And of Course, I Have to Mention the Elephant in the Room

Recently, we've been studying the politics of the early nineteenth century, particularly those which revolved around slavery, which was pretty much the biggest focus of politics at the time.  New states were being admitted into the Union, and there was much negotiation around how to keep the balance between slave states and free states, none of which succeeded at keeping the peace for long.  We looked at the Dred Scott Decision, the Compromise of 1850, Bleeding Kansas, and other events to see some of the events which showed that slavery was at the forefront of the national conscience in the early 1800s.  We made a timeline of these events:

In the early 1800s, the country was focussed on keeping the peace between slave holders and abolitionists.  In the Compromise of 1850, the territory recently acquired from Mexico was divided and several new laws were put in place to appease both groups.  The slave trade was abolished in the capital, which was a win for abolitionists, but the Fugitive Slave Act, while meant to pacify Southerners who would have been angry that the compromise upset the balance of slave and free states, became extremely controversial.  The Kansas-Nebraska Act left the territories of Kansas and Nebraska open for voters to decide whether or not to legalise slavery when applying for statehood.  This caused the event known as Bleeding Kansas.  There were several battles in the territory of Kansas over slavery.  In the Dred Scott Decision, a freed slave named Dred Scott sued his former master, 'And upon a full and careful consideration of the subject, the court is of opinion, that.... Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and not entitled as such to sue in its courts.'  This also caused great controversy.  Many of the biggest events of the early eighteenth century revolved around slavery.


Sources:
http://www.edline.net/files/_BYIYQ_/a95c65dcd7b8c02c3745a49013852ec4/Elephant_in_the_Room_Lesson.pdf
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933t.html

Advancement?

By the early nineteenth century, Eli Whitney had invented the cotton gin, though he probably had no idea of the impact his invention would have upon the future of the United States.  His goal was to make the growing of cotton more profitable, and he succeeded – the cotton gin transformed cotton from a small crop to by far the most important crop in the South.  With the increased production of cotton came an increased demand for labour, and southern plantation owners turned to slavery.  Before the invention of the cotton gin, ideas from the French revolution of equality and liberty had spread to the US.  Many slaveholders released their slaves, and there was talk of emancipation.  However, needing more workers to produce more cotton after the invention of the cotton gin, plantation owners bought more slaves to satisfy the demand.  The price of slaves skyrocketed along with the population of slaves in the United States.  By 1860, the price of a field hand had tripled from $500 to $1500.  By then, cotton had taken over the economy of the south.  They were exporting so much product and making so much money – over half of the nation’s exportation profit – that the government didn’t dare upset the system.  They needed the money from the cotton, and all of the farms that grew cotton relied on slave labour.  Click here to see how slavery grew with the production of cotton.

When a system of slavery is based on race, human dignity is pretty much nullified.  People who are slaves often feel stripped of their dignity when they are forcibly taken from their homes and made to work without pay.  Slaveholders and traffickers certainly treat slaves as though they have no dignity, as though they are less than human.  When a system of slavery is based on race, the people who perpetuate the system tend to look down on anyone of that race.  Even after slavery was abolished in the United States, white people still tended to view black people as inferior, especially in the south.  In my opinion, people who own and traffick slaves don't have much in the way of human dignity because they are willing to strip others of their dignity and treat people like they're less than human. 

A system of slavery such as this ignores the basic fact that we are all human.  We all have the same emotions, thoughts, we all crave love and freedom and happiness.  Any system of slavery ignores the fact that people don't enjoy having their dignity taken from them or other people claiming that they own them.  You can't truly own another human being.  That's what makes slavery so horribly wrong in the first place - people are not possessions.

Sources:

http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US18-03.html

http://www.edline.net/files/_AeGg2_/1d5157b4b5d488223745a49013852ec4/Slavery_in_The_Founders_Constitution.pdf

http://www.edline.net/files/_AeGiT_/4eed1cce371caa3c3745a49013852ec4/Unit_4_Activity_4_Cotton_Gin_Reading.pdf

Cook Your Own Dinner

In the nineteenth century, a movement was begun at the Seneca Falls Convention: that for women's rights.  Women were not allowed to vote, and were essentially slaves once married, all of their property becoming their husband's. The fact that women's role was to cook and clean and raise children, not to work or speak publicly or vote was quite ingrained into most people's minds.  Responses to the Seneca Falls convention were mixed.  Some condemned the idea of women's reform, citing reasons from the Bible why they didn't think women should be given rights.  Some even went as far as to openly ridicule the reformers and their ideas.  Some people, however, agreed that it is ridiculous that half of the human population should be oppressed in this manner and spoke out in support of the reform movement.  In a rather sarcastic article in the National Reformer, an anti-reform piece published in the Mechanic's Advocate was ridiculed, and the author asked:

'We would ask but for one valid reason why woman should be deprived of her equal rights as an intelligent being.  We have never seen one reason attempted.  Even the editor of the Advocate attempts none.  He says: 'Now it requires no argument to prove that this is all wrong.'  This is disposing of the matter very easily.  No argument can be given, and therefore he says none is required.'

Another article published in the Oneida Whig claims:

'This bolt is the most shocking and unnatural incident ever recorded in the history of womanity.  If our ladies will insist on voting and legislating, where, gentlemen, will be our dinners and our elbows?  Where our domestic firesides and the holes in our stockings?'

For all their claims of superiority, men sure were incompetent.

Despite the best efforts of reformers in the 1800s, men and women are still treated very differently today.  Men are expected to go to work, grill, and watch football, while women are (still) expected to cook and clean and raise the children and go out shopping with their friends.  Plenty of men are very sexist.  Some guys make comments about women belonging in the kitchen and then complain about being single (one wonders why they are).  There still aren't any women in very high governmental positions in the US.  My chemistry teacher is a doctor - and almost everyone who doesn't know her and sees her title assumes she's male.  Even when women perform the same jobs as men, they are often treated worse and paid less though their work is equal to or even better than their male counterparts'.  Unfortunately, sexism is very much a part of today's society, and in many more ways than I have listed here.  Maybe we need another reform movement.