Bob Marley: Indian Killer?

This week, our class focused on Buffalo soldiers and the treatment of Native Americans. Our proceedings were pretty much the same as the previous week: we made a class google doc, and watched videos, taking notes on main ideas, people, and vocab within the doc. When then decided upon the essential question of: “During westward expansion, did the impact of federal policy towards buffalo soldiers and native Americans match the intent?”.

First, let’s talk about Buffalo Soldiers. Immortalized to the common Rastafarian through Bob Marley’s hit, Buffalo Soldiers were the black division of the union troops who continued to fight across the country after the civil war. These troops got their name from their hair and spirit, which reminded natives of the noble buffalo. We watched several videos detailing the lives of Natives in their prime. One notable thing about the Natives was their lush childhoods. Life was great in the plains. Major tribes included the Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota. The Great Plains had been peacefully divided. Unfortunately, when we mixed these two good things (Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans), life became very different for some of them.

Though Buffalo Soldiers built up infrastructure, they also destroyed culture, killing tribes such as the Apache, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Comanche, and Sioux. They brought into the west their concept of total war, in which they destroyed everything according to Sherman’s policies. To wipe out natives, the government ordered the extermination of buffalo and the natives’ horses, making their lives as hard as possible. The natives began to fight back in various wars. In what seemed to be a decisive victory in what is now referred to as “Custer’s Last Stand”, the natives held their own against the American army. However, the government simply flooded the area with troops, and began enforcing many laws to keep the West for themselves. One of these laws was the Dawes act which gave US citizenship to the head of households for American Indian families who became farmers (and left behind their native way of life), but also claimed nearly 90% of reservation space for whites. Extremists such as Henry Pratt claimed that all natives must be exterminated in order for whites to be successful. 

Overall, although the intent of federal policies was ambiguous, the devastation caused by them was undeniable.

Scrambled Carn-Egg-ie

While Mrs. Gallagher began to grade our history papers, we had to take matters into our own hands. We began the unit that would consist of learning material, then writing questions for our final. We were given a weekly plan, and limited guidance. Without Mrs. Gallagher giving us explicit directions, we had to self govern. Certain people came forth as leaders, assigning tasks, while others dedicated themselves as workers. First, as a class we made a Google Doc, and watched overview videos, taking notes in the Doc. We noted main ideas, key people, important events, and essential terms. As a class, we read biographies on John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. Finally, we decided on the essential question of "Were the captains of industry a positive or negative impact to the public?".  

Let’s take a closer look at Rockefeller and Carnegie.  John D. Rockefeller was a business mogul in the American petroleum industry who gave millions of his dollars to educations. Rockefeller was once described as the “Greatest business leader in American history”. He graduated from Cleveland High School, and his father was a farmer from New York. It was his father who encouraged him to enter the business world, and he did so, starting Standard Oil in 1870. Rockefeller created a monopoly on fossil fuels in the United States. Though Rockefeller donated large sums of money to various charities, he had a bad public reputation. He was known for his “cutthroat” business tactics, eliminating rival companies and bribing politicians. The public largely believed he was motivated by greed, but he ultimately helped to eradicate Yellow Fever, and gave away 500 million dollars to charity and education.

Andrew Carnegie (Carn-a-gee? Carn-a-jee? Carn-eggy?) was born in Ireland, and immigrated to America. As Aubrey Drake Graham would put it, he “Started from the bottom, now [he’s] here”. Carnegie started as a bobbin boy in a textile mill before working as a telegrapher operator. Carnegie boasts the honor of being among the first operators in country to take messages by sound alone, an impressive feat. Soon, Carnegie was promoted to Superintendent of the Eastern Telegraph Line, and later chose to retire to travel across Europe, expanding his business skills.  A budding steel manufacture, Carnegie took note of the British production system and later employed it in his factories. He invested half his fortune into steel manufacturing, and teamed up with Henry Bessemer, who had introduced the Bessemer process of making steel for cheap. He was then able to produce a higher quality steel at a lower price than his competitors. Carnegie was caught up in controversy when his plan to destroy the Iron and Steelmakers industry, and his workers began a strike. Carnegie was also famous for expanded his company in financial depression while others were downsizing. Finally, as the second richest man in the world, he sold his company to JP Morgan and began his life of philanthropy, making schools and public resources.

I think it’s clear that though people may have seen Rockefeller and Carnegie as money grubbers, they had a positive impact on their society.

Freedom: Top and Bottom

In 1863, Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves of the United States. However, was it him who gave them freedom? We looked into this question over the course of a few classes.  To be specific, the essential questions were: Who 'gave' freedom to enslaved Americans? Did freedom come from above or below? To what extent were Abraham Lincoln's actions influenced by the actions of enslaved Americans? To answer these questions, we examined documents and primary sources regarding where freedom came from, as well as Lincoln's decisions. We also watched a segment of a video discussion the end of slavery in the US. Freedom from Above means it was those who were societal higher (ie. the government) who got the slaves their freedom, and freedom from below means it was the slaves who gained their own freedom.

First, we looked at this image. It shows a romanticized version of the freeing of the slaves. While they slaves were definitely on Lincoln's side, it is unlikely that they worshiped him like this. This picture depicts freedom from above, because it shows Lincoln freeing the slaves.

We then examined some of Lincoln's documents. Lincoln's official position on slavery seemed to be neutral. In an open letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln discussed the reasons for the civil war. He dismisses the notion the war is about slavery, and reassures the reader that it is to save the union, saying  "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that".  Evidence of Lincoln's personal belief is also in this letter. Lincoln writes "I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

We then viewed a portion of Ken Burns' Civil War to learn about the influence of fugitive slaves.  We learned that as fugitive slaves became more and more of a problem, the government could no longer turn a blind eye to the issue. Furthermore, we learned that Lincoln did fight for abolition early in the war because the North seemed to be in a neutral position regarding equality. We also looked at two documents titled “Documents X and Y”. Both of them give information on a town overrun with fugitive slaves, representing freedom from below.

One obvious example of freedom from above is the emancipation proclamation, in which the government gave the slaves their freedom. The document states: “all persons held as slaves within any state or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free”. This shows that it was the government who freed the slaves, rather than the slaves freeing themselves. This is freedom from above.

This image is an example of freedom from below.

These fugitive slaves have made themselves known, pushing the issue towards the US Government. Perhaps without the new visibility of this issue, the government would not have freed the slaves, meaning the freedom really came from below.

Though historians view freedom as coming from above and below, I take a more traditional stance and believe it comes nearly solely from above. It was the government who chose whether or not the slaves would be free, and though slaves may have influenced their decision, it was still the decision of the government, not the slaves.

Recently in the news, there has been much talk of the Baltimore riots. Although the oppressed people are not enslaved, they are still attempting to get freedom from below. While I certainly do not condone the action of rioting, it cannot be denied that people in Baltimore want more freedom and Justice, and are taking matters into their own hands.

A Civil War... Scavenger Hunt?

After having nearly completed this blog post, it entirely disappeared, so this is a recreation of the original, a cheap counterfeit of a masterpiece, a second rate imitation of a brilliant piece of writing. My apologies.
To continue our study of the civil war, we held a scavenger hunt. This scavenger hunt brought us through all the major battles of the civil war. The essential questions that would be answered in this hunt were "Who was the ultimate victor in 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?" First, each student picked a battle based on a description. We then did some background research to find the name of the battle, and then went into depth. We discovered the victor, dates, location, and theatre of the battle, as well as some details. We then put this information into a Google Doc, and created a QR code and bit.ly link, which they printed out. This is where it gets scavengery. Each battle had a number (I was 16). The students hid their printed QR codes around the school, and told the student with the number below theirs where they hid it, and were in turn given similar information about the battle with the number after theirs. The location of the next battle in the school was placed into the Google Doc alongside the information about the battle, so students could travel from station to station, being told where to go next and copying historical information into Evernote. Much running around the school ensued. 
To answer the essential question, we got back together as a class with our newly compiled knowledge. We each posted our ideas about who dominated each theater to our Padlet.  The class seemed to be in agreement: The Union dominated the western theater, the Confederacy dominated early battles in the eastern theater before the Union fully readied their army and strategies, and finally, the Union dominated naval battles. Some commonalities in reasons for success were the facts that the Union had more resources and troops, but the Confederacy was initially more organized, although this would soon shift, paving the way for a Union victory. 

Election of 1860

The controversial election of 1860 showed the deep divide in America as the Civil war was brewing.  The essential question presented to us was: How were the results of the  Election of 1860 representative of the deep divisions  over slavery? In class, we watched a Crash Course video regarding the Election of 1860, and briefly studied the outcome. In this diagram, we see the outcome of the election based on votes from each state.

As you can see, the northern and western states electorally voted for Abraham Lincoln, an abolitionist, while the south's electoral votes went to Breckenridge, who favored slavery. Stephen Douglas, who won the electoral college only in Missouri, was a proponent of popular sovereignty, which encouraged the citizens of a state to decide whether or not it would be a free state or a slave state. While it makes sense that each candidate would win in the states that they did, the south thought it was unfair that Lincoln won the elections, as he wasn't even on their ballots. How could a man that they didn't know existed become president of the United States? More information about the election and surrounding events can be found in the video below. We then looked at The Civil War in Art to provide images of art from that time period to put into our mini-documentary, below. The art work ranges from portraits to abstract images of the sky, and all fo ti helped to show how the election of 1860 showed the deep divisions slavery had cut into the nation, splitting it into Civil War.

The Civil War infographic

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.

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.

Slavery in the 19th Century

Over the course of a few classes, we began our discussion of slavery leading up to the civil war. In class, we examined slave and cotton data from the 19th century, watched the docudrama "Prince Among Slaves", read about slavery in other parts of the world, specifically Futa Jallon, and read primary source documents concerning the morality of slavery. We had several essential questions: How did slavery become economically entrenched in American society by the early 19th century? How does a system of slavery based on race affect human dignity? What human characteristics does such a system tend to ignore? These three questions cover a lot of difficult issues and time in history.

So how did slavery become economically entrenched in American society by the early nineteenth century? The simple answer is: Cotton, This website provided interesting data comparing the trends of cotton and slavery in 19th century America. Before the invention of the cotton gin, cotton was a insignificant crop, producing only 1.5 million pounds a year in 1790. In 1790, there were 690,00 slaves in the united states, mostly concentrated in the Chesapeake and Carolina areas. With the invention of the cotton gin, cotton production skyrocketed, and in turn, so did slave population. By 1810, cotton production was up to 85 million pounds per year, and the slave population had grown to 1,190,000. Fifty years later, 2.2 billion pounds of cotton were being produced each year, and  3.954.00 people were enslaved in the US. An examination of these two sets of data show a very distinct correlations between cotton production and slavery. Slavery had become entrenched in the American economy through a need for labor to meet increasing demand.

A system of slavery based on race affects human dignity by altogether eliminating it from those who are enslaved. In the informational film "Prince Among Slaves", we see a former prince's status turned into a mockery as he is enslaved and reduced from a powerful man to the lowest of the low. All his dignity is lost when he becomes a slave. Regardless of their position before they were enslaved, all slaves lost their human dignity. Even people who were enslaved in their homeland lost respect when they became American slaves. In Africa, slaves had a much easier job, and had many benefits. In the US, slaves had virtually no rights.


The enslaved Prince as portrayed in "Prince Among Slaves"

What human characteristics does a system of slavery tend to ignore? The very concept of slavery demotes the enslaved to a subhuman level. It ignores the fact that they are human too. By ignoring the humanity of slaves, people could romanticize slavery to forget about the awful thing that it is. In his book Cannibals All", pro-slavery activist George Fitzhugh dared to say "The negro slaves of the south are the happiest, and, in some sense, the freest people in world". Fitzhugh had an idealized view of slavery in which slaves were treated with respect and did light work., In reality this was not the case. Slaves were probably the most unfortunate people in the world. The system of slavery ignores all characteristics of people that make us human.

Women's Reform: Then and Now

The mid-nineteenth century society had mixed reactions to women's demands for equality, but they were largely negative. At the Seneca Falls Convention in July of 1848, women's rights reformers released a document entitled "Declaration of Resolutions and Sentiments". This document, written in the style of the Declaration of Independence, outlined the injustices that women endured., as well as resolutions to society issues and misguided judgments. The "Declaration of Resolutions and Sentiments" cause quite a stir when it was published, the media's reaction was varied.
One of the documented reactions to the Seneca Falls convention was published in the Oneida Whig newspaper. The article did not talk about the convention favorably. The writer's reasoning for not extending women's rights and suffrage was that if they were voting and spending time out of the house, there would be no dinner made. "If our ladies will insist on voting and legislating, where, gentlemen, will be our dinners and our elbows?" This quote illustrates the 19th century view that women belonged in the kitchen, and the writer feared change. The writer of this article was presumably a male, and could not fathom a world where women leave the house and let men fend for themselves. From the perspective of an editorial in the Oneida Whig, the Seneca Falls convention was foolish.
However, not all media reactions were negative. The reaction to Seneca Falls in The National Reformer was generally positive and supporting of women's rights. A quote illustrating this is "There is no means so power for the elevation of any class, as the elective franchise". This is saying that in order to make a certain class of people more important and respected, they must be given the right to vote, and this one of the things that the Seneca Falls convention addressed. Unfortunately, women's suffrage was not achieved for nearly seventy five years.
While women's rights have greatly increased since the mid 19th century, there are still major disadvantages to being a women, and society reacts differently to men and women. As a male, for the most part, I am not affected by societies different reactions to men and women. However, I am acquainted with the female population, and understand that in today's society, they are often seen as the lesser gender.  One of the most obvious examples is the wage gap. In most studies and practical applications, it is noted that women are being paid less than men for the same work. Furthermore, women have a significantly smaller role in politics than men. Jobs, hobbies, and emotions are still defined as being "manly" or "womanly", and this shows that society reacts differently to men and women in the 21st century.

"Poor Drunkard's Child"

""Poor Drunkards Child" Temperance sheet music." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2015. Web. 11 Jan. 2015.

This is the cover of sheet music written during the temperance movement in 1871. The authors, Moses Owen, and C. K. Hawes, were part of the temperance movement, and believed in the limitation of alcohol consumption. The Title of the song is "Poor Drunkards' Child". By putting messages of temperance into entertaining media, people like Owen and Hawes hoped to make temperance more appealing. This document teaches us that there were all sorts of ways that people tried to limit alcohol consumption. This image describes the Temperance Movement as a crusade. "Crusade" is usually used to describe a religious battle, and the authors likely felt very strongly about temperance, and followed the movement religiously. 

Andrew Jackson: [White] People's President

This lesson about Andrew Jackson had a seemingly simple essential question: "Is Andrew Jackson's long-standing reputation as "the people's president" deserved? Why? Why not?" This question is hard to answer because Jackson's decisions as president greatly benefited some members of the United States, and decimated others. To begin our study of this topic we divided into six small groups that would each make a presentation of some sort. Each topic would be handled by two groups, but first we watched two videos to give us some background of Andrew Jackson. The first video was a of John Green crash course video about the Age of Jackson. The second one was TED-Ed video depicting a courtroom style argument for and against Andrew Jackson. Then, with our groups we began our study of different aspects of Andrew Jackson's presidency. 

My group chose to examine Indian Removal. The Indian Removal act forced tens of thousands of Natives out of their homeland. Jackson claimed that it was for the best that they leave, that the new land was a better place for them, and that nobody would forced to leave, merely suggested. All of these statements proved to be false. We created a short skit about this issue. The other groups taught us about the bank war, in which Jackson destroyed the Second National Bank, which he believed had too much power over the poor, and the Spoils System, in which political supporters were given government positions regardless of their skill. 

My group's script for our Indian Removal Skit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15L6PofOb0uuPVxtYrng70rdIzu9gN55AccqZ-rO1dNA/edit

Democracy in our Nation's Earliest Days

This is the poster that our group created to answer the essential question of How democratic was the United States in the early 1800s? We used multiple primary and secondary sources to show the democratic processes of the United States in the early 1800s. The first source was a painting showing various aspects of an election in a small town. The next two sources are charts showing the voting requirements and whether the legislature or the people voted. A summary of the Dorr war is also provided. Finally, there are two quotes illustrating flaws in the United States democracy. In my opinion, the United States was not very democratic in the early 1800s.

Revolutions in Latin America

This lesson asked a question that still rings strong today, especially in the wake of the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri.  The essential question(s) was: Why is it essential to acknowledge human value regardless of race? How are the events in the Latin American Revolutions evidence of this social imperative? In class, we studied the influence of race in revolutions in Latin America, and the similarities between them. Race was an influence in all of the revolutions, just as it influenced most parts of life at the time. We were divided into three groups, and each group read a summary of their revolution and then created a timeline of the events of their revolution and other events. These groups then broke off into smaller groups that would join up with others to spread the word of their revolution.

Our groups timeline about the Brazilian Revolution

When our groups converged we discussed the similarities between the Brazilian, Mexican, and Gran Columbian Revolutions. All the revolutions were against the European countries who had colonized them, were in general the lower class fighting against the upper class, and all of them pitted races against one another. Both Mexico and Gran Columbia were revolting against Spain, while Brazil was against Portugal. Brazil was also the least violent of all the revolutions. All the revolutions proved that the people in power should be of varying races. The three countries had different outcomes in terms of what kind of government was established. Brazil became a constitutional monarchy, Mexico became a constitutional monarchy then a republic, and Gran Columbia became a Republic. The Brazilian Revolution instated Penisulares as rulers. Mexico overthrew its Creole and Peninsulare rulers. In Gran Columbia, mixed race people overthrew the Penisulares. 

In our society, people are still judged based on race. One of the most applicable examples currently is the situation in Ferguson, Missouri. Whether or not Michael Brown was shot with any reason, there is no denying that the situation is racially charged on both sides, and many people are being judged for their race, white or black. Even more recently, there was another case of a young black teenager being shot by a police officer just this week. The boy had a toy gun, and was shot almost instantly after he was seen. There is almost no doubt that racial profiling was involved. Race is clearly still very prevalent in our society, however, we have come very far, and no longer have an official social structure based solely on race. 

Toussaint Louverture DBQ

When people think of great leaders, they might think of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Napoleon, but rarely of Toussaint Louverture. All these men possessed qualities of leadership. Toussaint Louverture was born a slave in Saint Domingue (now Haiti). He later became an overseer of fellow slaves. A kindling of unrest was building in the island's slave population, and was soon ignited in 1789 by the spark that was the French Revolution. When the French refused to end slavery in contradiction to the new "Declaration of the Rights of Man", plantations were destroyed, and upper class members were killed in Saint Domingue. Louverture rose as a leader of the rebellion, and by 1793 was leading a 4,000-strong army of rebels against French troops. In 1794, slavery was abolished and the inhabitants of Saint Domingue were allegiant to France once again and Louverture was the most powerful man on the island. All was well until Napoleon rose to power and, planning to reinstate slavery, invaded Saint Domingue in 1802. Toussaint Louverture was captured and imprisoned in France, but Saint Domingue was victorious and celebrated their independence as their great leader was dying in a French jail. So how should we remember Toussaint Louverture? Toussaint Louverture should be remember as a military leader, a liberator of slaves, and a ruler, because he brilliantly outwitted the French Army and taught a ragtag group of rebels how to fight.

Most importantly, Toussaint Louverture was a great military leader. Louverture knew what sacrifices to make in order to protect his people. When Napoleon landed Troops on Saint Domingue in 1802, Toussaint was quick to make the decision to abandon and set fire to towns, and flee to the mountain where they would be at an advantage (Document F). Louverture also trained his men in multiple fighting styles to make them a stronger army. He taught the group of former slaves both Guerrilla and European style fighting. This way, they could fight in open fields they way the French soldiers wanted, but also take them by surprise on rough terrain. (Document A) With his army, Louverture defeated the British and the Spanish. Finally, Louverture kept a strict control over his army. When there was rebellion among his ranks, he quickly executed the rebels. While this may not have been the kindest idea, he went to all means necessary to keep order in his ranks, and there is no denying that he was a strong military leader. (Document E)

Along with being a military leader, Louverture was a liberator of slaves. After slaves burned plantations and killed white and mixed race people when France refused to end slavery in 1789, Toussaint Louverture emerged as a leader. Through his great leadership, he led the revolution that ultimately freed the slaves. With the help of Louverture, the revolution convinced France to abolish slavery. (Document A) When it was feared that France would reinstate slavery, Louverture wrote to the French Directory urging them to keep the freed slaves free. He argued that now that they had tasted freedom, going back to enslavement would be that much more painful. Louverture suggested a threat of war, saying of his people: “If they had a thousand lives, they would sacrifice them all rather than be subjected again to slavery” (Document B) Toussaint knew how his people felt about being re-enslaved, and wanted to defend the right he had secured for them. The colony of Saint Domingue created a constitution in 1801, signed by Toussaint Louverture, that declared the abolition of slavery. (Document C)

Finally, Louverture was a ruler of his people. As mentioned above, he signed the constitution of Saint Domingue, and took action that led to the liberation of his country. Louverture brought together and led the commission that created the constitution of Saint Domingue. This document stated the abolition of slavery and declared Toussaint Louverture “Chief General of the army of Saint Domingue”. (Document C) As General in Chief, Louverture laid down the law. On November 25th, 1801, Louverture created a proclamation to enforce the laws of the constitution. He discussed the punishment of those inciting sedition and those harboring “foreign cultivators”. He also said that all citizens must have a security card.
(Document D) Louverture was a strong leader who made laws that kept his land safe and his people liberated.

Although Toussaint Louverture may have been a dictator at times, he was a great military leader, a liberator of slaves, and a ruler. First and most importantly, Louverture led his army to victory and united a group of rebellious slaves into a military. Louverture freed the slaves of Saint Domingue. Finally, Louverture ruled his people and helped to create the constitution. Toussaint Louverture should be remembered for these things in their respective order. Toussaint Louverture does belong among the likes of Lincoln, Washington, and Napoleon.

Bibliography:

Document A: “Timeline of Abolition in Saint Domingue”, created from various sources.

Document B: “Letter to the French Directory”, Toussaint Louverture, November 1797.

Document C: “The Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801”, signed by Toussaint Louverture in July 1801.

Document D: “Proclamation, 25 November 1801”, Toussaint Louverture,

Document E: “Toussaint Louverture:A Biography”, Madison Smartt Bell, 2007.

Document F: “A description of Toussaint Louverture”, from “The Black Man, His Antecedents, His Genius, and His Achievements”, William Wells Brown, 2nd Section, 1863.

Revolutions of 1830 and 1848: Epic Fail?

This lesson's essential question asked if the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were failures like historians say. The revolutions of these years often go unnoticed, as they did not bring as much changes at the French and American revolutions did. To learn the information needed to answer this essential question, we broke up into groups and each group was assigned a revolution. We would all analyze the resources given (all found here) and each group would create a quiz that would be given to the other groups to test their understanding of our revolution. My group was assigned the French revolution of 1830, which to my disappointment, was not the one in Les Misérables. 

When Louis XVIII was restored to the French Throne after the Congress of Vienna, there was trouble brewing. Ultra-royalists wanted to bring back the old absolutist regime, and liberals wanted extend suffrage, while radicals want a republic like in the 1790s. The working class just wanted afforable bread and better wages. When Louis died, his brother, Charles X was made king. Charles wanted absolutism, and six years after his coronation, in the July Ordinances he suspended the legislature, limited the right to vote, and restricted the press.  "Works published without authorization shall be immediately seized", wrote King Charles and His Ministers. Liberals and Radicals protested this, set up barricades, and ultimately took over Paris. They agreed on a constitutional monarchy and installed Louis Philippe as king. He was believed to be worthy, and the legislature described him as "devoted to the national and constitutional cause". However, he really only extended suffrage to the upper class, and favored the middle class at the expense of the workers. With this information, we created a quiz to be taken by our classmates after they read what we did. The quiz went pretty well, and most questions were answered correctly. Our question about whether or not the revolution was a success got mixed results, but overall it was accurate. 

To answer the essential question, I believe that the revolutions did not fail as much as many historians claim. The only revolution that truly failed was the Decembrist Revolt; the other revolutions at least had some effect., even if it was short lived. The Hungary Revolution briefly gained Hungarian independence but then the rebellion was crushed. The French Revolution of 1848 was somewhat a failure in the fact that many people died, as depicted in Les Mis,  however, it presumably involved significantly less singing. However, even though many people died in part of this revolution, it ultimately led to voting rights being secured for nine million people, compared to 200,000 before the revolution., and the election of a president. Even though the revolutions never met their goals, they still brought about change, and at the least, drew attention to their cause. 

Patching Up Europe

This lesson's essential question asked: What should people in power do when their power is threatened? In class we learned about the fall of Napoleon, and thought about what we should do with war-torn Europe and it's inhabitants. We watched a video clip on Klemens von Metternich, and learned about the Congress of Vienna.  Metternich had approached Napoleon and requested that he give up his conquests and restore old boundaries. Napoleon denied and threatened to go to war against Austria again. The congress of Vienna was soon started to figure out what would become of Europe after Napoleon was finally defeated, and attempted to reverse Napoleon's changes. We then were presented with the challenges of the Congress of Vienna and tried to solve them from Metternich's conservative point of view. 

The Congress of Vienna (http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/images/30011286-p%20copy.jpg)

One of the concepts introduced at the Congress of Vienna was the Balance of Power. Like its name suggests, the Balance of Power balanced power between Russia, Austria, Prussia, Britain and France. Napoleon, not the French people, was ultimately viewed as the enemy. However, the French people did have to return stolen artwork and wealth. This balance ensured that there was no war between the major powers for the next thirty years after the Congress of Vienna. The Congress of Vienna ultimately helped to make France a constitutional monarchy, quell revolution, gave people freedom of religion, issued statements against slave trade and for the protection of Jews.
I agree with the people of the Congress of Vienna. When leaders have their power threaten, if they want to keep their position, they need to tighten their rule. By teaming up, the major powers could cooperate to prevent rebellion. While Napoleon had some very good ideas, the conservative people who were in charge did not agree, and when their power was returned, they wanted to prevent any more Napoleonic shenanigans. This may not have benefited the lower classes, but it returned the wealthy aristocrats to their previous positions. Perhaps it was a bad idea to complete get rid of Napoleon's ideas, and they could've been kinder to the now thriving lower classes. Sometimes, it is better to sacrifice power for the greater good, but it is often hard for leaders to understand this.  In an ideal world, leaders would be perfect and be very willing to sacrifice anything, but in reality, they are human just like the rest of us, and it is understandable that they don't want to risk losing power.

Edmund Burke Talks Conservatism

While today we view liberals as young, hip democrats and conservatives as old, gun owning republicans, these ideologies were defined different in 19th century Europe. The essential question that we were determined to learn in class was what the major political ideologies of the 19th century were, and how they influenced social and political action. The first thing we did in class was define, in our opinion, liberalism, conservatism, and nationalism, and use them in a sentence. While most of us seemed to have an idea of what some of these meant, we all found it hard to put into words. The general consensus was that conservatives support old ideas, liberals are more radical, and nationalists might have something to do with the country. We were then put into groups and assigned one of these three ideologies in 19th century Europe, and given a reading on it. With this reading, we would create a one minute presentation on the ideology. There were two groups creating a presentation on each ideology, and the group with the most effective presentation for each ideology would win chocolate. Clearly, the stakes were high.

These two videos we made using Chatterpix made up our presentation on Conservatism. The videos depict Edmund Burke, also known as " The Father of Conservatism". Burke, voiced by myself, gives the viewers a description of what conservatives believe and what they are opposed to. Burke talks about how he loves monarchy, the hierarchical class system dominated by the aristocracy, and the Church, and hates innovation and reform. This reflects the conservative belief that tradition is the best solution to social and political problems. Conservatives impacted social and political problems by encouraging traditional solutions to problems, and since they were mostly rich, traditional elites, they were the ones in power. Edmund Burke in particular hated the French Revolution, and he also talks about Joseph de Maistre, who wrote a book opposing constitutionalism and reform. Due to the use of a silly British accent, our presentation was voted the best, and we received chocolate.

Along with conservatism, there were two other major political ideologies in the 19th century: liberalism and nationalism. Both of them influenced social and political action. Liberals believed in reform, freedom, and rights, as well as restricting the power of the clergy, aristocracy, and nobility and instead having a meritocracy. They were also against many traditional practices, and preferred constitutional monarchy over absolutism. Nationalism was the ideology that countries were bound together through shared language, customs, and history, and that unity as a national was important. Nationalists in Germany and Italy wanted the unification of their sections into one nation, and wanted to get rid of foreign rulers. These two ideologies were relatively similar. As you can see, the beliefs of these ideologies in the 19th century are a bit different than they are in the modern age.

Napoleon's not-so-little Impact

In his time as ruler, Napoleon made a great impact on the social, economic and political systems of Europe. Some loved Napoleon, and some hate him.  Madame de Stael described Napoleon's government as having a "profound contempt for all the intellectual riches of human nature". Conversely, secondary source author P.C. Headley wrote "Napoleon was great -- intellectually towering above the princes and monarchs of many generations....He had no rival in the tactics of war". Whether or not you like Napoleon, it cannot be denied that he greatly changed Europe's social, economic, and political systems. 
First of all, Napoleon's rule impacted Europe's social system. As ruler, Napoleon abolished serfdom and nobility. This meant that poor people didn't have to be poor their entire lives. Serfs would be stuck in their social standing for life, and the nobility were in power, but Napoleon changed this. He also limited the power of the church.  Napoleon established a Meritocracy, in which people had a chance to climb the social ladder through their skills, not because of the social class they were born into. While the nobility may not have liked these changes, it was a great improvement for the poor. The poor got better access to education and property, and the wealthy no longer had power just because of their riches.
Napoleon also greatly affected the economic system of Europe. Napoleon established the Bank of France and balanced the budget of France and his other territories. He controlled prices, encouraged new industry, and built roads and canals, all of which helped the economy prosper. He also stole a great deal of wealth from Italy. 

A map of Europe under Napoleon, 1810

Source: http://www.worldmapsonline.com/images/Cram/History/europeundernapoleon.jpg

Finally, Napoleon impacted the political system of Europe. For starters, he conquered nearly all of Europe, except for England, and brought justice to many people. Marshal Michel Ney said of Napoleon's reign "The times are gone when the people were governed by suppressing their rights".Napoleon made government run better, and allowed people he conquered to continue to rule their country, only under his Napoleonic Code. This was unfortunate for them, but still far better than them being entirely overthrown. Now he ruled nearly all of Europe by controlling the existing rulers. He also gained control of all the colonies that the countries he conquered controlled on other continents. Napoleon changed Europe forever. 

Chocolate Communism

We entered class last week, the room smelling of chocolate. When we got to our seats we were told not to eat the Hershey's kisses we were given. It seemed everyone was given two, until we noticed that one or two students were given eight chocolates. Upset by the unfairness of this situation, we were given the chance to battle our classmates for their candies in the most complicated battle of wits: Rock Paper Scissors. Each match was for a single Hershey's kiss. Many students went out quickly. I survived for many matches, but still end with less than I started with. The lucky few who started with more chocolate ended with more. Only one person who began with two chocolates ended with more than five. We decided a fair solution would be to redistribute the chocolate evenly, and everyone got three. The two-chocolate students were happy; the ones with more were not. We then voted on whether to eat our chocolate or take it back to Rock Paper Scissors. Everyone chose to eat theirs. While this activity was fun, it was frustrating to lose all my chocolates! So what the heck does this have to do with history?
Our experiences with the Hershey's kiss economy can be applied to the dynamic between rich and poor after the industrial revolution. Karl Marx and Adam Smith both made theories about helping about the poor through different economic systems. Marx's theory of communism described how the poor would help themselves. His theory showed the transition from capitalism to socialism to communism. In capitalism, industry is owned privately and there is freedom of competition, and this results in unequal economic classes. Through a workers revolt, this turns into socialism. In a socialist society, the government owns the industry, and it's goal is to create a equal classes, and ultimately no classes. This becomes communism, and the goal of economic equality is achieved, and no government is necessary. A more detailed description of Marx's theory of communism can be found here. Doesn't that sound all fine and dandy? Before Marx wrote his theory, Adam Smith wrote about what he called the invisible hand. He believed that the best economy was one that guided itself. He describes his theory as an invisible hand. The invisible hand pushed economy in the direction of success through the fact that people want to buy high quality goods for low prices. The economy slowly becomes better and better, and good businesses succeed. This is capitalism. but without government control. Smith believed that the economy functions best without a government. This system would benefit the poor by allowing them to succeed, and find the best businesses to buy from. It also pleases the rich because their money is not distributed.
In my opinion, capitalism is the best solution our of the three, however, all of them have drawbacks. Communism seems to be a great idea, but in reality, it leaves the poor poor, and the rich slightly less rich. Capitalism allows people to grow their own business and buy high quality goods at low prices. However, it isn't perfect, as there are still poor people in America. It is better than Communism, which just doesn't work. It is best for government to allow economy to grow on it's own. Neither method is a true solution, but I certainly cannot come up with a better one.

To Mill or Not to Mill?: Benefits and Costs of Mill Life

For people who worked in the mills, there were both benefits and costs. The benefits were what made them want to go to the mills, and the costs were made made them strike. The benefits of the mill life seemed very attractive to the farm girls it was sold to. One of these benefits was getting to experience city life. the girls who would work in the mills, for the most part, had never lived with a lot of other people before. This could be seen as an exciting opportunity. The girls would also get an education. Their wages were large enough that they could send some back to their family and still have enough to support themselves. Workers in the mill were provided with meals, so the girls wouldn't go hungry. Finally, a benefit that parents appreciated was the fact the girls would have to obey a code of conduct. A father figure made sure that they went to church on Sunday, and a mother figure made sure that they didn't stay out late. So the mill life was great, right? Not quite.

The rules that had to be followed by the mill workers

Among all these benefits, there were many drawbacks. One cost was being separating from their family. This obviously left many girls feeling sad. Another very important drawback was that the conditions were very dangerous to the health of the girls. The girls were very likely to contract lung diseases, bone diseases, deafness, illness, lose limbs, and even die.  Over the years, hours got longer and wages got lower. Workers could be beaten by their cruel overseers if they did their jobs wrong. Conditions may have been good in the early years of industrialization , but they soon declined, and the costs of going to the mills outweighed the benefits.