L'Ouverture DBQ

 Adolf Hitler could be classified as the worst leader in the world. He discriminated against Jewish people, he killed many innocent people and ordered his army to fight in World War II. These bad leadership skills ultimately led to Hitler's downfall. Toussaint L'Ouverture did not use the same leadership skills that Hitler did so L'Ouverture was a better leader. L'Ouverture did lead his troops to war, however, it was not for selfish reasons. He took many risks to abolish slavery in Saint Domingue. As the ruler of Saint Domingue, he instituted many rules to make his country a safe and economically stable place. With all the things L'Ouverture did for Saint Domingue, he should be remembered as, most importantly, a liberator of slaves. His achievements as a military commander, and as a ruler of Saint Domingue should be remembered also.

         Toussaint L'Ouverture's main goal was to free the slaves of Saint Domingue. The "Timeline of Abolition in Saint Domingue" (document a) shows L'Ouverture's efforts to end slavery and why. In 1789, the French Revolution, specifically the Declaration of Rights of Man, triggered the slave revolution in Saint Domingue. In 1790, the free men of color in Saint Domingue proclaimed the,selves as citizens of France. The slaves heard this and they wanted to be given rights too. The slave revolt lasts 3 years until 1794 when slavery is abolished by Robespierre if the slave revolt ends and L'Ouverture fights with the French.  In 1797, L'Ouverture wrote a letter to the French Directory.  He wrote it to persuade the French Directory not to reinstate slavery. He tries to tell them that the slaves will revolt if slavery is brought back because the slaves already know what it is like to be free and they don’t want to lose that. In the letter he says “ Could men who have once enjoyed the benefits of liberty look on calmly while it is taken from them!” (Document B).  L’Ouverture was willing to address a major political power to keep Saint Domingue slave free. In 1801 L’Ouverture created the Saint Domingue Constitution. He stated that there would be no slavery and all men are free. The constitution states “There cannot exist slaves in this territory, servitude is therein forever abolished. All men are born, live and die free and French.” (document c). All of L’Ouverture’s goals as an abolitionist are present in his work as a ruler. Toussaint L’Ouverture should most importantly be remembered as a liberator of slaves because he was willing to do anything to abolish slavery, including, working with the enemy, threatening major political powers and ruling Saint Domingue.

    Toussaint L’Overture can also be remembered as a military commander. All of his military achievements had the same common goal, abolishing slavery and maintaining a safe and well organized nation. In 1801, L’Ouverture’s nephew, Hyacinthe Moyse, organized a rebellion against L’Ouverture. Moyse liked the idea of small holdings rather than large plantations, unlike his uncle. Moyse and his men rebel, saying “General Moyse is with us- death to all whites”( Toussaint L’Ouverture; A Biography[ document e]). L’Ouverture had no choice. He had to gather the rebels and execute them before they killed more innocent people. Toussaint also had to kill his nephew. This shows that L’Overture can put aside his feelings and relationships to get his job done. In the secondary source called  A Description of Toussaint L’Ouverture , L’Ouverture was described as generous, courageous and humane. These qualities helped L’Ouverture gain his soldiers respect and confidence. As a military leader, he did many good things. William Wells Brown, the author of the source, says “Toussaint levied fresh forces, raised the reputation of the army, and drove the English and Spanish from the island....” (document f). Toussaint should be remembered for his smart military tactics, his protective nature and his inspirational military ideas.

    Lastly, Toussaint L’Ouverture should be remembered as a ruler of Saint Domingue. In the Constitution of Saint Domingue, L’Ouverture made new laws and rules based on the economy of Saint Domingue. He encourage agricultural work where each cultivator was entitled to profits. When he signed the constitution, he made himself the ruler of Saint Domingue for the rest of his life. In 1801, four months after the constitution, L’Ouverture made a proclamation to establish rules and to control people who aren’t doing their jobs. He instituted punishments too, including “ punishing by the conformity with the law, getting arrested, and spending one week in jail.” ( Document d) Again, he acts as a ruler by enforcing laws and punishments.

    Toussaint L’Ouverture should be remembered as a hero for Haitian people. Most importantly he

should be remembered as a liberator of slaves, someone who would do anything to achieve his goal.

Secondly, he should be remembered as a military commander, someone who puts their feelings aside

to do what is best for their country. Lastly, he should be remembered as a ruler of Saint Domingue,

someone who enforces rules to better their country. Without L’Ouverture’s help Haiti would be a

very different place today.  

Revolt Monkey

         Recently in class, we studied the revolutions of 1830 and 1848. We broke the class up into 5 groups, by revolt, and each made a survey monkey asking 10-12 questions about each revolt. After we created the surveys, everyone in the class took them, using documents about the revolts to help us. Then as a class we went over the results of the surveys. The last question of everyone's surveys was something along the lines of, " Would you rate this revolution as a success, minor success, neutral, minor failure, or complete failure?" The last question answered the essential question which was, " Were the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have conduced?" 

          The revolution that my group studied was the Decembrist Revolt. After Tsar Alexander of Russia dies, there was confusion over who should take the throne. Constantine refused the throne leaving Tsar Nicholas to step up. The people of Russia wanted constitutional change, an end to serfdom and poverty and to remove Nicholas from the throne. The people wanted Constantine to be the Tsar, Tsar Nicholas said, "I approached them, wanting to stop the men and place them in formation, but when I called out “Halt!” they replied: “We’re for Constantine!”" (Tsar Nicholas Describes the Decembrists’ Revolt on 14 December 1825) In order for Nicholas to end the revolt, he had to take drastic measures. "At that point, seeing no other alternative, I ordered “Fire!” (Tsar Nicholas Describes the Decembrists’ Revolt on 14 December 1825) Nicholas fired on his own people, shutting down the revolt Many people understood the ideas of the Decembrist Revolt. The knew that the goal was constitutional change and to end serfdom, they knew that Tsar Nicholas had to fire on his own people to end the revolt, and they knew that this revolt was a complete failure.   (1) https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TV729JM (2) https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TVZCJPB

         Another revolution, the Frankfurt Assembly, was a partial success, the nationalists and liberals got what they wanted but there was still monarchy. The Hungarian revolt of 1848 was a neutral revolution because there was little change. Lastly, the French Revolution of 1848 was somewhat of a success too because they got some of the things they wanted while they didn't get all of them. I believe that the revolts of 1830 and 1848 are not complete failures like some people believe. The majority expressed a change and the people received what they were fighting for. Therefor they are all partial successes.

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.