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.

Morality of Slavery

Hello readers,

In the late 18th century and early 19th century America's economy was based a lot on cotton. To have the cotton industry booming in America though many people thought that there needed to be slaves. As America grew and the southerners moved so did the cotton and slaves. The slave population was becoming so large because of all the cotton. The economy became somewhat dependent on the slaves to keep the cotton going. 

Prince Among Slaves. Comparing Slavery. http://princeamongslaves.org/module/comparing.html?page=2. www.slaveryimages.org, sponsored by the University of Virginia Library.

Everyone has the right to human dignity but the slavery system based on race does not allow the slaves to have any human dignity. The slaves are not allowed to be truly free. They are under someone else's commands. People need to be free, they need to be able to make decisions for themselves and with slavery they are not allowed to do that. They are shamed for who they are and they can't help who they are. They are not able to have any dignity because of they are shamed for who they are. The basic human characteristics aren't even respected when you are a slave. They have no privacy or time to relax. They are only able to make family and friends with people on the plantations. They are not able to interact with others and talk about how they feel. Slaves are not treated like humans. They are not able to have dignity and their basic human characteristics are not respected.  

Julianna O. 

Women's Rights Today and Yesterday

Hello readers,

Many people were greatly appalled by the demand for women’s equality in the mid 19th century. Women had be looked lesser upon for thousands of years without much of an uproar till this time. The women who were protesting for black slaves’ rights realized that they didn't even have many of the rights they were asking to be given to the slaves. Laws that were against women’s rights included that men could be women to keep them in line, women could not own land, and for a long time could not get a higher education. The women were now saying give these rights to the slaves without even having them themselves. After realizing how wrong that was women spoke up and said give these rights to us as well. After the Seneca Falls Convention where 300 men and women met to discuss women’s rights people had very some very harsh and some positive reactions. In the newspaper, Mechanics Advocate, Female Department, they talk of women’s rights in the bible,  “1st Adam was made before Eve. 2nd Eve sinned before Adam. Now there is no escape for women here, for if she be older than her husband, then of course she must be subject to him, because she must have sinned first. If on the contrary she be younger, she must be subject to him because he was made first”. This then translates into the world saying that no matter what women should be subject to man. Although the convention allowed for women’s rights to get a lot of publicity, as you can see, a lot of it was not positive. It had been called “silly” by another newspaper. The reactions were leaning towards negativity but as you can tell from today, women eventually did get their rights back.

Men and women are thought to be looked at as equals today by many but not all people. They can go into law enforcement together, they can both vote, they can have some of the same jobs, etc. but men and women are still not interchangeable and is that not somewhat what equality is about? Women are not interchangeable to men for certain things though because of straight biological differences. Men are naturally stronger than women, they are able to create more muscle mass. Women are more neutering than men, they have more maternal instincts which allows for that. That will never change so men and women might never be true equals. When men and women do the same things they are thought of still as different. You can see that in this Pantene commercial, click here to watch it. Men and women are doing the exact same thing but described differently. Is that really equality? I think not.

Julianna O.

Social Reforms: Transcendentalism

Here are two paragraphs taken from the essay “Self Reliance” by Ralph Waldo Emerson:

"Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string. Accept the place the divine providence has found for you, the society of your contemporaries, the connection of events. Great men have always done so, and confided themselves childlike to the genius of their age, betraying their perception that the absolutely trustworthy was seated at their heart, working through their hands, predominating in all their being. And we are now men, and must accept in the highest mind the same transcendent destiny; and not minors and invalids in a protected corner, not cowards fleeing before a revolution, but guides, redeemers, and benefactors, obeying the Almighty effort, and advancing on Chaos and the Dark.
What pretty oracles nature yields us on this text, in the face and behaviour of children, babes, and even brutes! That divided and rebel mind, that distrust of a sentiment because our arithmetic has computed the strength and means opposed to our purpose, these have not. Their mind being whole, their eye is as yet unconquered, and when we look in their faces, we are disconcerted. Infancy conforms to nobody: all conform to it, so that one babe commonly makes four or five out of the adults who prattle and play to it. So God has armed youth and puberty and manhood no less with its own piquancy and charm, and made it enviable and gracious and its claims not to be put by, if it will stand by itself. Do not think the youth has no force, because he cannot speak to you and me. Hark! in the next room his voice is sufficiently clear and emphatic. It seems he knows how to speak to his contemporaries. Bashful or bold, then, he will know how to make us seniors very unnecessary."

Emerson, Ralph Waldo. "Self-Reliance." Ralph Waldo Emerson- Texts. Accessed January 12, 2015. http://www.emersoncentral.com/selfreliance.htm.

Ralph Waldo Emerson was a big creator and supporter of Transcendentalism. In the essay, Self Reliance, Emerson speaks of his beliefs based around Transcendentalism. He believes that it is a great way to live your life and the only way people should be living their lives. His purpose for publishing this essay was to have people read his ideas and put them to use in their own lives. This is a great trustworthy source as I have read the exact same one in my English class.

The essay gives mainly Emerson's opinions and views on Transcendentalism. He talks nothing of the event effecting other people at the time. This essay teaches us what Emerson believes is the basis of Transcendentalism, Self Reliance. Emerson talks about how to be happy and to be with God and nature people must rely on themselves and not others. People must be independent and come up with their own ideas and ways of life. Emerson speaks about how society has become very conformed so no one is an individual creating new ideas. He also talks about how the young seem to have the right idea in the beginning. The children speak out without much thought and are very honest; Emerson admires that about children. Throughout the essay he seems to be trying to convince you that this way is the right way.

Thanks for reading,

Julianna O