Buffalo Soldiers and Sioux Indians

This week was the second week we researched a topic on our own and created our own essential question, and then wrote multiple choice questions for our final. This week we researched the Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans during the westward expansion. We came up with the essential question “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 American government has a track record for discriminating against whole groups of people, including African Americans and Native Americans. After the Civil War when westward expansion began, mistreatment continued, but this time they used one group to help discriminate against the other.  The government needed an army presence in the Midwest, so they used African American soldiers to control the populations of Plains Indians that lived there. These soldiers became known as the Buffalo Soldiers. With experience from the Civil War and nowhere else to go the Buffalo Soldiers were ideal for the job. Most of the Plains Indians that lived in this area of the Midwest were part of the Sioux Nation. Tribes like the Lakota, Dakota, Cheyenne, and Apache were very well unified. They had chiefs who were the political leaders of their tribes, and they held their own religious ceremonies and rituals.

Buffalo Soldiers in the Midwest

To improve westward expansion, the government used the African American soldiers to help enforce newly enacted policies on the Indians. One of the first things the government did was use the soldiers to remove all the buffalo from the Great Plains, which were the Indians source of almost everything. The Buffalo Soldiers implemented total war tactics, destroying everything life sustaining for the Indians in hopes of forcing them off the land. After doing this, the government instituted the Allotment program, where they divided up the Native American land. They gave individuals their own land on reservations, and gave 90% of the land to the public. Then they enacted the Dawes Act that granted titles of land and U.S. citizenship to Natives who wanted to begin a new life as farmers. The Natives didn't want to be pushed off of their home land and into reservations so they began resisting and fighting back. When over 150 Sioux Indians were killed at the Wounded Knee Massacre, they finally gave up and stopped fighting.

The American government wanted to expand their territory, and didn't care that they were disrupting the homes of entire tribes of people. They destroyed the Native Americans' sources of food, and forced them onto reservations. The government had good intentions when giving the Indians land to live on after being forced off of their land, but they never should've moved them in the first place. The Natives lived there for hundreds of years and their lives were completed disrupted by the unfair actions of the U.S. government.

Sources:

ABC-CLIO Overview Videos: http://www.edline.net/pages/Reading_HS/Curriculum/LibraryMediaCenter/Links/New_Edline_folder__Burke_10_27

Buffalo Soldiers Society (PBS LearningMedia Video): http://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/49e8d07f-313d-44af-924a-591b0c96aeea/buffalo-soldiers-in-new-mexico/

Excerpt from Dawes Act 1887: http://www.edline.net/files/_FFJNJ_/72e885a0a31113a13745a49013852ec4/Excerpts_from_Dawes_Act.pdf

Image "Buffalo Soldiers in the Midwest": http://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/49e8d07f-313d-44af-924a-591b0c96aeea/buffalo-soldiers-in-new-mexico/

Robber Barons and Captains of Industry

This week in history class, the lesson was done much differently from all the others. For this one, we created our own essential question from documents and videos given to us, and then created 40 multiple choice questions on the topic for our final exam at the end of the year. We had more freedom to decide how we wanted to learn the information, and I think it worked very well. The overarching topic was the rise of business in America during the late 1800s, including businessmen like Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller. We learned how these two  men, using somewhat questionable tactics, became the richest men in the world by creating large business that dominated American industry. The essential question we came up with was “Should Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller be classified as Robber Barons or Captains of Industry?”

Captains of Industry were owners of extremely large corporations and businesses in the American economy during the late 1800s. These businessmen fought for control of major industries. Not all Captains of Industry were corrupt, but the majority were, and they were known as Robber Barons. To stay on top, Robber Barons bribed government officials, had extremely poor conditions for workers, hired personal armies to use against people who challenged their policies, and bought out or destroyed their competitors to create monopolies.

Andrew Carnegie was one of the richest businessmen of his time. He produced and sold steel, and invested in oil, iron, the telegraph, and the production of bridges and railroads. He believed in the Gospel of Wealth, the idea that every rich man was made rich by God, and therefor had a duty to use their money to help other people. Following this idea, Carnegie donated extra money to advance education by building libraries and Carnegie Mellon University, and promoted his workers by recognizing their talent and hard work. All these things made Andrew Carnegie the ideal Captain of Industry, a steep contrast to Rockefeller.

Udo J Keppler's political cartoon depicting Rockefeller as an octopus
with a grasp on every area of American industry, including the government.
(September 7, 1904)

John D Rockefeller should most definitely be considered a Robber Baron. Rockefeller made his millions in the oil industry. He was “mad for oil,” and it was believed that everything he did was motivated by greed. He bought out rival companies who weren’t doing well, kept his production costs low to drive other companies out of business, and worked with rival companies’ boards of directors to keep their prices high. Little by little he bought out all the oil companies in America and held a tight grasp on government officials, as depicted in Udo J Keppler's political cartoon from 1904. Although he did donate millions to advancements in medicine, science, and education, he did it all for his own benefit, and for that Rockefeller should be considered a Robber Baron.

From the information we found on Captains of Industry of the late 1800s, I don’t think that all businessmen of the time should be considered Robber Barons. Of course, Rockefeller controlled the whole oil industry with his corrupt ways. But with Carnegie’s donations and interest in innovation for the world and the well-being of others, we can see that not all businessmen can be classified as Robber Barons.

Sources:

ABC-CLIO Overview Videos: http://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Topics/Display/1187729?cid=140

John D Rockefeller Bio: http://www.edline.net/files/_EfGYe_/dcbcad1ce101c2713745a49013852ec4/John_D_Rockefeller_Bio.pdf

Primary/Secondary Sources Lesson: http://www.edline.net/files/_EfHIe_/9f3369d5493f1a2b3745a49013852ec4/Doug_Ernst-Inquiry_Lesson-Robber_or_Captain.pdf   

Udo J Keppler's Political Cartoon (September 7, 1904): http://www.edline.net/files/_EfHIe_/9f3369d5493f1a2b3745a49013852ec4/Doug_Ernst-Inquiry_Lesson-Robber_or_Captain.pdf

Freedom Comes from Above

This week in class we discussed the freeing of slaves during the Civil War, and if their freedom came from above, the government, or below, from the slaves themselves. We also looked at how Lincoln's actions influenced the actions of the American slaves. To find the answers to the essential questions, we looked at documents like the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, the Gettysburg Address, and the Second Inaugural Address. Through our research, I discovered that freedom for the slaves did inevitably come from above.

Although the slaves fought hard for their freedom, they only got it when the government officially abolished slavery. In Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation he states that "all persons held as slaves within any state...in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free." And in his Gettysburg Address and Second Inaugural Address he shows that he believes that slavery in the United States is wrong. This shows that no matter how hard the slaves pushed for their freedom, they were only able to get it from the people who had the most power, the government.

Even in today's society, things that people want to achieve seem to have to be given from above. Whether it be a job that they want, or an issue that they want reformed, people have to wait for higher power to achieve it. The same went for the slaves during the Civil War. They wanted their freedom, and when Lincoln began to give it to them, slave and abolitionists pushed even harder. But inevitably, the freedom that they wanted was only achieved with the help and agreement of the people above.


"Freedom to the Slaves"  from class notes on Edline.

"Finding" Trends in the Civil War

This week in class we examined the victors of battles in the Civil War through a scavenger hunt around the school. We each were assigned a battle, and we found the theater, east, west, or naval, the victor, and the reasons for the victory. We put our information into a Google doc, put the link in a QR code, and then hung them around the school. (See mine here: http://bit.ly/CivilWarBattle3). Then, we used the information we got from everyone's QR codes to answer the essential questions, "Who was the ultimate victor in the theaters of the war: East, West, Naval? What are some commonalities you can identify in the reasons for the results of the battles?" As a class we each answered these questions for two of the theaters in a Padlet.

View our class Padlet here:

Created with Padlet

Of course, the Union Army won the Civil War, but they didn't dominate all theaters. They dominated both the Western and Naval theaters, but the Confederate dominated the East. Throughout the Western battles, the North consistently outnumbered the South with more men and defeated them with stronger weaponry. For example, at the Battle of Shiloh on April 6 and 7, 1862 and the Battle of Vicksburg on July 4, 1863, the North outnumbered the South by 10,000 men, and the South had more than 8 times the amount of men missing or captured. The North also dominated the Naval Theater with fleets much stronger than those in the South. At both the Battle of Baton Rouge and the Battle of Fort Donelson, the Union attacked so heavily on the enemy ships that they caused enough damage to force the Confederates to surrender. Although the Confederates didn’t win as many battles as the North, they were still able to dominate the Eastern Theater. Each Confederate victory in the east was a result of large amounts of Union casualties. The Battle of Fredericksburg left 13,300 Union casualties, while the Second Battle of Bull Run resulted in over 5,500 more.

Through this scavenger hunt we learned about each theater of the Civil War, and saw trends in the results of the battles. I really enjoyed doing this activity because it was a creative and fun way for us to learn the information, instead of just taking basic notes. Instead of just sitting in the classroom, it was nice to be able to get up and move around the school...even though it was a little tiring.

What Caused the Divisions Over Slavery

Today in class we learned about the Election of 1860, its results, and how they represent the countries deep divisions over slavery. First, we watched a Crash Course video to learn how the topic of slavery caused divisions through events such as Bleeding Kansas, the Dred Scott case, John Brown’s raid, etc. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roNmeOOJCDY) Then we answered the essential question, “Were the results of the Election of 1860 representative of the deep divisions over slavery,” with evidence from our notes and from the video. Then, we read the article Civil War in Art, (http://www.civilwarinart.org/exhibits/show/causes/introduction/the-election-of-1860-and-seces) and used it to create a video that explained the major events surrounding the Election of 1860, and our answer to the essential question. We used art from the article, and more pieces we found online, to show the full story behind the election.

Watch our video on Educreations here:

Citations:

"Portrait of Dred Scott." 1853. 

"1860 Presidential Election Map." 1860. American Presidency Project.

"Fort Sumter Engraving." Unknown Artist. Dec 26, 1860. 

Civil War in Art. http://www.civilwarinart.org/exhibits/show/causes/introduction/the-election-of-1860-and-seces.

Civil War in Art. http://www.civilwarinart.org/exhibits/show/causes/introduction/the-election-of-1860-and-seces

Crash Course Election of 1860. https://nerdfighteria.info/video/crashcourse/roNmeOOJCDY

North vs South: Civil War Infographic

Before the Civil War, the North and the South had continuous conflict over slavery and slave laws. The war was started to end the fight over slavery once and for all, and we know that the anti-slavery North was victorious. I chose specific statistics and facts for my Infographic because I wanted to show the advantages the North had in the war, and why their strategy was so successful.

I chose to include charts that show the railroad mileage and factories that the North had because they contributed to the North’s ability to easily supply food and materials to their troops during the war. The reason I didn’t include any graphs or charts to show statistics for the South is because they didn’t really have many strong advantages. The North was the one with clear leverage in the war. Also, I included the sections about each sides strategies because it shows how the North won the war. They had a stronger plan, even though the South seemed to have stronger motivation.

The process of creating this Infographic really helped me to learn about the situations faced by the Union and Confederacy at the start of the war. I looked over the information many times, and picked out the important facts and statistics to help explain the strategies, motivations, and advantages of both the North and South at the start of the Civil War.

Slavery: The Elephant in the Room

We know that the debate over slavery was the “elephant in the room” for American politics in the early 19th century because the opinions on it were so divided, and the topic itself was extremely controversial. From 1850 to 1859, violent events and questionable government decisions brought up strong opposing sides on the topic of slavery. In class, we created a timeline with events that prove that the debate over slavery was a difficult topic to discuss in the early 19th century.

One example of violence that resulted from the lack of debate on the topic of slavery was the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1954. The Kansas Nebraska Act, created by Stephen Douglas, created a new transcontinental railroad from Chicago to new territory in the west. The act was going to make Chicago a center of commerce and trade, but to make it happen, Douglas had to compromise with the south. He proposed to violate the Missouri Compromise,which states that there were to be no slave states above the Missouri’s southern border, and create new territories in the west, Kansas and Nebraska, that would be ruled by popular sovereignty. This resulted in thousands of pro slavery activists and abolitionists to flock to the new territory in an attempt to influence their status as states. Violent disputes over land and slave laws broke out across the land, eventually naming this time Bleeding Kansas.

Just as Bleeding Kansas was the result of an incompetent compromise, John Brown’s attack on Harper’s Ferry was the result of the incompetent debate of slavery in the South. John Brown was upset that the anti-slavery cause was getting nowhere, and decided to take matters into his own hands. He planned to wage war on Virginia with weapons he would steal from the federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry. Brown and 21 other men, black and white, violently raided the arsenal. Brown was eventually captured, tried, and hanged, in Virginia for his crime.

Obviously slavery was a topic that people in the early 19th century did not want to discuss at length due to the strong opinions on both sides. Discussions and compromises, no matter how beneficial for either side, seemed to commonly end in violence. People were injured and killed whether they supported slavery or not. Much of these instances, specifically Bleeding Kansas and Harper’s Ferry, were the result of inadequate debates that didn’t solve problems thoroughly enough. But, the result of these acts was even less discussion of slavery, out of fear for more violence and uprisings.