During the late days of 1815, the Napoleonic wars were just coming to an end. Napoleon was finally defeated and the kings that he overthrew had reclaimed their kingdoms that they lost. In attempt to stop any more challengers to their power, the kings congressed in Vienna to discuss what they would do to stop a rebellion form brewing up. This was, the famous Congress of Vienna. Recently in class, we have been studying post-Napoleonic Europe, and how people like Klemens von Metternich, Frederick William III, and Alexander I, dealt with the shifting of power in Europe in the early 1800 th century. To let us understand the Congress of Vienna, we were given the main dilemmas that the Congress of Vienna had Dealt with. We had to decide, which option, that the Congress would have most likely picked.
One major creation of the congress was the Holy Alliance. The Holy alliance was introduced behest the ruler of Russia, Tsar Alexander I; it was the idea that the kingship was a divine right, and the current kings were chosen by god to be kings. In theory, any
one who challenges the king, would also be challenging the god's authority, and be a heretic. Personally, I
Extent of Holy Alliance
find this idea really stupid, because if you go by that logic, wouldn't the kings also be heretics if they tried to stop people who god decided to give the idea of rebellion? Paradoxes aside, the Holy Alliance was supported by only three for the four major powers of Europe. Only Britain excluded themselves from the alliance because they were hipsters, and Anglican Protestant.
I personally think the Congress of Vienna was a Huge success. Even though the peasants lost some of the privileges, it was really for the best, the higher classes are the ones who really need the power. The liberal ideas wouldn't have helped Europe at all, after all they came from the man efficiently managed a empire four times the size of Britain. The conservative ideas were far more efficient, after all we survived the Dark Ages without a hitch. The people should've been happy that they weren't under the rule of a government in which a serf could climb the social ladder.The Congress of Vienna was a brilliant, masterfully crafted moment in history, and should be seen as the format for all future congression of super powers ;D.
In class recently, we learned about the main ideologies floating around Europe during the 19th and 18th century, mainly liberalism, nationalism, and conservatism. Although these terms are present in modern politics, they have very different definitions. For our activity, we were divided into six separate groups. Each pair of two groups were assigned an ideology to perform about. The groups were then had to make and present a one minute video or skit about their assigned ideology. After the videos or skits were presented the class the voted on which video best represented our ideal.
For our video, we had to represent nationalism. We decided to use to create a video using Chatterpix. We started the video with the multicolored M&Ms, symbolising the divided nationalists, fighting each other over who is the best color. Then we had a skittle, who was supposed to be the foreign ruler, attack the skittles. The M&Ms then set aside their differences and banded together to defeat the skittle.
Nationalism arose after the defeat of Napoleon during the Seventh Coalition war, Italians and Germans then saw that their unification was a strength
During the 19th century, the nationalism arose as an ideology. Nationalism was especially popular in the countries of central Europe, which are the lands that have constantly been conquered by foreign powers. Nationalism was the idea that people of a common descent should band together to prevent a foreign leader from taking them over.
Over the 19th century, two other ideologies also arose. The first one is liberalism. Liberalism was very popular within the middle classes of Europe. Liberalism's basis was the idea of a meritocracy, which is giving power to those who deserve it, unlike the atricorcy which had been in prominence in Europe for many years. Because of this Liberalism was very popular among the middle class because it granted them the most power out of all the ideologies. On the contrary, Conservatism was also very popular during this time perode. Conservatism advocated for keeping the aristocracy because they felt that the aristocracy was a secure way of ruling. Unsurprisingly, this was only popular among the nobles and the Church who benefited from the aristocracy.
Napoleon Bonaparte, a name that almost everyone in Europe knows. So people thought of him as a villain, the scum of the earth, while others look at him as the hero that spread liberty and equality throughout the countries of Europe. Napoleon was born in 1769 on the island of Corsica. At the age of nine, he was sent to a prestigious military academy in the heart of the city of lights. He first found fame during the French
Napoleon Bonaparte, 1st emperor of France
Revolution, where he commanded a successful attack on the british fleet stationed in Toulon. After overthrowing the corrupted Council of Five Hundred, Napoleon became the emperor of France. Immediately after his coronation, he started he started to subjugate opposing countries into his empire, including, Spain, Austria, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Belgium, etc. He was a brilliant (and some what dubious) leader who brought profound changes to the economic, social, and political spheres of Europe.
Socially, Napoleon was a champion for human rights. During his reign as Emperor, made education far more accessible to the lower classes. He abolished the obsolete feudal system, allowing the serfs and lower class to move up the social ladder. The Hadley brothers wrote, "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"
Madame De Stael, a Noble who opposed Napoleon's Government
Economically, Napoleon greatly improved the condition of France. Napoleon supported industrialization,tater totes , rebudgeted France's banks and he introduced wealth from his conquered territories. He sold most of Frances territories and colonies in the Americas to the United states, triggering a westward expansion for the citizens. On the other hand, Napoleon caused much political turmoil. Madame de Stael , a French noblewoman, wrote, "His system was encroach daily upon France's liberty and Europe's independence..." Napoleon was also responsible for the pillaging of Italy, the destruction of much of European countries, and indirectly causing the Plain Indians to lose their land.
Grand Marshal Michel Ney, one of Napoleon's Military advisors
Politically, Napoleon balanced the influence of power throughout the classes of Europe. Instead of the traditional aristocracy, which kept the power within a small class of people, Napoleon created a meritocracy, which vested power according to their personal merits. This new method drastically improved the living and working conditions of those who were in the lower classes. One of Napoleon's generals remarked, "The times are gone when the government suppressed their rights. Liberty triumphs in the end and..." Though the lower and middle classes were satisfied with Napoleon's reforms, the higher classes, and the nobles were outraged due to their loss of power.
Today in class we partook in a social experiment, in which we recreated capitalism to a small scale. Instead of using actual money as currency, we used Hershey's chocolate kisses to symbolize currency. Everyone received 2 chocolates, except for a small minority, who received 10, instead of 2. Almost everyone thought that it was unfair, and complained. The frustrations temporarily went way when rock, paper, scissors was brought into play. Two people would play rock, paper, scissors with one another, and the loser would give on of his/her chocolates to the winner. When one ran out of chocolates, they were forced to sit down, and couldn't participate any more. Through out the game, people were trying to create tactics to increase their chances of gaining a monopoly, someone thought it was a good idea to invest half their chocolates to a person with no chocolates and collect half their shares when the activity ended. That idea was a bust, and by the end they both were bankrupt. I did pretty good myself, usually holding 10 chocolates a nice even number, if I went over 10, i usually gave the surplus to the poor, because wheres the fun in playing with yourself? By the end of the activity, I had a supply of 10 chocolates.
When the activity ended, all the chocolates were collected and redistributed evenly among the class so everyone had at least 2 chocolates, and the teacher received 12 for the trouble of collecting everyone's chocolates. Many of the people who profited complained, but all of those who were chocolate broke were happy. The class were then given the choice to continue the game. Most of the people, the majority, who ran out of chocolates voted no. Because the majority voted not to continue the game, and keep the 2 chocolates they were given, creating a socialist government within the class.
Karl Marxs the Theorist who created Communism
Through out the Industrial Revolution, 2 major theories about economies were created. The first theory developed was the Communism theory created by Karl Marx, a German "noble". Marxs observed that with Capitalism in power it was very difficult to climb the social ladder. Marxs them theorized that, with this information, one day the poor would rebel against those who are high up in the social ladder, and take all the wealth and evenly distribute it without the formation of a government. This was the creation of Communism. While we're at it, lets get something straight, the communism you thinking about, the one some certain countries "cough" Soviet Union, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, China, Vietnam "cough" ran themselves with, isn't actually Communism. That's actually Socialism, a form of Communism, Communism a truly classless society in which no centralized government needed to redistribute wealth. Communism in theory is a great idea, but it has never truly been achieved, and probably won't for a LONG time.
The Invisible Hand
The second, more interestingly named theory was the Invisible Hand theory introduced by Adam Smith. the Invisible Hand theory put in effect when people to buy goods in their own self-interest. They would try to buy the highest quality goods for the lowest possible price. Basically meaning that the economy autopilots
and the government do nothing to the economy. Under this theory, small honest businesses can compete with large industrialized business in the same field. The main problem with this method is it will take a LONG time to fully work, and the time in between is going to be really hard.
The Invisible Hand thearoy explained
I find that both systems are equally flawed. With communism, all work gives the same amount of pay. If a certain jobs for example, a coal miner have high mortality rate, no one will want to work that job if every other job will have the same pay. Inevitably there will have to be some force that will force a person into working in a coal mine, because people need coal, and that force will probably evolve into a government, poisoning it into a Socialism. Communism is impossible, when dealing with the human psyche. The Invisible Theory's flaws are that it will take a LONG time, and lots of suffering for the benefits to come in, and even though there is better living qualities, there will still be a social ladder. Personally I prefer the Invisible Hand theory, because strategically it's the better plan. There might be a couple bumps along the way but it is the best method.
During the mid eighteenth and nineteenth century many girls who lived in the country went to the north, to the mills. Many of them participated in a social experiment called the Lowell Experiment, which tried to dispel the idea that the factory life had horrendous working conditions. The Lowell Experiment also tried to recruit workers for the factory. Unlike England the factories didn't have a pool of workers to fall back on because the families in America were more oriented toward working on small family owned farms instead of the mandatory factory work in England.
Girls who worked at the mills would often work for nearly 13 hours every day. The average pay for a weeks worth of work was as low as 2.5 dollars
The mill owners tried to make the mills seem as pleasurable as it could, so they could convince the families and the the girls to work there. The mills guaranteed that the mills would only be a temporary job for the girls. Once they came of age to marry they were let go, and were expected to find a suitable husband and settle down. The mills created boarding houses for the workers, with each one of them attended by a older woman who would serve them meals and teach them lessons. The mill gave many of the mill girls the sense of freedom and independence.
Throughout the Revolution the Mill owners wanted to attract as many girls who weren't married as possible to their mills. During the Revolution, girls were preferred as the standard mill worker because the male population were need maintain the countries grain supply. During that time period, girls expected to be obedient and they were expected to become housewives and take care of the house while the husband was out farming, but during the revolution this role drastically changed from the increase in numbers of women working in the mills.
When the Civil War broke out, the Lowell experiment was finally put into halt by the rapidly changing economy. Even though many of the mill girls were fired from their jobs, they all would create an impact to the society. The mills also gave the girls an education, they could never have experienced if they stayed on the farm. Many of the former mill girls became activists and supported such movements like the Abolition movement, the Women's Right movement, and the civil rights movement. The Lowell Experiment not only changed how the people thought about the factory life, it also changed the course of the century.
Video depicting the working condition of workers in England
Recently, our class has been discussing the factories of the Industrial Revolution., to compliment this we participated in a Google chat with the Textiles Gallery of the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester UK. To orientate ourselves for the chat, we watched a video that one of the Explain-er working there, Jaime, was kind enough to make. The video showed the long complex process of making cotton into clothe. After we finished the video, we found and defined any words that we didn't understand from the video. After we finished the definitions, we created a couple of questions to ask the "Explain-er" during our chat.
A child working in the mill's terrible conditions, taken by Lewis Hines 1833
During the chat, I learned a lot about the cotton industry during the revolution. The thing I found the most interesting was the poor treatment of the workers worker during the revolution. I found the treatment of orphans during the revolution especially shocking. During the revolution the job of cleaning the machines had such a high fatality rate, that the mill owners went to orphanages, and "adopted" orphans, just so they could operate the cleaning of the machines. At some point Jamie mentions that the machines in the mills were so loud that workers some times grew deaf from later in their lives.
Overall, I found the experience very informative. It was very interesting learning about the working conditions of the workers of the mill. the only gripes I had with the chat, was that Jaime showed us how the cotton was processed, felt redundant because we had already watched a video made about the the cotton producing process. It also wasn't helped that the frame rate which almost melted down as if there was a watch stuck in its gears, but overall I found the chat very informing
