Congress of Intervention

           This week, we learned about the Congress of Vienna. We explored what people should do when their power is threatened. We also looked at a series of problems and decided which solution Klemes Von Metternich (http://www.edline.net/files/_5TIQ1_/9db0e841f87ecf833745a49013852ec4/Unit_2_Activity_3_CongressofViennaProblems.pdf  problems link) would choose. Metternich was a conservative who commanded Napoleon to restore old boundaries and give up his conquest and if they don't Austria will declare war. After we predicted the resolutions that Metternich would be in favor of, we revealed what really happened and why. We looked at a Balance of Power, Principle of Legitimacy, Holy Alliance and Principle of Intervention.

           The Principle of Intervention was a reaction of European powers when they defeated the threat of Napoleon. Metternich and other members of the Congress of Vienna used this to send troops into a country to stop revolution and restore monarchy. England was an exception because they chose not to take part in the intervention. In the 1820's, Austria crushed an Italian uprising. The uprising was caused by the Italians because they wanted one big, strong country rather than small separate states. Also in the 1820's, there was a meeting to decide what to do about revolutions in the Spanish colonies and against the Spanish king. Louis XVII sent an army to crush the uprising in Spain. The Congress of Vienna impacted Europe in a big way. There was no war between countries until 1853, almost 40 years. However, there were numerous revolutions that could not be contained including the revolutions of 1848 in which Metternich lost power and was forced to flee Vienna. 

          I believe that the Congress of Vienna made a good choice by using the Principle of Intervention. Without this important idea there would have been many more wars and deaths. There was no better way except creating peace will all of the countries and not having to intervene. The powerful need to sacrifice themselves to show everyone that they are making decisions for the greater good and not themselves. 
         

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Basler04/CV

The "ide(a)" ology of Conservatism, Liberalism and Nationalism

This week in class we discussed, what the major political ideologies of the 19th century and how they influenced social and political action. In 6 groups, two for each ideology, we made one minute videos or presentations. As a class we voted on which groups video was best for conservatism, liberalism, and nationalism. 

 My group had conservatism as our ideology. We made a common craft style video. We explained that conservatives liked things to be traditional. They believed that monarchy works. They also believed that if something is going wrong look at worked in the past and take ideas from that. Conservatism influenced social action by not believing in innovation and reform. New ideas weren't welcome and the people suffered. It influenced political actions when they support monarchy. 

Some people, like liberalists, didn't believe in monarchy. Conservatives believed that when things happen in order to upset tradition, chaos is caused and everything falls apart. 

Liberalism was the belief that the task of the government was to promote individual liberty. They viewed tradition as an obstacle to freedom so they argued in favor of reform. The also believed in God given natural rights. Liberalism impacted social action and political action by supporting meritocracy. Meritocracy, or the system where people are rewarded on their merit and not their social class, changed the way people thought about liberalism. It made for a new way of government. Nationalism is the bringing together of nations through shared language, customs and history. Nationalists believe in natural boundaries, shared cultural traits, and a historical destiny to fulfill. Nationalism influenced political and social action by being an ally with liberalism. This way a lot of people are in favor of new things and have a bigger outlook than the conservatives. 

Tired of the Tyrant

   In class this week we learned about Napoleon. We watched a video about him and took notes on all the places he took over. Then we read two peoples view on Napoleon. These people were Madame de Staël, a writer who opposed Napoleon, and Marshall Michel Ney, one of Napoleon's officers. We also looked at a series of statements about Napoleon and decided whether it relates to the world or France. Using all these sources we could answer the question, "What was Napoleon's impact on the social, economic, and political systems of Europe?”

         Many people believed that Napoleon was a great military leader, they even go as far as to say that he was a genius. Others say that Napoleon was a tyrant and they hated him. Napoleon did many good things to France but also some bad things. Napoleon's economic impact was positive for France. The French control trade routes and the roads and canals are good economy boosters. Also, Napoleon looted money from Italy which improved Frances economy. The people who respected Napoleon's positive economic changes and support Napoleon, like P.C. Headley, said "Napoleon was great -- intellectually towering above the princes and monarchs of many generations." He believed that Napoleon was greater and stronger than any monarch in the past. Napoleon also made positive changes to the political system in France.He overthrew the directory, which was disliked by the French. Marshal Michel Ney said, “ the times are gone when the people were governed by suppressing their rights.” The directory was the government in France which Napoleon got rid of because the people disliked it. Napoleon also had a positive effect on the social system of France. Napoleon’s rule gave people more rights to property and education. He created a system of meritocracy, which rewarded people by their skills not their social class. As much as Napoleon contributed positively to French society, he did make some negative impacts as well. According to Madame de Stael, “virtue, dignity, religion, enthusiasm; in his eyes they are the ‘eternal enemies of the continent’”. She doesn’t believe that Napoleon has any moral values. She sees him as a ruthless tyrant.

Many of the historians that were mentioned in the Lost Voices of Napoleon article believed that Napoleon was both good and bad for France. I agree with them. Ida M Tarbell said, ‘“yet he lacked the crown of greatness -- that high wisdom born of reflection and introspection which knows its own powers and limitations, and never abuses them; that fine sense of proportion which holds the rights of others in the same solemn reverence which it demands for its own."’ She believed that Napoleon was one of the greatest military leaders ever, but he was a tyrant. Napoleon had a big effect on France.

Government makes a Marx (mark)

          This week in class we were learning about capitalism, socialism, and communism. We did an activity to demonstrate what it feels like to live in a communist society and to live in a capitalist society. Each student was handed three chocolates, except for two people who were handed 10 chocolates, they represented the rich people of the community. The chocolate represented ourl money. Next, everyone went around the room playing "Rock, Paper, Scissors, Shoot!" and giving away a piece of chocolate when you lost. This round of games was to represent capitalism. Each person had private ownership and freedom of competition to do what they want with their candy. In the end, some people had no chocolate, they were poor,  the proletariat group. Others had a plethora of chocolate and were the upper class, the  bourgeoise. Next, our teacher collected all our candy, like the government collecting our money. She redistributes the candy equally giving each person three chocolates. This caused a problem with the rich because the government took their money and just gave it away. However the poor loves this because they got money without having to work for it. This part of the activity represented socialism and communism. This activist was both fun and frustrating. At first, it was fun to gamble and play "Rock, Paper, Scissors, Shoot!" when you could end up with a ton of candy. After the redistribution, no one wanted to play because they didn't want to risk losing the only 3 chocolates they got. It was frustrating losing money, chocolate, and getting it taken away in the end. 

          Both Marx and Smith had very different ideas on how their systems would help the poor. Marx believed that his government of Capitalism, Socialism then Communism would help the poor by even distrbuting money to all of the people therefore eliminating social classes. Marx thought that by having a classless society everyone will be happy because they are all equal with no competition. Smiths theory of the "Invisible Hand",( video link  http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ulyVXa-u4wE&feature=youtu.be )helps the poor in the way that he thought that the flourishing of the market would make lower prices and the poor would be able to buy lower priced, high quality items. He thought his theory would allow poor people to have more options.

          I believe that the "Invisible Hand" is the better theory. It allows the people who worked hard to keep the money they deserve while the people who work hard but can't make money can also find a way to get a higher income. The third theory of government is Capitalism, like what we have in the present. There are class distinctions but everyone has equal opportunities to make money based on their effort. 

          

Not so Great Britain

           In Great Britian and Lowell Massachusetts, the factory workers working in harsh conditions. Some conditions being worse than others, causing illness, limb loss or even death. These awful conditions made life during the industrial revolution very hard.
         
           Mill workers had to endure terrible conditions in the factories. Some conditions include dirty air. While working in cotton factories, many pieces of cotton fiber circulate in the air. Sadly, it is inevitable but to breathe in some of those small fibers. After breathing in so many fibers people contract a disease called bisinossis, which is a condition where your lungs don't function properly due to cotton fibers in them. Another condition workers had to endure was the dangerous machinery. Since the majority of workers were women, they had to pay careful attention to their hair. If they got their hair caught in a machine, they would get pulled up and killed. When we had our Google video museum tour, Jamie explained these dangers to us. In document D of the DBQ it says, "; he beats the little children if they do not do their work right... I have sometimes seen the little children drop asleep or so, but not lately." They treat children horribly too. 

          As awful as these conditions are in both places, England and Lowell, the conditions in Great Britain are far worse than the conditions in Lowell. In Lowell, the mill workers lived in boarding houses. They were given Sunday's off from work and they weren't beat, as it said in "Daughters of Free Men." In Britain, the girls didn't live in boarding houses. Young children were beat whenever they didn't do their work. They were also rarely given breaks. The conditions were worse in England because the U.S. didn't have an abundant supply of cheap labor like England (land was plentiful, most families could move west to purchase more). Also, the lack of workers made industrialists look to change the perception of manufacturing.