Elephants in the White House

The debate over slavery was considered an "'elephant in the room" in American politics during the 19th century. Our class got into groups and made timelines with events, such as Bleeding Kansas and the Dred Scott Decision, that proved this point.

The top of the timeline is made up of events that had a pro-slavery effect. The bottom of the timeline is made up of events with anti-slavery effects. As we can see, the timeline is very balanced; even some events had both effects. The Compromise of 1850, for example, had pro- and anti-slavery effects. California was recognized as a free state and slave trade was abolished (though ownership was still allowed), which contributed to anti-slavery. However, slaves needed to be turned in without a jury trial, inhabitants of states had to decide on slavery within their state, and while Texas gave up Santa Fe, it remained the largest slave state in the Union. These were pro-slavery effects. Bleeding Kansas was more balanced than an event with only one outcome, but still leaned more towards pro-antislavery because of John Brown's attack on pro-slavery men. Slavery was a huge point in the Lincoln-Douglas debates as well. Lincoln believed majority shouldn't deny minority of their rights, while Douglas won with his idea of popular sovereignty.

As we can see, while slavery was really a balanced issue in the 1800s, it caused violence and mixed responses. It especially invaded politics when it came to popular sovereignty and the Lincoln-Douglas debates. While no one wanted to admit that slavery was a large part of politics, it was hard to ignore.

Bibliography

Compromise of 1850 notes, Edline.

Bleeding Kansas notes, Edline.

Dred Scott Decision notes, Edline.

Lincoln-Douglas Debates notes, Edline.

Slavery During the Antebellum Period

We have been learning about slavery in America during the 19th century. There were a few essential questions for this lesson. They were: How did slavery become economically entrenched  in American society by the early 19th century?, How does a system of slavery based on race affect  human dignity?, and What human characteristics does such a system tend  to ignore? The documents and charts we analyzed as well as the movie we watched helped us to answer these questions.
To answer our first question, we looked at charts on slavery growth between 1790 and 1860. In 1790, cotton was an insignificant crop and the French and American revolutions led people to believe that slavery was coming to an end. Many slaveowners were planning on emancipating their slaves. However, after the introduction of the cotton gin, slavery skyrocketed. Cotton was easier to produce and therefore became a more profitable crop. But to keep up with the increase in cotton production, more slaves needed to be brought to the southern states. This graph shows a 57% increase of slaves in 1860 when cotton production hit 2.2 billion pounds per year.

To answer our second and third questions, I turned to "The Prince of Slaves", a movie we watched in class about Abdul Rahman. He was a prince in Futa Jallon who was captured and sold to slave traders. He was taken to Natchez, Mississippi and was bought by a man named Foster. One scene in the movie really stood out to me. When Rahman was brought to Foster's farm, he had to get his hair cut. Foster had to tie him down because he was struggling so much. Rahman didn't want to cut his long hair because it was a symbol of where he came from, his nobility, and his manhood. Rahman's attempts to convince Foster that he was a prince were futile and they cut his hair anyway. To me this shows that slave owners really had no care or consideration for human rights when it came to slavery and didn't even treat them as real people with past lives.

The Dawn of Feminism

In the early 19th century, women faced discrimination and oppression based on their gender. Their only purpose was to take care of the house and children. Howard Zinn begins Chapter Six, The Intimately Oppressed, of his A People's History of the United States with "It is possible, reading standard histories, to forget half the population of the country. The explorers were men, the landholders and merchants men, the political leaders men, the military figures men. The very invisibility of women, the overlooking of women, is a sign of their submerged status." Women were viewed as basically property and had little to no rights. Some of the laws or practices held against them are shown below.

 In the mid-19th century, women wanted to change all that. They held the Seneca Falls Convention and issued the Declarations of Rights and Sentiments, which ironically looks much like the Declaration of Independence.

While some men attended the convention, most of the feedback it received was from disapproving males through newspapers. The Oneida Whig, for example, had some sexist things to say: for example, "If our ladies will insist on voting and legislating, where, gentlemen, will be our dinners and our elbows?" 

The struggle for gender equality continues today. In 2013, Pantene aired a commercial in the Philippines about gender stereotypes. 

It shows how differently women's roles are seen versus men's. It's impossible for men and women to be equal in everything, but gender-based stereotypes need to stop. What we need is for everyone to have the same rights and opportunites.

Bibliography
Zinn, Howard. The Intimately Oppressed. http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnint6.html 
Declaration of Rights and Sentiments. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/vc006195.jpg

Revolutions of 1830 and 1848

The essential question for this lesson was "Were the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded?" To answer this, we had to learn about the revolutions and rate them on a success/failure scale. We split into groups and each group got a revolution to research. Then we made SurveyMonkeys for our revolution and had the other groups take it.
My group had the French Revolution of 1848. We learned that the working class liberals wanted a French Republic where everyone could vote. They opposed Louis Philippe and his government because there was a recession in Paris. The February days began, in which people overturned carts and toppled trees. Demonstrators were killed by troops. Louis Philippe stepped down from the throne and the Second Republic was created by a group of liberal, radical, and socialist leaders. By June, middle and upper class citizens had taken over the government. They shut down national workshops built by socialists because they thought they were a waste of money. Thus the June days began. There were violent protests that left at least 1,500 dead. But by the end of 1848, the National Assembly set up a constitution for the Second Republic in hope to restore control. A president and one-house legislature was created. The right to vote was also given to all adult men, creating the largest suffrage in the world at the time. Napoleon III was elected to the throne. The revolution was not a complete success or failure. It was successful in that Napoleon III became emperor; however, liberals, socialists, and radicals could not agree on government and led to revolts.

results from our survey

Before the French Revolution of 1848, there was the French Revolution of 1830. Charles X took the throne after his brother, Louis XVIII, died. He was a supporter of absolutism, the exact opposite of what his brother was for. In 1824, he took a lot of rights away from the people, like the right to vote and the press. This did not make the liberals and radicals happy, so they resorted to violence, causing Charles X to flee to England. Louis Philippe then took the throne, extending suffrage, but only to the upper classes. The other people suffered, meaning this revolution was in the middle of the success/failure scale. Another revolution that was researched by a different group was the Decembrist Revolt of 1825. After Tsar Alexander died, it was assumed that Constantine would take the throne. He had the same ideals as the people, which is why they wanted him to rule. Much to their dismay, Tsar Nicholas instead took the throne. He felt strongly about the military, didn't believe in democracy, and didn't want lower classes to have any say in the government. The people wanted to overthrow Tsar Nicholas and put Constantine in, which would give them a constitution and put an end to the widespread poverty. They gathered in crowds around guards, and when stopped by Tsar Nicholas, they told him they wanted Constantine as a ruler. He had no choice but to fire on his own people. This revolution was considered the only complete failure because the people did not get what they wanted.
I don't think that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were failures. There was only one complete failure and the good effects outweigh the bad. While mostly the upper classes prospered, some of the lower classes got something good out of the revolutions.

Temperance Reform Pamphlet

Temperance Poster, c. 1830s

This poster was made by people involved in the Temperance Movement. They were trying to tell "drunkards" what they were doing wrong and how they were affecting the people around them in a negative way. The source is true to what the people believed during that time: that drunks were a hazard to society and needed to be stopped. The Temperance Movement was started by women who faced domestic violence as an effect of alcohol on their husbands. They wanted people to abstain from alcohol because they were a danger to their families. That is why this poster says "You are a thief and a robber"-drunkards are robbing their families of "necessary means of support". The author uses strong descriptions and compares drunks to other criminals as a way to try to get them to realize what they were doing wrong. I think this poster is very effective in the way it displays the wrongs in alcohol abuse.

The Rise of Democracy

Our essential question was "How should we define democracy? How democratic was the United States in the early 1800s?" To answer this question, we got into groups and made posters titled "What is Democracy?" First, we analyzed a painting on a county election and read an article that went with it. Then we analyzed two voting charts and read two primary sources. We gathered our notes and put all of our thoughts into small explanations for each document. Then we created the poster.
The result was a poster with the dictionary definition of democracy and then explanations as to how democratic the United States was in the early 1800s based on the documents. Democracy is defined as "a system of government where the power is invested in the people or through freely elected representatives". Our poster shows how the United States circa the early 1800s wasn't very democratic, especially when it came to elections.

Jackson: For the People?

In this lesson, we learned about Andrew Jackson and his policies regarding banks, Native Americans, and government officials. The essential question was: Is Andrew Jackson's long-standing reputation as "the people's president" deserved? Why or why not? To answer this, first we watched a Ted Ed video and a Crash Course video on Andrew Jackson. Then, we got into six groups of four and were assigned either the bank war, the spoils system, or the Indian Removal Act to make a presentation on in order to answer the essential question.

Jackson put the spoils system into place when he was in office. This replaced government officials with those who were loyal to Jackson. This often resulted in incompetence and inability in the workers. Jackson also used the military to collect taxes. The spoils system backfired on him when, even after being warned of his criminal record, he gave Samuel Swartwout a job. Swartwout then stole almost two million dollars from the government. Jackson also put the Indian Removal Act into place. This moved five tribes from their territories to the West along the infamous Trail of Tears. Jackson claimed he was moving the Indians because they die around white men; however, he ultimately satisfied the needs of white men for territory. Last but not least, Jackson fought with the Second National Bank. It was controlled by the rich, and he believed that they were taking advantage of the poor/lower classes. His main goal was to prevent the average American from being exploited. He thought that new and growing corporations would destroy small businesses. Therefore, he vetoed the bill that would extend the bank's charter. Doing this put Jackson at risk for losing his reelection, but he did it anyways because it was what he believed in. He ended up being reelected. However, after Jackson's presidency ended, the Panic of 1837 occurred because of his bank policies. You can look at our presentation on Jackson and the bank war down below.

As we can see, Andrew Jackson really had the right intentions when it came to his presidency. For the most part, he tried to protect the "average American" (meaning white men). However, his plans were poorly executed. Andrew Jackson was a "people's president" in the sense that he wanted and attempted to look out for the average American. However, he was not a people's president in the way he performed his duties.