Women's Right Movement

  

          In the 1800’s, women did not have many equal rights.  Women had four features of ideal womanhood, which were piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity.  Piety was basically the practice of religious faith, which was significant to woman, as since Eve was the first who ate the forbidden fruit when referring to the biblical story, it was also believed that sin was the fault of women and that they started it.  Purity basically had to do with a woman’s greatest “treasure” being her virginity, which was supposed to be kept even if a male tried to assault her.  There was also submissiveness, which basically had to do with women being physically weaker than men as well.  However, this was mostly due to the fact that the women’s clothes would close off inner organs, causing them to faint often, and many thought this was just how women were.  Finally, there was domesticity.  At the time, it was believed that women should be busy inside the house, and this was further explained through The Cult of Domesticity.  The Cult of Domesticity basically said that middle class women were confined to the house, and their proper role was taking of it, along with their children and providing companionship to men.  Basically, women were supposed to remain out of the public eye and stay inside of a “Private Sphere”.  The “Private Sphere” was basically the home, or where women worked, contrasting with the “Public Sphere”, a violent place where men worked, full of temptations and trouble.  The roles of women in the 1800’s was quite different than today, and certainly not in a good way.

            In July 1848, the Seneca Falls Convention took place in Seneca Falls, New York.  Women gathered together to talk about reforms that could possibly make their daily lives better. These include finding solutions to the problems above, such as the Cult of Domesticity and the four features of ideal womanhood.  These women wrote the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, which was inspired by the Declaration of Independence, and even repeated direct phrases from it, with some altered details.  These altered details included ensuring that women were included in terms of equality, elective franchise, property rights, and many other subjects.  For example, the document says, “all men and women are created equal”, which sounds a lot like the Declaration of Independence, but they specifically made sure that women were included as well.  Also addressed in the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions was women having the right to vote.  However, some women argued that the right to vote should not be addressed in the Declaration, as not only was it less important than solving other problems, but they thought people would react negatively to it.  Since women’s suffrage was so controversial, many women feared that including the right to vote would cause people to be upset about the Declaration and not change any of the addressed problems.  This prediction did come true as many were quite upset with the document when it was first released.  It sadly was not until 1920 when women were allowed to vote, and by then, the only woman who signed the Declaration that was still alive was 92 year old Charlotte Woodard Pierce.  Another debatable part of the convention was that there were still many voices not represented.  Only middle class white woman attended the convention, meaning that African American, Native American, Factory workers, slaves, and many more women could not attend and address the reforms they wanted.  These people had many problems that should have been addressed, for example, factory workers should have been able to argue for better working conditions.  Many of these voices were unfortunately left out of the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions.

            As a class, we had our own convention, in which we included many of the voices that were originally left out in our convention, and addressed many reforms, including ending slavery, the right to participate in all institutions, and freedom of speech.  Some of these were also addressed in the actual convention, such as the right to participate in all institutions (including voting, office holding, testifying in court, and many others).  However, since slaves could not participate in the convention, ending slavery was not on the real Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions.  Personally, I believe this is also the most important reform we discussed.  Slavery is terrible, full of poor treatment and living conditions, so getting rid of it would have been a major accomplishment and many lives would have been saved.  Also, slavery was such a big and well known example of unequal rights.  If slavery was abolished, than other groups of people, such as Native Americans and Middle Class Women, would notice this and be motivated and inspired by it.  They, too, would most likely stand up for themselves very strongly after this, and eventually, more problems than just slavery would be solved.  So not only would ending slavery benefit many in the short term, but it would motivate other people and have a beneficial long term affect as well. 

The Monroe Doctrine & Connections to Today

With current events from the Iran nuclear talks, the policy towards North Korea, Russia intervening in Ukraine, conflict in the Middle East, and many others, America responds differently to each one.  In the early 1800’s, James Monroe wrote his seventh Annual Message to Congress, which is also known as the Monroe Doctrine.  The Monroe Doctrine has to do with how America should and should not interfere with conflict in other countries if they should at all.  So if tied with a current issue, there are many different decisions America can make if using the Monroe Doctrine as a base to make them.  Any current event affecting the United States can be used, one of them being Russia’s Intervention in Ukraine.  People in Ukraine were very upset with Viktor Yanukovych's decision to attempt in reclaiming Ukraine as part of Russia even though Ukraine is an independent country.  According to Aliaksandr Kudrytski's article, "Russia Sends Aid to Rebel Areas as Ukraine Marks Anniversary", people from Ukraine are marking an anniversary of these conflicts and events starting about a year ago.  Many different events are still occurring during this conflict today, such as Russia sending clothes, medicine, and construction materials into Ukraine.  Also, people are being blacklisted and many are even leaving Ukraine.  The article says, “more than a million people are internally displaced or have fled to neighboring countries as a result of the fighting in eastern Ukraine…”  With so much tension and differing views, the situation between Russia and Ukraine is a very interesting case, and one may wonder what the United States should do if it were to follow the three lasting principles of the Monroe Doctrine.   

A basic idea of what the Monroe Doctrine I saying is, “you stay out of our business, and we will stay out of yours”.  This is backed up by the three lasting principles, which are “separate spheres of influence”, “non-colonization”, and “non-intervention”.  So when comparing it to Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, if following this idea, America should not take any physical action in the situation, but should keep an eye out for escalating conflict.  The separate spheres of influence, which is basically saying, “you stay in your region, I’ll stay in mine”, has no real effect on the United States as of now.  This means, if following the Monroe Doctrine, America should not intervene and should leave the situation alone, because Russia has not done anything to affect America directly.  However, this does not mean the United States should completely ignore the situation, because if something does unexpectedly happen that directly affects the United States, America should be prepared to defend itself in order to maintain the safety of its citizens.  The second principle is the non-colonization principle, and it is basically explaining that dominating and ruling other countries is not allowed.  Russia’s trying to reclaim Ukraine does go against this, however the next principle, the non-intervention principle, talks about how America will not take action unless it directly affects the United States.  The article states, “It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense.”  So since the Russian intervention in Ukraine does not affect the United States directly, the United States should not interfere with the conflict if it is following the three lasting principles of the Monroe Doctrine. 

 

 

Kudrytski, Aliaksandr. "Russia Sends Aid to Rebel Areas as Ukraine Marks Anniversary." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 30 Nov. 2014. Web. 03 Dec. 2014.

The Impact of Race in the Past & Present

On September 16th, 1810, Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla issued a revolutionary tract, known as "The Crying of Dolores".  This tract was issued to rid of Spain's 300 year rule over Mexico, redistribute land, as well as fix inequality problems which had to do with race.  When Napoleon occupied Spain and revolts broke out across Spanish America, Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla used the "Cry of Dolores" to launch a Mexican rebellion.  But in January, 1811, he was defeated at Calderón and fled to the North, only to be captured and executed.  In 1820, the Liberals took power in Spain and the Royalists brought about independence. Austín de Interbide responded to this in early 1831 by negotiating the Plan of Iguala, which ensured that Mexicans of Spanish decent were to be equal to pure Spaniards.  Upon defeating the Royalist forces, Iturbide was eventually proclaimed as the emperor of Mexico in 1822, but was forced out of this position in 1823 when republican leaders set up a republic for Mexico.  Within this rebellion, race played a significant role. It was part of the cause of the revolution, as it was in the "Crying of Dolores", and it was also a major part of the Plan of Iguala.  Overall, race was a component which aided in causing the revolutions, as it was the revolutionaries' goals to change it and create a more equal society.

Even today national identity and politics are affected by race.  Examples of this are the riots happening in Ferguson, Missouri.  When a police officer shot an 18 year old African American boy, it was questioned whether or not it was really because the officer was trying to enforce the law and protect people, or if the officer just shot him to be racist.  A trial happened and the officer was not to be punished for what he did, but the other citizens of Ferguson strongly disagreed.  They were so upset that they started rioting, burning cars, and destroying buildings.  More detail about the riots can be read in Mandy Gambrell's article, "Buildings in Ferguson, Mo. burn as riots follow grand jury decision not to indict Ofc. Darren Wilson". According to this time-line article, the riots were extremely violent and destructive, and it claimed that "at least three buildings were on fire".  Personally I feel bad for the people who work in these buildings and are now unemployed.  I also feel that race is still affecting national identity and politics, and these revolts gave me a good read on what revolutions in Mexico during the 1800's could have been like.  There are obviously many things that are different, but the idea of people who feel as if their race is preventing them from living equal lives revolting is somewhat similar.  The article about the riots in Missouri and the summary Mexican War of Independence both show this in similar ways, thus supporting why I believe politics and identity are still affected by race today.

 

Gambrell, Mandy. "Fires Destroy Ferguson Buildings; Rioters Loot." WXYZ. N.p., 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 30 Nov. 2014.

The Congress of Vienna

If their power is threatened people should do whatever they can to avoid losing it.  In the Congress of Vienna, many difficult decisions that had to do with the risk of potentially losing power were made.  After the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte, representatives from many European countries gathered together to discuss how to recreate a functional government system.  To get a good understanding of the Congress of Vienna, our entire class participated in an interactive moc-congress type experience.  After being divided up, each group read a scenario from the Congress of Vienna and were given three solutions to choose from.  By viewing different situations and interactively engaging in them, our class received an interesting point of view regarding what kinds of decisions people should make when their power is threatened.

Above is a photo which my family and I took when we visited Austria last summer.  The Schӧnbrunn Palace can be seen up close, along with the rest of the city of Vienna in the background.

                An example was when the congress had do decide what they should do to prevent future revolutions.  The host of the congress, Prince Clemens von Metternich of Austria, spent more than ten years witnessing rebellions and revolutions tearing apart nearby countries.  Revolutions were quite popular during this time period, so the congress had to do their best to prevent future ones from happening.  The congress discussed this issue and came up with a few ideas, one example being the Principle of Intervention.  Basically, this ideology allows the great powers or fellow European countries to send their troops into another country to help stop any revolution occurring there.  Our group originally thought it would be best to consider any acts of rebellion sinful and if people still rebelled, the government would thus crush it.  But after hearing this idea, it seems like a better one.  It is less assuming that the people will not rebel based off of fear, and more being prepared in case something still happens.

Above is a map of what Europe looked like during this time period. 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Map_congress_of_vienna.jpg/450px-Map_congress_of_vienna.jpg

            However, the system does still have some flaws.  The Principle of Intervention went back to a monarchy based society.  If the people disagreed with this, they would be more likely to rebel.  Also, what happens if some countries, like England for example, decide not to take part in the system?  If a rebellion happens there, than how will it be resolved?  Finally, it would be difficult to maintain the Principle of Intervention if the countries claim new land.  If countries start claiming new land in faraway areas, it would be difficult for an army to intervene if a rebellion was to happen in this colony because it would be so far away.  However, if a rebellion were to happen, the system would still most likely be functional, despite having its flaws.  While there could have been a few modifications, overall, the Congress of Vienna made plenty of well thought and potentially beneficial decisions that should be able to prevent any countries from losing their power. 

Napoleon's Impact on France's Sytems

        Triumphant, heroic, cunning, and tyrannical, there are multiple different views, thoughts, and perspectives of Napoleon Bonaparte, and these are a few of the many words used to describe him.  He greatly impacted the social, political, and economic systems in France and many other countries in Europe during his time as ruler. 

       Napoleon’s impact towards the social system in Europe involved many changes that benefitted many people.  Some, including Madame de Stael, believe that Napoleon was intruding and tyrannical.  She explained that "his profound contempt for all the intellectual riches of human nature... are 'the eternal enemies of the continent.'" Her views of Napoleon show her negative feelings towards him, probably because of her bias towards him after being exiled from France and wishing to restore the older French government.  Others who served Napoleon, including Marshal Michel Ney, favored him more and talked well about him.  He said, “To the emperor Napoleon, our sovereign, belongs alone the right to rule over our beautiful country.”  He seems glad and positive about Napoleon’s rule over France, which is quite different than Madame de Stael’s view.  While some people agreed with him and others did not, Napoleon did make many potentially beneficial decisions to the social system while ruling France.  Napoleon established a different system than the monarchy which rewarded people by social class.  This new system was called “meritocracy” and had to do with the people of France earning rewards based off of their skill.  This most likely made the average peasants at the time quite happy, as they could be more equal to everyone else.  Napoleon also made sure that access to education was available to all citizens, as this was not how things were before he became the ruler of France.  So while some may disagree because of their differing perspectives, Napoleon did a lot to ensure that the social system in France was greater than it was before his rule. 

            Napoleon had a created a similar impact in the political field, as well.  Napoleon redrew the map of Europe, and this could have to do with the way we view our globe today.  Also, Napoleon sent French armies to end serfdom and nobility.  This is similar to his addition of meritocracy, as it has to do with his rule involving more equality than the previous monarchy.  He is often regarded as one of the greatest generals, too.  In his article, “The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians”, Thomas J. Vance quotes John C. Ropes who said, “’While we do not hesitate to speak with proper severity of Napoleon’s reckless course in 1813 and 1814, of his obstinate adherence to a military solution of the difficulties which encompassed his Empire, of his indifference as a solider to the evils of war, of his forgetfulness as soldier of his duties as a sovereign…’”  Here, Ropes is explaining that while Napoleon was regarded as a tyrant, he was also a great military leader.  He later finished his thoughts by saying, “’let us be equally frank in acknowledging his great qualities…’”  Napoleon’s being a great leader, abolishing noticeable forms of unequal social class, and redrawing maps are some of the many reasons why his impact on the political system was very large. 

 

What Napoleon's re-drawn map of Europe may have looked like. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Revolutions_of_1848_in_Europe_(pasopt_eng).svg/2000px-Revolutions_of_1848_in_Europe_(pasopt_eng).svg.png

            Finally, Napoleon also largely impacted the economic system of France.  First off, Napoleon established a bank known as, “The Bank of France”.  When he established this bank, Napoleon made sure that the budget was balanced and that massive public work programs were undertaken.  This was a big move in terms of the country’s economics.  However, some of the ways Napoleon impacted the economics were wrong through many perspectives.  While the French Revolution was occurring, Napoleon took a substantial amount of money from the country of Italy, as well as some of its beautiful artwork.  While this gave money to France, it has to do with some of Napoleon’s traits as a tyrant.  Another way Napoleon impacted the economic system was a quite famous one.  When Thomas Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase, he bought all of that land from Napoleon.  This was a very interesting way for him to earn money.  Economics were greatly impacted during Napoleon’s rule. 

            The social, political, and economic systems all went through a great change and experience during Napoleon’s rule over France.  While some of it showed that Napoleon was a cunning tyrant, other parts of it supplied evidence that Napoleon was a great leader at times.  But with differing perspectives constantly surrounding historical events, it can be difficult to tell what is right and what is wrong. 

A Letter from a Luddite

Think of a friend or family member who is completely against cell phones.  They may often tell you to put your phone away, but do people like them dislike technology so much that they would be willing to smash it?  During the Industrial revolution there were people who would do such things.  They were called the luddites, and they were not really anti-tech.  Instead they had specific motives and reasons for sabotaging machines and factories, and most had to do with the fact that luddites were losing their jobs.  The luddites were skilled workers, with excellent weaving and mechanical skills, and when they started their attacks, they followed the mythical figure, Ned Ludd.  When the Industrial Revolution kicked off, many luddites started to be replaced by new machines.  Many lost their well-paid wages, and many lost their jobs.  Below is a mock primary source letter from the perspective of a skilled weaver who is currently struggling to earn money to maintain for his family.  With machines replacing him, supplying for his family will become a challenge. 

                                                    

A group of Luddites destroying machines in the Industrial Revolution

 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/What-the-Luddites-Really-Fought-Against.html

 

 

        Dear Mother and Father,

I am writing to you regarding the rough times in the factories.  Just a few weeks ago I was earning a fair and reasonable amount of money for my work as a weaver.  Fellow workers often complemented me for being the most skilled in the factory.  My boss has also mentioned the possibility of a promotion... and I was thrilled to hear that he wanted me to interview for it!  As the weeks went by, there were less workers showing up each day.  Some workers who I have befriended began not showing up, and I was nervous that they had become ill.  But as the days went by, I noticed new machines and technology being brought into the factory and fulfilling the jobs some of my old friends had.  I began to realize that the issue was more complex than I thought.  I was still quite confused with the situation, and when my boss called me into his office, not two weeks ago, my heart began to pound.  I thought it was time to be interviewed for the promotion.  I sat down, and has he continued to speak I slowly began to understand that these circumstances were nothing more than the opposite.  He was... well, I'll just say that it ended with me losing my job.  He said that no one needs to be promoted or work as a simple weaver as I was previously because the new technology and machines would do those jobs for us.  I was shocked, furious, yet still holding back my emotions, trying to understand his perspective and motives for his actions.  That quickly stopped when I heard that factories were hiring young girls to work with the machines.  These girls have had no skill or experience.  My fellow employees and I had been working for years and were quite skilled with our jobs, so why are they firing us and hiring them?  I knew that I couldn't just let this happen in front of me, as I need work to supply for both of you.  I know my brother is making some money, but we need at least two jobs in the family to live a happy and healthy life. 

I have decided to live a new life.  This negative impact of machines replacing me has lingered over me for weeks now, and it is time to stand up and make a difference.  I have decided to join some of my friends and fellow employers in a group known as the luddites.  Luddites consist of people who are going through similar experiences as me, and they destroy factory machines, and sometimes, even the factories themselves if necessary.  After talking with my former boss twice since being fired, I am now aware that he has no sympathy for us and will not change his mind easily.  He will lean from his mistakes after we break his new machines, showing him that he cannot run his factory without them.  He will regret his decision of firing us.  Please keep in mind that all of this is confidential and shall not be shared with anyone.  The date, time, and other specifics are also classified.  After our attack of the factory, I plan to move on and look for a different job.  I cannot just leave you behind.  Do not worry for me, as if everything in the operation goes as planned, nothing unfortunate shall happen to any of us.  I miss you all very much and hope I can earn enough money in the future to return home and visit you.  I will be careful and I look forward to moving on to different paths in the future.

Warmly,

John

America v.s. Britain: Which Had Worse Conditions in the Industrial Revolution?

Being beaten, facing near death experiences, and working twelve hours each day are just a few of the awful conditions that factory workers went through during the Industrial Revolution.  Factories were set up in Great Britain and the United States.  Despite the presence of awful conditions in both countries, it was Great Britain that really proved not to be so “great” when it came to the treatment of factory workers.

If someone looks at this building from the outside, they would not think anything horrible goes on in there.  It is a well-kept building with nearby neighborhood and some nice gardens.  People were probably happy to send their children there during the Industrial Revolution.  The truth is that what is inside is a shocking, chaotic, and dangerous setting with ear bursting machines, unsafe working area which have caused multiple violent accidents, and hardworking young girls who are being treated very poorly.  The girls had to wake up at 4:00 a.m.  Work at the mills did not end until seven that night, so if current day students think that waking up at 6:00 a.m. is a challenge, imagine how these children felt!  This is a fifteen hour day, and with harsher conditions, too!  This building is a mill from Waltham, Massachusetts, meaning that the mill inside was part of the Lowell experiment.  The goal of the Lowell experiment was to create mills that had better working conditions than Great Britain did, and many historians believe that this goal was achieved.  So if any of these conditions mentioned earlier seem terrible, imagine what the mills in Britain were like!

The workers in Great Britain had it much worse than the workers in America in terms of conditions.  While still waking up at four, hours in most of the British factories did not conclude until anywhere between nine and eleven at night, making the day even longer.  Also, workers in the Lowell experiment had opportunities to take a lunch and dinner breaks.  However, in Great Britain, there was only one lunch break.  All other meals were either eaten on workers’ ways to the mills or at their working stations.  The workers were not paid either, as most of them were orphans who were basically enslaved.  If caught trying to escape, workers faced awful punishments, from losing all their hair, to being locked up in “punishment rooms” for a week with nothing but a little food.  Both cruel overseers and unsafe machines allowed children to be beaten, scalped, and crushed.  Many lives were lost in these factories.  So while American factories had their problems, British factories had much, much worse ones and many lives were negatively affected by the poor conditions, treatment, and safety precautions.