Picking the Right Guy

During the rise of democracy in the United States in the early 1800s, a man named "the People's President" came along.  His name was Andrew Jackson who currently today is on the 20 dollar bill.  Now, the reason why he got his name is because well, he was for the people but just saying that doesn't specifically describe what he did or how he ruled as president.  Now, being that democracy is a system where the people vote on laws or elect representatives to vote for them, his policies both made us more and less democratic.  Our class broke off into 6 groups.  Two groups researched and analyzed the same category to create a presentation on their system.  The three categories were the spoils system, Indian removal, and the bank war. 

The spoils system was our groups topic.  Basically, the spoils system had Jackson taking current people with government positions who were very intelligent and replacing them with people who were loyal to him giving them the positions.  He removed 919 people from their current positions to make room for those who had supported him in his campaign.  423 of these people were from the United States Post Office.  Another example was Samuel Swartwout; it even sounds like an evil name.  Swartwout had a criminal record but supported Jackson in his campaign so he appointed Swartwout to tax collector of the Port of New York.  So, like any criminal who takes in money, they don't give it to where it is supposed to go, they just take it for themselves kind of like trickle down economics with the rich.  Anyways, Swartwout stole over 1 million dollars from the U.S Government.  He also took an additional nine cents.  What a blow.  So in this case, Jackson only benefited his supported and not all of the people in the United States.  There was also the Indian removal system.  This was a system he put in place to benefit whites by taking Indians that were in their current tribes and moving them out west of the Mississippi River because whites around them were supposedly "destroying the resources of the savage."  However, the natives refused to leave because it was the land of their fathers and it is where they were originally from.  They also were there first.  So, Jackson forced them to and those who still refused to leave were taken by American soldiers and put in concentration camps.  He believed that they did not know what was best for them because if they stayed, whites would wipe them out.  So in this case, he was for whites and not for all.  Lastly, there was the bank war.  Daniel Webster who was a wealthy banker proposed an expansion on the big banks to grow the economy.  However, Jackson vetoed because he did not want the banks to be too powerful because the people running the bank would have made policies that benefited themselves when they were already wealthy and this would have happened had it passed.  Jackson said they were powerful enough but made them look like the bad guys who were selfish and conceived.  He wanted more stable and equal classes and wanted small businesses to stay.  However, he wanted to wipe the bank out instead of just putting regulations on it or vetoing expansion.  Now, this showed that he was for all of the people and that he wanted equality among them when it came to power of the bank and class size.  In this case, he was for the people with the right intentions but again could not execute properly.



Our Groups Google Slides - The Spoils System

"https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1LyaQZEBhVqrE0n9zUzzmbAiq5Sk-2akIYKUKycJBXTQ/embed?start=false&loop=false&delayms=3000"

         

Democracy, Finally!!

This week, our Honors History class studied the rise of democracy in the United States.  The United States' system of government made the United States very unique to the other countries in the 1800's.  Now, democracy is the form of government that one could say benefits the people the most.  Democracy is a form of government that allows the people to participate equally either by voting on laws directly or running for office themselves, or by indirectly through elected representatives indirectly.  In the 1800's, the United States was widening its democratic politics by expanding westward past the Appalachian Mountains.  By the mid 1820's, the number of states west of the Appalachian Mountains had increased form just two to eight attracting new people.  This grew democracy in the United States making it the way it is today.  Our class found this evidence by analyzing primary sources and charts from the 1800's.  We all found that democracy was spreading as the number of states were increasing while the number of states with property requirements were going down along with tax-payer states.  These requirements only allowed white land owners to vote but was eliminated in 1850.  These decisions were influenced by the people who lived in the states which shows a rise of democracy.  Democracy's rise was so important because it shaped the system of government that we have today.



Our Group's poster.  



    

Imagine

Last week, our Honors History class learned about the Latin American revolutions.  They occurred in the early 1800's.  In class, we broke into groups and were given the social structures of the revolutions.  We had to fill in a pie chart with the percent of each rank on the social pyramid.  Then, we analyzed the Casta Art painting.  It was a grid frame that showed how people were separated based on a person of one rank marrying one of another.  It also showed how people of mixed races intercourse resulted in a certain race of the newborn.  Then, 2-3 groups were assigned a revolution to study.  Each group would create a timeline for the three major revolutions; Brazil, Mexico, and Gran-Columbia.  After that, members from each group went to a certain station and shared their timeline with the other revolution group members.  Each new group had to find two commonalities and two differences between each revolution.  Then, as a class we formed a jigsaw among all of the revolutions.


Our group's country was Brazil.  After John VI fled from Portugal at the spite of Napoleon by invasion, he made Brazil his kingdom but had to return to Portugal as a constitutional monarch.  In return, his son Pedro inherited the throne.  He then started a conflict with Argentina while at the same time declaring independence from Portugal.  But, his conflict with Argentina led to a defeat and a flee back to Portugal.  After the groups discussed the entire class found commonalities and differences among all three revolutions.  One of the the commonalities among the three is that all three leaders did not stay in power and/or had to flee or abdicate to somewhere else.  In Brazil, Pedro fled back to Portugal in 1831 because of his policies with race after the revolution.  In Mexico, the leader Iturbide was declared emperor of Mexico but that was short lived as republican leaders Santa Anna and Guadalupe Victoria deposed Iturbide and set up a republic, with Victoria as it's first president.  In Gran-Columbia, Simón Bolívar was all over the place.  He was the ruler of Venezuela when they declared for independence.  The Spanish invaded and he escaped to Cartegena.  In 1813, he returned to Venezuela and won six successive engagements against the Spanish and took political control.  But the next year, the Spanish recaptured it and he fled to Bogotá making it his capital city and recapturing it again making it his base.  Then, he is invaded again and flees to Jamaica and Haiti.  He then comes back in 1817 and tries to take 2500 men to make an attack on New Granada through a considered impossible route through a waterlogged river and over the Andes.  The surprise held and he once again took over Gran until he passed away in 1830 due to Tuberculosis.  Now, the second commonality is that all three countries were successful in breaking ties with Europe.  Pedro of Brazil declared independence, Iturbide was declared as emperor of Mexico, and Simón Bolívar was able to recapture the joined forces but not in complete control.  One of the main differences among the three revolutions is that the Brazilian Revolution was not at all that violent while the other two were of extreme violence.  Pedro had declared independence and Portugal recognized it.  The only real violence was the Cisplatine War in 1827 where Brazil was defeated by Argentina.  In Mexico, the occupation of Spain of Napoleon led to revolts all across Spanish-America.  Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla "the father of Mexican independence"launched the Mexican rebellion with his "Cry of Delores," and his populist army came close to capturing the Mexican capital.  Defeated at Calderón in January 1811, he fled north but was captured and executed.  He was followed by other peasant leaders, however, such as José María Morelos y Pavón, Mariano Matamoros, and Vicente Guerrero, who all led armies of native and racially mixed revolutionaries against the Spanish and the Royalists.  In Gran-Columbia, the were a number of revolts by the Spanish and by Simón Bolívar.  There multiple revolts by both.  Although, Bolívar never gave up when he was gone, and continuously fought back just to get in power (which is what the Spanish were doing but were more powerful). This lead to fighting all across the nation until his death and the people got what they wanted which I am going to explain next.  The last difference is that the revolution of Gran-Columbia resulted in a few different counties and the other revolutions resulted in one country.  Brazil and Mexico both declared themselves independent countries while Gran-Columbia broke off into Ecuador, Venezuela, and Gran-Columbia as separate countries.

One thing for sure, slavery is never coming back to this nation.  But, based on the way society is today, racism will be something that is always viewed.  No one would ever come out and say that they are racists and believe in slavery because our country has strong unity against it as a whole.  The country as a whole is viewed as a nation that strictly enforces the abolition of slavery and free men and women every day no matter what race you are.  However, there are many people who have strong opinions and beliefs about racism.  Many are still fighting the civil war as I like to say.  However, there are others that do not actually see what is wrong with slavery because they were born to believe in it or they were not educated properly on it.  No one can change anyone's beliefs.  You are entitled to your own opinion.  However, if you actually believe slavery is a good thing and that there is nothing wrong with racism, then make sure that your opinion actually is your own and keep it to yourself because no one would want to hear someone publicly say he or she believes in racism.  The world is so open now but still has its ups and downs.  A breaking story right now is what has transpired in Ferguson, Missouri.  The main headline is that a black teenager was shot and killed by a police officer.  He was shot six times.  There ware many different stories and witnesses.  Although, I don't believe that a kid who was running away and then put his hands up surrendering deserves to be shot six times in which four out of the six are to make sure he is dead.  Another experience, the last two years with the Trayvon Martin case.  The main headline was that he was in his town house neighborhood walking to get skittles and iced tea and go back to his house to watch an NCAA Men's Basketball playoff game.  A night security guard named George Zimmerman took him as suspicious and started following him.  He then called police and reported him.  They specifically said not to follow him.  Of course he did and allegedly said (these are words from the recording of the call and do not follow my own personal words) "these n*****s, they always get away with it".  Then, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed.  Zimmerman's alibi was that it was self defense and that Martin assaulted him while on top of him meaning Zimmerman's back was on the ground.  How could he then reach under himself and pull out a gun?  It possible theoretically but not realistically in my opinion.  Just based on his quote, how does racism not tie into that?  And lastly, just this year on a Los Angeles freeway as they call it, apparently a highway patrol officer saw a woman walking down it and ordered her to stop.  She was a black grandmother.  When she kept walking, he ran up on her and tackled her.  She then put her arm in his direction and he punched her in the face which can be understood if the officer was threatened.  However, after she put her hand over her face like a normal human instinct, he preceded to punch her over and over while she was lying there helpless.  He continued to punch her and then arrested her.  And, to think that L.A.P.D. would release a statement, but instead, they made it their rookie training video.  Isn't that despicable?  But again, just the way racism is viewed in this country is based on how the media presents it.  None of the three incidents would have been the main headlines if racism wasn't a factor.  But also, maybe, just maybe these incidents would not have even happened had racism not been tied into them in the first place.  All of these cases just prove the point that racism is still a huge issue in this country.  All men are created equal.  Are blacks not considered men then if racism exists?  I hope that in the near future, someday we can all stand as one and put the issues like racism aside.  Imagine what that would make us as a country.  Imagine the future. 

   

Shown here is the L.A.P.D. officer who repeatedly punched a helpless woman in the face.  As you can see like I said before, she has her hands protecting her face.  There's no rationale for the cop.  Is she supposed to let the cop punch her in the face multiple times without protecting herself which does not affect the cop?  Is the cop thinking I keep punching because she won't let me get at her face completely, even though I'm a cop and she is helpless on the ground.  This is just truly disgusting. 

Image Citation: Mail Online. Associated Newspapers. Web. 26 Nov. 2014. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1103467/Cop-filmed-repeatedly-punching-woman-head.html>.

Complex Man in Complicated Time

Adolf Hitler, one of the most evil men to ever walk on the face of this Earth had a goal to kill every Jew that walked on this planet.  Although he was evil, he had ways of influencing and captivating others to join his mission.  He killed over 6 million Jews.  He was a great public speaker and he spoke with eloquence and had influential speeches to persuade people to follow him.  There were many men like this; Martin Luther King Jr., who convinced the blacks being discriminated against by his famous "I Have a Dream" speech to arise as one to end discrimination.  Alex the Great was the military commander of Egypt influenced his men to follow his leads and ended up winning the major battles he took part in.  Then came Toussaint L'Ouvreture.  He was a former slave who worked as a herder and then became a coachman leading to be an overseer of slaves.  He then was granted freedom from his owner and rented a small coffee plantation and acquired one dozen slaves of his own.  Eventually, he became frustrated with the treatment of slaves and started to lead rebellions against landowners. Then, he became the ruler (for life) of Saint Domingue.  While in power, he was able to put down revolts from Napoleon trying to bring back slavery and from the slaves whom he stood on the side of when his policies for their work were enforced.  Hereby, we should remember Toussaint L'Ouvreture as a liberator of slaves, the ruler of Saint Domingue, and as a military commander.  

One way we should recognize Toussaint L'Ouvreture's past life is a liberator of slaves.  The French Revolution had just began in 1789 (Doc. A).  Free men of color in Saint Domingue had proclaimed themselves Frech citizens which gave they full civic rights (Doc. A).  This lead to a slave revolt in Northern Saint Domingue (Doc. A).  In 1791, Toussaint and joined the revolution and served as a doctor to the troops while also commanding a small detachment of slave soldiers (Doc. A).  With non-stop revolts occurring, the French Government under Maximilien Robespierre abolished slavery in 1794 in France and all of its colonies in which Toussaint stopped their revolts and now supported the French because he was supporting any side against slavery (Doc. A).  In 1797, he wrote a letter to the French Directory who was the government at the time (Doc. B).  "He states "But today when they have left it, if they had a thousand lives, they would sacrifice them all rather than be subjected to slavery again" (Doc. B).  He then was the ruler of Saint Dominque capturing Santo Domingo which was the Spanish portion of the island in 1801 (Doc. A).  Prior to that, he put down a revolt against the British whom were worried that the movement would spread to their colony of Jamaica (Doc. A).  However, he was able to put it down.  He also in 1801 assembled Saint Domingue's Constitution (Doc. C).  It states that "all men are born, live, and die free" (Doc. C).  Also, it states that the workers will be paid for their work that benefits the economy (Doc. C).  In 1802, Napoleon sent 21,000 troops to Saint Domingue to reinstate slavery (Doc. A).  To counter them, he burned the down a small city and they waited in the mountains.  Napoleon withdrew from Saint Domingue but he withdrew with Toussaint after he was able to trick him into a negotiation meeting and they captured him and sent him by ship to France (Doc. A).  But in the end, Saint Domingue was victorious over Haiti and declared independence (Doc. A).  Now, all of these events are individual achievements that was all for the great purpose of the abolition of slavery.  He did all of this work just to set everyone else who was enslaved free.  Now, the letter he wrote to the Directory basically said it would be impossible to reinstate slavery because the people had gone through it once and would not go through it again.  He said that the people would fight to the death to prevent slavery from being reinstated and that he would do everything in his power to keep it abolished.  Lastly, the Constitution of Saint Domingue of 1801 promised that all men were born, live, and die free.  It encourages agricultural work because it would help grow the island's economy.  Without that work being done, the economy would collapse just based on where they are located and why their products are valuable especially sugar.  Each worker would share the revenues equally which is fair to all.  All of the acts and beliefs brought up by Toussaint L'Ouvreture benefited all whom he supported, while being a strong liberator of slaves. 

 

Another way we should remember Toussaint L'Ouvreture is the Ruler of Saint Domingue.  In 1801, he signed the Saint Domingue Constitution (Doc. C).  While its citizens were all free, it still remained a colony of France (Doc. C).  There are three titles provided in the document that were the most important.  Titles II is "Of the Inhabitants", Title VI is "Of Culture and Commerce", and Title VIII is "Of the Government" (Doc. C).  To be more specific than I explained it before, the work encouraged by the island is agricultural work as it states "The colony being essentially agricultural work cannot suffer the least disruption in the works of its cultivation" (Doc. C).  "Each plantation shall represent the quiet haven of an active and constant family, of which the owner of the land shall be the father" (Doc. C).  "Each cultivator and each worker is a member of the family and is entitled to share the revenues" (Doc. C).  The father and family are just fancy names for land owner and cultivator.  Article 28 states "The Constitution nominate citizen Toussaint L'Ouvreture,....he is entrusted the direction thereof for the remainder of his glorious life" (Doc. C).  This made him the governor or ruler of Saint Domingue for life.  Now, also included in 1801 was the Proclamation 25.  It states "As soon as a child can walk, he should be employed on the plantation according to his strength in some useful work" (Doc. D).  Now, the two most important statements are these; "Any manager or driver of a plantation upon which a foreign cultivator shall have taken refuge shall denounce him to the captain or commander of the section within 24 hours under penalty of one week in prison" and
"Vagabond cultivators arrested....shall be taken to the commander of the quarter, who will have sent them to the gendarmerie on their plantation" (Doc. D).  Now, the constitution have the landowners the rights to run the plantations but each worker would share the revenues.  Now, the support of the slaves gives an advantage to L'Ouvreture being governor for life.  However, if he is governor for life, he has to stay for life and can't change if he wants to.  Now, the reason why Toussaint made the Proclamation is because workers were refusing to work on their plantations.  The reason for that is because although they are not treated like it and they are getting paid, they are doing the work that they did when they were slaves.  So, they still feel like slaves.  The word 'free' was also getting to their heads because they thought that they didn't have to work because they were free but Toussaint originally said you will be free but you still have to work to support the economy.  Now, he has to enforce it.  The time span between these two primary sources is 4-5 months.  Both show how he set certain policies and enforced them on the people.  The constitution is the policies that are set and the proclamation now truly enforces them.  Therefore, we should remember Toussaint L'Ouvreture as the Ruler of Saint Domingue.

The last way we should remember Toussaint L'Ouvreture is a military commander.  In the fall of 1801, L'Ouvreture's nephew Hyacinthe Moyse became a focal point of a gathering of discontent with Toussaint's draconian labor policies (Doc. E).  There was also suspicion of friendliness with the white painter class (Doc. E).  Toussaint appointed Moyse as commander of the all the Northern Department and he planned to have allow the plantations in the North to be parceled out into small holdings (Doc. E).  Then, on October 29th, a revolt broke out in the Northern Plain (Doc. E).  Whites were massacred from Fort Liberté to the gates of Cap Français and the war cry was "General Moyse is with us-death to all whites" (Doc. E).  This made Toussaint so furious that he ordered certain men to step out of the ranks and commit suicide and he had Moyse arrested and had him confined in the fort of Port de Paix (Doc. E).  Then, he was brought to a firing squad and was executed on his own order (Doc. E).  At this point, there was still uncertainty among Toussaint and the slaves but the entire island soon had to come together as one.  Great Britain and Spain were worried about the spread of the abolition of slavery spreading to their colony of Jamaica by using his genius and surpassing activity while raising the reputation of the army (Doc. F).  "Toussaint, by his superior knowledge of character of his race, his humanity, generosity, and courage, had gained the confidence of all whom he had under his command" (Doc. F).  Napoleon sent 21,000 troops to Saint Domingue in an attempt to reinstate slavery.  So, when Toussaint saw the ships coming towards the city of Samana, he burned the city to ruins and fled to the mountains and waited (Doc. F).  The attempt was to draw the troops to the mountains and it worked (Doc. F).  The French entered the mountains and were defeated by an onslaught by Toussaint's army.  Now, the reason why the slave revolts were breaking out in the North like I said before was because the workers were doing the same work when they were slaves so they still felt like they were being enslaved.  They felt restricted because they could not leave a plantation without permission.  And, rumors of conspiracy with white landowners was started by Moyse.  So, a revolt broke out but it would not have happened had Toussaint listened to his people and tried to make it better instead of enforcing new policies.  The workers needed to do that work for the economy but Toussaint did not make an attempt to try to resolve things and make compromises which led to the rebellion.  He learned his lesson the hard way.  However, he did make ends meet and he was able to get all of the island on his side to defeat the French and help carry out his plan.  He knew the French were coming to enslave them so burning the city which they would arrive and fleeing to the mountains worked because the people of the island knew the mountains and were familiar with them and knew the ins and outs of them.  Not only that, but Toussaint's traits of his courage, generosity, humanity, race, and most importantly confidence and superior knowledge show the strength of an army's commander and the effect he has on his army.  We should remember Toussaint L'Ouvreture as a military commander.                             

Although Toussaint in 1803 was tricked into a negotiation meeting and captured in the battle against the French and then died in a French jail, we should still remember Toussaint L'Ouvreture as a liberator of slaves, the Ruler of Saint Domingue, and a military commander.  His success on this island is incredible.  The letters, pep-talks, prepping for battles, revolts, and battle plans for defeating whoever stood in front of them all show Toussaint's willingness, passion, and dedication to fight for the greater cause really shows you what he is made of and how he can use his knowledge and gain support to fight for what he truly believed in; all men and women are viewed as equals.



Bibliography:  

Document A: Created from various sources
Document B: Toussaint L'Ouvreture, "Letter to the French Directory, November 1797."
Document C: The Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801. Signed by Toussaint L'Ouvreture in July 1801.
Document D: Toussaint L'Ouvreture, "Proclamation, 25 November 1801."
Document E: Madison Smartt Bell, Toussaint L'Ouvreture: A Biography, 2007.
Document F: William Wells Brown, "A Description of Toussaint L'Ouvreture," from The Black Man, His Antecedents, His Genius, and His Achievements, 2nd edition, 1863.  Engraving of Toussaint L'Ouvreture, 1802.

 

"Why Can't We All Be Friends"?

Prior to last week, our Honors History class studied the Revolutions of 1830 and 1848.  There were many revolutions in that time period.  The revolutions' each had separate purposes and were to achieve something.  Our class broke into groups and each group took a revolt or separate revolution.  There were five in total.  Before we did that, we learned the statement "When France sneezes, Europe catches a cold" to help us understand how all of these revolutions and revolts occurred.  In the statement, France sneezing is the French Revolution.  Europe catching a cold is when France's military lead by Napoleon invades the surrounding countries of Europe.  They are spreading the cold around.  Each group then was assigned their own revolution and had to complete four steps.  Step One was charting the basics where we had to read the primary source for our revolution and find the country, date of the revolution, the goals of it, the opponents, the outcomes, and the reasons for a successful or a failure revolution.  Step Two was to find evidence from the primary sources and put it into the categories of goals, opponents, or outcomes.  Step three was to determine whether or not the revolution was a success or a failure.  The final step was creating our Survey Monkeys where we made questions about our revolution into a quiz format and the other groups took the quiz using the primary sources for the topic.  Then, each group went over the answers and all of the surveys showed that each student individually learned about the revolutions pretty well.

Our group had the Frankfurt Assembly of 1848.    There was turmoil in the German states.  University students demanded national unity (nationalism) and liberal reforms.  Times were tough economically and a potato famine had occurred.  This brought workers and peasants to a serious struggle.  As a result, workers destroyed the machines which they worked on and peasants burned down the homes of the wealthy land owners.  It was not just the German states that were having these problems.  It was also occurring in Prussia.  There were liberals forcing King Frederick William IV to a constitution written by an elected assembly.  However, the assembly was dissolved within a year and preceded to write his own constitution which kept the power in his own hands or those of the upper classes.  Throughout 1848, delegates from the German States met in the Frankfurt Assembly.  One great leader even said "We are to create a constitution for Germany, for the whole land."  Many topics were discussed such as having a monarchy or a republic and whether or not to include Austria in a united German state.  However, the conservative King Frederick IV rejected the crown of a united Germany.  Liberals clashed but conservative forces rallied dousing the revolt.  Hundreds were killed and imprisoned.  Thousands more left Germany.  Most of those thousands went to the United States because the young nation had promised a democratic nation and economic opportunity.  Now, King Frederick IV rejected the crown but many wondered why.  A picture (which Blogger is refusing to allow to appear) shows King Frederick William IV slamming the door in the faces of the liberals who want the reforms.  He has a soldier helping him shut the door which symbolizes that he has the support of the army as well but not his people.  "No Piece of Paper Will Come between Myself and My People," stated by King Frederick.  He believed that God had given him the right to rule the way he was and he was not going to let a piece of paper ruin it.  At that point, the representatives of the assembly were not getting anywhere with change.  Now, King Frederick William (Friedrich Wilhelm) had rejected the crown but he was not the only one who was not in favor.  Karl Marx wrote a cologne on November 22, 1848 after the King's refusal to accept the crown.  He said that the acts had destroyed the Frankfurt Parliament and that anyone who protested the government and its acts such as taxes would be committing treason which was unlawful because it was going against God.
Now, on the scale of success or failure, this revolution was a partial failure.  It failed because the liberal reforms were not passed and resulted in deaths, imprisonments, and people leaving the country.  However, it is only partial because this movement was recognized in and was used as an example for reforms that came in later generations so it was not a complete failure.

Many historians have said that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were failures.  The Decembrists revolt was suppressed by Tsar Nicholas I in 1825 which took place in the Senate Square in St. Petersburg, Russia.  Nicholas who took over the throne for his brother Tsar Alexander I who had died yelled "Holt" but the Decembrists replied "We're for Constantine" (who had not taken the throne).  They walked by Nicholas I who knew bloodshed would occur had he not yelled right then "Fire" at the Russians who were enslaved and who's revolt was defeated.  There was also the revolt of France in 1830.  Now, this was not necessarily a failure at all.  This was a partial success as a matter of fact.  The Congress of Vienna declared Louis XVIII as the King of France.  Louis had the support of ultraroyalists who were high clergy and émigré nobles were strong supporters of the King.  They despised constitutional monarchy and wanted to restore old regime.  However, factions who were liberals wanted more rights for the middle class.  Louis XVIII had created a Charter of French Liberties which gave more constitutional rights.  However, even though he tried to avoid absolutism, he still retained much power.  After his death, his cousin Charles X inherited the throne.  He was a strong believer in absolutism and he rejected every idea of the Charter.  However, the liberals and radicals barricaded the narrow streets of France firing at soldiers.  The rebels had controlled Paris within days and the French tricolor flew from the towers of Notre Dame "And could be seen from Miles Away!!  Charles X fled to England.  Then, his cousin Louis Philippe inherited the throne and gave the rights back to the middle class at the expense of workers and the fact that many still could not vote.  This was not a complete success but the liberals and radicals made a huge gap in former policies.  Lastly, the revolution of Hungary in 1848.  This could be taken as a partial success and partial failure.  Metternich who was the Austrian Emperor who had dominated Austrian politics for over 30 years was taken by surprise when a revolt broke out in Vienna.  Students took the streets of Vienna.  He tried to calm them, but when workers supported the students, Metternich fled in disguise.  Revolution then spread throughout the empire to Budapest and Prague.  Hungarian nationalists demanded an independent government and for an end to serfdom and they called for a written constitution to protect one's basic rights.  Czechs made similar demands and overwhelmed Austrian government agreed.  However, these were temporary gains as Austrian troops took back control of Vienna and Prague.  They also smashed rebels in Budapest with Russian help.  Many were imprisoned, executed, and forced into exile.  The reforms were accomplished but at the expense of lives of protesters which is why it is partial success/partial failure. 



Our Survey Monkey Link:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/survey-thanks/?sm=iBMT0a%2bzzvuUO4g3OrPlrHvkVtvrnCQCoZZmn5jqIb0%3d 

     

Just Pick One!!!!

In our Honors History class last week, we learned about the Congress of Vienna.  In class, we took what we knew from Napoleon in our last unit and we learned about Klemens Von Metternich who was the ruler of Austria.  War was breaking out all over Europe and relations between Austria and France were shaky.  Napoleon was seeking peace and while Metternich agreed, both he and Napoleon implied if necessary, war will occur.  We watched a reenacted video on that agreement in class.  Now, remains from the Napoleonic war had left their marks.  It had happened all over Europe.  Now, in order to reestablish peace, Metternich called on the Congress of Vienna where rulers from the U.K., Russia, Prussia, and of course Austria came together and made a decision on how to create peace while power was being threatened. 

The Congress of Vienna was convened in 1814.  After the devastation from the Napoleonic wars and after his defeat, he returned from exile and resumption of power in France.  He reached Paris but before Napoleon was able to reach Paris, the Congress of Vienna declared him an outsider.  This would lead to the signing of the final act of the Congress of Vienna and Napoleon was defeated and captured finally at the battle of Waterloo.  Now, in the final act, the congress decided to declare the ideology of conservatism.  Metternich who was conservative originally wanted the tradition of old monarchs.  He wanted it to be the way it was before Napoleon came around with

Shown above is the new map of Europe. 

invasions and made all of the liberal reforms.  That was the way it ended up working out and it worked in his favor.  Now, the Congress of Vienna had many reasons of forming but one of the most important reasons was 'Balance of Power' and changes to the Map of Europe after Napoleon conquered.  This was the first real problem that was discussed.  Now, Napoleon conquered all around Europe and many original boundaries were changed.  Prussia which was small expanded and got Saxony, a Swedish branch, and the greater part of the reign land.  Russia secured Finland and the greater part of Poland.  They removed Bessarabia from Austria.  Austria received its old land back from the Satellite States.  The U.K. received no land on the mainland continent of Europe but they did receive some islands to ensure the continuance of their colonial policies.  It received Helgoland in the North Sea, as well as the island south of Italy and the Ionian Islands in the Mediterranean.  Sweden's attempt at Norway was confirmed at the expense of Denmark.  Denmark received the Dutch Islands of Holstein and Lauenburg.  France received its old borders.  However, buffer states were put in place to prevent more invasions from them.  To the north was the Netherlands along with Belgium and to the south was Piedmont Sa Demur which got the counties of Chambéry, Nice, and Genoa.  Italy and Germany were left partitioned despite the boundaries of the German Confederation.  Belgium and Norway were left to foreign rule.  The Ottoman Empire remained independent which included the Greeks, Romanians, Bulgars, and Serbs.  They reversed the changes of Napoleon's conquests, had him defeated and captured at Waterloo, and maintain non vindictive peace between the countries.

Now, there were many reasons as to why the decisions were made.  However, I could say that the decisions made could be a little different.  Now, in Metternich's regard, I am completely in favor of France's and Austria's old borders being restored.  I also support Austria getting their old land back.  However, I do not support Belgium and Norway being subjected to foreign rule because they are not satisfied.  The other problems involved how to avoid future revolutions.  Although they did make it a treason to start a revolution, that cannot necessarily be relied on.  I would've restored the boundaries before the revolution.  Belgians and Norwegians become independent countries.  The United Kingdom would not get the Dutch Islands.  That would be part of the Netherlands.  However, the acts of the Congress of Vienna did not prevent invasions due to the Italian uprising against Austria.  Austria proceeded to crush them.  Some great powers are too caught up in more land but don't realize the impacts of that.  However, the ideology allowed great powers to send troops in to stop revolutions if they occurred.  If by means the last necessary way to prevent war, then so be it.  In closing, I can agree that the Congress of Vienna created a Balance of Powers that created a new secure map yet didn't take every country into consideration.  I believe that the Congress of Vienna had good intentions but had some little poor execution.



Image Source:

"Congress of Vienna." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 28 Oct. 2014. Web. 29 Oct. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Vienna



                                             

Change It or Keep It

The week in our class, we learned about the major political ideologies of the 19th century and how they affected social and political structures.  Students were assigned into groups of about four in each group.  Each group made short presentations or skits about their topic.  Two groups were assigned the same topic.  Each group made a presentation, and the two groups with the same ideology went and the rest of the class decided on who's was better in a 'showdown'.  The three major ideologies were liberalism, conservatism, and nationalism.  My group made common craft video.  Other groups used chatterpix and one group did a live skit.  All of the presentations helped further the students' understanding of the 19th century ideologies.  

H
Our group had the ideology of conservatism.  Our common craft video introduced the ideology of conservatism.  Conservatism supports the keeping of traditional and political structures such as the church system, education system, and he way the government is set up. Conservatives were against the ideas of revolutions because they thought it lead to violence resulting in chaos and blood shed.  They were looking to preserve a system of aristocracy, where there are set social structures with a traditional monarchy that set them up.  Our common craft video explained the meaning of conservatism while it related and used that to the way things were run.  For instance, the reason why conservatives feared revolution was because of the French Revolution that had previously happened.  The French Revolution had such violence like the guillotine, Versailles and the capturing of Louis XVI and Mary Antoinette and bringing them back to Paris, and the storming of the Bastille.  Conservatives did not want this to happen again so they didn't want change at all.  Also, they believed in set social structures because they were afraid that if the government wasn't in control, then things in the country would cause an economy to drop, which had happened in many countries.  With a conservative government, a monarch would be at the top.  Social structures would be in place so work and class was already assigned.  Conservatives cared all about the individual rights, protect free choice, and allow people to do what best for themselves but not for the good of all or for the nation.  Conservatism still exists today but has changed drastically in many ways.    

The other two major ideologies were liberalism and nationalism.  19th century Liberalism was the middle class telling the aristocracy that they have to give to all and the greater majority will benefit rather than the individual.  The middle class should have a say in how the government is run.  Now, they do believe everyone has given individual rights.  Unlike today, 'everyone' did not include the poor or women.  Liberals called for reforms on aristocracy because they were unhappy with the way things were run and were unhappy with the set social classes.  They believed in the idea of the harder you work, the more you make and your class can change.  They also believed in the ending of traditional privileges from the church so that the middle class could have a say.  People like John Locke and Adam Smith believed all have god given natural rights at birth that men could discern through the use of reason.  Liberals are always open minded and looking for a solution to a problem for all.  Nationalism has the unity of culture, language, and history.  They should all unite under one government.  They wanted to thrive out foreign rulers.  For example, all of the small German states had the same language and culture so nationalists thought it would be a better nation if they could unite under one country of Germany.  This was urged by nationalist philosophers Johann Gottlieb Fichte.  Also, philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel argued that every nation has a role to play in the unfolding of the universe.  Now, today, mostly liberalism and conservatism have changed.  Liberals today in government are usually democrats who believe in equality for the middle class, the poor, and women.  They are less concerned about the rich because the middle class in America is about 98% of American families.  They also believe in who is more reasonable to do more.  For example, with taxes today, Liberals believe in he fact that the rich who are not working and not looking for work should be paying the more.  The middle class should pay but less than the rich.  They also believe that the poor are provided with programs and are usually taxed but at a very low rate.  Conservatives today have changed as well.  Today, they seem to want the power to actually change things.  Right now in the U.S. government, especially in the House of representatives, there is a partisan gridlock that will not break between liberals and conservatives and very little gets done.  If you ask me what side I belong to, I would say liberal or democrat today but that doesn't change the fact that I believe in both liberalism and some conservatism. 

Unstoppable!!

Early in this week, our honors history class learned about one of the most powerful leaders in the late 1700s-early 1800s.  His name was Napoleon Bonaparte.  He was the emperor of France while at the same time, he seemed to be the leader of most of Europe.  He was known mostly for his military invasions of other countries and defeating those who invaded France.  He began his military life just at age 9 where he was sent to a military training academy.  When he left, he became a lieutenant colonel and went right to war against the British at Toulon.  He then became a general.  He put down many revolts from royalists and outside enemies while at the same time, his army whom he gathered and himself invaded and captured many other lands.  Even though he invaded and declared wars, many leaders who's land was captured said that he was one of the greatest military leaders of all time while being powerful and having the ambition and trust of his men.  This made him and his army one of the strongest of all time.  Napoleon's combination of military genius, civilian disinterestedness and domineering will, were just what France wanted.

Many rulers, governments, and just plain authors and commoners had very strong impressions of Napoleon which made him a global figure.  People like Madame de Stael and Marshal Michel Ney had opinions on how Napoleon rule and controlled the country of France.  Madame de Stael, a woman of French letters opposed him in every way.  De Stael stated in one of her texts that "he has a profound contempt for all the intellectual riches; virtue, dignity, religion, enthusiasm," and "he would like to persuade men by force and he considers all else to be stupidity or folly."  She says he altered between cunning and force to conquer the countries of Europe.  Now, she came from a wealthy family of nobility that helped serve for the French government financially.  She didn't necessarily

 

What is being shown in dark blue is France and the

lighter blue is what France controlled when Napoleon invaded. 

"Military history of France." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Oct. 2014. Web. 16 Oct. 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history

 

 

believe in military having the power and she believed in power for the nobility and international decisions were made with peace.  Now she believed he created war across Europe and throughout France but didn't realize he was able to overthrow the directory in France, which was a bad group politically.  Nor did she realize he created meritocracy where power was given to people selected on their ability.  The other source is from Marshal Michel Ney who was a military officer who served closely with Napoleon.  Ney states in his letter "The times are gone when people were governed by suppressing their rights.  Liberty Triumphs in the end, and Napoleon, our august emperor, comes to confirm it."  He also states "Now, I would escort to join this immortal legion the Emperor Napoleon conducts to Paris, and which in a few days will reach the capital."  Now, he incidentally is objecting to Madame de Stael because he says Napoleon confirms his nation's liberty triumphs.  Those rights include property rights and education which he restored in France.  He also simulated the industry and removed trade barriers which was created by nobilities, which is what de Stael comes from.  Napoleon may have fought to get control of other lands, but he did not necessarily make those countries worse.  Clearly, he expanded on trade, education and property rights, and individual ability disregarding social class.  There were many others with opinions of Napoleon, like the New England Headley Brothers who stated "Napoleon's moral character was indifferent enough; yet as 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, he was infinitely superior to all the sovereigns who endeavored to crush him."  They agreed with Marshal Michel Ney about his beliefs in work and capability rather than a noble class. 

Now, many have similar opinions of Napoleon.  Many believe he was a very forceful invader with the intention of just invading.  Some believe he invaded but caused no valuable harm to a country.  There are also a few who believe he was invading for power and to promote good.  Now, I rationalize Marshal Ney's opinion more because Napoleon believed in individual liberties and believed in positions of work based on ability and not social class.  I don't necessarily agree with the invasions because I am one who does not want to start but will defend if needed.  Napoleon defended when he needed to, but he invaded more.  This is the part of my opinion that is on the noble side that doesn't want to invade but will defend.  The other part of me though is against the way that nobility runs things, like jobs based on social class and things like suppression laws that come from nobility.  I personally prefer to side with Napoleon just because of his positive intentions, but not with the constant invasions.  
   

 

Life's Unfair!!

 "The Invisible Hand - 60 Second Adventures in Economics (1/6)." YouTube. YouTube, n.d. Web. 8 
Oct. 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulyVXa-u4wE>.       


In our class last Friday, October 3rd, we learned and experimented the ideas of capitalism, socialism, and communism.  We did this by using hershey kisses as Industrialists' money.  We did two experiments using them.  In the first experiment, we used the system of capitalism.  In this experiment, most of the class received two pieces of candy each.  However, a few people received more than two and one person received eight pieces.  After it was distributed, we all had to play rock paper scissors.  If we won, we gained a piece from the person we played and if we lost, we had to give one up.  Some gained more but a decent amount of people lost on their first two rounds (like me or course).  If you lost, you were out of the game.  The people that had the least to begin with were more likely to get out first.  At the end of that round, the candy was recollected.  Then, our second experiment came along.  This time, everyone got an equal amount of candy.  Then we had a choice of weather to play again.  Most of the class declined to play.  The fun part was playing but it would get frustrating when you lost all of your candy.  It was also frustrating to see those who had more to begin with continue to play and have enough to backup the candy if they had lost.  We could not do a thing at that point.

Karl Marx was a German philosopher, an economist, and a revolutionary socialist.  He observed all three systems and came up with a theory of communism.  Karl Marx was concerned about the poor.  His theory basically revolved around how the poor would react to all the systems.  In capitalism, he theorized that they would revolt because capitalism brings unfair economic classes in.  In capitalism, there is private ownership of the industry and there is freedom of competition of businesses and the people.  However, there is a major class struggle and the poor workers revolt against the wealthy.  He supported the poor, yet he wanted them to revolt against the others who were wealthy.  He then theorized that this would lead to socialism.  In socialism, the government owns the industry and takes the resources and redistributes them out equally and the goal is to create economic equality and have a classless nation.  This would lead to communism.  This system is an achieved goal of a classless society and the government is not needed because it has done it a number of times that the people can do it by themselves instead.  Marxism states that there will be no revolts from the poor because there will not be a poor and it will a be a highly organized system.  However, a man named Adam Smith who was a Scottish philosopher and political economist believed in a different approach than Karl Marx.  Smith was also concerned about the poor.  Long before Marx published his ideas, Smith wrote a book called Wealth of Nations.  His book revolved around a simple question; why are some countries wealthy and why are some not?  He had a theory of mechanism or the Invisible Hand.  This is also a type of capitalism, where the invisible hand is always pointing people at an item that is the lowest price and has the highest quality.  He said that the government should be limited.  He said that the way for the poor to gain wealth and to raise their estates is commerce, free trade, free immigration and market.  Now, he said that people should handle their own hand because if people can make good businesses, they can earn more money and make their own decisions about their own businesses.  Now, for the poor, the free market would allow the poor to rise up.  For example, the mill owners are business owners.  The workers are technically customers.  The owners want customers so they need to make an affordable or low price for items.  Paying everyone a low wage won't get the business customers so the mills need to pay a maximum wage to the workers.  The harder one works, the more he/she should be paid.  People are always looking for the best quality item for the lowest price.  So, the Invisible Hand works more for the poor than Marxism because the free market/trade would allow the poor to earn money and get wealth while being able to buy every day necessities.  There would be no revolts from the poor because the Invisible Hand is always pointing them to the lowest price at high quality.  

Dealing with an economy can be very tricky if you are the government.  There will always no matter what system you have be people that are left out and people that say the current system is unfair.  However, I believe in capitalism, but the government must regulate it.  Smith believed in his theory of capitalism that the government should not be involved and let the market roll out alone.  The only problem is the fact that the market being free takes a long time to roll out on its own and can stall at times.  The people need the necessities immediately.  Smith believed that this would occur but would bounce back up which can it be depended on.  Marx's theory has the government and the wealthy sticking side by side and that is why the poor would revolt.  If the government regulates it at a reasonable rate, then a system can work.  Our system is like that today, but there are systems that the government provides like welfare for those unemployed, and student loans.  This is can relate to today's system but there are still poor people in the U.S., so the government being a little more involved with the poor can be the alternate to both Smith's and Marx's theory.  If the government is involved, then the poor will not revolt as the programs for the poor are put in.  This is not completely Marx's theory because he said he poor would revolt. Therefore, I believe in government involved capitalism.