Latin American Revolutions

            The Latin American Revolutions are important to think about because it goes hand in hand with many ideas of independence for each class that are still relevant today. The Latin American Revolutions also brought up the question, "Why is it essential to acknowledge human value regardless of race? How are the events in the Latin American Revolutions evidence of this social imperative?"

Race as % of the Population in Latin America

This is the social rank of each group in Latin America social structure

            To go deeper into the essential question, the impact of race on the Latin American Revolutions for independence, we discussed the social ladder in the area. (Part of this was filling out the graph above) We learned that the social ladder has African Slaves on the bottom and Peninsulares on the top. In the middle there are the Indians, the Mulattoes, the Mestizos, and the Creoles. Then, we created a timeline of the Gran Columbia Revolution. Lastly, we compared the similarities and the differences with other groups who covered different revolutions.

Timeline of Key Events of the Gran Columbia Revolution

            My group covered the Gran Columbia Revolution. One commonality my group found in the jigsaw with the other two groups, who covered the revolutions in Brazil and Mexico, was that all of the revolutions ended with independence. Independence was the ultimate goal for all three of the revolutions. Secondly, all of the revolutions were guided by strong leaders. For the Gran Columbia Revolution they had Bolivar. Brazil had Pedro and King John VI. Finally, Mexico had Miguel Hidalgo. We also found some differences between the revolutions. The first difference was that Brazil resulted in an empire and Mexico ended in a republic. Our second difference was that the Portuguese monarchy came to Brazil to rule but Bolivar had dictatorial powers over Caracas. These revolutions all took separate ways to independence but race was always a constant issue in all three. In Gran Columbia Bolivar's main goal was to liberate New Granada from Spanish control. In Brazil Jose was killed at first because he didn't have an elite status. Also, Pedro tried to make Portuguese people the only people with power. Lastly, Miguel called for the end of the 300 years of racial equality.

            We think we have come a long way from these differences caused by race but in  reality almost nothing has actually changed. In today's society we are more judgmental than the revolutions were. They mainly judged based on race. We discriminate based on race, heritage, religion, physical features, personalities, style, etc. November 22, 2014 a Cleveland police officer shot a 12 year old African American boy. He died the next day. The boy was carrying an air-soft gun when the officer fired within two seconds of arriving on the scene. The agreement was that the officer didn't give the boy to explain himself before shooting him in the torso. He shot because he thought the young child was a threat based on the color of his skin. (http://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7275297/tamir-rice-police-shooting) Based on this story and many other instances similar to this one, I believe the issue of race in our lives is still important to consider. We can't go around making assumptions based on how someone looks because it could end with fatal results. We all deserve the same chances because when it all comes down to it, we are the same on the inside. Why should the outside determine the inside?

Andrew Jackson

            President Andrew Jackson held a certain reputation when he was in office. He was known as the people's president. During the presidency three major events occurred that made some people question if he really was the people's president. These three events were The Bank War, The Indian Removal, and The Spoils System. In class we split into six groups and every two groups were given one of these events. We were supposed to analyze the given documents and then create a presentation explaining the occurrence. Every presentation had to answer the essential question which was, is Andrew Jackson's long-standing reputation as "the people's president" deserved? Why? Why not?
            My group was assigned The Indian Removal. The Indian Removal was when Jackson forced Indians to leave their land. He wanted them to move West because he didn't want them to be squeezed out by white settlers and have the tribes be wiped out. (http://www.edline.net/files/_6YHDu_/53222985c1e5c5883745a49013852ec4/IndianRemoval1.jpg) The Indians didn't like this idea because they felt it was unjust to kick them out afetr everything they have done for the whites. (http://www.edline.net/files/_6YHFl_/a79ada70e840f8f33745a49013852ec4/IndianRemoval2.jpg) Down below is my group's slide show presentation explaining this devastating time for the Indians in greater detail.

  

          The Bank War and The Spoils System were covered by the other groups. The Bank War happened when Jackson thought that the banks had to much power. He wanted multiple smaller banks rather than one large bank. Many people didn't agree with him though. Daniel Webster was one of the people who disagreed. He felt that getting rid of the main bank would lead to economic collapse. Ironically, several years later there was an economic collapse. The collapse was caused by paper money having to regain its value without the help of the banks. The Spoils System was when the efficiency and the effectiveness of the government decreased. A spoils system is when a political party gives government jobs to voters and supporters after an election victory. It can also be called Rotation in Office. Basically, Jackson gave out jobs based on loyalty and not on skills. He believed that there was nothing wrong with change and just because a person has been doing their job for a long time doesn't mean that they deserve it over someone less experienced.

            Overall, I think that Andrew Jackson didn't deserve his long-standing reputation as the people's president. In The Indian Removal he forced the Indians to pick up their whole lives and move to unfamiliar land. In The Bank War he let the economy fail. In The Spoils System he ran a corrupt government and ended up dragging down the office as a whole. I feel like he had the right idea and wanted the rights between the poor and the rich to be balanced. He also wanted everyone to have a say but he just went about it in the wrong way. A classmate of mine commented on how he ruled and I couldn't agree more with it. She said, "He doesn't deserve to be the people's president because he was the people's president only to the people who liked him."

Rise of Democracy

            In class we read about the rise of democracy. There were six primary sources to help us familiarize ourselves with the topic. Before we started we split into smaller groups though. In the small groups we analyzed the sources to answer the essential question, "How do we define democracy? How democratic was the U.S. in the early 1800's?" To show that we could answer the questions each group put together a presentation. My group decided to make a poster demonstrating that we understood the material. 

Overview of the whole poster

Close up of The Dorr War Primary Source (with analysis)

Close up of the Data- Voting Chart 1 Primary Source (with analysis)

Close up of the Data- Voting Chart 2 Primary Source (with analysis) and the definition of democracy 

Close up of the Art- Country Election Painting Primary Source and the Art- County Election Painting Article Primary Source (with analysis) 

Revolutions of 1830 and 1848

            There were many revolutions in 1830 and in 1848. These revolutions were known as the Decembrist Revolt, the 1830 revolution in France, the 1848 revolution in France, the Frankfurt Assembly, and the Hungary Revolution. Some of these revolutions can be seen as a failure or as a success. We were asked the question, "Were the revolutions in 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded? To answer this question we were divided into six groups and each group did one of the revolutions. We read the background documents and analyzed all of the primary sources to get a better understanding of our revolution. Once everyone finished we came together to share what we learned about our specific revolution. To make sure everyone knew the basics of each topic the groups made a SurveyMonkey for the class to take.

            My group was assigned the Frankfurt Assembly which took place in Germany, 1848-1849. The goal of the Frankfurt Assembly was to unite Germany under a constitution.This was a goal set by the liberals and the nationalists of Germany. Johann Gustav made a comment about Germany uniting and getting power at the Frankfurt Assembly. He said, "We need a powerful ruling house. Austria's power meant lack of power for us, whereas Prussia desired Germany unity in order to supply the deficiencies of her own power" (Primary Source #1: Johann Gustav: Speech to the Frankfurt Assembly, 1848). The conservative Prussian king, King Fredrick William IV opposed the idea. Originally, the king was offered German power but he ended up declining the offer. He declined the offer because it came from the people, who had no power, not the princes, who have most of the power. It was said that, "The King made it perfectly clear that he had no intention of allowing his god-given rule to be diminished by a piece of paper, namely a constitution" (Primary Source #3: Between Myself and My People... 1848). The King ended up sending in Prussian military forces to dissolve the assembly. The Frankfurt Assembly ended up with reformers clashing with military forces, causing hundreds to be killed and sent to jail. Meanwhile many Germans fled their homeland to go to America. My group's SurveyMonkey can be found at:https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/T76BN7C. Down below are some screenshots from the SurveyMonkey for examples of some of the questions were on each questionnaire.

            We found that the majority of the class could answer these basic questions just from reading the Background Essay and the Primary Sources for the Frankfurt Assembly.

            A big part of the lesson was to decide if the revolution was success or a failure. That is also what the essential question was all about. I think most of the revolutions were either leaning towards being a failure or had a neutral impact. of  were more of a success instead of a failure. For example, the Frankfurt Assembly was more of a failure than a success because it ended in war and the deaths of many German citizens. Also, people had to flee their homeland in order to survive the attacks from the Prussian military. An example of a revolution with a neutral impact would be the French Revolution of 1848. The revolution left the middle class both feared and distrusted, while the working class nursed a deep hatred for the bourgeoisie. This happened because prior to this there was an attack on rioting workers and 1,500 people were killed before the government crushed the rebellion. The only revolution that I think was a complete and utter failure would be the Decembrist Revolt. The Decembrist Revolt ended in the ruler opening fire on his people who were protesting in the streets. Almost everyone in the crowd was killed and the people who survived didn't benefit in any way. Instead they were simply thrown into jail. This is my opinion on the essential question, "Were the revolutions in 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded?"  

Toussaint Louverture: DBQ

President Abraham Lincoln and President George Washington, both can be described as great leaders. President Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, can be described as honest, caring, and an all around people-person. President George Washington, the first president of the United States, can be described as commanding, authoritative, and fierce. These two men come across as opposites when described this way but they both possess the skills that are necessary to be a successful leader because they can combine compassion and maturity. Toussaint Louverture is another leader that found this key balance and victoriously led the black population of Saint Domingue to freedom. Louverture started as a slave himself but slowly climbed the social ladder to become a an important figure on the island. Toussaint Louverture is known as a strong military commander and the ruler of Saint Domingue but he is most importantly known as a liberator of slaves because every decision he made was to help free the slaves of the island.

Toussaint Louverture most significantly served as a liberator of slaves, never forgetting the ultimate goal of freeing them from slavery. When the slave revolt began in the north of Saint Domingue Louverture joined the revolution as a doctor towards the troops and commands a small detachment of slave soldiers (Document A). Once the revolutionary government in France, under Robespierre’s rule, abolishes slavery in France and all its colonies Louverture was quick to to stop his troop’s revolt to support the French (Document A). When news of the British being nervous of abolition spreading to their colony of Jamaica reaches Saint Domingue Toussaint Louverture, General Dessalines, and General Christophe create and army to attack the British (Document A). All of these decisions and actions committed by Louverture were to stop the spread of slavery. Never one was there an example of him fighting to keep slavery alive on the island. As a liberator of slaves Louverture willingly addressed the French Directory to maintain freedom for all slaves. In a letter he states, “Could men who have once enjoyed the benefits of liberty look on calmly while it is taken from them!” (Letter to the French Directory). The answer was no as Louverture also went on to say, “We have known how to confront danger to our liberty, and we will know how to confront death to preserve it” (Letter to the French Directory). Louverture is making the conclusion to fight to the death in order not to lose the newly found freedom. As a liberator of slaves Toussaint Louverture was able to fulfill all of the goals he set for himself and for the island of Saint Domingue that will stay intact through the rest of the island’s history.

As a military commander Louverture made great steps to protect the island from the reinstatement of slavery. In 1801 Louverture showed great humanity, generosity, and courage as he led his troops to defeat Napoleon’s army  in the city of Semana. As the French were coming to the island Louverture gave the order to burn and abandon the city. French soldiers were greeted with, “nothing but smouldering ruins, where once stood splendid cities” (A Description of Toussaint Louverture). This prevented the newly arrived army from taking over Semana. Since Louverture was smart enough to train his men in not only shoulder to shoulder fighting but in guerrilla warfare as well. Since there was no city to fight in they were forced to fight in the mountains, “where the blacks have always proved too much for the whites” (A Description of Toussaint Louverture. Napoleon’s troops only know shoulder to shoulder fighting and were defeated by Louverture’s troops who were accustomed to both fighting styles. Toussaint Louverture was able to prevent the French from taking over the city of Semana and bringing slavery back to the island and proved his importance as a military commander.

Toussaint Louverture also served as the ruler of Saint Domingue. Under the title of ruler, Louverture made the promise to make sure slavery never exists on the island. This is the role that is filled loosely because of the new acts that Louverture passes. For example, Louverture passes Article 15 which applies that, “Each plantation… shall represent the quiet haven of an active and constant family, of which the owner of the land… shall be the father” (The Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801). The article means that slaves will go back to doing the same work under the same people who previously owned them. The only difference is that this time they will be payed for their work. This idea was not popular because it runs on the same idea that slavery ran on. The Proclamation of November 25, 1801, created by Toussaint Louverture, states that, “Vagabond cultivators arrested… shall be taken to the commander of the quarter, who will have them sent to the gendarmerie [local police] on their plantation” (Proclamation, 25 November 1801).  In other words, workers can’t leave their plantations and if they do they will be brought back by their plantation’s local police. This made people feel trapped and they feel the way they did when slavery was still being practiced. Toussaint Louverture kept his promise of abolishing slavery but he cost the peoples’ trust and happiness to do so.

A liberator of slaves, a military commander, and the ruler of Saint Domingue is what Toussaint Louverture will be remembered as. His legacy of fighting for everyone to be treated as equals no matter skin color will be apart of him forever. Despite Louverture’s contributions as a military commander and as the ruler of Saint Domingue, he will be remembered as a liberator of slaves before the other two.

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

Document A: Created from various sources.
Document B: Toussaint Louverture, "Letter to the French Directory, November 1797."
Document C: The Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801. Signed by Toussaint Louverture in July 1801.
Document D: Toussaint Louverture, "Proclamation, 25 November 1801."
Document E: Madison Smartt Bell, Toussaint Louverture: A Biography, 2007.
Document F: William Wells Brown, "A Description of Toussaint Louverture," from The Black Man, His Antecedents, His Genius, and His Achievements, 2nd edition, 1683. Engraving of Toussaint Louverture, 1802.

Congress of Vienna

            What should people on power do when their power is threatened? To understand and answer this question we all picked a partner to do a quick note taking activity. We each had set questions about a certain document that we needed to find the answers for. For example, a question would have been, who was the representative that Great Britain sent over to speak on their behalf? It helped us get a better background knowledge on what happened during that time period. Then, we sat in our regular seats and were given three problems and three solutions to those problems. We had to select the option that Metternich would have chosen from his conservative viewpoint.
            Once we were done with the second activity we had accumulated four main ways that Metternich and the other powerful people at the Congress of Vienna eliminated threats to their power. The four main ways were a Balance of Power,  the Principle of Legitimacy,  the Holy Alliance, and the Principle of Intervention. The Principle of Intervention was an ideology that gave the great powers the right to send troops into a country to stop revolution and restore monarchs, England refused to take part in the Principle of Intervention. For example, in the 1820's Italians starting an uprise because they wanted one strong country, not separate states. Using the Principle of Intervention Austria was able to crush the uprising before it got out of hand. Another example of the Principle of Intervention helping powerful people stay in power was, again, in the 1820's when there was a meeting to decide what to do about revolutions in the Spanish colonies and against the Spanish King. Louis the XVII sent an army to crush the uprising in Spain. Not only did these four concepts have an impact but the Congress of Vienna did as well. The Congress of Vienna put an end to wars between the five major powers of Europe for 40 years (up to 1853). However, there were numerous revolutions that could not be contained including the Revolutions of 1848 in which Metternich lost power and was forced to flee Vienna.

A Congress of Vienna meeting

http://www.emersonkent.com/historic_documents/congress_of_vienna_1815.htm

            In the end, I personally think that the Congress of Vienna overall made the right decisions. The new territories seemed to please everyone as a whole because fighting for land came to a halt. This also resulted in a Balance of Power. The new ruler, Louis XVII,  made Frenchmen equal despite their titles or ranks which is a positive. This resulted in the Principle of Legitimacy. Finally, the Holy Alliance and the Principle of Intervention helped cease major fighting for 40 years. But I do think the powerful should be willing to sacrifice some of their power under certain circumstances. This would create a solid balance between the government and the people. 

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."