Don't Make the Wrong Decision Twice

After studying ideologies in history class, we moved on to a new topic; the Congress of Vienna.  The essential question that we have been challenged to answer is, “What should people in power do when their power is threatened?”  In our designated groups we read the background essay that discussed the Congress of Vienna, titled “The Congress of Vienna: Decision Making Process.”  We then discussed, as a group, what we obtained from this reading following the provided guidelines.  Afterwards, we watched a short excerpt of a video that included a scene where Klemens Von Metternich tried to persuade Napoleon to stop his army from going to war which Napoleon refuses to do.  After watching the video and answering questions, we then took notes on the three problems that the Congress of Vienna had to address.

               

This is a painting of the Congress of Vienna.

  One of the three problems that the Congress of Vienna had to resolve was to decide who would replace Napoleon and rule France.  The Congress wanted to return France to a traditional monarchy and follow conservative values.  They assigned Louis XVIII to be the new king of France.  The principle that guided the Congress into making this decision was the principle of legitimacy, which restored lawful monarchs.  Monarchs were chosen from royal families, instead of by force which was how Napoleon became emperor.  Making France a monarchy was punishment enough following Napoleon, so to ensure that there would be no revolutions in France, the Congress of Vienna made France a constitutional monarchy.  This form of monarchy gave limited rights to the people of France, along with protection also.  These rights stated that all Frenchmen are equal before the law, no matter what their title or social status.  However, even though everyone, generally, had the same rights, people coming from a higher social status had more power with their rights.  In addition, to make sure that there would be no religious turmoil in this new monarchy, as there had been in the past with the Huguenots, the Congress made revisions in religious tolerance.  This new revision stated that everyone may profess their religion with equal freedom and shall be allowed to worship their religion under protection.  Using the principle of legitimacy, the Congress of Vienna was able to find a solution to who would rule France.

  

            

This is a portrait of the king of Austria, Metternich.

  Although the five powers, which included France, Prussia, Russia, Austria, and Great Britain, did not break out in war with each other for the next forty years, I don’t think that the Congress of Vienna made the best decision when deciding who should rule France after Napoleon and how the country should be ruled.  The French Revolution was an “Atlantic” Revolution that created many of Europe’s problems.  The monarchy lived in outlandish luxury while the citizens lived in squalor.  Why would the Congress of Vienna want to reestablish a system that would result in their current economic and social problems?  I understand that because the five powers, especially Metternich, were following the ideology of conservatism, which stated that monarchy should be the governing system, and that the five powers wanted to punish France in some way, but it was not wise to reestablish a monarchy in France.  Instead, I think the Congress of Vienna should have devised a different government system in France, similar to a democracy or a republic.  That way, the citizens of France would have had their own say in government choices and would not have tumbled down into another dark tunnel that resulted in yet another revolution.  Instead of worrying about maintaining a conservatism standpoint in France, the Congress of Vienna should have been more concerned in creating a government system that would not lead to another revolution in France.

Conflicts in Philosophies

Most recently in history, we started a new unit about ideologies.  We focused on three; conservatism, liberalism, and nationalism.  The essential question that we focused on answering was, "What were the major political ideologies of the 19th century and how did they influence social and political action?"  The first activity that we did in class was developing our own definitions for each ideology.  After we came up with own definitions, we then discussed them as a class, and then fine-tuned our definitions.  Afterwards, were then split into six different groups and each group was given either conservatism, liberalism, or nationalism to further study.  My group received conservatism.  Each group then read about their specific ideology and created a one minute video that were presented to the class.  After both groups for the same ideology presented, we as a class came up with our own definitions for that ideology.  After the presentations were complete, we then voted on the best video for each category; my group won for conservatism.  I feel that by completing this project and listening and watching the other groups present, I gained a better understanding of conservatism, liberalism, and nationalism.

My group was assigned the ideology, conservatism and we decided to make a common craft for our presentation.  After reading the document on this topic, we defined conservatism as keeping the traditional political structures such as the church, education, and government system.  To better explain this definition we included pictures of a church, books, pencil, and a king.  Conservatives wanted to preserve the traditional political systems because they were time tested.  We included a Christmas tree, to make a connection between family's traditions during the holidays and conservatives beliefs that tradition should be resorted.  Conservatives wanted to keep the original system of monarchy, but many citizens were against this and wanted a revolution.  However, after the devastation of the French Revolution, reform did not appeal to conservatives.  During this part of our video we included a king and many citizens beneath him to show the social ladder in a monarchy; the king has the most power while citizens are ignored.  Most conservatives came from aristocracy and to demonstrate this we drew a social pyramid.  Conservatives took action on social systems by wanting to recreate the monarchy and promote education.  They took action upon political systems in the 19th century by allowing the church to have direct influence in the government.

This is a screenshot from a part in our common craft video.  At this point in the video we are discussing how conservatives wanted to restore the monarchy; hence why we drew a king.

After watching the groups that were assigned liberalism present their project, we as class defined this ideology.  Our definition for liberalism was when the middle class tells the monarchy to listen to what they have to say.  Liberals promoted what was best for the majority of the nation.  Although liberalism had probably the most open view out of the three ideologies, it did not include the poor or women.  Liberals took action on social systems by giving power to the middle class.  They took action upon political systems in the 19th century by promoting reform and encouraging the possibility of revolution; which would drastically change the government.  We then watched the videos that covered Nationalism and created a definition.  We defined Nationalism as when people in smaller counties unite to be the best nation possible.  People were bound together by shared language, culture, and history.  Nationals took action upon the social systems in the 19th century by wanting to combine countries together and took action upon political systems by sometimes declaring war against larger countries to hopefully gain more power.  Each of the three ideologies that we studied, which were conservatism, liberalism, and nationalism, all are very different approaches on how to run the government, but they had one thing in common; they all believed that their philosophy was the most logical.

Bonaparte's Footprint

This is a picture of the brilliant military leader, Napoleon Bonaparte.

We recently learned about the great general, Napoleon Bonaparte in history class.  The essential question that we asked ourselves, throughout this unit was, “What was Napoleon’s impact on the social, economic, and political systems of Europe?”  We first watched a fast-paced video on Napoleon’s life which conveyed some background information.  Although Napoleon was said to be one of the best generals of all time, not everyone liked him.  To understand why, we read an article about different views on Napoleon.  Madam de Stael did not like him, while Marshal Michel Ney was devoted to him.  Napoleon had a complex life and made many positive economic, social, and political changes in France during his time, but greatly influenced the rest of the world, as well.  To better understand his various accomplishments, we read and marked up a document showing us what he accomplished in France and in the world.  In addition, we studied a map of Europe, as well as, the rest of the world, to see which countries Napoleon had conquered or was allied with. 

Napoleon Bonaparte is considered, in most minds, the most respected and tactful general in history.  He ruled France for many years and was sometimes regarded as a tyrant.  Napoleon had an immense impact on the social, economic, and political systems of Europe after he died.  He impacted the social systems of Europe in a very positive way.  It is recorded that under Napoleon, more citizens were able to have an education and rights to property.  This was a large improvement compared to Europe before he came to power.  In the article, "The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians", that we read, one of the book’s that was mentioned called, The First Napoleon: A Sketch, Political, and Military by John C. Ropes, describes Napoleon as having “devotion to the public service, his enlightened views of government and legislation, his humanity.”  Although some may call Napoleon a tyrant, he was devoted to the people of France, and that is reflected in the improvements that he made in education and property availability he gave to his citizens.  Besides impacting the social system of Europe, Napoleon also left an imprint on the political systems of Europe by establishing a system of meritocracy.  This new political system allowed people to be rewarded based on their talents and skills, rather than their social standing.  Marshal Michel Ney, who was one of Napoleon’s soldiers, proclaims the following about Napoleon, “The times are gone when the people were governed by suppressing their rights.  Liberty triumphs in the end, and Napoleon, our august emperor, comes to confirm it.”  Napoleon governed France so people gained greater liberty, which made many citizens allied with him.  Besides forming alliances with people, Napoleon was also forming alliances with countries, including Austria and Prussia.  Napoleon conquered most of Europe; including Spain, Switzerland, the Kingdom of Denmark and Norway, and the Kingdom of Italy.  Napoleon conquered most of Europe, except Britain, and slowly started to create and govern his broadening empire.  As Napoleon conquered Europe and left behind a huge footprint on the political systems of Europe, he impacted the economic systems of Europe, as well.  Napoleon restored economic prosperity by controlling prices, encouraging new industry, and building roads and canals.  He also established the Bank of France.  Napoleon worked hard to balance France’s budget, while undertaking massive work programs and simultaneously left a positive impact on the economic systems of Europe.  Even though he brought back to France, during the French Revolution, precious artwork and large sums of money from Italy unlawfully, perhaps, it does show us that Napoleon was willing to do almost anything to help his growing empire prosper.

This is a picture of one of Napoleon’s many, devoted soldiers, Marshal Michel Ney.

             I believe that Napoleon Bonaparte was a great and highly influential ruler that left a substantial and beneficial impact on the social, economic, and political systems of Europe.  I think that he left a positive impact on all three of these systems by structuring each one which helped much of Europe rise to a heightened level of development.  Although Napoleon did do some untrustworthy things in his life; no one can question the devotion he had to his country and the accomplishments he made to help his country thrive.

Governing to Help Society

In Monday’s class we completed a fun activity.  Our teacher handed out Hershey kisses to each student.  Most students only received two Hershey kisses, but two students were given eight Hershey kisses.  We then played many rounds of the game, Rock Paper Scissors, to try and win as many Hershey kisses, as possible.  If you won a game, the opposing student would have to give the winner one of their Hershey kisses.  If, you ran out of Hershey kisses, you had to sit down.  This was stage one.  Our teacher then collected all the Hershey kisses from everyone and redistributed two Hershey kisses to each student; this was stage two.  Our teacher then asked if we would risk it all and play Rock Paper Scissors again in order to obtain more Hershey Kisses; most students said that they would not risk it, myself included.  This activity was meant to show us that stage one represented Capitalism, stage two represented Socialism, and stage three represented Communism.  This activity also showed us how each type of society, oftentimes, went from one form of government to the next.  I found this activity a lot of fun and quite entertaining because we had to physically do something in order to understand a concept.  However, this activity was also frustrating because it was annoying when some students received more Hershey kisses and when I had to sit down because I ran out of Hershey kisses and therefore no longer play the game. 

This is a picture of Karl Marx.

 Karl Marx and Adam Smith both wanted to help the poor, but they came up with two very different approaches to accomplish this goal.  Karl Marx believed that the poor would essentially help themselves by transitioning between the three different states of Capitalism, Socialism, and finally Communism.  Marx created the theory that the poor people of the Industrial Revolution would revolt against the government and thus form socialism which would eventually develope into communism; this process is called Marxism.  Marx defined Capitalism as the private ownership of industry where there was freedom competitive freedom.  However, this system was flawed because it resulted in unequal economic classes where some people would “win”, labeled as the bourgeoisie, while other people would “lose”, who were labeled as the “proletariat.”  Capitalism caused there to be a class struggle which led workers to   revolt.  However, Marx then said that Socialism should replace Capitalism.  He defined Socialism as when a government has ownership of industry.  Marx said that the goal of Socialism is to bring economic equality and to aim for a classless society so that there will no longer be a class struggle like there is in Capitalism.  After Socialism, Marx then said that the majority of society would no longer crave competition which created divisions between rich and poor.  Since most people would want this, they would do anything to achieve it, even if it meant violence.   Once this was achieved they would transition into Communism.  Marx defined Communism as when a classless society is reached and no government is needed anymore.  Karl Marx also created the Communist Manifesto.  Unlike Socialism or Capitalism, there is no longer any government involvement in society when Communism is reached.  So, poor people have essentially helped themselves and fixed their society to accommodate their needs, as well.  Very different than Marx, AdamSmith devised a new way in which to help the poor.  Smith created the “invisible hand.”  As we learned in the video that we watched in class, about the invisible hand, it helps encourage people to do their own thing.  The invisible hand is Adam Smith's version of Capitalism, which is similar to Marx's version of Capitalism.  The invisible hand creates competition between companies.  It helps a particular company see that an opposing company has lowered their prices to be more competitive and therefore, more people will come to that company to buy items instead.  The other company will then lower their prices to hopefully gain back customers.  This will result in people being able to buy everything they need, no matter what their social status.  Adam Smith also discovered that the way to help the poor is to have free trade and market.  If companies realize that their consumers are also their employees, but they aren't paying their employees enough to buy their goods, they will have to increase their pay in order to pay for the goods.

This is a picture of Adam Smith.

           

   In this image we see that there is an invisible hand holding up two fingers beside a salesman’s back to most likely encourage the costumer to ask for a low and reasonable price that she can afford.

                I think that Adam Smith’s theory is better than Karl Marx’s theory.  This is because I strongly believe that creating a free trade and market would make the lives of the poor a lot better.  If trading and marketing products were openly competitive, the poor would be able to obtain goods that they need to survive without having to struggle with the fee.  I also agree with the other side of Smith’s theory, that if companies acknowledge that they need to increase their employees pay in order to increase consumers, it would really help the poor, even if it took a while to really change the economic status of the poor in society.  I think Adam Smith’s theory on how to help the poor really focuses on the poor, and not the society as a whole like Marx’s theory, because poor citizens are the ones that need the most attention.

A Life Changing Decision

After the Industrial Revolution started, factories and mills began to be built everywhere.  And with every factory, there came employee openings that needed to be filled.  Boys were needed home to work on the farms, so girls were targeted more often to work at the mills.  In addition, owners of the factories didn't have to pay the girls as much money as they would have if they hired boys which was fiscally advantageous.  Girls were said to be more obedient than boys, which was another characteristic that attracted owners to recruit girls.  There was a lot of motivation for woman to go to work in the Lowell mills.  First, if girls went to work at the mills, they could help out their families with needed money.  This was a tremendous influence in Lucy’s decision to go to work in the Lowell Mills as we saw in the video, Daughters of Free Men.  Girls were also motivated to go to the Lowell mills because they could earn their own money, buy clothes and other luxury items, and they would be more independent.  Other benefits for girls were having more freedom, growing up and becoming an adult, meeting new people, making new friends, experiencing new things, and receiving an education.

     

         

As seen in this poster which depicts jobs being advertised at the Lowell Mills, the mills are depicted as clean and health places to send your daughters.  Natural landscape surrounds the mills and a girl is walking out of the mill carrying books and bags showing that she has time to gain an education and do other activities besides work.  These are all benefits that families and girls saw in going to the Lowell mills.

 Although there were a lot of benefits for girls to go to the Lowell Mills, there were also a lot of costs that came with the job.  Some costs were having to leave your family, the possibility of wage cuts and then not making enough money, and having to follow the strict rules that were enforced at the mills.  Also, the unhealthy and dangerous conditions were a high price to pay.  A girl’s long hair could get stuck in a machine and be pulled out or be scalped.  Factory accidents could lead to fatal injuries or death, the air in the mills was polluted, the machines were noisy which could affect your hearing, and the girls became malnourished due to the lack of proper nutrition.  Another huge cost was the possibility of being fired from your job and being blacklisted, which could stop you from obtaining another job in the future.

                These new opportunities for women and restrictions on their working lives reflects attitudes towards women during the 1800s.  The mill girls changed the perceptions of women.  Women were no longer restricted to only working at home because mill girls were good girls and society didn't look down upon them.  Before, if a woman worked outside of her home, she was looked down upon by society.  The mill girls broke this perception that if a girl were to leave her family it would be wrong.  Women were now perceived as educated citizens that were part of the working society.    Ultimately, some girls chose to not go back to the farm because it seemed wrong.  These women became activists and wrote about women’s rights and became involved in social movements.  Women now worked just as hard as men and people were starting to change their attitudes toward them and respect them more.