Impacts of the Congress of Vienna

This is an image of Prince Metternich, representative of Austria during the Congress of Vienna.
http://www.desmondseward.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/metternich1.jpg

When we studied the Congress of Vienna in history recently, the essential question was "What should people in power do when their power is threatened?"  The Congress of Vienna in 1813 was the chaotic event in which the leaders of Austria, Prussia, France, Britain, and Russia tried to find a way to recover and reconstruct European countries that had been destroyed during Napoleon's reign.  To discover the answer to the essential question, we divided into groups, and tried to predict the leaders' decisions.  The leader of the Congress of Vienna was Prince Klemens von Metternich from Austria,  was viewed as a selfish and vain person, and was certainly not the ideal person to decide the fate of Europe.  After predicting Metternich's decisions, we found out the real results of the Congress of Vienna, and discovered why the leaders of Europe initiated certain concepts after their power had been threatened by Napoleon.

The concepts created by the leaders of Austria, Prussia, France, Britain, and Russia were Balance of Power, Principle of Legitimacy, Holy Alliance, and Principle of Intervention.  Holy Alliance, initiated by Czar Alexander of Russia, stated that monarchs had the divine right to rule, and that any revolution was treason against God.  Of the five countries represented at the Congress of Vienna, only England did not take part in this concept because it was Anglican, not Catholic.  Holy Alliance was used by European countries after Napoleon's reign because they thought it would help eliminate threats to their country's power and would prevent revolutions from taking place.  This concept worked for a while after the Congress of Vienna, like when the Austrians crushed an Italian uprising during the 1820s.  Holy Alliance, along with the other major concepts, prevented wars between the five powers of Europe until 1853.  In addition to preventing war, the congress also viewed Napoleon as the enemy, not France.  France had to make some reparations to the other allies, and then had to follow the laws initiated during the Congress of Vienna.

The representatives from the Congress of Vienna may not have been the ideal people to make historic decisions, but the ones they make were effective enough to protect their power and prevent wars.  I think that some decisions made during the congress were good, while others weren't as acceptable.  Holy Alliance definitely prevented wars, and was effective through most of Europe.  Also, Balance of Power restored balance between the five major european countries, and Principle of Intervention, which stated that countries could intervene if another country was causing chaos, was a great way to stop uprisings.  On the other hand, Principle of Legitimacy stated that lawful monarchs should be restored.  It would have be more useful to give the people some power, but Metternich was a conservative, and didn't believe in changing around the laws too much.  Although he didn't want to change Europe entirely because of his beliefs, and because he wanted to keep his power, he didn't help the circumstances in other countries.  The situation of Europe was in so much peril that powerful countries could have offered to give away some power, but the leaders at the Congress of Vienna wanted to keep theirs.  Powerful countries should be willing to give away power when needed to help the situations of others, even if their power is threatened.

Ideologies - Liberalism, Conservatism, and Nationalism

Recently in history class, we completed a project in order to help us learn about 19th century ideologies and answer the current essential question.  To answer the question "What were the major political ideologies of the 19th century and how did they influence social and political action?" we first had to figure out what an ideology is.  An ideology is a system of ideas that form the basis of economic and political theory and policy, or in other words, a group of ideas that shape a society. The three most important ideologies of the 19th century were liberalism, conservatism, and nationalism.  My class learned more about each of the ideologies by splitting into six groups, two for each ideology, and reading about the ideology our group was assigned.  Then, we created an imaginative presentation of our ideology and went head to head with the other group of the same ideology.  The class voted on which presentation was both creative and demonstrated our knowledge of the ideology.  I learned about all of the ideologies, including conservatism, for which my group made an educations video.

Link to my group's presentation:
https://www.educreations.com/lesson/view/conservatism-project/25421356/?ref=link&s=gX4L2P

Conservatism is a traditional ideology that argued that time-tested traditions were the only solutions to social and political problems.  Conservatives believed that monarchy and church power were the best forms of government because they had worked for generations without fail.  Reforms and constitutionalism resulted in violence multiple times in history, like during the French Revolution,  so conservatives used this as proof that these systems did not work.  They only believed in using old, stable systems of government, and never tried new ones.  British writer and statesman Edmund Burke and French writer Joseph de Maistre were conservatives, and predicted the chaos that resulted from the resolutions in the 19th century.  In the 1800s, conservatives avoided having revolutions, and tried to maintain monarchies.  

After watching the other groups' presentations, I was able to decide how the other ideologies worked. Liberalism is the opposite of conservatism, and is based off of freedom and rights.  All middle/upper class men were allowed to contribute to government, and although they weren't given complete freedom, they had more freedom than people from other ideologies had.  Liberalists liked creating new laws and new ways to live their lives, and were in favor of meritocracy.  British philosophers John Locke and Adam Smith argued for individual liberty, and were considered the forefathers of liberalism.  Nationalism is the result of the process when people with similar cultural practices, languages, beliefs, or traditions unite as a whole.  These people then work together to take down a common enemy, and come together as a country.  Germany and Italy used nationalism in the 19th century to become whole countries.  German writers Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel helped their country become a whole, after it had been separated during Napoleon's rule.  Conservatism, liberalism, and nationalism were all ideologies, created by philosophers and writers, that helped shape life in 19th century Europe.

Did Napoleon Benefit or Harm the World During his Reign?

This portrait of Napoleon Bonaparte shows how he was the most powerful ruler in all of Europe.
http://psi.historicusinc.com/media/export/im_12281_screen.jpg

Napoleon Bonaparte was an influential military leader from France who conquered almost all of Europe during his lifetime.  Between the time of his death and now, Napoleon has developed several reputations from various countries.  In class, we explored different primary and secondary sources to discover whether or not his reputation should be good or bad.  From this activity, I learned that he actually helped France a lot during his reign, and although he took unfair control of most of Europe, the countries mostly benefitted from his rule over them.  Although all the countries he conquered despised Napoleon for ruling them for so forcefully, his impact on the social, political, and economical systems in Europe was mostly positive.

The first primary source we looked at in class was from Madame de Stael, a member of the king's court, whose power was wrecked when Napoleon became emperor.  Madame de Stael thought of Napoleon as a powerful ruler who intruded on the independence of France and Europe, and who persuaded countries with force and cunning.  She thought that Napoleon was ruining people's lives everywhere by controlling their countries in a forceful way.  Next, we looked at a source from Marshal Michel Ney,  one of Napoleon's soldiers, who thought highly of his commander.  He believed that Napoleon had the right to rule over France, and that he would help France's government move forward.  He thought Napoleon was the best person to rule Europe and that he was a wonderful leader.  Madame de Stael and Marshal Michel Ney had contrasting views of Napoleon that were influenced by their relation to him, and show how varied Napoleon's impact was between different people.  Looking at a secondary source is a better representation of his impact because the authors didn't personally know Napoleon.

The article The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians (link below) is a collection of views on Napoleon written by various historians.  Most of these historians have a positive view of Napolean, and believe that he primarily helped France and Europe.  These people say that Napoleon was a military genius and a skilled leader, who was given the opportunity to display his skills when he became ruler of France. These historians believe that Napoleon had enlightening views of government that he shared with the countries under his reign, and was definitely devoted to his rule, but as smart as he was, he eventually became too dominant and his power began to exhaust.  Although he was defeated after many years, Napoleon was a genius who was able to manage almost all the countries in Europe under one empire and improve their social, political, and economical systems.

After looking at these sources, I came to the conclusion that Napoleon's impact was mostly positive.  He balanced France's budget, established the bank of France, abolished serfdom, nobility, and people's titles, allowed freedom of religion, gave more citizens access to education, and gave people property rights.  During  his rule, he accomplished a lot and solved many problems in the political, social, and economical systems in every country he touched.  Except when his power became exhausted towards the end of his life, Napoleon made a great impact on the world and should have a better reputation than he currently does.  Napoleon Bonaparte improved the social, political, and economical systems in Europe, and made a good impact during his reign.

Link to The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians:
http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/biographies/c_historians.html

Chocunism - Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism

Karl Marx

http://spartacus-educational.com/00marx.jpg

Learning about capitalism, socialism, and communism in history was the most entertaining experience I have had in school this year.  My class experienced each of these forms of government by playing "rock paper scissors" and exchanging chocolates.  For capitalism, all members of my class received two pieces of candy, while two people received eight pieces.  Everyone then had to play "rock paper scissors" and exchange candy with other students.  If you won, you got a piece of your partner's candy, but if you lost, you had to hand over a piece.  If you ran out of candy, you had to sit down.  The teacher had to supervise everyone because people would cheat to try and return into the game, and after about 20 minutes, only seven people remained in the game.  Everyone else had lost their chocolate, and we were divided into "classes." This shows how unfair capitalism was, and how the government needed to supervise the peasants to keep order.  For socialism, my teacher collected the candy and redistributed it equally so that everyone had two pieces.  We did not play anyone, and everyone had equal amounts of "money."  This shows how socialism was a classless society and there was economic equality.  Last, to represent communism, my teacher said that we could choose to play again, or we could keep what we have.  Almost everyone in my class decided not to play because we would rather have two pieces than no candy at all.  Because of this, my teacher did not need to supervise the candy distribution because everyone was being fair.  This represents how no government was needed in communism and the society contained no classes.  This game was a fun way to learn about Marx's theory of communism, and I hope we do something similar later in the year.

The "chocunism" game taught us about Karl Marx and his theory of communism, and later in the class period, we learned about Adam Smith's theory of the invisible hand.  Both of these men wanted to help the poor, but they had different methods of doing this.  Karl Marx believed that a government run by capitalism could turn into socialism, and eventually communism, by itself.  He said that the majority of the population would not tolerate the divisions between social classes and would use any means necessary to create communism.  Adam Smith believed that the poor would be helped by the "invisible hand."  He thought that if the government leaves the economy alone, buisness owners will all compete to see who can create the best quality products at the most reasonable prices.  If this works out, then no one will be poor and everyone will have some money.  This would definitely help the poor because they would be able to afford the good quality products, when they wouldn't have been able to in a system of capitalism.  Both of these men had different opinions of how the poor could gain more money, but which theory would work out more effectively in reality?

This video is an animated explanation of Smith's invisible hand theory, also described above.

Personally, I think Adam Smith's theory of the invisible hand is better than Karl Marx's theory of communism. Both are well thought out, but Smith's is more effective in real life.  Marx's theory of communism was used in Russia, North Korea, China, and Cuba, but these governments all forced their population into becoming communists.  This is different from the theory Marx had proposed because Marx said that the people would choose communism if given the option, but these people did not choose it because their governments were using force.  The theory was not effective in these countries, but Smith's theory was effective when tried out in reality.  More people subscribed to Smith's invisible hand because it left the businesses to compete amongst each other, and after a few months, the best businesses would be able to sell high quality products at reasonable or low prices.  Businesses would make more money because they would have the choice to expand their store and change their products to gain more customers.  Also, the people on the bottom would increase their wealth because they would be able to afford products at the most popular stores.  This theory is effective, and the only other option is capitalism.  The rich would choose this system because they would still be on the top of the social ladder, but it would not be fair for the poor, so it is not a good system.  Karl Marx and Adam Smith helped changed how people look at "rich versus poor," and the fun activity we did in class helped me decide which theory was more effective.

The Lowell Experiment: Did Lowell Mill Girls Actually Enjoy Working?

A view of the Lowell Mills during the Industrial Revolution.
http://abudiphotography.com/pa/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/lowellmills-21.jpg

Many young girls in the United States made the same bold decision during the Industrial Revolution - to leave their families and to begin work at the Lowell Mills.  This choice was influenced by men who came to family farms just to recruit the girls to their mills. These men made the mills sound like the perfect place to grow up, and convinced most families to let their children go.  One of these children, Lucy Hall, was featured in a documentary I watched in class (link below).  The men who ran the mills were motivated to recruit girls as workers because they were obedient because of their young age, and were a cheap labor force. They chose girls over boys because boys were needed on farms to help their parents run them.  Many families let their girls go to Lowell for work because they knew the girls would care for the money they earned and would send it home to help them, and knew it was a good opportunity for the girls to be independent and earn money to buy things like clothes for themselves.  This decision to work in Lowell had some benefits and some costs, but the girls enjoyed working there most of the time.

The girls liked working in Lowell, even though there were an equal amount of costs and benefits for the situation.  Some costs were health problems, injuries, being away from family, pollution, and unfair treatment from overseers and mill owners.  Most girls in the factories became ill at least once  during their time in Lowell, because diseases spread quickly with so may children there to pass them on.  Also, girls received terrible injuries from machinery, and certain physical deformities were common amongst workers.  Children got "knock knees," when their knees gave way and turned inwards, they had weakness in joints they used often such as their wrists, and the arches in their feet would give out.  Girls also missed their families while working in Lowell, and became ill from the pollution in the city.  When overseers thought that they weren't working to their best ability, then the children, especially young ones, were beaten hard until they appeared hurt, or even dead.  Some benefits of the Lowell Experiment were independence, food and boarding, a good way to get money for families and girls, education, and the idea of family figures.  In Lowell, girls were able to rely on themselves more and be independent.  They received food and boarding for working there and met friends, who lived in the boarding houses with them.  After they payed for things they needed, girls would send extra money to their families to help them.  If the girls had money left over after that, they would get products that they wanted for themselves.  It was law in Lowell for girls to be educated at least three months per year, so mill girls became smarter than they had been back home.  The figures in the mill became like a second family to the children.  Girls were like siblings to one another, and the overseers and mill owners were like parents, who enforced the rules.  The mills were both a fun and dangerous place to live, and many girls liked it there.

The opportunities for women and restrictions on their working lives changed many people's attitudes towards women during the 19th century.  Before the Industrial Revolution, people thought that women were supposed to stay home, do the cooking and cleaning, and raise their children.  The Lowell Experiment ended around the beginning of the Civil War,  and around this time people's opinions of women were changed.  The factories ended before the Civil War because there was an increase in immigration, which provided a cheap labor force, so living and working conditions deteriorated in Lowell.  Although the mills became inactive, the mill girls changed people's opinions on women because they lived away from their home and parents, were educated, wrote about their experience to the public, and participated in labor reform.  This new opinion on women is still effective today, and many mill girls went on to become outspoken abolitionists and women's rights activists.  The Lowell mill girls had a unique experience while working in the factories, and changed the opinion of women for good.


Link to the website of the documentary we watched in class : "Daughters of Free Men"
http://ashp.cuny.edu/ashp-documentaries/daughters-of-free-men/