The Glamorous Congress of Vienna

Dealing with people in power is extremely difficult because of all of their individual egos, wants, and needs for themselves as well as the needs of their countries.  Throughout class, we were able to learn about each specific member of the Congress of Vienna, which helped us to answer the essential question, what should people in power do when their power is threatened?, by showing us what each of their motivations and decisions was.  We started off by outlining the basics of the congress, and the members who attended it.  Klemens von Metternich of Austria hosted the congress, and met with Napoleon because of Napoleon's desire for peace based on his loss of troops in Russia.  Metternich agreed to have peace, but only if Napoleon would give up his conquest and return to the original boundaries. Napoleon refused and responded by threatening to destroy Vienna if Austria waged war on France; he escaped exile and did just that, returning to Paris and continuing his conquest until his final defeat on June 18,1815 at the Battle of Waterloo.  Following Metternich's encounter with Napoleon, the Congress of Vienna was called to order on September 1, 1814.  As a class, we had to put ourselves in the shoes of the representatives and make decisions regarding the future of France and other countries following the end of Napoleonic domination.  After we put in our best educated guess about the decision they would have made, and stated a reason why we believed they would have made that decision, we found out what they really decided to do.  The Congress of Vienna, made up of Prince Klemens von Metternich of Austria, Prince Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand of France, King Frederick William III of Prussia, Viscount Castlereagh of England, and Czar Alexander of Russia, decided to return the original boundaries to how they were prior to the expansion, restore the lawful monarchs, and issue a statement against the slave trade, and civil rights protections for Jews.  Although the Congress of Vienna's decisions they made helped to keep war between the five major powers of Europe (Russia, Prussia, England, France, and Austria) at bay up to 1853, there were many revolutions including the revolutions of 1848 in which Metternich lost power and fled Vienna.  

Video of a recreation of the meeting between Napoleon and Metternich:  

One crucial principle introduced by members of the Congress of Vienna was the Holy Alliance.  The Holy Alliance was initiated by Czar Alexander of Russia, and said that monarchs had the divine right to rule, and that any revolution was treason and against God.  All of the countries that partook in the Congress of Vienna also partook in the Holy Alliance, except for England.  The Holy Alliance allowed the representatives who held and lost a lot of power to regain it because it ensured that "another Napoleon" would not come into power, considering that Napoleon was an illegitimate leader because he was not an heir to the French throne.  Keeping only rightful, blood-related leaders in power who followed specific rules and stuck to the traditional monarchy system, would avoid any issues with the one ruler gaining too much power because of all of the experience they had with monarchs in all of the countries in the past.  

I believe that all-in-all, the Congress of Vienna made the right choices in order to get all of the countries united and calmed down once again after all of the chaos caused by Napoleon.  In some situations, the representatives were able to put aside their personal feelings and do what was right, for example, not punishing the French people because they saw Napoleon as the enemy, and providing restitution for countries damaged by Napoleon's conquest.  But, I believe that the representatives could have focused more on the task at hand, than having an enjoyable, fun time at the conference, which according to one of the articles that we read in class (The Congress of Vienna Decisions Making Process), they clearly did.  The article says, "The Vienna peace conference soon degenerated into a glittering vanity fair: masked balls, medieval-style jousts, and grant formal banquets- a "sparkling chaos" that would light up the banks of the Danube," (2).  This excerpt shows how richly they indulged in themselves, when the conference should have been focused on the people of struggling countries and their needs.  

Throw-Down of Ideologies

The major political ideologies of the 19th century were conservatism, nationalism, and liberalism. Although all very different, they were all of the methods in which people wanted to have their countries be run and supported.  Conservatives were people who didn't support the change of reform of their government; they wanted to stick to tradition.   Nationalists believed in the importance of bringing together nations through shared language, customs, and history. Liberals supported individual liberties and the god-given rights of people, and wanted governmental and societal change and reform. In order to better understand all of the different political ideologies of the 19th century, we discussed in groups what we thought each ideology meant without any background information in order to get rid of all past biases and preconceptions we would have had.  We then were split up into groups, two groups for each ideology, and created our own one-minute presentations to present at the "throw-down" between the two teams with the same ideology. 

This is a depiction of Smith's Invisible Hand which appears in the group video.

https://www.educreations.com/lesson/view/liberlism/25528786/?s=fMuzU5&ref=app

Our group created an EduCreations video with the slides explaining the ideology itself, who founded it, and all of the different effects it had on society at the time.  We included pictures, as well as words and audio, to enhance the viewer's understanding from an auditory and visual standpoint.  John Locke and Adam Smith were known as the forefathers of liberalism, supporting the ideal that the task of government was to promote individual liberties.  Many liberals found traditions to be superstitious and vowed to change them.  Their push for change led to their support of the Scientific Revolution, and all of the technological innovations that were created as a result of that revolution.  Liberals also promoted constitutional monarchy over absolutism, which allowed them to be able to reduce Church and aristocratic privileges.  They also supported meritocracy, and middle-class participation in government, values which we still hold dear today in the U.S.  

The other ideologies were also extremely important during the 19th century, and in shaping society and history at the time.  Nationalists' ideas allowed for countries to be less liable to be attacked by larger military powers, and helped to create a sense of peace between countries.  For example, after Napoleon took over Germany and Italy realized that their disunity made it far easier for Napoleon to take over the countries, and decided to unite together in order to avoid future invasions and other ways of having their power seized.  Conservatives believed in the power of tradition, and for that reason, supported the Church and keeping the monarchies.  Conservatives did not support change or reform of government in most every way, resulting in the stopping of revolutions because of bloodshed and chaos, and continuing to keep tradition and not change the way the government was run. 

A Military Genius and Legendary Leader

Napoleon had an immense impact on the social, economic, and political systems of France, although those impacts were both positive and negative. Napoleon was a military genius, as well as being a completely dominant and powerful leader of a country. He was the perfect choice in a leader at the point in France's history, as William Milligan Sloane summarized in his biography about Bonaparte in Century Magazine in 1894 by saying, "The Jacobins needed a man, they found him in the unscrupulous Bonaparte; the Directory needed a needed a man, they found him in the expert artillerist; France needed a man, she found him in the conqueror of Italy." 

One of Napoleon's most important influences on the social system in France was his choice to establish a system of meritocracy, getting a job based on your skills, not just based on connections. This choice allowed people who were truly qualified for a specific job to be able to get that job and not be beat out by other competition simply because they were more wealthy or higher up in social standings. This not only benefited those people, but also benefited the country as well because the jobs were done better and at a higher standard/quality because the people who were doing those jobs were more qualified and prepared for them. Under Napoleon's rule, citizens also had the rights to a formal education, and could own property. This helped people to be more independent and feel as though they had more control over their own lives by being able to own their own property. Giving all citizens education also allowed the country to benefit because the more educated the population was, the more inventions were created, and the better people would be at doing their own specialized jobs. 

Napoleon had a huge impact on the economic system of France as well. Napoleon controlled trade as an emperor, so that allowed France's economy to continue to grow because of the constant importing of different items not able to be obtained in their native France, and the exportation of goods to countries outside of France which France received profit from. Napoleon also encouraged new industry which was beneficial to France's economy because there were more jobs for people to do, which created many new sources for income for the people of France. Napoleon also built many new bridges and canals which improved the flow of trade and gave the country more means of importing and exporting goods, therefore improving the economy.  Finally, Napoleon stole many riches from Italy when he conquered it, which gave France much more wealth. 

The area which becomes more controversial and hard to define success-wise for Napoleon and his leadership of the country is regarding the political systems in France and how he changed them, because there are more negatives involved in his political changes.  To begin, Napoleon intended to overthrow the Directory, the leaders of France at the time who abused their power for their own benefits.  They discovered his intentions to overthrow them, and in 1799, the five members of the Directory resigned.  The resignation of the members of the Directory allowed Napoleon to form his own form of government in which the people of France had more rights and freedom, as stated by Marshal Michel Nay, an officer of the French army, in his speech to his fellow troops in 1815, "Liberty triumphs in the end, and Napoleon, our august emperor, comes to confirm it." However, some people, particularly the nobility because Napoleon stripped them of their power and privileges, believed that Napoleon was selfish in becoming emperor and took over the country without taking into account the rights and desires of the people.  One particularly vocal former noble, Madame de Staël, represented the majority of the nobles' view of Napoleon's way of ruling in her book Ten Years of Exile, saying, "His system was to encroach daily upon France's liberty and Europe's independence... By alternating between cunning and force he has subjugated Europe."

Although some of Napoleon Bonaparte's ways of running France were questioned by some members of French society, Napoleon was an amazing leader and military genius, failing in the end only based on exhaustion.

Napoleon Bonaparte. Painting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon#mediaviewer/File:Jacques-Louis_David_-_The_Emperor_Napoleon_in_His_Study_at_the_Tuileries_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

Real Life Rock-Paper-Scissors

We were able to do a fun activity which really helped me to better understand the concept of capitalism in comparison with communism, and socialism.  In class, we were each given a specific amount of Hershey Kisses chocolates, and some people were given more than others.  At first we were not sure what to do with them, or what they were going to be used for to tie into the lesson.  Then, Mrs. Gallagher told us to get up and walk around the room playing rock-paper-scissors with different people, and if we won we would receive one of the loser's chocolates.  This game was very frustrating for me the first round that we played because I lost every single piece of candy I had and I was one of the first people out of the game.  It was also frustrating because some people were given more candy than everyone else; Abby and Travis were each given 10 pieces.  But, it was also very fun because I got to try again later and I won much more candy that time.  In the end, everyone's candy was collected and we were all given three pieces.  The purpose of this lesson was to really help us be able to understand the different sides and why people supported capitalism, socialism, and communism.  The uneven playing field with some people being given more candy than others represented unequal opportunity, with some people starting out with more advantages than others they're competing against (capitalism).  The aspect of competition and being able to compete with others for your "riches" also represented capitalism, the winners and losers of rock-paper-scissors representing the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.   Communism was represented when Mrs. Gallagher, representing the government regulating the economy, took all of our candy and spread it evenly throughout everyone, similarly to how the government took the money from the people under a communist government, and spread it out evenly among their people.

Although Marx and Smith both wanted to help the poor in creating their theories about how the economy should be run, they had very different ideas about how to get there.  Karl Marx, the man who created the ideals behind socialism/communism, wanted to help the poor by trying to create a classless society.  He believed that the poor would benefit by having a classless society because they would be given the same opportunity as everyone else, and the playing field would be more even.  However, Adam Smith took a different approach, and his theory of the "invisible hand" said that the flow of commerce and trade would help the poor because it provided them with higher quality goods at lower quality prices, giving them the opportunity to buy things they wouldn't have had the chance to before.

Embedded is a link to Karl Marx's biography which may help explain why Marx wanted to create the ideals for communism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16IMc5mhbZk&feature=youtu.be

I believe that Smith's "invisible hand theory" is the best.  It allows people to be able to work for their wealth, and not have all that they've worked hard for taken from them.  But, it also gives people who wouldn't have the opportunity in other cases the chance to be able to succeed and have options in what they buy and how they spend their money.

Explanation of the "Invisible Hand Theory": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulyVXa-u4wE&feature=youtu.be

Taking the Risk

There were many pros and cons when it came to young girls deciding to take the risk and go to the Lowell Mills.  Deciding to leave their homes, families, and everything they knew was extremely nerve-wracking and took quite a lot of courage.  For the girls who decided to accept the challenge and go to work in the mills, they felt as though the benefits outweighed the doubts that they had.  Although there were definitely benefits to leaving home to work in the mills, there were some issues that also came along with being brave enough to try.
I, as well as any other teenage girl, well know that independence is something that is extremely sought after during the time of teenage years, and the biggest draw to leaving home for the mills was to try and find just that.  For most of the girls, going to Lowell allowed them to feel as though they were seeing the world for the first time, because most of them lived in small towns in the countryside and knew nothing but rolling hills, their families, and the next door neighbors.   If the girls did not leave the farm, they would most likely live on a farm of their own in the future, and be married off to a husband they did not choose- going to the mills allowed a girl to take charge of her own destiny.  However, the family also benefited from the girls' choice by being able to have their daughters send a portion of their earnings back home to help with paying the bills; many families needed this extra help at the time, and most were poor or poorer than before because the economy was changing so rapidly based on the rise in numbers of machines and factories.  The girls could also keep some of the money for themselves, giving them the capability to use the money leftover from paying for board to buy nice new clothes and other similar items that they could not obtain back home on the farm.  Besides their hard work at the factories, the girls were given breaks at the end of the day, and did not have to work at all on Sunday, allowing them to make a living but also focus on passions of their own that they could pursue in the future.  The mills' education of the girls, and their acceptance of the girls moving on once they were about 20 years old and to be married off, changed the view of women at the time, showing how strong women were and still are, and how they could and can be in charge of their own destiny.
Although the mill girls began to change the common perception of women at the time, they were still treated unfairly by the overseers simply because they were women.  Overseers could be cruel to the girls working in the mills, but it was expected that the girls would not talk back because their societal role at the time taught them to be quiet and obedient.  The machines that these girls worked at with the overseers watching close by were very dangerous, and many girls were scalped because of a loose piece of hair getting caught in the machines.  Although most girls did not have to go through the immense pain of being scalped, many broken fingers and limbs were common considering how quickly the machines were working and how fast the girls were required to do their work.  Keeping in mind how dangerous the work was that the girls did, especially with far less safety precautions than we have today, they should have been paid much more than they were.  Most girls were paid very little, and most of their wages would go towards the cost of boarding at the mills, leaving them with usually one to two dollars to spend as they pleased.  While they walked around town and shopped using that money, they were not allowed to talk to men under any circumstances for fear of losing their job.
It was hard to tell whether the positive parts of going to work in the mills outweighed the negatives, but it is evident that mill girls started to change the way society viewed women at the time of the Industrial Revolution.