The Helpers of Metternich

During class we split into different groups to discuss the major decisions made by the Congress of Vienna. Each group went through all choices for each problem, chose the one they thought was the best and then as a class discussed why each group chose the one they did. Every question we read through was related to our essential question, "what should people in power do when their power is threatened?"

One problem for Metternich was trying to prepare the Quadruple (Quintuple) Alliance for the possibility of future revolutions. Metternich's resolution to this was to use the Principle of Intervention and the Holly Alliance. To get rid of the threat of power the Congress of Vienna used the Holy Alliance to say that monarchs had Devine right to rule. The Holy Alliance also stated that any revolution was treason and against God. This helped the problem for Metternich because most people during that time period were very religious and did not want to go against God. The Congress of Vienna had a huge impact on everything and everyone's lives. They made every decision and the ones they did not make had to get approved by them.

I believe for this one problem the Congress Vienna made the right choice and was the best thing to do at that time. In some circumstances there has to be a balance of power, meaning the Congress of Vienna sacrificing some of their power. If that group has all of the power for a long period of time it can get to their head and every decision they make is thought to be the best way in their minds.

Napoleon's Impact on Europe

Napoleon was a big part of Europe's government and the way they ruled things. He impacted their political, economic and social systems all in different ways.

Politically, many would say that Napoleon was a genius in the ways he thought of many situations and helped people during his time. There was also a different side that said he ruined many things politically for Europe. One of the many things he did was having the intention to overthrow the Directory, making the five members resign because of this. This had a negative impact because for that time period the country of France had no sense of government and there was no way to control the people of France. Another decision Napoleon had made politically was to sell the Louisiana Territory to the United States. This could be seen as either positive or negative depending on how you look at it. It was negative because France had lost a lot of land that could be useful to them but was positive because they gained money from that territory that not many had been using.

There were also many negative and positive impacts involving the social systems of Europe that Napoleon had. One example was that under Napoleon's rule, more citizens had rights to property and education that hadn't been before Napoleon. This is positive because it didn't matter what you had or which social class you were in, more people had rights to equal property and education to others. Another decision Napoleon made to negatively  impact to Europe was his armies abolished titles of nobility and serfdom, ended Church privileges, removed trade barriers and stimulated industry. It was a negative decision because this ended trading from many countries and made many citizens mad due to the ending of church privileges.

Lastly, Napoleon impacted the economic systems of Europe in many ways as well. One positive decision made was establishing the Bank of France, balancing the budget and undertaking massive public work programs. This let many citizens take control of their money and keeping their money safe in one way or another. Another decision made by Napoleon was taking control of prices, encouraging new industry, and building roads and canals. This was also positive by letting the countries grow and communicate with many other countries and areas around Europe. It also helped by controlling the prices and putting a limit so that many more citizens could afford goods.

The Perfect Middle

In the beginning of the class each person got handed 3 pieces of candy except for a few people who got 10 pieces. The general idea of the class was to play other classmates in a game of rock, paper, scissors and whoever wins that game gets a piece of candy from the other player. The lesson of this was to learn about how fair or unfair capitalism and socialism are and what had to happen during this time. Socialism is demonstrated in this because the teacher (government) had nothing to do with the rules of the game or how much candy everyone had. Capitalism is demonstrated when the teacher (government) took away everyone's candy and redistributed them equally. I found this game fun at first because I had won 3 times in a row and had more candy than I had before. After a few more games, I had lost all of my candy except for 2 pieces and I stopped playing to make sure I didn't lose any more candy. I felt frustrated at the game because there were so many people cheating and trying to get back in the game unfairly even when they had no more candy left.

Marx's theory was about how capitalism, socialism, and communism would all help the poor help themselves. The idea of this was to let the poor people work for the same amount of money as any other person and they would also get equal benefits. This helped a great deal with poverty because many people had enough money each month to buy what they needed for their families to survive. Smith had a different idea on how to help the poor in these awful conditions. He came up with the idea of an "invisible hand" which helped the poor by letting the people regulate their own prices and profits without the help of the government. This helped because there weren't any limits of prices so, the prices could be lowered and be made affordable to everyone, even the very poorest people.

I believe that both Marx's and Smith's theories are good ideas but have some faults to them also. If I had to chose one I would pick Marx's theory because there needs to be some control in government no matter what. In Smith's theory there is no control over what anyone does and that could go badly very fast. Marx's theory has a system of government and creates laws and boundaries for everyone to stay in. Humans will always want more than they already have and with Smith's theory there will be a greater amount of people getting out of hand than in Marx's theory. Smith's theory is too lose of a government and Marx's theory is too tight of a government.If there was a third option between the two theories then that would be the perfect option because each one is too far to one side of the spectrum.

Against or With?

During the Industrial Revolution there was a group of people that called themselves the Luddites. They were the people during that period that were against the new technology being invented, which was mostly new machinery. The main actions they performed was destroying the machines in every factory and mill possible. This group was mostly consisted of employes of the factories or mills because they were the ones who were loosing their jobs. The increase in machines and fast pace in the mills took away the jobs of many factory workers during this time. The following letter is a mock primary source and is not real.

This image above shows the Luddites hammering a machine in a factory.

Dear cousin,

Hello, I am writing to you now as I have just gotten home from a long day of my first job at a factory. All of the factory workers, including myself, had to leave the factory early today because the factory I work in had been broken into by a group of Luddites. This group is getting very well known around here but I am sure you have not heard about them yet since you are living in America. The Luddites are against the new technology in the factories so they go around the city trying and sometimes succeed in destroying the machines. My first thought was to be totally against this because of the horrible things they would do to the factories that I am now working in. But as time went on, I have realized that i could be the next factory worker to be fired from my job because of the speed these new machines are working. As of right now I am in between being against and for what the Luddites are doing. Even if I had picked a side, there isn't much I can do as a young girl factory worker who has just gotten their first job. I also can't bear to loose this job because of my family back home. I need to help support my family and their needs as much as I can right now. I thank the industrialization for the opportunity of a job as a factory worker and their help for supporting my family. I hope to see you and your family soon in America and will write you soon.

Love,
Krista

The British Slums

The working conditions in both Britain and American factories were horrible compared to our daily life in the 21st century. These conditions were only partially the owners of the factories fault due to the many people wanting more and the fast paced machines that were newly invented.

Both factories had their reasons that led to these horrible conditions but some were more agreeable than others. Britain for one had many orphaned children that volunteered for the factory jobs in hope for some money. They were both in need to produce more goods at a aster pace and the demand was getting higher everyday with these new machines. The majority of the child labor was because the children were needed by their families to help out with money and food.

The two of the countries had very long, hard working days with minimum to no breaks each day. These mills were filled with the majority of children that were treated very poorly and needed at that time. There were many reported accidents involving the children workers and machines; some ended as badly as death.

The common day for a child worker in the American factories was a huge difference from a child worker's day in the Britain factories. The American factory workers had many more breaks and these breaks were longer than the few Britain factories had. Their working days were much shorter and stress less than the Britain factory days. In the DBQ packet, it states how the Lowell, MA mill workers had free time from around 8:00pm until 10:00pm "free time (attend a lecture, read, sew, peddlers sell wares, ect.)" and then the workers were told to go to bed at around 10:00pm.



I believe that the Britain factories were much more harsh that the American factories because of the evidence given from the DBQ packet and other worksheets on the mills around this time. According to the DBQ packet the common child worker only had one 40 minute break for lunch the whole day in Britain. These children had to eat their breakfast before work and their dinner while still working at the machines. But the American factory workers each got about an hour break for each. Because of the horrible working hours, many children got tired and dosed off towards the end of the day while still working. As said in the DBQ packet, "if so, the overseers beat them to keep them awake."

These conditions are very different from each other, Britain having the worst of them both. Both are horrible compared to the much better working conditions our country has nowadays.