Good or Bad Intentions?

The essential question for this lesson is did the government have good intentions when enacting policies for westward expansion and in what ways did these policies impact the natives and buffalo soldiers. To start off this lesson we watched a series of ABC-CLIO videos as a class to get an overview of the subject. During the video we took notes in a google doc shared amongst the class. We divided into 4 groups and 1 group took notes on main ideas, one took notes on key people, one took notes on important events, and one group took notes on essential terms. Following the ABC-CLIO videos, we watched a PBS video about Buffalo Soldiers Society and continued taking notes on the same categories. Within our little groups we analyzed a couple of documents to expand our knowledge on Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans. The first document we looked is the ABC-CLIO Federal Native American Policies Visual. This visual talked in details about events from 1830-1890 about American Indians, Buffalo Soldiers, and Westward Bound Whites. Next, we analyzed the document Helen Hunt Jackson: A Century of Dishonor 1881. Helen Hunt published A Century of Dishonor in 1881 and it mobilized public opinion for reform of U.S. Indian policy in the late 19th century. After that we analyzed excerpts from Dawes Act 1887. The 1887 Dawes Act which is also known as the General Allotment Act, is regarded as the most significant piece of federal legislation related to the land rights of Native Americans. Lastly, we came up with 40 exam questions relating to Buffalo Soldiers and Native Americans and began our blog posts.

The first policy that the government enacted was the United States Colored Troops. These troops were mainly known as Buffalo Soldiers. The Buffalo soldiers were African American soldiers who were in Union Army cavalry and stayed in the military as career soldiers. Buffalo Soldiers were mistreated and discriminated against during this time.

Here is a picture of Buffalo Soldiers
 from the PBS video we watched. 

According to the ABC-CLIO Federal Native American policies visual, the soldiers were involved in at least 117 of 138 campaigns fought against the Indians on the Western frontier.The soldiers were sent to fight in battles that no other troops would want to fight and were given the old and worn out uniforms, weapons, and horses that the other regiments did not want. I believe that the government had good intentions when creating the troops. Many African Americans stayed in the army after the Civil War ended because really the only other option they had for work was sharecropping. Compared to sharecropping, staying in the military meant having a steady job, having clothing, and having food. The government was trying to give African Americans who fought in the war a chance to do something other than sharecropping. The government’s intention when assembling the Buffalo Soldiers was to provide African American soldiers another form of work after the Civil War but assembling them did not really benefit the African Americans but rather the government and the soldiers who would have had to fight the battles the Buffalo soldiers did.

The next policy the government enacted was the Second Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1868. This treaty promised Indians possession of the Dakota Territory west of the Missouri River if they promised to stop fighting. I think the government also had good intentions when enacting this policy because they were trying to keep the Indians safe and tried to stop the fighting. This treaty forced many Native Americans off of the land that they were living on and onto unfamiliar land. When many refused to move the government ordered all Indians to return to designated reservations or be considered hostile. A lot of the Indians rejected the order and confrontation took place at the Battle of the Little Bighorn.  

Following the Battle of Little Bighorn, the Dawes Act of 1887 was enacted by the government. According to excerpts from the Dawes Act of 1887, it was “an act that provided for the allotment of lands in severalty to Indians on the various reservations, and to extend the protection of the laws of the United States and the Territories over the Indians, and for other purposes.” Basically, the act authorized the government to set aside and divide up land to Native Americans. The land the Native Americans were provided with was not good for farming, it had been more migratory, and many of the Native American’s traditions began to fall apart. The land they were being moved on was unfamiliar to them and they wanted to stay on the land that they had been living on for their whole lives. A number of reformers believed the Indians needed assimilation. They created the Carlisle School which was where Native Americans were “Americanized”. A quote that they went by was, “Kill the Indian in him, Save the Man.” I think the government thought they would be helping the Natives by dividing up the land and giving individuals their own. But the Natives lived closely as communities and shared with one another so this did not benefit them.

In my opinion, when enacting many of their policies, the government had good intentions and truly believed that they were benefiting the Native Americans as well as the Buffalo Soldiers even though they did not.

Robber Barons VS Captains of Industry

The essential question for this lesson was, should Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller be classified as robber barons or captains of industry. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Andrew Carnegie dominated the steel industry while John D. Rockefeller controlled oil. Many argue that these men are both captains of industry and robber barons. A robber baron is a ruthlessly powerful industrialist that only became wealthy by exploiting natural resources, corrupting legislators, or other unethical means. A captain of industry, the opposite of a robber baron, is a business leader who accumulated a personal fortune that contributes positively to the country in someway and drove the Industrial change that swept the nation allowing the U.S. to emerge as a world power.

To start off this lesson we watched 6 mini videos as a class. We divided the class into 4 groups and each group had to take notes of 4 different categories. One group was assigned main ideas, one group was assigned key people, one group was assigned important events, and one group was assigned essential terms. My group was assigned main ideas. We created a google docs and contributed our notes into it. After finishing the videos, we analyzed Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller's biographies. As a class, we then came up with an essential question for the lesson that we could then write a blog post about.

I believe Rockefeller shows traits of both a robber baron and a captain of industry and should not be categorized as just one. John D. Rockefeller helped to create the American petroleum industry and is known as one of the greatest business leaders in American history. In John D. Rockefeller’s biography it is shown that he could be a robber baron when it says that his ruthless and cutthroat business practices brought him tremendous wealth. Some cutthroat practices included selling oil at a loss and then after the competitor collapsed driving the prices up and also bribing politicians. The public was convinced that everything he did was motivated by greed. Rockefeller grew the Standard Oil Company by keeping production costs down, obtaining favorable rates from the railroads in the form of rebates, engaging in occasional price slashing, and buying out competitors. In addition, many thought that Rockefeller and his associates used illegal tactics and immoral business practices. On the other hand, he could be seen as a captain of industry. Rockefeller gave away more than $500 million. His biography states, “He gave money to Spelman College in Georgia to educate African-American women and funded the University of Chicago (ultimately giving it $80 million).” The cartoon below shows the Standard Oil company as an octopus crushing its competitors including the steel, copper, and shipping industries, as well as a state house, the U.S. Capitol, and the White House.

I also believe Andrew Carnegie shows traits of both a robber baron and a captain of industry and should not be categorized as just one. Andrew Carnegie gained virtual control of the U.S. steel industry and became one of the richest men in the world.

Carnegie invested the vast majority of his fortune in the steel production in 1873. Carnegie’s reputation was damaged by the Homestead strike. His biography mentions, “The strike, which began on June 29th, 1892, revealed Carnegie’s plans to destroy the iron and steel workers’ union, and the event raised a public outcry.” Even though he damaged his reputation, he did many things that benefited the public which could help classify him as a captain of industry. He made about $350 million. It is said in his biography, “This money provided for thousands of public libraries and church organs and helped advance both higher and education and the cause of peace.” Just like Rockefeller, they both gave a lot of their profit to help others. In addition, he helped establish a number of schools, helped establish the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 1910, and gave money for the construction of three temples.