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