They say that on the off chance that you trust in something so emphatically, than you ought to battle for it. We see incalculable individuals in history who did simply that; Martin Luther King Jr., slaves, Gandhi, and JFK. It's fascinating to perceive how the energy somebody has towards a particular point, thing, individual, or thought can push them to past the limits of good and bad. On the off chance that battling for what you put stock in means hurting the lives of others, if so then why do let you know to battle for what you trust in? Why is there no particular? The Ku Klux Klan was framed in December of 1865. The pith of the Ku Klux Klan was to guarantee the awkwardness in the middle of Blacks and Whites. They abhorred Blacks and thoughtful Whites. In 1871, The Ku Klux Klan executed a republican judge for having sensitivity on three Black men. Directly after an uprising resulted, the Ku Klux Klan murdered 50 men who had effectively surrendered to the Klan. Not long after the Klan scattered and afterward refinishes and got to be known as red shirts. As indicated by the quote prior examined the activities of the Klan were advocated. Much after the common war the Ku Klux Klan still battled for bondage. The Klan's activities in spite of the fact that appear to be sort of advocated the way their activities weren't right. In this way, I accept that everything relies on upon how the battle is taken out, on the off chance that it doesn't place anybody in hurt's direction then its fine. Then again, in the event that it does, in the same way as the Ku Klux Klan, than it without a doubt isn't alright.

Reconstruction Era

This week in class, we finished discussing the Civil War, and moved on to the Reconstruction Era of the United States of America. The 4 million or so newly freed slaves did not many places to turn, and new law made it even more difficult to decide. In my opinion, the end of the Civil War was not a turning point, it just made the Southern politicians want to fight back even harder. There were new laws created, such as the "Black Codes." These codes restricted how the newly freed slaves could act in the society. Now, this lead to the construction of the Freedman's Bureau, which tried to conform the South. This plan didn't work out very well, and continuous harsh treatment of blacks were unstoppable. Some blacks were smart enough to find places to work, but many were unlucky, and were stuck jobless. This leads me to the question, "How would the slave owners act if their former slaves came back and ask for work?" Hopefully, the slave owners would treat them better.

Gettysburg

Last week, we talked about the Civil war. To go more in depth, the Battle of Gettysburg and the Battle of Cold harbor. Today I will write about the battle of Gettysburg. We talked about how Gettysburg was probably one of the most decisive battles in the Civil War. I was wondering, why they would continue the war for months after? Wouldn't it only deplete supplies until the South would be left with nothing? The most decisive battles took place on little and big round top, and Culp's, and Cemetery Hill. The battle between little and big round top, took place in the area between, the Devil's Dens, also the valley of death. This battle, protected the Union army, from being destroyed by the sides. The leader of the Union army part, was Colonel Joshua Chamberlain. Wouldn't he get more recognition than that which was given? It seemed like his part in the battle was a bit underestimated. The battle on Culp's Hill took place on the last day. The tactics were important, to make sure that the Union Army won. I was wondering, why would General Lee keep trying to send troops through an open field even when his forces were depleted? Wouldn't it be better to recognize the failure and change the strategy to match the situation?  

Lowell Mill girls

I already wrote about this week topic last week so this is last week topic, we read about the Lowell Mill girls for homework. In both of the letters, the girls seemed to have a similar ideal liberty. The right to work and earn money. Even in the short story, a week at the mill, the girls seemed happy to work at the mill even though it would have been hard to work that long with under wage. According to, a week at the mill, most of the girls were from the country, which was the reason why they wanted to work. It said that they wanted to work for more clothes and things of that area. I was wondering, why didn't they work for money instead? Wouldn’t it be better, so they could help their families more? Another question that I have is, did they get compensation for injuries? Did their families get compensation if they died working at the mill? In any case, were injuries even common while working with the machines? Like with hands and fingers in the sewing machines probably. The girls probably went there because they wanted to also break social norms. Like how girls are supposed to not work in that time, at least not that much. My last question is, did they also work on Saturdays, because it only talked about having Sunday off.

Boston Tea Party

Boston Tea Party

If we examine the Boston Tea Party and England's reaction to it, we will find mistakes the Crown made that we're in a position to avoid now. Like Great Britain in the late 18th century, our federal government today is big, militant, and expensive to run. Consistent with old England, it serves as the armed partner of select businesses and groups, whose welfare is useful to the political status quot. Like our former mother country, American politicians today consider the injustices they create as necessary sacrifices for the good of the state, while refusing to acknowledge any wrongdoing. On the contrary, everything the state does is in the name of more freedom and justice. The English were shocked and hurt. Their beloved Tea Act was supposed to solve problems, not inflame them. By virtue of the bill, the near-bankrupt East India Company won a monopoly to export tea to the colonies, while the Crown would collect a small duty on the transactions, and the colonists would get their tea cheaper even than the smugglers' brew.

Was Civil War Really About Slavery

Civil War

During the last few days, I've asked several thousand teachers and Students for the main reason the South seceded. They always come up with four alternatives: states’ rights, slavery, tariffs and taxes or the election of Lincoln. When I ask them to vote, the results, and resulting discussions convince me that no part of our history gets more mythologized than the Civil War, beginning with secession. My informal polls show that 55 to 75 percent of teachers, regardless of region or race, cite states’ rights as the key reason southern states seceded. These conclusions are backed up by a 2011 Pew Research Center poll, which found that a wide plurality of Americans, 48 percent believe that states’ rights was the main cause of the Civil War. Fewer, 38 percent, attributed the war to slavery, while 9 percent said it was a mixture of both. These results are alarming because they are essentially wrong. States’ rights was not the main cause of the Civil War, slavery was. The issue is critically important for teachers to see clearly. Understanding why the Civil War began informs virtually all the attitudes about race that we wrestle with today. The distorted emphasis on states’ rights separates us from the role of slavery and allows us to deny the notions of white supremacy that fostered secession. In short, this issue is a perfect example of what Faulkner meant when he said the past is not dead it’s not even past.

Slavery

The fact that slavery exists today saddens me, not only because it is the possession of another person, but because it shows humankind has not changed or matured. The fact that slavery has ended in North America means nothing - there are still 200 million slaves in the world, and the United States doesn't seem to be doing anything about it.

Slavery still exists in Africa, Asia, and even as close as Latin America. In Africa, chattel slavery means that a person can become another person's property for life. Imagine, person can be traded, inherited, and owned, like an animal! 

During the wars in Sudan, one side captured and enslaved the other side's soldiers and citizens. In Mauritania, there have been reports of 390, 00 chattel slaves who are beaten, deprived of food, and given the "insect treatment," where slaves have tiny ants placed in their ears and then a scarf is wrapped around their head. 

India the country I was born in is estimated to have 15 million children living and working in enslavement.

Puritan

This week I have learned about puritans. The Puritans were a group of English Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries, including, but not limited to, English Calvinists. Puritanism in this sense was founded by some Marian exiles from the clergy shortly after the accession of Elizabeth I of England in 1558, as an activist movement within the Church of England.The Puritans believed that the Bible was God's true law, and that it provided a plan for living. The established church of the day described access to God as monastic and possible only within the confines of "church authority". Puritans stripped away the traditional trappings and formalities of Christianity which had been slowly building throughout the previous 1500 years. Theirs was an attempt to "purify" the church and their own lives.Most of the Puritans settled in the New England area. As they immigrated and formed individual colonies, their numbers rose from 17,800 in 1640 to 106,000 in 1700. Religious exclusiveness was the foremost principle of their society. The spiritual beliefs that they held were strong. This strength held over to include community laws and customs. Since God was at the forefront of their minds, He was to motivate all of their actions. This premise worked both for them and against them. These were the things that i have learned in my american history and lit.