East theater lead to a little controversy. We discussed the change that occurred in this theater. At the beginning of the Civil War, due to the Union's lack of military leadership, the Confederate side dominated. Once the Union established stronger leadership, they became the dominating theater. And once this occurred, the Union was in the lead of all three theaters-- a shoe-in for the victors of the war.  

We Should've Seen It Coming: The American Civil War

This week in class we looked at the divisions between proslavery and antislavery activists caused by the events in the Election of 1860 and how these divisions led to the American Civil War. We started the week by watching the CrashCourse video on the Civil War. Then, throughout the week, we worked on creating documentaries using Educreations, outlining the events leading up to the Civil War. We used a multimedia website as an outline for the information we would use and found three outside images to feature in our video. My group had a little trouble recording the video: we forgot to add a voice recording over the title slide and added it after the fact, pushing the title slide back to the point in the project in which we recorded it. Educreations is not my favorite recording tool, but it was useful in stringing together our compiled data to highlight the main ideas of our topic. 

North Rules South Drools

North Rules South Drools | Create infographics

This past week my class and I created infographics to illustrate the difference between the North and South and how their differences affected each region’s strategy and success in the civil war. I chose to make my infographic using infogr.am. In terms of advantages, the South was mainly carrying themselves on their profit from agriculture, which is why I started my infographic with information about their crops. My infographic then carried on to provide information on the North’s strong suits, of which there seemed to be many. I got the majority of these characteristics from a document describing the advantages of the North and South and another document which provided exact statistics for the information I displayed in my infographic. I concluded my infographic with a display of the differing populations. Because the South didn’t have enough people to fight in the war and keep their economy up, they decided they would bring outside forces on their side to build up their numbers. The South denied their exports to Great Britain and France in hopes Europe would support them in order to gain their cotton back. Europe instead turned to Egypt and India for their cotton, leaving the Deep South in deep trouble. On the other hand, although the South had only a fraction of the North’s population, most of the country’s military colleges and trained officers were in the South. And, because the Northerners were seeking to abolish an already existent system in the South, requiring them to raid and overtake all Southerners, the North’s route of battle seemed much harder to take than the South’s. Southerners planned on a war of attrition, which meant they would turn back union forces until they lost the will to fight. This backfired- the Northern spirits only grew stronger. They knew what they wanted to fight for and would not rest until it was achieved. Rather than simply looking at the statistics of the war, this project gave us the opportunity to analyze data given to us and find it’s relevancy to the outcome of the war. I have a strong understanding of the impact these statistics had on the American Civil War. 

What To Do When The Elephant Tamers Ignore The Elephant

Throughout the 19^th century, the debate over slavery was the “elephant in the room” because an answer was never directly stated by authority. Instead, the authority sided with their own individual beliefs and fought against the opposing side- ignoring their opportunities in government to use their power to compromise with leaders from the other side of the debate.

My group's timeline of the slavery revolt.
Made with TimeLine app.

Description of events included in my group's timeline. 

            The first event we learned about in class was the Compromise of 1850. This compromise can be summed up into five parts. The majority of the parts worked in favor of slavery. Texas gave up its land expanding to Santa Fe, receiving $10 million, and entered as a slave state. This was a win for proslavery because it gave the south more land to run slavery. New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah territories can vote proslavery or antislavery when they’re populated enough to be considered states. This is a win for proslavery because these territories can easily be filled with proslavery settlers who will vote in favor of slavery. The worst was the fugitive slave law. This says all Americans should work to return slaves to their owners. Many northerners had been working to help slaves escape slavery and this law prevented them from continuing to do so. It was obviously passed by proslavery government without the consultation of antislavery government. They had the opportunity to collaborate and find a solution, but they do not. Instead, they pass a law without the approval of officials from the opposite side of the argument. Americans ended up breaking this law anyways, so I was ineffective even through the eyes of the proslavery officials who passed it.

Caning of Charles Sumner.
Take from class notes on edline. 

Another example of the government immaturely ignoring their ability to solve the problem rather than simply fight with their side occurred in 1856 and is referred to as the “Caning of Charles Sumner”. Sumner was a leading republican and one of the leading voices against slavery in congress. He gave a speech called The Crime Against Kansas which attacked Southerners for attempting to force slavery in the territories. Representative Preston Brooks, a proslavery member of the House of Representatives, who was attending Sumner’s speech, was enraged by the accusations made towards the South. In attempt to defend the South, Brooks beat Sumner with his cane. In response to this, southerners showed great support towards Brooks, even mailing him canes with the message “beat him again”. Instead of confronting the issue with Sumner verbally and finding a long term solution that would benefit both of their sides, Brooks reacted in a way that only fueled the debate even more. The government officials at this time weren’t working towards ending the debate. They were making their opinions well known and sharing the messages their sides were trying to get across, but they refused to comprehend the possibility of compromise. Because of this, the debate went on for centuries longer than it should have. 

If the Blind Man Does Not Know His Own Race, Will He, Too, Be Plagued By It?

Slavery population in 1790.

Slavery population in 1860.

In the early 19^th century, Americans were surviving off of their seemingly unstoppable cotton production during the Industrial Revolution. The process of cotton production consisted of the initial picking of the cotton in the south by slaves and selling it to the northerners where it was then made into textiles and sold for a profit. The issue that we focused on in class arose at the very start of the process. Northerners, most of which didn’t come in contact with slaves because their main source of wealth came out of the factories rather than the fields, found the concept of slavery to be unethical and degrading. Nevertheless, they used the cotton that was picked by the slaves. As inventions were made to the textile production which led to cotton becoming more profitable, slaves were put in higher demand. In just 70 years, the slave population grew from 690,000 in 1790 to 3,204,000 in 1860. Despite the North’s disapproval regarding the use of slaves, abolishing it wasn’t a realistic option. So long as the demand for cotton was growing and the country’s economy was becoming more and more dependent on the demand for textiles and cotton, the slaves who picked the cotton remained an essential part of maintaining the country’s economy at the time.

The system of slavery in America was a system based solely on race. We’ve all heard the expression “don’t judge a book by its cover”. We know that if we judge people by what they look like on the outside, we’ll never get to know them for who they are on the inside. Not only were slaves judged by their appearance, they were targeted for it. Anyone of African descent could be taken into slavery. In class we watched a documentary on Abdul Rahman, a prince from Futa Jallon, who was taken into slavery after his army was defeated. Despite Rahman being an air to a throne, he was still sentenced to a life of inferiority to the whites. Whites saw all African people as below them because of their race, when in reality they shouldn’t have been considered differently than the whites were considering themselves. Slaves held an extremely close relationship with their slave owners that drastically limited their freedom. But what, other than race, separated the slave owner from the slave? Every person, no matter what race, skin tone, or ethnic background, shares the same values and yearns for the same respect to be given to them by other people. Everyone wants to be viewed as capable of everything their neighbor is, and everyone deserves the chance to prove this capability. When invited to speak as a newly freed slave at a USA conference for the 4^th of July, Fredrick Douglas said, describing the slaves response to the whites’ celebration of their freedom, “To him, your celebration is a sham… your shout of liberty and equality, hollow mockery.” He saw these white men living with a freedom they did nothing to earn, meanwhile they suppress their slaves, a people who have done nothing but fight for their freedom to no avail. To suppress someone for their race and appearance means they were never given a choice. They were born into that race. They were born with that skin tone. Slavery told an entire race of people that they’re nothing to be celebrated; merely a machine that can get jobs done. No human deserves to be treated that way. 

Maps: http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US18-00.html 

Quote: Frederick Douglass, “The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro,” a speech delivered in Rochester, New York, July 5, 1852.

Estrogen and Testosterone Don't Decide Your Fate

Sphere of Women.
This illustration represents the many responsibilities
of women such as caring for pets, children, education,
all of which goes unacknowledged behind the curtain. 

In the 19^th century, women were treated as belongings more often than people. They were expected to keep a tidy household, which includes responsibilities such as repairing broken things and keeping up their children’s tidy appearance. They were also in charge of educating the children, taking care of household pets, and were to expect no signs of gratitude or any acknowledgement whatsoever in return. They were not allowed to vote or own property. Women who spoke in public were deemed improper. When women saw that slaves, who had previously played the role of society’s suppressed, were fighting to get the rights and respect they deserved, they realized it was time for them to do the same. Women’s Reformers held a convention at Seneca Falls and wrote a document called The Declaration of Rights and Sentiments that specifically stated their resolutions to obtain the rights that had been previously withheld from them. 

Needless to say, the idea of women being independent and treated as such evoked mixed reviews in the public. Some were supportive. A newspaper called The North Star, an abolitionists’ paper, wrote, “Standing as we do upon the watch-tower of human freedom, we cannot be deterred from an expression of our approbation of any movement, however humble, to improve and elevate the character and condition of any members of the human family.” This is saying if people are keeping others from enjoying the rights they deserve, then they themselves shouldn’t be privileged with said rights. No person should view themselves as more important than another person. Women have the right to rise above society’s oppression and no part of society should try to stop them. Other papers weren’t nearly as supportive. A newspaper called Oneida Whig made the point, “If our ladies will insist on voting and legislature, where, gentlemen, will be our dinners and our elbows?” This is saying that if women are recognized in society and given the chance to participate in politics, they won’t have enough time to take care of the household. And because that has been their only responsibility up until this point, why should they be allowed to slack off just so they can go run alongside the men of society? Some, like The North Star, were supportive in the women’s determination to gain rights, and others, like Oneida Whig, were stupid.

In the 21^st century, we recognize that The North Star has a more appropriate response to the women’s demands than the second, but have we completely resolved the issues these women were looking to take care of? Sure, we can vote now. My prayers are with the man who tells his wife it’s improper to open her mouth in public. But women and men still have certain connotations that correspond with society’s ideal image of their existence. What do you think of when you hear the word ‘manly’? It reminds me of strength, independence, and someone who refuses to give someone else the satisfaction of being in control. Is it wrong for a woman to work towards these characteristics too? What do you think of when you hear the word ‘feminine’? It reminds me of sensitivity, surrounding yourself with what makes you feel good, and opening yourself up to those around you. Is it wrong for a man to describe himself with these characteristics? Before we can level the playing field for men and women, we need to accept that the gender of someone doesn't limit them in terms of what kind of a person they are and what they’re capable of.

For another look at the differing perceptions of men vs women in society, check out this Pantene commercial from 2013:

Nobody Knows What Goes On Behind Locked Doors

 "...I turned my attention to the prunes and found that very few of them would be sufficient. A patient near asked me to give them to her. I did so. My bowl of tea was all that was left. I tasted, and one taste was enough. It had no sugar, and it tasted as if it had been made in copper. It was as weak as water. This was also transferred to a hungrier patient, in spite of the protest of Miss Neville. 'You must force the food down,' she said, 'else you will be sick, and who knows but what, with these surroundings, you may go crazy. To have a good brain the stomach must be cared for.' 'It is impossible for me to eat that stuff,' I replied, and, despite all her urging, I ate nothing that night."

Nellie Bly, Ten Days in a Mad-House (New York City: Ian L. Munro, 1887) 

            This excerpt comes from one of Nellie Bly’s recounts of her time in the asylum. Nellie was given the assignment to observe the conditions in a major New York mental institution and to publish her observations through an American press outlet for the public. Nellie was a journalist who devoted herself to working on projects that only pertained to subjects she was passionate about. She typically wrote only in regards to the women’s rights movements, but when this aspect of society that was also responsible for oppressing people and giving them unfair treatment was brought to her attention, she eagerly took on the assignment. I consider this source to be very trustworthy because it was written by Nellie herself during her time in the asylum. I drew this specific excerpt from a page on pbs pbs.org. Nellie’s findings were published in 1887, 19 years after Elizabeth Parsons’ The Prisoners' Hidden Life and 44 years after Dorothea Dix’s Memorial to the Legislature of Massachusetts . Because she was published after these two widely known works, the public knew that the conditions in the mental institutions were not at the level they should be. But Nellie took a different view on things. Unlike Parson and Dix, who entered the asylums as journalists, Nellie checked herself in as a mental patient. Under the name “Nellie Brown”, Bly convinced an array of people that she had lost her mind, which led to her confinement on Blackwell’s Island for ten days. Because Nellie was a patient and received the treatment that all other patients were given, she could fully immerse herself in what she was informing the public of and could provide her readers with complete and accurate information. Nellie was writing to show that the institutions these ill people were put in were far from being beneficial for their health. She says that the food was so unappealing that she chose to continue on hungry than to force it down. An onlooker told her, “to have a good brain the stomach must be cared for”. The food given to these patients was far from nutritious, and wouldn’t fulfill the caring that needs to be done to the stomach in order to have a “good brain”, even if Nellie had been able to make herself consume it. Nellie’s entries effectively show that these asylums offered no help to the ailing and if there is to be any improvement made to their health, better conditions need to be implemented.