<p>nice, nice. </p>
<p>I still remember reading the DBQ question and like totally having an “oh crap moment”</p>
<p>Then, I was like, wait, this is actually a pretty easy dbq…much better than one on populism! YESSS. and then i proceeded to list all my cds :P</p>
<p>I really think Part C was the hardest…Minority Groups during WWII or Labor Unions during the Gilded Age…</p>
<p>What did everyone pick?</p>
<p>I did 1 (obviously) 2 and 5</p>
<p>well if you misinterpreted one part comepletely i belive you can’t socre higher than a 4 on the essay, and that’s assuming the other is perfect</p>
<p>penguinboy - yeah, I used Adam-Onis Treaty for the slavery one too. The reasons why the institution expanded were easy: expansion of southern land where slavery is legal and where the land is good for production of cash crops. I also used the invention of the cotton gin (that’s what your textile industry thing was right?) to show how the cotton industry exploded. The problem was that all that evidence was only supported by one document - the one showing the Louissianna Purchase. All the other documents were kind of stupid.</p>
<p>And then, for “reasons why slaves were freed” I did the typical BS answers: underground railroad, a lax/nonexistant fugitive slave act, slaves had a strong moral cause to free themselves or whatever…</p>
<p>I’m curious: on the DBQ, did ANYONE feel like they had really good solid reasons for the second part of the question, why many slaves became free? (Because honestly, I didn’t even think that that was true…)</p>
<p>Edit: lawlroy - the Eerie Canal has absolutely nothing to do with the DBQ…</p>
<p>well, i’m pretty sure i got 70+ mc right, and estimating a 5-6 on dbq, 7-8 on essay 2, and 5-6 on essay 5, i should get a 5.</p>
<p>used some Crash Course stuff for that like manumission from Rev. War, slaveholders’ wills, natural increase, individual states’ legislation</p>
<p>Did anyone do the labor unions one? I basically rewrote the page from Rea’s CC lol. How much deeper did unions get than that?</p>
<p>why not? it’s an example of the transportation revolution, linked to western expansion</p>
<p>So here’s what I did:</p>
<p>DBQ - I opened up talking about how slavery started in the Americas with the Dutch traders and how it proliferated after that into the differing colonies. Then I talk about how there was different amounts of slavery depending on the environment, etc, and how there was definitive shifts within the period of 1775-1830 due to both political and social factors of the time.</p>
<p>My specific thesis concerns how the Great Awakening + Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (Republican ideology?) effected both the density of slavery in America and how African Americans reacted to their respective conditions.</p>
<p>First I have a few paragraphs on how “All Men Are Created Equal” was taken literally at times in the north (some did free the slaves after the Revolutionary war, since they made a counterpromise when the British promised to free slaves who fought for them). I talk about how some people in the North also become abolitionists due to that concept and fought for freedom because they took Jefferson’s words literally.</p>
<p>I explain that the South was not as involved in the Revolutionary war, and as such, their tendency to follow Jefferson’s advice is much smaller.</p>
<p>Then I talk about how Religion had taught the African Americans about freedom–the Israelites had once been slaves too, but they were freed, through faith in God. The blacks continued following these traditions and spread them through Churches and the Bible.</p>
<p>I also wrote how those who took the Bible seriously shared this view and thus became reformers/abolitionists.</p>
<p>Following this, I explained what the reactions of the blacks were. Some advocated peaceful abolition working with the whites (which was a doc), others felt like using colonization, and finally others wanted to incite violent rebellion. I argued that this was due to the differing areas that they came form–in the north, due to more of the Great Awakening and religion, along with more whites who helped them, they didn’t want to resort to violence. I used the document explaining that Boston’s reaction to blacks had gone from horrible to better over the years.</p>
<p>Then I explained that in the South conditions were so much worse–there was little ability to actually convene into Churches because of the system of internal ‘slave trading’ in the south, which divided families, plus the stringent word days/hours unique to Plantations. I explained how the horrendous conditions in the South amounted to this.</p>
<p>Still, I noted that religion did have an impact in the South, not that it didn’t, but the impact was only negative–Prosser’s rebellion viewed the Bible’s message as one of violent liberation, evening say that the Bible found it dangerous to “delay.”</p>
<p>Then I concluded it all, saying that the differing slave densities was due to the Great Awakening + Jefferson’s “Republicanism” in the Declaration of Independence, and the differing environment and scenarios that slaves encountered in the North/South incited different responses.</p>
<p>Edit: I obviously made note of a lot of other minor things that do answer questions in this thread, but I didnt’ think they were significant enough to note in this post, lol. This is just a general outline of my DBQ.</p>
<p>McGoogly- Do you mean the part of the question how slavery wasn’t spreading at the same time it was (for lack of remembering the exact phrase)?
For that I first pointed out it was the North where slavery was deteriorating. The North had no use for slavery. The North wasn’t good for cotton or tobacco. $1000 a slave wasn’t profitable in factories and was a hefty price for a servant around the house. Instead the North had wage-slaves. There was increased sectionalism which caused a rift between the North and South causing the North to dislike Slavey even more. Can’t remember what else.</p>
<p>Oh and the North were more sympathetic to slaves because they liked the black race as a whole but not the individual</p>
<p>Could you have mentioned the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri Compromise for the DBQ?</p>
<p>yes those were good to mention</p>
<p>I didn’t mention the Northwest Ordinance, but I definitely mentioned the MO Compromise. I should have mentioned the LA Purchase too, but oh well.</p>
<p>i cited Compromise of 1820 aka Missouri Compromise for why slavery kept on growing but in the south…and disappearing in the north…</p>
<p>also the cotton gin was invented increasing slave labor</p>
<p>afsdfashgfdsa AGDADGA</p>
<p>What about the town-plan one? Which era and location was that?</p>
<p>that was new england for sure…idk wat it was something to do with puritans</p>
<p>The swamp threw me off, i was thinking virginia</p>
<p>It’s been said like 50 times…</p>
<p>Don’t talk about the MC.</p>
<p>Wait really? I thought that after 48 hours you can discuss the MC? (Please correct me if I’m wrong…)</p>
<p>lawlroy - the Eerie Canal increased trade between the midwest and the north. It increased the importance of the towns of Chicago and New York City. And it was good for the corn, grain, and cattle (and thus meatpacking) trade. The Midwesterners didn’t grow tobacco or cotton, so I didn’t think the Eerie Canal affected those industries at all. And the industries I just described that benefited didn’t rely on any slave labor I don’t think. So basically, the Eerie Canal helped the Midwest economy but not the southern economy. A more appropriate example might be the National Road, although I don’t think that existed that far south either (but still, it started in Washington so at least that’s further south than NY state), idk.</p>
<p>rk33 - I think the question was like in the given time period, “many slaves were freed yet the institution of slavery grew.” I know that the words “institution” and “freed” were definitely in there. I was wondering how everyone did the “many slaves were freed” part (especially when I don’t even think this was really the case).</p>
<p>Edit: like for example, RedCatharsis - maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see much in your outline of you talking about how the institution of slavery increased?</p>
<p>Personally, I split my essay into two parts. The first was why the institution of slavery grew. This was divided into one paragraph about the pro-slave peeps being secure in their moral righteousness (bs), and the next paragraph about Southern land increasing and the economy for slaves increasing.
My second half of the essay was on why slaves were freed. First paragraph on how they had a morally strong cause and thus were united and fought vigorously for their freedom (bs), and second paragraph on how they had a variety of means of becoming free, such as paying for their freedom, escaping and some others.
I tried to tell a little of how both slaves and freed blacks “responded” to such events in each paragraph. meh</p>
<p>slaves were freed after the war…they were let go for like service in the war i think</p>