Tension on the Frontier

This lesson about buffalo soldiers was taught by us, like the last lesson. The essential question we came up with was: "Were federal policies towards Native Americans and buffalo soldiers intentionally discriminatory or well intentioned?" To answer this, we watched a few videos. Then we read some documents, one of which was the Dawes Act. Reading these documents gave us a better understanding of how buffalo soldiers and Native Americans were treated during westward expansion.
Buffalo soldiers were African American cavalry soldiers. They got this nickname from their wooly hair and superior fighting skill.  The government put them in the Midwest because they believed the U.S. needed more of a military presence there. The buffalo soldier camps did not have the same conditions as the white camps. While the buffalo soldiers were successful in their jobs expanding westward, they faced some discrimination from the government.
The government also put in several policies in place for Native Americans when expanding the nation. This included the allotment program. The allotment program divided up land that was previously owned by full tribes and distributed it to individuals. While this seemed well-intentioned, most of the land ended up going to the white public. Though the government also put in education programs for Native Americans, the children faced beatings and discrimination. When they tried to move natives to reservations, some tribes refused and total war ensued. The Battle of Little Bighorn is well-known as a battle during this period of Indian removal.
.                                                   
The government did have good intentions in the beginning. They wanted to give the Native Americans land and education and the buffalo soldiers opportunities in the army. However, many of their promises fell through, leaving the buffalo soldiers with poor working conditions and the Native Americans with less land and pain in their hearts. The original intentions of the government were good, but became buried by discrimination when things did not go their way.

Pictography
Edline. Pictochart of American Indians. http://www.edline.net/files/stream/2CCF071593645104-0000014DC410FB41/ABC-CLIO+Federal+Native+American+Policies+Visual.gif

Freedom from Above or Below

This lesson was about slavery during the Civil War and how the slaves gained their freedom. The essential questions were: "Who 'gave' freedom to fellow Americans? Did freedom come from above or below? To what extent were Abraham Lincoln's actions influenced by the actions of enslaved Americans?" To answer these questions, we had to learn what "freedom from above" and "freedom from below" meant. "Freedom from above" is when people of a higher social class grant freedom to a lower class. "Freedom from below" is when people of a lower social class help each other
First we looked at the two images below and discussed which one was showing freedom from above and which was showing freedom from below. The statue shows freedom from below because it The picture of Lincoln and the slaves shows freedom from above because it shows Lincoln, president at the time, granting the slaves their freedom.

 

The thing about this, however, is Lincoln did not wish to free the slaves for the sake of the war. While he did not agree with slavery personally, he would not let his personal views obstruct him from doing what was needed to end the war. As he said in a reply to an open letter from Horace Greely, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it..." Therefore, the slaves were going to have to help each other in order to gain their freedom, if it wasn't President Lincoln's first priority.
In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln says, "And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgement of mankind..." We see here that while Lincoln himself believes freeing the slaves and letting them join the army is "an act of justice", he says it is needed by "military necessity". He is doing what he needs to for the country and not what he believes in.
Slaves needed to get the attention of Lincoln by making nuisances of themselves. Their only chance of getting their freedom despite what the war brought was joining as one. As a unified group helping each other, they were able to achieve their goals and free themselves, gaining their freedom "from below".

Economy vs. Ethics

This lesson was about Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, two leaders in the production of steel and oil. Though they were successful businessmen, their practices were questionable. Many wondered whether they were actually robber barons. The essential question for this lesson was: "How did the actions of monopolistic leaders, such as Carnegie and Rockefeller, affect the common worker?"

"Forty-Millionaire Carnegie in his Great Double Role"

The Saturday Globe, 9 July 1892; David P. Damares

This lesson was done differently from previous lessons. We as a class were given the materials to learn and had to come up with an essential question to answer in this blog post ourselves. It was challenging and took teamwork and good communication, but we were able to do it. We split into groups and each group got a category to pay the most attention to, since we are going to use notes from these last few lessons to create the questions for our final exam. The categories were main ideas, key people, key terms, and important events. My group had main ideas. Then we were given some short ABC-CLIO videos, which we watched as a class and took notes on in a google doc that was shared with everyone. Next we read short biographies on John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. Then we watched a video on Carnegie's homestead strike. Finally we read through a short lesson containing primary and secondary sources on the men's contributions and hindrances to society or, more importantly, to their workers.

With these resources, we were able to discover how Carnegie and Rockefeller affected their workers' lives. These men were considered "robber barons": they helped the economy, but they were unfair. Rockefeller, for example, bought out all of his competition so he could dominate the oil field. Carnegie took advantage of the depression to get products for low prices. While the men were known for their philanthropy, they were disliked for their practices. They affected their workers through their monopolies because they created shifts in power and took advantage.

Scavenging for Notes

This lesson was all about the battles of the Civil War and the victors. The essential questions for this lesson were: "Who was the ultimate victor in each of the theaters of war: East, West, and Naval?" and: "What are some commonalities you can identify in the reasons for the results of the battles?" We had to go through a long process to answer these questions.
First, each student picked one of twenty battle descriptions. I chose first and picked what I learned was the Battle of Chancellorsville. We then had to research our battle and find the location, date, victor, and theater of the battle. That information was all put in a Google doc along with a picture and was made accessible to everyone.
Next we each made a bit.ly and created a QR code for our Google doc. In class, we met with the person who had the battle after us to find out where they were going to put their signs, so we would be able to put the location in our Google doc. Then we left the classroom, hung up our signs, and started our scavenger hunt. It took us two class periods to complete. During the next class, we created a Padlet, shown below, where we put who dominated in which theater and battles that prove it. I wasn't in class that day, but I was able to still get a picture of the Padlet and see my classmates' notes.
Looking at the Padlet, we can see who the victor was in each of the theaters. The Union dominated the Western theater and the Naval theater, and the Confederacy dominated the Eastern theater. The Padlet can also give us the answers to the second essential question. The Union dominated in the Naval theater because they attacked from both land and sea and had ships waiting in the river to attack. The Union seemed to dominate in the Western theater because of their numbers and strategies of bombardment. The Confederacy won in the Eastern theater because they had the right supplies and fortifications.

Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson meeting to discuss Chancellorsville

Created with Padlet

Stats and Strategies of the Union and Confederacy

This lesson was about the statistics and strategies of the Union and Confederacy at the beginning of the Civil War. The essential question was: "How did the differences between the North and South affect each region's strategy and success in the Civil War?" To answer this, we looked at documents with charts and maps of the North and South and their resources. We then made infographics using this information. I used my infographic to display what resources the North had that led them to victory in the Civil War. They had more industrial workers, which helped them make more weapons. They also had more railroads, which helped them move their weapons and get them to soldiers. While the South had more military experience, the resources of the North outweighed the strategies of the South.

The Election of 1860

This week we learned about the Election of 1860 and its causes. The essential question for this lesson was: "How were the results of the Election of 1860 representative of the deep divisions over slavery?" To answer this question, we first watched a Crash Course video. We took notes on topics the video discussed such as the Fugitive Slave Law, Bleeding Kansas, and the Dred Scott vs. Sanford Decision. We then recorded our first idea of the answer to the essential question. Afterwards, we went to a web page on the Civil War in Art. We saved the images from the left hand margin on the web page and wrote captions for them. The captions told the story of the Election of 1860 and the secession. We then found 3 more images to fill in the gaps of the story. Finally, we made an Educreations video narrating this story.

Bibliography
The Harper's Ferry Insurrection: John Brown, Now Under Sentence of Death for Treason and Murder, at Charleston, VA. November 18, 1859, Martin L. Lawrence
1860 Popular Vote. www.historycentral.com
The Seceding South Carolina Delegation. December 22, 1860, Mathew Brady
Abraham Lincoln's Induction Speech. www.theomahaproject.org
Our Banner in the Sky. Frederic E. Church, 1861
Bombardment of Fort Sumter, Charlestown. Currier and Ives, 1861

Elephants in the White House

The debate over slavery was considered an "'elephant in the room" in American politics during the 19th century. Our class got into groups and made timelines with events, such as Bleeding Kansas and the Dred Scott Decision, that proved this point.

The top of the timeline is made up of events that had a pro-slavery effect. The bottom of the timeline is made up of events with anti-slavery effects. As we can see, the timeline is very balanced; even some events had both effects. The Compromise of 1850, for example, had pro- and anti-slavery effects. California was recognized as a free state and slave trade was abolished (though ownership was still allowed), which contributed to anti-slavery. However, slaves needed to be turned in without a jury trial, inhabitants of states had to decide on slavery within their state, and while Texas gave up Santa Fe, it remained the largest slave state in the Union. These were pro-slavery effects. Bleeding Kansas was more balanced than an event with only one outcome, but still leaned more towards pro-antislavery because of John Brown's attack on pro-slavery men. Slavery was a huge point in the Lincoln-Douglas debates as well. Lincoln believed majority shouldn't deny minority of their rights, while Douglas won with his idea of popular sovereignty.

As we can see, while slavery was really a balanced issue in the 1800s, it caused violence and mixed responses. It especially invaded politics when it came to popular sovereignty and the Lincoln-Douglas debates. While no one wanted to admit that slavery was a large part of politics, it was hard to ignore.

Bibliography

Compromise of 1850 notes, Edline.

Bleeding Kansas notes, Edline.

Dred Scott Decision notes, Edline.

Lincoln-Douglas Debates notes, Edline.

Slavery During the Antebellum Period

We have been learning about slavery in America during the 19th century. There were a few essential questions for this lesson. They were: How did slavery become economically entrenched  in American society by the early 19th century?, How does a system of slavery based on race affect  human dignity?, and What human characteristics does such a system tend  to ignore? The documents and charts we analyzed as well as the movie we watched helped us to answer these questions.
To answer our first question, we looked at charts on slavery growth between 1790 and 1860. In 1790, cotton was an insignificant crop and the French and American revolutions led people to believe that slavery was coming to an end. Many slaveowners were planning on emancipating their slaves. However, after the introduction of the cotton gin, slavery skyrocketed. Cotton was easier to produce and therefore became a more profitable crop. But to keep up with the increase in cotton production, more slaves needed to be brought to the southern states. This graph shows a 57% increase of slaves in 1860 when cotton production hit 2.2 billion pounds per year.

To answer our second and third questions, I turned to "The Prince of Slaves", a movie we watched in class about Abdul Rahman. He was a prince in Futa Jallon who was captured and sold to slave traders. He was taken to Natchez, Mississippi and was bought by a man named Foster. One scene in the movie really stood out to me. When Rahman was brought to Foster's farm, he had to get his hair cut. Foster had to tie him down because he was struggling so much. Rahman didn't want to cut his long hair because it was a symbol of where he came from, his nobility, and his manhood. Rahman's attempts to convince Foster that he was a prince were futile and they cut his hair anyway. To me this shows that slave owners really had no care or consideration for human rights when it came to slavery and didn't even treat them as real people with past lives.

The Dawn of Feminism

In the early 19th century, women faced discrimination and oppression based on their gender. Their only purpose was to take care of the house and children. Howard Zinn begins Chapter Six, The Intimately Oppressed, of his A People's History of the United States with "It is possible, reading standard histories, to forget half the population of the country. The explorers were men, the landholders and merchants men, the political leaders men, the military figures men. The very invisibility of women, the overlooking of women, is a sign of their submerged status." Women were viewed as basically property and had little to no rights. Some of the laws or practices held against them are shown below.

 In the mid-19th century, women wanted to change all that. They held the Seneca Falls Convention and issued the Declarations of Rights and Sentiments, which ironically looks much like the Declaration of Independence.

While some men attended the convention, most of the feedback it received was from disapproving males through newspapers. The Oneida Whig, for example, had some sexist things to say: for example, "If our ladies will insist on voting and legislating, where, gentlemen, will be our dinners and our elbows?" 

The struggle for gender equality continues today. In 2013, Pantene aired a commercial in the Philippines about gender stereotypes. 

It shows how differently women's roles are seen versus men's. It's impossible for men and women to be equal in everything, but gender-based stereotypes need to stop. What we need is for everyone to have the same rights and opportunites.

Bibliography
Zinn, Howard. The Intimately Oppressed. http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnint6.html 
Declaration of Rights and Sentiments. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/vc006195.jpg

Revolutions of 1830 and 1848

The essential question for this lesson was "Were the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded?" To answer this, we had to learn about the revolutions and rate them on a success/failure scale. We split into groups and each group got a revolution to research. Then we made SurveyMonkeys for our revolution and had the other groups take it.
My group had the French Revolution of 1848. We learned that the working class liberals wanted a French Republic where everyone could vote. They opposed Louis Philippe and his government because there was a recession in Paris. The February days began, in which people overturned carts and toppled trees. Demonstrators were killed by troops. Louis Philippe stepped down from the throne and the Second Republic was created by a group of liberal, radical, and socialist leaders. By June, middle and upper class citizens had taken over the government. They shut down national workshops built by socialists because they thought they were a waste of money. Thus the June days began. There were violent protests that left at least 1,500 dead. But by the end of 1848, the National Assembly set up a constitution for the Second Republic in hope to restore control. A president and one-house legislature was created. The right to vote was also given to all adult men, creating the largest suffrage in the world at the time. Napoleon III was elected to the throne. The revolution was not a complete success or failure. It was successful in that Napoleon III became emperor; however, liberals, socialists, and radicals could not agree on government and led to revolts.

results from our survey

Before the French Revolution of 1848, there was the French Revolution of 1830. Charles X took the throne after his brother, Louis XVIII, died. He was a supporter of absolutism, the exact opposite of what his brother was for. In 1824, he took a lot of rights away from the people, like the right to vote and the press. This did not make the liberals and radicals happy, so they resorted to violence, causing Charles X to flee to England. Louis Philippe then took the throne, extending suffrage, but only to the upper classes. The other people suffered, meaning this revolution was in the middle of the success/failure scale. Another revolution that was researched by a different group was the Decembrist Revolt of 1825. After Tsar Alexander died, it was assumed that Constantine would take the throne. He had the same ideals as the people, which is why they wanted him to rule. Much to their dismay, Tsar Nicholas instead took the throne. He felt strongly about the military, didn't believe in democracy, and didn't want lower classes to have any say in the government. The people wanted to overthrow Tsar Nicholas and put Constantine in, which would give them a constitution and put an end to the widespread poverty. They gathered in crowds around guards, and when stopped by Tsar Nicholas, they told him they wanted Constantine as a ruler. He had no choice but to fire on his own people. This revolution was considered the only complete failure because the people did not get what they wanted.
I don't think that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were failures. There was only one complete failure and the good effects outweigh the bad. While mostly the upper classes prospered, some of the lower classes got something good out of the revolutions.

Temperance Reform Pamphlet

Temperance Poster, c. 1830s

This poster was made by people involved in the Temperance Movement. They were trying to tell "drunkards" what they were doing wrong and how they were affecting the people around them in a negative way. The source is true to what the people believed during that time: that drunks were a hazard to society and needed to be stopped. The Temperance Movement was started by women who faced domestic violence as an effect of alcohol on their husbands. They wanted people to abstain from alcohol because they were a danger to their families. That is why this poster says "You are a thief and a robber"-drunkards are robbing their families of "necessary means of support". The author uses strong descriptions and compares drunks to other criminals as a way to try to get them to realize what they were doing wrong. I think this poster is very effective in the way it displays the wrongs in alcohol abuse.

The Rise of Democracy

Our essential question was "How should we define democracy? How democratic was the United States in the early 1800s?" To answer this question, we got into groups and made posters titled "What is Democracy?" First, we analyzed a painting on a county election and read an article that went with it. Then we analyzed two voting charts and read two primary sources. We gathered our notes and put all of our thoughts into small explanations for each document. Then we created the poster.
The result was a poster with the dictionary definition of democracy and then explanations as to how democratic the United States was in the early 1800s based on the documents. Democracy is defined as "a system of government where the power is invested in the people or through freely elected representatives". Our poster shows how the United States circa the early 1800s wasn't very democratic, especially when it came to elections.

Jackson: For the People?

In this lesson, we learned about Andrew Jackson and his policies regarding banks, Native Americans, and government officials. The essential question was: Is Andrew Jackson's long-standing reputation as "the people's president" deserved? Why or why not? To answer this, first we watched a Ted Ed video and a Crash Course video on Andrew Jackson. Then, we got into six groups of four and were assigned either the bank war, the spoils system, or the Indian Removal Act to make a presentation on in order to answer the essential question.

Jackson put the spoils system into place when he was in office. This replaced government officials with those who were loyal to Jackson. This often resulted in incompetence and inability in the workers. Jackson also used the military to collect taxes. The spoils system backfired on him when, even after being warned of his criminal record, he gave Samuel Swartwout a job. Swartwout then stole almost two million dollars from the government. Jackson also put the Indian Removal Act into place. This moved five tribes from their territories to the West along the infamous Trail of Tears. Jackson claimed he was moving the Indians because they die around white men; however, he ultimately satisfied the needs of white men for territory. Last but not least, Jackson fought with the Second National Bank. It was controlled by the rich, and he believed that they were taking advantage of the poor/lower classes. His main goal was to prevent the average American from being exploited. He thought that new and growing corporations would destroy small businesses. Therefore, he vetoed the bill that would extend the bank's charter. Doing this put Jackson at risk for losing his reelection, but he did it anyways because it was what he believed in. He ended up being reelected. However, after Jackson's presidency ended, the Panic of 1837 occurred because of his bank policies. You can look at our presentation on Jackson and the bank war down below.

As we can see, Andrew Jackson really had the right intentions when it came to his presidency. For the most part, he tried to protect the "average American" (meaning white men). However, his plans were poorly executed. Andrew Jackson was a "people's president" in the sense that he wanted and attempted to look out for the average American. However, he was not a people's president in the way he performed his duties. 

Latin American Revolutions

The essential question for this lesson was: 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? This is an important question to ask ourselves because when human value is not acknowledged, revolts and the destruction of nations can occur. We see this proven by the Latin American Revolutions. To learn about the cause and effects of the revolutions in Latin America, each group received a revolution to read about (Mexico, Gran Columbia, and Brazil) and make a timeline for and then shared with those in other groups.
This is the timeline we made for the Mexican Revolution. It explains how Napoleon's occupation of Spain led to Spanish American revolts and how, eventually, Mexico became a republic. Along the way, you see Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla's impact and the treaties signed before the republic was put into place.

We made groups of 2 people from each revolution and presented our timelines to the other group members. Then, as a class, we discussed commonalities and differences between the revolutions. We noticed that all three revolutions were successful and took place in the early 1800s. However, we also noticed that the Brazilian Revolution was significantly less violent than the other two and that Gran Columbia ended up splitting into several independent countries.

Though many people preach racial equality, a lot of times there is still judgment regarding race. It never really ended. Just this past week, the very controversial Ferguson case was in the news. It's important to consider the issue of race because riots can still occur and lives can be lost.

How Should We Remember Toussaint Louverture?

Most leaders can be characterized into the same category: honest, courageous, generous, and humane people. Toussaint Louverture was able to rise to leadership in Saint Domingue through his fight for abolishing slavery. He began his life as a slave, working as a herder, coachman, and overseer. Once granted freedom, Toussaint rented a coffee plantation and obtained slaves of his own. In 1789, word of the French Revolution spread to Saint Domingue, where revolts began after plantation owners refused to free their slaves. Plantations were burned and many were killed. Toussaint emerged as a leader, having worked secretly to help slaves gain their freedom. He commanded a rebel army against the French until the revolutionary government in France abolished slavery, when he quickly switched sides to support France. Toussaint was appointed commander-in-chief of the Saint Domingue army, and became the most powerful person living there. However, soon Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Saint Domingue with the intent to reinstate slavery. Toussaint was captured and died in a jail in France. Toussaint Louverture is known as a liberator of slaves, a ruler of Saint Domingue, and a military commander.

Toussaint’s role as a liberator of slaves is his greatest legacy as he left the biggest impact in that area of his life. Most of his life was spent trying to abolish slavery. In 1791, he became a doctor for the troops in the slave revolt and commands a small amount of soldiers. He began his career as a military commander and fought against the French until the revolutionary government in France abolished slavery. He then sided with the French. (A) Toussaint was concerned with abolishing slavery much more than fighting against a specific enemy and would take any side that was fighting against slavery. In 1796, the abolition was threatening to expand to Jamaica, which Britain became worried by, so Toussaint formed an army against the British. (A) Toussaint wrote a letter to the French Directory in 1797 as the people of Saint Domingue feared that the Directory would reinstate slavery. He returns to the side of the people of Saint Domingue and tells the French that it would be impossible to reinstate slavery because the people had already confronted “danger to our liberty” and would “confront death to preserve it”. (B) They would die before they would give up their liberty again. In the Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801, Toussaint signed for his agreement. In Article 3, it states that: “There cannot exist slaves in this territory, servitude is therein forever abolished. All men are born, live and die free and French.” ( C ) When Napoleon attempted to reinstate slavery in 1802, he was able to capture Toussaint and send him to jail. (A) Toussaint died in a French jail, but his effect on Saint Domingue did not die with him.

Toussaint Louverture was known as a great ruler of Saint Domingue. The colony had to find a new leader to give it structure as there was no more slavery and everyone could really do as they please. However, they needed to continue their agricultural work as their biggest exports were sugar and coffee. In the Constitution of 1801, Article 14 says: “The colony being essentially agricultural cannot suffer the least disruption in the works of its cultivation.” ( C ) In order to continue to prosper as a colony, the people of Saint Domingue had to continue the plantation work they had been doing as slaves and the landowners were still in charge of the plantations; however, Toussaint gave them rights to receive part of the profits: “Each cultivator and each worker is a member of the family and is entitled to a share in the revenues.” ( C ) Toussaint was elected as the leader of Saint Domingue because the people knew of him and trusted him. However, they soon began leaving plantations because they felt as if they were still slaves. In the Proclamation of 25 November 1801, Toussaint had to enforce laws to keep workers at their own plantations in order to keep production going. Children had to start working when they could walk; plantation owners who allow runaway cultivators on their plantations could go to prison; the runaway cultivators could be arrested and sent to the police. (D) In a matter of only five months, the workers had gone awry; however, Toussaint was able to put laws into effect that would contribute to the growth of Saint Domingue and prevent work from being stopped.

Toussaint Louverture was known as a military leader of Saint Domingue. In 1801, his nephew Hyacinthe Moyse became angry with his uncle because of his labor policies. Moyse and other former slaves didn’t trust Toussaint because he was very friendly with the white plantation owners and his work requirements were believed to be too harsh. On October 29, Moyse led a revolt and killed many white plantation owners. Toussaint was furious and ordered the rebels to kill themselves. (E) He could have prevented by the rebellion by listening to Moyse and the other former slaves; however, he was able to end the rebellion quickly and efficiently. (D) Later in 1801, Napoleon travelled over to Saint Domingue with the intent of reinstating slavery. Toussaint had to lead his army, who all trusted him for his “superior knowledge of the character of his race, his humanity, generosity, and courage.” (F) Toussaint, the “heroic chief”, gave his troops a speech and told them that they would not be enslaved again. They took to the mountains in order to avoid the French threatening to invade. (D) His military tactics prevented a battle they would have been destined to lose.

Toussaint Louverture was a famous ruler, liberator, and commander. What made him special was the ways in which he handled all three jobs and still managed to keep relative order in Saint Domingue. The commonality shown through all three legacies is that he was always for the abolition of slavery. This is why his role as a liberator of slaves was his most important: it carried through all of his work. Toussaint Louverture will always be remembered for the way he impacted Saint Domingue and its people.

Bibliography

A: various sources, Timeline of Abolition in Saint Domingue

B: Toussaint L’Ouverture, “Letter to the French Directory, November 1797”

C: The Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801, Signed by Toussaint Louverture

D: Toussaint Louverture, “Proclamation, 25 November 1801”

E: Madison Smartt Bell, Toussaint Louverture: A Biography, 2007

F: William Wells Brown, “A Description of Toussaint Louverture”: The Black Man, His Antecedents, His Genius, and His Achievements, 1863

Congress of Vienna

The essential question for this lesson was: What should people in power do when their power is threatened? In groups, we read a background reading, then had each group member find a characteristic of the Congress of Vienna, such as the mood, the attendees, the circumstances, and the questions they were addressing. We learned that representatives from France, Prussia, Russia, Austria, and Great Britain convened to figure out how to reconstruct the continent after the war, make up to those who lost family by Napoleon's hands, and correct the wrongs of the past. We also watched a video on Klemens von Metternich, the prince of Austria, conversing with Napoleon.

The first issue Metternich and the other Europeans dealt with was changes to the map of Europe. They wanted to reverse the changes of Napoleon's conquest. Prussia, Russia, Austria, France, and Great Britain all gained land and restored their old borders. The changing of the map restored a balance of power between the five major European leaders. Many countries were disappointed, however, because they lost land and power. The balance of power destroyed any threats to France, Prussia, Russia, Great Britain, and Austria's power, but left the rest of Europe disappointed.
I believe that if all the Congress of Vienna wanted to do was prevent their power from being threatened, then the balance of power was the right way to go. However, the whole purpose of the Congress of Vienna was to help those who suffered under Napoleon and correct the wrongs of the past. That they failed in doing because the balance of power only benefited the five European powers. There were no wars between them until 1853, but there were many revolutions, including the Revolution of 1848, which caused Metternich to flee Vienna. In order to benefit the whole continent and keep peace, the Congress of Vienna should have sacrificed some of their power.

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.