Right or Wrong?

In our second to last week of school in honors history we learned about western expansion in the United States. The main focus of our studies was on Native Americans and Buffalo Soldiers. Similar to last week we started off by watching a series of ABC Clio videos, and then analyzed and took notes on several documents, most importantly the Dawes Act of 1887. After all the notes we circled up as a class to chose an essential question for the unit. After several minutes of discussion we decided upon  the question; “"Were the federal government's policies on Indians and Buffalo soldiers intentionally discriminatory or well-intentioned?" Personally I believe that their policies were well intentioned.

Buffalo Soldiers

Buffalo Soldiers were African American men who left the south after the system of sharecropping was put into place. They served as cavalry soldiers. The soldiers moved west and fought for the government against the Native Americans. Buffalo soldiers were given a job that was better than sharecropping, which was essentially slavery, and they were given uniforms and even had the chance of winning military awards. These were all positives about the Buffalo Soldiers. There were some negatives however. The main one being that many white soldiers often made terribly racist remarks that resulted in fights. The Buffalo Soldier idea was well intentioned by the government.

When it came to Native Americans there were some instances where the federal government's actions were discriminatory and some where they were well intentioned. I feel that the well intentioned actions outweigh the bad. First, because of westward expansion Native Americans were being forced to abandon their land which they had been on for many years. This was a rather discriminatory act by the federal government, because they figured that the land would be better off in the hands of white people. Second, there was “Colonel Custard’s Last Stand”, where United States citizens were far too cruel to Native Americans and forever changed the lives of many in a negative way.

Not all actions by the government towards the Native Americans were negative. For example the Dawes act, passed in 1887, gave the right to land and American citizenship to any Native American, who was willing to conform to American culture, and working a farm as any average white man would. Those who agreed to the terms were given areas of land. Many Native Americans agreed and their culture began to fade away as many became Americanized. The government felt that they were doing the natives a favor by offering them this deal. They felt that they were giving Native Americans a free escape from a uncivilized society. In reality they tore apart a culture and drove people from their land. This was done with good intentions however.  

Wealth Corrupts

When one individual person has total control over a group of people or a single industry, people will suffer. This past week in Honors History 10 we studied two different monopolies in the United States during the late 19th century. The two monopolies we covered were those of, Andrew Carnegie, and John Rockefeller. Carnegie dominated in the steel business with his company, Carnegie Steel. Rockefeller was an oil mogul with his company Standard Oil. To learn more information about these two moguls, we started off by watching a series of ABC Clio videos, and then went on to read and analyze biographies on both men. After having analyzed the given information, the teacher asked the class to come up with an essential question for the lesson, which we decided was: “How did the actions of monopolistic leaders, such as Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller, affect the common worker?” Personally, I believe that the actions of monopolistic leaders, like Rockefeller and Carnegie had negative effects on the common workers. Both men had such immense power and a great drive to make money that they lost track of their lower level employees, and ended up hurting them. Also they hurt employees of other companies that they put out of business.

Andrew Carnegie

First, we have Andrew Carnegie, who as previously stated was a very powerful individual in the steel business. Carnegie did not come from an overly wealthy background yet he constantly seemed to have zero care for the common workers he had power over. When he partnered with a well known man in the coal business, H.C Frick, they decided to lower the wages of many factory workers. This lead to extreme struggle for these workers, and they struggled to buy the necessities. Also, the duo implemented “yellow dog contracts” which made it impossible for one to join the labor union. Both of these actions made life very difficult for the common worker, but they both helped make Carnegie more money so he did not necessarily care. The workers began to strike to try and help their cause, but Frick had the government called into to take out the strikes. This lead to making both the new wages and the “yellow dog contracts” permanent. This is an example of a monopoly using their power to take advantage of the common worker.

Rockefeller

Second, there is John Rockefeller, who was the owner of Standard Oil. Rockefeller came from humble beginnings and grew up in a family centered around agriculture. After High School he wanted to attend college, but his father insisted on him going into business. Rockefeller’s first major move in the business world was to partner with Maurice Clark and act as suppliers of grain, meat and hay. Business began booming for these two men during the civil war. When things started going well for Rockefeller he was chosen to enlist in the war but he paid the necessary 300 dollars to hire a substitute for himself.  During the Civil War Rockefeller noticed an increase in the oil business. He decided to hop ship from the merchant business and test the waters in the oil industry. He proceeded to buy out all of his business partners, which was a controversial move and affected the lives of many common workers.  Rockefeller had great success in the business, but he had several questionable tactics. First, he was known for slashes prices and then buying out other companies. This move frequently left people out of jobs. Secondly, he was known for bribing government officials. Finally, he took part in a trust system which essentially stretched the laws as far as they could be stretched in order for him to make more money. These tactics lead to Rockefeller being considered a mean, greedy, monopolistic leader. His actions lead to the suffering of many common workers but he was just concerned about making money like most wealthy men are.

ABC Clio