Temperance Movement PSA

                Withington, William. A Temperance Bowling Alley, for the Maine Law. 1852. Brown University, Center for Digital Initiatives.  http://library.brown.edu/cds/catalog/catalog.php?verb=render&colid=7&id=1091557147718750 (accessed December 25, 2013).

In A Temperance Bowling Alley, for the Maine Law, William Withington describes the success of Maine’s temperance law and how other states should follow in Maine’s footsteps.  William Withington was from Jackson, Michigan and was a Civil War officer, republican state representative, senator, and owned a manufacturing company called the Withington & Cooley Manufacturing Company.  Being a fairly successful and important and most likely educated man, Withington is a fairly reliable source.  His ultimate political agenda is unknown which could cause this source to be unreliable to some degree.  In this source, Withington is trying to convince other states to adopt similar temperance laws as Maine.  He asks for women to help and says the laws and the movement will benefit them.  He wants alcohol to stop “ruling” the country as it had been during the early 19^th century.  The country’s alcohol consumption was extremely high causing many problems in society, especially domestic violence against women.  Withington feels that the temperance movement is like a bowling game.  Maine has gotten the ball rolling and other states need to all follow until the game ends.  Withington is very passionate and uses rhyming and the bowling analogy to convince other states and especially the “ladies” to continue the temperance movement until all states follow Maine’s lead.   

Andrew Jackson Cartoon

                President Andrew Jackson has a longstanding reputation as being the “people’s president”.  He was known for being very democratic.  Some believe, however that he may not have been as democratic as his reputation represents him to be, and that he did not advocate as much for “the people” as he was credited for.  His controversial actions caused many people to have opposing views on whether Jackson was indeed the “people’s president”.

                One action that Andrew Jackson took that can be seen as democratic was he fought against the national bank to protect the Americans from being exploited.  To fight against the banks, Jackson used the power of the veto to reject a bill that would renew the bank’s charter.  Jackson said that “the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes”¹.  The wealthy people could unfairly use the bank to their advantage.  The bank controlled the economy of the country since it gave out loans.  A lot of people depended on the bank and it practically had “a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange”¹.  Jackson believed the banks had too much power and that corporations, a new type of business, used the banks to become wealthy.  These corporations were just anonymous machines out to make money.    Jackson wanted the bank destroyed because “great evils to our country…might flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few men irresponsible to the people”¹.  He felt that the few wealthy people in control of the bank would inevitably use the bank to take advantage of the poorer people that they did not care about.

                A prominent and wealthy senator named Daniel Webster was disgusted at Jackson’s decision to veto the bill that would renew the bank’s charter.  He believed this decision was very undemocratic.  He said that “It manifestly seeks to inflame the poor against the rich”².  It would just turn the poor against the wealthy and the wealthy against the poor and cause problems and fighting.  It also “sows…the seeds of jealousy”².  He thought it would cause people to just hate each other and the poorer class to become jealous of the wealthy class.   

General Jackson Slaying the Many Headed Monster

                This political cartoonist agrees with Jackson’s decision to destroy the bank.  He depicts the bank as a monster with many heads.  These heads are the wealthy people in charge of the bank as well as the corporations using the bank to their advantage.  Jackson is shown destroying this evil and malicious monster, the bank.  The cartoonist depicts Jackson defending the people and would agree that Jackson is the “people’s president”.

                Andrew Jackson should not completely be considered the “people’s president” because he made a lot of mistakes, but he should be acknowledged for often defending “the people”.  Instead of giving certain jobs in the government to well qualified people, he tried to reward people who helped him win office, by giving them these positions, which is known as the spoils system.  This system of changing the people in office appeared to Jackson a loyal and considerate thing to do, but unfortunately in one case, it did not work, as one of the people he trusted and gave a position to, stole a huge sum of money.  Jackson also claimed to be a father to the Native Americans, but he never truly defended them; instead, he made these people leave their homes.  But, he was the “people’s president” when he used the power of the veto to fight for the people and he fought against the bank which was only helping the wealthy and large corporations.  Andrew Jackson tried to be the “people’s president”, but certainly made some mistakes during his term.

¹ James D Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1902, 1905.

²Daniel Webster, July 11, 1832.

The Slow Increase of Suffrage and Democracy in the United States in the 19th Century

                Democracy is a form of government where everyone has a say.  As defined by the Miriam-Webster dictionary, democracy is a “government by the people”¹.  Democracy is “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or  indirectly”, meaning everyone votes on laws or everyone votes for people to represent them and help make laws.  Voting should occur “periodically”¹.  Democracy involves “free election” meaning democracy should be defined as a fair government where everyone has the right of suffrage¹.

                The United States at the beginning of the 19^th century was not very democratic.  It was much more democratic than other European countries, but still had many flaws.  Over the course of the century, however, the United States slowly became more democratic. 

In a painting depicting an election day, by George Caleb Bingham, many of the flaws of voting are pointed out.  

These flaws on election day contribute to the United States not being as democratic as it claimed to be since suffrage is a large part of democracy.  In the painting, there are no women, showing that the voting was restricted to just men.   There is also a black man shown selling drinks to a voting man in the painting.  The black man clearly cannot vote, meaning that suffrage was limited to just white men.  It also shows that the people voting did not take the election seriously since the man drinking will be voting drunk.  At the beginning of the century not only were white men the only people who could vote, but they had to own property worth at least fifty dollars.  This also limits the right of suffrage and makes the United States less democratic, since if a man loses his property but “in the meantime has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government and his acquaintance with mankind are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers”, “the man cannot vote” because “the jackass [property] is dead”².  So few people had a say in their own government since suffrage was very limited and Townshend found, “The attempt to govern men without seeking their consent is usurpation and tyranny”³.  People were being controlled by a government that they had no input in, so Townshend claimed that the United States is like the monarchy in Austria where the people did not have a say in the government.  

Suffrage and the people’s say in the government did increase in the 19^th century, which increased how democratic the United States was.  The graph below shows that the number of states that required men to own property decreased as well as requirements to pay taxes decreased, meaning the right to vote became less and less about economics.  Suffrage increased and thus democracy increased.

Below, is another chart that shows an increase in people instead of a legislature voting for the electors in the 19^th century.  Again, this helped more people to have a say in their government, making the United States more democratic.

This transition of increased suffrage due to less financial requirements was gradual and not very violent in most states.  Only in one state, Rhode Island, the transition occurred but took a lot of effort and was very violent.  This transition is called the “Dorr War” since Dorr led the fight to eliminate the property requirement for voting.  Rhode Island was still using a charter from the time the United States was controlled by Britain and Dorr questioned this by saying “We begin by inquiring whether it be consistent with the spirit of the Declaration of American Independence, and becoming the character of Rhode Island Republicans, any longer to acknowledge the charter of a British King as a Constitution of civil government?...”⁴.  He thought that Rhode Island was being undemocratic by not allowing everyone to vote and using a charter from the time that England controlled them.  Eventually a new constitution was adopted and even Rhode Island increased the number of people allowed to vote and thus increased how democratic the United States was in the 19^th century.

                The United States slowly became more democratic over the course of the 19^th century.  Originally suffrage was limited to only white men who owned property or paid taxes.  By the end of the 19^th century almost all white men could vote.  Suffrage was still limited because women and black men could not vote, but the right to vote still increased.  Also, many states started allowing people instead of a legislature to vote for electors.  Through the wider spread of suffrage, the United States became more democratic in the 19^th century. 

¹ Democracy (From Mirriam­Webster Dictionary).

² Benjamin Franklin, The Casket, or Flowers of Literature, Wit and Sentiment (1828).

³ Norton Townshend, Ohio Constitutional Convention, 1850.

⁴ Copyright 2012 Digital History http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook_print.cfm?smtid=3&psid=387.

Romanticism

                Romanticism was a movement in literature, music, visual arts during the 19^th century.  This movement occurred due to enlightenment, a time when many wealthy class citizens talked of rights but did not do anything to secure these rights for lower class citizens.  They talked about the importance of majority but made decisions in favor of themselves, the minority.  Romantics wanted the enlightenment thinkers to take action on some of the ideas they discussed, such as giving people rights.  Romantics also argued against some of the ideas of the enlightenment thinkers.  Romantics thought that people cannot control nature, that not every decision should be intellectually based, that individuals are important, that not everything is beautiful, and that not everything always makes sense or is rational.  This goes against the beliefs and ideologies of the enlightenment thinkers.

The Turkish Patrol
1831
Oil on canvas, 115 x 179 cm
Wallace Collection, London

                This romantic piece of art is very emotional.  Two men are being chased by a group of men with guns and swords.  These men outnumber the two men running from them.  The group of men who are chasing the two have almost caught up with them as they run away.  The painting gives one the scary emotional feeling of being chased and hunted down.  To make the painting even more emotional, three women and a young child are watching the whole scene unfold.  It would be very scary and upsetting for the women to see this chase, and it would be emotionally scarring for the young child to watch men try to kill others.  This piece also highlights the importance of the individual.  The man on the horse is elevated in the picture and is painted in the most light.  He is also one of the only men wearing a bright, white turban.  This picture shows that the man in charge of the group chasing the other two men has the most power.  The other men in his group are following his lead.  Since he has the power in the group, he does not have to concern himself with actually attacking because the other men will do that for him.  This picture also shows an awe of nature.  The horse is the one piece of nature in the painting.  The horse is painted strong and fast.  The horse is at the front of the group about to attack the two men in front.  This painting is horrific as well.  Two men are being attacked by a horse and other men with guns and swords.  People are watching.  Being chased down to most likely be killed is very horrifying.  This piece of art demonstrates various themes of romanticism.

The Revolutions of 1830 and 1848

                The revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were not complete successes, but were also not complete failures.  Most of the revolutionaries were fighting against a government or a specific monarch.  Many revolutionaries wanted freedoms and rights.  The governments fought to maintain conservative ideas and an absolute monarchy.  Though not all the goals of the revolutions were achieved, the revolts did keep revolutionary ideas alive and spread them across Europe.

                The revolution in Poland in 1830 had some success.  Nationalists in Poland revolted wanting to achieve independence and separation from Russia.   These revolts had strong nationalistic ideologies behind them and were said to be “truly polish”¹.  The Russian government, obviously wanting to keep Poland under its control, opposed the revolt and claimed that, “The Polish kingdom is forever linked with the Russian Empire”².  The revolt in 1830 was successful at first because they gained their independence and “snatched [it] from the lawful authority”, but after only five months this independence was once again lost to Russia who regained control of Poland³.  Despite this, the nationalistic spirit remained strong.  Poland had short lived success as the freedom they gained was short lived, but national pride was preserved.

                In France a second revolution occurred in 1830.  This revolution had some success.  The radicals and liberals were both against the monarchy.  The radicals did not want a monarchy at all and liberals wanted a constitutional monarchy.  The radicals and liberals wanted freedom of press, suffrage, and to oust the current monarch Charles X.  Charles X took away the freedom of press when he wrote that, “The liberty of the periodical press is suspended”⁴.  He also limited suffrage causing many people to dislike him.  The revolution was successful in getting a new monarch since Charles X was “too profoundly pained at the evils which afflict or which may threaten my people” and thus he took “the resolution to abdicate the crown” and Louis Philippe came into power⁵.  Louis Philippe was better liked and put in some policies that favored the middle class.  The reason the revolution was not a total success was due to the fact that the changes were short lived and freedom of press and widespread suffrage was not achieved.  Voting privileges were limited as census suffrage was used meaning votes were weighted based on your rank in society.  Also, one could not run “if, at the day of his election, he is not thirty years of age, and if he does not pay five hundred francs of direct taxes”⁶.  The French Revolution of 1830 was successful in eliminating an unpopular monarch, but did not achieve the rights and freedoms sought after. 

 http://www.educreations.com/lesson/view/french-revolution-1830/13399412/?s=EJcjwn&ref=link


            The Frankfurt Assembly in Germany existed from 1448-1849.  Nationalist rebels wanted a constitutional monarchy and to unite the country, like Poland had wanted.  The people of Germany wanted to unite Germany and have “a powerful ruling house”⁷. 

To accomplish this, the German people asked Frederick William the 4^th to be their monarch.  Frederick William though turned down the crown “because the Assembly has not the right, without the consent of the German governments, to bestow the crown which they tendered me”⁸.  Since the offer came from the people of Germany and not kings, Frederick the 4^th would not become the monarch of Germany.  He was then considered the opponent since he turned down the offer and was a conservative who did not care about the nationalistic ideologies.  This revolution was basically a failure because while they eventually achieved a constitutional monarchy, it only lasted for approximately a year, and many had to die fighting to achieve this short lived victory.  

            In Europe most of the revolutions in 1830 and 1848 ultimately did not fully succeed, but many aspects were achieved.  Sometimes success was short lived and other times the ideas of the revolutions lived on and spread.  The radicals, liberals, and nationalists against the conservative governments and monarchs caused change in various ways in Europe.

¹ Adam Jerzy Czartoryski, 1830

²Constitution of The Kingdom of Poland November 27, 1815. Official Journal of the Polish Kingdom Rights of 1815, Vol I, pp. 1-103.  http://www.law.uj.edu.pl/users/khpp/fontesu/1815.htm.

³ Tsar Nicholas I, Imperial Manifesto on Poland, March 25, 1832.

Etty, John, ed. Primary Sources in Russian History, 1801 – 1917.  London:  First and Best in Education, 2009.  www.google.com/books.

⁴ The July Ordinances, July 25, 1830 By Charles X and His Ministers. Anderson, Frank Maloy, ed.  The Constitutions and Other Select Documents Representative of  the History of France, 1789 – 1901.  (Minneapolis:  HW Wilson Company, 1904) p. 495- 515.  http://ic.ucsc.edu/~traugott/hist171/readings/Anderson%201904%20select%20docs.pdf.

⁵ Abdication of Charles X.  August 2, 1830. In Duvergier, Lois, 87-88. Anderson, Frank Maloy, ed.  The Constitutions and Other Select Documents Representative of  the History of France, 1789 – 1901.  (Minneapolis:  HW Wilson Company, 1904) p. 495- 515.  http://ic.ucsc.edu/~traugott/hist171/readings/Anderson%201904%20select%20docs.pdf.

⁶ Declaration of the Chamber of Deputies, August 7, 1830.  In Duvergier, Lois, 93-101. Anderson, Frank Maloy, ed.  The Constitutions and Other Select Documents Representative of  the History of France, 1789 – 1901.  (Minneapolis:  HW Wilson Company, 1904) p. 495- 515.  http://ic.ucsc.edu/~traugott/hist171/readings/Anderson%201904%20select%20docs.pdf.

⁷ Johann Gustav Droysen: Speech to the Frankfurt Assembly, 1848. Eva March Tappan, ed., The World's Story: A History of the World in Story, Song and Art, 14 Vols., (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1914), Vol. VII: Germany, The Netherlands, and Switzerland, pp. 276-278

Scanned by Jerome S. Arkenberg, Cal. State Fullerton. The text has been modernized by Prof. Arkenberg.

⁸ Friedrich Wilhelm IV, King of Prussia: Proclamation of 1849. Eva March Tappan, ed., The World's Story: A History of the World in Story, Song and Art, 14 Vols., (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1914), Vol. VII: Germany, The Netherlands, and Switzerland, pp. 276-278

Scanned by Jerome S. Arkenberg, Cal. State Fullerton. The text has been modernized by Prof. Arkenberg.

Picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_Parliament

The Monroe Doctrine

                The United States did not approve of the dominant conservative ideology of the Quintuple Alliance, but tried to stay neutral in all situations.  Russia wanted to start establishing colonies in Oregon because they felt the territory belonged to them and not the United States, even though the United States unofficially claimed the area.  In order to not upset Russia, but to make it clear the United States was a strong country, the United States decided, “to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent”¹.  The United States also tried to maintain positive relationships with the European countries, but be firm about issues the Quintuple Alliance was dealing with.  The Quintuple Alliance was deciding whether or not to help Spain recover the colonies it lost to independence in Latin America.  The United States did not side with the Quintuple Alliance and “we [the United States] should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety”¹.  By taking this position, the United States did not side with all the Latin American countries.  They just said they would defend the already independent countries and consider any threat to them a threat to the United States.  The United States took this stance because trading with the independent Latin American countries was economically beneficial to the United States.  To continue preserving friendly relationships with the Quintuple Alliance, the United States did not accept an alliance with Britain and stated they would not “interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers” and would “cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none” meaning they would never choose a side in European conflicts¹.  They would remain friendly, neutral and would try not to get involved.  To remain friendly and neutral with the Quintuple Alliance the United States did not react too severely to any of the dominant conservative ideology and tried to maintain a neutral stance when possible.

                My “Me Thinks” is very annoyed, yet confident, like a Russian diplomat would have been when the United States proposed a meeting to negotiate the territory claims on the northwestern coast of the North American continent. 

The Russian diplomat would have felt that the United States did not even have a chance of keeping the land, if Russia wanted to claim it.  The diplomat would have felt that the United States was wasting his time and was just like a child needing to be disciplined.  He would have been very confident in Russia’s ability to gain the territory no matter what the United States did as long as Britain’s army did not support the United States since Britain had one of the best army’s in the world at the time, while the United States army was very weak.  Since the Monroe Doctrine turned down an alliance with Britain, that would have surprised the Russians but made them even more confident in being able to defeat the United States if necessary.  When the United States decided to back up the independent Latin American colonies, the diplomat would have once again been annoyed because he would have believed the United States had no power to back up the Latin American colonies and again was just misbehaving like a child.  The Russian diplomat would have felt annoyed at most of the decisions in the Monroe Doctrine but also confident in Russia’s ability to defeat the United States whenever necessary. 

¹  President Monroe James, The Monroe Doctrine,  http://www.ushistory.org/documents/monroe.htm.

                

The Congress of Vienna

                The Principle of Legitimacy solved the problem of finding a ruler for France.  Once Napoleon was killed, there was no one in charge of France and so at the Congress of Vienna, the members decided what to do about France and who would rule the country.  To reinstate traditional government and put the line of Bourbons back on the throne, the congress used the principle of legitimacy to reinstate lawful monarchs.  The congress also kept the lower class citizens happy with the restored monarch by making it a constitutional monarchy where “one may profess his religion with equal freedom” and where “Frenchmen are equal before the law”¹.  This would help to stop a revolt by the lower class citizens who would otherwise be angry with the restoration of the monarchy and their lack of rights.

                The Principle of Legitimacy would have pleased Metternich since he was a conservative.  Conservatives preferred traditional government with absolute monarchs.  This principle preserved the monarchy and brought back the traditional line of rulers.  Even though France became a constitutional monarchy and not an absolute monarchy like conservatives preferred, Metternich and the other members of congress did not want a repeat of the French Revolution.  They did not want any revolts due to citizens being angry about having an absolute monarchy.  Instituting a constitution kept all citizens from becoming angry enough to revolt.

                The Congress of Vienna impacted Europe by using concepts like the principle of legitimacy to solve various problems.  The principle of legitimacy kept monarchy (in some form) in Europe; including France.  The monarchy attempted to keep the majority of the power and the lower classes without power.  The only time the lower class was equal was “before the law”¹.  Another concept of the congress was the concept of the balance of power which also affected Europe.  The balance of power reinstated most former boundaries of countries. 

Only a few nations were expanded to try and make sure no one country had significantly more power than another.  This helped because if there were any wars, no one country would become powerful enough to take over the other countries like Napoleon did.  The power was balanced between the major European powers like France, Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Britain.  These five countries excluding Britain formed a Holy Alliance.  This meant that monarchs were supposedly given the authority to rule by God.  If there were any revolts against the monarch, all four countries would work together to crush the uprising, since revolting would be considered going against not only the monarch but God as well.  The holy alliance and this principle of intervention stopped revolts in Italy and Spain.  Europe underwent a drastic change after the rule of Napoleon ended and the concepts of the Congress of Vienna were put into place.

¹The Constitutional Charter of 1814

Picture: http://www.bridgemanartondemand.com/image.php?imgref=CHT164217

Ideologies

                Our Vine represents conservatism in the 19^th century.  Conservatives in the 19^th century wanted to keep a traditional government which they thought would help stop revolting and prevent social change.  They believed that when ordinary or lower class citizens have power it just creates chaos and violence.  In our Vine, two lower class citizens are trying to revolt.  They are each holding weapons (a fork and pens) to represent the violence, and they are jumping around to represent the chaos.  Two upper class citizens in charge of a country say “no” to the social revolt, and say they are keeping tradition which reflects the views of conservatives.  One of the upper class citizens is also holding a poster with a social pyramid.  The top is highlighted to represent them and show the hierarchical class system conservatives believed in.  The poster says “US!  We are better”, which also reflects the view that the upper class was the only group of people who knew how to properly rule.

                Conservatism influenced political and social action in the 19^th century.  It pushed to preserve an absolute monarchy.  In the 19^th century, conservatives pushed to keep people in lower classes with no power.  It also tried to stop political and social revolts and stop violence and chaos as seen during the French Revolution; a time when lower class citizens gained power and caused a lot of violence including beheading of people.  Conservatism always pushed against liberalism, and the conservatism minority tried to not let the majority have any sort of political influence.  Social action was also influenced by conservatism.  Again, conservatism tried to preserve a hierarchical class system, where only a few people were at the top of the social class and the majority were at the bottom and were considered powerless and lower class.  By keeping the majority powerless, social revolts, chaos, and violence tried to be stopped.  Conservatives tried to influence political and social action to benefit the upper class.

                Liberalism and Nationalism also influenced political and social action in the 19^th century.  Liberalism pushed for political change such as dissolving absolute monarchy (and absolutism) and having a constitutional monarchy (a monarchy with a written constitution).  They wanted middle class citizens to have some political power.  Liberalism pushed for meritocracy so upper class rulers and the Church would have less political power and middle class citizens would have some more.  Liberalism tried to get rid of old traditions and caused people to revolt for political and social change.  Socially, it influenced many enlightenment thinkers and enlightenment ideals.  Liberalism believed that people should have liberty, freedom, and certain rights which one is born with.  Locke, believing in the ideology of liberalism, believed that the government should protect people’s rights.  Nationalism also had an influence in the 19^th century.  One major influence of nationalism on political action was the expulsion of foreign rulers.  Nationalists felt that people living together sharing similar culture were meant to be united.  They did not want foreigners who did not share in their culture and lives to rule them.  Some nationalistic countries like Italy and Germany tried to get rid of foreign rulers.  Socially, nationalism tried to unite people within a country.  Like liberalism, nationalists were hopeful.  They were more liberal than conservative and believed they should all become as united as possible.  In the 19^th century, political and social action was influenced by liberalism and nationalism.

Latin America Revolutions

                The British North American colonists had many advantages over their neighbors to the south in Latin America, helping them to be better prepared for independence.  The populations of the two regions had drastically different racial composition.  The North American colonies lacked racial diversity, while Latin America had drastic diversity, which caused there to be a greater number of issues for Latin America.  The Latin American colonies faced more problems than the British North American colonies during and after the revolutions due to more problems with racial tensions and violence as well as labor systems and economics based on slavery.

                In the Latin American colonies, much of the revolting was due to racial tensions and violence.  In British North America; however, the colonies just wanted freedom from England and “slavery or racial questions were ever at issue between Britain and America at the time of the Revolution”¹.  In the Latin American colonies, not only did white people at the top of the social classes want freedom from their mother countries in Europe, but blacks wanted freedom from slavery.  The blacks “saw the whites fighting among themselves” and of course were “inspired” to fight for their freedom as well¹.  In the North American colonies, blacks did not revolt because they made up such a small percent of the population, but in the Latin American colonies, the blacks who were enslaved “outnumbered the whites ten to one”¹.

As seen in the graphs, the enslaved population made up the majority of the population in the Latin American colonies, while in the Northeast British colonies, enslaved blacks were a very small minority.  Not only did the enslaved blacks fight for freedom from slavery, but they acted out very violently which caused problems in the colonies.  The angry blacks tried “’to vex the whites, humiliate them whenever the circumstances permit, by outbursts, thefts, or insults that aren’t punished’” in the Latin American colonies¹.  The enslaved blacks in the British colonies had very little chance to break from slavery by revolting since there were very few enslaved black people in the colonies.  Racial tensions and violence in Latin America was a major problem, while the British colonies did not face these issues.

The British colonies were better prepared than the Latin American colonies because they were not as reliant on slave labor and had overall better labor systems and economics. In addition to the racial tensions between blacks and whites, once the enslaved blacks gained freedom in Latin America, many slaves did not want to work.  Most slaves did not want to return to working on plantations or doing any work they had done before or associated with slavery.  Many former slaves “refuse[d] to go to it now under pretext of freedom” and they “spend [spent] their time in wandering about”².  This was a major problem since the majority of the population had been slaves and had been the source of the success of their economy.

In the British colonies, since slave labor was not as heavily depended upon and many whites had jobs besides being owners of plantations, there was still plenty of labor to drive the economy after the revolution.  The British colonies were “a colony of farmers, a predominantly white society of European immigrant” and “blacks were a small minority within a predominantly white and fundamentally English culture”².

There was also approximately twice as many whites than slaves in the British colonies from 1790-1860, also showing they were not as dependent on slave labor.  Haiti, one of the Latin American colonies was suffering so much from the loss of slave labor that they needed to order “‘All field-labourers, men and women, now in a state of idleness, living in towns, villages, and on other plantations than those to which they belong’” to “‘to return immediately to their respective plantations…’”².  They were so desperate for labor they had to create a forced-labor program.  Latin America suffered from a loss of labor, while the British colonies’ labor system hardly changed at all after the revolution.

                The North American colonies who were not trying to fix as many problems and achieve as many ideals had more success after they gained freedom than the Latin American colonies.  The North American colonies were only trying to fix political problems where as the Latin American colonies were trying to also fix social problems.  Specifically, problems due to racial tensions and violence and labor systems and economics caused the Latin American colonies to be disadvantaged and not as successful as the British North American colonies.

  

Sources:

¹ http://comparativehistoryamericanrevs.weebly.com/doc-set-a.html

² http://comparativehistoryamericanrevs.weebly.com/doc-set-b.html

The Haitian Revolution

                Globally, the formation of the new Republic of Haiti was not received well.  Upset slaves in Haiti along with the governor of St. Domngue, black leader, Toussaint Louverture, worked and “gained its independence through a bloody 12-year slave uprising--the only time in the history of the world in which bond servants successfully overthrew their masters and formed their own state”¹.  The United States did not receive the independence of Haiti well because it gave ideas of freedom to American slaves in the south.  Thomas Jefferson said, “Haiti's revolt would inspire similar actions in the U.S.” and he wrote, “‘If something is not done, and soon done, we shall be the murderers of our own children,’”¹.  Jefferson was very concerned that the slaves in the south would try to revolt if they kept contact with people in Haiti, so he pressed to cut off trade with St. Domingue.  He was turned down by congress though, because the trading was very profitable.  France too was not happy about independent Haiti because they lost a very profitable colony.  Due to Haiti’s “brutal system of slavery”, they were able to produce cash crops including coffee and sugar².  When Napoleon lost Haiti, he exclaimed, “‘Damn sugar, damn coffee, damn colonies!’”¹.  He lost an important claim in the western hemisphere.  By gaining its independence, Haiti hurt or threatened other countries causing the country to not be received well. 

                The lack of support for independent Haiti caused them to become a very poor country and their economy to have drastically declined.  When Haiti had approximately 450,000 slaves the country made a lot of money by growing crops on plantations.  Now that Haiti was independent and had abolished slavery, the country was not as profitable.  France, angry at losing Haiti, surrounded the island with warships to force them to pay an “independence debt” of 150 million francs².  No country, including the United States, assisted Haiti.  The whites in Haiti who had owned slaves, pushed France to impose this debt on Haiti, since they had lost slaves and money.  Haiti was forced to pay, “ten times the fledgling black nation's total annual revenues” which caused their economy to quickly spiral downhill².  Haiti, having been an unsupported country continued to face many problems.

¹ Danticat Edwidge, "Ignoring the Revolution Next Door," Time Magazine, July 5, 2004.

² Macdonald Isabel, “France’s debt of dishonor to Haiti,” The Guardian, Monday, August 16, 2010, 0.500 EDT.

Napoleon’s Social, Economic, and Political Effects on Europe

                Napoleon’s reign over France and almost all of Europe affected Europe’s social systems.  By abolishing titles of the nobility and ending serfdom, the nobility lost some of their power.  Without titles they were like the rest of the lower class citizens.  Madame de Stael says that Napoleon has “profound contempt for all the intellectual riches of human nature: virtue, dignity, religion, enthusiasm”¹.  Before Napoleon was in charge, nobility would sit in salons and discuss enlightenment ideas.  Napoleon took that away and angered many people in the noble class.  Many of the lower class people, serfs, gained freedoms.  Some freedoms included rights to property and education.  The lower class people enjoyed these new rights and freedoms, but the upper classes were against the lower classes having these freedoms.  Napoleon was “‘a friend of human liberty, and eager to promote the advancement of the race, by opening the field to talent and genius, however low their birth’”².  He believed that the lower classes were entitled to the same rights as upper classes.  He also thought that if they were talented they should be able to work their way up and advance in society.    He also established “meritocracy” meaning that people could earn money based on their skills instead of based on their social class.  Again, this was an improvement for the lower classes, but an upset to the upper classes.

                Napoleon’s reign over Europe affected the economic systems.  The economic system of meritocracy helped lower classes make more money than they had been making.  The upper classes lost not only power, but wealth as well.  Through meritocracy, controlling prices, building roads and canals, and removing barriers against trading, he stimulated the economy.  He also stimulated the economy by having the Bank of France built.  Napoleon balanced the budget, and carried out major public works programs as well.  He helped other countries by stimulating trade, but he hurt other countries by stealing valuable items, such as artwork from Italy.  Napoleon brought mostly positive economic reforms to Europe.

                 The political systems in Europe were also affected by Napoleon’s rule.  The French Directory thought they would be able to use Napoleon to further their own goals, but instead, Napoleon planned to overthrow the Directory, causing five members to resign.  He also created an incredibly strong army that conquered many different countries in Europe.  Marshal Michel Ney discusses how Napoleon has improved the political and social situation in France and says that “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”¹.  Napoleon is loved by many and is viewed as improving the political and social situation for many previously suppressed people.  Though Napoleon was loved by many he “‘realized that he lacked the greatest of all props to political power-legitimacy-and that only continued success could assure the stability of his throne’”².  As soon as Napoleon stops being able to successfully conquer countries, then people will no longer have faith in him and Europe will fall into a political disaster.

¹              Two View of Napoleon, Sources (1) Ten Years of Exile by Madame de Stael, trans. Doris Beik (Saturday Review Press, 1972); (2) The French Revolution and Napoleon: An Eyewitness History, by Joe H. Kirchberger (Facts on File, 1985).

²              J. Vance, Thomas. "The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians," The Napoleon Series, http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/biographies/c_historians.html (accessed October 16, 2013).

United States and Great Britain Comparison Post

                During the industrial revolution, industrialists in the United States (US) had some success, but industrialists were more successful in Great Britain.  There were plentiful laborers in Great Britain, many whom used to be farmers and who could no longer make a living farming, as opposed to the US where there was not a lot of labor available.  Many of the laborers in Great Britain were children who worked long hours.  Many children, especially girls, were “Shut up from morning till night, except when they are sent home for their meals”.  Industrialists had children working for long periods of time for low wages to make a maximum amount of money.  However, in the United States, eventually “a ten­hour law was passed” meaning children could not work for longer than ten hours in a day and industrialists got less labor from children.  Also, industrialists in Great Britain had plentiful amounts of iron ore and coal.  They received raw materials from their colonies, and all of these resources allowed them to manufacture lots of different goods.  In the US, the only plentiful resource was wood and land.  Using their iron, coal, and other various resources, Great Britain developed extremely successful transportation, including canals, longer-lasting roads, and steam-powered locomotives and railroads.  The US had railroads and canals as well, but they did not have very good roads, so Great Britain had better transportation than the US.  These different types of transportation helped industrialists in Great Britain become and stay successful, because they were able to move and sell their goods to different areas.  In Great Britain, besides the inventions in transportation there were also lots of other inventions that helped industrialists succeed.  There were inventions like the seed-drill, water-powered loom, and flying shuttle.  These all helped speed up the manufacturing of products and thus increase the quantity that they were able to be manufacture.  Because of their additional resources, including labor, industrialists in Great Britain were more successful than industrialists in the United States.

                In the United States, however, workers had a more positive experience than they did in Great Britain.  Girls working in Great Britain were abused at times.  It was said that “In the eyes of her overseer she [a girl working in the factories] was but a brute, a slave, to be beaten, pinched and pushed about”.  In the United States, girls were not physically abused and “such high wages had been offered to women that they might be induced to become mill­girls”.  Though young girls never made a lot of money, they were able to make more money in the United States than in Great Britain.  Also, in Great Britain, “the whole maintenance of the family devolves on the father”.  This was due to mothers and their children no longer being able to make money at home since “the establishment of the Spinning Machines in many Counties where I was last Summer, no Hand Work could be had”. The family was dependent of the father to survive and the father had the responsibility to support the family entirely on his own unless other members of the family went to work in the factories.  And, in Great Britain, when girls did go to work in factories, they were not able to learn how to take care of a family and perform the domestic duties expected of a woman when she married.  It was said that, “these girls are ignorant of, and unhandy at every domestic employment, whereas if at her wheel in her mother’s cottage, the girl assists in every occupation of the family”.  The girls would be ignorant of how to perform these tasks because they would be “Shut up from morning till night” in the factories.  In the United States though, this was not as much of a concern because “Those of the mill­girls who had homes generally worked from eight to ten months in the year; the rest of the time was spent with parents or friends” which would allow girls to be social and learn some of these important duties from their mothers.  While workers in the United States did not have a perfect experience, they had a more positive experience than in Great Britain.

Mary Paul Post

                Mary starts out optimistic and hopeful for her work in the mills in Lowell.  She begs her dad to let her go so she can “earn more to begin with than I can any where about here”.  She wants to buy clothes, and she already knows someone working at the mills.  Once she gets to the mills, however, she becomes extremely homesick.  She wants her family to contact her and visit her as soon as possible.  She also starts to realize, she may not make as much money as she thought she would, since the cost of boarding and just getting to the mills is so high.  She is still somewhat hopeful and says she will stay at least a year, maybe longer.  As time passes though, she sees just how dangerous working at the mills can be.  Even though she is not hurt, “one girl fell down and broke her neck which caused instant death”.  She is very worried and is telling her dad horrible things that have happened to some of the girls at the mills. She also has much less free time and says that “I have little time to devote to writing that I cannot write all I want to”.  She even mentions how she doubts that she will be paid, by the factory, the amount she has earned.  She also says that others comment on her worsening health and “tell me that I am growing very poor”.  She becomes very sick, and as she grows even sicker, she is forced to leave work for six months.  After she is better, however, she cannot get her job back and her experience in Lowell continues to worsen.  When she finally finds a new job, her work becomes increasingly difficult.  Her experience just keeps getting drastically worse.  She says that she “never worked so hard in my life”, and that she is making very little money.  About eight months later she reports okay health, but that she is still not making a lot of money even though she is working very hard.  Coming to the Lowell mills seemed like a great choice at first, but soon resulted in a downward spiral of unfortunate events and problems for Mary.

                Mary’s experience represents both the success and failure of the “Lowell Experiment”.  Mary and other girls endured hard work and unsafe conditions.  Often, they did not receive the pay they earned.  In this regard, the experiment was a failure because the people working were not treated fairly.  The girls, being female and young, were taken advantage of.  Many even died due to the dangerous conditions of the mills.  Mary describes horrific tragedies like how “one girl fell down and broke her neck which caused instant death” and “Another had nearly all of his ribs broken”.  Another aspect of failure is that due to being worked so hard, many workers became sick and had to leave, but could not come back once they were better.  When Mary becomes sick for six months, she “was unable to get my old place in the cloth room on the Suffolk or on any other corporation”.  Workers were overworked and there was no system so that a worker could still have pay or come back to work when they got better.  Overall, especially for workers, the “Lowell Experiment” as shown by Mary’s experience, was a failure.

                The factory owners, however, may still have viewed Mary’s experience as a success of the “Lowell Experiment”.  By using girls, they got away with not paying them what they earned and still filling all the mills with many workers.  The mills were so full that Mary finds it “very difficult for any one to get into the mill on any corporation”.  Even though the girls knew they would not be paid enough, they just accepted it.  The owners made lots more money this way, than if they had hired adults or young men.  Also, by making them pay to stay at boarding houses with the money they earned, the corporations and factories retained even more money.  Also, once girls were too old or became sick, they left, and new, young girls would come and replace the old girls.  Mary is replaced when she becomes gravely sick.  The factory owners made lots of money from using young women as mill workers, and in that regard, the “Lowell Experiment” was a success.    

Picture: http://www.uml.edu/tsongas/bringing-history-home/page_14/sb2.htm

Mary Stiles Paul. Letters. (Montpelier Vermont, Vermont Historical Society).

Adam Smith PSA

Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations (Excerpts). Modified from the Modern History Internet Sourcebook. 1776. Fordham University. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/adamsmith-summary.asp (accessed September 18, 2013).

 In The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, various positive aspects of the economic system of capitalism are described.  Adam Smith grew up in a small town in Scotland and went to the University of Glasgow and earned a scholarship to Oxford University.  Being a well educated man, who wrote the book with no personal agenda during the beginning of the industrial revolution, his book and these excerpts from it prove to be a reliable primary source.  Smith wrote the book to present and discuss his views on an economic system which would eventually be called capitalism.  He met different politicians, French intellectuals, and philosophers who influenced his economic ideas.  In these excerpts from his book, he discusses that through the division of labor, multiple people working on a job together, using their various skills, dexterity, and judgment, can produce a greater amount of goods in a shorter amount of time, than one person performing all the tasks on their own.  To demonstrate this, Smith writes that if one person was making pins by themselves, it would take much longer to perform all the required tasks, than if multiple people each have one specific job in the production of pins.  Smith also discusses how through capitalism, people are motivated by their own self-interest.  People, Smith says, perform jobs so that they will make money or receive something in return.  Smith, when writing the book, had no idea the influence his work would have on industrialists who manipulated his ideas to become rich.  Smith presents a positive tone throughout the excerpts, which can be seen by his discussion on all the “great” things that can be accomplished through the division of labor and capitalism in general.

Luddites RAFT Post

                During a short time during the early industrial revolution, a protesting group called the Luddites emerged.  These men were skilled artisans, mechanics, and weavers who attacked factories and the machines inside.  They were not against technology nor did they not understand it, but they were angry about how it was being used and how people were being treated because of it.  They were angry because workers in factories were being paid so little.  Luddites mainly just wanted fairer wages.  To protest they would often cross-dress (dress like women) and sneak into factories at night to destroy machines.  Sometimes they would set fire to factory buildings.  Many people who also wanted fairer wages sided with the Luddites, but others including the soldier who wrote the letter below, thought the revolution was great and were against the Luddites.

Luddites Wanted Poster

Dear John,

                I have unfortunately been sent to the dangerous city where the horrible protests and fires are taking place.  These despicable people, who call themselves the “Luddites”, are wreaking havoc on not only the city but innocent people.  One man was killed over all this nonsense.  And it is all due to the fact that some people do not like the new and efficient machines!  It is absolutely ridiculous.  And they have undeservedly attracted so much attention to themselves.  They often cross-dress when they destroy the expensive machines in the factories and they follow some sort of crazy leader or something called “King Ludd”.  These people were workers in the factories, but something has come over them and they now seem to hate the new technology.  They sneak into factories at night to destroy all the wonderful machines.  These people are costing a lot of money for the factories.  Now I, along with other soldiers, am trying to protect the factories from any further destruction by these insane people.

                I personally feel that the new technology is greatly improving people’s lives.  Goods like clothes are being made faster than ever.  There is an abundance of goods being produced and the work required is far less than it used to be.  Transportation has also improved.  There are railroads and steam locomotives as well as canals and steamboats to take the different goods to many different and distant places.  Why would anyone protest against that?  It makes no sense.  Besides, I have no tolerance for lawbreakers and troublemakers, and eventually the government will punish them for what they have done.

I want to do something to stop these people, but I am afraid.  I am doing my job to protect the factories, but I am scared to do more.  They seem very dangerous.  I do not want to get killed trying to seriously fight back against them.  I have seen what they have done and what they are capable of.  I believe they could cause even more damage if they wished.

                I hope that this amazing technology will come to you in America, and that people in America will not react like they have here.  Hopefully you will find people who appreciate what it does for them.  I will write again soon.

Sincerely,

George

Image: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/politics/g3/source/g3s2nf.htm

Museum Curator Activity

          

                Our exhibit focused on some of the negative effects of the industrial revolution.  Since poverty and pollution seemed to be the main effects discussed, we created the title “The Industrial Revolution brings Poverty and Pollution”.  Each source which either related to poverty or pollution was different and had valuable information.  To make a successful exhibit all artifacts and information needs to be well understood and analyzed so the important information is summarized and presented through the exhibit.  It is important to understand the reason for the creation of the artifact/evidence and why the author has a certain opinion.  When analyzing, the information was read carefully and sourced.  If it was a picture, specific details and the overall meaning of the picture were analyzed.  The map at the top gives useful background information and served as a timeline for where and when different technology was invented.  The next two artifacts on the right are about the poverty.  The chart shows that the cost of living was almost always much greater than income.  The picture shows many poor children and families living in the streets.  On the left are artifacts showing pollution.  An illustration of the Thames River shows the air, water, and land pollution.  The letter below further describes the pollution of the Thames River due to the industrial revolution.  At the very bottom are two opposing opinions on the industrial revolution.  Important information on the artifacts are highlighted, the most important info goes from the top to bottom, and almost all the artifacts have brief captions.  Using these different tools to bring our exhibit to life we hope people see the effects of the industrial revolution on the city including not only the people, but the environment.

The other exhibits show the effects of the industrial revolution.  One exhibit focuses on the horrible treatment of children during the revolution.  Many children had to work long hours, performing dangerous jobs like pulling mine carts for low wages.  49.9% of children started working when they were under the age of 10.  Another exhibit shows the correlation between the use of slaves and the need for vast amounts of cotton.  Since lots of cotton was needed to make textiles in factories many slaves were used to harvest cotton, and the amount of slaves used during the revolution increased.  Many families, as shown by one exhibit were affected by the revolution and the new machines being used.  The cost of living for families increased and there was no longer a need for people to make cotton in their homes using a spinning wheel when the spinning jenny in factories was more effective.  Now one man’s weekly pay would be all a family had to live on.  New and improved transportation developed quickly during the revolution which was displayed by another exhibit.  Steamboats, railroads, and steam engines were being used to transport good made in factories quicker and easier than before.  The railroads were viewed as useful by many such as Samuel Smiles who thought “The iron rail proved a magicians’ road”¹ while others like William Wordsworth disagreed and thought the rails just disturbed the beauty of nature.  The many changes created by the industrial revolution had some positive, but mainly negative impacts on people living during that time.

¹ Debate on the Coming of the Railway, Wordsworth vs. Smiles.

Engels PSA

Engels, Friedrich.  The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844.  London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1892.  45, 48-53.

In The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844 by Friedrich Engels, the horrible living conditions of the working-class in Manchester, England during the Industrial Revolution are described.  While Engels, a German who believed in communism, was in Manchester, he met with people from English labor and Chartist movements and took notes on child labor.  His father owned a textile mill, but he was against the revolution due to its effects on the working class people. He wrote this book to show the horrible conditions the working-class endured, such as the air quality being atrocious, trash being everywhere, repugnant smells, and polluted standing water.  He also mentions their rooms were exceptionally tiny with little furniture, all further backing his view that the factory workers in the city lived in very small and dirty places.  His book, written only one year after visiting Manchester is a reliable, primary source due to it being written so soon after visiting and taking notes.  He wrote many other political works in his time, even though he dropped out of secondary school.    In his book, his distinct negative tone is seen when he states that his unbelievable and awful descriptions are not even exaggerated.

Town Meeting in Syria

Over 100,000 people have been killed due to the civil war in Syria.  In the past few weeks there has been a reported chemical weapons attack in Damascus by the government on its own people causing surrounding nations to contemplate whether to intervene.  There are many rebel groups against the government.  Some rebel groups are receiving help from terrorist groups.  The war began in 2011 when troops open fired on peaceful protesters and the protesters shot back.  The protesting began because civilians were unhappy with the current government and its president Bashar al-Assad. 

                At a meeting in a small town in Syria, civilians discussed their options on the situation.  As the danger worsens, they must decide what to do.  They feel it is important to take action either to improve the corrupted government or avoid being hurt by rebels and the government.  Everyone is afraid of the lack of safety and worsening economy.  People in this town are going to be making life changing decisions.

                One option discussed was to flee.  Over 2 million Syrians have fled to surrounding countries like Lebanon.  Many said fleeing may be a good option for families who have no education and want to provide food, shelter and safety for their children.  One fact not mentioned was that many countries that refugees are fleeing to lack sufficient funding.  The UN refugee agency requested 1.1 billion dollars and received less than half.  But, many did argue this would be a bad option since everyone would need to leave all possessions behind and essentially start their lives over.  Many agreed, saying that fleeing is a temporary solution.

                Another option discussed was to join in arms.  Many agreed this would be another poor choice since one could get killed and not help any cause.  It was argued though that this solution could speed up the civil war and it would protect everyone in the town.  Even though not mentioned, this option could mean forming strategic alliances with rebels that could possibly harm them otherwise.  Some rebel groups have already harmed many innocent civilians.

                The final option discussed was protest.  Many expressed concern that this could get everyone killed by the government as it did in the beginning of the conflict.  Someone mentioned that protesting could be done anonymously through social media outlets, but there was no mention of the potential difficulties with this due to increasing internet censorship by the government.  If it is possible, though, it might draw attention and action from other countries.  Almost everyone liked this as a solution.

                The best option that was not discussed at all may be to stay put.  Though the problem is not likely to solve itself, many other countries, with resources that civilians in Syria lack, are working towards helping, whether it be by military intervention, humanitarian intervention, or getting the Syrian government to agree to a deal to release their chemical weapons.  The US especially wants to make sure Syria receives the much needed help.