A Country Divided

In class we created educreation videos about the election of 1860. Educreations allows you to have a slideshow of pictures and record your voice over them. We used pictures of various items like paintings and newspapers to provide visual for our narration of the events. The main question we were aiming to answer was if the results of election of 1860 was representative of the deep divisions over slavery. All of the candidates for the election had different views on slavery and how to deal with it. The most well known of them was Abraham Lincoln who was against slavery. Lincoln ended up winning the election with the majority of his votes being from the northern states. His win caused many more states in the south to seceed from the Union. This led to the start of the fighting. The US was divided because of views on slavery.

The Stats and Strategies of the Civil War

We created infographics about the civil war and the advantages and statistics of the Union and the confederacy. I used infogr.am to present my information. For most of the information, it was comparisons between the north and south so I mostly used graphs that showed the two numbers next to each each other. For the slave population and number of industrial workers it was a size comparison graph to show how much bigger the slave population was in the south and that there were more industrial workers in the north. I used a bar graph to show the differences in the infrastructure of both regions such as railroads and manufacturing. These differences showed the strengths and advantages each could have over the other. I summarized the advantages at the end using the data presented before. Using infogr.am helped me to see these differences clearly and what the statistics meant about the advantages for the north and south. It also helped me see what contributed to the outcomes of the war. I could see that the north was in better shape with its government and economy. Also, the motivations for fighting for the north and south were clearer after seeing the conditions they were in.

The north's advantages over the south in war | Create infographics

Adressing the Elephant in the Nation

My timeline showing events in 1850s

Short descriptions of each event 

We have been learning about the "elephant in the room" during the 1800s. It was the issue of slavery in the U.S. It was a very prominent focus of dispute and everyody knew that, yet it wasn't directly talked about as the cause for the problems. There were sharp divisions between pro-slavery and anti-slavery territories and there was long debate between the two. Both groups had the goal to eventually take over the entire U.S. and would fight to spread the beliefs they thought to be right. There were many events that happened within the 1850s that showed this fight. The 1850s had a mixture of events in favor of slavery and against slavery. To show each event, we created timelines. They have small descriptions for each event and mine had pictures for about half of them. The way we arranged it was if the event was good for anti slavery people, it was put above the line and if it was the opposite it was put below.

Map showing Missouri Compromise territories 

All of the events on the timeline can show how slavery was the elephant in the room during this time. One of the five parts of the compromise of 1850 was the passing of the Fugitive Slave Act which said that everybody was required to assist in the search and capture of fugitive slaves to bring them back to their masters. This was even required in the free states and said that the slaves were still technically slaves there. This meant that there basically wasn't any free states since they would still be captured and brought back no matter where they were. This act was subtly trying to get rid of any free states and make the northern states pro slavery. In 1820, the Missouri Compromise established that the
territories north of the 36 degrees 30 minutes latitiude line would be free states in the future. However, the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 made the compromise irrelevant because it opened up the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to anybody who could settle it. The compromise had said they would be free states in the future but this allowed for anybody to settle in some of the territory and determine the stance on slavery based on popular soveriegnety. So it was open for pro slavery people to settle and make it a slave state. This caused a big rush to the territories so people could claim it for their own views. In the Dred Scott Decision in 1857, an enslaves man named Dred Scott filed a suit against his owner to free him and his wife saying that they once lived in anti slavery states so they shouldn't be considered slaves anymore. Dred lost the case and as a way of dismissing it the Supreme Court ruled that he "could not be a citizen of the state of Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its courts." Also, as a result they ruled that slaves could not get freedom by living in a free state. This basically got rid of the idea of free states. The supreme court is trying to back up their rulings with the constitution and not directly adressing the pro slavery views that caused their decision to be made.

Sources:

• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html
• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933t.html

Slavery that Spread like a Virus

Slavery in 1860

Slavery in 1790

In class we studied how slavery became economically in America in the 19th century. We used excerpts from the Founders' constitution and many maps and graphs to show the progression of slavery in America. The maps and graphs showed the drastic increase in cotton production in the south along with an increase in slave population, even though many people thought slavery was declining. The pictures are from the website, http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US18-02.html, showing the spreading of slavery from 1790 to 1860.  The north used free laborers and the south used slave labor. This was the major production of the south and was sort of taken over by the southern states. They did not show the northern states so there was sort of a separation between the north and the south. The south working together with cotton production. Slavery was needed a lot in the south whereas in the north it was outlawed. The northern states also relied on cotton production, though, with industrialization. They needed the cotton factories to supply jobs and money for people. Even though northerners didn't see slavery, they still depended on it for the success of their cotton industry.

Having a system of slavery based solely on race takes away the dignity of those enslaved. It reduces them to be seen as objects to their owners instead of individual people just like them. They were just used for labor and treated terribly. Their personalities and characteristics are just thrown aside as if they're non-existent. The former lives of the captured people suddenly mean nothing to the owners. This system bases people's positions on their race and not on how hard working people are or how skilled they are. They made the assumption that characteristics were only determined by somebody's race. The dignity of the slaves was completely lost. 

The Continuous Struggle of Gender

In the mid-19th century, women were given little rights and high expectations for their conduct around others. There were many laws that restricted women from doing things that men were allowed to do such as vote and simply sign a contract. There were many more actions that were considered socially wrong. Women could not speak in public in front of people because it would be seen as them trying to get attention from men and that’s the last thing the men in charge  wanted. There were many women who sought to change the way they were treated in society and got together for the Seneca Falls Convention. During this long meeting, they discussed women’s rights and roles in society and eventually composed the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions. In this document, it says “The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.” It then proceeds to show all that men had been doing to oppress women and deny them the rights they deserved. These were the actions that they wanted to change and get rid of. After that, there is a long list of resolutions in favor of equality such as having the same amount of moral conduct expected of men that had always been expected of women. There were many reactions to this document after it was made public. It was shocking to a lot of people. Women back then weren’t known to speak out for their rights, so when such a big convention was put together with prominent female speakers it was the focus of many people.  Some newspapers reacted in favor and some against. There were also those such as the Oneida Whig which were unsure that it would have much success and that these women should rethink what they are doing. Overall, the writers found it to be an interesting occurrence that was very unexpected.

In modern times, it is much less shocking to people when women speak out against oppression and for gender equality. You will see women protesting in many places and delivering powerful speeches all over the news. We have been given more of a voice now, yet there is still great debate over rights. There are still those people that believe in strict gender roles and try to put women down with silly expectations. The struggle between genders is still prominent. To show that women are still thought of and treated differently than men when we shouldn’t be, the company Pantene made a commercial to address the unfair labels put on women:

In this commercial women are compared to men in the exact same circumstances and it shows how people will label both genders. One pair that can still relate to treatment of women in the 19th century is when the man is thought of as smooth for having confidence and dressing nice but the woman is seen as a show-off. This shows that with many people there is still the thought that women are always trying to attract men and shouldn’t be showing any skin or simply have pride in her look. Also, a very powerful one is when the man in charge is seen as the boss and someone to look up to and follow after, but the woman is bossy. This can hold a lot of women back because the moment they try to speak up and be a leader for something they believe in, they are shut down and disliked. A lot of people have formed the ridiculous habit of dismissing a woman simply because they think women are weak and cannot handle positions of power, when they should be listening to her words and the emotions behind them. Women can handle leadership just as well as men. These days, some people will still try to silence a woman that speaks out, but not as drastically as in the 19th century. Women have come a long way, and some day people will realize no gender is greater than the other.

Sources:

• http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/vc006199.jpg
• http://www.edline.net/files/_AIGpE_/07049cda93fb5c2f3745a49013852ec4/Declarations_of_Sentiments_and_Resolutions.pdf

The Power of the Mind

"Education, then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of men - the balance - wheel of the social machinery. I do not here mean that it so elevates the moral nature as to make men disdain and abhor the oppression of their fellow men. This idea pertains to another of its attributes. But I mean that it gives each man the independence and the means, by which he can resist the selfishness of other men.

It does better than to disarm the poor of their hostility towards the rich; it prevents being poor. Agrarianism is the revenge of poverty against wealth. The wanton destruction of the property of others - the burning of hay-ricks and corn-ricks, the demolition of machinery, because it supersedes hand-labor, the sprinkling of vitriol on rich dresses - is only agrarianism run mad. Education prevents both the revenge and the madness. On the other hand, a fellow feeling for one's class or caste is the common instinct of hearts not wholly sunk in selfish regards for person, or for family. The spread of education, by enlarging the cultivated class or caste, will open a wider area over which the social feelings will expand."

-Horace Mann

Horace Mann was a big advocate for reform in public education in the mid-19th century. This is an excerpt from Twelfth Annual Report to the Secretary of the Massachusetts State Board of Education. He really believed in the importance of education for all people and the positive impact it could have on society as a whole. Horace would often travel to many different schools to see the quality they were in and the changes that needed to be made to improve them. He had many writings advocating for better education as a right for everyone and to show people it should be an integral part of your life. In the 1800s, public education was poor quality in many places. It was not accesible to all people. The education reform movement called for a change to this and other aspects to public education. They believed that public schools should not be associated with any particular religion and paid for by local taxes. Also, teachers were to be well trained so as to provide students with the proper educations they needed. This document shows the reasons behind the main idea of this movement which was to provide all people with an education. People will live better lives if they are able to understand concepts that they often face throughotu their lives. However, it doesn't quite show the other beliefs the movement was fighting for. Horace is saying that education will help people to be more understanding of others' lives and how to work with each other to live peacefully and successfully. Education will help somebody get far in life and earn money by helping to advance society in a way that will benefit others. 

Source:

Mann, Horace. Twelfth Annual Report to the Secretary of the Massachusetts State Board of Education. 1846. Intellectual Takeout. http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/content/quotes-horace-mann-and-american-education-reform. January 15, 2015 

Andrew Jackson's Reputation Debunked

In class we have been learning about the presidency of Andrew Jackson. The question we were trying to answer was if he was really the "people's president" or not. To find the answer to this question, we slip into six groups with two groups each focusing on one of the three major events during Andrew Jackson's term. They were the Indian removal, the bank wars, and the spoils system. My group had the bank wars. Each group was provided with a couple documents to base presentations off of in which we explained our event and how it answered the main question. My group made a presentation on an app called Chatterpix which can make pictures look like they are talking while you record your voice. We had Andrew Jackson arguing how he was in favor of the people with Daniel Webster who thought the opposite. Jackson was vetoing the Second National Bank because it was highly in favor of the richer class and many of the stocks were owned by foreign powers. He thought it had too much power over the economy. Daniel Webster argued that he was just trying to turn the classes of people against each other and he didn't have the right to shut down the bank. Andrew Jackson was thinking of the common people, who made up the majority of the population, but making rich people seem like more of an enemy. Another time he really just favored the common people was the spoils system. This was a system in which the presidential candidate would offer jobs in government to those who voted for him. Jackson said he was trying to get more people to participate in government, but it was really taking advantage of their need for jobs and representation in government to help him win. He was only thinking of the common people for his votes. The Indian removal showed Jackson going against his reputation of the people's president. No other president had actually forced the Native Americans out of their rightful land until Jackson. He tried to justify it by saying he didn't want the tribe to die out like the other ones in that area and it was their choice to move to the west. In reality, the tribe had been living in peace with surrounding settlers for a while and could live on where they were. Moving out west would mean unfamiliar surroundings and possibly languages for them to have to adjust to. Andrew Jackson tried just to think of the lower class of people but never fully reached out to all the American people. The common people were still let down and taken advantage of, and he completely failed to recognize the Native Americans as people while he forced them out of their rightful land.

Here are links to the videos my group made (it was too big to be one video):
Video 1:http://video.videolicious.com/2cdbf897-669d-4d55-bd5a-d52b36724f9c
Video 2:http://video.videolicious.com/3f32ceda-db13-4e36-a900-ff39f8e62ec8