Congress of Vienna 1814

In my history class we discussed the Congress of Vienna in 1814. At the Congress of Vienna, men from all over Europe discussed how they were going to redraw the map. This needed to be done because Napoleon was defeated and changes needed to be made to the map. They needed to talk about what they were going to do when the power that the had was in trouble. What would you do if your power was threatened? There are four ways that the European powers reacted to their threatened power. In class, we were given multiple scenarios and we had to chose the option that seemed like it would work the best and make everyone in Europe happy.

Men are consulting at the Congress of Vienna in 1814
http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_image.cfm?image_id=255

One of the ways that the people of Europe were able to keep their power but also keep the people in Europe in line was a balance of power. When redrawing the map, Metternich made sure that the 5 strongest countries, Russia, Austria, Prussia, Britain, and France, all had a balance of power. This prevented one country from dominating all the others. Land was redistributed between these 5 countries, which ensures that the power was balanced for the allies in case of any later French expansion. He brought back the original French territory, expanded the Prussian territory, made the Kingdom of the Netherlands a stronger border state, and gave Russia and Austria additional territory because they were extremely hurt by Napoleon. In a sense, he reserves the changes of Napoleon's conquest.

The people at the Congress of Vienna made a semi right choice with their decisions. They prevented a war within Europe. This saved them a lot of money and damage to the countries. But, they did not please everyone with the decisions they made. Sometimes, people need to sacrifice their power to make people happy.

What Did Napoleon do?

"As long as genius that grandly dares- and fails- has power to lift the mind of man to high endeavor, so long will Napoleon be worthy of his page in the records of history. " (George Gordon Andrews- "The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians"). Napoleon was an extremely influential man of the 1800s in Europe. Most people remember him for his negative and positive impact on the social, economic, and political systems in Europe.  He has made his impact in many different ways, many of which are further explained here.

Napoleon influenced Europe's political system in more ways than one. Political influences are those that deal with the government.The first way he influenced it was when he redrew the map of Europe. The finished map showed that British remained outside of his empire. This is a political influence because it had to do with Napoleon taking control of many of the countries in Europe including Spain, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, Austria, and many more. By redrawing the map, he created a negative and positive influence on the world, but more specifically in Europe. Obviously, it was good for Napoleon because he was redrawing the territory that he took control of. Also, it is impressive to draw a map of the world, the way people thought the world looked like was influenced because of him. On the flip side, it was negative because he was taking over the land that people already claimed and they were losing what they owned to Napoleon. All of the countries would now be under one control, and may not be the best thing for so many people to be under one control. Another example of how Napoleon influenced the political system is that he reorganized the government in Egypt when he invaded it. Also, while invading, he invented the Institute of Egypt. This is a political influence because it has to do with Napoleon changing the government and inventing something to change the study of ancient Egypt. Many people would agree that this is a positive influence because Napoleon is bettering the government in Egypt by reorganizing it. He also changed the way people looked at the way people looked at ancient Egypt forever. He invaded Egypt and did something beneficial with it. The last and final reason why Napoleon influenced the political system is that he intended to overthrew the Directory, and the give members resigned. The Directory was the system of government in France at the time. Since this issue is dealing with the government in 1799, it is a political influence. This influence is negative because members of the Directory resigned their position and because of Napoleon, the Directory no longer existed. France no longer had a system of government after Napoleon.

Napoleon also influenced the economic system of Europe just as much as he influenced its political system. Influences in the economic system have to do with things that deal with the economy and money. Napoleon built roads and canals, encouraged new industry, and controlled prices to help the economy in Europe prosper. This is one of his positive impacts because by doing this, the economy is Europe was doing well after being poor for so long. Napoleon helped Europe out by doing this. Also, he spread artwork around Europe by taking precious artworks from Italy. This can be seen as a negative and positive influence. It may be negative because he took things from Italy, which would have been bad for Italy. But, this may be seen as a positive thing because Napoleon was able to spread artwork to other places of the world, which spread new ideas. Another example of his influence is idea to sell the Louisiana Territory. This sale was worth multimillion dollars, and doubled the size of the United States, the land it was sold to. This is a positive influence to the United States because it lead to the expansion of the land in America. This also negatively influences France because they lost the land they they owned in another part of the world.

Finally, Napoleon influenced the social system of Europe in many ways. Social influences are those that deal with the people. One way he influences the social system was by having the French Directory using him to accomplish their goals. This means that Napoleon was a smart man and that the government of France wanted him to help them further their goals. He made a positive influence on the members, and they now want him to help them do what they need. But, you should not use someone to further your goals, which makes part of this influence negative. Since it has to do with the people in France, it is an influence in the so social system. Another thing Napoleon did he established a meritocracy. This meritocracy said that all people were to be rewarded based on their skills, rather than the social class that they were born into. This is a positive influence on the social system because how well people should do should not matter if they were born into a good or bad class. If a poor man has the potential to do well, he shouldn't be restricted because he was born into a low class. By Napoleon creating this system, he gives everyone the potential to do well, no matter what class they belong to.

Napoleon's decisions in his years of ruling had a big influence on Europe, especially the social, economic, and political systems. Although the influences were both positive and negative, they still impacted these three systems greatly. He essentially influenced the way peoples lived they're love in the 1800s because of all the things he did to Europe.

Capitalism, Socailism, or Communism?

In history class, we played a game to show how capitalism, communism and socialism worked. At the start of class, the teacher handed out starburst to each of the students. Some people got 2 or 3 starburst and others got more. In Capitalism, this represents private ownership of industry with inequality. Each student started with their own candy and some got more than others. As class was getting started, the teacher told the class that we would be able to gain to lose candy by playing a game of rock, paper, scissors with other students in the class. This is an example of freedom of competition. We were able to decide who to play with and how many candies we were going to give away or gain. Most people got up and started to play the game. The "rich" people in class were worried about losing their candy, and when they lost a lot of candy, they stopped playing. The "poor" people in the class wanted to become part of the rich class. They were not afraid to play the game and win candy. They did not want to lose all their candy, so they were careful about playing. But, after they lost all their candy, they were eliminated from the game. After the game was finished, the class took a poll on who lost candy and who won candy. Most people lost candy, but some people gained candy. This is an example of results in unequal economic classes in Capitalism. The people who win would be known as the bourgeoisie. The people who lost would be known as the proletariat. While the game was being played, people were complaining about the game. Some said it was not fair, and others complained about playing the game in general. This would be known as class struggle in Capitalism. People were arguing during the game about fairness, and the people who were eliminated were "cheating" to try to find a way to get back into the game. This would be known as workers' revolt in Capitalism. People tried to go against the rules and fight about them. Once everyone said their complaints at the end of the game, the teacher collected all the candy. In Socialism, this would be classified as government ownership of industry. Once the candy was collected, everyone in class was given the same amount of candy, which is the goal to bring economic equality in Socialism. Now that each student had the same amount of candy, socialists would call that the aim for a classless society. Although the game ran smoothly, some people argued during it.  When the students refused to play and wanted to keep their candy, it was an example of communism. In communism, this would be known as the achieved go of a classless society. Also, an example of communism was shown when the teacher backed off from the game and did not supervise the candy distribution. This is known as no government needed in Communism. I enjoyed this game, and I thought it was a clever way to show how communism, socialism, and capitalism worked. I was frustrated during the game since I was not one of the rich people during the game. I was worried about playing the game and losing all my candy, but I wanted to play because I wanted more candy. Being rich would have been easier because I would not have had to worry about getting more candy if I started with a lot. You needed luck to get more candy in this game rather than skill. Overall, I enjoyed playing the game and enjoyed getting starburst at the end of the game.

Marx says that eventually socialism would lead to communism. This means that the government would not be needed and the people would govern themselves. Also, that the money in the economic system would be equal between everyone because it is equally distributed. The poor are helped in this system because everyone is equal. Everyone in the system has the same amount of money since the government evenly distributes if. On the other hand, Smith said that the "invisible hand" would be how the government worked. The invisible hand says that the government is only affective in public works. It stays out of business and lets the people figure it out. The poor are helped in this system because the market creates job openings. This makes it easier for a poor man to find a job and make money. Also, the low prices of things allow a man with less money to buy what they need. They do not have to worry about buying things if they have a job that makes them money and low prices which allow them to buy things with that money.

In my opinion, Smith's theory is the best. I believe that the poor are benefited the most in this system, and more opportunities are opened for them. The poor still has to work for their money, rather than the government just handing it to them. I think that if you want to have money then you must work for it. It feels better knowing that the things you have are products of hard work rather than just sitting there and having the products being handed to you. For now, I do not know if there is a third alternative. Eventually, another idea of how to help the poor may be introduced.

Stop the Luddites

The Luddites were a group of skilled weavers, mechanics, and other artisans who lived in

England. At the time of the Industrial Revolution, they protested technology by destroying

machines and sometimes the whole factory. This group of people protested economic hardship, class warfare, and the man in charge of the factory. They wanted people to appreciate the skills of the artisans. The Luddites did not like how the new technology in the Industrial Revolution was being used. They felt that the big factories were not being used correctly. By protesting against technology, the Luddites wished to be payed more fairly. They were always found to be fighting with employers, magistrates, food merchants, and the government soldiers. The citizens of England were constantly worrying if Luddites were right about technology, and if it was really going to tear apart their society. Following is a letter written by a young girl who just starting working in the factories with Luddites around her.

The picture above depicts what the Luddites were all about. They destroyed the machines in the factories because they were against the way it was being used. (heinakroon.com)

Sourcing of the letter: Emily Fiorenza, a young girl working in the cotton mill in Lancashire, England. (October 6th, 1812)

Dear Katie,

I hope everything is going well for you back at home. I really miss you! I got a job in

Lancashire, England at one of the cotton mills about 2 months ago. The conditions in the factory are horrifying, but I am making a decent amount of money. My father sent me to work here because our family could really use the money. A lot of my good friends are working with me and I enjoy seeing them everyday. I send money home to help support the family, but I also keep a little to myself so I can spend it on the things I want. I am very nervous about losing my job though. A group of people in England are not reacting well to all the change going on around them. This group of people call themselves the Luddites. The Luddites are a group of skilled weavers and artisans who protest the factories and machines we work with because of unfair employment and wages. They may have the power to ruin my workplace and take my job away from me. The workers around me are always talking about the Luddites, and sometimes I think some of them are secretly going along with the Luddites. I am constantly hearing them talk about ruining the machines they are working with, and the word fire comes up at lot in their conversations. If they talk about things that seem like something the Luddites would do, they must be with the Luddites. They always are talking about a plan that has a code name so that no one will know what they are talking about. Since I have been hearing them talking about it all the time, I am starting to catch on to their plan. I think the Luddites are not doing the right thing. If they burn down this mill I will lose my job. My family is dependent on the money I make and I cannot let them down. I will not allow the Luddites to burn down this building and ruin things for my family back at home! I have to stop them before things get worse. I plan on becoming friends with them, and allowing them to think that I am on their side. I will say things about how much I hate my job and how much I wish I could leave the mills. If they think I am going along with their thoughts and the plan they have created, they will have to tell me all the details. Hopefully I will be able to find out the date of this plan. Once I get all the details from them, I will secretly go see the factory owner, Mr.Smith, and tell him everything that is going on in his factory. He is in charge and will hopefully be able to put a stop to the problem so I will be able to keep my job and support my family. Do you think it will work? Tell everyone at home I said hello. I miss you all very much and I hope to see you all soon. Write back when you can! Wish me luck, I am going to need it!!

Love,

Emily

Comparing The Mills

Although the British and Lowell factories had very similar conditions, those in Britain were a lot worse than those in America. In Britain, the factories had many problems that the workers had to deal with. The sanitation of the factories were extremely poor, the workers were constantly being beaten with little rest time and hardly any pay, and the factories were overcrowded. In the Lowell factories, things were the opposite. The workers had time to rest, the workspace and boarding houses were sanitary and an education was offered to the workers. Although the Lowell factory conditions were better than those in Britain, young workers were hired to work in the mills.

In the British factories, poor conditions were not hard to find. The overseers of the factories were extremely strict and wanted the factory to run properly so they could keep their jobs. According to the documents in class, the workers in the mills Thomas Birks, one of the overseers, treaters the workers as animals. One of the documents says, “Everybody was frightened of him. He would not even let us speak.” Thomas was very free with his hands, and was not afraid to hit the children working. The workers were sometimes being beaten for things they could not control, such as their height. They were punished for any mistake that they made, and since children worked in the factories, this happened often.

The poor conditions in the British all started with the overcrowding in the factories. Britain was a lot smaller than the United States, so the over crowding in the country was brought over to the overcrowding in the factories. Since so many people worked in the factories, the conditions started to crumble. The factories in Britain started to get dirty since so many people were working in them. People’s wages were cut because an excessive amount of people were at work in the factories, and the necessary wage could not be paid because of this.

Also, since the workers were standing all day, they got injuries to their knees and feet. From standing in one place too long without rest, bones would bend and deteriorate. According to the documents we read in class, the workers would get repetitive motion injuries from doing the same motions all day. Since the work days were so long, the workers would fall asleep at the machines. This would cause the workers to get their clothes and limbs to get caught in the machine. Their bodies would get crushed in the machines, and people often died due to this.

On the other hand, the American factories had better working conditions than the British factories. The positive things about the Lowell mills attracted the girls eye to go work there. The girls would be exposed to new opportunities, and they were being paid to learn a trade. The factory room and boarding room were very sanitary. The workers were fed three meals a day.

The only down side to the Lowell mills is that they hired children to work. Child labor was a big problem in the United States. Most children were small were small enough to fit under the machines in case the machine broke or had a problem. This helped the factory run smoothly. Children did not get paid as much as adults did.

The Lowell mills and the British mills were very different working environments. Great Britain had poor working conditions, such as overcrowding, low wages, and frequent accidents. In Lowell, the conditions were better, people were getting paid correctly, and they were receiving an education. The conditions were similar because they both enforced child labor. In conclusion, the British mills had worse living conditions than the American mills.