Buffalo Soldiers

After the Civil War, the United States government wanted to expand the growing nation northwest, especially with he gold rush occurring. However, already living in the northwest were the Native Indians.  This caused tension between the Indians and the United States. The government sent the Buffalo Soldiers to fight and solve the issue with the Indians. Sadly, the Buffalo Soldiers were not treated the same as other soldiers. In fact, the Buffalo Soldiers, who were mostly African Americans, were discriminated against. This led to our class's essential question. It was, in what ways did the U.S. Government discriminate against buffalo soldiers and native Americans accidentally? And in what ways did they purposely discriminate?

The Nez Perce were a Native Indian tribe that was relocated and fought against the Buffalo soldiers.

The government was discriminatory to the Indians accidentally. They were accidentally discriminatory to the Indians because they did not want to force the Indians to relocate originally. The government gave the Indians land in the northwest of the nation in an attempt to avoid confrontation with them. But when with the discovery of gold on the west coast, settlers quickly started migrating into he Natives' land. This caused the Indians to look at the events as a discriminatory act by the government towards them. However, the government did not plan this and it was just an unfortunate coincidence.

Buffalo Soldiers

The government was purposely discriminatory to both the Natives and the Buffalo soldiers. They were discriminatory to the Indians because they caused them to migrate to a new home that the government chose. After invading their land, the government decided that the Natives would be moved and live in present day Oklahoma. However, during the migration from their old home to what would become their new home, the United States government harassed the Natives and shot at them killing some. Also the government attempted to force the Natives to leave their homes by getting rid of their food source on purpose and causing them to starve. They purposely discriminated against the Buffalo Soldiers in many ways. The government purposely gave the Buffalo soldiers horses that should have not been ridden by soldiers, guns that were in poor condition and would malfunction, old scrappy uniforms, and not very nutritional food or proper supplies. Also they would purposely send the Buffalo soldiers to fight in the worst conditions and the camps they would stay in were very poor.

In my opinion the government was trying to discriminate the Buffalo Soldiers and at first they were not trying to discriminate the Natives, but once they invaded their territory they became discriminatory. The government from the very beginning made sure the Buffalo Soldiers had the absolute worst supplies and preparation they could give. However, until the gold rush the United States government wanted to leave the Indians to be on their own and live in peace with them. But, greed took over and they wanted all of their land.

Did the Freedom of Slaves Come From Above or Below?

The Civil War was the bloodiest war in American history. Thousands of people, from both the north and the south, died for one reason. That reason was the freedom of slaves. Although, in the beginning  the north and Abraham Lincoln insisted it was not about slavery many people knew it was.  Then when the 13th amendment was a passed in 1865 by congress the public wondered who really influenced the amendment getting passed. Was it from above (Lincoln and the government) or from below(slaves and public)? This led to our class lesson we analyzed documents, pictures, and videos to try and determine who 'gave' freedom to the enslaved Americans? Did freedom come from above or below? To what extent were Abraham Lincoln's actions influenced by the actions of enslaved Americans?

Freedom came from above in many ways. The obvious one is they are the ones who established the 13th amendment.  Also they gave support to the slaves from the very beginning even though they never fully admitted it. One individual, specifically, who was cautious about admitting how he felt was Abraham Lincoln. However, in his second inaugural address he finally stated that the slaves were and always were the cause of the war.  In the address he states, "These slaves constituted a powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of war". By stating this, Lincoln told the Union, the Confederacy, and the whole world that he and Washington were 100% supportive of freeing the slaves and he would do everything in his power to make African Americans no longer suffered from slavery.

Slaves arriving at Chickasaw Bayou, Mississippi

Freedom also came from below, but in other ways. One way they fought against the South was they would pillage towns. In a letter written by a Union general about what he saw while walking through a town in the South he wrote, " after the enemy & citizens fled from the town, were committed by the negroes, before our troops reached the city— They seemed to be wild with excitement and delight" The slaves would run through cities after everyone left and take things for themselves and cause a raucous. Another example is the painting of slaves arriving at Chickasaw Bayou, Mississippi. The vast numbers of slaves caused trouble for the Union soldiers because they did not know what to do with all of the ex-slaves. All these acts caused the government to have to work to find a solution of what to do with all the slaves quicker.

In my opinion, the freedom of slavery came above more than below. It was Lincoln and the Union who fought against the south and who created the amendment and laws that sanctioned slavery. I think the one thing that he slaves, or below, did to aid with the process of freedom was to make it come sooner. With all the pandemonium created by the slaves, it caused Washington to find a solution for them sooner so the chaos they caused would stop. Today there are many instances where the people from below influence the government and people from above to make decisions and make them quicker. An example is with the controversy of same sex marriage many protests caused the governments of each state to find a solution sooner, Also the solution they created would also have to cause the people from below to stop protesting. The public helps influence decisions made by the government through actions, and it will continue to work that way for as long the United States is a democracy.

Rockefeller and Carnegie, Robbers or Innovators?

Carnegie

          For this lesson and the next two, my class is taking a different approach to learning the material. Instead of the usual where you would listen to the teacher, follow her instructions, and take notes on the material she tells, we are giving the opportunity to learn everything on our own. As a class we watched videos and looked at primary sources about Rockefeller's and Carnegie's contribution to history. We then took notes as a class on a google document. Finally, we came up with an essential question for this unit and we created 40 questions that would eventually be on my classes final exam. The essential question we came up with was, were Carnegie and Rockefeller robber barons or captains of industry?  
In my opinion, both Rockefeller and Carnegie were captains of industry. Also they were men who very generous. Although Rockefeller

Rockefeller

was accused of using illegal tactics and cut throat tactics to get his money, he did do good in the world. One thing he did was cut down the prices of his product. This was good for the economy and had the public crawling to him. So, although many newspapers and people despised Rockefeller, many continued to buy his products because he brought a new type of way to run business. Another good thing he did, is he quietly gave back to the public. While the newspaper industry attacked him, Rockefeller would donate some of his money to charity and educational institutions. Just like Rockefeller, Carnegie did make a lot of money, but he gave back to the public as well. Carnegie gave millions of dollars to advance education. establish public libraries, and promote world peace. Along with that he advanced U.S. economy by coming up with a new more efficient and cost effective way to manufacture steel. Without these men the economy during mid 1800's would have not been merely as important.

Bill Gates

             There is no question that Rockefeller and Carnegie probably made their money without being completely honest or fairly, but they left a positive effect on humanity. They helped out in advancing the economy by cutting prices and creating new efficient way to manufacture products. But, they also helped out society. This shows that it's not how you make the money, but what you do with the money you have. Another rich man, today, who is positively affecting society is Bill Gates. Gates is worth an estimated $65 billion and he has decided to give away all his money to help those less fortunate than him. Already he has given $28.5 billion to multiple charities. One thing he focuses on are diseases that kill people, especially children. One disease that he has focused on recently is polio. Bill and his wife, since 2013, are in the process of investing $1.8 billion over the next six years to foundations looking to find a  cure for polio. Gates is just one example who is using his money to make a difference just like Rockefeller and Carnegie. In a sense, if none of these men had money, they would not be able to contribute to the world what they have. Without Rockefeller and Carnegie, the U.S. we know today would not be the same.



Sources
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/bill-gates/9812672/Bill-Gates-interview-I-have-no-use-for-money.-This-is-Gods-work.html
http://www.edline.net/files/_EfGYe_/f55c55cde748ef0d3745a49013852ec4/John_D_Rockefeller_Bio.pdf
http://www.edline.net/files/_EfGX5_/a11882b861a51a603745a49013852ec4/Andrew_Carnegie_Bio.pdf
http://www.edline.net/files/_EfHIe_/cf8ad07e3892cfd73745a49013852ec4/Doug_Ernst-Inquiry_Lesson-Robber_or_Captain.pdf

The Theaters of the Civil War

          The Civil War was divided into three sections, or "theaters"; they were the east, the west, and the naval theater. When a battle was fought one thing that was looked at was what theater it was in. In class we learned about battles in different theaters by doing a scavenger type activity. Each student researched a specific battle and wrote down where the battle took place, who won the battle, what theater it was in, and details about the battle on a shareable google document. Every student then put up a QR code, that sent you to the notes for the battle, in different places around the school and the class spent a couple days going around getting information for all battles researched. After this we came together and discussed trends and who won each theater on a padlet.

Created with Padlet

          The results of each theater relate to the ultimate winner of the war, the north. In the west, from the beginning of the war, the union dominated. Using their overpowering numbers they were able to overwhelm the confederate armies and push farther and deeper into the south. Also with lack of basic resources like ammunition and food the confederates had they were unable to withstand the union attack. In the eastern theater it was pretty even for who won it. In the beginning the confederacy controlled the eastern theater. With their tactic of just waiting and defending, their job was to just make sure that the union didn't advance of have a decisive win, and if this happened they considered it a win. But, as the war progressed the ammunition and other supplies was dwindling for the confederates and they did not have enough manufacturing to make more quick enough, so the union began to take control of the eastern theater by the end of the war. For the naval theater the clear winner was the union. Before the war even began, the union had a strong and established naval army which helped them succeed throughout the war. Looking at the success of the union in all three theaters it makes a lot of sense that they were the eventual victors of the war.

http://quizlet.com/17153995/civil-war-and-reconstruction-flash-cards/

            Throughout the war some commonalities were very apparent. For the union in all battles that they over numbered the confederacy in, they usually ended up being the victor. Another commonality was in most of the battles the confederates ran out of either food, ammunition, or both. For the confederates most of their wins came when the union wasn't expecting an attack. Wether it was an ambush or just the union wasn't expecting the confederates few wins came usually when the union wasn't prepared. These were the commonalities that were present during the Civil War.

       

Morality of Slavery in Early America

          In the 19th century, as the United States started to grow economically, slavery started to become entrenched inside the United States. In 1790 there were 690,000 slaves in America and they were located in the Chesapeake area and the Carolinas. Also during 1790 only 1.5 million pounds of cotton were produced, and it was considered an insignificant part of the nation's economy. However, by 1860 3.954 million were spread out throughout the nation, mostly in the south. And, in 1860 cotton accounted for 57% of the nations total export revenue, 2.28 billion pounds were produced, and it was valued at $191.8 million. This was no coincidence that both of these were increasing around the same time; they came hand in hand. Another part that contributed to both was the invention of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney. This made farming cotton a lot easier, so more production of cotton called for more slaves to work the fields. An interactive map shows the increase of both cotton production and slave population. The south was where cotton was produced, so they depended on slaves. In the north slaves were mostly used as servants, but the textile mills in the north needed the cotton from the south. This shows that the whole economy relied on slavery and cotton production.

          The system used for slavery where it was based on race affects human dignity because it implies that just because of the color of your skin you are automatically considered more or less than another human being. From the beginning of slavery in the Americas, African Americans were told they were less than the whites. Through verbal and physical assault from the whites, the African Americans started to believe this. Then, the government started creating laws that degraded slaves even more. In Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Founder's Constitution it states "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." This is saying that before 1808 importing slaves would not be taxed, but after 1808 they could be, but it could not exceed $10 for each slave. This is putting a price tag on a human being which is taking away their dignity. With laws like these African American slaves were never given a chance to think that they were equal.

          This system of race ignores the liberty and equality of all men and women.  It forces people to think that they are either inferior or superior to others around them. It also created people, who think they are superior, to think of excuses that makes it seem that they are not objectifying a specific race. One example was in George Fitzhugh's "Cannibals All!" he states "The Negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and, in some sense, the freest people in the world." By saying this he shows how ignorant he and all of his followers are for coming up with a statement that covers the truth. Him saying that the slaves were more free than the whites is like if I said that animals in zoos are more free than humans like you and I. With comments like these made by the southerners, the honesty and compassion in whites from the south disappeared as the desire for wealth and greed flourished.

Interactive map:

http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US18-00.html

Understanding History Through Art

          For the election of 1860, instead of using usual documents and notes to learn about this crucial point in American history, we looked at art. Using the "The Civil War in Art" website we gathered information, and created a presentation about the election of 1860 using educreations. The election was one of the most crucial elections in the history of the United States. With the debate over slavery reaching a boiling point and war being seen as the only resolution, everyone knew that the outcome of the election would ultimately decide how soon the war would begin. With Abraham Lincoln (against slavery) winning the election the separation of the nation began. As southern states seceded one after the other, Lincoln's attempts to convince them to join the nation again seemed futile and war was imminent. As all of these events unfolded and the war began the public looked to artists for news on the situation. Through art artists were able to tell stories about the war. It was also an easy way for the public to catch up on the latest events. As the war progressed art became more and more popular for a way to get news.

https://www.educreations.com/lesson/view/the-election-of-1860/30122342/?s=rTwIFC&ref=app

Strategies and Resources Leading into the Civil War

          An info graph is a way to show information about certain events or topics. To make an info graph you need to first get an understanding of the topic. Then researching topics within your topic is another important part. With the research you can make graphs, charts, and other types of visual ways to show statistics or information. You can edit these visual types of displaying information to be appropriate to what topic you are researching. After the graphs and everything you can add descriptions to explain your graphs even further. This offers a way for visual and reading learners to understand the topic. For this specific info graph it was on the resources of both sides before and during the Civil War. These statistics showed that the North held more advantages than the South did. The population and railroad mileage, to me, seemed to be very strategic advantages for the North. With that many more people in the North (21.5 million) than the South (9 million) the army for the North could have very well tripled the size of the South's before the first battle. The railroad mileage is also important because it offered easy transportation for the Union army. With easy access to transportation supplying armies with food, weapons, and soldiers would be easier. However the South did have a major resource; they had seven of the eight military colleges. The only thing better than large numbers is having a leader who knows what they're doing. This is exactly what the South had, so they're tactics would most likely be better than the North's. Even with that advantage the resources indicated that the North would end up victorious.

A nation divided  | Create infographics

Women's Reform

          Since the beginning of civilization women have been seen as less than men. Women were seen as the person to just take care of the children, take care of the house, and make the meals for the men. When the United States was born it was seen as a nation where liberty for everyone was more than  a dream, but an actual reality. However, this was not the case at all; women and slaves were still seen as inferior to the white man. While the movement for slavery to be abolished was more well known and more fascinating to the public, the movement for women's' rights was just as historic and important. The leaders of these women right movements are not as famous as those like Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks, but they did just as much work.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trr040.html

           The movement for women's rights started in the United States during the 19th century. By this point women being seen as the caretaker of the house and family was embedded into American society. Also it was apparent that women were seen as less than men. An example is, even though this was in 1750 it shows how inferior women were seen, 90 percent of the white male population was literate, but only 40 percent of the white women population was able to read and write. Also in some laws and practices, "it is considered improper for women to speak in public. And then a big issue was women were not allowed to vote in any state a part of the Union. Women fought these social norms and change in the country was starting to happen. Between the years 1780 and 1840 the population of literate women doubled because those who already could read and write would write magazines, newspaper articles, and even have women publications. There were also meetings and public gatherings where both women and men would come to listen. One of the most famous ones was at Seneca Falls, New York in 1848. Many people showed up and both men and women stood up and talked about how women should have equal rights. Newspaper articles were written about it with many different views. This article says regarding Seneca Falls, "This bolt is the most shocking and unnatural incident ever recorded in the history of womanity". This article is basically saying that even the thought of women fighting for equal rights as men is shocking and so unnatural that it cannot happen. Articles like these would be printed about all public gatherings and more. However, the leaders of the movement would not give up and their persistance  eventually. Or did it?


          Although there have been monumental steps forward for women in their pursuit of equal rights, in ways they are still seen as inferior to men. If not inferior there is a definite difference in how women are seen in the United States. From the time we are born we have been taught that being a women is not as good as a man. The term "You throw like a girl!" is often used by little kids and teachers and parents do nothing to stop that. Just because you're not the best at throwing a ball means you throw like a girl? Some girls can throw it much better than a lot of boys, but still that term is used to say someone is less than par at throwing a ball. From little kids to full grown adults women are perceived differently. Some examples are if a man wears a fancy, expensive suit he is seen as classy, but if a woman wears a fancy dress she is seen as a show off and someone who is seeking attention. Another example is if a male holds a high position in the workplace e is seen as a strict, but fair boss, but if a woman holds that same position she is seen as demanding or a terrible boss. These are just some of the examples, but there are countless examples of small details that separate the men from the women. Although there have been many steps forward for women and have been able to gain many rights, they unfortunately have a long way to go to be seen as equal as men. Sadly there may be a possibility that women may never be seen as 100 percent equal because of how long they have been see as less.


http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/vc006199.jpg
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnint6.html
http://www.edline.net/files/_AIGnD_/6df91fdbe19f85633745a49013852ec4/Laws_and_Practices.pdf

 

Slavery Overshadowing a Government and Their Torn Country

         Between 1850-1859 the tension north and the south of the United States grew over the debate of slavery. Everyone from both sides were looking towards the government to solve problems that were starting to arise. But the government was having a hard time handling how to solve the issues. So instead of confronting them the government stayed low and did not do much to help ease the tension. Four events happened during this time that tipped the anger between the two sides over the edge and the government did very little to help ease the tension. These events were Bleeding Kansas, the caning of Charles Summer, the Dred Scott decision, and the John brown raid. In class we looked at these events on depth and added them to a timeline; meanwhile we tried to find out each event answered the essential question. The question was How do we know the debate over slavery was the "elephant in the room" for American politics in early 19th century?

          First of the four major events was bleeding Kansas. After the Missouri Compromise and the 36th parallel was ignored so the northern transcontinental railroad could be built it allowed Kansas to be either a slave or a free state, by the Kansas Nebraska Act, which led to a battle between the North and South. There was Lawrence, that was a anti-slavery town, which was burned down by southern people. Then, a group of anti-slavery men led by John Brown massacred 5 proslavery supporters in front of their families. Instead of stepping in and stopping violence the government in Washington could think of nothing to do and avoided trying to solve it because they couldn't think of anything. Then, the violence actually traveled to Washington. After the speech, "The Crime Against Kansas", by senator Charles summer who was  a strong anti-slavery supporter many southerners were upset. One in particular was Representative Preston Brooks because Summer targeted his uncle, Senator Andrew Butler. In response Butler beat Summer over the head with a cane leaving him permanently brain damaged. It's obvious that the country was about to collapse because if the government is having to use violence, why shouldn't the rest of the country? And it was all because of slavery and everyone knew it, but no one was doing anything about it. Next, the Dred Scott Decision changed everything in the fight of slavery. Dred Scott was a slave who was suing his owner because he believed he should be a free man because he lived in free states. The case was brought to the supreme court. Scott lost the case and the north was outraged. Obviously no matter what the decision one side would be angry, but what resulted because of the case was the most shocking. Because of the case the Missouri Compromise was repealed and slavery was legal all across the United States. This was the wrong way of handling the case and the government gave no benefits to the North, but the government didn't fix their mistake. Finally, the John Brown raid. John Brown and 21 men, five were african americans, raided a federal arsenal in the South. Brown was caught and hanged for his actions. The North saw him as a hero, but the South were very upset. This event caused the tension to a tipping point. The government did nothing to try to ease the tension because they knew the raid had to do with the conflict of slavery. All of these events show just how emphatic the government was to not discuss the issue of slavery because if they made one decision one of the sides would see it as the government taking the other group's side. So slavery was the 'elephant in the room' for the government because it was topic that was looming over their head, but they couldn't try to solve the issue that was tearing the country apart.

Latin American Revolutions

          This time in class following our studies of revolutions around the world, we learned about revolutions in Latin America. Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico were the three that we focused on. We split up into three groups each was assigned a certain revolution; my group was in charge of Mexico. We read an article about our revolution, then we broke into groups again so that at least one person from each revolution was together. Next, each revolution was summarized and we worked together to answer the essential question. The essential question for this assignment was, why is it essential to acknowledge human value regardless of race? How are the events in the Latin American Revolutions evidence of this social imperative? We thought about this essential question because during that time race was a big factor in what social class you were in. It was also the main reasons for revolutions like the Haitian revolution to gain independence from France. We talked about race in class by going over the causes of these certain revolutions and we had a lesson on the Haitian revolution.

            This is the timeline of the Mexican revolution,

• Early 1800's Napoleon's occupation of Spain led to the outbreak of revolts across Spanish America
• Miguel higaldo y costilla launched the Mexican rebellion with the "cry of Delores"
• January 1811: was defeated at Calderon and fled north but was captured and executed
• In 1820 liberals took power in Spain  and new government promised reforms to appease the Mexican society
• Early 1821 agustín de Iturbide the leader of the royalist forces negotiated the plan of iguala; Mexico would be an independent constitutional monarchy
• August 24, 1821 Spanish viceroy Juan de   O'Donjoú signed the Treaty of córdoba to make Mexico an independent constitutional monarchy
• 1822 iturbide named emperor of Mexico
• 1823 Santa Anna and Guadalupe Victoria deposed iturbide and set up republic; Guadalupe Victoria as it's first president

There were similarities and differences between all three revolutions even thought they all had very different paths to independence. Some things that were similar were that they all happened in the colonies on the New World. Also they all occurred around the same time in history. Another thing was that they were all related to Napoleon's conquests in Europe. With Napoleon occupying the countries of these colonies the natives that lived in those colonies started to question their governments and wanted to have their own government. One of the differences was that Brazil wanted a constitutional monarchy. Next, and some obvious ones were that they happened in different colonies and each revolution had a different leader. But how did race have any relation to these three revolutions. In Mexico, Miguel Hidalgo, one of the two people who led the initial rebellion "Cry of Do

http://pixgood.com/miguel-hidalgo-cry-of-dolores.html

lores", was fighting for two things; he fought for independence and racial equality. Hearing this thousands of Indians and Mestizos joined the fight for their equality. For Brazil, Pedro, who was the leader of Brazil before the revolution, was a Peninsulares. A Peninsulares is person who is white and was born in the home country, so Pedro only allowed other Peninsulares into the government. Finally, Colombia was related to racism because before the revolution the social structure was based on race. The Colombian revolutionaries used this as a way to get Colombian natives to join the fight and promised a equal and strong social structure. These revolutions were not the only ones happening; across the New World colonies were starting to fight for independence. 

            Is racial inequality still a problem today? Lately there has been a lot of controversy in the United States with racial inequality especially with justice. One of the latest stories is in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael Brown, who was an unarmed black teenager who was shot and killed by a white police officer. Mr. Brown supposedly stole cigarillos from a liquor store before walking into the lone police officer's path. Mr.Brown was said to approach the officer and get into an altercation with the officer; the officer responded with shooting Mr, Brown several times and fatally wounding him. In court the officer was not indicted. Nine of the twelve jurymen were needed to be able to indict the officer; the jury was made up nine white humans and three black. After the decision not to indict the officer protests broke out throughout the city. There were fires and lootings everywhere in Ferguson. Fires were being lit very close to the store that Mr. Brown stole from. Police had to use tear gas to suppress protests. The protests were against the legal system because they thought that since the officer was white and Mr. Brown was a black teenager the jury was in favor of the officer. They believed that the jury thought that Mr. Brown must have done something bad just because he's a black teenager, and in society today black teenagers are portrayed as trouble causers, gang members, and drug dealers. In reality some white teenagers are just as bad and in some cases even worse than the very small population of black teenagers that give the whole race a bad reputation. For this reason race still needs to be addressed because if there is still a group of people that believe there is inequality than the problem is still around. Not just in the United States, everywhere in the world deals with the problem of racism. 

Article about the Ferguson case

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/ferguson-missouri-town-under-siege-after-police-shooting.html?_r=0

Transcendentalism Reform During the 19th Century

          In class we learned about the social reforms of the United States during the 19th century. One of the reforms was a new look at Transcendentalism. Transcendentalism is a belief based off of American Christianity and spirituality, and it emphasized internal and spiritual beliefs. Also it emphasized not having physical confrontation to solve disputes. Throughout history there have been Transcendentalism activists; one very notable activist was Mahatma Gandhi. If you look at some of his letters that he wrote you can see his Transcendentalist ideas. The one that I chose was a letter he wrote to Hitler in 1939. In it Gandhi writes about how he has been urged to write this letter by friends, but he believed that Hitler would just read it with rudeness. Also in the letter he talks about how Hitler is only man who can start world war two and that he should recognize that Gandhi was able to use peaceful protests to have great success in what he was trying to achieve. He's trying to tell Hitler that war is not the best option for his country if they are trying to accomplish something. Another thing that is repeated twice is humanity. During the year of 1939 in the summer Hitler and his forces were just starting to take control of other countries like Czechoslovakia and Poland. The harassment of Jews has already begun and Britain was on the brink of declaring war. A couple months after this letter was written Britain and France declared war on Germany and world war two began.  It is possible to see how this letter can relate to Transcendentalism. The obvious one is the praise Gandhi gives peaceful protesting instead of violence. The other one is the emphasis of humanity. In all of the countries that were under control of Hitler there was no freedom about what you could be. Hitler got rid of the rights given to humanity; one of the rights he took away was individuality. Gandhi said that his friends wanted him to write to Hitler for the sake of humanity and all the rights given to humans. This was not the only letter written by Gandhi that shows Transcendentalism.

Gandhi, Mahatma. Letter to Adolf Hitler. Wardha, C. P., India. July 23, 1939.
http://www.mkgandhi.org/letters/hitler_ltr.htm