Andrew Jackson - The Spoils System of Politics

In class, we debated whether or not Andrew Jackson was a 'people's president.' My group looked into his method of rewarding those who had the same views with him/supported him. This was known as the Spoils System.
Here's our presentation on it:



And here are some links to some documents related:


http://hope.ly/1un7DMD

Democracy: A Rise of The People's Choice

The essential question for this week’s class time was “How should we define democracy? How democratic was the United States in the early 1800s?” We looked at famous paintings in class, and voting data charts, analyzing the emergence of democracy over time. Here are a couple:

We also analyzed some quotes said by those with political power over time.

Democracy is “a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting”. (Merriam-Webster Definition) This definition defines what the government of the United States of America has become. However, America didn’t start out as a democracy. It ‘rose’ to popularity.The basic idea of democracy is letting the country decide what laws should be made. To maintain some organization, the general population elects representatives that they believe will voice the same opinions that they have.

And here's our poster on how it affected the US in the early 1800s:

Latin American Revolutions - Issues in Race

In our Latin American Revolutions lesson, we were asked the questions “Why is it essential to acknowledge human value regardless of race? How are the events in the Latin American Revolutions evidence of this social imperative?” - The answers to these questions still matter today, with human rights being a ‘hot topic’ on the news quite frequently nowadays. So to study this, in class, we first split up into 3 groups. Within these groups, we determined what races made up what percent of the population in Latin America at the time. Here's the chart:

Then, packets were passed out. One group had a packet on Mexico, another on Gran Colombia, and another on Brazil. My group had the Brazil packet. Our group read this packet, then devised a timeline of the events that happened in Brazil over the course of the Latin American Revolutions. Here’s the timeline itself:

The revolutions in Mexico and Gran Colombia were similar to Brazil’s in some respects, but quite different in others. All 3 revolutions were in the early 1800s, and, in all of them, the lower class was rebelling against the upper class colonialists that held all the power in their country’s government. The Brazilian revolution, however, was the only one that was against Portugal; the other two were against Spain. Also, The Brazilian revolution was the only revolution of the three that didn’t have much violence in it.

In society today, there definitely still are racial issues. Take the problems in Ferguson, for example. I mean, just look at this link. There’s a whole list of racial issues sprinkled in throughout there. It’s definitely still an issue, and should still be talked about today.

Toussaint Louverture: The Legend of the Liberator

Liberator of Slaves. Ruler of Saint Domingue. Military Commander. Toussaint Louverture, the legendary leader of the Haitian Revolution was one of the most influential military commanders in the late 1700s to early 1800s. He fought against France for the freedom of Haitian slaves, and, through great cunning, guerilla warfare, and sheer military prowess, he succeeded in freeing the slaves of Haiti. The three reasons listed above were his main personal achievements, and what he will forever be remembered as. His strong leadership and morals contributed to how we know him today: a liberator of slaves, ruler of Saint Domingue, and a military commander.

All that Toussaint Louverture did in Saint Domingue (now called Haiti) was towards the effort of making the island a better place to live, mainly by abolishing slavery. Throughout the slave uprising and rebellion that started in 1791, Toussaint Louverture was devoted to do anything needed to end slavery. Louverture didn’t just start out as a commander, however. He joined the rebellion as a doctor, but, due to his intelligence and drive, quickly rose through the ranks and ended up in charge of the rebellion. He gathered many unhappy slaves, all ready to fight for freedom, and went on a crusade against the French. Slaves struck in the night, killing their masters, swiftly and often brutally. The ratio of slaves to wealthy whites was too large for the present French Army to do anything. The Spaniards, who were elated at the fact that someone was fighting their enemy, and also enticed by the possibility of joining Saint Domingue with Santo Domingo (their part of the island), joined sides with the slave uprising and assisted in taking down the French. By now, Louverture was essentially the leader of Saint Domingue. Fearing further uprisings and revolutions in their other colonies, the French caved and finally abolished slavery in Saint Domingue. Louverture made a series of laws that supported his beliefs, and secured the abolishment of slavery in Saint Domingue. Following this, in 1794, Toussaint quickly switched sides to fight for the French against Spain and England (Document A). The French, knowing how cunning of a militant Louverture was, decided to accept his decision and make him a member of their military. Later, after he had served with the French for a while, in 1797, Toussaint learned that the French were on the brink of reinstating slavery in Saint Domingue. Enraged, he informed the French that those who had tasted freedom would now never go back to being slaves, and would fight to the death to maintain their freedom. Toussaint Louverture dared the French to prove him wrong. (Document B). When the French decided to ignore his threats, he rejoined the former slaves and prepared to fight. However, when Louverture was tricked into a meeting and surprise ambush by the French, he was taken away to France and put in jail, where he died. Ironically, he died way behind enemy lines, in enemy captivity, unable to do anything about what mattered to him the most. (Document A)

All that Louverture did was for the slaves, he also did for Saint Domingue. After he succeeded in driving the French to abolish slavery, he knew that he had to make laws (and enforce them) to keep the people of Haiti free.  He, and a group of close associates, created the Constitution of 1801. This document ‘officially’ abolished slavery, but also stressed the fact that people would keep on working, telling farmers that they should keep their old jobs, but making sure they were paid and given enough money for their time. (Document C). Also in (Document C+D), Louverture created laws that helped maintain order on the old (but newly managed) plantations for high productivity, product and profit. Some of these laws seemed a bit harsh, like a penalty for not turning in a runaway worker, making children work as soon as they could, even if it was a small job, and putting people in prison for being vagabond. (Document D) Louverture knew that this was a bit harsh, but he established his leadership and stood by these rules, as the ruler of Saint Domingue. In the end, Louverture knew what he had to do to keep the people free, and would do anything to maintain it.

The last way we should remember Toussaint Louverture is by his military career (as a commander.) In the slave revolt of 1791, Louverture first started as a doctor, then rose through the ranks to become a commander,training rebel slaves in common European fighting styles and guerilla warfare. (Document A). He was key asset in fighting Napoleon's recently landed troops. In a cunning yet brutal act, Louverture defied the French and ordered that the port city the French were to be landing at be burned. Louverture’s army then retreated to the mountains (where they knew the territory), while the French found their foothold destroyed. The French then advanced into the jungles,where they were destroyed by Louverture’s forces, as they did not know the territory (Document F). Furthermore, Toussaint would not hold back if he felt that order in the country was threatened. He wasn’t afraid to employ his militant force against people who defied him. He even arrested and executed of his own nephew, along with all of his fellow rebelling farmers. (Document E) Though he was a cunning and brutal military commander, all that he did was for Saint Domingue, and the people knew it.

Whether he was liberating slaves, ruling Saint Domingue, or commanding his military forces, Toussaint Louverture will forever be remembered for his historic feats of fighting for freedom for his country.

Sources:

Link for the original documents

Picture Details

The Revolutions of 1830 and 1848: Changing the meaning of Revolution

The essential question for our class’ unit on the Revolutions of 1830 and 1848 was “Were the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really failures, as many historians have concluded. To learn the information needed to produce an answer, our class first looked at how the recent revolutions in France had influenced the revolutions that were sweeping through Europe. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, “We are sleeping on a volcano. Do you not see that the Earth trembles anew? A wind of revolution blows, the storm is on the horizon.” This ‘volcano’ was a metaphor for those who had been oppressed by their current government, people who were increasingly unhappy, those who might organize a coup/rebellion. The ‘wind of revolution’ is the ripples of unease in the aristocrats of Europe after France’s revolution. As you can see in the image below, the recent French revolution really did have an impact on surrounding countries’ mentalities.

With this look into how the revolutions went, we devised a scale, from complete Failure, to Complete success. This scale would determine what our group though of the result of the revolutions.

After our group made the scale, we split into new groups, were assigned revolutions from either 1830 or 1848 (or around there, you get the idea), and summarized them. My group’s was the ‘Frankfurt Assembly Revolution’. Here’s some sourcing + info on it.

Country:

Frankfurt (Germany)

Date:

Throughout 1848

Goals:

Wanted a constitution for the people of Germany, something fair, like maybe a republic or a constitutional monarchy, and whether or not to include Austria in a united German state, as in national unity and some more nationalist reforms

Opponent:

The conservative king (Prussia's Frederick William IV), who thought the liberalists were a serious threat to his rule, rejected their constitution and ideals, also partially because it 'came from the gutter' (the people), and not princes or those of a respectable amount of nobility

Outcome:

Troops were sent in from Prussia to quell the uprisings, and the King dissolved the assembly, thousands of Germans left the country (many moving to the US because if there some of the more rebellious people were killed or sent to prison

Reasons for Success/Failure:

Mostly a failure, because of the intervention by the king of Prussia, (who wasn't their enemy at first, but became their enemy once he rejected their proposal). One upside was that not many people died, and things went back to ‘normal’ pretty quickly afterwards.

Now let’s hit some primary sources.

One of the goals of the Frankfurt Assembly was to create a constitutional Monarchy. The illustration above shows Frederick William IV (along with the military, and other aristocrats, presumably)'shutting the door' to the peoples' demands

Sourcing: Satyrische Zeitbilder - (a contemporary satirical image) - from Hamburg, Germany. This image is in support of the rebels and makes William IV look like a bad guy.

And 2 more:

(Please excuse the light blurs)

Now for our group’s SurveyMonkey, used to test our classmates’ existing knowledge of the Frankfurt Assembly and to teach them more:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/MRFT78H

They were given this link to help them out. All the information is on there, this test was more of a reading and understanding exercise.

Here’s the survey results that we got:

http://imgur.com/a/TrGA8

I’d say that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were pretty much failures. None of them really took off, though most weren't complete failures. The Decembrist Revolt was, (most people were brutally killed), but the Frankfurt Assembly was mostly peaceful in the end, though it was a failure. The Hungarian revolution of 1848 seemed like it was going in a good direction for the rebels, but Austrian troops soon crushed them. Maybe it just wasn’t the right time for a revolution, because none of these worked.

The Magnificent Congress of Vienna

The essential question of our lesson on the Congress of Vienna was this: What should people in power do when their power is threatened? In class, we quickly paired up, read a quick paper on the Congress of Vienna and discussed the circumstances, mood, questions asked there, and attendees with out partner. Following this, the class read up on Klemens Von Metternich, who was one of the driving forces behind the congress. He advocated for a balance of power, saying that none should have too much authority. He also proposed a redrawing of the map of Europe, redistributing countries’ borders. Within our groups, we had to decide what we thought Metternich would have chosen, from a selection of 3 options. 

An animation of the congress’ final solution can be found here; Metternich and the congress also had to decide who would rule France, and what needed to be done to prevent future revolutions. Metternich’s answer to these questions were to put King Louis XVIII back on the throne, and to create the Holy Alliance, the Principle of Legitimacy, the Principle of Intervention, and the basic balance of power. But here, I’m going to focus on the Principle of Intervention.

The Principle of Intervention basically said that if there is an uprising or revolution that seems threatening enough to actually take over a country, then other countries/parties may step in and shut it down. This maintained a general balance of power across Europe, keeping the working governments in charge and the people in check. This was widely accepted (Except for England) and also widely successful.

I think the powerful people of the Congress of Vienna made the right choice. There were a couple of revolutions following the congregation, but they were shut down pretty quickly. Those in power did a good enough job ruling, and things went on well enough, so I’d say the Congress of Vienna was successful.

Ideologies: Liberalism and all the Rest

What were the major political ideologies of the 19th century and how did they influence social and political action? In class, we took this question and wrote down what we thought were definitions for these ideologies without any technological help. Then we split into 3 sets of 2 group. With these new groups, we made a presentation on a specific Ideology. My group was assigned Liberalism, and our full video can be seen here:

       

         This video gives a quick look into what Liberalism is, and how it played a part in the 19th century.  What liberalism did is focus on what the majority wanted. People wanted to have more of a political influence, which is why liberalists preferred a constitutional monarchy or a meritocracy, compared to an absolute monarch. It’s good to note that no real ‘democracies’ as we know them today were around back then, that was ‘too extreme’ even for the most hardcore liberalists. From a social action standpoint, liberalism empowered the general public because it allowed the majority of the people to have a say in what they believe, and decide for themselves how the government will be represented.

The other two prominent ideologies that were popular and widely pushed for in Eurasia during the 19th century were nationalism and conservatism. Nationalism is when people are united by a common culture, language, belief system and their ruler, but yet are separate countries. They join together to become one force, and usually have enough power to crush all their enemies.They thought that their ruler should be of their own heritage, and wanted to expel any foreign rulers. Nationalism influenced the general public’s political action by putting them behind the idea of having a ruler from their own country, and made them dislike rulers from outside. It influenced the people’s social action because it connected them with people of the same heritage. Conservatism is essentially ‘sticking to the status quo.’ They wanted everything to go by the bible and for the clergy to have all the power, and hated rioting and new advances in anything, really. They liked aristocracies, the rich getting richer, and so on. Their political action was to keep everything the same, and their social action was to push the lower and middle class down. Though most people were in the middle and lower classes, conservatism was so successful because the rich people who supported it had so much more power than all the rest.

Napoleon: An Overview

In many respects, Napoleon is regarded as the greatest military general to ever live. And, well, he sort of is. Though he was an enemy to some, his military conquest impressed even those he fought. He unified Europe, and inspired many future generals with his raw power. He was described as intense, with Madame de Stael saying that he had a “profound contempt for all the intellectual riches of human nature: virtue, dignity, religion, enthusiasm”. He found them useless, and instead focused on conquering and unifying Europe. He went about this conquering by employing his own cunning and bravery, making surprise attacks in the middle of the night, to plowing straight forward brutishly through enemy forces. Tyrannical, right? Not everyone thought so. One of his officers, Marshal Michel Ney, thought that Napoleon should was the greatest, and supported him at all costs, even through exile and exclusion.

Napoleon considered himself the rightful Emperor of Europe, and appointed himself so. He would often put relatives or close associates in positions of power across the vast expanse of his empire; he couldn't control it all by himself. Economy wise, everything pretty much stayed the same except for the fact that Napoleon cut off all trade from Britain as a punishment for their ‘crimes’ against him.

Capitalism, Socialism, Consumerism and More!

In class, we were all handed 2 Hershey’s Kisses, except for a few select people who got over 4x more. Obviously, this seemed rather unfair at the time, but we were given the opportunity to gamble (through a Rock-Paper-Scissors tournament) and win more Hershey’s Kisses from our classmates. Everyone was required to participate, as it is like in the real game of life, and some lost out quickly. Others, like me, slowly amassed their fortune, but it was a definite fact that those who started out with the most originally came out on top, stayed on top. This is basically Capitalism, with the rich getting richer, the poor staying poor, and the middle class just barely holding on in the turbulent wake of the rich. It was an entertaining activity, though it still managed to show us what life and economy was like out in the real world, from an experimental standpoint.

Here’s a quick rundown of the types of government, before we dive into Karl Marx’s life:

Capitalism

-Private ownership of industry

-Freedom of competition

-Results in uneven economic classes

-Results in class struggle

-Lower classes may end up revolting

Socialism

-Government ownership of industry

-Goal is to bring economic equality

-Aims for a classless society

Communism

-Goal of classless society achieved

-No government needed

Karl Marx wasn't a poor man. He was raised to a rather wealthy family, and attended a university in Europe to study philosophy, where he excelled academically. After his time at the university, he went on to write many articles about American politics, and what he felt were ideal political situations. He married, and settled down writing a newspaper preaching his political beliefs; telling the world how great Socialism and Communism were. He was unhappy with most of the western world’s Capitalist government, and wrote all about how Communism was an ideal system, showing it as a path to utopian paradise. However, this political activity and message was an outrage among the Industrialist ‘bigwigs’ in the western world, who organized their power to have Marx kicked out of Germany, and then out of France, claiming he was a threat to society with his radical views and beliefs. Afterward, he settled in England, where he lived out his days preaching his ideals. In addition, Socialism was a popular alternative style of government. It aimed for a classless society, where the government intervenes only to keep people at the same level, so not quite as drastic as Communism, but still with some guidelines and regulations as there is in Capitalism. Another popular view of how the government should treat the economy was ‘The Invisible Hand’. It was a metaphor created by Adam Smith in the mid 16th century, and basically said that the economy could, and should, regulate itself. This version of government intervention with economy was widely accepted by rich businessmen (Industrialists) because it allowed for them to create a monopoly on the markets in which they were already partially controlling, and for less taxation to occur. Even though monopolies could be created, everyone still had a chance, as a smaller vendor could always lower prices to compete, propelling their own profits sky high at the cost of the previously rich.

Sadly, there are problems with each of these. Let’s start with Communism and Socialism. Sure, they sound good on paper, but in real life they just don’t work well. Take a look at the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, North Korea, and China. When one thinks of these countries, they usually think of anarchy or oppression. It’s true, Socialist and Communist ideals just don’t work well. Now that those two are out of the way, let’s move on to ‘The Invisible Hand’. This wouldn’t really work because the market would be way too unstable to be successful, and its fluctuations would cause the market to repeatedly crash at the beginning, leaving some on top and some on the bottom, defeating its purpose. Now that leaves us with Capitalism, what the USA is operating on right now. I don’t really have a problem with it, but I don’t love it. It’s okay for the most part, with the obscenely rich becoming richer, yet still giving the lower and middle classes a chance to move up through hard work. So nothing that I know of so far is perfect, but I’m sure that will change in time.

Resources:

Quick Intro to 'The Invisible Hand'

Karl Marx Quick Bio:

What Motivated Adam Smith:

Industrial Lowell: Diving into the Motivations of Women

In the Industrial Revolution, due to the rising amounts and importance of mills, many girls went off to work in them, pushing through deplorable conditions just to have the job. But why did they do it? Well, for a multitude of reasons. First was the fact that they were the ones making money, and that it was theirs. A lot of the workers were young, and this was a nice thing for them to have, as they could buy clothes instead of having to make it themselves. The extra money they made was often sent back to their families on farms or wherever they came from, making it easier on the families. They girls’ food and board prices were taken out of the total beforehand, so they were just generating a positive amount of income for their families. Another factor was for women to improve public image and reception of themselves. They were no longer seen as weak, staying home and caring for children all day, but instead going off on their own, gaining independence, and not needing a man to support them. Even through all this, it was the ‘mill girls’ that were really the backbone and pushing force of the Industrial Revolution.

Related Media:

Daughters of Free Men

MOSI Hangout - Exploring the Industrial Revolution

To prepare for the video chat with Jamie from the Museum of Science and Industry, we first went to the MOSI site (http://www.mosi.org.uk/explore-mosi/explore-galleries/textiles-gallery.aspx) and looked around, taking notes. On the site, we learned about Sir Richard Arkwright, who was known as the father of the textile mill. Following that, we watched a quick video Jamie had sent us about what he’d talk about whilst videochatting. During the video, the class all took notes on the vocabulary presented, looked them all up on Google, and compared definitions to find the best matches. Next, we all came up with questions that we had for Jamie.

Though the chat was plagued by a poor connection, Jamie still taught us a lot about the Industrial Revolution, the working conditions, and the machines that were involved. Originally, families worked together in ‘Cottage Looms’, which were small-medium sized looms that the whole family worked at in one room. The families wanted to maximize hours of usage, so they would put the machine in a very well lit area. Sadly, this format of creating textiles was slow and not very profitable. To make the most progress in a day, the families worked from sunrise to sundown, and the children even helped out by brushing debris out of cotton with a metal brush. It was a very hand to mouth existence, and they made their own clothes too. Next came the Arkwright factory looms. These were up to 4x more productive than cottage looms, using the same amount of people. Oftentimes, these looms would harvest the power of water from a water wheel located outside the factory. Since these were almost automated, the workers only needed to do some tasks and feed in the cotton. Next up was the spinning machine, or the almost completely automated, infamous mills that were very loud and very dangerous. Over time they became slightly safer, but they were still the cause for many a death in the Industrial Revolution. In addition to this, they were terrible for the environment, and pumped out massive amounts of pollution per year. We learned how dangerous operating the machines could be; Jamie said that children’s fingers could be stripped down to the bone.

Here’s a picture from the chat:

I really enjoyed this chat, it really showed me that the Industrial Revolution still lives today. I was quite impressed with the MOSI’s textile mill machine collection. Jamie was pretty cool, and this activity was definitely both a lot of fun and very educational.

Exploring The Industrial Revolution

Curating this exhibit basically entailed gathering images from our sources and the web, and adding in information found from or sources, all in an effort to teach the reader about child labor in the Industrial Revolution.We used tons of pretty colors to make it stand out, hoping readers would gravitate toward our exhibit over any other. We used minecarts to connect our points and pictures, and even included a QR code with link to the original documents and pictures on Edline.

The first exhibit was on Textile Mills and Looms. Throughout the industrial revolution, many iterations of looms were created, each being more productive than the next. Originally, there was the hand loom, which was used by hand, then the almond loom, which was much more automated, then the mechanized loom, which required a lot less manual work than ever before. Finally, the textile mill was created. It was a massive creation, increasing productivity by the sheer amount of textiles it could put out.

The second exhibit was on transportation, featuring mainly the steam engine. With the steam engine, trains could move faster than ever before, and really became a standard for material transportation.

The third exhibit was all about the pollution and lifestyle changes the Industrial Revolution brought about. Factories pumped out tons of smog and dumped all their solid and liquid waste into rivers, making air conditions and water conditions worse than ever before, sickening many in the process. Slums became more common too, because many wanted to be close to their workplaces. Another reason slums became more common is because the cost of living went way up, with new technologies becoming parts of rich households every day.

The fourth exhibit can be seen above.

The fifth exhibit was on slavery. Child labor is kind of a subdivision of this, but to set a bottom line, slavery rates exploded during the Industrial Revolution. Everyone wanted a job, and most factory owners could get away with paying less than living wages to those in need, and they definitely did. This huge workforce enabled the factories and mines to double production, increasing product and profit.