Congress of Vienna

To start off this unit we paired up to read and explain the background essay on the Congress of Vienna. After, we watched a video about Napoleon and Klemens Von Metternich. The video described Napoleon's reaction to Metternich's changes and the Congress of Vienna. Also, we watched a clip that showed how the map of Europe changed from the changes imposed by the Congress of Vienna. Our essential question, What should people in power do when their power is threatened, relates to this because the members of the Congress of Vienna needed to protect their power from angry revolutionists. There are four principles which the European powers used to protect their power, Balance of Power, Principle of Legitimacy, Holy Alliance and Principle of Intervention.

Tzar Alexander spearheaded the idea of making a Holy Alliance within The Congress of Vienna. A Holy Alliance prevents revolt by saying that Monarchs had the divine right to rule and any revolution was treason against God. This principle worked fairly well because it was going back to the old ways before Napoleon when things were mostly stable. Also, the people in power had the support of the church making it not such a good idea to revolt. Overall, The Congress of Vienna mostly undid the physical aspects of Napoleon's conquest however, Napoleonic ideas spread throughout Europe, sparking some revolutions that could not be contained. One of these revolutions even pushed Metternich out of power. Also, there was no fighting between the five nations of the Congress of Vienna up to 1853.

I think the members of The Congress of Vienna could have made better choices. They mostly thought about themselves and expanding their already large countries. Instead, they could have accommodated the smaller countries and listened to their people. They could have given the people more say in the governments which would have been more effective at stopping revolts. The people in power should have given up some of their power so that everyone was satisfied.

Napoleon's Influence

Many historians agree that napoleon was among the greatest rulers in Europe and perhaps of all time. To find out his impact on the social, economic and political systems of Europe, I read the accounts of Madame de Stael and Michel Ney and an article called The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians. Madame de Stael did not think napoleon was all that great while Michel Ney thought he was a fantastic general and a great ruler. The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians tells the story of all the men and women who have written books about Napoleon, some of which were negative and many which were positive.

Napoleon had a huge impact on Europe as a whole. He conquered many countries and one time controlled nearly 75% of Europe. Political speaking, napoleon had a positive impact for the general people, and a negative impact for the royalty. He established a meritocracy, a system where your position in society is based on your skills and abilities, not because you were royal. Also, when he conquered an area of land, he would let the current ruler continue to govern, something that was not normally done. Napoleon was a master at creating tending to the needs of the economy. Napoleon added massive improvements to the infrastructure of Europe by creating public works projects such as building roads and bridges. As well as helping with public works, Napoleon encouraged the arts and industrialized parts of Europe. Finally, Napoleon helped with the social aspects of Europe. He increased the availability of education and allowed his citizens to have more property rights. After invading Egypt, Napoleon reorganized their government and established the University of Egypt.

In my opinion, napoleon was a huge positive influence to all of Europe. His skills as a military commander were unparalleled and he was an outstanding leader. He cared about the future of our world by emphasizing education and optimizing the outdated governments of Europe. This being said, some of what Napoleon did was wrong, such as killing thousands of people to conquer their country. Overall, Napoleon was a great leader and brought about many necessary changes to Europe.

capitalism, socialism, communism oh my!

To demonstrate Marxism we played a game. In the game, Mrs. G distributed Hersey kisses to all of us to represent wealth Most kids got 3 but a few got more than that. Then, we played rock, paper, scissors, shoot with each other and the loser had to give one piece of candy to the winner. After we totaled our candy, Mrs. G took it back and redistributed it, showing how capitalism eventually leads to communism. This activity was both fun and frustrating, we got to eat candy but it was annoying that the government could just take all of your hard earned wealth.

Karl Marx and Adam Smith both had very different ideas for a government system. Marx believed that everybody should have equal wealth controlled by the government, a classless society. While Smith believed that there should  free trade among the people, not controlled by the government. Marx's system helps the poor because they have just as much as everyone else. Smith's idea benefits the poor because competition between traders creates low enough prices for everyone to afford.

In my opinion, Smith's theory is better than Marx's. I like the idea of having a loose government to step in when things go badly, not an over controlling or no government. This being said, I think the best system is to have a combination of the two. Let people buy, sell and trade what they want, but have them pay taxes in return for things like healthcare, very much like our system in the U.S.

Working Conditions in the Mills, U.S. vs. England

The working conditions in both England and Lowell were bad. However, it was worse in England due to many reasons. First, England came into the Industrial Revolution before Lowell thus having more time for the factories to start heading into squalor. Another reason is that the men who created the Lowell mills observed the English mills and tried to correct their mistakes. The Lowell experiment as it was called did not succeed as well as the creators had hoped, the workers were still treated badly and received low wages. Also, the Lowell mills had boarding houses nearby for the workers to live in, while in England most of the workers were living in squalor in the streets. In England, the workers had to wake up earlier, work later and didn't have designated eating times, as opposed to the breakfast lunch and dinner breaks the workers in the Lowell mills got. Finally, when the Lowell mill worker's wages got cut, they protested against it and it eventually paid off. To find out more about the Lowell Mills you can check it out here