Major Deal, Minor Attention

Elephant in the Room Overview

The final lesson of our "Causes of Civil War" unit was called Elephant in the Room. The expression "the elephant in the room" refers to when there is a huge topic or issue and nobody is bothering to discuss it. This had to do with slavery in the early 19th century. The essential question for this lesson is "How do we know the debate over slavery was the 'elephant in the room' for American politics in the early 19th century?". To start the lesson, we got a quick overview on the Missouri Compromise. The Missouri Compromise took place in 1820, and it created an even split of eleven slave states and eleven free states. This means slave states and free states have an even number of votes in the Senate. Also, all new territory north of the 36 degrees 30 minutes latitude line will be free in the future. 1849 held the Gold Rush in California. In 1950, California requests to join the United States as a free state. Henry Clay anticipates the inevitable controversy of the loss of balance between slave and free states. So he proposes a 5-part compromise. Our next task was to read this article on PBS titled "The Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Act". With this, we needed to find these five parts of the compromise. The first part was that Texas would claim the land in dispute but, in compensation, be given 10 million dollars -- money it would use to pay off its debt to Mexico. This satisfied pro-slavery advocates. The second part was the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah being organized without mention of slavery. The decision would be made by the territories' inhabitants later, when they applied for statehood. This also satisfied pro-slavery advocates. The third part was the slave trade being abolished in the District of Columbia, although slavery would still be permitted. This satisfied anti-slavery advocates. The fourth part of the compromise was California being admitted as a free state. To pacify slave-state politicians, who would have objected to the imbalance created by adding another free state, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed. This also satisfied anti-slavery advocates, because another free state exists. The final part was the Fugitive Slave Act. It required citizens to assist in the recovery of fugitive slaves. It denied a fugitive's right to a jury trial. (Cases would instead be handled by special commisioners -- commisioners who would be paid $5 if an alleged fugitive were released and $10 if he or she were sent away with the claimant.) The act called for changes in filing for a claim, making the process easier for slaveowners. Also, according to the act, there would be more federal officials responsible for enforcing the law. This satisfied pro-slavery advocates. We were split into groups of 2 or 3 to make timelines with the Timeline app. My group's timeline is below, along with descriptions of each event. To answer the essential question; the debate over slavery was the 'elephant in the room' because most decisions were made regarding states and territories, and not how it affected slaves. Slavery was obviously the elephant in the room, and it needed to be a bigger deal to politicians. Next, I will use other events to prove this, even though some politicians truly cared about slaves. 

More Proof of Ignoring Slavery

As you can see on the timeline, we also analyzed the Gadsden Purchase, Kansas-Nebraska Act, Bleeding Kansas, The Caning of Charles Sumner, The Dred Scott Decision, The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, and John Brown's Raid. These events really helped support the idea that slavery was the elephant in the room, the thing that was an obvious issue but was not discussed enough. The Kansas-Nebraska Act took place in 1854 and got rid of the Missouri Compromise. Yes, the compromise that kept territories above a certain line free of slavery was gone. This already helps us answer the essential question. Clearly none of the politicians were worried about those new slave states. This act made it easier for southerners to expand slavery northward. Another important event was Bleeding Kansas. The Kansas-Nebraska Act led to Bleeding Kansas, which resulted in a lot of major violent outbreaks. The Caning of Charles Sumner proved that even the most civilized men could resort to violence because of slavery controversy. In 1856, Senator Charles Sumner delivered a two day speech called The Crime Against Kansas. The anti-slavery Republican attacked southerners in this speech for forcing slavery on territories. He also made bold insults against Senator Andrew Butler. Rep. Preston Brooks, a member of the House of Representatives and Butler's nephew, was angered by Sumner's remarks and was determined to defend the honor of the south. Two days after Sumner's speech, Brooks approached Sumner at his Senate desk and beat him with his cane. People across the south voiced their support for Brooks. Northerners were outraged. Another event was the Dred Scott Decision in 1857. Dred Scott was an enslaved man living in Missouri. He filed a suit against his owner, and argued that he and his wife were free because they had once lived with their owner in states and territories where slavery was illegal. The Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 against the Scotts. We read about the effects of this decision here. There were 3 effects of the Dred Scott Decision. Slaves, because they were not citizens, were denied the right to sue in court. Enslaved people could not win freedom just by living in a free territory or state, and the Missouri Compromise ruled unconstitutional and all territories were open to slavery. This last effect really stood out to me because it's as if time was moving backwards. They made the Missouri Compromise in 1820 to keep certain states free, they got rid of the compromise in 1854 with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and then all territories are open to slavery? It makes no sense to me, further proving that politicians did not want to talk about how awfully slaves were treated, and proving that the debate over slavery truly was the elephant in the room for American politics in the early 19th century.  

Before and After the Kansas-Nebraska Act that made more states available to slavery.

Sources Used:

• The Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Act. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html.

• The Works of Charles Sumner, vol. IV (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1870- 1873), pages 125-249. 

• Finkelman. Dred Scott v. Sanford. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933t.html.

Slavery's Impact on America

Slavery is Entrenched

Slavery undoubtedly was a problem in society and always will be. But what exactly did slavery do to the American society? We started this unit talking about slavery and how it gradually became entrenched in society, both economically and politically. The first essential question I will focus on is "How did slavery become economically entrenched in American society by the early 19th century?". To start off, we read parts of The Founder's Constitution that mentioned slavery. The clauses from different articles basically stated what slaves can and cannot do, and what to do if they break any rules. A quote that stands out from the Constitution is from Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3. "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." This is saying that if a slave leaves the state they are working in, even if they go to a state that prohibits slavery, they are not freed, but will be returned to their owner. This really shows how strict things got if a slave dared to escape their assigned state. We also read an article titled "Cotton is King: Slavery is Entrenched in American Society". In the article I learned that people thought that slavery was declining. Slaves were revolting and escaping, people were beginning to get new revolutionary ideas to free their slaves and it seemed like slavery was about to be gone. Also, Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin really had an impact on slavery. The article says "Between 1792, when Whitney invented the cotton gin, and 1794, the price of slaves doubled. By 1825, field hands, who had brought $500 apiece in 1794, were worth $1,500. As the price of slaves grew, so, too, did their numbers. During the first decade of the nineteenth century, the number of slaves in the United States rose by 33 percent; during the following decade, the slave population grew another 29 percent”. This quote explains how just a simple invention that made it easier to get seeds out of cotton increased the number of slaves. We also used an interactive map  to help us get a better understanding on the dramatic growth of cotton production from 1790 to 1860, and also the spread of slavery across the northern and southern US during that 70 year period. By 1860, the South grew a startling amount of 2.28 billion pounds of cotton, up from about 1.5 million pounds in just 70 years. Also, the total slave population of the United States was estimated to be approximately 3,954,000. There were about 690,000 slaves in 1790. The maps below show how different the maps look in 1790 and 1860. Both maps are representing number of slaves. 

The maps also show how in 1790, most slaves were located in the Chesapeake and Carolina areas, and in 1860 the slave population was more spread out across the south. This is another way slavery was entrenched in society. It certainly sped up cotton production, which was obviously the major crop in these times. Northerners and southerners both depended on slaves for cotton. 

Morality of Slavery

In the next lesson on slavery, we focused on the morality of slavery. The two major parts and essential questions are "How does a system of slavery based on race affect human dignity?" and "What human characteristics does such a system tend to ignore?". To start off, we were put into groups and assigned a pro or anti slavery activist. We did this to find out what they were saying about the Antebellum Period (the period before the Civil War).  All the primary source documents we looked up are here. As one can tell, these people had different reactions to the Antebellum Period and different ways of approaching things. My group's activist was Frederick Douglass. In a speech the day after the fourth of July, he called Americans hypocrites for celebrating freedom and liberty for all when they are the nation that abuses slaves like no other. Douglass made the most sense to me and I agreed with his speech. A photo of him with important concepts from his speech is on the right. John Brown, a militant abolitionist, claimed that he was willing to murder for the sake of abolition movement. His goal was to cease weapons from the arsenal and give them to slaves to use against owners. He wanted them to start a revolt. Most people agreed with his cause, just not his violent ways of standing up against slavery. Another advocate, George Fitzhugh, a Virginian lawyer, was pro slavery. He believed that all labor should be enslaved. Fitzhugh also said that free people had more worries and responsibilities than slaves. Slaves were in a 'better position' because they were being taken care of and didn't have to worry about money, clothes, food, or finding a job. What's wrong with his theory is that most slaves were very mistreated, not treated better than free people, and he ignores the idea of them having relationships or a family. We then read an article comparing slavery in Futa Jallon, Africa to slavery in Natchez, Mississippi. This article taught me a lot, like how in Futa Jallon only non-muslims could be enslaved and the sale of Muslims was strictly prohibited. Also, children born of a free father and an enslaved mother were free and could reach the highest echelon of political power. The slaves could hold property and worked in their fields and gardens two days a week to feed themselves. Natchez, MS was a different story. All slaves "lacked full control over their lives". Slaveholders tried to dehumanize them, and the slaves that chopped out old plants completed between four and seven miles of cotton rows each day. After that, we watched Prince Among Slaves, a PBS docu­-drama that depicts the true story of Abdul Rahman. My classmates talked about the film on TodaysMeet.com and the transcript of that can be found here. Rahman was the son of the king of Futa Jallon. He was given command of two thousand men to fight their enemies. He ended up getting ambushed and captured by another African group on his way home from the battle. After being forced to walk 100 miles to the coast, he was sold to white slave traders for rum, guns, and gun powder. He had to go on a cramped and dirty slave ship to go to Natchez, Mississippi. He tells his slaveowner Thomas Foster that he was a prince at home and nobody believes him, and he earns the nickname Prince. Prince ran away, but realized he couldn't get his old life back. He returns back to Natchez and Foster does not punish him. Prince ends up making his plantation one of the best producing plantations, due to his knowledge on cotton. Politicians ended up freeing Prince due to newspaper articles being printed about him that were written by Marshalk. Prince wanted to raise enough money to buy his wife and children's freedom. People start to realize he is not Moorish and withdraw their support. This partly answers the essential question, it proves everything was based on race. He ended up leaving America without his children and finally arrives back in Africa on March 18, 1829. He died at the age of 67. This film and all of our resources proved to us that race affected everything, and slaves were not really treated like the human beings that they were.

Reacting Differently Because of Gender

Women's Roles in the 19th Century

In the 19th century, women were not treated equally to men. They were expected to cook, clean, take care of the kids, and basically do everything at home while their husbands were working. The photo to the right is an illustration of what a typical household would in the 19th century during the day. What is rather inaccurate about this picture is the calmness and cleanliness of the house. With 2 little kids, an infant, and a dog to take care of, the woman would probably be more stressed out and running around like a crazy person. The picture also shows toys and books, showing that it was the mother's job to educate and entertain them. Things like food and cleaning supplies would probably make the illustration more realistic. The picture most likely shows an upper class family. The furniture and curtains were very elegant and the toys looked new. Also, the children has access to books which was rare. This sends the message that if you don't live in this lifestyle, you kind of are a failure. Because of all their responsibilities, they were not really taken seriously when asking for equal rights. There were many different reactions to their demands.

Equality Demands + The Seneca Falls Convention

Something needed to change in terms of women's rights. The Laws and Practices included some of the laws and conditions for women in the US in 1848. Some surprising ones included the fact that it was considered improper for a woman to speak in public, and that it was legal in most states for a man to beat his wife. The Seneca Falls Convention played a huge role in getting women what they deserved. At the convention in upstate New York, the idea of women voting was publicly demanded for the first time. In the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, there were resolutions that addressed the concerns from the Laws and Practices. One line from the Declaration said "He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education, all colleges being closed against her." The Laws and Practices stated that no college in the US accepted women as regular students until 1837. 

Mixed Reactions to Equality Demands

The first essential question we needed to learn was; how did mid-19th century society react to women's demands for equality? Many people reacted differently to women's demands for equality. First off, let's talk about the reactions that different newspapers had. The Oneida Whig newspaper had a negative reaction to the demands. In their article published August 1, 1848, they wrote "They should recollect however, the illustrious member of their bolting sisterhood who had not long worn the nether garments before she found it in her heart to disgrace her man's apparel and to cry like a woman." This tells us that this newspaper really didn't take the women reformers seriously, and thought they would just end up 'crying like a woman' instead of getting anything to change. Another newspaper that had a negative attitude towards it was The Recorder, published on August 3, 1848. They called the reform movement silly in this quote; "We need not say that we think the movement excessively silly..". Of course there were positive reactions in the media, like in the National Reformer, published August 10, 1848. It included; “We think it the duty of every candid person to hear every proposal for the elevation of our race, and if they fall, l....”. This newspaper was very supportive, and responded to these women in seriousness. The overall idea is that people were starting to now notice that women are not treated equally to men, whereas before, the whole idea of equality was ignored. 

Reacting Different to Men and Women Today

The next essential question is; does 21st Century society still react differently to men and women? I do believe that the general public reacts differently based on a person's gender. Not every single person still does, but it seems like the media still takes gender into consideration before anything. For example, when a man makes a speech publicly or does basically anything on TV, the media reacts by discussing what he talked about and his ideas, which is normal. However, if a woman makes a public statement, I notice that the media focuses more on what she looked like while doing it, what she was wearing, how old she looked, how revealing her clothes were, or how bad her hair looked. Even though many people don't care about that, the general public seems to love it. A good example of how men and women are portrayed differently is a Pantene commercial shown above. It shows men and women doing the same things, but has different words and judgements for each one. For example, when a man is in charge and is telling people to do things, he is the boss. But when women do it, they are bossy. I agree with the commercial and I think that different labels are put on people due to their gender. Overall, men and women are portrayed very differently in today's society, just not as much as they used to be. 

Education Reform: Horace Mann

Horace Mann and the Education Reform

Horace Mann had a lot to do with the 19th century Education Reform. He was elected the first secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education in 1837. The following is an excerpt from the Twelfth Annual Report of Horace Mann as Secretary of Massachusetts State Board of Education, in 1848. 

"Now surely nothing but universal education can counterwork this tendency to the domination of capital and the servility of labor. If one class possesses all the wealth and the education, while the residue of society is ignorant and poor, it matters not by what name the relation between them may be called: the latter, in fact and in truth, will be the servile dependents and subjects of the former. But, if education be equally diffused, it will draw property after it by the strongest of all attractions; for such a thing never did happen, and never can happen, as that an intelligent and practical body of men should be permanently poor. Property and labor in different classes are essentially antagonistic; but property and labor in the same class are essentially fraternal. The people of Massachusetts have, in some degree, appreciated the truth that the unexampled prosperity of the State -- its comfort, its competence, its general intelligence and virtue -- is attributable to the education, more or less perfect, which all its people have received; but are they sensible of a fact equally important,— namely, that it is to this same education that two-thirds of the people are indebted for not being to-day the vassals of as severe a tyranny, in the form of capital, as the lower classes of Europe are bound to in any form of brute force?

Education then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is a great equalizer of the conditions of men,—the balance wheel of the social machinery. I do not here mean that it so elevates the moral nature as to make men disdain and abhor the oppression of their fellow men. This idea pertains to another of its attributes. But I mean that it gives each man the independence and the means by which he can resist the selfishness of other men. It does better than to disarm the poor of their hostility toward the rich: it prevents being poor. Agrarianism is the revenge of poverty against wealth. The wanton destruction of the property of others -- the burning of hay-ricks, and corn-ricks, the demolition of machinery because it supersedes hand-labor, the sprinkling of vitriol on rich dresses -- is only agrarianism run mad. Education prevents both the revenge and the madness. On the other hand, a fellow-feeling for one's class or caste is the common instinct of hearts not wholly sunk in selfish regard for a person or for a family. The spread of education, by enlarging the cultivated class or caste, will open a wider area over which the social feelings will expand; and, if this education should be universal and complete, it would do more than all things else to obliterate factitious distinctions in society.. .. "

Source: Mann, Horace. "HORACE MANN ON EDUCATION AND NATIONAL WELFARE 1848, Hosted by TnCrimLaw." HORACE MANN ON EDUCATION AND NATIONAL WELFARE 1848, Hosted by TnCrimLaw. Accessed January 12, 2015. http://www.tncrimlaw.com/civil_bible/horace_mann.htm.

Analyzing the Excerpt

This source is very trustworthy, considering it is Mann himself speaking about his reform. This excerpt truly taught me a lot about Mann's beliefs. Even though I already knew he believed everyone should get a good education, it was interesting to see him relate education to social classes and democracy. It was clear he was trying to show that the wealthy shouldn't just have it all. There should not be only one class that "possesses all the wealth and education". He goes on to explain that education should be diffused (spread out) across all classes to make it equal and possible for children to get educations. I agree with him on the point that those of lower classes could contribute a lot of their intelligence to society if they had the chance to. Mann explains that intelligence does not just simply make someone a better person than someone else, but it makes people more independent and selfless. The overall idea of this excerpt teaches me that a lot of people probably disagreed with Horace Mann and thought public education for everyone was a peculiar idea, but once he stated the reasons more and more people agreed. Thanks to his help, the state of Massachusetts started providing better education to its students. 

Did Andrew Jackson Care About Everyone?

Andrew Jackson Overview + Indian Removal Act

For three days, we learned about the life and career of Andrew Jackson. Jackson was elected for President of the US in 1829. He was elected through a democratic process but concentrated most power in the executives. The essential question we had to figure out was; Is Andrew Jackson's long-standing reputation as "the people's president" deserved?. Jackson was involved in the Bank War, The Indian Removal Act, and the Spoils System. My group focused on the Indian Removal Act. Jackson wanted to remove the Indians to the west, so him and the settlers had more land. About 100,000 Eastern Indians were moved off of their homeland to make room for white settlers. Jackson wants Indian Tribes to move out west, he says each tribe will have their own land if they leave, and if they choose to stay they have to abide by the laws set for Americans. Indians wanted to stay because the territory Jackson provided was unknown and there weren't enough resources for them to support themselves. All of this information, found here, made it clear to my group that Jackson was the people's president to his own fellow Americans, but not to the Indians. He cared a lot for his own people, but didn't seem to pay much attention to what the original Indian tribes wanted and needed. To help teach this to the class, we made the following Google Presentation on Jackson's Indian Removal Act, and the effect it had.

Bank War & Spoils System

In terms of the Bank War and Spoils System, the essential question seemed to be answered in similar ways. First, the Bank War. Jackson tried to re-establish or eliminate the bank so that the lower classes have more say on loans. He only supported the lower classes for votes, he wanted to get rid of stock holders. Because of this, Jackson thinks he is indeed the people's president, just because he is looking out for the middle and low class economic groups & feels the bank has only supported upper class and corporations. The issue with all of this is that the upper class is filled with people, too. Andrew Jackson wants to be seen as the nice guy supporting lower classes, yet seems to be going against the upper class. This leaves the essential question almost up to opinion, and whether or not one thinks that he truly cared about all his people. 

The Spoils System is when a president promises people jobs if they vote for him. Jackson 'spoiled' those who voted for him. The qualification for getting a job was loyalty rather than intelligence. The ironic part about all of this was he didn't think government officials should be in position too long, yet was attempting extend his run. He ended up giving about 10% of jobs to people. This also answers the essential question in a weird way. Sure, Jackson cared about the general population of the U.S., but did he care about those who didn't vote for him or support his beliefs? Also, was his way of getting votes necessarily a positive strategy? For these reasons, I believe the Spoils System proved Jackson was not exactly a people's president, unless you voted for him. 

Democracy in the Early 1800s

Over the last 3 days, my group and I analyzed various resources to find out the answer to the essential questions; How should we define democracy? How democratic was the United States in the early 1800s?  First, we defined democracy as 'a system of government in which the whole population or all the eligible members of a state elect representatives'. Basically, to keep it short, the power is vested in the people and they can make their own decisions on who they want running their nation. To show how non democratic the US was in the early 1800s, we made a poster and used the resources on Edline to help answer the question. The overall point is that the US was not very democratic and some didn't even know the true meaning of what it meant to be a democrat.

A clearer view of the images:

Does Skin Color Matter?

Source: http://goo.gl/gQC8FS

Latin American Revolutions Overview

Race should never be a problem, but it is. A person's race was and still is viewed as a big deal by many people. Even though I disagree with those who always make their decisions based on what race someone is, I have to acknowledge the fact that race played a big role in history. But today, we are here to find out; why is it essential to acknowledge human value regardless of race? We are going to
take the events of the Latin American Revolutions and use them as evidence of this social imperative. To start out the unit on Latin American Revolutions, we looked at a very essential map that shows when present-day Latin American countries received independence from colonial rule. The map can be seen below. First, let's learn about the different races in the population on Latin America in 1800. The largest percent of the population was made up of Indians, making up of about 50% of the population. These were people who lived in Latin America before the Spanish arrived. Next, the Creoles, who made up about 23% of the population. They were people of pure Spanish blood who were born in America. They owned the largest and richest mines and haciendas. However, they did not hold that many high-ranking jobs in government, the church, or trade. The African slaves, considered property, made up 11% of the population. Together, Mulattoes and Free Blacks made up about 8% of the population. Mulattoes were mixed people with African and Spanish blood. Mestizos, people of mixed Spanish and Indian heritage, mostly small farmers and shopkeepers, made up about 7% of the total population. Lastly, Peninsulares. They were born in Spain and migrated to the colonies. They made up less than 1% of the population, and they worked in high-ranking jobs in the government, military, and church. The highest social class was Peninsulares, then Creoles, Mestizos, Mulattoes, Indians, and African slaves in the lowest level. Now that we know about the people that made up the colonies, let's take a look at the events of the Revolutions.

This map represents when each country in Latin America gained independence.
Source: http://goo.gl/gQC8FS

This photo shows what the child of different race parents would be called. As you can see, every race was considered.
Source: http://goo.gl/gQC8FS

Brazillian Revolution Timeline

• 1789: People who worked under Captain Minas Gerais revolted & protested for the imperial control and the imposition of new taxes.
• 1793: Jose de Silva Xavier (Toothpuller) was hanged because he fought for Brazillian independence.
• 1807 and 1808: Napoleon invades Portugal and Spain. Portuguese royalty fled to Rio de Janeiro. 
• 1808: Spanish king Ferdinand VII is deposed (removed from office) and imprisoned.
• 1815: King John VI of Portugal made Brazil a kingdom, placing it on equal footing with Portugal
• 1820: Portuguese army started a revolution to get a constitutional government. John VI would be the constitutional monarch, but he had to return to Portugal
• 1821: John VI leaves Brazil for Portugal reluctantly. His 23 year old son Pedro stayed in Brazil as the prince regent.
• 1822: On September 7th, Pedro declares Brazil's independence. Pedro becomes Pedro the First, the emperor.
• 1824: Pedro writes a constitution
• 1825: Portugal recognizes Brazil's independence 
• 1827: Brazil loses against Argentinians 
• 1831: Pedro abdicates the throne and returns to Portugal

Brazil, Gran Colombia, and Mexico's Revolutions

My group read about Brazil's Revolution in this document for the activity. The timeline above is what we created using information from the document. After making this using the Brazil document, we shared our timeline with classmates from other country groups. (Mexico and Gran Colombia). We had to figure out what two things were similar between all three revolutions, and two things that were different. The two commonalities they shared was that all of the revolutions had success in gaining independence, and all countries broke apart from their ruling countries. Brazil gained independence from Portugal, Gran Colombia from Spain, and on August 24, 1821, Spanish Viceroy Juan de O'Donojú signed the Treaty of Córdoba, which approved a plan to make Mexico an independent constitutional monarchy. Race was an issue in all three revolutions and affected the events. Gran Colombia Revolution leader Simón Bolívar was born Venezuelan, so he was born in the new world. He wanted to lead an army against the minority of Peninsulares. The soldiers in his army were most likely Creole or in a lower class. In Brazil, the elites in the captaincy of Minas Gerais revolted against the imperial taxes, so they were possibly Creoles, and they revolted against the Peninsulares from Europe. Mexico's Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla was a catholic priest, so he was also most likely a Creole. He and a group of Mestizos, people with white and Indian parents, and peasants revolted against the Peninsulares. As you can see, race had a big impact on the Revolutions and nobody really liked the high class Peninsulares. 

Current Issues with Race?

Race is still a bigger issue today than it should be. Everyday, stories are being reported on about whether or not race was an issue with a certain event. The most recent event is the verdict on the shooting of 18 year old Michael Brown on August 9th. The police officer that shot and killed Brown, Darren Wilson, was found not guilty last night. Many riots broke out, because Brown was unarmed. Since he is African American, a lot of people believe he was shot just because of his race. Whether that is true or not, it shouldn't even be something we have to worry about in this day and age. It is kind of depressing that kids in 2014 are growing up still with racism in their lives and on their TVs & computer screens. They shouldn't have to learn that some people don't accept others because of their skin color. It is very important to consider the issue of race because we need to put an end to it. A story from April of this year was about Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling getting banned for life for saying racial comments towards blacks on recording. Race is still an issue in the U.S. today and should be paid attention to by people of all ages and put to an end.