"Poor Drunkard's Child"

""Poor Drunkards Child" Temperance sheet music." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2015. Web. 11 Jan. 2015.

This is the cover of sheet music written during the temperance movement in 1871. The authors, Moses Owen, and C. K. Hawes, were part of the temperance movement, and believed in the limitation of alcohol consumption. The Title of the song is "Poor Drunkards' Child". By putting messages of temperance into entertaining media, people like Owen and Hawes hoped to make temperance more appealing. This document teaches us that there were all sorts of ways that people tried to limit alcohol consumption. This image describes the Temperance Movement as a crusade. "Crusade" is usually used to describe a religious battle, and the authors likely felt very strongly about temperance, and followed the movement religiously. 

Andrew Jackson: [White] People's President

This lesson about Andrew Jackson had a seemingly simple essential question: "Is Andrew Jackson's long-standing reputation as "the people's president" deserved? Why? Why not?" This question is hard to answer because Jackson's decisions as president greatly benefited some members of the United States, and decimated others. To begin our study of this topic we divided into six small groups that would each make a presentation of some sort. Each topic would be handled by two groups, but first we watched two videos to give us some background of Andrew Jackson. The first video was a of John Green crash course video about the Age of Jackson. The second one was TED-Ed video depicting a courtroom style argument for and against Andrew Jackson. Then, with our groups we began our study of different aspects of Andrew Jackson's presidency. 

My group chose to examine Indian Removal. The Indian Removal act forced tens of thousands of Natives out of their homeland. Jackson claimed that it was for the best that they leave, that the new land was a better place for them, and that nobody would forced to leave, merely suggested. All of these statements proved to be false. We created a short skit about this issue. The other groups taught us about the bank war, in which Jackson destroyed the Second National Bank, which he believed had too much power over the poor, and the Spoils System, in which political supporters were given government positions regardless of their skill. 

My group's script for our Indian Removal Skit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15L6PofOb0uuPVxtYrng70rdIzu9gN55AccqZ-rO1dNA/edit

Democracy in our Nation's Earliest Days

This is the poster that our group created to answer the essential question of How democratic was the United States in the early 1800s? We used multiple primary and secondary sources to show the democratic processes of the United States in the early 1800s. The first source was a painting showing various aspects of an election in a small town. The next two sources are charts showing the voting requirements and whether the legislature or the people voted. A summary of the Dorr war is also provided. Finally, there are two quotes illustrating flaws in the United States democracy. In my opinion, the United States was not very democratic in the early 1800s.

Revolutions in Latin America

This lesson asked a question that still rings strong today, especially in the wake of the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri.  The essential question(s) 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? In class, we studied the influence of race in revolutions in Latin America, and the similarities between them. Race was an influence in all of the revolutions, just as it influenced most parts of life at the time. We were divided into three groups, and each group read a summary of their revolution and then created a timeline of the events of their revolution and other events. These groups then broke off into smaller groups that would join up with others to spread the word of their revolution.

Our groups timeline about the Brazilian Revolution

When our groups converged we discussed the similarities between the Brazilian, Mexican, and Gran Columbian Revolutions. All the revolutions were against the European countries who had colonized them, were in general the lower class fighting against the upper class, and all of them pitted races against one another. Both Mexico and Gran Columbia were revolting against Spain, while Brazil was against Portugal. Brazil was also the least violent of all the revolutions. All the revolutions proved that the people in power should be of varying races. The three countries had different outcomes in terms of what kind of government was established. Brazil became a constitutional monarchy, Mexico became a constitutional monarchy then a republic, and Gran Columbia became a Republic. The Brazilian Revolution instated Penisulares as rulers. Mexico overthrew its Creole and Peninsulare rulers. In Gran Columbia, mixed race people overthrew the Penisulares. 

In our society, people are still judged based on race. One of the most applicable examples currently is the situation in Ferguson, Missouri. Whether or not Michael Brown was shot with any reason, there is no denying that the situation is racially charged on both sides, and many people are being judged for their race, white or black. Even more recently, there was another case of a young black teenager being shot by a police officer just this week. The boy had a toy gun, and was shot almost instantly after he was seen. There is almost no doubt that racial profiling was involved. Race is clearly still very prevalent in our society, however, we have come very far, and no longer have an official social structure based solely on race. 

Toussaint Louverture DBQ

When people think of great leaders, they might think of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Napoleon, but rarely of Toussaint Louverture. All these men possessed qualities of leadership. Toussaint Louverture was born a slave in Saint Domingue (now Haiti). He later became an overseer of fellow slaves. A kindling of unrest was building in the island's slave population, and was soon ignited in 1789 by the spark that was the French Revolution. When the French refused to end slavery in contradiction to the new "Declaration of the Rights of Man", plantations were destroyed, and upper class members were killed in Saint Domingue. Louverture rose as a leader of the rebellion, and by 1793 was leading a 4,000-strong army of rebels against French troops. In 1794, slavery was abolished and the inhabitants of Saint Domingue were allegiant to France once again and Louverture was the most powerful man on the island. All was well until Napoleon rose to power and, planning to reinstate slavery, invaded Saint Domingue in 1802. Toussaint Louverture was captured and imprisoned in France, but Saint Domingue was victorious and celebrated their independence as their great leader was dying in a French jail. So how should we remember Toussaint Louverture? Toussaint Louverture should be remember as a military leader, a liberator of slaves, and a ruler, because he brilliantly outwitted the French Army and taught a ragtag group of rebels how to fight.

Most importantly, Toussaint Louverture was a great military leader. Louverture knew what sacrifices to make in order to protect his people. When Napoleon landed Troops on Saint Domingue in 1802, Toussaint was quick to make the decision to abandon and set fire to towns, and flee to the mountain where they would be at an advantage (Document F). Louverture also trained his men in multiple fighting styles to make them a stronger army. He taught the group of former slaves both Guerrilla and European style fighting. This way, they could fight in open fields they way the French soldiers wanted, but also take them by surprise on rough terrain. (Document A) With his army, Louverture defeated the British and the Spanish. Finally, Louverture kept a strict control over his army. When there was rebellion among his ranks, he quickly executed the rebels. While this may not have been the kindest idea, he went to all means necessary to keep order in his ranks, and there is no denying that he was a strong military leader. (Document E)

Along with being a military leader, Louverture was a liberator of slaves. After slaves burned plantations and killed white and mixed race people when France refused to end slavery in 1789, Toussaint Louverture emerged as a leader. Through his great leadership, he led the revolution that ultimately freed the slaves. With the help of Louverture, the revolution convinced France to abolish slavery. (Document A) When it was feared that France would reinstate slavery, Louverture wrote to the French Directory urging them to keep the freed slaves free. He argued that now that they had tasted freedom, going back to enslavement would be that much more painful. Louverture suggested a threat of war, saying of his people: “If they had a thousand lives, they would sacrifice them all rather than be subjected again to slavery” (Document B) Toussaint knew how his people felt about being re-enslaved, and wanted to defend the right he had secured for them. The colony of Saint Domingue created a constitution in 1801, signed by Toussaint Louverture, that declared the abolition of slavery. (Document C)

Finally, Louverture was a ruler of his people. As mentioned above, he signed the constitution of Saint Domingue, and took action that led to the liberation of his country. Louverture brought together and led the commission that created the constitution of Saint Domingue. This document stated the abolition of slavery and declared Toussaint Louverture “Chief General of the army of Saint Domingue”. (Document C) As General in Chief, Louverture laid down the law. On November 25th, 1801, Louverture created a proclamation to enforce the laws of the constitution. He discussed the punishment of those inciting sedition and those harboring “foreign cultivators”. He also said that all citizens must have a security card.
(Document D) Louverture was a strong leader who made laws that kept his land safe and his people liberated.

Although Toussaint Louverture may have been a dictator at times, he was a great military leader, a liberator of slaves, and a ruler. First and most importantly, Louverture led his army to victory and united a group of rebellious slaves into a military. Louverture freed the slaves of Saint Domingue. Finally, Louverture ruled his people and helped to create the constitution. Toussaint Louverture should be remembered for these things in their respective order. Toussaint Louverture does belong among the likes of Lincoln, Washington, and Napoleon.

Bibliography:

Document A: “Timeline of Abolition in Saint Domingue”, created from various sources.

Document B: “Letter to the French Directory”, Toussaint Louverture, November 1797.

Document C: “The Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801”, signed by Toussaint Louverture in July 1801.

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

Document E: “Toussaint Louverture:A Biography”, Madison Smartt Bell, 2007.

Document F: “A description of Toussaint Louverture”, from “The Black Man, His Antecedents, His Genius, and His Achievements”, William Wells Brown, 2nd Section, 1863.

Revolutions of 1830 and 1848: Epic Fail?

This lesson's essential question asked if the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were failures like historians say. The revolutions of these years often go unnoticed, as they did not bring as much changes at the French and American revolutions did. To learn the information needed to answer this essential question, we broke up into groups and each group was assigned a revolution. We would all analyze the resources given (all found here) and each group would create a quiz that would be given to the other groups to test their understanding of our revolution. My group was assigned the French revolution of 1830, which to my disappointment, was not the one in Les Misérables. 

When Louis XVIII was restored to the French Throne after the Congress of Vienna, there was trouble brewing. Ultra-royalists wanted to bring back the old absolutist regime, and liberals wanted extend suffrage, while radicals want a republic like in the 1790s. The working class just wanted afforable bread and better wages. When Louis died, his brother, Charles X was made king. Charles wanted absolutism, and six years after his coronation, in the July Ordinances he suspended the legislature, limited the right to vote, and restricted the press.  "Works published without authorization shall be immediately seized", wrote King Charles and His Ministers. Liberals and Radicals protested this, set up barricades, and ultimately took over Paris. They agreed on a constitutional monarchy and installed Louis Philippe as king. He was believed to be worthy, and the legislature described him as "devoted to the national and constitutional cause". However, he really only extended suffrage to the upper class, and favored the middle class at the expense of the workers. With this information, we created a quiz to be taken by our classmates after they read what we did. The quiz went pretty well, and most questions were answered correctly. Our question about whether or not the revolution was a success got mixed results, but overall it was accurate. 

To answer the essential question, I believe that the revolutions did not fail as much as many historians claim. The only revolution that truly failed was the Decembrist Revolt; the other revolutions at least had some effect., even if it was short lived. The Hungary Revolution briefly gained Hungarian independence but then the rebellion was crushed. The French Revolution of 1848 was somewhat a failure in the fact that many people died, as depicted in Les Mis,  however, it presumably involved significantly less singing. However, even though many people died in part of this revolution, it ultimately led to voting rights being secured for nine million people, compared to 200,000 before the revolution., and the election of a president. Even though the revolutions never met their goals, they still brought about change, and at the least, drew attention to their cause. 

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.