Congress of Vienna Fixing Europe?

          After Napoleon was defeated for the second time the leaders of Europe gathered at the city of Vienna and discussed about what to do to fix the Europe that remained. In class we watched a video about Metternich, the emperor of Austria, try to discuss an agreement with Napoleon, who just wanted peace, for him to stop his conquest. Napoleon declined and then he was eventually defeated. We then talked about and took notes about three major problems. All problems had to do with one major one, what should people do when their power is threatened?

Congress of Vienna
http://www.emersonkent.com/historic_documents/congress_of_vienna_1815.htm

          One problem they had to solve was, what changes should be made to the European map. They decided to give some more land to Russia, Prussia other great powers and they put two new countries that had a solid government and leader bordering France. With these expansions they also created a Balance of Power in Europe. This gave Russia, Austria, Prussia, and France the most power in Europe. They gave France the power because the emperors of the other three empires thought Napoleon was the real threat not France as a whole. France did have to return all of the stolen artwork they had and they had to pay for the repairs caused by Napoleon across Europe. This was one of the solutions that the congress came to, to try and fix Europe.

Map of the new Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Vienna

            I think this solution that they used would only be good as a temporary solution. Its a good temporary solution because it gave the strongest empires of that time control while Europe is fixed and the two countries that made sure France didn't try to conquer Europe again was a good idea. However, it's not a permanent solution. The main reason is because the territory that all the major empires gained are not necessarily a good thing. For example Poland was a country by itself, but because of the congress they had to obey the Russian leader. Also the map did not allow the unification of Italy or Germany,  both wanted national unification and no more foreign rulers. For those reasons I do not think this was the best possible solution.

Napoleon: the Most Controversial Leader Ever

          In class we started a new unit on revolutions that were happening around the world beginning in the mid 1800's. The first  revolutionary leader we're talking about is Napoleon Bonaparte.We reviewed his life and all significant events he was involved with. We also looked at two perspectives of how the people of France saw Napoleon. Finally, we looked at a couple of ways he changed France and ways he changed the world. At the end of the day we were asked, did Napoleon have positive  or negative affects on the economic, social, and political systems in Europe?

Napoleon Bonaparte
http://www.medindia.net/news/britain-appeals-to-keep-napoleon-bonapartes-death-mask-127759-1.htm

          I believe Napoleon had both positive and negative affects on the social, economic, and political systems in Europe. First, I think Napoleon had a positive impact on the social system in Europe. One thing he did was he allowed more opportunities for everyone to buy property and everyone had a right to education. Another thing he did was he established meritocracy in France. This made it so people were rewarded based off of their skills and not their social class. This allowed everyone to be successful. Another thing he had a positive impact on was his new political systems. Again it was meritocracy that was a revolutionary idea. The base of meritocracy which was being rewarded based off skill not class improved the political system in France. This allowed qualified people to help the government instead of having people who are only there because they were born into such a high class. One of Napoleon's closer marshals, Marshal Michel Ney, said that Napoleon allowed a government that did not suppress people's rights. Finally, Napoleon had a positive and negative impact on the economic systems. He had a positive impact on the economic system because he controlled pricing and encouraged new industry. Also he built new canals and roads which made trading easier. He was a negative impact on other countries in Europe because after conquering places, Napoleon would steal artwork from countries which would hurt that countries economy. Overall, Napoleon helped out with all systems pretty well.

          In my opinion Napoleon had a positive impact on Europe and the world. Although he did take over most of Europe and was not liked by many, he created ideas that would change how people around the world looked at things.  I think his best idea was meritocracy. Just the number of doors it opened for the lower class people and the way it changed the economy and government of France. It also created a base for other countries to create a new government on and slowly the world started to forget about monarchies.

Another source used for this lesson is below:
http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/biographies/c_historians.html

Karl Marx and Adam Smith with world changing theories

          In class our teacher did an activity to teach us about the new types of economy.  being introduced after the industrial revolution. She gave out hershey kisses, most of the students got three hershey kisses (representing the majority poor people living back then), but two or three students got ten (the minority wealthy owners). Then, we were told to play rock paper scissor and if you lost you had to give one hershey kiss to the person who beat you. If you ran out of hershey kisses you couldn't get any back and you had to sit down. I thought the game was fun because I won a lot and ended with more hershey kisses than I started with. However, for the people who lost all their candy especially if they are one of the people who started with ten I could see that being very frustrating. At the end our teacher took everyone's hershey kisses and distributed them evenly. This gave us an idea of what happened during tat time of transition and it was led by two mens' theories.

Karl Marx
http://spartacus-educational.com/TUmarx.htm

          Karl Marx and Adam Smith both had theories that were revolutionary in the creation of new economies. Marx had a theory that since the number of poor vastly outnumbered the population of the wealthy, the poor would revolt against the wealthy because of unfair prices and and struggles of social classes. Resulting in stealing and other things along those lines. That would result in a economy where the money was disrupted evenly among everyone and they all started out with the same money (Socialism). That would change into communism where violence was very common and they were no social classes. On the other hand, Adam Smith was a strong believer in a true capitalist economy. His theory was called "The Invisible Hand", which gave companies the freedom to compete against each other. This mean companies would lower prices so customers would go to their companies instead of their rivals. This did not allow companies to cheat customers because if they had extreme prices their rivals would just have lower ones and no one would go to that company. The invisible hand also allowed the poor to trade and sell items freely making it possible to get out of poverty. Both theories were good, but still a lot of people need up poor in their ideas.

          For me I think the best theory was Smith's. I think there was a better chance of no certain company becoming too wealthy. Also I think it gives the poor a better chance of getting out of poverty compared to Marx's theory. However, i don't believe this is the best possible type of economy. I think the best economy would be one with the invisible hand incorporated with a way that the government could help with the poor. Maybe the poor could get a loan from the government; that way both the poor and the government could profit. But it could also not work because the loan could be wasted by the person and would then ask for another loan. A way to fix this was if people were limited to a certain number of loans, that way if someone was still poor it would be hard to blame others because he would have been given multiple chances to get out of poverty. Today we are still looking for the right economy and it may take us awhile to find it.

Adam Smith
http://www.herodote.net/Adam_Smith_1723_1790_-synthese-250.php

Lowell Mills in the 1800's a Hot Spot for Young Girls to Work

          During the 1800's cotton mils were being built everywhere and young girls would come in and work for years and leave with permanent physical and mental injuries. In England it was easy for factory owners to get girls to come work for them because there was a population growth in England and there was not enough space in the country for families to live or enough jobs that were open for young people to work. The factories offered both, they had places for the girls to live and get food and they would get paid for their services at the mills. In the United States it was a different situation. There was population growth  happening too, but there was enough land in the west to move into so families weren't very worried about not having enough space. Also people in America heard about the poor conditions at the factories in England and did not wan to send their girls to work in such awful places. So the the factory owners decided to do an experiment, the Lowell experiment. They made better conditions factories and boarding houses. They had increased wages and offered education and church on Sunday for the girls. Most importantly they created family atmosphere for the girls which enticed the fathers of the girls to let them work. The overseers acted as fathers who would protect the girls and the boarding house keeper acted as the mom who prepared meals for the girls and made sure the girls stayed out of trouble when not working. There were multiple things that the girls liked about working in Lowell. One was getting their own money, just like teenage girls today they like to buy things. Getting a job allowed the girls to buy things of their own like dresses. Also many girls would send some or most of their money to their families so they could pay for their land. A lot of girls left their families intrigued and excited about working in Lowell, but after a couple of weeks they realized that everything was not what they hoped for.

Below is a website with a video that follows a girls as she leaves her family and works in Lowell and her life experiences.

http://ashp.cuny.edu/ashp-documentaries/daughters-of-free-men/