Ideologies Vine Post

This vine shows how nationalists did not like foreign rulers because two Italian citizens shoved away a French ruler who was trying to take control of Italy. Also, it showed how nationalism created unity because two Italian citizens who were far apart, came together to high-five each other. Nationalism influenced social action in the 19^th century because nationalists believed that a nation should be determined by a common culture, belief system, and language. Political action was influenced by nationalism because nationalists wished for a ruler that was one of them, not foreign.

Liberalism wanted the majority of the population to have more political influence, which effected the political action. Jeffrey Brautigam writes in Liberalism, “They promoted constitutional monarchy over absolutism, and they campaigned for an end to the traditional privileges of the aristocracy and the Church in favor of a meritocracy and middle-class participation in government.”  Liberalism influenced social action because constitutional monarchy and meritocracy was preferred over absolutism and tyranny. Conservatism influenced political action because it did not allow changes to the government and wanted to preserve the traditional government, which was absolute monarchy. Social action was influenced by conservatism because it wanted social change to stop and keep the minority in power. Jeffrey Brautigam explains in Liberalism, “They opposed innovation and reform, arguing that the French Revolution had demonstrated that they led directly to revolution and chaos.” Conservatisms believe that the French Revolution was caused by changes in social and political action. The majority wanted more say in the government, so they pushed towards liberalism.  

Independence in the Americas

The thirteen British colonies and Latin America had many differences. These included slave population, government goals, and most importantly, the British colonies were better prepared for independence than Latin America.

British North American colonists were better prepared for independence than their Latin American neighbors to the south because of literacy. In Latin America, ninety percent of the population was illiterate. In Literacy in New Spain by Joseph Esherick, Hasan Kayalı, and Eric Van Young, it is stated that, “The literacy rate in New Spain in 1810 could not have been much higher than 10 percent overall, with much of the literate population compressed spatially into the cities, and socially into the upper reaches of the social hierarchy, so that rural literacy must have been considerably lower.” The ten percent of people that were literate in Latin America were in the higher class who lived in the cities. Without literacy, people cannot contribute to their government because they do not understand it. People must be educated about a democratic republic, so that they know the regulations and how the system works. If Latin America became independent people would not know how to govern themselves. However, in the British colonies, more of the population was literate. As time went on, the number of people literate in these colonies increased. It is said in Literacy in the 13 Colonies/Early Republic by Jack Lynch, “Among white New England men, about 60 percent of the population was literate between 1650 and 1670, a figure that rose to 85 percent between 1758 and 1762, and to 90 percent between 1787 and 1795. In cities such as Boston, the rate had come close to 100 percent by century’s end.” Unlike in Latin America, the people who were literate had different jobs. In the colonies, the majority of the population was white. In Population in the US 1790, the pie charts show that the Northeast population was almost completely whites, with few enslaved and free blacks. The Southern population was about 2/3 white and almost 1/3 of the population was enslaved, with a minor percent of the population being free slaves. The reason why the British colonies were more literate than in Latin America was because whites made up most of the population. Whites were the ones who were educated in the British colonies. In the British colonies, people understood how their government functions because most people were literate. If they became independent, they would know exactly how to maintain the government.

http://comparativehistoryamericanrevs.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/0/9/3009385/7022367_orig.jpg
 

http://comparativehistoryamericanrevs.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/0/9/3009385/7022367_orig.jpg

In addition to literacy, British North American colonists were better prepared for independence than their Latin American neighbors to the south because of political experience. In Latin America, the top two classes were located in Spain, not the colonies. Edward L. Ayers, Lewis L. Gould, David M. Oshinsky, and Jean R. Soderlund write in American Passages, “Directly below the monarch was the Council of the Indies, located in Spain and composed of men who knew little about the New World. The council regulated trade, appointed officials, made laws, and determined who should be allowed to emigrate.” These top two levels determined the laws of people living in the colonies from far away. There are many levels, but they were all controlled by people born in Spain. People living in the colonies had no say in their laws. In On Civil Law, it is said, “Monarchs appointed judges to act as agents strictly accountable to the monarch rather than local magnates; required judges to apply the written law rather than general principles to all cases no matter how dissimilar.” Judges in Latin America were only allowed to apply written laws. They were not able to pass laws that fit certain situations. People had to follow their monarchs and had no experience in self-governing in Latin America. The British colonies however, had fewer social classes, with the royal governor (the level underneath the king) living in the colonies. The colonies could self-govern. Edward Eggleston writes in A History of the United States and its People, ““The Charter of Massachusetts Bay of 1629, for example, declared that all who should settle in that colony should “have and enjoy all liberties and Immunities of free and naturall Subjects . . . to all Intents, [Constructions], and Purposes whatsoever, as [if] they and [everyone] of them were borne within the Realme of England.”[25]” Since the British colonies had experience with self-governing, they would be prepared to govern themselves if they were to gain independence.

 

http://comparativehistoryamericanrevs.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/0/9/3009385/7899709_orig.jpg
 

The British colonies had more literate citizens and more political experience than Latin America. These two factors caused British North American colonists to be better prepared for independence than their Latin American neighbors to the south.

Haitian Revolution

The new Republic of Haiti was received negatively by Thomas Jefferson. In “Ignoring the Revolution Next Door,” Edwidge Danticat states, ““Something is not done, and soon done, we shall be the murderers of our own children,” Jefferson wrote about the potential impact of the Haitian uprising.” He was upset that Haiti became an independent country with independent slaves. He encouraged slavery since it helped the economy. He did not support the new Republic of Haiti because he thought it was going to have a negative effect on the economy. It is ironic that during the Louisiana Purchase, which helped the United States gain land for slaves to grow cotton on, Haiti was becoming an independent country. Thomas Jefferson benefitted at the same time as Haiti benefitted, even though Jefferson did not agree with the new Republic of Haiti.

            Haiti was impacted by this reaction because of their lack of protection from other countries. Slaves gained their independence in Haiti, which Thomas Jefferson was upset about. Since Jefferson was against the new Republic of Haiti, Haiti did not get protection from the United States. This caused France to be able to attack Haiti after a four year period of peace in Haiti. In “France's Debt of Dishonour to Haiti,” Isabel macdonald explains, “Following Haiti's independence, former French slave-owners submitted detailed tabulations of their losses to the French government, with line items for each of "their" slaves that had been "lost" with Haitian independence. In 1825, the French King, Charles X, demanded that Haiti pay an "independence debt" to compensate former colonists for the slaves who had won their freedom in the Haitian Revolution. With warships stationed along the Haitian coast backing up the French demand, France insisted that Haiti pay its former coloniser 150m gold francs – ten times the fledgling black nation's total annual revenues.” French demanded Haiti to pay them for becoming independent. No country stood up for Haiti to tell France that this was wrong, since other countries followed Thomas Jefferson’s beliefs. From the global reception of the new Republic of Haiti, Haiti lost protection.

 

http://www.google.com/imgres?sa=X&biw=1778&bih=859&tbm=isch&tbnid=fR_8Mr5p9P3KuM:&imgrefurl=http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/dgeggus/htnrevn.htm&docid=LR5HN6Lgag2jxM&imgurl=http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/dgeggus/htnrevn_files/January%252520Suchodolski.jpg&w=640&h=513&ei=IMZlUv6rELjH4APSw4HgCw&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:4,s:0,i:102&iact=rc&page=1&tbnh=187&tbnw=228&start=0&ndsp=23&tx=33.22222900390625&ty=79.77777099609375

Napoleon Post

Napoleon impacted the social systems of Europe in a negative way for wealthy people. Shortly after overthrowing the Directory, Napoleon said to one of Madame de Stael’s friends, “It is necessary to do something new every three months, in order to captivate the imagination of the French nation, with whom anyone who stands still is lost.” Madame de Stael was part of the nobility, so with the social system change because of Napoleon, she would have no more luxury than all the other citizens. Madame de Stael says, “His system was to encroach (intrude) daily upon France’s liberty and Europe’s independence…By altering between cunning and force he has subjugate (conquered) Europe.” Madame de Stael was the daughter of one of King Louis XVI’s previous financial advisors, so she is at the top of society with great benefits. After Napoleon impacted the social system, high classes, including Madame de Stael, lose their luxurious advantages.  

Political systems in Europe were impacted in a positive way by Napoleon. The soldiers, officers, and sub-officers that Napoleon worked with were thrilled to work for him. Marshal Michel Ney said, “The times are gone the when people were governed by suppressing their rights. Liberty triumphs in the end, and Napoleon, our august Emperor, comes to confirm it.” Marshal Michel Ney was one of Napoleon’s soldiers. He worked by Napoleon’s side and was influenced by Napoleon’s wonderful strategies. Marshal Michel Ney was put in charge of the army and was made a hero by Napoleon. Soldiers who worked for Napoleon thought of Napoleon as a fantastic political leader. Napoleon came up with ideas in order to improve the political system with war techniques and helpful ways to rule. The political systems were improved in Europe from Napoleon’s amazing general skills.

Napoleon helped many Europeans in the economic system. People were fascinated by Napoleon’s ways of ruling, so they made a career out of exploring facts about napoleon. Thomas J. Vance explained in The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians, “This passage from Napoleon in Review (1939) is just one example of the lost voices of historians who spent much of their lives pouring over Napoleonic research, but whose books are now out-of-print and often inaccessible. The availability of books on Napoleon Bonaparte has never been a problem; however, many interesting works are becoming extinct.” These researches spent their time writing about Napoleon’s life and those researchers made a living off of selling those books. Those researchers can thank Napoleon for giving them a career. The economic system was improved by Napoleon.

 

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=4c8xZIuwZjQ8LM&tbnid=wYJBW86QyqiF4M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cardinalsolutions.biz%2Fblog%2Fbid%2F305415%2FInspirational-Leadership-Quote-Napoleon-Bonaparte&ei=TcRcUu2LKvG34AOUgIGAAw&bvm=bv.53899372,d.eWU&psig=AFQjCNETPzi0RoJxCSdF_NPSRx4qoKHXGw&ust=1381897669874150

 

United States and Great Britain Comparison

Industrialists were more likely to succeed in Great Britain. In the factories in Great Britain, the workers were paid less money, so the owners made more money. The owners did not have to give the workers the majority of their wages. The workers were paid less money because there was more labor available in Great Britain, most of which were previous farmers and their families. If someone quit their job at the factory, they could easily be replaced by another worker. In these factories, the workers were less likely to protest against the owners because they would be replaced right away. The factory owners did not have to worry about their workers’ feelings.  In “Observations of the Loss on the Woollen Spinning 1794,” the author writes, “In the eyes of the overseer she was but a brute, a slave, to be beaten, pinched and pushed about.” It is understood that the owners did not have to work hard in order to make sure that their workers were satisfied. The owners simply had to make sure that the workers were doing their jobs correctly, punish them if they were not, and pay them a small amount.

Workers had a more positive experience in the United States. For farmers, there was more land available. There were more land and job options for these workers if their small businesses were replaced by large companies. In “Early Factory Labor in New England 1883,” the author wrote, “Those of the mill­girls who had homes generally worked from eight to ten months in the year; the rest of the time was spent with parents or friends. A few taught school during the summer months. Their life in the factory was made pleasant to them. In those days there was no need of advocating the doctrine of the proper relation between employer and employed. Help was too valuable to be ill-treated....” The mills in the United States that textile workers worked in were cleaner and more sanitary than the mills in Great Britain. There were more breaks and fewer hours for workers in the United States than in Great Britain. In the United States, less labor was available, which meant that the factories were in need of their workers. Workers were able to protest for fair treatment, since the owners could not replace them.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=2N8btZ-_p4v6XM&tbnid=cCPpKf2zMmpX0M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCotton_mill&ei=j6pUUvfOEqnl4APtqIDYAQ&bvm=bv.53760139,d.dmg&psig=AFQjCNHAOzPF7c_2kGCYPwCEfaMq6r1kQQ&ust=1381366646138126

 

Mary Paul Post

Mary Paul’s first letter to her father was written to convince him to allow her to go to Lowell in order to make money in a mill. She was optimistic and excited to pursue this new opportunity. In this letter she claimed, “I am in need of clothes which I cannot get if I stay about here and for that reason I want to go to Lowell or some other place.” Mary wanted to make money so that she could afford to buy goods, like clothing.  She believed that if she stayed on the farm that would not be possible. When Mary first started living working in the Lowell mill, she enjoyed her stay there. She wrote to her father in the second letter, “I think of staying here a year certain, if not more.” She wanted to stay at the mill because she loves receiving the payments and she adores the boarding house. She could not wait to tell her family about her new experience. However, in the third letter the tone was slightly different. She sounded more scared than before, like when she wrote, “Last Thursday one girl fell down and broke her neck which caused instant death.” She witnessed horror stories and chose to tell her father about them. This means she wanted him to know she was in a dangerous place. Mary explained that her health is downgrading from working so hard. In her fourth letter, Mary wrote to her father, “I stand it well, though they tell me that I am growing very poor.” She was doing a wonderful job in her work, but from working in the mill, she was becoming weak. Her letters were becoming more negative than they started out as. By her fifth letter, Mary admitted that the work was difficult and was negatively impacting her. She wrote, “I cannot tell how it is but never since I have worked in the mill have I been so very tired as I have for the last week but it may be owing to the long rest I have had for the last six months.” The work was exhausting and she was not able to get enough sleep. Mary’s experiences have become regretful and disappointing as the letters were written. Her experiment represents both the success and failure of the ‘Lowell Experiment.’  The girls who worked in the Lowell mill discovered the harsh conditions of labor there, which forced the girls to protest and demand for fair conditions. Nobody planned to work at the mill forever, so they would lose many of the workers eventually. However, it was a success for Mary because she learned that she liked the city more than the farm and that she did not want to go back to the farm and get married there. Also, this was successful to the mill owners because they paid the girls poorly and got a lot of work done. Young girls were easily lured into the mills since girls want to earn money in order to buy fancy items and it was an adventure to get out of the house and work in a city.

http://www.uml.edu/tsongas/bringing-history-home/page_02/sb3.htm