This is an infographic I made about the civil war. The information in it is about which side had the advantage when it came to resources. I chose to include several important statistics in the infographic. The most obvious difference in the North and South's resources was the major poulation difference, illustrated with the chart that show miniature people. The North was at the advantage here, with a far greater population than the South. The next chart shows railroad mileage. The North had a great deal more railroad mileage than the South, meaning they had better infrastructure and transportation. People, weapons, and goods could be easily distribution throughout the North, giving them another advantage against the South. One area where the South was in the lead was cotton production, as seen in the donut chart. 100% of the country's cotton was produced in the South, giving them a firm grasp on the market. The South intended to halt cotton production in hopes of preventing the Union from getting any, as well as cutting off their foreign markets. They hoped that this would force other country to take their side in the war, but it backfired when the other countries simply purchased cotton elsewhere. Finally, the North had far more industrial workers than the South. This is important because it is the industrial workers that produce guns and ammunition. With more workers, the North could arm its troops far faster than the South, giving them yet another military advantage. The creation of this chart helped me to learn how the Civil War was stacked.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
An Enslaved Pachyderm
The low thumping of huge feet. A shrill trumpeting penetrates the air. The musty smell of nature. A gigantic shadow covers you. You feel a massive presence over your shoulder. You try to ignore it but you feel it getting closer, closer. A long trunk is drawing near, wrapping around your body. Hot breathe is on your neck. Don't turn around. You turn around. There's nothing there but you and the vanishing scent of a massive beast. But out of the corner of your eye, you see a short gray tail. That's right. There's an elephant in the room.
Wikipedia defines the phrase "elephant in the room" as "an English metaphorical idiom for an obvious truth that is either being ignored or going unaddressed". In antebellum America, the issue of slavery is an elephant in the room. The essential question asked "How do we know the debate over slavery was the "elephant in the room" for American politics in the early 19th century?". Although there were certainly conflicts between people supporting and against slavery, it was still an elephant in the room. We know it was the elephant in the room because of the way politicians avoided directly solving the problem, and instead created compromises and acts, rather than giving the people what they wanted.
We started the lesson by learning about the Missouri Compromise, which stated that no territory north of 36 degrees 30 minutes would be a slave state, and made an even eleven slave states and eleven free states. After the gold rush of 1849, California was rapidly populated and wanted to become a free state, but this would upset the balance created by the Missouri Compromise. This conflict led to the five-part compromise. Among other things, it allowed California to be a free state, but also passed the Fugitive Slave Act, which set unfair rules regarding runaway slaves. We then, as a class, continued on to the Gadsden purchase, Kansas Nebraska Act, the overturning of the Missouri compromise, and "Bleeding Kansas".
We were then split into small groups to create timelines of the events leading up the civil war, and which side each event benefited. Below is our timeline.
Several of these events show that not enough people were talking about slavery, even though it was clearly a huge issue. When the Missouri compromise was overturned, it showed that politicians were no longer concerned with he spread of slavery, and instead wanted to appease angry southerners. The series of events known as "Bleeding Kansas" also shows slavery Elephant status. Bleeding Kansas was a chain reaction of violent events that affected both sides of the issue. When a political issue creates violence and death, it is clear that it is being overlooked by those who are in control of it, and the issue is instead turned over to the people, rather than being discussed in a civilized way. Furthermore, the caning of Charles Sumner shows slavery being the elephant in the room. When Sumner delivered a strongly worded anti-slavery speech, he was attacked by another man on the senate floor. The fact that a senator could not bring up the topic of slavery without being attacked showed that the issue was being avoided at all costs, and even pushed men to violence rather than compromise. While Sumner speech was bold and insulting, it is still ridiculous that he was attacked for bringing the problem to light. The final event that shows the government's indifference to slavery is the Dred Scott decision. In short, an enslaved man named Dred Scott filed a lawsuit against his owner for owning him and his wife while they were in free states. The Scott's lost the supreme court case, and the Dred Scott Decision stated that slaves could not sue, could not gain freedom by living in a free state, and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. This was a step in the wrong direction for congress, who seemed to be tiptoeing around the issue of slavery entirely, as if it was an elephant in the room.
Wikipedia defines the phrase "elephant in the room" as "an English metaphorical idiom for an obvious truth that is either being ignored or going unaddressed". In antebellum America, the issue of slavery is an elephant in the room. The essential question asked "How do we know the debate over slavery was the "elephant in the room" for American politics in the early 19th century?". Although there were certainly conflicts between people supporting and against slavery, it was still an elephant in the room. We know it was the elephant in the room because of the way politicians avoided directly solving the problem, and instead created compromises and acts, rather than giving the people what they wanted.
We started the lesson by learning about the Missouri Compromise, which stated that no territory north of 36 degrees 30 minutes would be a slave state, and made an even eleven slave states and eleven free states. After the gold rush of 1849, California was rapidly populated and wanted to become a free state, but this would upset the balance created by the Missouri Compromise. This conflict led to the five-part compromise. Among other things, it allowed California to be a free state, but also passed the Fugitive Slave Act, which set unfair rules regarding runaway slaves. We then, as a class, continued on to the Gadsden purchase, Kansas Nebraska Act, the overturning of the Missouri compromise, and "Bleeding Kansas".
We were then split into small groups to create timelines of the events leading up the civil war, and which side each event benefited. Below is our timeline.
Several of these events show that not enough people were talking about slavery, even though it was clearly a huge issue. When the Missouri compromise was overturned, it showed that politicians were no longer concerned with he spread of slavery, and instead wanted to appease angry southerners. The series of events known as "Bleeding Kansas" also shows slavery Elephant status. Bleeding Kansas was a chain reaction of violent events that affected both sides of the issue. When a political issue creates violence and death, it is clear that it is being overlooked by those who are in control of it, and the issue is instead turned over to the people, rather than being discussed in a civilized way. Furthermore, the caning of Charles Sumner shows slavery being the elephant in the room. When Sumner delivered a strongly worded anti-slavery speech, he was attacked by another man on the senate floor. The fact that a senator could not bring up the topic of slavery without being attacked showed that the issue was being avoided at all costs, and even pushed men to violence rather than compromise. While Sumner speech was bold and insulting, it is still ridiculous that he was attacked for bringing the problem to light. The final event that shows the government's indifference to slavery is the Dred Scott decision. In short, an enslaved man named Dred Scott filed a lawsuit against his owner for owning him and his wife while they were in free states. The Scott's lost the supreme court case, and the Dred Scott Decision stated that slaves could not sue, could not gain freedom by living in a free state, and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. This was a step in the wrong direction for congress, who seemed to be tiptoeing around the issue of slavery entirely, as if it was an elephant in the room.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)