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.