19th Century Ideologies

Our essential question for this lesson was: What were the major political ideologies of the 19th century and how did they influence social and political action? The ideologies were conservatism, liberalism, and nationalism. In groups, we had to come up with definitions in our own words of what we thought each ideology was. Then we had to write a sentence for each one. After we defined each ideology, we got into new groups and were assigned with an ideology to read about. There were two groups per ideology. Each group read a passage on their ideology and answered the essential question based on the passage. Then we made one minute presentations and went head-to-head to see who could explain their ideology best.
Our group made a ChatterPix video on Videolicious about conservatism. Our presentation helps explain conservatism and how different groups felt about it. Edmund Burke, the "father of conservatism", believed in tradition and keeping with the monarchy and social hierarchy. He knew that a revolution would cause chaos and anarchy. Some peasants also believed in his ideas, as the French Revolution tore them apart. They knew that the monarchy was the only thing preventing utter destruction of their lives. Conservatives opposed reform and innovation, which was why the French Revolution was so disastrous for them.
Liberals believed in individual liberty for everyone (with the exception of women and the poor). They opposed conservatism because they believed certain traditions got in the way of their liberty. Consequently, they supported innovation and reforms. They were big believers in "God-given natural rights", especially John Locke (The Second Treatise of Government) and Adam Smith, author of Wealth of Nations, who came up with the idea of the "invisible hand". Nationalists believed that countries were unified, natural entities with cultural, language, and boundary similarities. They were firm supporters of unifying nations and expelling foreign rulers. Germany ended up fulfilling this dream when they unified their principalities and kicked Napoleon out.

Napoleon's Impact

Napoleon Bonaparte made a huge impact on the social, economic, and political systems of Europe. He dominated most of Europe, conquering countries such as Italy, Spain, and Holland, and even reaching Egypt. Napoleon captured Vienna and then formed an alliance. He was feared because he went on many conquests and was greedy; yet he was admired because he was a brilliant military strategist. This is explained in "The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians", where the balance between Napoleon's good and bad qualities is described by authors of out-of-print biographies.

"Napoleon's Military Success"

"The Lost Voices" is a good example of differing views on Napoleon. Most authors are willing to admit that while Napoleon could be negligent and reckless, he was devoted to serving the public and was a great liberator and reformer. However, unlike historians who tend to be unbiased, those who knew Napoleon personally had views of him that were on opposite ends of the spectrum. Madame de Stael, for example, bitterly opposed Napoleon. She insisted that Napoleon used cunning and force to conquer Europe. When he became head of the French government, he announced that he had a plan for a universal monarchy. However, de Stael did not believe him. She believed that in order to keep France interested, Napoleon would intrude on "France's liberty and Europe's independence". Being a member of the nobility and the daughter of Louis XVI's former financial advisor, it only made sense for de Stael (who was exiled in the end) to feel this way. However, Marshal Michel Ney, one of Napoleon's officers, admired and worshiped Napoleon. He believed that Napoleon had the right to rule over the country as emperor and that he was giving people their liberty. "The times are gone when the people were governed by suppressing their rights", Ney shares in a speech to his fellow soldiers.
Napoleon made a positive impact on the social, economic, and political systems of Europe. While not everyone felt this way, Napoleon stimulated industry, controlled prices, and introduced a system where people were rewarded for their skills and not their social class. Though he was considered by some as a tyrant, there is no doubt that Napoleon was good for Europe's (and the world's) growth.

Capitalism, Socialism, & Communism

Before we were even given the name of this lesson, we had to do an activity. Everyone was given two Hershey's kisses, with the exception of two kids, who each got eight. We then all had to play "rock, paper, scissors" (no best two out of three) and if we lost, we had to give the person who beat us one Hershey's kiss. When someone ran out of candy, they had to go sit down. We were invited up to the board to comment on the activity. While a lot of the comments were calling people out on cheating (mainly because the person who lost was mad), some people said the game was unfair because two people started out with more than everyone else. This all related back to Karl Marx's theory of capitalism. Next, everyone's candy was repossessed and then redistributed so everyone was back to only two pieces of candy. This was supposed to represent the idea of socialism. Then we were asked if we wanted to play again, but if we lost that was the end of the line and we could not get any more candy. Most people said no because they didn't want the possibility of losing all of their candy again. This was supposed to show communism because everyone agreed to keep the candy they had, and therefore there was no need for teacher intervention because a classless society had been achieved.
Karl Marx's theory of communism was a process. It started with capitalism, giving everyone private ownership of industry and freedom of competition, but it would result in unequal economic classes and start a workers' revolt. Therefore, the people would transition to socialism to make things more fair. This meant there would be government ownership of industry to achieve the goal of a classless society and economic equality. Marx believed people wouldn't stand for divisions between rich and poor anymore, so they would resort to violence to get to communism. A classless society would be achieved and there would be no need for a government. Adam Smith (author of The Wealth of Nations), on the other hand, believed in the "invisible hand". He thought there should be no government intervention and that the people should be left alone and to let the "invisible hand" do all the work.
I think Smith's theory is better and more effective. People would have to learn to work things out themselves, but it would make them figure out what worked and what didn't. However, I don't think either theory is a great idea because of the flaws and the lack of government to step in when needed. The alternative would be capitalism, because people would still have freedom of competition and while there would still be social classes, the poor did have a chance to possibly make it to the top.

Power to the Girls

Many girls were motivated to work in the mills to support their families and to be in the city. They were forced to do difficult work and were treated poorly; that is, until the "Lowell Experiment" began. It was a way to convince more girls to come work in the mills (and parents to let their children work in the mills) by avoiding the negative aspects of mill work. A paternal system was put in place, with the corporation as a father figure and the boardinghouse keeper as the mother figure. This ensured the young girls would be protected.

Lowell Experiment pictures and book

There were many benefits as well as costs when a girl was making the decision to work in the mills. They were fed, had a place to live, got an education, and had time to be social; however, they had to leave their families, they weren't paid enough (which led to strikes), they lived with strangers, the work was dangerous and they weren't compensated, the overseers were strict and the owners weren't there to control them, there were crowded quarters, there was a risk of not getting married if they stayed in the mills, and if they lost their job they would be blacklisted.
Women usually worked in the homes during the 1800s. Seeing them in the mills was a huge change in the work force. The mill girls changed the perspective everyone had on women, proving that they could work outside of the home, especially away from their parents. They also changed everyone's view on them by writing and being educated, eventually becoming abolitionists and women's rights activists.