Freedom from Above or Below

This lesson was about slavery during the Civil War and how the slaves gained their freedom. The essential questions were: "Who 'gave' freedom to fellow Americans? Did freedom come from above or below? To what extent were Abraham Lincoln's actions influenced by the actions of enslaved Americans?" To answer these questions, we had to learn what "freedom from above" and "freedom from below" meant. "Freedom from above" is when people of a higher social class grant freedom to a lower class. "Freedom from below" is when people of a lower social class help each other
First we looked at the two images below and discussed which one was showing freedom from above and which was showing freedom from below. The statue shows freedom from below because it The picture of Lincoln and the slaves shows freedom from above because it shows Lincoln, president at the time, granting the slaves their freedom.

 

The thing about this, however, is Lincoln did not wish to free the slaves for the sake of the war. While he did not agree with slavery personally, he would not let his personal views obstruct him from doing what was needed to end the war. As he said in a reply to an open letter from Horace Greely, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it..." Therefore, the slaves were going to have to help each other in order to gain their freedom, if it wasn't President Lincoln's first priority.
In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln says, "And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgement of mankind..." We see here that while Lincoln himself believes freeing the slaves and letting them join the army is "an act of justice", he says it is needed by "military necessity". He is doing what he needs to for the country and not what he believes in.
Slaves needed to get the attention of Lincoln by making nuisances of themselves. Their only chance of getting their freedom despite what the war brought was joining as one. As a unified group helping each other, they were able to achieve their goals and free themselves, gaining their freedom "from below".

Economy vs. Ethics

This lesson was about Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, two leaders in the production of steel and oil. Though they were successful businessmen, their practices were questionable. Many wondered whether they were actually robber barons. The essential question for this lesson was: "How did the actions of monopolistic leaders, such as Carnegie and Rockefeller, affect the common worker?"

"Forty-Millionaire Carnegie in his Great Double Role"

The Saturday Globe, 9 July 1892; David P. Damares

This lesson was done differently from previous lessons. We as a class were given the materials to learn and had to come up with an essential question to answer in this blog post ourselves. It was challenging and took teamwork and good communication, but we were able to do it. We split into groups and each group got a category to pay the most attention to, since we are going to use notes from these last few lessons to create the questions for our final exam. The categories were main ideas, key people, key terms, and important events. My group had main ideas. Then we were given some short ABC-CLIO videos, which we watched as a class and took notes on in a google doc that was shared with everyone. Next we read short biographies on John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. Then we watched a video on Carnegie's homestead strike. Finally we read through a short lesson containing primary and secondary sources on the men's contributions and hindrances to society or, more importantly, to their workers.

With these resources, we were able to discover how Carnegie and Rockefeller affected their workers' lives. These men were considered "robber barons": they helped the economy, but they were unfair. Rockefeller, for example, bought out all of his competition so he could dominate the oil field. Carnegie took advantage of the depression to get products for low prices. While the men were known for their philanthropy, they were disliked for their practices. They affected their workers through their monopolies because they created shifts in power and took advantage.

Scavenging for Notes

This lesson was all about the battles of the Civil War and the victors. The essential questions for this lesson were: "Who was the ultimate victor in each of the theaters of war: East, West, and Naval?" and: "What are some commonalities you can identify in the reasons for the results of the battles?" We had to go through a long process to answer these questions.
First, each student picked one of twenty battle descriptions. I chose first and picked what I learned was the Battle of Chancellorsville. We then had to research our battle and find the location, date, victor, and theater of the battle. That information was all put in a Google doc along with a picture and was made accessible to everyone.
Next we each made a bit.ly and created a QR code for our Google doc. In class, we met with the person who had the battle after us to find out where they were going to put their signs, so we would be able to put the location in our Google doc. Then we left the classroom, hung up our signs, and started our scavenger hunt. It took us two class periods to complete. During the next class, we created a Padlet, shown below, where we put who dominated in which theater and battles that prove it. I wasn't in class that day, but I was able to still get a picture of the Padlet and see my classmates' notes.
Looking at the Padlet, we can see who the victor was in each of the theaters. The Union dominated the Western theater and the Naval theater, and the Confederacy dominated the Eastern theater. The Padlet can also give us the answers to the second essential question. The Union dominated in the Naval theater because they attacked from both land and sea and had ships waiting in the river to attack. The Union seemed to dominate in the Western theater because of their numbers and strategies of bombardment. The Confederacy won in the Eastern theater because they had the right supplies and fortifications.

Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson meeting to discuss Chancellorsville

Created with Padlet

Stats and Strategies of the Union and Confederacy

This lesson was about the statistics and strategies of the Union and Confederacy at the beginning of the Civil War. The essential question was: "How did the differences between the North and South affect each region's strategy and success in the Civil War?" To answer this, we looked at documents with charts and maps of the North and South and their resources. We then made infographics using this information. I used my infographic to display what resources the North had that led them to victory in the Civil War. They had more industrial workers, which helped them make more weapons. They also had more railroads, which helped them move their weapons and get them to soldiers. While the South had more military experience, the resources of the North outweighed the strategies of the South.

The Election of 1860

This week we learned about the Election of 1860 and its causes. The essential question for this lesson was: "How were the results of the Election of 1860 representative of the deep divisions over slavery?" To answer this question, we first watched a Crash Course video. We took notes on topics the video discussed such as the Fugitive Slave Law, Bleeding Kansas, and the Dred Scott vs. Sanford Decision. We then recorded our first idea of the answer to the essential question. Afterwards, we went to a web page on the Civil War in Art. We saved the images from the left hand margin on the web page and wrote captions for them. The captions told the story of the Election of 1860 and the secession. We then found 3 more images to fill in the gaps of the story. Finally, we made an Educreations video narrating this story.

Bibliography
The Harper's Ferry Insurrection: John Brown, Now Under Sentence of Death for Treason and Murder, at Charleston, VA. November 18, 1859, Martin L. Lawrence
1860 Popular Vote. www.historycentral.com
The Seceding South Carolina Delegation. December 22, 1860, Mathew Brady
Abraham Lincoln's Induction Speech. www.theomahaproject.org
Our Banner in the Sky. Frederic E. Church, 1861
Bombardment of Fort Sumter, Charlestown. Currier and Ives, 1861

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.