Joshua Garcia
HIST 1700-054
American Civilizations
Tamora Hoskisson
Response Assignment #2 (Units 6-8)
1. Lecture: 1.According to the lecture and the film (Slavery & the Making of America,
Episode 3: Seeds of Destruction, Why did the Union break up?
The Union broke up on numerous accounts of a conflicting balance of power between the
“Slave States and the “Free States” that eventually led to breaking up the union. As the country
was expanding to the west and granting statehood to new territories, that came with new political
power. It was to be determined whether a new state would outlaw slavery or accept slavery
within its state borders. Whether a new state was a “Free State” or a “Slave State”, it would
create an imbalance of power that eventually created a divide between The North and The South.
One of the first attempts to solve the confliction between The Free States and The Slave
States was “The Missouri Compromise of 1820,” This bill passed by Congress stated that there is
to be a literal line on the bottom of Missouri that extended all the way to the west of North
America. It would determine if a newly admitted territory to statehood would be a free state or a
slave state when entering The Union depending on whether it would be on the North or South
side of the line. This compromise was just a temporary solution.
By 1848 there were 15 “Free States and 15 “Slave States, this balance would eventually be
pushing for more confliction between them. The Republic Texas had just become the 15th Slave
State when it was admitted to The Union in 1845. But shortly after a war with Mexico for control
of territories in The West known as “The Mexican American War”, a treaty in 1848 called The
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo” was signed that transferred half of its territory to The Union. Once
America got all this new territory the big question came again whether the new territories would
be admitted as a “Free State”, or a “Slave State”. In 1849 California had just struck gold known
as the “Gold Rush” where thousands of people migrated to California making their population
high enough to be eligible to apply for statehood. That question came up again whether it would
be a “Free State” or a “Slave State”?
Eventually another bill was passed by Congress in an attempt to calm the conflicted states
called “The Compromise of 1850”. It was proposed by Henry Clay and its terms were California
would enter The Union as a “Free State”. New Mexico and Utah would be organized and popular
sovereignty in their own states would decide if they would be a “Free State” or “Slave State”
when they were ready to enter The Union. The Slave Trade would be abolished in Washington
D.C. The Border dispute between NM and TX would be resolved. And last a stricter Fugitive
Law would be enacted. This was a Compromise that did not last long.
Another bill in 1854 was passed called the “Kansas Nebraska Act”, It also gave popular
sovereignty to if Kansas or Nebraska would be a “Slave State” or a “Free State”. This upset the
North because it was going against the Missouri Compromise years before. Violence of slavery
dispute sprung in Kansas known as “Bleeding Kansas”. This Act also gave birth to the
Republican Party and at the time they joined the “Free Soilers” because of their reputation of
trying to stop the expansion of Slavery. Anti-Slavery activists sprung around the same time
which helped in the Underground Railroad cause and campaigned to bring awareness of the
brutality of slavery. Another problem was that the South’s economy relied primarily on slave
labor for the cotton fields which was the backbone to the southern states economy. All these
conflictions of Pro Slavery and Anti-Slavery grew and grew until finally it helped lead into The
Breakup of the Union and The Civil War.
Film Question: 2. What are some ways Savage Acts connects the issue of “race” to the conquest
of the Philippines? Why do you think the filmmakers make these connections? Explain.
The film Savage Acts portrays “Race” an account on several bases. There are parts in the
film that shows of how American society was racist against Filipino people and even going
as far as comparing them to the racism against African Americans as well. A world’s fair was
displayed different Races around the world almost like a “people zoo”. The Fair portrayed
Filipinos as a wild, barbaric, the most savage kind of people that ate dogs, which just
reflected on how American society seen them as. Even President McKinley felt they were
unfit for government and that they needed education and Christianity to do so. Roosevelt also
said Filipinos are savage and senile people that needed the balance of American ways.
After war broke out Americans even questioned how a new culture coming into America
would just add to the already problem of racism against the diverse cultures that were already
there. Some Americans even claimed Filipinos were “semi-savage people” waging war
against Angelo-Saxon order and decency, not independence. Even Soldiers who were racist
took out their violence on Filipinos because they considered them just like black people.
Eventually because of unfair treatment like lynch mobs and segregation some African
Americans aided Filipinos instead of the U.S.A. Filipinos even declared for Africans to join
them and redeem their peoples honor. But even though some blacks in America rejected the
idea because it was not patriotic and they be fighting themselves, Racist soldiers still
considered blacks “monkeys without brains” and to kill all of them whether they were allies
or not.
The film made a strong case on how “Race” was involved in the conquest of the
Philippines on how American society and government were persuaded by their own bigotry.
2. Primary Document: 1.“Petition of Committee in behalf of the Freedman to Andrew
Johnson” (1865) and A Sharecropping Contract (1866)
Why do the black petitioners believe that owning land is essential to the enjoyment of
freedom? In what ways does sharecropping contract limit the freedom of laborers?
What do these documents suggest about competing definition of black freedom in the
aftermath of slavery?
When Reading “Petition of Committee in behalf of the Freedman to Andrew Johnson” The
Committee of Freedman writes their request of Andrew Johnson to grant them the right to own
land. When stating “Shall not we who are freedman and who have always been true to this Union
have the same rights as enjoyed by others?” (Petition of Committee in behalf of the Freedman to
Andrew Johnson 1865) They express why land owning is essential to the equality of freedom
and they feel as if they are being restricted in their freedom. They also state of how they were
abused and earned the right still are restricted to land owners. This quote also supports the idea
of landowning being an essential to freedom. “Are we who have been abused and oppressed for
many long years not to be allowed the privilege of purchasing land but be subject to the will of
these large land owners? God forbid.” (Petition of Committee in behalf of the Freedman to
Andrew Johnson (1865)
Even though freemen were limited to rights of ownership, so was the freedom of
sharecroppers limited in their rights as laborers. In the document “A Sharecropping Contract”,
when stating, “We furthermore bind ourselves to and said Ross that we will do good work ten
hours a day on an average, winter and summer.” (A Sharecropping Contract 1866) I feel it’s
similar to some indentured servants in a way selling ones freedom to earn a living. Even if
laborers are sick or if it’s rainy they are subject to owe up for it that’s when the contract states,
“We further agree that we will lose all lost time, or pay at the rate of one dollar per day, rainy
days accepted. In sickness and women lying in childbed is to lose the time and account for it to
the other hands out of his or her crop.” (A Sharecropping Contract 1866)
In both these documents it shows some competing definitions of black freedom in the
aftermath of slavery. In “Petition of Committee in Behalf of the Freedman to Andrew Johnson”
It states its striving for a better condition of freedom and to be recognized when addressing,
“Land monopoly is injurious to the advancement of the course of freedom, and if government
does not make by which we as freedmen can obtain a homestead, we have not bettered our
condition…” (Petition of Committee in behalf of the Freedman to Andrew Johnson 1865) Then
in the document “A Sharecropping Contract” It shows how vulnerable some freedman were after
slavery to make a living and strive for freedom by signing into a contract that asks and takes so
much from them for just a way of gaining a profit. They were taken advantage of in some ways
because they were trying to make it as a newly freed slave they are obligated into signing this,
“We furthermore bind ourselves that we will obey the orders of said Ross in all things in
carrying out and managing said crop for said year and be docked for disobedience…and are also
responsible to said Ross if we carelessly, maliciously maltreat any of his stock for said year to
said Ross for damages to be assessed out of our wages.” (A Sharecropping Contract 1866),
finalizes a contract that is to be abided by.