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.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
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.
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.
Monday, February 2, 2015
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.
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.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
"Poor Drunkard's Child"
""Poor Drunkards Child" Temperance sheet music." American History.
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.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
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
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
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)