Congress of Vienna

Today in history, our class began discussing the essential question "what should people in power do if their power is threatened?". This poses a very interesting situation as different people will inevitably choose different solutions to handle such a situation. We discussed the "congress of Vienna" in class which revolves around the essential question.

Once Napoleon was no longer a threat, there were several concepts as to how European powers reacted. One of the main concepts is the "balance of power", which is as simple as it sounds - one power shall not have all the power and a system of checks and balances will be run to make sure no one power gets greater control over the other. Metternich wanted to reverse the track of napoleon's conquest and restore all power to what it originally was. Napoleon’s surrendering brought an end to nearly 25 years of ongoing war. The discussions between these great powers were held in a very informal fashion, talking to each other face to face in a very casual manner. This is the first time in history in which ambassadors met face to face to make treaties as oppose only using messengers in the past.

In my opinion, the ambassadors made the right decision by evenly distributing the power and reverting back to how it originally was before napoleon made his conquests. I do not believe there was a better way to react. In the given situation, trying to restore equal balance throughout all powers comes first before accommodating the people. In certain circumstances, the powerful should be willing to make a sacrifice or two as long as it will benefit the power as a whole in the long run.

Congress of Vienna

Nationalism, Conservatism, and Liberalism

The major political ideologies of the 19th century were conservatism, liberalism, and nationalism. One of the ideologies assigned was nationalism, which is the belief system that a country should be run based purely off tradition. Reform and innovation was highly opposed due to fear of another revolution taking place

As said before, the concept of ideology is to rule the country based on tradition. Conservatives, or traditionalists, wanted to be ruled by this system as they were afraid of a revolution and a revolt taking place. The hierarchy was ruled by the aristocracy and the monarchy was supported by all conservatives. Conservatism dates back to the French Revolution. The effects of conservatism include the rejection of change throughout Europe due to the unwillingness to accept changes from people who wanted their own rights and a single religion that everyone must abide by.

Liberalism was the opposite of conservatism, which focused mainly on innovation and change of power and ruling. The liberals focused on equality and liberty. They supported the ideas of civil rights, fair voting, and many of the amendments that involve freedom of certain things. Liberalism was popular during the age of enlightenment. Nationalism is a slightly different concept compared to Liberalism and Conservatism. Nationalism involves having extreme pride in one’s nation, showing support and willingness to help. Flags and anthems are both a good representation of what nationalism is like. A synonym for nationalism would otherwise be known as Patriotism.

Napoleon: Ambitious Ruler or Destructive Tyrant?

Napoleon was a great historical figure in Europe and had many impacts on the economic, social, and political systems throughout Europe as well. However, was he really the successful leader that France thought he claimed himself to be?

Two different people, Madame de Stael and Marshal Michel Ney, give two polar opposite opinions on Napoleon, a leader to some and a tyrant to others. Madame de Stael wrote in disgust about how napoleons views on dignity and integrity and virtues were completely nonexistent in his eyes. She believed that he was clueless in his approach to becoming a ruler. Marshal, a soldier under command of Napoleon, worshiped him and thought of him as one of the greatest, most influential leaders Europe has had. He thoroughly believed in the liberty of the people in Europe and was heavily promoting the joining of Napoleon's dynasty. Despite these two Heavily biased opinions, from an outsider, Napoleon was considered extremely inconsistent in his ruling. Because of his inconsistency, if he were to die at different times during his ruling, he would be viewed as an entirely different man. Napoleon was a smart man indeed, yet his rush to turn into an absolute ruler eventually lead to his downfall. He pushed for the advancement of the race, yet near the end of his career, his ambitious and dominate side began to subside.

All in all, he was a genius of his time yet lacked the knowledge it took to know how to use his genius. He abused it, misused it, and it became his own destruction.

Lost Voices Article

Marxism vs. "The Invisible Hand" - Which Approach was Better?

Hi!

Over the past week in our honors History class, we were learning about the economic approaches of Communism, Capitalism, and Socialism. In order to grasp a better understanding of these approaches, our class conducted an experiment with hershey kiss chocolates. Our teacher showed us the general concept of each of the three economies and asked us which we thought was better or worse for the people. Every approach had some upsides and some downsides, for example, having the rich being taxed and having their money be redistributed to the poor so everyone gets an even amount. To the poor, this was a genius idea. However, the rich saw this idea as unfair and completely outrageous. This is an example of socialism, one of the three total approaches to the economy. This experiment was enjoyable and I thought it was a great way to see what the reactions were of the people who were given more or less chocolates.

Marx's idea of helping the poor was a mix between socialism and communism. He wanted the government to be heavily involved in taxing the rich and redistributing to the poor in a very "Robin Hood" style approach. He believed that this approach was the fairest of them all as there were no people that had certain advantages and everyone was given equal privileges. Smith's idea to helping the poor, however, was the polar opposite idea of Marx's. He believed a very "Hands Off" approach of the government was the best way for the poor to help themselves. With the market self-regulating itself, people could make their own money in the most efficient way possible. However, there were a few downsides to Smith's idea. If you were poor, you were left poor. There was no way to make or sell any profits. Also, it took a while for the economy to reach an "equilibrium" with this concept.

In my opinion, both of these ideas are equally mediocre and I believe that capitalism is the way to go. People are allowed the freedom to keep or bet their own money and none of it is controlled by the state. Overall, capitalism allows the right amount of freedom without government supervision.

The Invisible Hand
Karl Marx Mini Bio

Working Conditions During the Industrial Revolution - Who had it better?

Hi!

In today's blog post, I'll be talking about the difference between working conditions in the United States vs British factories. Overall, the US had a more efficient working system and better living conditions, and the British factories lacked in many areas. For example, the girls in Lowell had a much better schedule than those in Britain. They were allowed an hour for each meal, including a few hours at the end of the day to do whatever they please, be it attending shows, reading, or writing letters. The British girls, however, were stuck with a non-stop schedule that did not allow them time away from their machines and had no time at all at the end of the day to do whatever they want. Another huge upside for the American girls was the fact that they were payed more than the British girls. Because of that, they could freely go into town and buy whatever goods and articles of clothing they would like. Also, they could afford to pay for a living space that way. The British girls were not payed nearly enough, and couldn't afford to buy nice items purely for themselves. Most of the money was sent home to their families. In both factories, their work was temporary. They would work until they were old enough to move out and commit to marriage. However, just because the Lowell girls schedule was better than the British girls, did not mean their tasks were any easier. The work was just as strenuous and everyone faced the same dangers. All in all, The American girls lived a better lifestyle at the mills than the British girls.  (Doc 1, Labor in Lowell)

Document Resource