Not Just a Bob Marley Song

Recently, in my Honors History 10 Class, we have been learning about Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans. We watched several videos and read a few primary source documents. We discussed the effect of the soldiers n the Native Americans. We also learned about all of the different ways the Natives resisted the soldiers. We discussed the Battle of Little Big Horn and the Dawes Act. Our Essential Question for this unit was: During Westward expansion, did the impact of federal policy towards the Native Americans match the intent?

An image of the different laws and
battles during this time period.

For many reasons, I believe that the answer to the question is no. Congress had some great ideas and ways to get the Native Americans to move, but they didn't think them through. For example, the Dawes Act was put in place in order to give each head of the family their own land to farm and live on. They didn't realize, however, that the Native Americans weren't used to the idea of 'cutting up' the land. They were used to sharing all of the land and having a community that lived together. They were not fond of the idea of dividing up the land and many resisted. I believe that Congress had the best intentions of trying to give each family their own land, but it ended up backfiring on them.
Helen Hunt Jackson wrote a story on the life of Native Americans and how they were affected by the Buffalo Soldiers. She highlighted the information that newspapers left out. This information was often the important details that showed the bad side of the Buffalo Soldiers. This is still very relevant today. News channels will often only show half of the story on their broadcasts. They will show the side that makes someone look the worst or is the most dramatic. This is not a good way to broadcast news, but is often the way that most audiences are attracted to.  



 Sources:
http://www.edline.net/pages/Reading_HS/Classes/1415_10212103/Unit_9_-_Buffalo_Soldiers__amp http://www.edline.net/files/_FFJMm_/e37ea36d83692ead3745a49013852ec4/ABC-CLIO_Federal_Native_American_Policies_Visual.gif

St. Rockefeller

Over the last week, we have been learning about business giants in my Honors History 10 class. Our essential question for this unit was: did the captains of industry have a positive or negative impact on the public? In order to properly answer this question, we investigated two major captains f industries at this time. We watched several videos and read many primary source documents about the two men we were studying. While they were both very different, there were a few common threads between their lifestyles.

The two men we studied were John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. Rockefeller was from a poor family whose dad owned his own business. Rockefeller went on to start his own oil business. He used many different strategies in order to keep his company on top. These strategies included buying out other companies and lowering his oil to prices that other companies couldn't compete with. Carnegie on the other hand was a major player in the steel market. 

Both were very successful men and I believe that they both had a positive impact on the general public. Yes, they did selfish things such as destroying the competition, but once they had all of the money, they gave it back to the people. They donated it back to schools and libraries around the country. In an interview with William Hoster, Rockefeller is quoted as saying "I believe the power to make money is a gift of God … to be developed and used to the best of our ability for the good of mankind. Having been endowed with the gift I possess, I believe it is my duty to make money and still more money and to use the money I make for the good of my fellow man according to the dictates of my conscience." Rockefeller believed that it was his duty to give back to the community and had no problem doing it. Carnegie believed in the Gospel of Wealth.  The Gospel of Wealth was a philanthropic idea that the wealthy should give so

Many of the people thought that Rockefeller was after the wealth.
They did not like the tactics he used to keep his business
a successful one.

me of their surplus of money to the poor or those who didn't have as much. His ideas aligned well with the thoughts of Rockefeller. The companies owned by the two men also provided many job opportunities for those who needed it. While I believe that the two men did have a positive impact, some people did not. The political cartoon to the right is just one example of what some people thought of Rockefeller. 

Up and Down, Up and Down

Over the course of the past week in my Honors History 10 class we have been making a scavenger hunt. We started the process by choosing a battle. There were 20 battle descriptions put up on the smart board and we each got to choose one. There was about one battle per person with a few overlaps. We did not know the name of the battles. We researched the information given in the battle description in order to determine which battle it was. Once we figured out which it was we had to record the name, theater (where it was) and the victor. Before we could continue on our research we had to get this checked by our teacher. After we got approved we had to summarize the whole battle in only two bullets. This was difficult because so much happens during a battle and it was hard to pick out only a few bits of key information that related to the outcome. We put all of the information we found in a google doc with a lovely image to illustrate our battle. Each person made a QR code and bit.ly that linked to their battle.

This is the QR code I created. If you scan it,
you can see the google doc that I created. If you
do not have a scanner please use the 'google
doc' link. 

They put these and the battle number on a piece of paper, printed it and brought it to class. These pieces of paper were hung up around the building so that people could travel from battle to battle. The directions for the next battle were put on the previous battle's google doc so that the reader would know where to go.  Each person started at their battle and then went on to the next (number 20 circled back to number 1). At each battle station the readers would write down the name, date, theater, victor, and two bullets about the battle in their Evernote account.

Once all of the running around was said and done, the class came together and discussed the answers to the essential question in a Padlet. In each theater there was a pretty clear victor. In the Western and Naval theaters the Union won the majority of the battles. They had good incentive and a better set of ships. They wanted to shut of the Confederacy from the West in order to stop the spread of slavery to the West. They also had to have control of the Mississippi River in order to cut of trade fro the south to any other places in the country. The limited population of the Western Southern states also contributed to the Union's dominance in that theater.  This battle strategy was a part of their Anaconda Plan.  In the Eastern theater the Confederacy often won the battles during the earlier part of the war. As time went on they started to lack supplies and morale. The Union on the other hand got stronger. Their strategy started working better and they formed a strong leadership for soldiers to follow. Towards the second half of the war the Union started to win the battles in the Eastern theater. 

Created with Padlet

Above or Below

Intro: what we did in class
Body:
freedom from above
freedom from below
my opinion/modern example

Prior to leaving for a much needed vacation, my Honors History 10 class discussed the freedom of slaves and how they were trying to achieve it. Our Essential Questions for the unit were:Who 'gave' freedom to enslaved Americans? Did freedom come from above or below? To what extant where Abraham Lincoln's actions influenced by the actions of enslaved Americans? We discussed the differences between freedom from above and freedom from below. Along with reading some documents about Abraham Lincoln, we also watched a video by Ken Burns. After watching the video, discussing the documents, and answering some questions we made a chart about each of the documents and whether they exemplified freedom from above or below.
Our chart shows whether the freedom was from above or below, why, and how much it exemplified its type of freedom.

The picture we analyzed during out activator
for the lesson. 

At the very beginning of the lesson we learned that freedom from above is when the government worked the free the slaves. This meant that the slaves had to depend on the government to free them. In the documents that we read surrounding Lincoln and slavery there were several examples of power from above being used to free the slaves. In Lincoln'c second Inaugural address he recognized that "These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than restrict the territorial enlargement of it." He recognizes that the slaves had been the cause of the war all along but that everyone ignored them. He also recognized that in the past the government had not seen this but now they were going to work at it. Slavery had officially become the goal of the Civil War. It was no longer about the Union, it was about the people of the country and what was best for them.

Edwin M. Stanton 

Freedom from below was when the slaves took it upon themselves to gain there own freedom. They would have revolts, protests and escapes in order to get the government ot recognize their need for freedom. They would help each other to escape. One example of this was Harriet Jacobs. She was a born into slavery in Virginia. She managed to escape and hide in an attic for several years. After that she managed to get to the North where she became a nurse and wrote a very famous slave narrative. She needed the help of others in order to be able to escape, but she also managed to do it without involving the government or depending on them.In a different document that my group looked at, there were examples of power from below rather than above. Document X was a letter from General E. Burnside to the Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton. In this letter the general states that " the city is being overrun with fugitives from surrounding towns and plantations— Two have reported themselves who have been in the swamps for five years— it would be utterly impossible if we were so disposed to keep them outside of our lines as they find their way to us through woods & swamps from every side" By joining the Union soldiers in this abandoned town, the slaves are forcing the soldiers to deal with them. They aren't hiding and being submissive anymore. They are bringing their problem to the government and showing them just how wrong they have been treated in the past. This is power from below because the slaves took matters into their own hands in order to show people that they needed to be freed.

Protests in Baltimore

Recently, in the news there have been lots of protests. These protests in major cities like Boston and New York, were sparked by more violent protests in Baltimore, Maryland. The citizens of Maryland became outraged when they heard that Freddy Gray, an African American man, died of his injuries while in police custody. This news sparked protests that later turned into violent riots. While the protesting makes sense and was a good idea to catalyze change, the violence was not okay. The rioters ended up looting and burning down a CVS Pharmacy. Right across the street from said pharmacy was a senior citizen residence that relied on the pharmacy for medicine. There are no supermarkets or other pharmacies in the general area for the senior citizens to get their medicine from. I do not support the violence, but I do believe that the people were right in protesting. Something needs to be changed.They were letting the government know what their problem was. They made their issue with the way cops treated black people known. They supported each other and worked together in order to make a change in the world as they know it. The looting and burning of buildings was not necessary. If anything it probably made the police less likely to want to change things and more likely to be more forceful. The violence got so bad that the National Guard was called in. I happened to be in Baltimore Tuesday morning and saw all of the armed men at their temporary base at Camden Yards. I had just gotten back from my vacation, but it shocked me that there needed to be so much police/army presence. If the people had managed to keep the protests from turning into riots, then they probably would have made more of a change. These days they seem to have more people shocked and disgusted by what they did rather than trying to help them fight for change. In Boston, protests stayed calm and nonviolent. In New York, however, some were a little violent. I feel that the more peaceful protests are a better idea. It shows the government that there is a problem while also showing them that it should be fixed. It doesn't provide more opportunities for cops to violent or give the people more reason to be upset with law enforcement. This is an example of power from below because the people of the states are catalyzing the change that they want to see happen.

Photos:
'Baltimore Riots' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Baltimore_riots
'Edwin M. Stanton' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_M._Stanton

"It was a short walk into slavery."

The Relationship between cotton and slaves in 1790

Recently, in my Honors History 10 class, we discussed the morality of slavery and how it was entrenched in American society by the early 19th century. As shown by the graphics, slavery was very much correlated to the amount of crops being grown in the South. As the people of the South started to rely more and more on slaves to work in their fields, slavery became more and more entrenched in American society. Slave worked crops brought in so much of America's export that if it stopped the country would be likely to have an economic collapse. It was for that reason, slavery could not be abolished very easily and was allowed to continue.

The difference in 1860. Use the hyperlink above to see
all the maps and statistics available. 

In order to better understand all of these concepts and actions that went on during slavery, we watched the PBS Documentary A Prince Among Slaves. Before watching the movie however, we got an idea of the differences between slavery in Futa Jallon, Africa and Natchez, Mississippi.  Slavery in America was a lot crueler than slavery anywhere else across the globe. The documentary highlighted the lack of dignity involved with becoming a slave. The owners of slaves would often beat their slaves and change their appearance. The owner has taken away their slave's identity. They have effectively wiped a human off the face of the earth.  This signified the start of a new life for the slave. However, this has effectively taken away the dignity of the slave. They are now longer the proud person they once were, but a shell of their old self who has been beaten into submission. While dignity is very important, the system of slavery based off of race also tends to forget the value of human life. It gives one specific group of people the power to control another based off of the color of their skin.  In Futa Jallon, there was  more fair system of slavery. People could only become slaves if they were a prisoner of war or had committed a great crime. There was also a better chance of freedom in Futa Jallon. The system there was not based on the color of one's skin so more people found it fair and fewer people tried to change it. Another thing that America's system of slavery ignored was the value of family. Oftentimes families would be split up and sent to work at different plantations. Because owners felt that the slaves were their property, they also felt that they were completely within their rights to do this to families. Plantation owners would split them up in the way that would earn him the most money.


Maps and Graphics from The University of Oregon  http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US18-00.html

 'A Prince Among Slaves' from Google Images

Title is a quote from Unbroken by Lauren Hillenbrand

A Succession of Secessions

The Election of 1860 was a very good indicator of the divide between the north and the south prior to the Civil War. In the highly populated North states Lincoln was the favored candidate because he was against slavery. Lincoln wanted to find a compromise by stopping the spread of slavery,  but not interfering with it where it was already established. People in the south did not like that idea so they voted for Breckenridge because he believed that there should be no limits on slavery. people of the sates in between the North and South turned to Bell for a compromise. His idea was to leave the Constitution and slavery as it was. People of the middle states were in favor of this because they knew that if war were to break out, it would be fought on their land. Missouri didn't like any of these ideas because there was a lot of unclaimed land to the west of them, were they could establish slavery. So Douglas got their vote because he opted to let the expansion of slavery be determined by popular sovereignty. When Lincoln was declared the winner of the election southern states started to secede. South Carolina was first, followed by Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. Later Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia joined them. These states declared themselves the Confederacy and created their own government separate from the Union. The video below explains these events and include pieces of artwork connected to them.

Stats and Strategies

Recently, in my Honors History 10 class, we made infographics about the strategies and statistics of each side of the civil war. My infogram is about evidence that the North had more advantages and a better strategy which could help them win the war. I chose to represent facts that would support my opinion; such as the North's advantages in industry, the economy and railroad mileage. However, I also chose to include information about the slaves because some of them would have been able to show small signs of support to the north which would be yet another advantage. 
Organizing the information given to us and figuring out which pieces to include was very difficult. The process of analyzing the information helped me to get a better understanding of where each side stood at the beginning of the war. It helped me to understand how unprepared the South was and how ready  the North was.

Winning a war  | Create infographics

It's a Small Room

During the time period right before the civil war slavery was the elephant in the room. People didn't discuss it although events occurred that were a direct result of it. During this time many things such as the Caning of Charles Sumner, the Dred Scott Decision, and the Gadsden compromise  happened

All of these were a direct action caused by the dispute about slavery, but no one named it as the main instigator. They blamed the people who partook in the events and their actions, but never what caused those people to do what they did. For example, when the caning of Charles Sumner happened, everyone blamed Preston Brooks's actions on what Sumner had said about his uncle. In reality, Sumner was talking about Brooks's uncle's involvement in the encouragement of slavery. Slavery was the root of the problem but it wasn't directly blamed for being it. This incident also furthered the divide between the North and South because pro-slavery people supported Brooks while anti-slavery supporters were outraged about what happened to Charles Sumner.



Along with the Caning, the Dred Scott Decision was influenced by slavery. Dred Scott and his master had lived in free states for a long period of time so Scott felt as though he should be considered a free man. SCOTUS ruled 7 to 2 against Scott because a)slaves were not considered citizens, so they did not have the right to sue in court, b) enslaved people could not win freedom by simply living in a free state and c) the Missouri Compromise was ruled unconstitutional and all territories were opened to slavery. Clearly, slavery was not completely ignored, but it was definitely not recognized the way that it needed to be by the government.

The Gadsden Compromise was also an event that was heavily influenced by slavery and the possibility for more slave states. The US paid $15 million for all of Nevada, California, Utah and much of Arizona and New Mexico in the Treat of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The US also paid $10 million for a much smaller strip of land known as the Gadsden Purchase only 5 years later. The smaller strip of land was to be used to make a transcontinental railroad to the new territories which were established with no mention of slavery. Southerners and pro-slavery  people wanted to be able to move people out to these new territories. This way, when the territories applied for statehood, they would want to be slave states because the majority of their population supported slavery. The overall goal was not stated as to further pro-slavery states, but to extend the amount of land in the United States. Like the caning of Charles Sumner, it was pretty obvious to everyone else that slavery was really the number one motive to buy the new land and to build a railroad in the South that conveniently led right to the unestablished territories.... Because that's not suspicious at all.  Clearly slavery was still a major issue at the time, but no one wanted to talk about it; that is why it was the elephant in the room. 

Picture of my group's timeline

Description of the event specified on timeline

Continuation of descriptions

'Elephant in the room' Google Images
"Gadsden Purchase", "Dred Scott" "Dred Scott Article" and "The caning of Charles Sumner" http://www.edline.net/files/_BYIYQ_/0c8709831428126f3745a49013852ec4/Elephant_in_the_Room_Lesson.pdf

Liberty, Equality, Sorority

Recently in my Honors History 10 class, we discussed Women's Rights during the mid 19th century. We talked about their roles in society, how oppressed by men they were, and how they fought for their rights. Women were extremely limited by their rights. Women were allowed to own land but once they got married it became their husband's, they couldn't vote, women could  not control who got custody of her kids when her husband died, they could not sue their husbands, and it was very difficult for them to divorce their husband. along with lots of restrictions, there were also many things that women were expected to do. They were expected to clean the house, watch the children, mend/make clothes and teach their children. This was a lot of responsibility for one mother and the father would not be around to help her because he would be doing "manly" things.

One of the many ways they fought for there rights was by publicly speaking about them. The first time they ever did this was at the Seneca Falls Convention. There were many different reactions to this convention. Some newspapers published reactions to the convention. Some reactions were supportive of the movement while others were not. The Oneida Whig newspaper thought that women had already tried to get rights, a long time ago, and that it was bound to fail again. The Mechanics Advocate felt as thought women were meant to stay at home and cook dinner.The two major arguments that they made against women having rights were that Adam was made before Eve and that Eve sinned before Adam. They used thee arguments to trap women into complying to men. Neither of the two newspapers had very strong arguments,. The National Reformer responded to the Mechanic's Advocate's claims by saying that they "had done them a great injustice" by making them inferior to men.

In today's 21st century society there are still a lot pf prejudice's against women. In the video above, women and men are depicted doing the same thing, but words in the background show how society perceives the actions based on their gender. I think that this is a fairly accurate representation of what goes on in society. There are definitely things about men and women that have to be different, but in terms of politics, jobs, and actions men and women should be treated equally. While this is very accurate, I also feel that in recent years the prejudices have become less prominent. A lot of people are still working for gender equality. Recently, I went to a lunch seminar about women in Science, Engineering, and Math. It was very interesting to hear about how they were treated at the place they work. Some said that everything was equal, while others said some men treated them as inferiors, but were then scolded by their boss. This is a huge step in the right direction for our country.

Social Reforms

 

From: Fenton, Samuel. The National Temperance Offering, and Sons and Daughters of Temperance Gift. New York: R. VanDien, 1850. 

     The Sons of Temperance was a brotherhood of men who supported the temperance movement during the early 19th century. The three main goals of the brotherhood were to protect its men from the evils of intemperance, help provide care for the men when they get sick, and improve their characters. Most of the member did not want to be known so their lists were kept hidden and in most places even the meetings themselves were a secret. The artist behind this image would have wanted to show people how bad alcohol as and the affect it had on families. Due to the author's bias, there may be some exaggeration on the actions of the father while he is drunk, but it is still a reliable source. 

     Overall, the massage the engraving is trying to end is clear: the excessive drinking of alcohol is effecting the family life in a negative way. The father comes home and beats his children or wife for no reason. This led to high tension and lots of fear during this time period. While this image does an excellent job of depicting the effect of alcohol on families, it does not show how it effected life outside of the home. I.E. people's jobs and the economy.  

     If you look closely at the picture, you will notice that the family is cowering in fear of the father. It appears as though the mother is trying to protect one of the children while the eldest daughter takes the largest beating. Her clothes are torn and the rest of the house is destroyed. One thing I thought was interesting was that the artist made it so that the father was beating the girl with the alcohol bottle. I think that this symbolizes that it isn't really the father's fault, but the alcohol's. This would really help to get the message about temperance out to the public. 

Another Brick in the Wall

Recently in History, we discussed Latin American revolutions during the early 19th century and how they were impacted by race. The essential question for this lesson was: Why is it essential to acknowledge human values regardless of race? How are the events in the Latin American Revolutions evidence of this social imperative? These questions were important to think about a we studied the revolutions because at a first glance, the revolution had nothing to do with race, but with the government ruling people. After learning the background information, it is easy to recognize that government was ruling people and assigning them lifestyles based on the race of their parents. This wasn't a very fair way to tell people how they could live so the revolutionaries did something about it.

Some similarities between the three revolutions that my group noticed was that they were all against the colonizing European countries. The Mexican and Grand Columbian were both against Spain. Not only where they all against similar governments, they all happened in the same time period: between 1810 and 1830. The final and most important similarity between these was that in terms of class it was often the lower classes fighting against the upper classes for more equal rights. While they were similar, there were also some differences. For one, the Mexican and Gran Columbian revolutions were against Spain while the Brazilian revolution was against Portugal. Also, there was a lot more violence in the Mexico and Gran Columbian revolutions than in the Brazilian.  

As mentioned in the previous paragraph one of the major common threads through each of these revolutions was that the lower classes were fighting the upper classes. Back in the time of these colonies, your social class was determined by the race of your parents. Even today there are still some decisions that seem to be based on race. I feel as though we still use people's race to judge them and sometimes we use it as a reason to spark change. For example, with the Treyvon Martin case everyone was upset in the court's ruling because they felt it was unfair because he was black. They used it as an excuse to have rallies and say the case wasn't handled correctly when it really was. If it had been a white kid who got shot that night the court's ruling wouldn't have changed, but there wouldn't have been as many protests or controversy about it. Especially these days, race is a touchy subject. It is one not addressed as much as it should be in a classroom because it can be seen as offensive or biased in some people's eyes. This avoidance definitely affects our society today in a negative way. There are a lot of controversies and debated about the effect race has on our society and when all of the examples are explained this proves very true all over the world.






Here is the timeline my group made about the revolution in Gran Columbia:
1810: Young Simon Bolivar is a an officer in Caracas 
April 19, 1810: Bolivar is a part of a conspiracy that expelled the governor of Venezuela and took control 
July 1811: National Assembly declares Venezuela's independence 
July 1812: the Spanish authorities rally, recover military initiative and regain control of the entire providence. Bolivar fled and wrote the Manifestos de Cartagena, a powerful political pamphlet addressed to the people of New Granada. 
1813: Bolivar is the head if an army of liberation and he returns to to Venezuela where he wins six successive engagements against Spanish forces. On August 6, 1813 he entered Caracas where he took political control with dictatorial powers 
July 1814: he lost Caracas, so he marches to Bogota which he succeeds in recapturing from the Spanish; makes it the new capital city, but soon the Spanish recover it again 
End of 1817: he is back in Venezuela building an army in the region of Orinoco river 
1819: Bolivars small force of 2500 men, crosses the Orinoco and crossed the mountains during which many of the rebel band died 
August 7, 1819: the Spanish army surrenders during an engagement at Boyaca, three days late her enters Bogota 
December 17, 1819: the Republican de Columbia is proclaimed covers the entire region of modern day Colombia Ecuador and Venezeula. 
24 July 1821: in Venezeula won a battle that yields him to his native city of Caracas 
May 24 1822: bolivars favorite general, Antonio Jose de sucre, won a victory at pic hunch as d prongs the patriots into Quito 
1830: Bolivar ruled until May of 1830 when he resigns and intends to retire in Europe, but dies along his journey. Before he died he found out that Ecuador and Venezuela seceded formally from Gran Columbia  

The Magic School Bus

Recently in my Honors 10 History we class, we discussed Andrew Jackson's title of the "people's president" and whether or not it was deserved. My group studied the Bank War in Particular. The other two topics that we studied were the Spoils System and the Indian Re!oval. The Spoils System was a system the Jackson used to gain support and keep supporters in government offices. He promised people who would vote for him that he would give them a government job. The Indian Removal was when Jackson forced Native Indians to move west because he felt as though they did not get along with white landowners. Overall, we decided that Andrew Jackson was the people's president when it came to average Americans, but he was willing to do things that would have a negative impact on the rich and people of other nationalities.
My group's skit was based off of The Magic School Bus. The class traveled back in time to when Andrew Jackson vetoed the Bank's proposal. The class also saw Daniel Webster's reaction and the people's reactions to go the sides of the argument. Here is a link to the skit for anyone who is interested in reading it: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-0MpLOpT0jjLh_sWXNdxCM9V9OIf2P5SI_GYgx16DpY/edit?usp=docslist_api   

The Rise of an Empire...

So Recently in my Honors History 20 class, we studied the rise of democracy in the U.S. during the early 1800s. We started by analyzing some primary source documents and defining democracy. Our final definition was: democracy is a system of government in which the whole population participates. Looking at the primary sources and defining democracy were both ways to help prepare us to answer the essential question: how democratic was the U.s. during the early 1800s? To answer the question and demonstrate what we learned, my group created a glogster( and digital poster): http://grouplmnop.edu.glogster.com/rise-of-democracy/

This is just a portion of our Glogster poster, click the link above to see the rest! 

DBQ

Jackie Lermond                                                                                                             11/17/14  

Toussaint Louverture         

Toussaint Louverture was a man born in Saint Domingue. He grew up a slave, managed a plantation, and ended up owning some slaves of his own before becoming an important person in the history of Saint Domingue. During his lifetime, Toussaint Louverture was a great military commander and ruler of Saint Domingue, but most importantly Toussaint Louverture was a liberator of slaves.

            One of Toussaint’s many accomplishments was being a fantastic military commander. He made smart decisions that would benefit his people. He even put his personal life behind the safety of his people, like when “...Toussaint ordered Moyse’s [his nephew’s] arrest and had him confined in the fort of Port de Paix.” (Doc E) Along with making decisions with his head, not his heart, Toussaint was also a very clever commander. When the French ships were approaching the harbor to come and reinforce slavery, he came up with a plan so that when the French landed all they saw was “...nothing but smouldering ruins, where once stood splendid cities.” (Doc F) Although he was a smart and clever commander, it is not how we should remember him.

Along with being a diligent commander of the Military of saint Domingue, Toussaint was also named the leader of Saint Domingue in its Constitution. According to Article 16 of the Saint Domingue Constitution, “...Toussaint Louverture, Chief General of the army of Saint-Domingue and… he is entrusted the direction thereof for the remainder of his glorious life.” (Doc C) Toussaint ruling of Saint Domingue was to last for as long as he lived. There were pros and cons to this idea. The people already trust him as the General of the Army, so it would be easy for him to become their ruler, but if he starts to make bad decisions, then they are stuck and can’t get rid of him. A short 3 months after the Constitution was made and Toussaint was put into power, he made a proclamation to ensure the smooth running of the country. In this proclamation he stated that “Any individual… tending to incite sedition [actions against the authority of the nation] shall be brought before a court martial [military court] and be punished in conformity with the law.” (Doc D) He was trying to make sure that there was fair punishments and prevent people from forming any kind of rebellion against him. He sets up these boundaries because he cares about his people and wants to keep them out of trouble.

All of Toussaint’s actions as a military commander and ruler all had one thing in common: freeing the people of his country from slavery. In 1794 Toussaint and his troops stop their revolt and ally with the revolutionary government of France (Doc A). Toussaint sometimes fought against the French and was allied with them at other times depending on what their goals were. If the French were against slavery then he would join forces, but when the government wanted to enslave Toussaint’s people he would fight for them. All of his allies depended on what their goals were. For example, when the French Directory was trying to reestablish slavery in Saint Domingue, Toussaint wrote them saying that “...if they [people of Saint Domingue] had a thousand lives, they would sacrifice them all rather than to be subjected to slavery….” Toussaint wrote this very strongly worded letter to the French Directory on behalf of his people. He threatened the Directory saying that the people would fight them if they continued with their plans. His army would fight against the French instead of with them because the French were for slavery at this time. Toussaint’s allies depended on how their goals worked for his people, not him.

While Toussaint Louverture may have made many mistakes throughout his life he was definitely a good leader and commander for Saint Domingue. Even though he was great at those occupations, he was even better at liberating slaves and fighting for their freedom. He stood up for their freedom even though it eventually led to his death. People can say all they want about the choices he made, but nobody can argue that he did everything in his power to free the slaves of his country. Sadly, Toussaint didn’t live to see the day when Saint Domingue became the independent country of Haiti.  

Doc A: Created from Various Sources

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

Doc C: The Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801. Signed by Toussaint Louverture in July 1801.

Doc D: Toussaint Louverture, “Proclamation, 25 November 1801.”

Doc E: Madison Smartt Bell, Toussaint Louverture: A Biography, 2007.

Doc F: William Wells Brown, “A Description of Toussaint Louverture,” fro The Black Man, His Antecedents, His Genius, and His Achievements, 2nd edition, 1863, Engraving of Toussaint Louverture, 1802.

Would You Like to Take a Survey? You'll get $10 Off of Your Next Purchase...

Over the past few days in my History class we have been taking surveys. Not like the on from a coffee shop were you get a free doughnut or something, but ones that were about the Atlantic Revolutions from 1830 & 1848. The prize we won for completing them was knowledge. Yay! In order to make the surveys the class was divided into 5 groups and each group was assigned a revolution. They had to read the background information and the primary sources.  Then each group had to make a survey that the rest of the class could answer if they had all of the documents in front of them. My group's survey was about the Hungarian Revolution.
In Austria, during 1848, there was a revolt. The goals of this revolution were to form an independent government, end serfdom, and make a constitution that protected basic rights. The Austrian government, or specifically Metternich, was the cause of their problem. They created many proclamations about how they wanted to be free and eventually Austria conceded and gave them what they wanted. This victory was short lived because soon Austria came back with Russia as allies and destroyed the rebels. They also got rid of any of the laws that had been put in place and set up new ones that would prevent anything like this from happening again. Our group decided that on the scale of success and failure, this revolution fell somewhere between success and neutral. We agreed on this because in the beginning it was a success, but Austria came back and took over again.
While our revolution was a success, some were not as successful. Many historians considered all of the revolutions during this time period to be a failure.  however think that they were wrong. sure, there was the Decembrist revolution where many people were shot and killed, but there was also the French revolution of 1848 where the people got what they wanted: their ruler abdicated. There was also the Frankfurt Assembly, where the people wanted a democratic constitution. They may not have gotten exactly what they had set out to get, but they changed the way they lived for the better. Overall, the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were not ass big of failures as historians say that they were. Sure there were some bumps along the way, but most of them accomplished something.

Communism and Chocolate....

Recently in history class, we did a fun activity. The teacher handed out two pieces of candy to everyone in the classroom. Except for two people: they got eight pieces. We were then told to play rock, paper, scissors for the candy. If you lost you had to give the piece to the winner. I played, and was out of candy within my first three games. Once I was out of candy had to sit down and watch the rest of the class play. While I was watching I noticed a couple of things: it was easier for the 'rich' people to keep their candy, only one person who started out with two candies had more than that, and people were teaming up. They were 'investing' in each other. This game was very frustrating because there was a lot of luck involved. Or in my case, there was just a tendency to guess what the other person was thinking wrong. It was also really frustrating because the rich people always had candy! They couldn't have gotten rid of it if they tried (which they didn't), but still. It was pretty ridiculous. After a while, the teacher intervened and collected everyone's candy. Then she redistributed them all back evenly so that no one had more than anyone else.
The whole point of this activity was not so that was could have a couple of friendly games or rock, paper, scissors, but so that we could learn about communism, capitalism, socialism, and Karl Marx. We were just recreating it with candy. We started with capitalism: there were varying amounts of candy for everyone in the class and there was the freedom of competition. Then the teacher collected all of the candy and handed them back out equally to everyone. This represented socialism, where the government controlled everything. Communism is where no one had more than anyone else and everyone contributed to the overall wealth.  The rich people were not happy about this because it meant that they would have less money. There was a classless society created and everyone agreed to share.
The idea of capitalism, socialism, and communism was Karl Marx's he wanted to help the poor by giving them the same amount of money as rich people.Sadly, this idea does not work as well in practice as it sounds. Governments have to force their people to share the wealth. However, Karl Marx was not the only person with an idea on how to make poor people richer. Adam Smith came up with the idea of the Invisible Hand: a system in which the government didn't control the trade. This idea meant that people would look for high quality goods for the lowest prices. It would make it so that poor people would be more likely to afford them and businesses that mistreated their workers would not prosper.
Personally, I think that the Invisible Hand is a better theory because no one has to give up their money, and the businesses become better quality. Also, the poor people would be able to more easily afford the businesses' items. This would make everyone happy: the rich people get to keep their money and the poor people can afford more things. The only problem is that the poor people don't have more money and the rich people are till rich; goods are just made affordable. This system is better then communism because there would be less revolting and more cooperation.

Congresses Tend to Make Bad Decisions

Recently in History, we learned about the Congress of Vienna.  The essential question for this activity was: what should people in power do when their power is threatened? In class, we read different scenarios and read the three options that were given as to how the people in power could have solved the problem. We posted our choice along with a brief explanation. Then we found out what the people in power actually did, and how we overestimated how much they would be thinking of their people.

The Congress of Vienna was the gathering of all of the influential powers in Europe following the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte. It was hosted by Klemens von Metternich in Austria (Vienna to be exact). A lot of things changed, such as the reconstruction of the European map, after the Congress met, but one major thing they did was establish the Principle of Intervention. This principle made it so that if there were any rebellions, foreign powers could step in to quell them. England was the only one to not be a part of this. This principle kept many rebellions from happening and made it easier to stop or put an end to the ones that did happen. For instance, in the 1820's Austria crushed an Italian rebellion.

I think that the people at the Congress should have considered their people more. If they could have sacrificed some of their power, then they wouldn't have had to establish a lot of the principles they did. They also would have had fewer rebellions on their hands.  I know that they didn't want to give up their power and that was the whole point of the principles, but they could have given up just some of it and saved themselves a lot of trouble in the long run.

It's Just an Idea...

Recently in my history class we had a smack down. Groups went head to head and competed for candy. Each group was assigned a topic and required to make a creative video that was no longer than a minute. The possible topics for the videos were liberalism,conservatism,and nationalism. We made the videos in order to answer our essential question: what were major political ideologies of the 19th century and how did they influence social and political action?

Our video topic was liberalism. We decided to make a common craft video because they are creative, but still get info across to the viewers. We started our video by giving definitions that our audience would need in order to understand the rest of the video. Then we got creative and added the bulldozer to show that liberals wanted to get rid of aristocracy, monarchy, traditions, and the church in order to have freedom, rights, and meritocracy. Finally, we showed what the end result of doing this would be. People would be able to climb the social and economic ladders, but there would still be clear societal divisions.

From other groups' presentations I learned about conservatism and nationalism. Conservatism is an ideology based on keeping traditions in place. These beliefs would keep monarchs in power and prevent revolutionaries from acting up. Poor people would not benefit because they would have no chance of climbing the social ladder.Nationalism is the ideology based off of people of the same nationality, cultural practices, beliefs and language should unite as one to fight a common enemy such as a foreign ruler. This would unify more countries and possibly lead to fewer wars if they are all fighting against one common enemy. Liberalism, conservatism, and nationalism all had major influence in 19th century political and social actions.

Not Dynamite

During History class, we have recently discussed/learned about Napoleon Bonaparte. Sure we learned about how many different places he conquered, how big, bad rules were scared of him and how he changed the economies of the places where he ruled, but the overall massage was clear: don't underestimate the little guy.

A not so short guy who was smart and cunning. 
Napoleon Bonaparte. Digital image. Wikipedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon>.

Napoleon really did change a lot through his overtake of Europe and America. He changed economic, political, ad social systems. In one of the primary sources we read, Madame de Stael Felt as though Napoleon didn't have plan for what he was doing and it would ruin Europe. She was proven wrong when Napoleon started to increase trade by taking on public works projects such as building roads and railroad tracks. Napoleon also balanced the budget, removed other trade barriers, and established the Bank of France. While Madame de Stael had her doubts about Napoleon, Marshal Michel Nay did not. He believed that Napoleon was the only person capable of taking over Europe and doing it right.

Marshal Michel Nay supported Napoleon mostly because he would gain more power if Napoleon had more. Marshal Michel Nay's social standing was not the only one to change during Napoleon's time. Napoleon changed social systems by getting rid of serfdom and nobility, limited the use of title, and gave citizens more rights/property and access to a proper education. Before this, there was a lot of power held by the monarchies and Napoleon worked to  give some of it back to the people in lower classes.

He also helped poorer people by forcing he Directory to resign and  establishing meritocracy. These political changes caused the church to lose some of their power and forced monarchs to obey the Napoleonic code. Due to Napoleon's success many people feared him and were willing to follow the code.. The only country in Europe that Napoleon couldn't defeat was Britain. Britain ended up being his downfall.

Links to sources:
Madame de Stael and Marshal Michel Nay Primary Sources: http://www.edline.net/files/_5HGnA_/b0569448657d86ed3745a49013852ec4/Unit_3A_Activity_1_Primary_Source_Readings.pdf
Other opinions of Napleon:
http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/biographies/c_historians.html

A Different Type of Advertisement

Recently, in history, we have been studying the Lowell Experiment. This was an industrial project that tried to avoid the negative aspects of Industrialization in England. In order to do this, owners and industrialists had to come up with a way to get girls to want to leave their homes and families in order to work in the mills. Their solution was to install a 'paternal system' that emphasized the protection of the women. There was a father figure that set rules and a code for behavior. There was also a mother figure, the boarding house keeper, who regulated behavior outside of the mill, maintained a 'homey' environment and made sure girls had a good reputation.

This is the cover of a work of articles written by the girls in the mills. This showed how educated they were while they worked.
Lowell Offering. Digital image. Berwick Academy, Apr.-May 2001. Web. 3 Oct. 2014. <http://berwickacademy.org/millgirls/offering.htm>.

The benefits of having to maintain a safe and moral environment was that the girls could earn their own money and  have a sense of independence. Their families got help paying the mortgage, had one less mouth to feed, and were sure that their daughter's morals would be upheld.  The family's needs may have influenced a girl's decision to work in the mills. Along with the benefits, there were also some costs. Girls were separated from their families for long periods of time, worked in dangerous conditions, wages were cut, had long hours, and there was a greater risk of catching a disease, just to name a few.
The owner's and overseer's were happy to have women working for them because they could treat them worse than they would men. Women had fewer rights back then, there were less objections, and they weren't as greatly needed as men on a farm. This led to negative outlook on women during this time period. they were meant to do the jobs no one particularly wanted or that men couldn't do. they were considered fragile and easily manipulated. Owner's were proved wrong once their workers started revolting against wage cuts they tried to instill.