The Complex Legacy of Toussaint Louverture

In the year of 1863 Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery.  This monumental change in history demonstrates his moral leadership.  In contrast, Hitler who lacked any redeeming quality, had thousands and thousands of people killed in hopes of creating a new race instead of declaring all people free and equal.  Toussaint Louverture was born in the 1740s.  As a young slave he worked as a herder, coachmen, and an overseer of fellow slaves working in the field.  He was eventually granted freedom by his owner and then decided to rent a small coffee plantation.  In 1789, Toussaint emerged as a leader during the rebellions that resulted from the white refusal to end slavery in Saint Domingue.  He encouraged slaves to fight for their freedom.  However, in 1794 France abolished all slavery in the colonies and Toussaint switched his allegiance to France.  However, when Napoleon became emperor he planned to reinstate slavery in Saint Domingue.  Toussaint switched sides yet again and lead an invasion of 21,000 French troops, but was captured and taken to France.  Ironically, Napoleon pulled his troops out of the battle, resulting in a victory for Saint Domingue.  Sadly, Saint Domingue's beloved leader was dying of pneumonia in a French jail.  Toussaint would never know that on January 1, 1804, Haiti, Saint Domingue’s new name, would become an independent nation.  Merriam-Webster defines legacy as, "something that happened in the past or that comes from someone in the past."  Toussaint Louverture should be remembered for his incredible legacy, as a liberator of slaves, ruler of Saint Domingue, and military commander.  Although Toussaint should be remembered for all of these roles, his role as a liberator of slaves is most important.

One of Louverture’s greatest roles in his lifetime was as a liberator of slaves.  In 1791, Toussaint joined the slave revolt in northern Saint Domingue (A).  He was a doctor for the troops and also commanded a small group of rebel soldiers (A).  Toussaint was on Saint Domingue's side at this time, but when France abolished slavery in its colonies, Toussaint and his troops stopped their revolt and switched their allegiance to France (A). Toussaint even went to the length of organizing an army against the British, who were nervous about the ideas of freedom spreading to their colony in Jamaica (A).  Toussaint switched his allegiance to Saint Domingue once again, when there were rumors of Napoleon reinstating slavery by France (A).  All of these actions show that Toussaint obtained and maintained the leadership goals and abilities that would allow him to fight for the abolishment of slavery.  In November 1797, Toussaint writes a letter to the French Directory.  He threatens, "We have known how to confront danger to our liberty, and we will know how to confront death to preserve it" (B).  This threat demonstrates Toussaint's loyalty to helping the slaves gain their freedom even if death is the result. This letter's main purpose is to show Toussaint's role as a liberator of slaves. Article 3, of the Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801, signed by Toussaint Louverture, states "There cannot exist slaves in this territory, servitude is therein forever abolished.  All men are born, live and die free and French" (C).  By signing this Constitution, Toussaint showed that he wanted freedom for slaves.  Toussaint’s role as a liberator of slaves should be included in his legacy because he consistently supported the side that was fighting for the abolishment of slavery throughout his entire life.

Toussaint was a liberator of slaves, but he also became the Ruler of Saint Domingue in the year 1798 (A).  As the new ruler of Saint Domingue, Toussaint had many responsibilities and expectations to withhold to in order to make his people happy.  Article 14 of the Saint Domingue Constitution states, “The colony being essentially agricultural cannot suffer the least disruptions in the works of its cultivation” (C).  By signing this Constitution, Toussaint shows he is going to make sure Saint Domingue prospers.   He knows that in order to maintain the nation’s economy, the plantations needed to be maintained, as well.  He promises that the workers on each plantation will share the revenue with their owner (C).  This promise didn’t completely satisfy the people because even though they were being paid for their labor, they were doing the same exact work as they were doing when they were slaves.  This caused revolts to break out and on November 25, 1801, Toussaint Louverture announces the “Proclamation, 25 November 1801.”  This proclamation addresses the punishments that will happen to anyone who disobeys the laws.  One of the several punishments Toussaint puts in place is, “Any manager or driver of a plantation upon which a foreign cultivator [field worker from another plantation] shall have taken refuge shall denounce him to the captain or commander of the section within 24 hours under penalty of one week in prison” (D).  This states that if an owner of a plantation does not report a refuge worker, than they will have to serve one week in prison.  All of these punishments, although harsh, show Toussaint’s determination to make sure the people of Saint Domingue follow the law.  Toussaint may have been a strict ruler, but he was also a great ruler because he always made sure Saint Domingue, would always prosper.  His great leadership skills made him a remarkable ruler, and should therefore be added to his legacy.

Toussaint was a great ruler of Saint Domingue, but he was also a very talented military commander.  In Madison Smartt Bell’s, Toussaint Louverture: A Biography, 2007, Hyacinthe Moyse’s, Toussaint’s nephew, revolt in the Northern plantations against plantation farming is discussed.  Bell writes the following about Toussaint, “he passed through the rebel zone he ordered the mutineer regiments on parade and summoned certain men to step out of the ranks and blow their brains out….Toussaint ordered Moyse’s arrest and had him confined in the fort of Port de Paix” (E).  Making rebel soldiers commit suicide in front of each other and arresting his nephew and ordering his execution by firing squad, does make Toussaint appear to be a malevolent person, but these acts, although ruthless, demonstrate his role as a strong military commander.  Toussaint knew how to direct his soldiers and utilize the right war tactics that made him an unforgettable military commander.  In The Black Man, His Antecedents, His Genius, and His Achievements, 2nd edition, by William Wells Brown, there is a section titled “A Description of Toussaint Louverture.”  This section describes Toussaint’s role as a military commander.  Brown states, “his superior knowledge of the character of his race, his humanity, generosity, and courage, had gained the confidence of all whom he had under his command” (F).  Toussaint’s commanding authority and strong will made people follow him and his orders.  Napoleon wanted to take control of Saint Domingue once again, so between December 1801 and February 1802, France invaded Saint Domingue.  Toussaint and his troops used their guerilla tactics to defeat the French (A).  Brown recounts this amazing war tactic, “Toussaint and his generals at once abandoned the towns, and betook themselves to the mountains, those citadels of freedom in St. Domingue, where the blacks have always proved too much for the whites” (F).  Toussaint and his troops burned the city, so the French would not be able to find any resources that would help them win the invasion, and then fled to the mountains where the French would have a disadvantage because they were not familiar with the territory.  Not only did Toussaint have a courageous character that made him a great military commander, he was also very smart when it came to war tactics.  Toussaint’s role as a military commander should be added to his legacy because of his smart tactical abilities and persuasive characteristics.

       

Toussaint Louverture was a remarkable man.  He grew up as a slave in his beloved Saint Domingue, and then went on to become a liberator of slaves, ruler of Saint Domingue, and a military commander.  All of these roles contribute to Toussaint’s legacy.  He moved from Saint Domingue’s side, to the French’s side, and then back to Saint Domingue’s side. Although it seems that Toussaint was inconsistent, he was actually being quite consistent because he was always fighting for the side that was for the abolishment of slavery. This shows how important his role as a liberator of slaves was in history.  Toussaint also became the ruler of Saint Domingue and governed the nation so that it would prosper, even if this meant enforcing strict laws that resulted in revolts, at times.  His legacy didn’t stop there, he was also a very skillful military commander, making decisions that may have seem ruthless at the time, but were actually very intelligent in terms of military tactics.  There is a lot to remember about Toussaint Louverture, but his role as a liberator of slaves is most important to his legacy.  This is because his entire life was focused on helping slaves gain their freedom which he accomplished.  Becoming a ruler of a nation or a military commander was never part of his plan; these roles came along to aid in and augment his key role as a liberator of slaves.  

Source:

Background Essay.

“Merriam-Webster.”  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legacy.  11/13/14.  

DocumentA.  Created from various sources.

Document B.  Toussaint Louverture, “Letter to the French Directory, November 1797.”

Document C.  The Saint Domingue Constitution 1801. Signed by Toussaint Louverture in July 1801.

Document D.  Toussaint Louverture, “Proclamation, 25 November 1801.”

Document E.  Madison Smartt Bell, Toussaint Louverture: A Biography, 2007.

Document F.  William Wells Brown, “A Description of Toussaint Louverture,” from The Black Man, His Antecedents, His Genius, and His Achievements, 2nd edition, 1863.  Engraving of Toussaint Louverture, 1802.

Revolutions Aren't Always Revolutionary

Last year we learned about the American and French Revolutions.  Most recently, in history class, we focused on several Atlantic Revolutions.  The essential question for this unit is, "Were the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded?"  We began this lesson by discussing Alexis de Tocqueville’s, who was a liberal Frenchman, comment, “We are sleeping on a volcano.  Do you not see that the Earth trembles anew?  A wind of revolution blows, the storm is on the horizon.”  We analyzed this quote on a symbolic level and classified the wind as the ideas of the liberals and nationals that were starting to be spread around and heard by people who were unhappy with conservatism. The storm in the horizon could be interpreted as the revolution.  We also connected this quote to a map that showed armies being sent in around countries in Europe trying to repress revolutions.  The liberals and nationals are walking on a sleeping volcano, and as they spread their ideas, more thoughts about starting revolutions started to spread throughout Europe.  After talking about Alexis de Tocqueville’s comment, we went on to discuss Klemens Von Metternich’s comment, “When France sneezes, Europe catches a cold.”  The sneeze that this metaphor references is the ideas that Napoleon created in France, after the revolution.  Some of these ideas were meritocracy, more available education, and the elimination of serfdom and government labels.  Napoleon spread around these ideas, “or germs”, through Europe and the Europeans agree with his ideals and caught this “cold” of revolution.  Most Historians believed that all of these revolutions were failures.  We then made a timeline of successes and failures that documented the complete success, partial success, partial failure, and complete failures.  We were then divided into groups and each given one of five different revolutions; the 1825 Decembrist Revolt, 1830 France rebellion, 1848 France rebellion, 1848 Frankfurt Assembly, and the 1848 Hungry rebellion.  In our groups, we each read background information and skimmed the primary sources on our topic in order to take notes on the country, date, goals, opponent, outcome, and reasons for a success or failure for each of our rebellions.  Then, we read our primary sources to find quotes that described the goals, opponent, and outcome of our topics and wrote sourcing information about the author.  After each group had completed their research, we then started to create a survey monkey with questions about our topic.  We then completed each group’s survey monkey to gain a general consensus about each rebellion.

This is an image of the Frankfurt Assembly.

            My group was assigned the 1848 Frankfurt Assembly.  This assembly took place in Frankfurt, Germany in the years of 1848 to 1849.  Some of the goals of the Frankfurt Assembly were to have a national unity and liberal reform.  Liberals wanted to have a constitutional Monarchy or a republic.  The goal of the rebels was squashed by the King.  It is even said in "“Between Myself and My Pope..." (1848)", “There, the king made it perfectly clear that he had no intention of allowing his God-given rule to be diminished by a piece of paper, namely a constitution.”  While Nationalists wanted a united German state.  Hence, there were two conflicting groups of reformers involved in this assembly.  Even though there were two different groups of rebels, they were both opposing the same opponent; the conservatives and King Federik William IV of Prussia.  The outcome of the Frankfurt Assembly was that the rebels went against the conservatives which resulted in many deaths and people fleeing to the United States.  People fled to the U.S. because there was a promise of a democratic government and economic opportunity in this country.  Another reason why they fled to America was because the revolt was crushed and there was no hope for reform.  These outcomes made the Frankfurt Assembly an obvious failure.  The conservatives crushed the revolt in the early stages.  In Karl Marx’s, “The Assembly at Frankfurt”, he states, “The resolution passed the day before yesterday has destroyed the Frankfurt Parliament.”  Another reason for why this assembly was a failure was because there were two groups of rebels that couldn't come up with shared goals together.  The liberals and nationalists also didn't have an army because Federik William IV sent an army to shut down the assembly.  The results of our Survey Monkey were very good, so our class now has a general foundation of what went on in the Frankfurt Assembly.

This is is a screenshot from one of our questions from my group's Survey Monkey.

To answer the essential question, I do think that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really were failures as many historians have concluded.  The Frankfurt Assembly of 1848 accomplished nothing; the two groups of rebels never came to a consensus on how to revolt against the conservatives which led, ultimately, to a failed revolt.  Worse than the Frankfurt Assembly, was the Decembrist Revolt in Russia in the year of 1825.  After Tsar Nicholas I, who preferred the military rather than politics, passed away and the rebel’s idea of assassinating was diminished, and instead of Constantine being elected as emperor, Tsar Alexander became the next Tsar.  Russians had few rights and were never granted a constitution.  When the rebels revolted Nicholas fired back and the rebels lost, continuing their life of misery.  Besides the revolts in Germany and Russia, there were other failed revolts, such as the French Revolution.  This revolution, that sparked all others to fall in place, didn't end the way the radicals had hoped.  The peasants revolted against the monarchy, but by doing so, thousands of people died.  I agree with the historians when they say that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were really failures because when you look at the majority of these rebellions, they all had flaws, rebel groups couldn't agree to unify, they had no army, they were squashed by the government, or the outcome resulted in thousands of deaths. 

Sources:

Background Information.

“”Between Myself and My People…” (1848).” 

“Speech to the Frankfurt Assembly, 1848.”  Johann Gustav Droysen.

“The Assembly at Frankfurt.”  Karl Marx.  November 22.

“Friedrich Wilhelm IV, King of Prussia: Proclamation of 1849.”

“The German Fatherland.”  Ernst Moritz.

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.