Blockades Good vs. Bad

In my past weeks reading about the Civil War I read about the Union blockade and the battle between the newly made ironclad ships Virginia and Monitor. The Virginia, previously known as the Merrimack, was attacking the Union blockade and doing a very good job of it, they had destoryed about half of the ships in the blockade. A blockade seems like a good idea to protect your land from naval attacks, but it also closes off trade coming in from the water. It encourages conflict that may possibly have been avoided otherwise. The unions blockade did it's job so it could be said that it was a good use of a blockade. Whether a blockade is neccesary or not is very dependent on the situation.

Manifest Desitny

Today I will be writing about an event in history called Manifest Destiny, which took place around 1845-1860.  Basically what Manifest Destiny was that the people who were expanding into America felt that taking the land from the people living there was justified and that the US was meant to own that land. Historians say that manifest destiny was an idea mostly adopted by Democrats. The Whigs were against the fighting conquest of America.

            I found the whole idea of manifest destiny quite fascinating actually. The idea that somehow, by living where they were born, the Native Americans were keeping the settlers from having land that was “rightfully theirs.” In my opinion I don’t think that what the American settlers did to take over the land was justified at all. Looking back it’s hard to say whether it was inevitable or not since we now have taken over all of the land. At the same time, expanding and concurring is part of being a growing country. So I don’t think there is particularly anything wrong with going to war for a piece of land because you want to expand. The problem comes from killing people for being on land that you think should be yours and say that it gives you the right to control in before you’ve won it.

On to Oregon

My next book of the school year is a book called "On to Oregon".  This book is about the Sager family and their journey to Oregon. The main character of the book is teenager John Sager. John has never been the most obedient kid. And this story shows how he must put his childish ways behind him and step up to lead his siblings on a great journey across the country. The book was very engaging all the way through and I really enjoyed it.

The Great Turkey Walk

My second book to blog is The Great Turkey Walk by Kathleen Karr. This book is about a young man named Simon Green. As far as intelligence goes, Simon doesn't have much. After spending three years in 3rd grade, he is graduated early and told to spread his wings and find something else to do. So Simon decided to go into the the turkey business. One of the farmers in his town has an extreme surplus of turkeys and Simon decides to buy them and walk them all the way to Denver where they sell for a significantly higher price. Along the way Simon has many interesting adventures. A circus muscle man who turns out to be his long lost father, a run away slave, Indians, and a girl whose entire family died and left her alone on their land. Something new is happening around every turn for Simon in his quest to prove his worth.

Wait for Me, Watch for Me, Eula Bee

Well school is starting again so it's time to get back to my blog.
This post will be about a book I read for history called Wait for Me, Watch for Me, Eula Bee, by Patricia Beatty. This takes place during the Civil War and is about a boy named Lewallen Collier. At the beginning of the book Lewallen's father and oldest brother leave their family to go fight in the war. But while they are away, tragedy strikes. Indians attack the area and kill everyone in Lewallen's family except for Lewallen and his sister, Eula Bee. I don't want to give away much of the story, but the rest of the book is about Lewallen's daring escape from the Indians and his quest to reclaim his sister. Along the way he befriends some surprising characters. I learned a lot about different relationships between peoples during the time of the Civil War and overall I really enjoyed this book!

Quanah Parker

        Quanah Parker was a Comanche Indian boy, his mother was Cynthia Ann Parker. Quanah grew up with mixed heritage and he was constantly under pressure to prove himself worthy. He practically grew up on a horse and he soon became a master. He could jump from the back of one horse to another. He was also an expert marksman with his bow and arrow. Young men in the tribe would go on a "vision quest." On his first vision quest Quanah saw an eagle and a serpent. After that he was know as Serpent Eagle. Quanah Parker became chief and led the Comanche people. While in battle he wore a long headdress with eagle feathers and he painted his war horse red with different berries. In 1870 the Comanches were being attacked and they were losing their land. In order to avoid more bloodshed, Quanah went to Fort Sill, Oklahoma and surrendered. He was then appointed as the spokesperson for all of the Comanches.

Sand Creek Masascre Vs. Washita Battle

        In this blog post I am comparing the events of the Sand Creek Massacre and the Battle of Washita. Specifically to find out why one is refereed to as a massacre and why the other is called a battle. Both instances involved many deaths both to men and women, so why are they called different things?
       Let's look at the Sand Creek Massacre to see what happened on November 29, 1864.  Chief Black Kettle was the chief of the Southern Cheyenne band. He was chosen to be on the Council of Forty-Four which was the highest government body of the Cheyenne tribe. Black Kettle realized that peace with the white man was the only way for his tribe to survive. Black Kettle tried to convince the other Indians that peace was the only way but still some of the young men in the tribe left to go north and join the Dog Soldiers who were fighting the white men.
       In 1864 the governor of Colorado started a law called "Friendly Indians of the Plains." This said that any Indians who reported to nearby forts and were told where to live would be kept safe. However Black Kettle was not told about this law and so his tribe was put in the category of unfriendly. Black Kettle and some of the other chiefs met with the the governor to talk about the law. There was miscommunication which led to Black Kettle thinking his tribe was safe, and they definitely were not. So when Colonel Chivington brought seven hundred troops to attack the camp Black Kettle assured his people that since he was waving an American flag that there would be peace. He was very wrong. The Indians were slaughtered. Men, women, and children were shot down left and right. For a little while the Colonel boasted of his great victory in battle, but when the U.S Congress found out what really happened, governor John Evans lost his job. Chivington escaped any repercussions because his military term expired as the investigation began.
         Now what happened at the Battle of Washita? Black Kettle moved with his wife to the Washita River. He tried to convince every one to stop fighting, both the white men and the Dog Soldiers. But the white men were not interested. On November 27, 1868 General George Custer and the 7th Cavalry attacked the Washita Village. Black Kettle and his wife Medicine Woman Later were killed. Again women and children were killed in the battle. So what makes it any different from the massacre at Sand Creek?
         I think the difference lies in the knowledge of the Indians. At Sand Creek they thought they were protected by the law. And it turned out they should have been. The massacre never should have happened. Many people died for nothing. While in the instance of Washita, Black Kettle knew that there was not peace and the battle was inevitable.