Our Sovereign... Napoleon?

            Napoleon, a military genius, responsible for the conquering of Italy, Venice, Egypt, Austria/ Vienna, Berlin, Spain, Portugal, Moscow, Belgium, Prussia, Rhineland, and Holland. After the monarchy failed he was the one who stepped up and seized power over France. We know that Napoleon had a major impact on the social, economic, and political systems of Europe but they can be seen as either positive or negative. This developed our class's essential question, what was Napoleon's impact on the social, economic, and political systems of Europe?

Napoleon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon

            According to Madame de Stael, a wealthy women who gained her power through the monarchy, disliked Napoleon greatly. She thought, for the social systems, that Napoleon, "would like to persuade men by force and by cunning", and that he would, "encroach[intrude] daily upon France's liberty and Europe's independence." In other words Madame de Stael thought Napoleon brought an unethical approach to human interactions and would be nothing but a burden for France. For the economic situation she was again at a loss. Napoleon replaced the old monarchy completely and everyone that had ties to the monarchy lost their social status as well as they wealth. Madame de Stael was one of those people. Finally, she believed that Napoleon's main goal was to conquer all of Europe. Also, she thought that Napoleon was striving towards a "universal monarchy" with him as king. She would be against this because she would never get her old wealth back. 

            However, Marshal Michel Ney, an officer who served with Napoleon, had different views on Napoleon's overall impact. He was completely for Napoleon because he gained military and political power with him as ruler. His main statement for the social impact that Napoleon had is, "Whether the Bourbon nobility choose to return to exile or consent to live among us, what does it matter to us? The times are gone when the people were governed by suppressing their rights." He is trying to say that whether the public like it or not the social standards have changed under Napoleon's power and there is no changing it. Instead of rebelling against it they should just go with and support it. Unlike Madame de Stael, Marshal Michel Ney like the new economic ways because he was an officer of war. In result of this he gained a new sense of authority, influence, and of course wealth. "Liberty triumphs in the end, and Napoleon, our august[respected; impressive] emperor, comes to confirm it." He like how Napoleon is running France's government and invites others to join in supporting the "immortal legion" that is Napoleon.

            The last source is called "The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Histories": http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/biographies/c_historians.html. The document is a collection on different historians' views on Napoleon. The overall impact that Napoleon had on the three systems was mixed. A comment made of his social impact was made by J.T.(Joel Tyler) Headley, writer of historical and biographical works. He described Napoleon's social interactions as, "Napoleon's moral character was indifferent enough; yet as a friend of human liberty, and eager to promote the advancement of the race, by opening the field to talent and genius, however low their birth, he was infinitely superior to all the sovereigns who endeavored to crush him." But Andrews described him as inconsistent and untrustworthy. A strong opinion on his political impact came from George Bancroft who said, "the Directory needed a man, they found him in the expert artillerist; France needed a man, she found him in the conquerer of Italy."

Luddites: Taking Sides

          Luddites were a group of people that were against the misuse of technology. A common misconception is that Luddites were against technology all together and they weren't. They just didn't agree on how it was being used. To show their distaste the Luddites would break into factories after the closed for the day and destroyed the machines. In one case they even burnt a factory down. Luddites were skilled weavers, mechanics, and other artisans and when the factories were built they were the ones who lost their jobs. They didn't agree how the new technology was being used and wanted to do something. That is why they protested and did what they did.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/?no-ist=

Luddites destroying the factory's machines in a form of protest. 

            What you will read next is a mock primary source letter to go deeper into the Luddite movement.

Dear my cousin Annabel,

            How is it in America? Are you liking it? I miss you more and more every day. On the bright side I got a new job! I am officially working for a textile factory here in Britain. It's hard work but I like it. Well at first I liked it. There has recently been a few problems with a group of strange men who dress like women and follow an imaginary leader. I think they call him King Ludd. The group is called Luddites and I hope someone stops them rather soon. They come into the factories after everyone has left and break our machines. When we come back we have to repair them and it reduces our pay since we are paid on what we make and we can't make anything with broken machines. These Luddites have also sent threatening letter to some of my friends that I work with. I have heard that in some places they attacked the employers, magistrates, and the food merchants. This has caused fights to break out between Luddites and government soldiers. I just want them to stop so I continue to make a decent pay to send to my father's farm. Industrialization hasn't just been hard on the Luddites. I have had my share of misfortunes. For example, I am being forced to work in the factory so my father doesn't lose his job. The factories aren't the best places to work either. They are extremely dangerous and we tend to work in the harmful dust the machines produce. Also, industrialization created some country economic problems. The Napoleonic War, which lasted from 1802 to 1812. It disrupted trade between countries or so I have been told. I understand why the Luddites are acting out though. They are simply protesting against changes that they think will worsen their lives. Factories take away their control over prices, how much work they had to do, the cost of materials, and how much profit they will make. Sadly, they are directly affecting my way of getting money so I feel no sympathy towards them. I don't know what to do Annabel. Writing this letter was all I could think of. Perhaps I will let the government officials and soldiers handle this situation. Besides the Luddites can't stay forever. Best wishes to you and to your family.

Your cousin, 

Esther 

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism

            To learn about the three types of government capitalism, socialism, and communism we did an in class activity involving chocolate. In the first round each person in the class got three pieces of chocolate. Everyone but two, those to people got eight pieces of candy. Then, everyone got up and played rock, paper, scissors shoot. If you won you got one piece of chocolate from the loser of the match. If you ran out of candy to play with you had to sit down. At the end there was a lot of people with none and only a select few with more. The ones who had candy left were considered the bourgeoisie and the ones who lost were considered the proletariat. This demonstrated socialism. Next, we did a round two. The teacher took all the candy back and everyone started with three pieces. This demonstrated communism. We were then given the choice whether or not we wanted to participate in rock, paper, scissors shoot. Most people stayed seated not wanting to lose their chocolate again. The rest played with the same rules as the last round. The game was fun until you lost all of your candy and had to stop playing and watch others win. It was also frustrating at the end to have nothing and had to see the people next to you with a lot. This was also how tit was in real life. The poor would envy the rich because they got to live comfortably while the poor had to struggle to get by day to day.
            Two people wanted to help the poor but they thought of going about in two different ways. These two people were Marx and Smith. Marx's idea was communism. The ultimate goal for communism is to have a classless society. No government is needed with Marx's ways. While dealing with communism in our class activity we refused to play the game and agreed to share the candy equality. The teacher was no longer needed to supervise the candy distribution. A similar thing would happen in real life as well. The wealth would be spread equally and nobody would be higher or lower than one another on the social ladder. The poor benefited from this because they finally have enough money to live more easily. The rich opposed it because they wouldn't be rich anymore. People who inherited their money would have to start working for money but the people who worked hard for their money might also be unhappy because all their hard worked went to waste. To learn about Marx's background we watched a video in the beginning, here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16IMc5mhbZk&feature=youtu.be. Smith came up with a theory called the Invisible Hand. The Invisible Hand gave the people the option to control their own prices and have complete control over their own business. This theory was well liked among the rich because they didn't have to give up any of their money. It also helped the poor. This system offered free trade where the poor could purchase better quality goods for a cheaper price. Smith wasn't worried about the rich. His main goal was to give the poor more options with what to do with their money. For more information on the Invisible Hand go to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulyVXa-u4wE&feature=youtu.be.
            I think both strategies will help improve the poor's living conditions. Even though they are different they both work towards the same goal. They both want to help the poor. Although, there is an alternate solution. This solution is called capitalism. Capitalism supported the idea that some people were rich, some people were poor, and the government has control. I think capitalism is the best choice because it creates a balance between rich, poor, and government. In the end there is no way to make everything 100% fair for everyone. Someone will always have more than other people. Whether it is money or food. This was the main problem and capitalism address it with a solution.

The Three Ideologies

            What were the major political ideologies of the 19th century and how did they influence social and political action? This was the essential question we were asked at the beginning of class. An ideology is a system of ideas and ideals especially ones that form the basics of economic or political theory and policy. They are the ideas and manner of thinking characteristics of a group, class, or individual. Also, there are three main ideologies which are liberalism, conservatism, and nationalism. To learn about these ideologies the class was divided into six groups and every two groups were assigned either liberalism, conservatism, or nationalism. We were then asked to create a sixty-second project explaining what our ideology is and how it impacted the social and political systems. To get the information we read a brief article going over the history of each one. The point was to create a better project than the other group that had the same ideology. My group was assigned liberalism and we decided to make a common craft.
            In our common craft we explained how liberalism promoted individual liberty and supported innovation and reform. Liberalism opposed the monarchy. People who supported liberalism believed in god given natural rights and laws and no one could tell one another what rights they had based on their social status. The middle class supported liberalism a little more than the upper class because it gave power to the middle class and took power from the upper class. They thought everyone had the right to better themselves and contribute to society in their own ways.

It impacted the social system because it introduced a new system call meritocracy. Meritocracy gives everyone the chance to change their social class if they chose to. Those who did were rewarded based on merits. This gave people the option to have a say in what the government does and how it is run.

Liberalism impacted the political action by developing the system of the invisible hand. The invisible hand was a new economic law. It guided human behavior in society.

            The other two ideologies are conservatism and nationalism. Conservatism is the opposite of liberalism. Conservatism like the monarchy and wanted to keep the church in power by adapting old ideas into the new government. It opposed meritocracy because of their fondness for the monarchy. Conservatism is very traditional and doesn't like the idea of change or innovation. Their biggest fear is that there will be a revolution and chaos if the systems are changed. Then there is nationalism. Nationalism and liberalism are connected through their positive outlooks on new social and political actions. Its main purpose was to bring nations together by their shared language, custom, and history. They think that if they unite under one government it will aid them in the protection from foreign forces. For example, Napoleon was able to invade and conquer Italy and Germany fairly easily and it is because Italy and Germany weren't working together to ward off Napoleon and his troops. Maybe if they were united through conservatism Napoleon wouldn't have took over so quickly or maybe wouldn't have been able to take over at all.

         

MOSI Google Hangout

           In class we had the opportunity to do a Google Hangout with a historian from the Manchester Textile Museum, Jamie. To prepare for the live chat we visited the MOSI website; http://www.mosi.org.uk/explore-mosi/explore-galleries/textiles-gallery.aspx. We explored the site trying to get a sense of what it is about. The Downloads tab helped in this investigation. We also watched a video that starred Jamie. In the video he took raw cotton and showed us how the machines were used to produced thread. He also explained some key terms like Hopper Feeder Scutcher, Carding Engine, Draw Frame, Sliver, Speed Frames, Slubbing, Roving, and Power Loom. To understand these terms we searched them through Google using key words. For example, I learned that a Sliver is a delicate piece of brushed cotton. As a final form of preparation we came up with questions to ask Jamie. We had four categories which were Textile Process, Evolution of Textile Technology, Positive and Negative Impacts, and Being a Real Life Historian and Curator.

           During the chat lots of interesting facts came up about the textile machines. First, I learned that the machines weren't good for the workers health. Yes, the machines killed people suddenly but they also killed people over a longer period of time. The machines produced a lot of dust, dirt, and debris from the cotton. It got in the food and was inhaled by the people working the machines. It was dangerous to inhale the dust and caused health problems such as illness and even death. Also, when we watched the video Jamie was in the machines were extremely loud. This was a surprise because I didn't think of how loud they would be. It was also a shock to listen to how unsafe the machines were. Workers were dragged in the machine by their clothes or hair and mangled. The machines also lifted workers by their clothes or hair and killed them that way. Also, it was common to break and even lose fingers from the machines. I always pictured the machines being a little safer since they were used so frequently. Also, I didn't know that children were used in the actual textile making process. I thought they  cleaned the machines while trying not to get caught in the machines. Children would often brush the fibers to face the same direction and started doing this as young as five years old. Another fact I learned about the process was that the women made the thread for the cloth while the men were in charge of spinning. I knew women worked in the factories because of the Lowell Mills but I thought men were used to oversee the women's production but men were also used as employees in the mills.

Jamie explaining and demonstrating how women would get the thread on a bobbin and how they would be used in the spinning machines.

           I liked the Google Hangout because it was both a listening and seeing experience. Also, having an expert on the topic so accessible made understanding the topic's situation easier. Jamie was able to go more in depth into the history while showing demonstrations in ways that made sense. I felt like I got to see the Industrial Revolution from a different perspective. A more personal perspective. If given the opportunity I would like to do other live chats with other experts about future topics.

British Factories vs. American Factories

           During the Industrial Revolution factories were a main working place. There were factories in both America and in England. Even though these factories were built for the same reason it doesn't mean they were run the same way. In America the factories were seen in a positive way in the beginning. The mill girls were given independence when in Lowell working at the mills. When they weren't working they were allowed to explore the town. For example, some girls went to see plays. They were promised protection and nice living quarters in the form of boarding houses. It was mandatory that the girls were given an education so for a couple months out of the year they left work to go to school. The most ideal thing about the American factories was that the job was temporary. Once they were of age to marry they could leave to start a family. As you can see in the beginning the working conditions were great. They were like this because America didn't have such a high work demand or a high demand for an abundance of cheap labor forces. This lead to less factory accidents and an overall safe working environment. Sadly, work conditions couldn't stay like this. During down turns in the demand for the factories products they were wage cuts. The workers went on strike as a form of protest. 800 women protested but in the end new workers were brought in to replace whoever refused to work. This happened again two years later where the protesters had more success in bringing entire mills to a stop.

An American Factory

http://keepingmeinstitchestqp.blogspot.com/2014/02/made-in-america.html

           British factories were extremely different compared to the American factories. They were much higher demands for cheap labor which resulted in lots of children working. The children were in charge of cleaning the machines. This was a dangerous job since the children had to clean the machines while they were still in use. This resulted in broken bones(mostly fingers) and even death from being crushed. Going off of this the factories were not safe for the workers. Since they were an abundance of workers replacing lost ones wasn't a big deal. Most accidents happened in the morning and involved children. The most common accidents  were clothes or hair being caught in the machine, broken fingers, and the workers being lifted up by the machines to be mangled. Accidents could also lead to a slow, painful death. Because of these accidents physical deformities were common as well. Some included deteriorating bone marrow, femur and pelvis breaks, and missing limbs. In American factories the workers are given time off to eat their meals. British factories didn't give their employees a break to eat. There was no time for breakfast, no time for dinner, and no time for sitting.

Deformed British Factory Workers

http://spartacus-educational.com/IRdeformities.htm

           In my opinion the British factory workers had it tougher than the American factory workers. I feel this way because the work conditions were always poor and lacking for the British. They never went through a good phase and a bad phase like the Lowell Mills. It was like one long, bad phase that couldn't be broken. Also, they were more factory accidents and deaths because of the ability to replace workers quickly and the high labor demand.