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.