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.