The Entirety of a Country

 The Congress of Vienna was made up of representatives from the countries most heavily affected by Napoleon Bonaparte's actions. They were trying to create the "best of all possible worlds." Could this Congress possibly reverse the changes made by Napoleon? If their power was threatened by these changes, what should they do? In class, we discussed what they could've done. We decided what would be the best option, and then we discovered what they actually did. We put ourselves into the shoes of the Austrian prince, Prince Metternich, to select an option that would allow them to keep diplomacy.
  Metternich and the other diplomats of the Congress of Vienna used multiple concepts to eliminate threats on their power. One of them, the Principle of Intervention, was an ideology that gave the great powers the right to send troops into a country to stop revolution. The hereditary monarchs would be restored to power, keeping the crown within a family so that someone like Napoleon couldn't come in and take it. England was the only country present at the Congress of Vienna that refused to take part. When restored, the monarchs were to act more compassionately towards their peoples in order to extinguish any ideas of revolution. They were to encourage freedom of speech and religious toleration. This lead to further support of the arts, sciences, and education.
  The representatives at the Congress of Vienna were very powerful people in their own countries, and therefore didn't have the best interest of the people in mind at all times. It's very likely that they all had distorted ideas of the best possible choices for the country as a whole. While reinstating the monarchs brought about a sense of comfort and normality, it also heightened the chances of rebellion. The same basic idea of monarchy had been used for thousands of years, and it had been proven to cause problems. While they all knew this, none of the diplomats wanted to give up any of their power, which was bound to happen with a change of government. There were definitely alternative options, such as a democracy, that would've been better for the entirety of the country, and not just the powerhouses. These representatives should've been thinking of the people of their country, and not just themselves when selected to personify it.

http://www.nobility-association.com/thecongressofvienna.htm

The Everlasting Impact of the Little Corporal

There's no denying the fact that Napoleon Bonaparte was an extremely powerful man. He didn't just influence his home country of France, or even all of Europe; he influenced the entire world politically, socially, and economically. The impact he had hundreds of years ago, still resonates today.
 Politically, Bonaparte established massive changes especially in France. In 1709, when the Directory learned of Napoleon's intention to overthrow them, all five members resigned. He also established a "meritocracy" where people were rewarded for their skills, rather than their social class. Although European politics have gone through massive edits and revisions over the years, these changes were imperative to the time.
 In the social aspect, Napoleon made changes that completely flipped the norms of society. Under his power, French armies all across Europe abolished titles of serfdom, ended Church privileges, removed trade barriers, and stimulated industry. In addition, during his reign more citizens had rights to property and education than they had previously. Some of year changes have played a part in his gaining support. He made things better for the average person and didn't bother concerning himself with the governments.
 Economically, countries prospered under Bonaparte's rule. He controlled prices, encouraged new industry, and built roads and canals in all the countries he controlled. However, during the French Revolution, he did take precious artwork and vast amounts of money from Italy. He also established the Bank of France, balanced the budget, and undertook massive public works programs.
  Feelings aside; it's impossible to ignore the fact that 'the little corporal' had a massive impact on the world, socially, politically, and economically.  Love him or hate him, Napoleon Bonaparte changed

the world.

Which Is Best; Capitalism or Socialism?

   It's hard to believe that a sugary candy like Starbursts can simplify complicated topics like Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism. They can, and they make understanding these topics extremely easy. If students are all handed a certain amount, say three Starbursts each, this game is fair and everyone is happy. The playing field isn't level when a select few students start off with more than everyone else; ten Starbursts. This is very similar to Capitalism because while everyone has something, people have unequal amounts. The game is now open for students to bet with each other for Starbursts, yet it is up to each individual to decide if they want to play. Some win, and some lose, but it's up to the player how much they are willing to risk. After the end of the game, some players may have more than they started with, while others may have none. Now, to demonstrate Socialism, the teacher collects all candy and redistributes an equal amount. The players with the higher amounts of Starbursts would likely be upset, while those with less or none would be happy. It's very difficult to please everyone. The idea of everyone having the same amount creates a 'classless society,' and puts everyone at an equal level. If the game had the correct effect, the students wouldn't want to play the game again and would share the candy. This would complete the goal of Communism, where everyone would be equal. There wouldn't be a "government" necessary because the students wouldn't need supervision. In my opinion, this would be a frustrating game because you go through the hassle of winning and losing Starbursts, just to have them taken away at the end. It makes all your hard work seem pointless, because everyone gets the same amount afterwards. We discusses this activity as well as the basic ideas of capitalism and socialism in a Socratic seminar in class. Many points were made, criticizing and complementing both systems.
  The fathers of both socialism and capitalism had different ideas on how to help the poor in a society. Karl Marx, the mind behind Socialism, was inspired by the current economy where a small amount of people were making money while the larger percentage wasn't. He didn't like the unequal distribution of wealth in his current society. He believed that work gave life meaning, and that by nature we are social beings. His focus was on struggle, on making life better for the lower class. With his system, there would be no upper or lower class, all would be equal. It was the idea that the government should take control of all things and distribute wealth. A man named Adam Smith came up with a contrasting idea around the same time. His idea would be called Capitalism, or "the invisible hand." This would leave self interest to the public, and no government would be needed. Free markets would basically control the economy, and would improve on their on through competition. The idea is that when things are needed, someone will make them, and in turn, customers will buy them. Smith's goal to reach a classless society was not reached very often, because most of the time governments interfered due to the long amount of time it would take to reach the equilibrium. Capitalism takes a Laissez-Faire approach in which it is natural and the people are both and consumers and the producers. Both ideas have flaws, but as do all systems. It's impossible to create a society where everyone is pleased all the time.
  In my opinion, both ideas are flawed and not everyone would be pleased all the time. Each system has good features, and if we could somehow mix them into one, we may achieve some kind of equality. With Socialism, there is nothing to aspire to be, which Julianne brought up during our Socratic seminar. If everything is completely equal, you can never be better at something than someone else. You can work harder than anyone else, yet you'll still have the same amount of money as them. You'll never earn anything through your own success, so why bother? Again, Julianne made a great point when she said, "If there's no room for improvement, what motivation is there for hard work?" As Troy pointed out, no one rises too high and no one falls too low. It may sound great on paper, but in reality, we all want to be successful. In turn, with Capitalism if you're born into higher class, you just keep going higher and higher while the poor just keep getting poorer and poorer, as Ryan said. Ms. Bailey pointed out that no matter how hard people work, someone's always at a disadvantage. With a Capitalist society, there is always going to be a lower class of people. In 2013, the poverty rate was 14.5% in the United States. That's over 45 million people. People don't always deserve their situation, but are often born into it. In situations like Paris Hilton, she did nothing to deserve the endless supply of money that she has. In situations where someone is extremely poor, they may work extremely hard to get out, yet still remain part of the lower class. Troy had a great idea in that there's a minimum that people should have, and then they can compete in society. I agree with that because both capitalism and socialism have a massive list of flaws, yet I believe the idea of capitalism can be edited to a point where it will create a better society. The world will never successfully achieve a utopian society, but with capitalism, there's always a chance.

Luddites: Taking Sides

 The Luddites were skilled artisans who attacked machines and factories during early Industrialization. They were followers of the mythical figure, "Ned Ludd." The Luddites sabotaged these factories because of the reduced skill in work and economic hardship. These people were talented craftsmen, but with the Industrial Revolution, machines could do the work at a faster and cheaper rate. What follows is a mock primary source letter from a skilled weaver during early industrialization.

Dear Abigail, 

 How are you, cousin? I hope that you are doing better than me. As you know, I am a weaver, and a pretty good one at that. But, unfortunately, since all of these factories began popping up, I have very few customers left. These factory workers and machines can make things far faster and cheaper than I can. Many other artisans very similar to me have been taking these matters into their own hands. They have been going into factories at night and sabotaging their machines. I'm being pressured to join them. Industrialization is destroying me financially, and I may have to find new work soon. But for now, I can't join them. As much as I'd like to help, I can't risk losing the few customers I have left. 

  I hope all is going well for you in Massachusetts. I wish you well on any and all of your future endeavors. 

  Your cousin, 

   James. 

Money is Motivation: Women in the Lowell Mills

What motivated women to go to work in the Lowell Mills?

 

 Before the Lowell Mill Experiment, women were not expected to have jobs or do anything other than care for the house and children. When the idea of this experiment came around, mill agents were sent from the factories to recruit young women to work. Times were changing, women could work.

    When these mill agents were sent to towns in the countryside, they would paint a "rosy picture" of the factories in Lowell, trying to appeal to both the father and daughter. Most girls were attracted to the idea of having a little bit of spending money, which they wouldn't have at home. Many fathers were attracted to the idea of money being sent home to help out, with the mortgage for example. These factory girls wanted to have more than their mothers did.
  A girl would also have a better opportunity to find a spouse in a city like Lowell than they would at home. But, if a girl stayed too long, she would be considered undesirable for marriage. Because of this, many girls planned on staying only a few years, enough time to save up for a dowry, before leaving to get married.

  Although these were the main ideas that motivated women to go to Lowell, wage cuts were made often, eventually leading to walk outs and boycotting. It's interesting that the very thing that attracted them there in the first place was the thing to make them leave.

 

Sources: "The Lowell Offering," The American Textile History Museum

               "Lucy Hall Video"

               "Lowell - The Factory in the Garden"

              "View of Lowell, Massachusetts," The American Textile History Museum