The Romantic Art

The Second of May 1808, Francisco Goya

This painting was painted by Francisco Goya in 1814. He was a well known Romantic artist; he had done many paintings that represent many themes of romanticism. In this painting there is a man in the direct middle on a horse with a very detailed facial expression. The detail and location of this man shows the importance of individualism; a major theme of Romanticism. Another themes is the awe of nature. Goya captures this by showing large, strong horses going wild; meaning that nature can't be controlled. The man on the ground labelled "3" had a angry expression on his face. Goya is representing the theme of emotion through the facial expression of the people in this painting. Some are furious while others are scared. Lastly, Goya shows horrid images of dead men on the ground, falling off a horse, and one in the midst of being killed. Grotesque and horrid images is a theme of Romanticism because it shows the bad sad of the world, the unstructured, and unorganized side of humanity. Romanticism is the counter-part of Enlightenment; one is controlled and sees the good, while the other is uncontrollable and sees the bad.

Revolution After Revolution

In the year of 1830-1848 the people of Europe fought for their beliefs. Throughout many nation revolutions had occurred; it was the liberal minority against the conservative majority. The conservatives were the monarchy and aristocracy in control of the countries at that time. Overall many of the revolution had failed greatly, but the ideas and beliefs that started them did not.

King Louis Philippe

The French revolution of 1830 began in July; it was the revolutionaries and radicals against the conservative monarchy. The revolutionaries wanted to extend voting right and power to the middle class; the radicals wanted a democracy. The revolution resulted in lots of violence and bloodshed, but they removed their old king from power and got a new king. King Louis Philippe was nicknamed "the citizen king" because he treated the people with respect; he was kind to them and visited them often. Although neither the revolutionaries or the radicals achieved what they wanted they bettered their situation with a new king. They showed the rest of Europe that the middle class can make changes.

In Poland, 1830 the Polish people fought for their independence from Russia. They fought a war and were able to keep the Russian army out of Poland for several months. The people of Poland were united and had become nationalized; they were able to taste independence for a few months. They lost the a crucial battle and Russia recaptured Warsaw. The war was over but the ideas and nationalism was still alive. These ideas inspired more revolutions and shows people that they can fight for their beliefs.

Metternich

In 1848, Hungary wanted their independence from Austria. They fought a war as Poland did in 1830, except Hungary had two opponents. Austria and Russia fought to recapture Hungary; Russia came in and stopped the revolution. But they were not able to stop it before Metternich, the leader of Austria fled. Metternich was a powerful leader and after he left he was never seen again. Hungary didn't become independent but they were able to create change and show that to the rest of Europe.

The revolution of 1830 and 1848 may have failed at the time, but the long term effects changed the course of each nation. These revolution had failed in achieving their goals right away but they did succeed in spread liberal ideas and beliefs. They were a success overall in history and had an everlasting effect. They symbolized the power of the lower and middle class, and how together they were strong enough to create some change.
 

 

James Monroe

During the presidency of James Monroe many events had occurred throughout Europe. These events eventually became a concern for the United States. Monroe had many issues to address, all at the same time. The Quintuple Alliance had formed at the Congress of Vienna; they introduced the Principle of Intervention. It gave the great nations the right to to send in troops into a country to stop revolutions and restore monarchs. 

This gave the alliance to send armies to the new world and recapture independent Spanish settlements. Monroe address this issue by stating  "With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have… acknowledged". Meaning that the United States will not get involved will European colonies that have not become independent, but those that have already become independent will remain independent. He says that if the European nation try to recapture an independent settlement, the United States will get involved and defend the Latin American colony. 

Another issue that Monroe had to address was the Russian settlements in North America. The Russian were claiming and settling on land in the northwest. If they successfully controlled the area America would lose its ability to trade with Asia through the Pacific Ocean. Monroe addressed this by stating "the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent.” Monroe set up negotiations with Russians to discuss the issue of the northwest territory in North America. He was able to avoid a war with Russia over land in this region and was able to keep a passage to the Pacific Ocean. 

The last issue Monroe had to address was a treaty with England. The English offered to help Monroe with the Russians in the northwest, if they worked together to keep the Alliance from regaining Spanish colonies. But Monroe was able to deal with both issues by himself and so he stated, "not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy." Meaning that they will not make a written alliance with England, but they will keep friendly relations with them as well as with all the other European nations. Monroe addressed all three of these issues in the "Monroe Doctrine", these issues originated from the conservative ideologies of the Quintuple Alliance.

 

The overall reaction to the Monroe doctrine was positive. The Russian were able to negotiate with the United States and avoided a war. The Latin American colonies that fought for their independence were able to keep it and have the support of the United States. The English didn't make the alliance with the United States, as they wanted to. But the United States kept a friendly relationship with them, and were able to keep the Spanish from regaining all their colonies which worked in England's favor. Some people that may have not been in favor of Monroe's reactions are the remaining Spanish colonies that hoped for independence. The United States said that they wouldn't get involved with any Spanish colonies were not independent. Meaning that even if a colony was close to becoming independent, they did not have the support of the United States. The Spanish and the rest of the Holy Alliance were able to regain complete control of those colonies; all hope of their independence was lost. 

        

Post Napoleonic Ideologies

This Vine demonstrates the meaning of Nationalism, one of the three ideologies we have studied. The Vine is an example of people who are Nationalists, it shows two Italians coming together to overthrow their foreign leader. Nationalist want to be united together with their nation and be independent from foreign rule. Nationalism is the belief in pride, connection and loyalty to ones country. They serve and support the wellbeing of their nation and are patriotic.  Nationalists in existing nation like Britain and France argued for strong, expansionist foreign policies. Nationalists in regions like Germany and Italy argued for national unification and the dismissal of foreign rulers. These people believed they were unified together by shared language, customs, and history. Nationalists also thought that each nation had natural boundaries and the same culture. After Napoleon, Germany and Italy realized they were stronger if they were unified as one nation, instead of small, independent regions.

The other two ideologies that were present are Conservatism and Liberalism. Conservatism was the ideology that believed tradition is the only guide to social and political action. Conservatists thought that tradition, "old fashion" ways were the best solution to social and political problems. Conservatists were in favor of a monarchy, an aristocracy, and the Church. Most of these people were high nobles who would put themselves back on top. After Napoleon was gone all the past leaders of nations wanted their thrones back. They believed that the ways before Napoleon were the best and they believed those ways should be reinstalled.

Liberalism is the belief that there are god given right and law of men. It was the ideology that believes its the governments job to promote individual liberty. Liberals were supporters of reform and innovation, and wanted a constitutional monarchy. They wanted to abolish aristocracy and take away the traditional right of the church and install a meritocracy. The major supporters of Liberalism were the middle class, who wanted to play an active role in their government. Nations that were taken over by Napoleon felt themselves have more power. They were given the ability to play a more active role in their local government. When Napoleon was gone and the monarchs were back, they wanted to keep their new found power. These middle class people had new ideas in their minds and these ideas would soon take form of revolutions.
 

Differences between the North and the South

The colonists in both the 13 British colonies and the Latin American colonies as some point or another revolted against their mother country. Some of these revolutions played out better than others, for example some went to war, others paid a debt, and one didn't have to do anything. While many things between these colonies were similar they each had  different situations which would be vital for the future of their nation. The Northern British colonies were better prepared for independence than their Latin American neighbors for many reasons. One was that the 13 colonies never had to deal with the issue of slavery. While in Latin America slavery was a major topic of discussion on both sides of the Atlantic. Another major reason they were better prepared was that the 13 colonies were used to self governing. While the Haitian were always governed by people sent from France by the crown.

In Saint Domingue the enslaved population outnumbered the free non-whites and the white population by a significant amount. Then enslaved population in Saint Domingue was the majority and for that reason they were a big factor in the Haitian Revolution. In 1791 there was a slave revolt, in which they gained their freedom and were lead by . The French government had made sense of this revolt and had realized that it was only about time that they slaves would revolt. The slave revolt was a success and they had gained their freedom, which caused further problems in Saint Domingue and ultimately lead to further complications and issues. As oppose to, the British colonies majority of the population were white and free. So they never had to discuss slavery at all because the slavery population was much lower.

The French colony had even more problems as they were on the verge of independence. Saint Domingue was always controlled and ruled by people sent from the French crown. The colonist and the newly freed blacks didn't have any experience in governing and ruling. They did not have a system of government in place when they were becoming independent or even when they became independent. So this situation and lack of experience lead to even further complication. Whereas, the British colonies had colonial assembly and were more experienced in governing, not to mention they were in more direct contact with the British king. The colonist played a governing role and had a system of government in place before they even became independent.

Overall, the British colonies in the north were better prepared and experienced for their independence. They were more united and had one common goal, while Haiti had many different cultures and people with different ideas. The British colonies were more independent even before they became independent. Compared to Haiti which was more dependent on the French crown for governing. There are many more reason why the British colonies were better prepared than the Latin American colonies, but these are two important ones. These situation and decisions affected the future of both nation for hundreds of years.    

The Republic of Haiti

The Haitian people were once citizens of the French colony, Saint Domingue. After many conflicts and revolts the Haitian people had enough of the French aristocracy and declared their independence. But the colony that was once France's most vital economic settlement was not going to become free that easily. Napoleon Bonaparte and his American allies came down upon the Haitian people, after one failed attempt to recapture Saint Domingue, he made them a proposition that will leave a mark on Haiti for years to come.

Napoleon forced the new Haitian people to pay him 100 million francs for official recognition. But to make matters worse for this young nation is that they had to borrow the money from a single French bank. This enabled the bank to charge extravagant interest rates; making Haiti unable to pay off it's debt for almost a century. This debt put a severe damper on Haiti's economy, and to add on to their failing economy they were suffering from post-independence isolation from rest of the world. Different countries may have isolated themselves from Haiti for various reasons, but there was one major common reason. The Haitian leader Toussaint L'Ouverture was a well respected man black man among the Haitian people. He helped in the success of the slave revolt that took place in Haiti, which made many other nations scared. L'Ouverture abolished slavery within Haiti which made their economy suffer even more on top of everything else. 

Outside of the French and Haitian relationship laid America, the first nation to be born in the new world. Although America had gone through similar circumstances with the British during their revolution, they did not support Haiti. In fact, America did not recognize Haiti as an independent nation until six decades later when it was in midst of the American Civil War. During the time when Haiti became independent Thomas Jefferson was Vice President of the United States and later became President. He tried to block off trade with Haiti, joined forces with France to conquer Haiti, and kept the American people as far as possible from Haiti. Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers of American, and a major player in the American Revolution was trying to stop a revolution. He was scared that the ideas and ideals in Haiti will spread to the American South. Thomas Jefferson didn't want black slaves in America to revolt as they did in Haiti. He didn't want them to be inspired by Toussaint L'Ouverture as a black leader of his own nation.

Haiti suffered from all aspects and all corners of the globe when they became independent. They themselves hurt their economy in a extravagant manner by abolishing slavery. They suffered even more as they owed France 100 million france; and could only take a loan from one French bank. The Haitians were isolated from the world without any allies to help them in their state of despair. America tried everything possible to hold Haiti down because they were scared of what it would do in their own nation. From the very start of Haiti's independence they suffered a great deal which had an impact that lasted years after. As they were a suffering nation to begin with, in 2010 they felt the impact of a devastating earthquake that destroyed a large portion of their country. A tragedy that would cost them 14 billion dollars to rebuild, after rebuilding for the last 200 years Haiti will once again have to suffer.  
      

Napoleon Bonaparte's Everlasting Impact

http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Gifs/napoleon.gif

Napoleon was viewed in many different ways; some saw him as a hero and other saw him as a tyrant. Nevertheless Napoleon Bonaparte was a conqueror of many lands. Under his rule he influenced the lives of many; some for the better and some for the worse. Napoleon impacted the social, economic, and political systems of many European countries. He abolished serfdom in the countries he took over. He created new trade agreements with different countries, improving the economy for every country under his command. Lastly, even though he was a dictator he gave the people more power and say in their local government. He made the day to day lives of his people better in a way they never imagined. The new lives Napoleon created for his people will have an everlasting effect on their countries.

Not everyone was a fan of Napoleon, such as Madame de Stael, the daughter of one of King Louis XVI's advisers. She viewed Napoleon as a tyrant who is war crazed and has no appreciation for elegance and intellectual riches. de Stael grew up as nobility which was not treated as well under Napoleon's rule as they were under King Louis's. For that reason is against Napoleon and everything he stands for. On the other hand the soldiers that serve him, as in the case of Marshal Michel Ney were great supporters of Napoleon. Ney viewed Napoleon as a brave and courageous leader who is the rightful emperor of France. He calls Napoleon the "immortal legion" and "august emperor". This shows that the people who knew him respected him and the nobility hated him. Napoleon did many things to help the lower class, which in turn gave him the largest army of his time. All his soldiers were volunteer, he never had a draft for his wars. His people rallied behind him in support for his conquests.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/
Europe_1812_map_en.png

Under Napoleon's great reign the people of Italy, Austria, Belgium, Venice, Egypt, Holland, Prussia, Russia, Spain, and for a little while Portugal were able to experience power and prosperity they never felt before. Once Napoleon gave these people better lives they didn't want to go back to the way things were before. As a result when Napoleon fell and the old government and nobles came back to reclaim what they had lost, the people naturally resisted. They didn't want their old government and system back, which led to the many revolution that occurred in Europe. Because they wanted what Napoleon gave them they resisted going backwards. Napoleon impacted every aspect of their lives he made them richer, he gave them more of a voice, and most of all he minimized class distinction. With serfdom abolished and nobles with less power, Napoleon created a society where the majority of people prospered and benefited. This effect lead them to having revolution in the near future after the fall of Napoleon.

         

 

Mary Paul Letters

http://www.uml.edu/tsongas/bringing-history-home/page_01/images/L-67-f.jpg

At first Mary Paul is excited and eager to go to the mills. She sends a letter to her father asking permission to go to the mills, she is supported by her aunt and her friend who is also going to the mills. Mary wants to make money, buy her own clothes and live on her own. She feels the same way most teenagers even now feel, she want to get out of the house and live around girls her age. Her father gives her permission to go, and after a few months her next letter is full of frustration and sadness. It seems like she misses everyone from back home, she tells her father to write back; right when he reads the letter. She also tells him to come visit and have other people write to her and visit. She is quite frustrated with the fact that she has barely saved any money. She complains about how the ride to the mills was more expensive than she thought it would be. Mary is also frustrated will all her other expenses upon her arrival. Her third letter has a positive tone but negative content. It begins by saying all the bad thing that have happened to the people around her; trying to demonstrate the dangers in Lowell. It mentions people breaking their ribs and dieing. Then it describes her daily life and schedule which she expresses with positivity. Mary talks about how she is pretty good at work and how much money she has made and the things she has bought. She states that the mills are the best place for her, and she recommended it to other girls. As the letters go on and on, her attitude and tone towards the mills becomes more negative. In the last letter she expresses a miserable tone, she was sick and can barely work; and believes that she won't get paid very well for the last few days even though he has worked very hard.

http://www.uml.edu/tsongas/bringing-history-home/endings/images/L-123-f.jpg

I think that the Lowell Experiment was a success and a failure; it was meant for young girls to work for a few years as a temporary job. Then quit to go back home to get married and start a family. The way Mary
y feels in the beginning is the way most girls probably felt. The mills was only a good place for a short amount of time, and the longer you stay the worse it gets. So i believe that it is a success as long as the girls follow the "experiment". In Mary's case I believe that she stayed there for too many years and she become more and more sick of it and it got to the point where she became miserable. The Lowell Experiment was partly a success and partly a failure, it gave young girls an opportunity to make money and live on their own in fairly good condition. But it had a limit to it and didn't give any room for improvement or advancement. Working at the mills after a certain amount of time becomes unproductive, but as we saw in Mary's case it was productive in the beginning. She made her own money, made many new friends, and was put in a good and kind environment. Until she got sick and had to go home for 6 months before returning back to the mill. This is where I believe it the experiment becomes a failure, she came back and got a worse position and made less money. Her position was taken up by some other girl and Mary could not do what she did before. This is the turning point in the "Lowell Experiment".     

Where do the opportunities lay?

Where do you want to be during the industrial revolution if you were a mere peasant? Where do you want to be if you were a wealthy industrialist? After all the documents and videos we have observed in class, it has become clear that if you are an industrialist, you would want to be in Great Britain. Whereas, if you are a worker you would want to be in the United States.

http://alafoto.com/shepps/images/fig013.png

Great Britain has more workers, and less opportunities; meaning that everyone would want to work for you and whoever had a problem can be easily replaced. Less opportunities for people force them to work for you; and take whatever pay and conditions you offer them. If you were a factory owner then you could make bigger profits in Great Britain because you can pay your workers a low wage, and they would have no choice but to take it. Whereas in the United States there is plenty of land and less workers; so you would have to treat the workers better and pay them better because they could easily leave, and do something else. In Great Britain, as an industrialist you have many raw materials at your disposal because of all the British colonies. This allowed for you to produce and invest in different goods. Also it allowed for more inventions to be built in Britain. Also in Britain they had invented steam powered ships that would make transportation of goods internationally faster and easier. On top of that they had made roads that last longer and railroads so transportation of goods nationally also become faster and easier. Industrialists in Britain were more likely to succeed than in the United States; the industrialist had more advantages in Britain that made it a better place to make money.

http://www.uml.edu/tsongas/bringing-history-home/page_02/images/L-18-f.jpg

In the United States there was endless opportunity; the land was open as far as the eye could see. This enabled workers in the US to have a more positive experience. Factory owners had to pay them well, and treat them well, because if the workers had other opportunities. A factory job wasn't a workers only option; which made the factories pay them better than factories in GB. When we compare the schedules between mill workers in GB and the US we can clearly see that the workers in the US had more breaks, more sleep, and more pay. The US was not fantastic but compared to GB it was considerably better. If you compare Emily Nutter's schedule at the Mill in Lowell and William Coopers schedule at the Mill in GB, it is clear that Emily's life is easier. She has time to eat breakfast, dinner, and supper, and have free time to do whatever she wants. On the other hand William Cooper only has a 40 minute break for lunch for the whole day. He has to eat breakfast on the run and eat dinner on the run. He had to work till 9 p.m for a total of 16 hours; whereas Emily worked till 7 p.m, for a total of 12 hours. In the US only one member of the family had to go, unlike GB where the whole family had to move to the city to work. The girls lived in boarding houses which taught them independence but also they were with other girls their age. These boarding houses were compared to academies where they kept the girls disciplined and moral. Overall the workers had more advantages in the US than in GB, they lived better lives and had more opportunities.                

Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations (Excerpts). Modified from the Modern History Internet Sourcebook. 1776.  Fordham University. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/adamsmith-summary.asp. 

Adam Smith was a brilliant man that came up with ideal that we follow to this day. Smith's journey began when he attended the University of Glasgow. At Glasgow he distinguished himself as a inquisitive scholar, in turn he won a scholarship to Oxford University one of the worlds most prestigious school. He studied at Oxford for 6 years, from 1740 to 1746. Once he left Oxford he began giving public lectures that made him somewhat famous, which led to him being appointed as professor of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow. It is clear that Adam Smith was not only a well educated man, but an exceptional scholar and philosopher from an early age. He was quickly recognized for his brilliance through his lectures and his first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiment. Adam Smith is known as the father of Capitalism, after he published The Wealth of Nations. He believed in many things that were already in place, and introduced many new original ideas that were never though of before. Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations, in order to give full explanations of his ideas. His book discusses many of the essential parts of capitalism today.

Smith begins with talking about his idea of division of labor. He says that it is more efficient if the production of one item is broken down into different branches, where one person specializes in one branch of production. He uses an example with the production of pins, stating that alone you might be able to make one pin a day, but with 8 other people each who specialize in one part of production, you can make hundreds of pins in one day. Smith demonstrates and explains each part of his division of labor idea in this excerpt. In the second part, he discusses the principle that gives occasion to the division of labor. He states that people do things in their own self interest, and that working together (division of labor) is in peoples best interests. He demonstrates this through saying " it is not through the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Meaning that each person who takes part in the production of your "dinner" (product), is acting in their own self interest which in turn is helping everyone else. Adam Smith uses examples that show progression and positive impacts on all parties involved in the example.            


*I would have indented every line except the first line on the annotation and citation.
   

The Luddites were a group of people located in and around London, England who believed that technology was being misused. This group protested in many memorable way, once they dressed up as women, in order to gain attention. Luddites were particularly violent, although they never really killed people, but they would break into factories and destroy machineries. The group wanted higher wages, better working conditions, and most of all equality. People part of the Luddites were living in filthy conditions, full of pollution and poverty. Throughout England the Luddites were a very controversial topic. The upperclass and artisans were in favor of the Luddites, while factory managers and business owners opposed them. Upper Class people came from money and had government jobs, so they didn't lose anything or gain anything. But the artisans made money by working at home and providing a service, which is now done in factories. These people lost their jobs and livelihood. The factory managers made more money than ever before, and business owners bought factory made goods at a lower price than ever before. This letter to the Luddites from a weaver will give a clearer view of one of these perspectives (Note this is a mock primary source).

To, The Luddite Commision
       I am a long time, skilled weaver outside of London. These factories within the city has affected my business considerably. I would join them but their wages are not high enough for me to even provide for myself, much less my family. I plead to you in this letter, to force these factories into paying a higher, decent wage. A year or two ago I was prosperous and could provide for my family graciously. Now I am struggling just to put food on the table every night. I've been a weaver for many years and I am skilled with my hands, but that not longer matters to the world. You are my last and only hope to end the suffering of my family and I. My sons want to go off and work in the factories to help, but the way they treat the children there is inhumane. The conditions in the factory is terrible, if starvation doesn't kill my children or I, those factories will. I am willing to help in anyway possible if that is what it takes. I have read in the paper of your most recent activities and would like to be a part of this movement. My family and I celebrate your victories in London, and the Luddites are what give us hope for a better future.

From, Weaver John       

Industrial Revolution Museum

Living Conditions in England During the Industrial Revolution

When we were given our 5 sources we carefully examined each one together. Then we handed one source out to each person in our group to become experts on each one. Once we individually became experts on our sources we shared with our group, to get a fuller understanding of all the sources. This process is important because we need to figure out what the major idea of our sources are. In order to do that we must know how all the information we are given work together. In this case we learned a lot about the living conditions during this time period. We noticed that all our sources had to do with the living conditions in England. We noticed that the sources were showing that the conditions were bad and declining. Once we figured this information out, we discussed how to organize our exhibit. We decided to put our title in big letters and in the middle, because all the sources are based around our title. Then we used a back ground to color code our sources, to categorize them. Our picture sources have a dark blue background, our chart and map have a light blue background, and the two writing articles have a black background. Each member of our group wrote summaries about our sources so we can get an even better understanding, and our viewers can easily extract important information from our exhibit. Both our pictures are of Manchester, one shows many people on the street and the other shows smokestacks and lots of pollution. The map of England shows when and where inventions were made in england, and the population of each city. The chart shows the living cost and earning during the time period. We see that the living cost goes up faster than the earnings. One of the writing passages shows us two different perspectives of the Industrial Revolution. And the other writing passage is a letter that describes the living conditions in a part of England. It describes the disgusting state the water in the river was, and the smell of the air. When people look at our exhibit they will learn about the life in England during the Industrial Revolution. They should easily realize how bad the condition was and how much pollution was in the air and water. People should learn what inventions where made during this time and how that effected the economy and peoples lives in England. That is why we titles our exhibit The Living Conditions in England During the Industrial Revolution.

Work Destroys Children's Lives

         
This whole exhibit was based around child labor during the Industrial Revolution. It shows us the dangerous jobs they were required to do, and the terrible conditions they were required to work and live in. Children in this time period were doing work that could kill them in the long run.

Cotton Creating Connections

One of the inventions during the Industrial Revolution effected the Cotton industry immensely. Cotton demands were booming and this exhibit shows the effect it had on slavery. From this graph and the rest of the exhibit it becomes clear that the industrial revolution had a increased the rate of slavery tremendously.

Change is Looming

   The invention of the mechanic loom changed many peoples lives all around England. This exhibit shows that this invention took away many jobs away from people's home and brought them to the city. It shows that people made less money then before and that the population of London rapidly increased.

All aboard the steam engine rail road and canals

 This exhibit was all about the steam engine and it really showed us how important it was to the Industrial Revolution. The steam engine was used in so many different things but some of the big things it was used for was trains and boats. This made transportation much faster making the world a little smaller.  







    

Engles, Friedrich. The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co, 1892,  pp. 45, 48-53.

                                   

Friedrich Engles wrote many books and traveled around Europe very much. He worked with well know people in history throughout his life, like Karl Marx. Engles wrote this book on his firsthand accounts while living in England. He took notes in great detail and traveled to different parts of England to see what life was like. Engles wrote this book to show the world how the working conditions in England were at that time. We can believe his detail because he saw them in person, and he is supposedly atheist so religion would not play a role in his writings. Not to mention he would send his work periodically to Karl Marx to be published in newspapers. Then after writing many articles over time he collected them all and made them into one book. So he was writing it all down as he was seeing it all happen. But he was known to be quite radical and even had a relation with a radical women named Mary. Even with a long standing relationship they did not marry because of their views, he believed marriage was class oppression. These passages from the book give a very detailed and dark depiction of what life was like for the working class in England. The passages are particularly based on the life and condition of the people in the Old Town Manchester. He strongly believes that these are the worst living condition on earth calling it the “Hell upon Earth”. It was written in 1842-1844 near the end of the industrial revolution in England. The limits of this are that it is only one man’s opinion and he is a bit radical so these details could have been exaggerated. Also it only gives of the point of view of one place in England of the working class. It could have been the worst place in England, and the rest of the working class district might have been better. The author claims that the way the working class in England was treated was unfair, and that they tried to basically hide the working class houses. He says in the beginning of the passage that you would not encounter any of the working class if you went out for a walk and didn't stray from your path. He is trying to convince the readers that the working class in England was poor and lived in unimaginable conditions. He uses strong words to get his point across and is very descriptive. Engles paints a picture in your mind of the most horrid images.

*I would have indented every line except the first line on the annotation and citation.

The Advice: United Nations Advisory Council

   At the moment Syria is unstable and in the midst of a civil war. It all started a little over two years ago when a group of high school students wrote anti-government words on the walls at school. Ever since then the protests have gotten more and more violent, which has now turned into an all out civil war. A few days ago the current Syrian regime al-Assad used chemical weapons on a civilian suburb outside of Damascus. This has gotten the international community in an uproar, and contemplating on whether or not to intervene. Some but not all participants at the United Nations Advisory Council seemed to have a good grasp about the  ongoing situation. The members were split almost 50/50 between getting involved or not getting involved.

    The first resolution that they discussed was intervening with UN Peacekeeping troops with the goal of putting a stop to the current civil war and holding democratic elections. Some of the cons that were mentioned was that Russia and Iran are allied with the al-Assad regime and will attack Israel if something was to happen. Most of the comments made on this topic was aligned with that statement. The issue I must raise with their discussion is that Russia is a superpower, meaning they have the ability to veto a UN resolution. So UN Peacekeepers would never be able to be deployed and go to Syria unless Russia had approved of it. If Russia for some reason did approve of this action then there wouldn't be a problem with Israel. But Russia is allied with Syria so it will most likely veto all resolutions put forth by the United Nations. The veto will prevent the intervention of UN Peacekeepers in Syria, so this event would take place. Since no participant brought this point up it makes me question their preparation on the UN discussion.

  Another resolution discussed amongst the group was, threaten the current regime with a drone strike and if they do not allow a UN Inspectors into Syria to inspect all weapons stores and seize and destroy chemical weapons. A pro of this resolution that was agreed upon by everyone is that it will be a lot safer than sending in troops and that overall it is a good idea. But the issue still stand that Russia and Iran are supporting Syria and that stops the UN from sanctioning this, meaning the US would have to do it by themselves. If the US acts alone then Russia might attack Israel because they are a close ally to the US in the Middle East.

  The next resolution discussed, is the use of economic sanctions against Syria for the regime's use of chemical weapons, and provide humanitarian aid and UN volunteer to the countries receiving refugees from Syria and establish no-conflict zones inside Syria. The participates agreed upon the fact that "no-conflict zones" would be great for everyone but no one knows if the zones will be respected by the government. Al-Assad's regime might attack the zones anyways, we know that its a possibility because they used chemical weapons on civilians. So what is there to stop them from attacking and killing people in the no-conflict zones. Also if there are economic sanctions against Syria then the government might lash out more against their citizens and begin to raid houses and take what they want. Not to mention economic sanctions not only effect the Syrian government but also it people and economy. The participants came to that conclusion and it was clear this is not a viable option.

The last resolution discussed was issuing a diplomatic statement condemning the use of chemical weapons and stating that the UN will take no action against individual countries who take military or diplomatic action against Syria. The grouped discusses the results of military involvement, which included that there will be more violence and more people with die. They also stated that Vladimir Putin is open to military involvement but is not confident in Obama after the events that occurred in Libya. I am surprised to see that against no one brought up the point that Russia would never allow this statement to pass because they are allied with Syria. Of course if Russia does decide to pass then that would mean Putin has come to the conclusion that foreign involvement is necessary. If that was the case, then instead of passing a statement that allowed other countries to act alone with out repercussions, it would make more sense to pass a resolution involving the UN. One of the participant said that if one country gets involved then it alone will have to face the challenges that come along with it and the burden falls upon them. Plus, it will take more time to end the civil war. So it would make more sense to pass a resolution for the United Nations to get involved together and end the civil war faster.

Overall I think the discussion went well, but people did miss some facts that I would have liked to seen be brought up. When they discussed they focused on one issue at a time, where as for this kind of international issue one thing leads to another, so they had to think a few step ahead. But I believe that by the end they all had a new and more detailed view and opinion on what is taking place in Syria.          
 

 

             

Practice Post

The purpose of this blog is to do assignments for my Honors History class. This is a practice post to ensure that my teacher and others can read and view my assignments. I am excited for this new school year and for this course. I hope that I can succeed and do well in this class. I have only done one DBQ (Document Based Questions) before, and I have heard that we will do many more this year. Hopefully class will be exciting and interesting this year as it was last year.