Congress of Vienna Blog Post

In the early 1800’s, royalty from all over the world met in Austria at a peace conference called the Congress of Vienna. At this conference they discussed the solution to questions they had to answer in order to restore Europe such as; “How were the victors to reconstruct the war torn continent?  How were they going to make restitution to the millions who had lost family members or suffered the horrors of Napoleonic domination?” These questions had to be answered in order to keep the broken, war-torn country sane. The leader of this conference, Prince Clements von Metternich, had some problems of his own. He had to solve 3 major problems that included: how to redraw the map of Europe, how to pick a new leader of France, and how to prepare for the possibility of future revolutions. Metternich had to come up with possible solutions to all of these questions and share them to the diplomats that accompanied him in the meeting. In class, we pretended we were Metternich and tried to answer the questions he had to answer from a list of possible outcomes. We then found out what the correct answers are  and compared them to what we predicted. The congress answered all of these questions to save their power and keep the rest of the country under their rule. The resolution to the debate over how to change the map of Europe was to bring French territory back to its boundaries, expand Prussian territory, establish the Netherlands, and give Russia and Austria extra territory. This established a balance of power between all of the countries in case of any attempts to expand France. The resolution to the debate of who to make the new ruler of France was to give the throne to the brother of Louis XVI, Louis XVIII, who would bring back the Bourbon monarchy continuing the line of legitimacy that was broken with the beheading of Louis XVI. The final resolution to the question of how to prepare for future revolutions was to create a Holy Alliance where monarchs had divine right to rule, any revolutions would be treason and against God, and gave troops the right to go to a country to stop a revolution and restore monarchs which is called a Principle of Intervention.

Once the European rulers defeated Napoleon, they had to come up with a way to keep their powers equal and without threat. The four concepts they came up with are; balance of power, Principle of Legitimacy, Holy Alliance,and Principle of Intervention. One that is very important in maintaining a stable country is having balance of power between all of the countries at the meeting. A balance of Power is a way to check and make sure that no one country can become more powerful and overthrow the other countries.  This is important for the Congress of Vienna because the whole point of the meeting was to create peace and avoid future revolution that would destroy their part of the country. So, by having a balanced amount of power be distributed between the countries that signed the treaty, it makes the other leaders feel more safe and secure knowing there is no possible way they can turn on each other.

The Congress of Vienna was a crucial part of rebuilding France, and creating a stable monarchy that made ruling fair and equal. They made decisions that impacted the lives of so many people living during that time. I think their decisions were beneficial and were the best choice for what they were given. For example, I think their decision on the land was good because it gave more territory to the countries that were restricted before the meeting. Also, their decision to create balanced power was good because it shows how much they cared about keeping their country safe and protected from being like France. So, the powerful should be willing to sacrifice some of their power under certain circumstances because it does impact their country in a good way. Overall, The Congress of Vienna was a good idea and was very beneficial to so many people living during that time.

Napoleon: Influential or Consequential

Napoleon had a big influence on his hometown of France, but also across Europe and all over the world. Napoleon influenced the political, social, and economic systems of Europe. Some people liked what he was doing, because they thought he was doing what was best for Europe. While others thought what he was doing was bad because he was going to war, and taking more risks than past rulers. Napoleon made big impacts during his rule on social, economic, and political systems of Europe.

http://cdn.medindia.net/health-images/nepolean.jpg

One of the systems Napoleon impacted was the social system. Napoleon impacted the social system in many ways. He took over a lot of land quickly and violently because he went to war with nearly every place he came into contact with. Starting wars made people not like him because there could have been other ways to get more land. He also affected the social system of Europe because he made people more equal by getting rid of titles of nobility and serfdom. He also gave citizens more rights to education and property This made some people happy because they had more of a chance to be like everyone else and have an equal chance of succeeding. But, this did anger some people. Someone who was angered by Napoleon’s ideals was Madame de Stael. Stael was the daughter of a financial adviser to Louis XIV. She was angered because she felt like he was taking away her superiority and becoming more powerful than her. It is shown that she does not like his ideals when she says, “ His system was to encroach daily upon France’s liberty and Europe’s independence.” When she says this it is shown that she is concerned with losing her social position and becoming like everybody else. Some people liked Napoleon and some people hated him which fed to his impacts on social systems of Europe.

As well as the social systems, Napoleon also impacted the economic systems of Europe. Napoleon impacted the economic system of Europe in many ways. Napoleon wanted a lot of control on the economic situation, so he controlled prices which made it fair for everyone. He also encouraged new industry which made more job opportunities for anyone, and most importantly he built roads and canals which made transportation of goods much easier and faster. Napoleon also impacted the economic system by establishing the Bank of France, which helped organize the money that was becoming more prominent from the jobs he was encouraging. He also balanced the budget of France and undertook massive work programs which helped benefit everyone in Europe, and also inspired many more renewals in the government around the world. This is how Napoleon impacted the economic systems of Europe.

As well as the social and economic systems of Europe, Napoleon also impacted the political system. Generally people either hated or loved his political decisions. These people that hated them consisted of the landowners/leaders that he defeated and took land from The people that agreed with his decisions consisted of soldiers and followers of his. An example to show that these people liked his decisions is from Marshal Michel Ney who said, “To the emperor Napoleon, our sovereign, belongs alone the right to rule over our beautiful country.” This quote shows how some people looked up to him as an emperor, who was making their country beautiful. Napoleon caused political controversy between his rules and decisions which made Europe a more advanced and popular.

Napoleon accomplished a lot in his time of rule. People either loved or hated him. Two examples of people on the opposite side of the spectrum are Michel Ney and Stael. These people have different views of him because of their background and living state. Though these people disagreed on Napoleon's success level, they both come together to show the accomplishments and impacts Napoleon made on the social, economic, and political states of Europe.

The Many Types of Government

In class, we played a game that represents the three forms of government; capitalism, socialism, and communism. First, everybody was given a certain amount of starbursts. Most people were given three and some were given 10. We were then told to play rock paper scissors and if we won, we earned a starburst, and if we lost we had to give our starburst to the opponent. This part was used to represent capitalism because people had private ownership of their starbursts with an unequal number of the candy. People had freedom of competition because they got to choose who they played against. Also, it ended in unequal economic status because some people won and some people lost. People did “revolt” by complaining about the fairness of the game. After the capitalism part, the candy was collected by the teacher (government) and redistributed equally among everybody.This part represents socialism because the government (teacher) had ownership of the industry (candy), the goal was to bring economic equality, and it aimed and achieved a classless society. After the socialism part, we were told we could do what we wanted and were not being controlled by the teacher (government) meaning there were no rules made stating how we could play. This represents communism because there was no government and the goal of having a classless society was achieved because no one wanted to play again. I thought this game was fun because we got to choose who we got to play and when we wanted to play. I thought it was frustrating because some people were given more to begin with which is not fair to the people who started out with less.

I did not participate in the Socratic Seminar, but I did observe the people who did. One of the most interesting topics that people brought up was the fact that communism is not achievable. Amanda brought up a good point by saying that it can’t be achieved because there will always be someone who wants more than someone else which will lead them to have more than other people which will lead to superiority which will lead back to leadership control. They also said that socialism is not a good idea because some people that had more than others and worked harder than others will get mad because they get all of their rights and goods taken away. The last interesting point I heard was that capitalism was the most idealistic choice of government because people get some freedom but are still controlled by the government.

Marx had a theory that he thought would help the poor succeed. He thought that if a government started out with capitalism it would end up as a communist government. He thought this because in capitalism the poor were unhappy because they did not have as much as others and they did not find the system fair. Then he thought the government would go to socialism because the poor would be happy this way due to being given an equal amount of money as everybody else. Now, this idea of socialism was nice for the poor but made the nobles and rich people angry because money was being taken away from them. Due to the rich being angry, the government would become a communist government. This is bad because with having everyone at an equal pay people would lose the drive to work hard for their money because why work hard when you can have an easy job and still make the same amount of money as someone with a very hard job.

Smith had a theory which involved the invisible hand helping the poor. The invisible hand is the idea of competition of markets. People would start a company and more and more people would go into that industry because they see the other people in this industry being successful. With more and more people in an industry, that will cause some of the companies to lower their prices because they want more business than the other store that sells the same thing. This will keep happening which will keep creating more industries and more job opportunities for people such as the poor to make money. This will also benefit the poor because the prices will keep getting lower and lower and they won't have to spend as much as they usually do on goods.

I think the invisible hand theory is the best because it gives people the freedom to do what they want and not have to obey to a government telling what price to make their products.People will be able to do as they please and it will also make more job opportunities for people and make prices less expensive. Though this theory has a few flaws including businesses being destroyed by too much competition, I think this theory is very beneficial and is a much better idea than communism.

Luddite RAFT: Taking Sides

Technology has become more and more advanced over the years, which is good and bad. In the 1800’s, a group was created and they called themselves The Luddites. The Luddites got their name from the mythical figure whom they worshiped, Ned Ludd. The Luddites consisted of skilled weavers, mechanics, and other artisans. These people who put a lot of time and effort into learning their trade became angry when complicated technology took away their jobs. They then revolted on the people that kept using this technology in their factories by attacking and destroying machines and factories in early industrialization. They did this because they thought they would be able to get rid of these new inventions that took away their jobs and gave them to less skilled people. In the following paragraph is a primary source document from the perspective  of a new mill girl writing about the Luddites to her cousin in America.

This is a picture of some Luddites destroying a machine,

Dear Abigail,

As you know, I have recently started my new job working in the mills. So far it has been good, I make money and am more independent than before, I have even made a few friends! The machines they have been making really make work easier and involve less skill. Recently, there have been a group of people I believe call themselves the Luddites who come around and destroy the machines. I have heard many of my friends talk about how they do this because they hate technology. I know they are wrong becuase a Luddite told me that they are doing this because they do not like how machinery is taking over their source of jobs. This is a terrible thing because they destroyed the machine I was assigned to which means no pay because I am not able to make anything and all of the other machines are taken. I do not know why these people think they can just come in here and ruin my, and many other girls’, source of money. The Luddites have a good goal, but do not realize how many people’s lives they are ruining. I personally like the whole Industrialization idea because they are creating more and more cool devices that make my job easier. I am totally against this idea of violence because it is taking my pay away and is leaving me starving. I know I do not have much experience here, but I am going to try to recruit people to stand up to the Luddites once and for all. It is not fair to have people coming in our factory and act as if they own the store, and try to ruin everything we have worked hard for. I can not wait to come back to visit, see you soon.

-Jacquelyn

England vs. America Mill Conditions

Some people are desperate for money, and will work through dangerous conditions to make even the slightest bit of money. A place where people could work in the 1800’s to get money to support their families, were the mills. There were mills in England and in America, but the conditions of these mills differed. They ultimately ended up the same way, but how they got there is a different story.

England had bad conditions from the start. England had an abundant supply of cheap labor because some families had no other option but to send their daughter to work in the mills. Due to this almost “never ending” supply of girls going to work at the mills, England took advantage of the desperate matters. They made the girls work days long, with no time to break for food. They beat the children when they were not doing exactly what was wanted of them. A quote to show this is, William Crookes is overlooker in our room; he is cross-tempered sometimes. He does not beat me; he beats the little children if they do not do their work right… I have sometimes seen the little children drop asleep or so, but not lately. If they are catched asleep they get the strap…” (Doc D) This quote shows that little children got beat and whipped if they made one little mistake. They did not take care of the equipment which was big and heavy and caused many deaths. They also payed the girls very cheap wages, which is unfair compared to the amount of work they put into their job. The people who ran the mills in England were very manipulative and only cared about getting money.

America had a mill in Lowell and it was called the Lowell Experiment. The Lowell Experiment tried to make a mill that would ultimately be the opposite of the mills in England. The mills in Lowell started out very nice, making a good impression on many families, which attracted more and more families to send their daughters to the mills in Lowell. The mills in Lowell needed to be very nice because the families living in that area could have took their daughters and moved west to make a farm, which would take the labor force away at the mills. The mills gave the girls time to eat breakfast, lunch and dinner. They also gave the girls free time to do as they pleased at the end of the day. But, eventually as more and more girls came to the mills, the maintenance of the equipment was not up to par. The dangerous machinery caused many injuries and deaths and here is a quote that shows that, “My life and health are spared while others are cut off. Last Thursday one girl fell down and broke her neck which caused instant death. She was going in or coming out of the mill and slipped down it being very icy. The same day a man was killed by the [railroad] cars. Another had nearly all of his ribs broken. Another was nearly killed by falling down and having a bale of cotton fall on him.” (Doc C) This quote shows the decay of the mills and shows how dangerous it was to work there. The people running the mills did not care about the girls health, and eventually their good reputation was ruined.

Picture of Lowell Mill

The conditions of the mills in Lowell and England in the end were unacceptable. They caused many deaths and disabilities to so many of the young girls working there. Though America did not start off as bad as England did, the low maintenance of the machines and dangerous conditions were ultimately visible later on in the mills existence. The people working in the mills put their life on the line to make money to most likely feed their families. It is not okay that the factory owners let the conditions get so dangerous and did not do anything about it. The conditions for both America and England were life threatening to every single worker in the factory,