"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