Patching Up Europe

This lesson's essential question asked: What should people in power do when their power is threatened? In class we learned about the fall of Napoleon, and thought about what we should do with war-torn Europe and it's inhabitants. We watched a video clip on Klemens von Metternich, and learned about the Congress of Vienna.  Metternich had approached Napoleon and requested that he give up his conquests and restore old boundaries. Napoleon denied and threatened to go to war against Austria again. The congress of Vienna was soon started to figure out what would become of Europe after Napoleon was finally defeated, and attempted to reverse Napoleon's changes. We then were presented with the challenges of the Congress of Vienna and tried to solve them from Metternich's conservative point of view. 

The Congress of Vienna (http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/images/30011286-p%20copy.jpg)

One of the concepts introduced at the Congress of Vienna was the Balance of Power. Like its name suggests, the Balance of Power balanced power between Russia, Austria, Prussia, Britain and France. Napoleon, not the French people, was ultimately viewed as the enemy. However, the French people did have to return stolen artwork and wealth. This balance ensured that there was no war between the major powers for the next thirty years after the Congress of Vienna. The Congress of Vienna ultimately helped to make France a constitutional monarchy, quell revolution, gave people freedom of religion, issued statements against slave trade and for the protection of Jews.
I agree with the people of the Congress of Vienna. When leaders have their power threaten, if they want to keep their position, they need to tighten their rule. By teaming up, the major powers could cooperate to prevent rebellion. While Napoleon had some very good ideas, the conservative people who were in charge did not agree, and when their power was returned, they wanted to prevent any more Napoleonic shenanigans. This may not have benefited the lower classes, but it returned the wealthy aristocrats to their previous positions. Perhaps it was a bad idea to complete get rid of Napoleon's ideas, and they could've been kinder to the now thriving lower classes. Sometimes, it is better to sacrifice power for the greater good, but it is often hard for leaders to understand this.  In an ideal world, leaders would be perfect and be very willing to sacrifice anything, but in reality, they are human just like the rest of us, and it is understandable that they don't want to risk losing power.

Edmund Burke Talks Conservatism

While today we view liberals as young, hip democrats and conservatives as old, gun owning republicans, these ideologies were defined different in 19th century Europe. The essential question that we were determined to learn in class was what the major political ideologies of the 19th century were, and how they influenced social and political action. The first thing we did in class was define, in our opinion, liberalism, conservatism, and nationalism, and use them in a sentence. While most of us seemed to have an idea of what some of these meant, we all found it hard to put into words. The general consensus was that conservatives support old ideas, liberals are more radical, and nationalists might have something to do with the country. We were then put into groups and assigned one of these three ideologies in 19th century Europe, and given a reading on it. With this reading, we would create a one minute presentation on the ideology. There were two groups creating a presentation on each ideology, and the group with the most effective presentation for each ideology would win chocolate. Clearly, the stakes were high.

These two videos we made using Chatterpix made up our presentation on Conservatism. The videos depict Edmund Burke, also known as " The Father of Conservatism". Burke, voiced by myself, gives the viewers a description of what conservatives believe and what they are opposed to. Burke talks about how he loves monarchy, the hierarchical class system dominated by the aristocracy, and the Church, and hates innovation and reform. This reflects the conservative belief that tradition is the best solution to social and political problems. Conservatives impacted social and political problems by encouraging traditional solutions to problems, and since they were mostly rich, traditional elites, they were the ones in power. Edmund Burke in particular hated the French Revolution, and he also talks about Joseph de Maistre, who wrote a book opposing constitutionalism and reform. Due to the use of a silly British accent, our presentation was voted the best, and we received chocolate.

Along with conservatism, there were two other major political ideologies in the 19th century: liberalism and nationalism. Both of them influenced social and political action. Liberals believed in reform, freedom, and rights, as well as restricting the power of the clergy, aristocracy, and nobility and instead having a meritocracy. They were also against many traditional practices, and preferred constitutional monarchy over absolutism. Nationalism was the ideology that countries were bound together through shared language, customs, and history, and that unity as a national was important. Nationalists in Germany and Italy wanted the unification of their sections into one nation, and wanted to get rid of foreign rulers. These two ideologies were relatively similar. As you can see, the beliefs of these ideologies in the 19th century are a bit different than they are in the modern age.

Napoleon's not-so-little Impact

In his time as ruler, Napoleon made a great impact on the social, economic and political systems of Europe. Some loved Napoleon, and some hate him.  Madame de Stael described Napoleon's government as having a "profound contempt for all the intellectual riches of human nature". Conversely, secondary source author P.C. Headley wrote "Napoleon was great -- intellectually towering above the princes and monarchs of many generations....He had no rival in the tactics of war". Whether or not you like Napoleon, it cannot be denied that he greatly changed Europe's social, economic, and political systems. 
First of all, Napoleon's rule impacted Europe's social system. As ruler, Napoleon abolished serfdom and nobility. This meant that poor people didn't have to be poor their entire lives. Serfs would be stuck in their social standing for life, and the nobility were in power, but Napoleon changed this. He also limited the power of the church.  Napoleon established a Meritocracy, in which people had a chance to climb the social ladder through their skills, not because of the social class they were born into. While the nobility may not have liked these changes, it was a great improvement for the poor. The poor got better access to education and property, and the wealthy no longer had power just because of their riches.
Napoleon also greatly affected the economic system of Europe. Napoleon established the Bank of France and balanced the budget of France and his other territories. He controlled prices, encouraged new industry, and built roads and canals, all of which helped the economy prosper. He also stole a great deal of wealth from Italy. 

A map of Europe under Napoleon, 1810

Source: http://www.worldmapsonline.com/images/Cram/History/europeundernapoleon.jpg

Finally, Napoleon impacted the political system of Europe. For starters, he conquered nearly all of Europe, except for England, and brought justice to many people. Marshal Michel Ney said of Napoleon's reign "The times are gone when the people were governed by suppressing their rights".Napoleon made government run better, and allowed people he conquered to continue to rule their country, only under his Napoleonic Code. This was unfortunate for them, but still far better than them being entirely overthrown. Now he ruled nearly all of Europe by controlling the existing rulers. He also gained control of all the colonies that the countries he conquered controlled on other continents. Napoleon changed Europe forever. 

Chocolate Communism

We entered class last week, the room smelling of chocolate. When we got to our seats we were told not to eat the Hershey's kisses we were given. It seemed everyone was given two, until we noticed that one or two students were given eight chocolates. Upset by the unfairness of this situation, we were given the chance to battle our classmates for their candies in the most complicated battle of wits: Rock Paper Scissors. Each match was for a single Hershey's kiss. Many students went out quickly. I survived for many matches, but still end with less than I started with. The lucky few who started with more chocolate ended with more. Only one person who began with two chocolates ended with more than five. We decided a fair solution would be to redistribute the chocolate evenly, and everyone got three. The two-chocolate students were happy; the ones with more were not. We then voted on whether to eat our chocolate or take it back to Rock Paper Scissors. Everyone chose to eat theirs. While this activity was fun, it was frustrating to lose all my chocolates! So what the heck does this have to do with history?
Our experiences with the Hershey's kiss economy can be applied to the dynamic between rich and poor after the industrial revolution. Karl Marx and Adam Smith both made theories about helping about the poor through different economic systems. Marx's theory of communism described how the poor would help themselves. His theory showed the transition from capitalism to socialism to communism. In capitalism, industry is owned privately and there is freedom of competition, and this results in unequal economic classes. Through a workers revolt, this turns into socialism. In a socialist society, the government owns the industry, and it's goal is to create a equal classes, and ultimately no classes. This becomes communism, and the goal of economic equality is achieved, and no government is necessary. A more detailed description of Marx's theory of communism can be found here. Doesn't that sound all fine and dandy? Before Marx wrote his theory, Adam Smith wrote about what he called the invisible hand. He believed that the best economy was one that guided itself. He describes his theory as an invisible hand. The invisible hand pushed economy in the direction of success through the fact that people want to buy high quality goods for low prices. The economy slowly becomes better and better, and good businesses succeed. This is capitalism. but without government control. Smith believed that the economy functions best without a government. This system would benefit the poor by allowing them to succeed, and find the best businesses to buy from. It also pleases the rich because their money is not distributed.
In my opinion, capitalism is the best solution our of the three, however, all of them have drawbacks. Communism seems to be a great idea, but in reality, it leaves the poor poor, and the rich slightly less rich. Capitalism allows people to grow their own business and buy high quality goods at low prices. However, it isn't perfect, as there are still poor people in America. It is better than Communism, which just doesn't work. It is best for government to allow economy to grow on it's own. Neither method is a true solution, but I certainly cannot come up with a better one.

To Mill or Not to Mill?: Benefits and Costs of Mill Life

For people who worked in the mills, there were both benefits and costs. The benefits were what made them want to go to the mills, and the costs were made made them strike. The benefits of the mill life seemed very attractive to the farm girls it was sold to. One of these benefits was getting to experience city life. the girls who would work in the mills, for the most part, had never lived with a lot of other people before. This could be seen as an exciting opportunity. The girls would also get an education. Their wages were large enough that they could send some back to their family and still have enough to support themselves. Workers in the mill were provided with meals, so the girls wouldn't go hungry. Finally, a benefit that parents appreciated was the fact the girls would have to obey a code of conduct. A father figure made sure that they went to church on Sunday, and a mother figure made sure that they didn't stay out late. So the mill life was great, right? Not quite.

The rules that had to be followed by the mill workers

Among all these benefits, there were many drawbacks. One cost was being separating from their family. This obviously left many girls feeling sad. Another very important drawback was that the conditions were very dangerous to the health of the girls. The girls were very likely to contract lung diseases, bone diseases, deafness, illness, lose limbs, and even die.  Over the years, hours got longer and wages got lower. Workers could be beaten by their cruel overseers if they did their jobs wrong. Conditions may have been good in the early years of industrialization , but they soon declined, and the costs of going to the mills outweighed the benefits.