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".

Latin American Revolutions

Essential Question: 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?

           The essential question asks, 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? To learn more about this topic, we first completed a pie chart of the different race percentages of Latin America. Then, as a class we divided into 3 groups (Mexico, Gran Columbia, and Brazil), analyzed documents, and made a timeline of events for our document topic. Lastly, we formed jigsaw groups, where a person from each revolution group formed a group of 3 with 2 other students, so that there was a representative for each revolution group, and shared information to answer questions.
         

During the jigsaw, we discussed 2 commonalities and 2 differences between the 3 

Revolutions. In my group, the 2 commonalities between the revolutions that we discussed were that the countries revolting all declared independence in some sort of way, and that all of the revolutions ended around the same time. The 2 differences between the 3 revolutions were that all of the countries fought different people, and they all fought in different places. Upon sharing information, we learned that race was clearly an issue in all of the revolutions. In all of the revolutions, people did not like their leaders being of another descent. They thought that their leaders would not be loyal to their country due to their nationality. Some thought that their leaders would secretly be helping their home country.

           Race still manages to play a big role in society today. It would be nice if race didn't matter, but unfortunately it does. People stick together based on similarities, such as race, and make judgments based on race. Currently, race is a popular topic in the news. There have been issues arising in Ferguson, Missouri lately. A black boy was killed by a police officer, and there have been huge race riots as a direct result of it. The topic of race is a very sensitive and controversial one. Race is a very important issue and is not to be taken lightly. Outbreaks are starting to erupt, but soon the floodgates will give way to the overwhelming pressure surrounding race issues in our society today.

         
       

Revolutions of 1830 and 1848

Essential Question: Were the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded?

     Lately in class, we have been studying the revolutions of 1830 and 1848. Our goal has been to figure out if the revolutions were complete failures, or if they accomplished something productive. To find out, the class was split into groups and each group was assigned a revolution. Each group examined documents about their revolution and took notes. With this information, each group made a survey monkey. As a class we took each other's survey monkeys and went over the answers.

     My group and I were assigned the French Revolution of 1848. We analyzed documents and took notes on the goals, opponent, outcome, and reason for success or failure of the revolution. We then created a survey monkey on the information. During the French Revolution of 1848, the people denounced Louis Philippe's government for corruption. Discontent was heightened by a recession and many people lost their jobs and the price of bread rose.  The people demanded expanded suffrage. Louis Philippe abdicated, and the second republic was proclaimed. Middle class liberals wanted political reforms and socialists wanted social and economic change to help feed hungry workers, and New jobs were demanded. Workers rioted for lower bread prices, and bourgeois attacked them. The constitution for the second republic was issued which created a strong president, a one house legislature, and gave all adult men the right to vote.  Napoleon III was chosen to be the president of the second republic, but eventually proclaimed himself emperor, which ended the second republic.The second republic is described in Readings in European History. "The republic is proclaimed. The people are united."(J. h. Robinson, 1906, Readings In European History). Also, information on Napoleon III declaring himself emperor can be found in The Rise and Fall of The Second Empire. "In short, I asked myself: since France has been functioning for the past fifty years only thanks to administrative, military, judiciary, religious and financial organization of the consulate and the empire, why should we not also adopt the political institutions of the period?"(Alain Plessis, 1852-1871, the rise and fall of the second empire).
     Not all of the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were failures. Some of them were complete failures, while some of them were profitable. The Decembrist revolt of 1825 was a failure. The people of Russia were fine until the death of Tsar Alexander I. After the death of Tsar Alexander I, Tsar Nicholas I was left the thrown. Everything went downhill from there. This is described by Marquis de Astolphe Custine Custine. "The government of Russia is an absolute monarchy moderated by assassination...The more I see of Russia, the more I approve of the conduct of the Emperor in forbidding his subjects to travel, and in rendering access to his own country difficult to foreigners.". Tsar Nicholas made it so that no one could leave Russia, and made it difficult for people to come into Russsia. He also left the peasants In a state of unforgivable neglect. This revolution was a complete failure. The French Revolution of 1848 was almost a success. After Louis Philippe was abdicated, the second republic was proclaimed. While it stood, the second republic benefitted many. This is described in the French Revolution of 1848 document. "Napoleon III, like Louis Philippe, ruled at a time of rapid economic growth. For the bourgeoisie, the early days of the second empire brought prosperity and contentment.". The people did receive some of the things they were hoping for, like extended suffrage. The bourgeoisie won too because they created the National Assembly and elected the new government. This revolution was almost a success. Lastly, the revolution of Hungary of 1848 was a success. Hungary wanted an independent government, but Austrian troops smashed the rebels in Budapest. Many were imprisoned, executed, or forced into exile. Then Louis Kossuth wrote a Declaration of Independence. This is described in the revolution of Hungary of 1848 documents. "On April 14, 1849, the Hungarian Parliament in Debrecen, following an appeal by Kossuth, unanimously adopted the following declaration.". Hungary was now free from Austria. This revolution was a success.

 

 

 

Congress of Vienna

Essential Question: What should people in power do when their power is threatened?

     In class, we have been studying Napoleon and his conquests. Obviously Napoleons reign did not last forever. Eventually Napoleons power was threatened, and he was exiled to the island of St. Helena where he died in 1821. This begs the question, what should people in power do when their power is threatened? To answer the question, we have been reading documents and watching reenactments about the decisions of Klemens Von Metternich and the Congress of Vienna.
     When Metternich and the other powerful people at the Congress of Vienna noticed that their power was being threatened by Napoleon, they eliminated him with the concept of balance of power.
The Congress of Vienna decided to bring French territory back to its boundaries as existed prior to expansion. Further, expand Prussian territory so as to surround France with a stronger neighbor. Establish the Kingdom of the Netherlands as another stronger border state. Give Russia and Austria additional territory as a condolence for the difficulties faced under Napoleon’s conquest. This land redistribution will ensure a balance of power for the allies in the face of any later attempts at French expansion. The reason for this was because it maintained a balance of power between Russia, Austria, Prussia, Britain, and France. It also reversed the changes of Napoleon's conquest. The impact that the Congress of Vienna had was peace among the major European powers. There were no wars between the 5 major powers of Europe up to 1853.
     I believe that the Congress of Vienna made the right decision. There would have been no need to punish France by taking additional land away. The only way that the Congress of Vienna could peacefully restore order was to only take back the land that Napoleon acquired during his conquest. Also, by surrounding France with strong neighbors and redistributing land, France could no longer expand like it did before. This choice may have not been the most popular among some people, but it was definitely the right one. In this situation, it is crucial to be willing to give up some of your power for the greater good. If the European powers were not willing to give up some of their power, there would have been no land redistribution, and no solution to protecting their power form Napoleon.

Citation