Civil War Educreations Video

Civil War Educreations Video

Infographic

Essential question: How did the differences between the North and South affect each regions strategy and success in the civil war?

I designed my infographic to resemble a students project on a piece of paper written in pencil. I made the background look like a sheet of paper and chose a font that resembled writing. Post it notes were also added to make it look more realistic. By putting the population statistics of the north and south at the beginning, the viewer gets an idea of how much of an advantage the north already had over the south, before introducing the other statistics. Out of that small southern population, only 75% of southern white families owned slaves and 25% did not. Even though not all southerners owned slaves, many fought to defend slavery because they were fighting to defend their lifestyle. The north had the advantage when it came to railroad mileage, industrial workers, and factories. The south had railroad mileage, industrial workers, and factories also, but the north easily had than 2 to 4 times more. By having a lot more factories and industrial workers than the south, the north was able to produce a vast amount of ammunition, weapons, and other goods to fuel the war. Also, by having more than 2 times the railroad mileage than the south, the north was able to transport soldiers and goods very efficiently. By analyzing these primary sources and making an infographic, I realized that north overpowered the south in almost all categories. The infographic clearly showed the north drowning the south in statistics, and these advantages and disadvantages are why the north won the war.

infographic

Slavery: The Elephant In The Room

           How do we know the debate over slavey was the "elephant in the room" for American politics in the early 19th century?

           Over the last few days, we as a class have been researching and analyzing information in order to answer an essential question. How do we know the debate over slavey was the "elephant in the room" for American politics in the early 19th century? What this means, is how do we know the debate over slavery was the obvious problem that no one wanted to address for American politics in the early 19th century. To find the answer, we divided into groups of three and researched the following topics: the Missouri compromise, the compromise of 1850, Gadsden purchase, Kansas Nebraska act, bleeding Kansas, caning of Charles Sumner, Dred Scott decision, Lincoln Douglas debates, and John Brown's raid. Using Timline, we then recorded every topic onto a timeline and organized it in order of occurrence. After thoroughly analyzing information, the answer was evident. We know the debate over slavery was the "elephant in the room" for American politics in the early 19th century because was slavery was the sole cause of many major political and social events such as the compromise of 1850, Bleeding Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, the Lincoln Douglas debates, and John Brown's raid.

           Slavery was a big issue during the compromise of 1850. In one of five parts of the compromise of 1850, the gold rush in 1849 drew a vast amount of people into the California territory. Eventually there were enough people in California for it to be recognized as a state. California territory petitioned congress to enter the union as a free state. This sparked a lot of controversy. Ever since the Missouri Compromise, the balance between slave states and free states had been maintained. Finally, California would be admitted as a free state. To pacify slave-state politicians, who would have objected to the imbalance created by adding another free state, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed. Slavery was the sole cause of this problem. The debate over slavery was such a big issue, it literally had the United States split in half.

           Slavery was the driving force in Bleeding Kansas. The Kansas Nebraska act of 1854 called for
 popular sovereignty. Meaning that the decision of Kansas entering the union as a free state or a salve 
state was to be determined by the settlers. In 1856, anti slavery settlers set up in Topeka, and pro slavery settlers set up in Lecompton. In some cases, the disagreement did get bloody. At Pottawatomie creek on the night of May 24th, John Brown, a white American abolitionist who believed in a violent overthrow of slavery, and his men took 5 men from their beds and killed them in front of their families. Slavery was what caused these events to happen.
           Slavery was the problem in the Dred Scott decision. In 1857, an enslaved man living in Missouri filed suit against his owner arguing that because he and his wife Harriet once lived in states and territories where slavery was illegal, he and his wife were free. This issue was eventually taken before the Supreme Court, which ruled 7 to 2 against Scott. The effects of the Dred Scott decision were that slaves were not citizens and were denied the right to sue in court, enslaved people could not win freedom simply by living in a free territory or state, and the Missouri compromise was ruled unconstitutional and all territories were opened to slavery. The debate over slavery caused this to happen.
           Slavery played a big role in the Lincoln Douglas debates. During an election between
Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in 1858, Lincoln and Douglas engaged in a series of seven debates called the Lincoln Douglas debates. Douglas supported popular sovereignty, and believed people could rule as they wished, including making slavery legal. Lincoln believed that a majority should have the power to deny a minority their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The main issue during these debates was slavery. Douglas was pro slavery and Lincoln was anti slavery. Douglas went on to win the election. Slavery was what fueled these arguments.
           Slavery ignited the violent actions in John Brown's raid. On October 16th 1859, three years after his raid at Pottawatomie creek in Kansas, John brown attacked the federal arsenal at Harper's ferry, Virginia. With him were 21 men including 5 African Americans. In an attempt to steal weapons to arm enslaved people so they can rebel. Troops under the command of colonel Robert e Lee, surrounded the arsenal and killed half of browns men including two of his sons before they surrendered. Convicted of treason, John brown was hanged. The debate over slavery was what caused    
this violent uproar.
           The debate over slavery was the "elephant in the room" for American politics in the early 19th
century. It was the issue that needed to be addressed and could not be ignored. Slavery fueled disagreements and violence in many social and political events.

           

Antebellum Slavery

           By the early 19th century slavery had become economically entrenched in American society. But why? To put it simply, cotton is to blame. By the late 18th century, slavey was declining and the cotton industry was almost non existent. In 1793, Eli Whiteney's invented the cotton gin which easily removed seeds from cotton. This made cotton easier and more profitable to grow. As the demand for cotton grew, so did the slave industry. Slaves could bring in $500 dollars a piece in 1794, but as cotton became more profitable, that number tripled to $1500 in 1825. The more cotton being produced, the more slave labor needed to pick and process the Cotton. By 1860, the cotton producing states in the south produced 2.28 billion pounds of cotton. This was 57% of the nations total export revenues. At the time, the total slave population of the United States was estimated to be approximately 3,954,000. Compared to 85 million pounds of cotton and 1,191,000 slaves in 1810. By the early 19th century, slavery had become economically entrenched in American society because cotton was in the highest demand out of all crops, and the production of cotton depended on slave labor. http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US18-00.html

           A system of slavery based on race affects human dignity because people see the whole black 

race as slaves and not worthy of similar freedoms and respect. In document G, it describes a speech that Frederick Douglas gave about the Fourth of July. Douglas spoke about how the Fourth of July is a day of celebration for whites, but a day of boasted liberty and swelling vanity for slaves who don't have this liberty. This system of slavery where slaves are not given the same liberty that is provided 

to whites, takes this liberty away from all blacks. That the Fourth of July is just a reminder that blacks don't have the same freedoms as whites. In document H, George Fitzhugh says that the whole negro race is weak and were born to be slaves. Describing blacks as dumber, inferior, and not worthy of respect.http://www.edline.net/files/_BEHdp_/b9a40a0b44d61aac3745a49013852ec4/Morality_of_Slavery_DBQ_Documents.pdf

          Such a system tends to ignore human characteristics such as god given rights and humane 

treatment. Slaves in the US had no privileges. They were owned by their masters and had no control over their own lives. Slaves were considered property and had a price. Blacks were enslaved by being captured and sold. From that point on, they were no longer considered people and were not treated as such.http://princeamongslaves.org/module/comparing.html

Women's Reform

Essential Question: How did mid 19th century American society react to women's demands for equality? Does 21st century society still react differently to men and women?

           The way Women were treated prior to their granted equality, could be best described as the unjust oppression of human rights. In many ways, the way women were treated was borderline slavery. Women were confined to a certain set of laws and common practices. Women were expected to maintain a family like a well oiled machine, while at the same time were not allowed to own property, all possession belonged to their husband, could have her children taken away from her if the father dies, it was legal and encouraged for a husband to beat his wife, women we're not allowed to vote, colleges did not accept women as regular students, women could not sign contracts, and women only got paid 30-50% of what men were paid for the same job. In July 1848 more than 300 men and women assemble in Seneca Falls, New York for the nations first women's rights convention. Many people thought the idea of women's equality was silly and rash. Though there have been great advances in women's rights since the Seneca Falls convention, women are still not treated equally. During the mid 19th century American society thought women's demands for equality were unrealistic and 21st century society still reacts differently to men and women.

           Mid 19th century society thought that women demands for equality were silly and unrealistic. At the time, people believed that these demands were crazy. As if women were requesting to live like royalty. Many men believed that it would cause everyday society to fall apart. One man declared, "If our ladies will insist on voting and legislating, where, gentlemen, will be our dinners and our elbows?  Where our domestic firesides and the holes in our stockings?"(The Seneca Falls Convention, Oneida Whig, August 1, 1848). Arguing that if women gain equal rights, who will cook dinner and set the table?

           Today 21st century society still reacts differently to men and women. Women are sometimes not given jobs that men are usually responsible for. Also, there are still expectations for how women are supposed to act. If a woman is in a management position, people will think that she is bossy. Where as if a man  is in a management position, people will think that he is a leader.

           During the mid 19th century American society thought that women's demand for equality were unrealistic and crazy. Society believed that the social order would collapse and everyday jobs would no longer be done. Society today in the 21st century still treats men differently than women. Men are often seen as harder working and more tough. Women will sometimes be denied jobs that men commonly do.

           

           

19th Century Social Reform Sourcing Blog

           "A young lady will be very unsafe in marrying a young man who uses ardent spirits, either temperately or intemperately, because more women have been rendered wretched on account of drunken husbands, than by anything else. When Lavinia and Laura and Margaret, were led by their husbands to Hymen's altar, their husbands only took a little. Lavinia was the mother of four children, when the sheriff sold the last bed she had, for her husband's drams. Laura had three lovely babes, when her husband was carried off to jail, and she was left without bed, bread or home. Margaret had two children when their sottish and brutish father went to an untimely grave, and she and her babes were cast upon the world penniless. Beware young ladies of him who can drink a dram even in a week. Don't marry a reformed drunkard, as a man hardly ever gets clear of this awful disease. If you want to be miserable marry a man who drinks, who takes a little, and you are more likely to have the above enjoyments than in marrying any other character. If a man cannot give up his dram, he can sacrifice the happiness or property of any woman by taking a little."

           From the New England Farmer and Horticultural Journal VIII, no. 14 (October 23, 1829).
Sourcing: It is clear that the author is opposed to men who drink. The author's purpose in producing the document is to warn young women not to marry men who have drinking problems. The document is believable because the author provides detailed stories of women who were effected by men who drank.
Contextualization: During the time the document was produced, there was an overdrinking epidemic.
There were actual fears that the United States was on the verge of becoming a nation of drunkards. Many men became very dangerous or could no longer support their families. The document teaches  readers what women and children went through because of men who either were too drunk to support their families or died because of drinking. This document gives the reader a complete picture of what it was like during the 1800's when many men had drank their way into either unemployment or a grave and their wives and children had to suffer the consequences.
Close Reading: The authors opinion is to avoid marrying men who drink. The authors reasoning is that women who marry men who overdrink will end up homeless, penniless, and miserable. By choosing words such as " awful disease" and "miserable", the author is trying to convincing the reader that the position the families are in is horrible.

Andrew Jackson

Essential Question: Is Andrew Jackson's long standing reputation as "the people's president" deserved? Why? Why not?

           Andrew Jackson was known as "the people's president". But was it deserved? There are many reasons for why Andrew Jackson was anything but the peoples president. The most compelling examples of why Andrew Jackson was anything but the peopls president are the bank war, the spoil system, and Indian removal. During the bank war, President Jackson strongly disliked the bank and believed it had too much power. Jackson refused to pass a bill that extended the banks charter, and the economy eventually collapsed as a direct result of Jackson's decision. Also, Jackson would reward supporters of his campaign with high government jobs. This is called the spoil system. While this system seems to be very appealing, most people appointed to these jobs were very unqualified, and sometimes even criminals. As a result of this, the government and the quality of decisions suffered.
Lastly, Andrew Jackson was responsible for Indian removal. Many tribes were forced to leave their homeland and thousands died during the journey. Jackson believed that he was saving them from the white people. By relocating the Indians, he believed he was doing them a favor. President Jackson said that Indians and whites couldn't live together. All of these elements together form a compelling argument to why Jackson was anything but the peoples president. In my group Project, we explained how all of these reasons put together shows that Jackson is not "the people's president".