Ideology- Liberalism

During class, we discussed the question: "What were the major political ideologies of the 19th century and how did they influence social and political action?". The answer is that there were 3; liberalism, conservatism, and nationalism. In simple terms, a liberal is someone who has open views or thoughts regarding the government, meaning they would be more than happy to participate in something like a democracy whereas a conservative, who is someone who prefers to stick to old ways, would choose to stay in a monarchy. And finally, a nationalist is someone who advocates for political independence for a country. In class, we separated into groups to make projects about each ideology. My group, got Liberalism. 

Liberals wanted to separate their government from the old ways into a system of freedom , merits and rights rather than old traditions. They wanted a meritocracy over an aristocracy, absolutism and traditional price pages of the church, and to still have clear divisions in society. They just want the ability for people to climb the social and economic ladder. 

Like liberalism, conservatism and nationalism were both represented in the 19th century as well. After viewing all of the presentations we came to find that conservatism was actually the conservation of tradition and monarchy, limited rights. Aristocracy, monarchy, role of the church, and nationalism was a state of temporary alliance between quarreling countries because though countries were at war, they unified to defeat a common enemy. 

Congress of Vienna

This past week in class, we’ve been discussing the Congress of Vienna, which was the gathering of European rulers to decide what to do with territories after Napoleon was no longer in charge. As a class, we were to answer the question “What should people in power do when their power is threatened?”, using the notes taken in class as well as the documents given to us about what the European rulers sought to accomplish, and also an interactive map to show how they changed the boundary lines.

The European rulers who attended the conference didn't have the interest of their people in mind while they made changes in their varying governments, they cared more about regaining and maintaining the money and power they were raised with. During the congress, they even had Beethoven compose an eleven minute symphony for them. One of the of the attendees’ reactions to the new opportunity of power was The Holy Alliance. It was Initiated by Czar Alexander of Russia, and suggested that monarchs had divine right to rule as they did before Napoleon’s conquest. Also, any revolution was treason against God, and those who participated were punished severely. England is one of the few, if not only country that did not take part. This would ensure that the people would rarely, if not ever revolt against the monarchy. The Congress of Vienna resulted in each of the European countries, besides France, regaining their territory and in most cases even gained land.

I think that with the history of European revolts, the Congress should have given a little more freedom and choice to the people. Had I been a member of the congress, I would have suggested a democracy but would have settled for anything besides divine monarchy. The people need more freedom and opportunity, which they would never get under the rule of a divine monarch.

Napoleon

In class, we have been discussing Napoleon Bonaparte's reign of France, and onto most of the world, in the mid 1800's. It was stated in The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians By Thomas J. Vance that'"Had Bonaparte died in that year," wrote Johnston, "the world would have been left with a totally different impression of him." Napoleon would have been "regarded in the light of something heroic, and remembered as something peculiarly, though perhaps dangerously, fine," according to Johnston. "A great soldier, a great liberator, a great reformer and a great lawgiver....As, however, it was given to him to live for 18 years after this, and to work actively for 12, he has been denounced -- and, it must be confessed, with a certain degree of truth -- as a usurper, a tyrant, and a greedy, egotistical and ambitious ruler, it has also been found impossible to deny that his work, such as it was, was accomplished with an exquisite efficiency almost amounting to perfection."' which explains how he was able to conquer what was estimated to be between 71% and 85% of the world. His political, economic, and social systems had both positive and negative impacts on all tiers of the social pyramid.

Politically, his impact was positive for the poor because of his meritocracy which created an equal playing field for the entire population. He abolished serfdom, which gave the lower class more room to expand their range of opportunity. However, it was negative for the Kings who were in power because they either lost power or had to follow Napoleonic code, which was a strict set of rules written by Napoleon which forbade privileges based on birth, allowed freedom of religion, and specified that government jobs should go to the most qualified, rather than someone who got their job through relationships or family. It was also negative for church politicians because their power was significantly reduced due to the Napoleonic code.Economically, his impact was positive because he controlled prices, encouraged new industry, and built roads and canals which enabled more opportunity of migration and trade for the people. He established the first bank of France, which gave the people a sense of financial safety as well as a great advantage for the economy. However, it was negative for other countries under his reign, mainly Italy, because he took money from them and put it into the French economy. Socially, his impact was positive because more citizens had rights to property and access to education than had been the case before his rule. Also, he eliminated the importance of titles and equalized classes and abolished serfdom and nobility in a successful attempt to level the playing field of the population.

More specific examples of the systems are real people affected by them, such as Madame de Stael and Marshal Michel Ney.

Marshal Michel Ney, as shown in the document above, was a strict supporter of Napoleon. Though he refers to Napoleon as their "august emperor" which means a respected and admirable ruler, he is also believed to have been most loyal because of his position in Napoleons army, which was very high up which gave him a lot of power. Madame de Stael however, who was once of nobility but lost her status and wealth due to Napoleon's systems, reported him to be unprepared to rule and didn't even care enough to do it properly. She later stated that she thought that under his rule, the countries lost their sense of culture. These separate points of view show that though Napoleon's systems did have positives to certain demographics, they came hand in hand with the negatives of another.

Sources:

Notes taken in class

http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/biographies/c_historians.html

Chocunism

During class, as a lesson of how communism came to be, we played a game to show the economic system during the industrial revolution. Each student was given 2 pieces of candy,aside from 2 students who received between 6 and 10. Then, we had to either lose or gain wealth by playing rock-paper-scissors with our classmates. The poor had the opportunity to become rich, and vise-versa. That was capitalism. The next step taken by the government was socialism, in which the government owns industry and the goal is economic equality in a classless society. Then, after that is communism which is the goal of socialism being met to the point where government isn't even needed. This lesson was fun, until I lost all my candy. However, it was a fun way to learn rather than taking notes.

The invisible hand is an idea to just let people take care of themselves and for the government to leave them and the economy be. Sellers will put their highest quality goods at the lowest price they possibly can, and they will succeed and the economy will grow and thrive. However it does take a while for things and people to become used to it, so the government usually does step in to keep things running. The invisible hand allows people to have a choice and make their own successes and failures, whereas communism would take money from hardworkers to other people. The invisible hand does help the poor, because eventually the prices will get so low that they'll be able to afford them. Years later, Marx's ideas were developed and they threatened the upper class so much that he was exiled. This was because some of them worked hard for their money, and some of them had never had anything less than what they did and were not prepared for change. Though his idea would help the poor, it is thought that had any governments adopted it, nobody would push themselves to improve or become their own people, much like the way it is in North Korea. 

Personally, I'm a fan of the invisible hand, however I do think having someone to represent the country is necessary. Also, if the invisible hand were to be put into play, the country would have to go through a period of depression until the system became normal. 

Option One- US vs GB

During the industrial revolution, the United States and Great Britain had the same common goal yet 2 completely different ways of achieving it. In the United States, mill workers were treated with as much respect and you would expect for people of their social status at the time, whereas in Great Britain people with the same rights as the people who hired them are being treated as slaves.

In Great Britain, children worked 17 hour days which after long periods of time caused deformities such as bones bending or moving over time, bones bending inward or outward, arthritis and many more. It was reported that since there wasn't one kill switch that would turn off the machines all at once, if a child got caught in a machine they'd hardly ever even bother turning it off. Throughout their 17 hour days, the children would get no nourishment aside from fatty meat and potatoes that were usually full of cotton fibers, and that they had to eat at the machines. The children workers were beaten severely if they didn't do their work properly and efficiently, such as William Hughes, a child mill worker, was beaten by his overlookers son to the point where he "couldn't even crawl". Had they not gone to that extreme, the children would have had better conditions. Women were beaten in front of men as to embarrass them, such as flogging them over their [the masters] knee in front of men and boys.This behavior towards workers reflected poorly towards their reputation. 

Image of orphans doing hard and dangerous tasks necessary for the machines to be ran, but too dangerous for anyone to let their children do. (England)

Thanks to the Lowell Experiment, girls in the US were promised amazing working conditions as well as living conditions. They were promised a paternal system, which was the men who ran the mills and the house mothers. Aside from the budget cuts they were doing very well at keeping the girls happy. They had the freedom of making their own decisions and how they'd spend their own money and got an education that they never would have had access to at home, and they received 3 meals a day as well as leisure time. 

The Lowell Experiment was created with the sole purpose of saving girls in the US from meeting the same fate as Great Britain citizens had been for years. The conclusion my class and I have come to throughout these past few weeks of studying the industrial revolution, is that in Great Britain, the mill owners were profit hungry and cared little to none for their workers, but in the US they needed to put the workers first in order to even have workers, and once they hired someone they intended to keep them happy and healthy until they were no longer of use.