Congress of Vienna: What and Why?

In History we went over what would have happened at the Congress of Vienna. The Congress of Vienna was a meeting of countries trying to resolve big problems. In the activity in class we were given three choices and we tried to pick the one that Prince Clemens von Metternich, the Austrian host of the Congress, would have picked. The first problem concerned the map of Europe. And how the countries would have agreed to reorganize these countries after Napoleons defeat. The choice that was chosen was choice B. That choice explained that the French territory would go back to its prior boundaries. Prussia, Netherlands, Russia and Austria gained more land in this outcome. This made a balance of power between Britain, Prussia, France, Russia and Austria. This ensured one country could not take over the others. The second problem was, who would lead the countries? The outcome was that the brother of Louis XVI, Louis XVIII, would rule. This reestablished the Bourbon monarchy. This was the principle of legitimacy. That was when lawful; monarchs were restored. The third problem was what would happen if there were more revolutions? The solution was that the monarchs would make it more of an effort to stop the flow of revolution ideas. The Holy Alliance was also made, which meant that monarchs had a divine right to rule and revolution was treason against god. There was also the principle of intervention that was any country could help prevent another countries revolution.

The Principle of Intervention was used to help prevent the spreads of to much power and as well as the domination of one country over the other. It was also used to prevent revolutions. The whole concept of Principle of Intervention was that any country, not only the big countries, could send in troops to stop a revolution. This prevented the spread of unwanted ideas that the government didn’t want others to think of. It was a ideology used to restore peace and reinstate a monarchy if needed. This principle also played alongside the holy alliance. Which in short is that monarchs have divine right to rule and revolution is treason against god. That is why all the countries in the Congress of Vienna accepted to do this. They wanted to make sure something like Napoleon never happened again and that monarchy would always rule.

I think this is a great idea. Because the revolutions, which can possibly ruin a country as well as the ones around it, can be quickly prevented by the powers that country is surrounded by. There is a downfall though because this makes countries fight against each other. If two countries are allies and one has a revolution then its ally may attack it and kill many of its people. It forms a kind of distrust between countries. But there is the upside of the other countries would be in gratitude if you stopped a revolution. I think this is the right choice for the Congress of Vienna to make. Mostly because they do not want an accident like Napoleon to occur again. This way unlike Balance of Power gives power to all the countries not just the big select few (Russia, Austria, Prussia, Britain and France). It is odd that Balance of Power is just balancing power between five big countries not all of them.

Here you see the Congress of Vienna. A meeting of all the countries that have battled in the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Basler04/CV 

Napoleon Bonaparte: A Respected Man

Napoleon Bonaparte was known to some people as a tyrannical monster. He wanted to control every piece of land he could get his hands on and rule it by himself. Others saw him as a great leader who improved the way everyone lived. Some people idolize him for his feats of greatness. And others mock him for his blunders. But no one can deny he was a genius when it came to war tactics. Napoleon may have ruined many people lives but he also did some good. Many historians and writers have written about Napoleon in many different ways. Some good, some bad and some in between. The fact that is true about Napoleon is that he was a very memorable man whose actions will be remembered forever. Not only did he greatly impact Europe but the whole world, even today.

As said before Napoleon did good things in is life and was seen as a good ruler.  For starters he was used by the French Directory (government) to improve France. He also helped improve the social system and boosted economy by controlling prices. He also encouraged new industries, which made more jobs and built canals and roads. Some may have said Napoleon improved political systems by eliminating the use of nobles and serfs. But he did substitute people being ruled by nobles to be ruled by him. Napoleon did though end people having to pay large fines to the church. Before being ruled by Napoleon citizens had less of a chance to rights of property and less education. Not only did he improve France and Europe but he also improved America. By selling the Louisiana Territory to the United States in 1803, America doubled in size thus beginning American expansion. Another way he improved the political system was he issued in a meritocracy. That is where people are paid based on skill not social rank. Napoleon also greatly improved Egypt’s government and made the Institute of Egypt, which studied ancient Egypt. Yet another way Napoleon improved the economy was he established the Bank of France and balanced the budget.

Napoleon was greatly admired by his soldiers. One soldier that commented on Napoleon was Marshal Michel Ney. In his writing he is talking to fellow soldiers about the old noble class the Bourbons. He is encouraging everyone to follow Napoleon because he is the best ruler and the only one fit to rule France. Michel says it doesn’t matter whether the Bourbons want to live under Napoleons rule. He is encouraging the soldiers to attack Paris and take it over calling themselves an immortal legion led by Emperor Napoleon.

The French nobility as well as the other countries nobility hated Napoleon. One of Frances nobility, Madame de Stael, did not appreciate Napoleon. She was the daughter of King Louis XVI’s financial advisor. She thinks Napoleon as someone who did not think before he acted and whose ideas are idiotic. The reason she probably thinks this is because Napoleon eliminated noble classes so Madame de Stael went from high up to nothing. She was also exiled from France. But it sounds like she also respects Napoleon at the same time. Because she says “His system was to intrude daily upon France’s liberty and Europe’s independence…By alternating between cunning and force he has conquered Europe.” There it sounds like she doesn’t like him but respects him. But before that she said, “I do not believe that when Bonaparte became head of the government he had yet formulated the plan for universal monarchy.” There she doesn’t respect his tactics. Over all she really flips back and forth from her views of Napoleon but it is evident she did not like him.

Pretty much all the authors who have written about Napoleon agree he was a genius when it came to warfare. Napoleon controlled a lot of the world. He controlled mostly all of Europe and a lot of South America as well as parts of Africa. Because he controlled Spain and Italy he also controlled the lands they owned. John C. Ropes, author of The First Napoleon: A Sketch, Political and Military wrote about Napoleon as good and bad. He said “While we do not hesitate to speak with proper severity of Napoleon's reckless course in 1813 and 1814, of his obstinate adherence to a military solution of the difficulties which encompassed his Empire, of his indifference as a soldier to the evils of war, of his forgetfulness as soldier of his duties as a sovereign, -- while we recognize these defects and faults, let us be equally frank in acknowledging his great qualities, -- his untiring industry, his devotion to the public service, his enlightened views of government and legislation, his humanity." As you can see even with his blunders Napoleon is still greatly respected. Marjorie Johnston wrote that if Napoleon died in 1803, he would have been remembered as an extremely heroic and great man. Johnston said he was “A great soldier, a great liberator, a great reformer and a great lawgiver…” But she later goes on to say because he lived later on in life he was known as a very greedy tyrannical person. Even though she says that Marjorie Johnston then says “…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.” Norwood Young, a British author, said that Napoleon because of his battles assured his place in history. He called him a military genius and said he was just what France wanted at the time. The Headley brothers from New England said Napoleon was much more superior than any other ruler at that time. As well as saying “Napoleon was great -- intellectually towering above the princes and monarchs of many generations....He had no rival in the tactics of war....His imagination was under the guidance of reason, whose intuitions were clear as morning light, and as rapid in their comprehensive action." But then the Headley brothers said that Napoleon did not have the right characteristics to be a ruler. He did not have the love for his citizens or the desire to help them.

Walter Geer wrote about Napoleon, saying he couldn’t accept failure and he lacked facts. To be a ruler you need your people to know you are telling the truth. Also if Napoleon made one slip up and lost a battle, he would no longer be the Emperor. The people expected him to win every time. Many agree Napoleon was a great leader. William Milligan Sloane, who wrote a four-volume biography of Napoleon, said Napoleon lost because of exhaustion. He said, “… the strategy of Napoleon is original, unique and unexcelled.” Sloane stated that Napoleon was so great because he was the most creative.

“The Jacobins needed a man, they found him in the unscrupulous Bonaparte; the Directory needed a man, they found him in the expert artillerist; France needed a man, she found him in the conqueror of Italy." Napoleon because of his great skills when it came to warfare and commanding an army has made him the respected man he is today. He may have at one point been a tyrant and should have spread out the power to more people not just himself. But as Ida M. Tarbell said “He was the greatest genius of all time, perhaps of all time, yet he lacked the crown of greatness—that high wisdom born of reflection and introspection which knows its own powers and limitations,” You don’t have to like Napoleon but you do need to respect him for some of the things he has done and how he has executed them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon

Starburst Extravaganza

In class lately we had an experiment that helped explain communism, socialism, and capitalism. In the beginning of class each student was given three pieces of candy, with the exception for three kids getting ten each. Then each student would match up and play rock, paper, and scissors. Whoever wins gets one candy from the other player. This went on for a while. I personally lost my three pieces of candy in the first three games. I then to gain more candy stole pieces of candy. This was easy in the beginning because when someone was playing a game they would turn their back and leave their candy on the table. It was a little tougher near the end since everyone knew I was stealing. A lot of people argued and yelled over the candy and I though it was very funny and a great game. When it ended everyone had different amounts of candy. The teacher collected all the candy. Some people got angry because they had lots of candy and they didn’t want to give it up. I on the other hand only had one so I was fine. That was the example of capitalism. We then moved to socialism where each student was given three pieces of candy. Every one was equal. No one played because they didn’t want to risk it. That was socialism, which was then basically communism since everyone was the same and no one wanted to play anymore. This was extremely fun and really helped me understand the difference between the different forms.

Marx’s theories on how the poor helped themselves focused on five main groups. The first is capitalism. Where every one starts with a certain amount of money and what they do with that money is up to them. The amount of money they start out with depends on their job, and possibly how hard they work. If they use it wisely they may make more. If they spend it freely that is their problem and they need to help themselves get out of it. This results in unequal classes. Then that would soon lead to complaining and maybe soon revolting. Then socialism is made. The government collects all the money and hands it out equally to everyone. Then come communism. Where everyone is equal in pay and there is no need for a government because everyone is equal. Smith’s idea of “the invisible hand” was similar to Marx’s views. The invisible hand meant the government would not interfere with the businesses. The supply and demand would regulate the businesses. If everyone wanted your product you made more of it and made more money. If no one wanted your product you would either go out of business or lower your prices/improve the product. The competition between companies will push each company to do better and therefore they will succeed.

I think communism sounds great but not to the extant that countries have taken it. There will never be a classless community where everyone has the exact amount of money as everyone else and the government doesn’t intervene at all. You would need to start a new country for that to be truly possible. A government can’t just say for everyone to give up all their money and then they will spread it out evenly. I think you need a culmination of both Smith’s and Marx’s ideas. You need a government to some extent to make laws but they don’t need to interfere as much if everyone is happy. But there is also the point to bring up. Who would be happy with just enough money to have the necessities? Of course those who have below the average, but what about middle class and up. The middle class and up make up a large amount of the population. Also people would feel cheated. If I worked harder than someone else and they got paid the same I would be mad. Overall as a whole we would be better off with different classes and a government that helps us when needed.  

Dear Cousin George

Having trouble with your new cell phone? Do you hate technology? Do you want to crush every electrical appliance in your home? If you answered yes to any of those questions than people may think you are a Luddite. But the truth is that is not what a Luddite is. A Luddite was a skilled weaver, mechanic or other person good with their hands that revolted during the Industrial Revolution. They followed a mythical man named Ned Ludd or sometimes Sir/King Ludd. There was a myth that he was working at his machine and an overseer said he was doing it wrong. Ned picked up a hammer and crushed the whole machine. The Luddites were mainly opposed to how the technology was used and who was using it. They believed skilled workers like themselves, for good wages, should man the machines. Because machines were getting more efficient and faster the businesses could fire all the skilled workers and instead replace them with young girls for lower pay. The Luddites would protest against the businesses and at times had acts of violence. But more often the Luddites would get hurt more by the guards sent to protect the factories rather than the Luddites imposing pain on others. They just wanted to get their point across but sometimes that harmed them. Below will be a fake letter to a cousin from the perspective of a skilled weaver.

Dear George,

As you know I work in a factory that makes clothing and other items involving weaving. You won’t believe this but all the workers are protesting. All of the men I thought to be my friends are revolting against the factory. They call themselves the Luddites and sadly I am one of them. I had no choice, it was either my job or turn my back on all my fellow workmen. I agree with some of the things they say but the violence is not needed. They are protesting for higher wages since they are skilled workers who are working the machines. But the machines are getting easier to control. Now the factory even replaced us with little girls. The machines are so easy little girls can handle the. The factories don’t need skilled workers like the others and me. Handlooms are gone and the machines are doing everything nowadays. Because of the Luddites I have no job and my life is at risk. If anyone destroys a machine and the police say I did it, I will be thrown in jail or even killed! Before the Industrial Revolution and the workers revolting I had a well paying job. People valued us skilled workers and treat us with respect. No we are just seen as ignorant and violent. I have no choice. I can’t go back to working. I guess I will just have to be part of the luddites and revolt and bring down the factories. Wish me luck George.

Sincerely,

Matthew

Luddites destroying a machine

King Ludd

Images:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

Britain Vs. America: Who Had Better Working Conditions?

Overall the working conditions in both England and America were pretty terrible. Both places did not really value the children as a normal worker. They treated them more like free labor workers who would work extremely long hours with extremely low wages. Even though the conditions were bad in America, they seemed much worse in England. But just because America wasn’t as bad as Britain doesn’t mean it still wasn’t bad.

In both America and Britain the workers were predominantly younger women. Girls, who were sent to the big city to earn money for their family, have fun and return home safely. The mills were not all they were cracked up to be. In the beginning of the “Lowell Experiment” things were great. The United States gave the children education and boarding houses. As well as clean conditions, longer breaks than Britain had; yet no dinner breaks. In both cases the workers ate while they worked. Which sounds very productive but it wasn’t. The workers could get distracted and hurt themselves, others or cause the machine to malfunction. In Britain and America there was long, long hours which could lead to workers dosing off and hurting themselves or messing up the work. All these factors led to a multitude of accidents.

There were many cases of injury and deformities caused by factory work in both places but an extreme amount in Britain. The infant mortality rate at that time was getting bigger. In the factories the hours got longer, wages shorter and more people, thus causing more accidents. How do you expect a tired, hungry, unmotivated worker to supply for your company? The food was not nutritious or appetizing and there was a minimal supply for it so workers fought over it. Another terrible thing that happened was when a young child worker messed up they were beaten. Or if they fell asleep on the job they were beaten. And if they tried to tell a boss about this, their overseers beat them even more because the overseer would get in trouble if the boss found out. As for the deformities that were caused there was many of them. Most were repetitive motion injuries from doing the same thing over and over again. Some others were loss of limbs form being torn off by a machine. Also kids were pulled in by their hair and cloths and would be crushed brutally by the machines. If the children got more breaks and rest these could be prevented. Not only the physical injuries but the mental too. Seeing a fellow worker sucked into a machine and ground to bits left many children distraught for the rest of their lives.

But why were things so much worse in England than in the U.S? Well for starters England had a huge orphaned population. To keep those children alive instead of giving them money they would make them work and give them food and housing. So instead of money for working they get to live. Also The U.S. had a better system. They set up a paternal system for their workers so the families at home knew their daughters were being taken care of. The father figure was the company and the overseer. They set the rules. Church on Sunday, a curfew, the hours of working and a code of behavior. In the U.S. the workers were proper and well behaved young women. There was also a mother figure who was the boarding house keeper. She controls the behavior outside of the mills and helps keep a home environment. So not only are these girls getting a good days work in but also being taught at home how to be a respectable lady. Britain had none of this parental system and their factories were a mess. The workers were not as well behaved as the United States workers.

It is evident that the conditions were worse in Britain than in America. Both were places where children were put to work and had such little pay. At least America had some education forced upon the children as well as some church goings. America and Britain had boarding houses, which were owned by the companies they worked for. So the companies basically weren’t paying the workers. The workers would make money, a predominant amount went to boarding, and the money went straight back to the company. The United States Industrial Revolution specifically tried to avoid the mistakes that Britain had committed.  In doing so America made the Industrial Revolution better for their workers than the workers in Britain.

Depicting the Industrial Revolution in America

Depicting the Industrial Revolution in Britain