Was The Discrimination Intentional?

The essential question for this week was, Was the discrimination that the Buffalo soldiers and Native Americans faced intentional or did the White settlers and federal government actually believe that what they were doing was just? The Buffalo Soldiers were black soldiers for U.S.A., African American, cavalry officer, and United States colored troops. The buffalo soldiers thought that becoming soldiers would be more interesting than going home and sharecropping. The first thing we did to learn about the Buffalo Soldiers and the Native Americans was to watch ABC Cleo videos just like we did last week to learn about Rockefeller and Carnegie. During the videos we assigned each group a topic to take notes on while watching the videos. After we each took notes on each of the documents according to our groups topics.

http://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Topics/Display/1187738?cid=140

These videos give some background information on both Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans on what the rest of this post will be talking about

Buffalo Soldiers were very frequently put into the Indian wars and mostly helped with the battles of Spain and Cuba. As said before Buffalo Soldiers are black soldiers who thought it would be more interesting to be a soldier than go back to sharecropping. After the Civil war, the Americans expanded westward and took their land. They used total war strategies against the Native Americans and attacked the Buffalo Soldiers. They took their food, supply and clothing. They also destroyed their horses’ food source and their homes. People started to think that Native Americans should be understood and taken into society. The Americans started to split up the land owned by the Native Americans though, they believed that they were their friends. The Land that the Americans split up was not good for farming so instead they started schools for the children to try to remove Native American Culture. Shamans who were the chiefs of the tribes began to introduce the concept of Total War and the government used it to wipe out the Indians starting with the Buffalo Soldiers. They went after the camps and the horses of the people. Many Indians were forced to move farther west and move to land for reservations. The Native Americans lived on the reservations and the land was understood as a sovereign nation, until they were put under government protection. The main goal was to encourage the Native Americans to fit into the society of America, but reformers thought that what was needed was assimilation, 90% of land went to American settlers. Reformers thought that they were the “Friends of the Native Americans”. The Dawes Act was the federal legislation related to land rights of Native Americans which tried to promote assimilation with Native American culture and U.S. culture.

The discrimination of Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans faced was not intentional, the white settlers and federal government believed what they were doing was just. The government and settlers thought that they were actually helping the Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans by taking away their land and  building schools to teach the children American culture and to forget about their culture making them fit in with the Americans thinking that that was a good idea. Also reformers thought they were “Friends of Native Americans” by helping them. The White settlers and federal government were not discriminating the Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans intentionally but they thought they were doing the right thing by helping the Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans fit in with American Society.

    

Carnegie and Rockefeller: Robber Barons or Captains of Industry

The essential question for this week is, were Carnegie and Rockefeller robber barons or captains of industry. Robber barons were seen as corrupt, unsportsmanlike. They bribed government officials, bought out or destroyed rivals, created giant monopolies and trusts and citizens had a love-hate relationship with them. Captains of industry were business leaders. This week we created a class google doc. and then we watched six videos on ABC Cleo and tooks notes. Every group was assigned a different topic, main ideas, key people, important events/key dates, essential terms. Once we watched the six videos each group had to analyze each of the four other documents and for this we also only took notes on the topic we were assigned to take notes on the videos for. After we had taken all the note we all agreed on an essential that would be answered in the blog post.

From 1865 to 1900 was the time of the uninterrupted industrial growth period. It was the time when industry boomed, Laissez faire capitalism became more popular, Immigrant labor was very popular and favored, transcontinental railroads was a goal, acts were passed that hurt those they were meant to protect, government did allow corporations to consolidate and die out, man's responsibility to drill and refine oil and the wealthy had a duty to give back to society. John D. Rockefeller created the Standard Oil Company, bought up rival companies and helped advance the economy. He was willing to drop his prices which had consumers always interested in him. Rockefeller also bribed politicians and gave to education. He was named the greatest business leader in American history. Although Rockefeller's ruthless and cutthroat business practices brought him tremendous wealth, his reputation with the public became severely damaged. Many suspected that Rockefeller and his associates had used illegal tactics and immoral business practices. Andrew Carnegie was known for strong production of steel in the U.S., used vertical integration where raw materials were controlled, transportation was controlled and so was manufacturing and sales. Carnegie was also notable as an philanthropist who gave millions of dollars to advance education, establish public libraries and promote world peace.

This picture shows two Andrew Carnegies showing that he had two sides to him. On one side (the right) Carnegie is giving the people land and money and is being very generous. On the other side (the left) Carnegie is giving someone a list of rules and regulations that they have to follow, instead of giving he is taking away. once people started to realize what he was doing people started to pity and have contempt towards him.

http://www.edline.net/files/_EfHIe_/cf8ad07e3892cfd73745a49013852ec4/Doug_Ernst-Inquiry_Lesson-Robber_or_Captain.pdf

Carnegie and Rockefeller were Robber barons. Both Carnegie and Rockefeller  were seen as corrupt and unsportsmanlike. They bribed government officials, bought out or destroyed rivals, created giant monopolies and trusts and citizens had a love-hate relationship with them. At first people thought both men were wonderful and great leaders but soon came to realize what they were actually doing which soon ruined their reputations to the public.

Sources:

http://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Topics/Display/1187729?cid=140

http://www.edline.net/files/_EfGYe_/f55c55cde748ef0d3745a49013852ec4/John_D_Rockefeller_Bio.pdf

http://www.edline.net/files/_EfGX5_/a11882b861a51a603745a49013852ec4/Andrew_Carnegie_Bio.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9M_eDmpZsk&feature=youtu.be

Did Freedom Come from Above or Below?

This week in class we learned about whether freedom came from above or below. The first thing we did in class was look at a picture of Abraham Lincoln helping slaves get back on their feet. Given this picture we had to write speech bubbles with things that both Abraham and the slaves would say. Here is an example from class of what is could look like.

http://www.edline.net/files/_DMF3y_/abfc09536fdb31443745a49013852ec4/Freedom_to_the_Slaves.jpg

Then we looked at the social pyramid of American society at the beginning of the Civil War to get a better understanding of who had more power over who, so in the end we would be able to determine if freedom came from above or below. After this we split up into groups and each were assigned one of Lincoln's documents. With this document you had to find a quote that fit into three categories; goal of war, position on freeing slaves and evidence of personal feelings on slavery. The three essential questions for this topic are, who 'gave' freedom to enslaved Americans? Did freedom come from above or below? To what extent where Abraham Lincoln's actions influences by the actions of enslaved Americans?

Abraham Lincoln was someone who gave freedom to the slaves, in the picture above it shows Lincoln helping a slave family become free. In Lincoln’s Open Letter to Horace Greeley, 1862, Lincoln stated that the cause of the war was mainly slavery. He also states his position on free slaves and his personal feelings on slavery. Lincoln states his position on free slave by saying, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it.” This shows that Lincoln will make whatever decision he has to to be able to save the Union. Lincoln’s personal feelings on slavery is that even though he wants slavery to end, as president of the Unite States he cannot make it his first priority. Also in the Emancipation Proclamation, 1863, Lincoln wanted all slaves in the states to be free and he felt like freeing the slaves was simply an act of Justice. France and Britain could not consider allying themselves with the confederacy anymore, they had already outlawed slavery and now that the war was about slavery they could not side with pro slavery. The South was outraged that Lincoln could even say something, no slaves were released. They needed to fight twice as hard so that they could win the war by themselves without any foreign help.

The fugitive slaves did influence the government and Lincoln’s actions on slavery. The slave owners were telling their slaves that if they tried to talk to the Union soldiers then they would tie them up and told them that the soldiers were terrible people. This was to prevent them from joining these regiments. But eventually the word got out that they were lying and slaves started to go join the soldiers. The slave owners started writing to the government and the government did not know what to do with the extra people who they could not feed, and were not able to fight because they were not trained. This caused the government to realize that the war was really about slavery. Lincoln claimed that he did not do more for the abolition at this point in the war because he was afraid that if he abolished slavery that he would lose the support of the border states. He did not want to abolish slavery because he needs the resources these states provide to fight and succeed in the war against the south. Some factors that influenced the planning and the execution of the Emancipation Proclamation was that Lincoln’s cabinet advised him to hold back on abolishing all slavery. He only frees the slaves in the rebelling states and he issues the proclamation when the union has won a battle so this way the act does not look like an act of desperation to try to win, but rather a piece of value added to the war by the winner.

I think that the freedom of slavery came from below, meaning the slaves were the ones who made slaves free. I think that slavery came from below because if they never left their slave owners to join the soldier would the government never realize the real reason for the war, slavery. This is a picture showing slaves that left their owners and are meeting with union soldiers. These slaves are finally taking action on making sure they get their freedom.

http://www.edline.net/files/_DMF2g_/25617cd6768f5fcd3745a49013852ec4/Docs_XY_Above__Below.pdf

Today justice still comes from below. If people of lower power have a power that the people of the higher power overlook, the lower class people stand up for what they believe in and finally take action just like the fugitive slaves did to get their freedom back.

Sources:
http://www.edline.net/files/_DbH0m_/beb977bb964cfe7c3745a49013852ec4/Activity_4_Class_Notes.pdf

http://www.edline.net/files/_DMF2g_/25617cd6768f5fcd3745a49013852ec4/Docs_XY_Above__Below.pdf

http://www.edline.net/files/_DMF17_/2238431140fb386a3745a49013852ec4/Freedom_from_Above_or_Below_Documents.pdf

Battles of the Civil War

This week in class we did a Civil War scavenger hunt to learn about all the battles that occurred during the civil war. To prepare for this scavenger hunt each person in the class was assigned a number and the description of a battle, but we weren't given the name of the battle. With the information from the description we had to find out watch battle we had. Once we found out what battle we all had, we made a Google doc with the name of the battle. where and when it took place, who the victor was and what theater it was located in. After we had all the information we made a QR code and a bitly so that other people could scan in during the scavenger. For this scavenger hunt I had to research the battle of Chickamauga. This battle occurred on the 19 & 20 of September and it took place in Catoosa and Walker County; the confederate was the victor and it was in the western theater. Here is a link to my Google document on the battle of Chickamauga and a picture of the battle.

The Battle of Chickamauga

Finally it was time for the scavenger hunt, first we put the QR codes that we printed out somewhere in the school and then we went around the school from battle to battle in order making sure to take notes on each battle. The essential questions for this lesson are, Who was the ultimate victor in each of the theaters of war: eastern, western or naval? What are some commonalities you can identify in the reasons for the results of the battle?

After the scavenger hunt, in class we made a padlet to decide who the ultimate victor was in each theaters of the war and what some of the commonalities were in the reasons for the result of the battle. The ultimate victor for the western theater was the union. In the eastern theater is was the confederate, and in the naval theater the union was also the victor. Some reasons for the union being the victor in the western theater is that  the union outnumbered the confederate in most of the battles in the west. The confederate had a lack of supplies like ammunition, this allowed the union to overpower the confederate and push their attack deeper into the south. Some reasons for the confederate being the victor in the eastern theater is because most of the of the military schools were in the south and that means that most of the graduates were confederate and they fought with the confederate army. Also in th eastern theater many more union soldiers were killed giving confederate more of an advantage. Finally, the reasons for the union to win the battle in the naval theater is because the union had more soldiers again than the confederate army giving the union soldiers the advantage. Something all three of these battle have in common considering the reason for the results is that they all have to do for lacking in supplies and soldiers giving the enemies the advantage to become victor. Here is our padlet that we made in class where most of this information was produced on.

Created with Padlet

http://padlet.com/KerryHawk02/2015BTheaters

The Election of 1860

This week in class we learned about the election of 1860 and the events that lead up to this big election. To learn about these events we watched a crash course video on how the slavery issue caused divisions for the fugitive slave law, railroads, republicans, and bleeding Kansas. The essential quest this week was, were the results of the election of 1860 representative of the deep divisions over slavery? To answer the essential question we made a video on educreations to explain the events that took part during the election of 1860.

The Election of 1860

Click the link below to watch the story of the election of 1860

Lincoln finally won the election, but many people were angered from the south. The South did not 
agree with Lincoln about trying to end slavery like what the North wanted. The South wanted to encourage slavery which is why many of them voted for Breckenridge.

Strategy and Statistics of the Civil War

Strategies and success in the civil war: North vs. south | Create infographics

This week we learned about the statistics and strategies of the civil and the advantages both the North and South had. To learn about these statistics we made infographics. An infographic is a visual image such as a chart or diagram used to represent information or data. This infographic really did help me learn about the strategies and statistics of the civil war. Seeing different numbers on a piece of paper than thinking about the how big the difference is and how this could really effect the result of civil war is so much different than having a graph or a pie chart or any of the other tools that you could use in Infogr.am actually show you the different in an easy and understandable way. It helped me see how many more people were in the North compared to the south, but how many more slaves were needed in the South because that was where the only cotton bales were produced. More slaves were needed in the south to be able to produce all of that cotton that was being produced.I also learned that most slaves lived on large plantations and only 10% of slaves lived in the city. And I learned that slaves in different areas may react differently to the war depending on where they were located. Slaves on small plantations because they could be freed, but it is less likely for a slave to be freed on a big plantation.

Sources:

http://www.edline.net/files/_CCBV6_/39d28344c59e45213745a49013852ec4/Railroad_and_Slave_Density_Maps.pdf

http://www.edline.net/files/_CDHeg_/849bf0de56cb0eae3745a49013852ec4/Resources_Pie_Charts.pdf

http://www.edline.net/files/_CCBWZ_/257d654637b0aff83745a49013852ec4/Slavery_by_the_Numbers.pdf

http://www.edline.net/files/_CCBWz_/21e469c533466ada3745a49013852ec4/Strengths_of_the_North_and_the_South_Reading.pdf  

There's an Elephant in the Room?!

Last week in class we discussed how we know the debate over slavery was the “elephant in the room” for American politics in the early 19th century. The phrase “elephant in the room” describes a specific topic that no one cares to address. To learn about this we learned about different people and events from this time period and then made a timeline through the 19th century. The essential question for this week was: How do we know the debate over slavery was the “elephant in the room” for American politics in the early 19th century? The first thing we did it class was go over the Missouri compromise in 1820. The Missouri compromise creates and even split of 11 slave states and 11 Free states. Also, all new territory north of the 36 degrees, 30 minutes latitude line will be free in the future. Then in 1850 California requests to join the union as a free state. Henry Clay anticipates the inevitable controversy of the loss of equality between slave and Free states, so he proposed of five-part compromise. The first part was that Texas would give up the land in dispute, but in return given ten million dollars and the money would be used to pay off its debt to Mexico. In part two the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Utah would be organized without mention of slavery, they are still not considered states because they are not very populated yet, once they get more populated it will be decided if they are slave and free states. Next in the third part the slave trade would be abolished in the District of Columbia but slavery will still be permitted meaning that people who already have slaves are allowed to keep them but no more slaves are allowed to be purchase in DC. The fourth part it says California would be admitted as a free state. And the final part, part five says to pacify slave-state politicians who would have objected to the imbalance of free and slave states they created another free state, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed. It was supposed to help the recovery of fugitive slave. It denies a fugitive slave to a jury a trial. These are only two events from the timeline we made in class. These two events should how there was an “elephant in the room” because even though they are trying to decide which states should be slave and which ones are supposed to be free; the people aren’t discussing how they are going to try to end slavery.

This is the timeline we made in class to show all the even causing the “elephant in the room” for many politicians during the 19th century.

Slavery Increasing

Recently in class we have learned about how slavery was entrenched in American slavery in the early 19th century, how the system of slavery based race affects human dignity and what human characteristics does society tend to ignore. The three essential questions are: How did slavery become entrenched in American society, both economically and politically, by the early 19th century? How does a system of slavery based race affect human dignity? What human characteristics does such a system tend to ignore?

People thought that slavery was going to decrease because as the result of the American and French revolutions many slaves escaped and planned revolts, which made people, believe that slavery going to go away. But, then the cotton gin was invented which was a machine that took the seeds out of the cotton so that it could be woven into threads, this increased production so more slaves were needed to keep up with the supply and demand. During the time when the cotton gin was first invented slaves price almost doubled and the number of slaves in the United States increased by 33 percent. In 1793 short staple cotton was easier to make and there was more demand for it by 1800, the production increased to 85 million pounds; during this time the total slave population in the United States was about 690,000 all located in Virginia and the Carolinas. Then by 1860 the south grew 28.2 million pounds up from about 1.5 million cotton exports produced 191.8 million pounds which is 57 percent of the nation’s total export revenue; as the south was producing more and more cotton the amount of slaves also increased to 3,954,000 throughout the south. Slavery was entrenched in the early 19th century because there was a high demand for cotton so they needed more slaves to produce the cotton increasing the slave population drastically.

One antislavery activist was Frederick Douglass. Frederick was the son of a slave women and an unknown white man, he was born in February of 1818 on Maryland’s eastern shore. As a child he was a slave and he experienced brutal whippings and spending much time cold and hungry. He did teach himself to read and write in defiance of laws while enslaved. He escaped for good at 20 years old and continued to try to make African American lives better. As an active abolitionist, he wrote an abolitionist newspaper called the North Star and wrote his autobiography. He was also known as a powerful speaker in the abolitionist movement.

Here is a picture of Frederick Douglass. We put words from one of his speeches that we felt were powerful to make the portrait come alive.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p1539.html

A system of slavery based race affects human dignity. Most people lose their dignity when they were forced into slavery, they become the lowest of the low and they aren’t treated with any respect. They are beaten and starved just because they are slaves; they aren’t really even treated like humans. One human characteristic that society usually overlooks could be that everyone is free and have the same rights. People who are enslaved don’t have the rights to say no to becoming a slave and to be owned by someone, and not being free anymore

People Still React Differently to Women

Recently in class we learned about the women’s reform and how women were treated in mid-19th century society. The essential questions for this topic are: How did mid-19th century society react to women’s demands for equality? Does 21st century society still react differently to men and women?

Women in the mid-19th century were treated much different from men. Women were supposed to stay at home, cook, clean and take care of the kids while the husband would go out and work to get money for their family. Here is a picture of a woman taking care of the children and doing other things that women were expected to do during this time period.

http://www.edline.net/files/_AIGmX_/90f5674f15c6c9f63745a49013852ec4/Activity_8_-_Lesson_Notes.pdf

Some other things that women were expected to do was to educate the girls and teach them how to read because girls typically didn’t go to school because they believe that it is useless to learn things that they wouldn’t actually do, so the girls would stay at home and learn how to cook, clean, sew and many other things. Women would also fix toys and clothes that were broken or ripped and take care of any pets that they had. Women were also treated differently working at the same job as men. If women were going to work really the only job they could get was as a teacher. Women would be paid around 20-30% less than what men would be paid for the same exact job. The mid-19th century did not like the idea of women getting more rights and treated more equal to men because men like to feel superior over women and they were worried that if women started getting more jobs there would be no one at home to cook, clean and take care of the kids.

21st century society does still react differently to men and women but definitely not as much as people reacted back in the mid-19th century society. In the 21st century women do have the same opportunities as men and they get paid the same amount, but a women’s personality can be perceived differently from men which causes society to label women differently than men. Here is a Pantene commercial that shows how society labels women differently from men who both work and are going for the same thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K2kfgW7708&feature=youtu.be

This Pantene commercial does a good job of showing how men and women are perceived and labeled differently today in society. Although 21st century society doesn’t react as strongly to the equality of men and women as in mid-19th century society it is still there and we can find a way to stop it.

A True Story

Robert G. Ingersoll, Out of an Insane Alysum: A Released Patient’s Remarkable Story of Cruel Treatment (New York, March 26, 1880)

These three excerpts come from a document titled Out of an Insane Asylum, describing the very harsh conditions of a mental hospital. The author is Robert G. Ingersoll, was a lawyer, political leader and orator in the early 1900s. Ingersoll had talked to a man name John Carrol and wrote this document about his experience in the Insane Asylum.
The reason for producing this
document was to make people aware of how mentally ill people were treated and
to try to make people act against it to prevent it from happening in the
future. This source seems to be pretty trustworthy because it was published in The New York Times newspaper, which is a newspaper that I have heard
about before. This document was written before the Prison reform which was to
put the mentally insane in hospitals instead of in jails and to care for them
and give them reasonable living quarters. From reading this document, I can
tell that the people who worked at the jails did not treat the mentally ill
nicely and did not give them nice rooms to sleep in. In the excerpt Carrol
tells Ingersoll that one time he wanted to come out of his room and when he
walked out of the room three people attacked him, they beat and kicked him
until he was unconscious. This is just one example of how the patients were
treated at the Insane Asylum. I feel like this document gives me a full picture
of how harshly the mentally ill were treated. This document gives a full
picture because it is very descriptive and explains everything that happens,
but also it is told from the point of view from a person who actually lived in
an Insane Asylum, so we can hear every detail from their torturous life. In the
last paragraph o the excerpt Carrol said that one of his roommates could not
find one of his stockings, the “watcher” got mad and tried to kill the man.
Carrol then says, “While he lay on the floor, Swanson had three violent fits in
succession. When he came to the asylum he was a strong, healthy young man, and
quite inoffensive. In a few weeks he was reduced to almost a skeleton.” This
also shows how the mentally ill were treated. Another thing that this quote
represents what the author is trying to convince. The author is trying to
convince the reader that the mentally ill were beatened almost to the point of
death and were even starved. He proves that when they first come they are very
health but over time they became even sicker. Throughout this document the
author writes in a very serious tone to get the point across of how serious
this situation really was.

He Does not Deserve that Title

Last week in class we learned about Andrew Jackson and how he was involved in the Indian Removal Act by watching videos and reading documents about the Indian Removal. Andrew Jackson was the 17th president of the united states. The Indian Removal act was passed by congress on May 28, 1830, during the time that Andrew Jackson was president. The law authorized the president to negotiate with Indian tribes in the Southern United States for their removal to federal territory west of the Mississippi River. The Indians did not want to leave their territory, they were very peaceful people and never bother anyone, but Andrew Jackson was holding a grudge against the Indians because one of his family members was killed in an Indian war so he wanted them gone. The essential question is: Is Andrew Jackson’s long-standing reputation as “the people’s president” deserved? Why? Why not? After learning about the Indian Removal and how horrible Andrew Jackson treated the Indians, Andrew does not deserve the title “the people’s president”. After watching the videos and taking noted on Andrew Jackson we made a video answering the essential question

Here is the video explaining why Andrew Jackson did not deserve the reputation as “the people’s president”:

The Rise of Democracy

The other day in class we learned about what democracy is and how it rose in the early 1800s in the United states. We did this by looking at some documents and answering the two essential questions: How should we define democracy? and How democratic was the United States in the early 1800s? One document was a picture of people gathered to vote and it showed how different voting was then than it is now. There were also two graphs, one showed the property and tax paying requirements to be able to vote and how the number of states with property requirements went down while the number states in union went up over the years; the other graph showed the method of electing presidents and over the year the number of people able to vote instead of legislatures increased. We had two quotes that were both basically saying that democracy means that anyone has the right to vote but the people were not getting what they wanted and the state was not practicing democracy. Finally we had a document about the Dorr War, which was talking about Dorr and how he organized a convention to frame a new constitution and change the voting laws. He tried to capture the state arsenal and then was arrested. To appease popular resentment the governor pardoned Dorr, and Rhode Island adopted a new constitution.

This is the poster we made in class to show everything that we learned about the Rise of Democracy:

We Should Be Treating Everyone Equally

The essential questions for this week are why is it essential to acknowledge human value regardless race? And how are the events in the Latin American Revolutions evidence of this imperative? These questions are important to think about because we can reflects how throughout the years we treated people of different race differently than us and how we can fix those ways today. We studied the impact of race on the Latin American Revolution for independence in class by first making a pie chart showing the race population in Latin America. Then we divided into three groups each with a different revolution and made timelines of all the important events in each revolution. After we mixed the groups and we shared our timelines, tried to find two differences and two similarities between all three revolutions and then tried to answer the essential question.

Here is a picture of the pie chart showing the race as a percent of the population in Latin America:

My group was The Revolution of Gran Colombia; here is a picture of the timeline of important dates:

After all the timelines were shared, we brainstormed a list of two similarities and two differences from all three of the revolutions. Two similarities are that all of the revolutions ended around the same time and they all happened in Latin America. Two differences that we came up with are that they speak different languages and the revolutions were all lead by different people. Race was an issue in all three because there is one social status fighting against another and they are all fighting against the unfair rule and creating social status. People did not like how depending on your race you were treated fairly or unfairly. Being discriminated due to race led to the revolts, fighting on discrimination based on born race and racial equalities.

Judgments are still made based on race in society today. People judge people of a certain race as not being as smart and not being able to get well-paying job, while other people are stereotyped as being really smart. An example of race based judgment is when an officer shot an innocent darker colored skin boy just because he was suspicious looking and the police officer isn’t really getting into as much trouble as he should of, but let’s say if it was a darker colored skin officer shooting a white man, the dark skinned police officer would get into more trouble. I think it is definitely still important to consider the issue of race in our lives today; we should be treating people fairly and equally.

He May Have Had His Flaws

Leaders come in all shapes and sizes and they are all around us. Leaders are people who lead or command a group, organization, country or even just one person; people can also be considered leaders by having a big influence on someone else or setting the example. A good example of a leader is a parent or guardian because they have to set good examples for their children so that when they grow up they can set good examples for their kids and so that they do not get into any trouble. Another good example of a leader was Toussaint Louverture. Toussaint was born around 1743 and was the leader of the Haitian revolution. Toussaint’s main goal was to free the slaves. This revolution took place on a Caribbean island called Hispaniola, two centuries later the French took control of the western half and named it Saint Domingue which today is called Haiti. Saint Domingue was a very economically valuable colony because there were 8,000 plantations that were producing 40 percent of the world’s sugar and more than half of the world’s coffee. The entire slave population of the United States in 1800 was around one million; the slave population in Saint Domingue was about 500,000. This is important to think about because there is half of the United States slave population in the tiny city of Saint Domingue. The reason why Toussaint fought against the French as a slave rebel leader in 1793, was made commander-in-chief of the French colonial army in Saint Domingue after 1794, and then fought again against the French in 1802 is because he was a young slave himself until he was granted freedom by his owner. Once Toussaint was free he rented a small coffee plantation and had a few slaves of his of his own, he encouraged his slaves to fight for their freedom. Toussaint always wanted to end slavery and finally France fought against slavery, but soon the French decided to bring slavery back which caused Toussaint to fight against them. In 1804 Haiti declared their independence but Toussaint was not able to celebrate this because he was dying from pneumonia in a French jail and he never knew that Haiti actually gained their independence (background essay). Toussaint Louverture should be remembered as a liberator of slaves, the ruler of Saint Domingue, and a military commander. Although Toussaint should be remembered for being a military commander and the ruler of Saint Domingue, the most important reason he should be remembered as is a liberator of slaves because without him the slaves would not have been free and Haiti would have may never have gained their independence.

The most important reason as to why Toussaint Louverture should be remembered as is a liberator of slaves. In 1789 the French revolution begins and the declaration of the rights of man which later triggered the slave revolution of Saint Domingue. At first Toussaint serves as a doctor to the troops and then after a while of being the doctor he became commander of a small detachment of the slave soldiers. Toussaint trained his soldiers in both guerilla tactics and “European style” fighting because the opponents did not know what guerilla tactics were it would be more effective because they would not be ready. Guerilla tactics mean that the soldiers ambush the opponents and surprise them; “European style” means that all the soldiers march at the enemy shoulder to shoulder. In the Timeline of Abolition in Saint Domingue it says that in 1794 Toussaint stopped his revolt against the French colonial troops and now supports the French because the French have now abolished slavery. In 1798 he became ruler of Saint Domingue and then in 1801 he gained control of the Spanish side of the island (document A).  In a letter written by Toussaint Louverture it says, “could men who have once enjoyed the benefits of liberty look calmly while it is taken from them!..." We have known how to confront danger to our liberty and we will know how to confront death to preserve it.” Toussaint is expressing his anger about how slavery was coming back to Saint Domingue. He is saying that once people have been freed it is going to be impossible to go back to the way they were living before as slaves. It also says that they will fight to the death just to keep their freedom (document B). In the Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801 article 3 states “All men are born, live and die free and French.” This is promising that there should be no more slaves and everyone should live and die free. The work that this constitution encourages is farming agriculture because people can only make profits from the farming. According to the constitution the owner has the power to run the plantations, the owners were are also known as the “father” and the formers slaves are considered family and now work for money unlike they did before (document C). If Toussaint was not able to free the slaves there may still be slaves in Haiti today. Toussaint cared more about freeing the slaves than he did about fighting the French.

Another way that Toussaint Louverture should be remembered is as the ruler of Saint Domingue. The Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801 was signed by Toussaint in July of 1801, in part VIII article 28 is says, “The constitution nominate Citizen Toussaint Louverture, chief General of the Army of Saint Domingue and... he is entrusted the direction thereof for the remainder of his glorious life.” This states that Toussaint is the ruler of Saint Domingue until he dies. There are definitely some advantages and disadvantages of having the same ruler until he dies. The advantage is that he is a smart, good leader, but the disadvantage is that if people revolt there is no way to get rid of him except to kill him and if he is captured the people of Saint Domingue will then not have a ruler (document C). In the Proclamation written on November 25, 1801 Toussaint states, “...Tending to incite sedition [actions against authority of the nation] shall be brought before a court martial [military court] and punished in conformity with the law.” Toussaint’s goal throughout this whole Proclamation is to maintain order and to try to prevent any more violence and revolt like before, but especially in this statement Toussaint is saying that anyone who breaks a law is going to go to court and get punished. Some of the consequences that Toussaint sets in place for the people who break the rules are getting arrested or going to court. Mainly Vagabond cultivators who are people who refuse to work get arrested and the manager of a plantation goes to jail is a worker from another plantation takes refuge in their plantation and they know they are not from there but does not report it. There are four months between the signing of the constitution of 1801 and this Proclamation, in those four months there have been many revolts. The Constitution of 1801 was the nice way of writing all the rules for Saint Domingue but that did not seem to be working so the Proclamation was written to maintain authority and show the people of Saint Domingue who is in charge (document D). These documents show that even though Toussaint may have had his flaws he was a good ruler and he just wanted everything to be in good order with no violence.

The final way as to how Toussaint Louverture should be remembered as is a military commander. In a Biography about Toussaint Louverture it says, “... discontent with Toussaint’s draconian [cruel] labor policy and gathering suspicion of his friendliness with the white planter class.” This is saying the people are starting to fight against Toussaint and disagree with the way he is ruling Saint Domingue. Hyacinthe Moyse, Toussaint Overture’s nephew, distrusted Toussaint and so did all of the former slaves. They were unhappy with his cruel labor policy and they were gathering suspicion about how nice he was to the white planter class. Many of the former slaves object to plantation farming because they did not want to do it again but soon they were forced to work. The former slaves wanted to work in small holdings instead of the large plantations because there would be less people to work around and it would be less crowded. On October 29, 1801 a revolt broke out on the northern plane lead by Moyse, Toussaint reacted by forcing Moyse to watch the soldiers step out of line and one by one shoot themselves. Then Moyse was arrested and later executed. It was not a good idea to execute Moyse because he is his nephew, they are family, and instead he could have just taken him down from power or punished him another way (document E). A Description of Toussaint Louverture written from “The black man” was written in 1863 and is a secondary source. In this document is explains some of Toussaint’s character traits that he possesses that helped him gain his soldiers confidence and respect. Toussaint Louverture was said to have superior knowledge, race, humanity, generosity and courage. According to Toussaint the French were coming to the port city of Samana because Napoleon wanted to take control. Toussaint reacts to this by deciding to burn down Samana because Napoleon wants to reinstate slavery. Toussaint then waited for the French army in the mountain to use the guerilla tactics on them. This would be very effective because the French army would not be prepared because they have never been trained to use this strategy and it would give his soldiers an advantage (document F). These documents show that Toussaint was a good military commander and he really knew what he was doing and he would be able to lead his soldiers to victory.

Although Toussaint Louverture should be remembered for being a military commander and the ruler of Saint Domingue, the most important reason as to why he should be remembered as is a liberator of slaves because without him the slaves would have not been free and Haiti would have may have never gained their independence. Though Toussaint was not always gentle and nice about his methods he really did know what he was doing and he definitely lead Saint Domingue in the right direction. He understood how the slaves felt because he was a slave once himself so he made his point to finally set slaves free. Toussaint was definitely a great revolutionary leader of that time.

They Weren't all Complete Failures

Last week in class we separated into five groups each assigned a different revolution. The different revolutions were: The Decembrist revolt, 1830 France, 1848 France, Frankfurt Assembly and the 1484 Hungary revolt. After we got assigned a revolution we read some primary sources and determine whether it was a success or failure. Then we made a survey monkey, where were would make questions based on our revolt and the class would take the survey. After everyone answered all the questions we were able to see the results and see how many people got the correct answer.The essential question that will be answered throughout this blog post is, were the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded?

The revolution that I was assigned to was the Decembrist Revolt of 1825. The Decembrist Revolt took place in Russia. The goal of this revolt was to assassinate Tsar Alexander, the rule of the Russian empire. Everyone was against Tsar Alexander because he failed to grant  meaningful constitutional change. As said before they planned to assassinate him, but a few days before Tsar Alexander died of natural causes. Now that Tsar Alexander has died the people were able to fight back, They wanted to Constantine (Alexander’s older brother) to become the new Tsar but he refused and then Nicholas (ALexander’s son) found out that he was next in line to become Tsar. In a primary source Nicholas I is speaking about the Decembrists to the French Ambassador he says, “The leaders and the instigators of the conspiracy will be dealt with without pity, without mercy.” He is saying that he is not going to be merciful toward the people and he is trying to teach the rebels a lesson that monarchies will not be overthrown. Tsar Nicholas is trying to stop the revolt and show that he is in power. In another primary source Alexander Pushkin says, “This is the cause of the swift decline of our nobility: the grandfather was rich, the son is needy, the grandson will go begging.” This is showing that Nicholas is not being that good of a ruler because Russia is continuing to decline and nothing is getting better. This war was a complete failure because the people did not get what they want, they wanted Constantine to be the new Tsar instead of Nicholas and as soon as Nicholas became Tsar Russia began to decline and many people became poor.

Here is one of the questions that everyone answered right. This question was a true or false saying, Russian rebels executed Tsar Alexander so that they could have a new king which was false. The people planned to execute Tsar Alexander but he died a few days before it was supposed to happen.

This question was asking if this revolt was a success or failure. Most people said is was a failure, two people said semi failure and then one person said neither success or failure. Like I said before this was definitely a failure because the people did not even come close to what they wanted in the first place. I think a lot of people did learn from this survey monkey because most people got the correct answer when we looked at the results.

In my opinion I don’t think that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were really all failures as many historians have concluded. Out of all the revolutions only one of the revolutions was a complete failure. This revolution was the Decembrist Revolt. All the other revolutions were between semi-failure meaning the people got some things they wanted but not all to success meaning the people got everything that they wanted. For example the 1830 France revolt was a moderate success because they almost got everything they wanted but not quite. Louis XVIII made the effort to compromise satisfied some people. After Louis XVIII died, Charles X took over but many people did not like Charles and people started getting angry and fighting back. Charles was afraid and fled back to angry. With the king gone they wanted to set up a republic, They Louis Philip became king and everyone got along very well with him, they called him the “Citizen King”. Another revolution that was a success was the Frankfurt assembly meaning the people got what they wanted. King Frederick obliged to the constitutions cerastes by the Frankfurt Assembly. Germany was united and King Frederick became a constitutional monarch. Even though some of the revolutions did end up being failures there were many that were actually success’ so I do not think the historians were correct in saying that all the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 are really failures.