Temperance Laws In Maine and the New York Reaction

Temperance -- The Maine Law." The New York Times (October 3, 1851). The New York Times Online. http://article.archive.nytimes.com/1851/10/03/74852967.pdf? AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJBTN455PTTBQQNRQ&Expires=1387322248&Signature=GYIfXvv4mUHC6wWv17R%2FYjwh%2F5E%3D (December 17, 2013).

The New York Times, the third largest paper in the United States, is a daily American paper. It has built up a pristine reputation over the 162 years that it has been in circulation, earning 112 Pulitzer Prizes. Its website hosts 30 million visitors every month. The New York Times is known for its more liberal outlook on world events. The paper has had few incidents involving plaugiarism. Its sources and writers are some of the more dependable and trustworthy in the country.

This article was written in 1851 when Maine passed their temperance law. There were no stores or bars selling hard liquor. America had become a "nation of drunkards." Men walked around on streets during daylight intoxicated and unable to properly do their jobs. They got paid and went out to drink. When they came home, they would beat their wife and children. The temperance movement began in response to the lack of morals and self-control seen in the era. The goal was not to eliminate alcohol entirely, but rather to limit the amount and time of day alcohol was consumed. The movement was biggest in Maine, where alcohol was almost completely outlawed. This was a huge turning point for the spread of Temperance ideas. The article shares the events of Maine; it also tells about the spreading popularity of Temperance in New York. Meetings in Brooklyn have been held discussing Temperance and the possibility of completely ending the trafficking of hard liquors. The author goes even further than New York. He discusses how other towns all throughout the country have been having similar meetings. While the article shows a broad view of all the Temperance situations in America, there are no quotes or opinions from people living in Maine or citizens who are deciding with their towns whether or not to follow in Maine's footsteps. So, we can't be sure what the people in Maine really think about the Temperance law. Do they think it help them? Does it hurt them in anyway, such as their economy? Also, there is no way of knowing what the opinions of the general public are and if they differ along with separate social classes.

The author seems to approve of the government trying to change the immorality and public drunkenness in America. He makes remarks on how seeing temperate men and nothing else on the streets of Maine is quite the spectacle. The author is surprised at the success of the law in Maine. However, he has a problem with the laws limiting alcohol distribution and consumption. It is the author's belief that the lack of alcohol in circulation with negatively impact the economy. It was consumed in such great amounts that it became a huge, and depended-on part of the economy. He claims that it will "cut" down the economy. Another worry of the author is the potential for any laws against alcohol will raise crime rates. Legally sold alcohol will be short and illegally sold alcoholwill rise. Fighting and stealing will break out over alcohol and money. While the author thinks that the idea to limit alcohol is valid, outlawing it completely will do nothing but bring more problems on the people and the government.


**unable to properly indent bibliography due to limitations on blogger**

Andrew Jackson

President Andrew Jackson was both one of America's most and least popular presidents. Many of his actions raised questions and presented a certain level of controversy. One of the most talked about events during his presidency was "The Bank War." Jackson vetoed the Bank of America while he was in office. It was his belief that the bank had far too much power, especially when the people controlling it were not elected by the American people. He thought that there were too few people controlling a branch with such power. Five  of the twenty-five bank directors were chosen by the governemnt; the rest were chosen by the bank's stockholders. The problem with this was, all the stockholders were either wealthy American citizens or from foreign countries. This was not representative of the American people and in no way represented the democratic governemnt Jackson was working towards. The wealthy stockholders would simply elect directors that would most benefit them, not the rest of the population.
While some agreed with Jackson's actions and reasoning, some thought his actions were undemocratic. The use of the veto comes off as undemcratic because the president is using powers that only he has. The over rules decisons that congress or the people have come to, just like a monarch might. Not only this, but, Jackson's actions divide the American people and cause resentment between the two extreme social classes. Following through with his actions and knowingly causing a divide between people within the country can also be considered undemocratic.
The question remains open, were Jackson's actions in "The Bank War" heroic and democratic? Or were they selfish and wrong?

The artist of the cartoon clearly thought that Andrew Jackson was doing the right thing. Jackson was a known war hero and in the cartoon, he is depicted as a general. He fights of serpent with the heads of the twenty-five bank directors. He is clearly being shown as a great hero. The bank is seen as a slithery, sneaky and corrupt serpent.

I don't believe that Andrew Jackson is the democratic ideal. However, I don't think that he  is the worst thing that ever happened to America either. I agree with his treatment of the Bank. It was too one-sided and corrupt. There were some instances such as the Trail of Tears and his treatment of the Natives that I did not agree with though. I didn't agree with his "Spoils System" either. I do believe, though that he deserves the "people's president" repuatation. Most of his actions were for the American people. "The Bank War" was definitely for the majority of his country. Even though kicking the natives out was morally wrong, he did it for his country and his people. The spoil system was the one outliar where he utilized his power in an inappropriate way. Even this, had its upsides. Despite the corruption that it had the potential to cause, the idea of changing people in different positions every now and then was new and had its upsides. Despite the fact that some of Andrew Jackson's actions were morally wrong, he, in my opinion, remains one of the most modern, cuttng-edge and democratic presidents, definitely the "people's president."

19th Century American Democracy

Nineteenth century America had a modern, cutting-edge government. They were one of the most democratic countries during the time. But, how democratic was America really? Some people suggest that America wasn't all that democratic. However, despite flaws in their government, America was on the fast track to true democracy.

In the beginning, America's voting system had multiple flaws. In a painting called County Election, it was pointed out that people had to say their vote out loud and had no way of knowing if the scribe was recording their vote correctly. The scribe could easily rig the results to his liking. Also, voting was not taken very seriously. There were people serving alcohol and neighbors took this as a time to catch up and fool around rather than vote seriously. The majority of those voting weren't educated enough to make a good choice with their vote. These weren't the only major flaws in the voting system of America. For a long time, in order to vote, one had to own a certain amount of property, pay taxes, or both. This and the fact that African Americans weren't allowed to vote left out a large portion of the population. The imbalance in the economic status of voters would have left for a bias in   the results of the vote. This is not a true democracy. However, America was certainly on the right track.

As the middle of the 19th century neared, more and more states allowed voting. As this number increased, the number of states with property or tax requirements lessened. This allowed for different economic classes and social classes to vote. The democracy was opened to a larger portion of the population. Also, through time, the number of states whose Presidential votes were cast by the people and not a legislature increased. America was certainly not a complete Democracy in the 19th century, but as time went on, America crept closer and closer to a true, more direct democracy.

Romantic Art

The best way to describe Romanticism is as a reaction to Enlightenment ideas. The Enlightenment ideas were seemingly great, but they were only applied to the upperclass. The Romantic ideas were the people's answer to the upperclass and their Enlightenment ideas. Romantics focused on ideas such as their awe of nature, emotions, the inmportance of the individual, the grotesque and horrific aspects of life and an interest in the irrational. The following painting is called The Abduction of Rebecca. Painted by Eugene Delacroix in 1846, it depicts a scene from a popular book during the time period when a woman is carried off by two slaves who had long admired her. It contains many of the aspects often seen in Romanticism.

Focus on the individual can be seen in the section outlined in yellow. These people are the aforementioned slaves and the women they are kidnapping. They are meant to be the focus of the painting. An observer's eyes are drawn first to them rather than the people in the background. The meaning of the painting was to tell the story of these few people rather than the less important characters.
Outlined in green is a horse. He's tossing his mane has a wild, aggressive appearance. This is an example of the Romantics' awe of nature. They acknowledge that creatures like this horse remain wild at heart and they can't be tamed.
The section outlined in red shows a fire. This represents the romanticism acknowledgement of the grotesque and horrific aspects of life. A cast is burning in the background. People are probably dying. If not, they're losing their home.
Finally, the orange sections shows people fleeing the burning castle. This shows the emotional aspect of Romanticism. They are probably very afraid, angry and sad, all at the same time.

Success or Failure? Revolutions of 1830 and 1848

None of the groups who revolted during 1830 and 1848 had hugely successful revolutions. France failed to extend voting rights to the large middle-class. Hungary failed to even acquire the basic rights that they wanted, let alone secede from Austria. Poland was unable to keep the freedom from Russia that they had attained. Despite these facts, none of these revolutions were complete failures like historians have concluded.

The main parties of the French Revolution 1830 were the radical republicans and liberals versus the Ultraroyalists and the government, including Charles X. The radicals and liberals both wanted to get rid of Charles X, who had outlawed freedom of speech and the only people who had any say were the landowners. Both groups wanted to extend suffrage to the middle class. Liberals wanted a more complete constitutional monarchy where the radicals wanted a complete democracy.
They were able to expel Charles X like they had wanted. However, the new ruler Louis Philippe didn't do everything he had promised. He only extended to suffrage to a small percentage of the elite population. The vast majority of the population remained without the ability to vote.
While they didn't get exactly what they wanted, the ideas of the radicals and liberals never died out. Another revolution broke out during 1848. Today France is a semi-presidential constitutional republic. The people eventually managed to get what they wanted all along. The revolutionary ideas never died out. It wasn't a complete failure like many historians suggest.

In 1830, Poland attempted to revolt against its mother country, Russia. Poland already had its own constitution. This, however, was not enough. The Poles wanted to gain full independence from Russia. This, of course, didn't fly with the Russians. Fighting broke out all over Poland.
The Poles were able to gain their independence for several months. However, Russia won the battle of Ostrolka and took Warsaw, a major Polish city. Russia regained Poland for themselves and the Polish revolution was crushed.
However,  the nationalist ideals of the Poles didn't die out. They maintained their hope that one day, the would be a free country. Today, Poland is its own country, no longer under the rule of Russia. The revolutionary ideas never died out, allowing them to eventually achieve what they wanted. For this reason, the Polish Revolution of 1830 doesn't qualify as a complete failure.

In 1848, the liberals of Hungary attempted to revolt against the conservative Austrian government. They wanted to put an end to serfdom. It was also their goal to gain their independence and establish a constitution that would protect their basic rights.
The Hungarians were able to kick Metternich out of Austria. He fled the country and never returned to power. However, they were unable to attain their independence or any reassurance of their rights from Austria. The revolution was crushed by the Austrian government.
While nothing was gained through the revolution, Metternich did flee Austria and the Hungarians never gave up on their liberal ideas. Today they are a free country due to their perseverance. Much like the French and Polish revolutions, the Hungarian revolution against Austria does not qualify as a complete failure.

France 1830
http://www.educreations.com/lesson/view/france-1830/13386629/?s=DXb6fx&ref=app

The Monroe Doctrine: Solutions and Reactions

Changes in Europe impact the US in several ways. In order to address these problems, President James Monroe wrote the Monroe Doctrine. 
The first worry of the US had to do with Russia. They were laying claims to the Oregon Territory and cutting off American trade with Asia. This could cause violence if Russia began to colonize too close to American citizens. This could also impact the American economy if the Russians continue to cut off Asian trade. In order to bring an end to this, Monroe offers to have diplomatic negotiations with Russia so they can figure the Oregon Territory situation out. The Doctrine says, “ . . . At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to 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.” 
America's second worry has to do with Latin America. The Holy Alliance gathers to discuss whether or not they will help Spain retake their liberated colonies in Latin America. If they do so, US would lose ideal trade with the countries in Latin America and, the European powers would have regained a strong foothold in the New World. Monroe states that he won't help current colonies revolt. However, Latin America deserves its freed and if Europe tries to take their freedom away, America will intervene. “We owe it, therefore, … to the…relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere."
The third and final worry of the United States comes up when Britain asks them to form an alliance against the Holy Alliance helping Spain regain its colonies in Latin America and against Russia's claim to Oregon. Monroe doesn't want to get unnecessarily caught up in European affairs or be used by Britain when they are in need or want something. Therefore, he says that no alliances will be formed between the US and any European countries. They want to maintain friendly relations with all of the countries and not get caught up in European issues. “Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, 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, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none.”

Russia was incredibly surprised and unhappy with America's reaction to the goings on in Europe. They are unhappy that America would even think to turn Russia out of the Oregon Territory. America is a new country that lacks power and authority in the world yet.
They were surprised that America would even consider being on the same side as and agreeing with Britain. They had just recently gotten out of a Revolutionary War. This also made Russia slightly concerned. The US was a new country and did not have a powerful army. However, if the Holy Alliance tried to regain the Latin American countries, Britain would be there to support the US in their intervention. Britain had one of the most powerful Navy's in the world and would be sure to cause a problem for the Holy Alliance.

The picture above represents how Russia reacted to the Monroe Doctrine. They were both unhappy and surprised with America's requests and "threats."

Congress of Vienna: Balance of Power

One of the main goals of the Congress of Vienna was to restore the balance of power to Europe. Napoleon had conquered much of the land in Europe during his rule. He left France with all of this land  and power. In order to regain the Balance of Power, the Congress of Vienna needed to redraw the map of Europe so as to appease the European and countries and to prevent any possibilities of another French conquest in the future.

In order address this problem, a new map was drawn by the Congress of Vienna. The land gained by Napoleon was given back to the countries it was taken from. The French weren't punished, Napoleon was seen as an enemy, not the French people. More land was given to Prussia. This made their ruler happy. He had come to this gathering in hopes of becoming a strong European power. The land he gained established him as one of the more powerful countries. Prussia now surrounded France, quelling any fears of France rising up again and taking over Europe again.

This was a desirable conclusion for Metternich, ruler of Austria. He gained some land through the redrawing of the map. The monarchs had their power restored, going along with his conservative values. Also, his country, Austria re-took the land that they lost to France.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_congress_of_vienna.jpg

Ideology of 19th Century Europe

There were three major political ideologies in the 19th century; each of them influenced social and political actions across the world.

First up is Nationalism, the belief that people are united by a common language, culture and history. This belief brought the people of a country together. They were united under a common goal. In the case of Europe, after Napoleon lost power, the European countries wanted to kick foreign powers out and take back their country. The following Vine shows Italy. They were united by their language when they say "siamo uniti." Afterwards, the Italians are seen chasing a foreign ruler out of Italy together and taking their country back.



Nationalism wasn't the only prominent ideology during the 19th century. The two other most common ones were liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism was based off of support for reform and innovation. In 19th century Europe, liberalists wanted to change the social system from a monarchy to a meritocracy. This way the people would have more power and say in the community and government. John Stuart Mill argued for freedom of thought and democracy. He also warned against the tyranny of a corrupt majority. A major political change made by liberalists was the rise of popularity in the constitutional monarchy. The power of the monarch was limited by a set of laws and guidelines that the people agreed upon.

Finally, the conservatives played a part in political and social changes during 19th century Europe. Conservatives liked tradition because it was safe. They were against any type of reform, political or social. Politically, they supported absolute monarchy and the church. They believed reforms led to chaos. Edmund Burke predicted the bloodshed and chaos that came from any kind of revolution or reforms. Socially, the conservatives preferred aristocracy over meritocracy.

"Why were British North American colonists better prepared for Independence than their Latin American neighbors to the South?”

During the 1800s, revolution was sweeping across the New World. The places we now know as central and south america were following in the footsteps of the United States and earning their freedom from places such as Spain, France, Portugal, Britain and the Netherlands. Despite the fact that some of these countries earned their freedom in a less violent manner than the US, none of them were quite as prepared for their freedom as the States. There are several reasons for this; the first being that there was less diversity in the British colonies. Everyone thought in a similar way and it was easier to create a stronger, more united government. Finally, the British had more experience with self-government than the Latin American colonies did before they became their own country.

Latin America has always been hugely diverse. A Casta painting of the different social classes of Latin America shows sixteen different cultures and mixtures of races. They all spoke a different language, had different religions and different values. Not only was Latin America diverse, but it was made up of a huge hierarchy. This hierarchy is seen in a pie chart of the population of  Latin America. Peninsulares were at the top of the hierarchy, making up only 0.1% of the population. They made the rules while the Creoles, Mestizos, Mullatoes, Africans and Natives sat at the bottom of the social hierarchy making up over 99% of the population.

In the United States, the population was much less diverse. A law in Virginia, 1691 tells the citizens that anyone who marries a native or african has three months to leave the colonies forever. A map of north america  shows and "Indian Reserve" to the west of the colonies' borders. Natives were pushed off their land and out of the colonies. Different cultures were not allowed to mix with the colonists, creating a less diverse population.

Each culture has its own values, ways of thinking and ideas for how a government should run and what laws should be made. If a population is diverse, there will be more cultures to complicate the running of a nation. However, the United States was not very diverse. Almost everyone looked the same and had the same values and ideas about government. Therefore, it was easier for them to create a strong, unified than it was for the diverse Latin American colonies.

Spain strictly governed its colonies. An excerpt from American Passages by Edward L. Ayers, Lewis L. Gould, David M. Oshinsky and Jean R. Soderlund explains the ruling system in the Spanish colonies. The monarch held supreme power. Then came the Council of the Indies who were located in Spain and knew little to nothing about the New World. They made the laws, regulated trade and appointed the two viceroys that lived in the colonies. Governors and audiencias acted as the law enforcers and judges in the spanish colonies. The natives and colonists had very little say in laws that were made and how they were enforced. The ruling order was displayed in a flow chart as well.

The British colonies had more say in their laws before they became a country. As shown in the US Colonial Government Graphic, the king was still the "big shot" when it came to ruling the colonies. However "A History of the United States and its People" explains how the colonists had liberty to make up some of their own laws and rules as long as they didn't conflict with the laws in England.

The people of the United States had more previous experience when it came to self-government and making laws when they became an independent country. They had a pre-established system of rule-making and local rules to build on and keep order while a permanent system of government was created. Those living in Latin America had to start from scratch in-order to create their government and law system.

Haitian Revolution: National Reception and Impact

When the former slaves of Saint Domingue won their freedom and created the independent country of Haiti, their new country was not exactly welcomed by other countries in the world. Thomas Jefferson, whose country had recently gained its own independence in a similar way, was afraid that the Haitian Revolution would start a ripple effect and cause American slaves to begin a similar uprising. He was so intent on cutting Haiti completely off from America that he tried to stop congress from trading with Haiti. Not only was America reluctant to acknowledge Haiti as an independent country, so was France. They refused to acknowledge Haiti as its own country until Haiti paid them over one hundred million francs, ten times the new country's yearly income. France threatened to invade them, yet again, if they didn't pay Frances' steep prices. Not only did they need to pay France, but they had to borrow money from French banks that took this opportunity to charge unreasonable interest rates.

The effects of how Haiti was nationally received can still be seen today. France exploited Haiti in the first years of its existence, before it had fully gotten its feet on the ground. Not only was the cost ridiculous, equalling close to twenty two billion dollars now, but Haiti was still in its "infancy," so to speak. They didn't yet have the money to pay any kind of debts to another country. Haiti was forced to borrow money from French banks. The hight interest put them in even more debt. Haiti is still struggling the poverty, sickness and natural disasters. As of 2010, 1.6 million people were homeless in Haiti. That number made up more than one sixth of Haiti's population. Many Haitians and people around the world are calling on France to come to Haiti's aid and pay them back for the damages done by the money extorted from Haiti in the early years of this existence. The reception of Haiti on a national scale left it poor and desperate, even to this day.

Haitian Revolutionary General

http://www.cubaheritage.org/articles.asp?lID=1&artID=115

Napoleon: Political, Social and Economic Impact

Napoleon Bonaparte conquered many countries and caused a great expansion for France. Not only was he a great military leader, he caused huge changes in the world's political, social and economic structure.

Across the world, monarchy was the most popular form of government. The monarchs could raise taxes to fit their needs. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer. There were huge separations between the upper class and lower class. When Napoleon came into the picture, he ended up abolishing serfdom. He reformed the political structure of countries and created new laws. He was described as,"A great soldier, a great liberator, a great reformer and a great lawgiver." (Marjorie Johnston). Others have written about, "his untiring industry, his devotion to the public service, his enlightened views of government and legislation, his humanity." (John C. Ropes). The enlightened views on government
and legislation described by Ropes pleased the people in the countries conquered by Napoleon. As Marshal Michel Nay said, "The times are gone when the people were governed by suppressing their rights. Liberty triumphs in the end." When he was vanquished and their former rulers came back into power, the people wouldn't stand for things to go back to the way they were when they had less say in their government. This caused the monarchs to need to make a change in their political systems.

Napoleon's political reforms also caused change to the social systems in Europe. He abolished serfdom across his empire. He also gave everyone, not just nobles, a say in the government. "He used the noble ideas of personal liberty, of equality, and of fraternity"(Ida M. Tarbell) to help make the people more equal than they were under their previous rulers. Madame de Stael thought that this was all part of Napoleon's plan to win over the people of Europe. She said, "By alternating between cunning and force he has subjugated Europe." Others such as J. T. Headley thought that he genuinely thought this was the best way to rule people and this was how social systems should be. He wrote, "yet as a friend of human liberty, and eager to promote the advancement of the race."Either way, Napoleon won was able to win over the people of the countries he conquered.

Finally, Napoleon managed to change economic systems throughout Europe. In order to boost the economy, he controlled prices, encouraged new industry and built roads and canals. He encouraged trade with more countries than was previously allowed. He sold the Louisiana territory to the US which doubled the size of their nation and encouraged their expansion. Napoleon also set up a new way of "earning merits" where one is rewarded based upon their skills rather than their social class. Norwood Young discussed his reforms and said, "they may be on the whole, be described as making for progress."

The French Empire at its largest during Napoleon's rule

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Napoleoniceurope.png

Great Britain vs. United States Industrial Revolution

An industrialist was more likely to succeed in Great Britain than in the United States. In the US, land a great amount of land was available to people who did not want to work in the mills. However, GB is smaller and there were less options for the people. Many citizens were forced into the mills in order to survive. Mill owners were never at a shortage for workers, allowing them to pay low wages and earn more profits. They didn't have to please their workers and they could treat them however they wanted to without worrying about losing employees. Also in Great Britain, not only were the men in the family looking for work, but so were the women and children. The women and children could work long hours for minimal pay. Great Britain was also covered in canals and railroads making it easy to transport both raw materials and products made in the mills to wherever they were needed.

Industrialists may have had a greater chance at being successful in Great Britain, but workers had a better experience in the American mills. In America, the was a shortage of workers for the mills. Mill owners had to make working at the mill look enticing. Wages were made higher than those in England, living conditions were better, mills were cleaner and the workers were treated in a much more humane manner. The hours were shorter; they included breaks for meals unlike mills in Great Britain. Finally, the biggest worry of workers in America was: the women working in mills could be no longer considered "pure" if they left their parents to work before they were married. In England, people worried about not being able to earn enough money to live or what the women and children could do to try to earn more money for the family. Children were forced to work long hours doing dangerous jobs. Workers in the US had less to worry about and had a better experience working in the mills than those living in Great Britain.

                             United States Mill Worker             Child Laborers in Great Britain

Mary Paul and "The Lowell Experiment"

During the Industrial Revolution, Lowell Massachusetts was home to many of the mills used during the time period. Workers were scarce, especially in the beginning of the revolution. Mill owners had to use different methods to hire workers. Eventually, "The Lowell Experiment" was used to hire girls to work the mills without their families. This was house a young woman named Mary Paul was hired. Her time in Lowell was documented  through a series of letters written to her father during her stint at the mills.

Mary lived in Vermont with her Aunt because her mom died when she was young. One day, a recruiter for the Lowell mills showed up offering her a job. She was excited for this opportunity and eagerly wrote to her father, asking for permission to go. She would be able to afford new clothes and her aunt thought it was a good idea as well. Eventually, she got permission from him and made her way to Lowell. Her second letter describes how surprisingly expensive her trip down was and boardinghousing is. She is dismayed by this; she is also homesick. She asks her father to visit and have other people write to her as well. Despite the downsides to Lowell, she still has a positive outlook on the experience: shown in this excerpt from her second letter, "I get along in work have a first rate 
overseer and a very good boarding place." She intend to work for a year or so. Her third letter has a slightly less positive tone. She starts it off by telling her father about several tragedies and accidents that recently occurred at the mill. She also tells him about her daily schedule. It's rigorous and tiring. Mary is beginning to become less and less happy. She starts to realize that the mill isn't the safest place to work. In her fourth letter, Mary worries about her wages saying, "The Agent promises to pay us nearly as much as we should have made but I do not think that he will." She hasn't been paid yet and potential pay cuts are coming. The busy schedule is beginning to tear her down and she's getting sick. However, she likes being able to live with other nice girls that are similar to her. People tell her that she is a hard worker despite how sick she looks. Her fifth letter is written long after the fourth. Mary became so sick that she had to go home to Vermont for six months in order to recover. The mill did not hold her job while she was gone. When she returned, she needed to find a new job at the mill because she couldn't get her old one back. Her new job is harder work for less pay. Another set of wage cut are coming as well. The company says they will go under if they don't cut payments. The schedule continues to wear on Mary and she feels sick again. Her final letter to her father sums up her time in Lowell. She's very disappointed in how it turned out. She's sick again, wages have been cut even lower and, due to missing four days while being sick, she hasn't been payed very much at all.

Mary soon leaves Lowell and goes back to Vermont to live in a Utopian community for a while. Later in her life she marries and lives in Lowell with her husband. Despite what working in the Lowell mills did toner health, mental and physical, she eventually recovered and moved on.

Mary Paul's experiences represent "The Lowell Experiment" as both a success and a failure. The main attraction of "The Lowell Experiment"was, the girls could come work in Lowell, send money home and maintain morality and dignity. They had a "paternal system" at the mills which was an attractive trait for the parents. A strict schedule was kept by those who ran the  mills. They acted as the "father figure" figure for the girls. Rules were to be obeyed and schedules were kept. Mary describes this in her letter saying, "At 5 o'clock in the morning the bell rings for the folks to get up and get breakfast. At half past six it rings for the girls to get up and at seven they are called into the mill. At half past 12 we have dinner are called back again at one and stay till half past seven.,," The "mother figure" is the boardinghouse keeper. She sets the rules for the girls when they are out side of the mills, for example, "we have to go to bed about 10 o'clock." Mary says the girls are nice and well-mannered. All of this shows proof that the factory owners upheld their promise to maintain morality and to have an almost "boarding school" atmosphere. "The Lowell Experiment" was not one-hundred percent successful though. It was supposed to offer an opportunity for the girls in the house to help support their family. The recruiters claimed that the girls would have enough money both send home to their families and to buy themselves nice clothes. However, as Mary explained in her letters, wage cuts began to come faster and faster, leaving girls with very little money to spend on clothes, let alone send back to their families. Many of them couldn't take the vigorous work schedule and fell sick. Mary left the mills for six months due to sickness. Despite these downfalls, "The Lowell Experiment" was not a complete failure. Mary Paul eventually moved on from her difficult experience and Lowell. She later married and lived in Lowell with her husband for the rest of her life.

http://www.uml.edu/tsongas/bringing-history-home/artifacts/set01.htm

The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx

Marx, Karl and Frederich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Modified from the Avalon Project. 1848. Yale University. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/mancont.asp(accessed September 18, 2013).

The Communist Manifesto was written by German philosopher and economic thinker, Karl Marx, in 1848, a time of revolution and change across Europe. Working conditions were terrible in factories and the working class got poorer by the second while the wealthy got richer. People were suffering and revolution was breaking out sporadically and being crushed by government. Capitalism was the economic method being used across Europe. People would work for themselves and earn money for their family. Marx saw and opportunity to call upon the working class to join together and demand a change in the economic system. He suggested communism. He wrote The Communist Manifesto to inform the public of what it was and to convince them of its worth. He latched on to how people would be afraid to lose personal belongings and countered that by saying that nine tenths of the population don't have personal belongings anyway. He talked about how communism would "even out" the economic "playing field" without harming anyone. Marx encourages the working class to unite and his words are empowering and encouraging towards the working class. This document teaches us about the different opinions on the economy of the time. Some people may not have liked being poor and having to struggle for every penny they earned. On the other hand, people like Marx wanted an equal chance at succeeding in life and being able to provide for their family. However, this document has a limited view. It was written by Marx, who was poor for his entire life. Four of his seven children died before they reached adulthood and his wife suffered nervous breakdown and illnesses. All of this was traced back to poverty. Marx was financially supported by Friedrich Engels for a portion of his life. This shows that Marx would have been biased towards a communist economy.  The Communist Manifesto was co-written by Friedrich Engels who was rich, however he was a philosopher just as Marx was. Therefore, it still lacks the point-of-view of a richer individual who was succeeding in the capitalist economy doing the labor of a higher-class individual. Despite the limitations of his writing, Marx is a trustworthy source. He was a well-known philosopher who worked closely with Friedrich Engels, another trustworthy and respected philosopher. A lot can be learned from reading The Communist Manifesto.

*unable to indent  properly due to limitations on Blogger*

The Luddites RAFT

The Luddites were skilled weavers, artisans and mechanics that worked "cottage industry" in Enlgand before the Industrial Revolution forced them to move into cities. Unhappy with the side-effects of industrialization, unfair wages and dangerous work, the Luddites found different ways to protest. Often, threatening letters would be written to factory owners from "the offices of their King Ludd." The Luddites break into factories, destroying machines and cross-dressing in order to make themselves memorable. The following is a letter written from a farmer to his cousin in America, mentioning the Luddites and showing his thoughts on the conflict in England.
*Note: Letter is not a real primary source*

Dear Cousin John,

I'm writing to you from my new home in Manchester. I'm sure you've by now heard of the controversial group over here called the Luddites. There are many rumors floating around about them so I'll try to fill you in with my side of the story.

The Luddites are a group of people who were formerly involved in the "cottage industry" much like I was. As you know, through industrialization, easier and faster ways have been discovered to make products that were made in the "cottage industry." This has taken away jobs from many people, like myself, who made such products at home. Those circumstances have forced people, such as the Luddites, out of their home and into the cities to work in factories. Wages are outrageously low and working conditions are horrid. The Luddites are a group of people who have decided to take action and protest what happens in the factories by destroying machines and factories.

Personally, I have nothing against the Liddites. While I don't agree with their more violent ways of dealing with the industrialization, I want the same things as they do. The Industrial Revolution forced me to move out of the country and into the city. I now struggle everyday in the squalid factories, earning a meager wage. I think that there are better ways of demanding change but, I think the Luddites will certainly make an impression with the people who can orchestrate change. I will neither join their movement or take action against it. The government is beginning to make examples of Luddites and executing them. However, if I hear of one of their plans, I will not warn the factory owners. Change has to come from somewhere, right?

Well I hope you're doing well over in America. I hear your Industrial Revolution is really starting to kick-in now too. Let me know how you and your family are doing. Wish me luck in the city!

Your Cousin,
Mary Beth Marcucella

"King Ludd" symbol and "leader" of the Luddites.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/What-the-Luddites-Really-Fought-Against.html

Industrial Revolution Museum Activity

In order to make our exhibit, we had to analyze five separate documents and consider how they were all connected and what main idea they conveyed. This was essential to the process of creating the exhibit because we had to organize each document in a way that made sense and explain the idea of each one. "Colonialism, Slavery and the Industrial Revolution" showed how the driving force of the revolution was slaves and cheap labor. The map of cotton trade showed how raw cotton was often shipped from the U.S. to Britain, where cotton products were made. The slavery statistics from the U.S. showed how the slave population increased a huge amount during the Industrial Revolution. The number of cotton mills in Lowell  and slave population represented the connection between the number of slaves working as the demand for cotton increased. Finally, the picture of Boott Cotton Mill represented how more and more mills and jobs were created as the Industrial Revolution. As you can see, each and everyone of the sources show a connection between demand for cotton and an increase in population and mills all over the world, hence the title: Cotton Creating Connections.

Change is Looming

This exhibit described the changes seen in cotton production during the revolution. New machines allowed for more cotton and products to be produced faster and easier, using less man-power.

All Aboard the Steam Engine, Railroads and Canals

The sources in this exhibit showed the advancements made in methods of transportation. It became much faster and therefore easier to transport both people and goods, furthering the spread of the Revolution.

Living Conditions During the Industrial Revolution

In this exhibit, it was explained how England went from having many people living in smaller towns and in the country to having most of its population based in industrial cities. The cities became crowded (as shown in the picture below) and living conditions were almost unbearable.

Work Destroys Children's Lives

The final exhibit displayed the large amount of child labor and awful conditions they endured during the Revolution. Fifty percent of children under ten worked during the Revolution. The horrid conditions, dangerous work and outrageous hours kept by the children led to The Factory Act in 1833, limiting the number of hours children of certain ages were allowed to work.

Engels PSA

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

Friedrich Engels was a respected German social scientist, well-known author and philosopher who visited Manchester during the Industrial Revolution in England. He published a book about his visit to Manchester, commenting on the living conditions of the factory workers at the time. He wrote about how cramped and filthy the living quarters were. During this time, England was changing from a mostly agricultural society to an industrialized one. People moved from the country side to cities looking for jobs in factories. Towns became overcrowded and polluted. The excerpt from Engels's book shows just how terrible the conditions were. He uses words such as "uninhabitable" to describe the places where the workers had to live. He said that words couldn't do the disgusting conditions justice. He only wrote about Manchester and, there is no account of anyother city in his book. Based on Engels's book alone, there is no way of knowing if the conditions extended beyond Manchester. However, by visiting the city himself, his account of the conditions in Manchester were first-hand and dependable.

*unable to indent  properly due to limitations on Blogger*

Syrian Residents Hold a Town Meeting to Discuss the Civil War

Picture

Syrians from a town outside of Damascus met the other day to discuss their options should the violent Civil War extend to their town. Over a hundred thousand people have already died due to the struggle that started in 2011 with street protest and eventually escalated to a full blown Civil War. Chemical bombs were recently dropped in Damascus, where much of the fighting was taking place. This crisis caused the residents from this small town to realize how essential it is for them to have a plan if the violence expands to their town.

At the meeting the basics of the war were discussed: the start of the conflict, Bashar al Assad's reign and the course of the war so far. The Arab Spring had a lot to do with sparking protests in Syria. The government dealt with the protests violently, enraging the Syrian people and causing the protests to become more organized and eventually reach the level of a full blown civil war. The rebels are not as defenseless as some may think. They are headed by the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces who gets them weapons and organize both attacks and the rebels' political moves. After everyone had the same grasp on the situation surrounding them, the residents discussed their options for the future.

The first option is fleeing to friendly surrounding countries such as Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon like two million other Syrians. This would help them escape violence that may invade their town. Although there will be very little jobs or space in the the refugee camps, the economy in Syria has take a huge hit since the fighting began. The economic situation of any refugees won't decrease much if they leave Syria. At the very least they will escape any fighting. The main con to uprooting is; after the fighting ends, there will be very little to go back to in Syria. Their homes will, most likely not be there any longer. The refugees will have to start from scratch if and when they return to their homeland.

After thoroughly discussing the option to flee, the residents moved on to discussing whether or not they should fight. This choice wasn't very popular among the town citizens. The main point of discussion was how if they go off to fight, they will be leaving their families to fend for themselves in a very hostile environment. Many people have already died in the civil war and, if they die, their families will be defenseless and it will be difficult for them to find food without their main provider with them. The one positive they could get from fighting is, if their side does succeed, they could have a higher chance of having a say in the rebuilding of the government. Finally, the Syrians went on to discuss the possibility of protesting the recent use of chemical weapons. 

Right off the bat, a few residents voiced concern with bringing themselves into the public eye and being targeted by the government for their protestation. Another Syrian countered these concerns saying that, in order to protest you don't need to stand in the middle of a street holding a sign. They all have plenty of personal stories about the war and even pictures and videos of some of the violence occurring in their area. They can simply use the Internet to share their stories and get the attention of the world. They could get their message out to the influential people in the world and potentially get help. If they're smart about the way they go about protesting, they can avoid the downsides to protesting such as being targeted by the government and putting themselves in harm's way.

One option that wasn't discussed was to simply stay put and do nothing. I personally don like this option at all. If I was a Syrian I would want this war to stop and I would find a way to be a part of getting help or putting an end to the conflict. Whether this means fighting or protesting,at least something is being done to help your cause.

The meeting appeared to be productive. Most of the citizens agreed that they should either flee or protest. The most productive part of the discussion was when the residents considered their options as far as protesting goes. Most of them wanted to do something about what is going on in their country and, very few of them wanted to fight. So, they all seemed to like the idea of protesting. They brainstormed ideas to get help and put their message out to the rest of the world without being targeted by the violence in Syria. Te least productive topic of discussion was about taking up arms and fighting in the war. Everyone was already on the same page and didn't want to fight. They all thought by joining the fight, they would do no good and they wouldn't make a difference in the war so far. They didn't want to put their families in harms way or leave them to fend for themselves. The meeting helped me to form some opinions of my own as well.

I believe that the best option would be to stay put until absolutely necessary and protest against the war and use of chemical weapons. During the meeting it was discussed how it would be very difficult to simply uproot and leave everything they have ever known to go to a refugee camp. Someone made a point to mention, as of right now, there is no fighting in their town and they are relatively safe. It would be pointless to leave right now. However, as long as they stay put, a plan could be formulated for when they do need to evacuate and they can also discreetly and intelligently protest the war and use of chemical bombs. The ongoing tragedy deserves national attention and, the people of Syria need all the help they can get.