Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans

This week we again worked on creating questions for our own final. This time our topic was Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans. We used videos from ABC Clio and other primary and secondary sources to teach ourselves about the Native Americans and Buffalo Soldiers. We learned about what happened to the Native Americans and what the Buffalo Soldiers did. After taking countless notes and the class came up with an essential question. It is, during westward expansion, did the impact of federal policies towards Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans match their intent? After coming up with the essential question we created 40 multiple choice questions based on what we learned. To answer the essential question, I believe that the impact of the federal policies towards Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans matched their intent.

Buffalo Soldiers in New Mexico. PBS Learning Media.

The government needed to give African Americans jobs after the Civil War because they had no way of making an income. To do this President Johnson created an act for 6 regiment troops to go into the Midwest and keep peace and push the westward expansion along. These troops were the Buffalo Soldiers. The Buffalo Soldiers were told to move the Native Americans off the land so the whites and farmers could move in. The Buffalo Soldiers did as they were told and kept as much peace as possible as they fought the Native Americans to leave. Sadly, the Buffalo Soldiers did not have good resources and tools. They had to march to get places to fight. The government didn't care about the treatment of the Buffalo Soldiers only as long as they got the job they were meant to do done. The policies and tasks they were sent to do backed that up.

Buffalo Soldiers in New Mexico. PBS Learning Media.

Life on the Plains. American History. ABC Clio.

The Native Americans were being pushed off their land by the government and Buffalo Soldiers. The government wanted them off the land because of the westward expansion. The people wanted to farm the land as while as find gold. The Native Americans were under "special protection" from the government so the government could control them. The government sent them to reservations and tried to get their ways out of them. The kids were also sent to boarding schools to be educated like other white Americans. The government enacted policies such as the Dawes Act so they could move the Native Americans out just as they wanted.

Life on the Plains. American History. ABC Clio.

Julianna O

Rockefeller and Carnegie

Over the week we have been working as a class to learn about John D Rockefeller's and Andrew Carnegie's impact on big industries. We watched an ABC Clio video about the two people and the industries they ran. We also went through primary and secondary sources to learn about their industries and how it affected the public. Our essential question is were the captains of industry a positive or a negative impact to the public? I believe that the captains of industry had a positive impact on the public.

John D Rockefeller made a lot of money through his company Standard Oil. Many believe his goal was to be the richest man in the world. Standard Oil was a very successful company by keeping their prices so low that other companies could not compete with him. Another strategy Rockefeller had was to buy out his rival companies as well. Many think that when we went about this he did not always go about it well and used cutthroat tactics to get them to give in. This tactics did allow John D Rockefeller to be a very wealthy man in the end. He believed that it was his right to make money so he could give back money to the people. Rockefeller gave away a total of 500 million dollars to charities and the public. He believed in the education of people so he donated a lot of money to schools. He also helped eradicate yellow fever by donating to charity groups. Over all his impact was a good one. He kept oil costs low, gave to education, and gave to charity.

John D Rockefeller portrait. From Edline John D Rockefeller biography.

Andrew Carnegie worked in the steel industry but before that he had small jobs. He worked in factories and was able to take telegraphs by sound. Later Carnegie traveled all over Europe and studied techniques in big businesses. He teamed up with Bessemer to create a very successful steel business. Carnegie's company was able to produce high quality steel at a low price. This allowed for people to use steel as much as they needed. They could create railroads and other important things. Carnegie ended up giving over his company to J.P. Morgan. In the end Carnegie had created several schools and gave to charities as well.

Andrew Carnegie portrait. From Edline Andrew Carnegie biography. 

Julianna O

Freedom, How do you obtain it?

Hello readers,

This last week or so my class worked on figuring out if the freedom to slaves was given from above or below. Our essential questions were who gave freedom to enslaved Americans? Did freedom come from above or below? And to what extent were Abraham Lincoln’s actions influenced by the actions of enslaved Americans? These questions were answered day the class going over several primary sources and others. We looked over sources, took notes on them, reviewed them in class, and finally categorized them as freedom from above or below.

There are several documents that we looked at that support the slaves were granted freedom from below. This means that the slaves worked to give themselves freedom and they made it happen. In a letter from General Ambrose E. Burnside to Edwin M. Stanton, the secretary of war, Burnside described the scene in a New England city. The town was being overrun by fugitive slaves. The slaves had escaped slavery and were hiding out in swamps and had taken advantage of the moment to overrun the city and scare everyone off. The slaves were forcing themselves into the war’s attention. We also looked at an engraving which portrayed slaves from a plantation marching into Chickasaw Bayou, Mississippi. The slaves marched right through confederate soldiers. They again pushed themselves into the war and made people look at them and notice them.

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

Although it seems from the last paragraph it is obvious that the slaves forced their own freedom, there is also some proof that the slaves were granted freedom from above. In President Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address Lincoln says that he will grant the slaves freedom. Lincoln says that the slaves were the cause of the war and he must give them freedom to end the war. This is portraying that the slaves were granted freedom from the people above them. Another source we read was an excerpt of a reply from Lincoln to an open letter from Horace Greeley. Lincoln says that he would either free some of them or none of them. This to me makes me think that Lincoln thinks that he is giving freedom to the slaves. Lincoln decides the fate of the slaves.

I believe that the slaves earned their freedom, they made their freedom happen. The slaves made themselves a big part of the war. They had developed a plan to get themselves in the way of the war. Lincoln and others had nothing to do with the freedom of slaves in my opinion. Something like this in our lives today is the LGBT community. They are fighting for their rights every day. The Bruce Jenner interview just came out and he is standing high and proud of his beliefs. The LGBT community deserves to have rights just like everyone else. They have protests and try to keep their rights. Some states though are taking their rights away while others are trying to protect them. History seems to be repeating itself in some ways.

Family Snaps vs. There Must be Blood: More Gay Marriage Protest Optics

Bagnewsnotes.com

http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/2013/03/family-snaps-vs-there-must-be-blood-more-gay-marriage-protest-optics/

Julianna O    

Civil War Scavenger Hunt

Dear readers,

Last week my class worked on a Civil War Scavenger Hunt to answer two essential questions, who was the ultimate victor of each of the theaters of war: east, west, naval and what are some commonalities you can identify in the reasons for the results of the battles. Each person chose a battle based on the description that was provided to us, we did not know the name or any important information. We then researched the battle and found the name, location, theater it was in, who the victor was, and why the victor won. Each person created a Google document that had this information on it, click here to see mine. To have people view our document during the scavenger hunt we created a Bitly and QR code that linked to our document and printed out a piece of paper with the Bitly and QR code on it. After we each created this we organized where we were going to put them around the school and added the information to our google document on where to find the next battle. It took about two classes to carry out the scavenger hunt with everyone going around the school and scanning into the documents and taking notes on the battles. It was a great way to learn and it was fun to go around the school! After we finished the scavenger hunt we got together as a class and worked on a Padlet. Our Padlet allowed us to each put in our educated opinion on who the overall victors of the Eastern, Western, and Naval theaters were.

Created with Padlet

We then found the answer to our first essential question: who was the ultimate victor of each of the theaters of war: east, west, and naval. The east theater’s victor was a bit more split. The Union won many battles but so did the Confederacy. The Union won many of the battles because they had the resources and manpower but they suffered several casualties. The Confederacy was able to win battles such as the Battles of Federicksburg but they were not able to move forward. The west’s victor was the Union. They again had the resources and manpower to control the Confederacy from moving west and won many battles such as the Siege of Vicksburg. The naval theater was dominated by the Union as well. They had the resources to beat the Confederacy. They could control the ports and left the Confederacy with little resources to continue fighting.

To answer the second question you must look at why the Union won many of the battles. The Siege of Vicksburg was won because the Confederacy ran out of resources and the Union kept pushing forward. The Surrender of Fort Donelson was won by the Union because they could keep getting the reinforcements, the manpower, they needed to win. The Union always had the manpower and the resources to keep pushing and moving forward while the Confederacy lacked resources to keep their battles going.

Julianna O

Election of 1860

Hello readers,

During our last unit we learned about the Election of 1860. We watched a Crash Course video and took notes and then did a lot of research on the election as well as the people and events involved around it. Our essential question for the activity were the results of the Election of 1860 representative of the deep division over slavery? We learned about why certain people got elected in certain places as well as learning about some art that took place in during the time. To answer the essential question and tell the story of the Election of 1860 we made a video using Educreations. Click here to watch the video.  

Winners Vs. Losers, Statistics and Strategies

Hello Readers,
In class over the past week we learned about the American Civil War and the causes and reasoning behind it. We analyzed statistics and strategies to answer the essential question. The essential question was how did the differences between the North and South affect each region's strategy and success in the civil war? After analysis I have concluded that the North had a much greater advantage over the South due to their resources, strategies, and numbers. To learn more view my Infographic below or click here. 

Julianna O 

The Elephant in the Room, Slavery Early 19th Century

Hello readers,

In class these past few weeks we have learned more about slavery in the US.  The essential question was how to do we know that the debate over slavery was the elephant in the room for American politics in the early 19th century. Although they did somewhat address slavery in politics they did not discuss it at the extent it should have been discussed at. They created laws around actually discussing this issue and trying to make the US a country known for slavery or not. To learn about the government acts in the early 19th century about slavery we read and did research on many big events. We then created a timeline with each event that we learned about on it. The antislavery events went above the line while the proslavery events went below it.

The US government at the time was trying to work around discussing slavery fully. The government created acts such as the Nebraska-Kansas Act that said that when they were populated more they would decide if it was a slave state or not. This made people from the north (antislavery) and people from the south (proslavery) all flock there to have the state go in their favor.

Kansas was in an all out war within the state. People who were proslavery and people who were just against any other ethnicity other than whites had created two governments in the state and were fighting against each other. This was caused by them both flocking their trying to make Kansas a slave state or not. The real US government was not addressing this terrible crime.

Senator Charles Sumner made a speech about “The Crime Against Kansas” discussing the cruel acts that had happened in Kansas. Sumner discussed Senator Andrew Butler in the speech implying that he knew the violence was going to happen. Sumner was antislavery and thought that all Butler wanted was to spread slavery so he supported the Act so slavery would grow. Butler then got so upset that he hit Sumner with his cane causing Sumner to be badly injured.

During all of the concern about making the US a slavery country or not there was an enslaved black man, Dred Scott. His owner had died and he wanted freedom. Dred Scott had traveled with his owner everywhere and lived in free slave states. Mr. Scott had filed a lawsuit saying that he is a free man now because his owner died and he had lived in free states. This lawsuit was brought up to the Supreme Court which ruled 7 to 2 against Dred Scott. The lawsuit technically at the time should never had been brought to court  because slaves were not citizens which means they were not allowed to sue. The lawsuit had caused the Missouri Compromise to be called unconstitutional and all territories, whether north of the line or not, were now open to slavery.

The government avoided discussing slavery as a whole throughout a lot of the 19th century. Little things were discussed such as what state would be a slave state or not but final decisions were never made. The government was treating slavery like the “elephant in the room”.

Julianna O.