Equality over Everything

Recently in History class we learned about various latin American revolutions, and how people fought for independence. More specifically we studied three; that of Mexico, Gran Colombia, and Brazil. Race was a large part of all three of these revolutions, it is also a big part in many other things that take place in our world. The main point of this lesson was to pinpoint why it’s so crucial to acknowledge human value no matter what race a person is, also to figure out how the events in the Latin American Revolutions were demonstrations of this moral. To start off the lesson in class we filled in a pie chart based on the population of different races in Latin America. This then gave us a better idea of who the majority was at this time. As you can see in the chart below, the least populated group was the Peninsulares, they made up 1%, these people were born in Spain and had migrated to the colonies, they also worked in the higher ranking jobs. While the least populated group was considered the highest rank, the majority of the people were Indian, and they were forced to provide labor for the Peninsulares.  The people were so focused on race at this time that they created a system to tell what you would be labeled according to your heritage, and this would determine your social rank in life. This system was called a Canasta. The particular social rank in Latin America at this time was; Peninsulares, Creoles, Mestizos, Mulattoes, Indians, and African slaves. Next we split into three groups and we each created a timeline for one of the revolutions. After all timelines were done we mixed so that each group now had at least one person from each revolution who could explain their timeline to the others.

This is the make up of different racial groups in this time period in Latin America.

This is the timeline of the Gran Colombia Revolution.

My group chose to study the Gran Colombia Revolution. Once we finished our own timelines, in our new groups we discussed commonalities and differences. Two similarities between the revolutions of Mexico, Gran Colombia, and Brazil are that all three took place and ended around the same time; about 1800-1830. Also all three revolutions took place in the current day Americas. The differences that we came up with in our second groups was that the revolutions were all lead by different people, and the countries also spoke different languages. The three revolutions had differents way of gaining their independence but the problem of racial discrimination took place in all three. The Gran Colombia revolution was lead by Simon Bolivar who was born in Venezuela, and was fighting against discrimination due to birthplace. The Mexican Revolution was launched by a catholic priest by the name of Miguel Hidalgo, he issued the “Cry of Dolores” which called for an end to 300 years of spanish rule, and of course racial equality. The Brazilian revolution was a little different, the cause was new taxes and imperial control, so once there was a gradual transition towards Brazil’s independence Pedro decided that only peninsulares could serve in his cabinet. This is where race played a card in the Brazilian revolution. The bottom line that came out of all of these revolutions is that no matter race, or birthplace people should not be discriminated against. Racial equality has sparked many revolutions and led to many countries independence.

In our world today race is still an issue, you would think that because it has caused so many problems in the past, people would realize that it should not be an issue. Recently there has been many reports of unarmed African American men who have been shot down due to a policemen suspecting they are doing something wrong; when in reality they aren’t and because of their race they have been discriminated against. This issue of race that has costed many people their lives, most definitely still needs to be considered today. People have lost their lives fighting for racial equality and if we still have not achieved that goal then what have those people died for?

How Should We Remember Toussaint Louverture?

Every country has events in their past that have shaped the systems and guidelines in which the people live according to. Some countries even owe their success to a particular person or group of people. In the case of Haiti a lot has been changed, and Toussaint Louverture took part in a large amount of it. The island of Hispaniola was what Columbus called the territory, then the french took over and renamed the western third of the island Saint Domingue, additionally in 1804 the entire island was renamed Haiti. Toussaint was born sometime in the 1740s and served as a slave during the first part of his life. After being granted freedom, Toussaint stepped up as a leader, and changed the lives of many. He led a very successful slave revolution and contributed hugely to the independence of Haiti. This man played multiple roles throughout his life and made a difference based on what he believed was right. The most important parts of Toussaint Louverture’s legacy is that he was a Liberator of slaves, Military Commander, and Ruler of Saint Domingue. Although Toussaint’s accomplishments as Ruler of Saint Domingue are very important his role as Military Commander was more relevant, also his presence as Liberator of slaves is the most important part of his legacy. This is because he powerfully changed people's lives and ended an unfair system.

Most importantly we should remember Toussaint Louverture as a liberator of slaves. In 1791 he served as a doctor to the troops revolting against slavery, and also commanded a small detachment of slave soldiers. (Document A) Later on he stopped the revolt because for a short time France abolished slavery. He used his freedom as an advantage, so he could encourage and lead enslaved people to their freedom. He was also willing to go to extremes to fight for what he thought was right, which in this case is an end to slavery. “Could men who have once enjoyed the benefits of liberty look on calmly while it is taken from them!... We have known how to confront danger to our liberty, and we will know how to confront death to preserve it.” (Document B) In this excerpt from a letter written from Toussaint Louverture to the French Directory he states that the people have already been freed, they have tasted liberty and they would never just standby while it was taken from them; they would fight to the death for what they believe in rather than letting basic rights be taken away from them without a say in the matter. Toussaint also helped write the Constitution of 1801, which clearly states the rights of the former slaves and every man. “All men are born, live, and die free and French….Each cultivator and each member of the family and is entitled to a share in the revenues.” (Document C) In this document Toussaint Louverture states that former slaves are entitled to freedom, and that the workers are to be treated equally to a member of the family that would do work on the plantation. In the Constitution the emphasis is on the fairness and family like aspect of the new system, how all people should be treated equally. Toussaint Louverture was a free man, so he used his talents to the advantage of others by fighting for an end to slavery; he should first and foremost be remembered as a liberator of slaves.

Toussaint Louverture had many roles as a leader, one of them was being a military commander. He was a large part of the success of the Haitian revolution and his contribution impacted the revolt in many ways. When his own nephew challenged and rebelled against his new policies regarding plantation farming, he did what he would do to any other, as if Moyse wasn’t a relative of his. “Toussaint ordered Moyse’s arrest and had him confined in the fort of Port de Paix…. Brought before a firing squad, Moyse himself gave the order to fire.” (Document E) Toussaint Louverture was doing what needed to be done to oppress the revolts. He needed to set an example no matter if the population liked his way of controlling or not. When Napoleon decided Saint Domingue was to be taken over, and the people knew his probable goal was to reinstate slavery, Toussaint used war tactics that were not familiar to the Europeans. “The French, however, [landed], but they found nothing but smouldering ruins, where once stood splendid cities. Toussaint and his generals at once abandoned the towns, and betook themselves to the mountains, those citadels of freedom in St. Domingo, where the blacks have always proved too much for the whites.” (Document F) Toussaint burned down the city the French were coming to invade, and with his army retreated to the mountains. This caused the french army to follow them and have a disadvantage; Toussaint and his men would then be able to use guerrilla style warfare; a style not known to their opponents. Toussaint used his knowledge of military skill in an appropriate way. He set an example and made sure he could control the rebellions rising up; this may have caused some people to dislike him but he still was militarily successful.

Toussaint Louverture was also a Ruler of Saint Domingue, this role was one that contributed to his success as a leader. In the Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801, which was signed by Toussaint Louverture, its states that “The colony being essentially agricultural cannot suffer the least disruption in the works of its cultivation.” (Document C) He approves this statement which tells everyone that because the economic system of Saint Domingue was so reliant on agricultural works, this was to be the main focus. He also proclaimed that “Any individual… tending to incite sedition shall be brought before a court martial…. Any manager or driver of a plantation upon which a foreign cultivator shall have taken refuge shall denounce him to the captain or commander of the section within 24 hours under penalty of one week in prison.” (Document D) These proclamations were building off of the statement made in the constitution of 1801. Toussaint was willing to be more harsh with the guidelines and punishments because what was right for the island may not be what the people may have thought. Toussaint Louverture was a forceful but effective ruler, and always had the best in mind for the people when it came down to his role as Ruler of Saint Domingue.

Although Toussaint Louverture was a skilled military commander, and a respected Ruler of Saint Domingue, his major accomplishments lie under the category of Liberator of slaves. He took it upon himself to stand up for the enslaved people by writing a letter to the French directory daring them to reinstate slavery in Saint Domingue, and outlining their rights in the Constitution of 1801. Though he was not always kind in the way enforced his rules, everything he did was to make life better for the slaves. He was a very successful leader, and he was a large part in getting Haiti’s independence granted to them.

Sources

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, 1863. Engraving of Toussaint Louverture, 1802.

A Wind of Revolution

This week in History class we learned about the different revolutions in Europe in 1830 and 1848. The goal of this lesson was to tell whether or not these revolutions were complete and utter failures as many historians have claimed. To be able to achieve this goal we had to study 6 very important revolutions: the Decembrist Revolt, the French Revolution of 1830, the French Revolution of 1848, the Frankfurt Assembly, and finally the Hungarian Revolution. Not only did we need to know about the revolutions, but we also had to find out what about them made them successes or failures. To really understand which qualities would fall under success and which would fall under failure; we made a scale. My group decided that to be an utter failure not one of the goals would have been reached and nothing would have changed. Next, if a small amount of progress was made, but no real influential changes have taken place then the revolution would be a moderate failure. A neutral revolution would be when a compromise is made between the revolutionary ideals and the current system. When most things are changed from the revolution but not all the demands of the people are met, it would be classified as a moderate success, and finally for the revolution to be a complete success every goal and demand has been met, without major setbacks. After this we were split into different groups, assigned a revolution, and given some sources to find out more about our revolution. From here we determined the basic facts, such as; what country it took place in, what year, the goals of the revolution, who the opponent was, the outcome, and some reasons for the success or failure. Then we were to identify using evidence, which primary sources from our handouts fell under the categories of outcome, opponent, and goals. Once we finished this each group created a survey monkey to help our classmates learn about each individual revolution.

My group’s revolution was the French Revolution of 1830. Obviously the country this revolution took place in was France, and the year it occurred in was 1830. The goals of this revolution were to extend suffrage, or establish voting rights, to win power for the middle class citizens, and to gain a constitution that would recognize the rights of the people. The opponent of this revolution was Charles X, he was the younger brother of Louis XVIII who died in 1824. “The liberty of the periodical press is suspended.…In consequence no newspaper or periodical or semi-periodical work, established or to be established, without discrimination as to the matters which shall be treated therein, shall appear, either in Paris or in the departments,”. This quote from The July Ordinances, July 25, 1830 By Charles X and His Ministers is telling the public that all rights they had to voice their opinions are now abolished. Charles X angered the people when he did this, he was attempting to keep the people in check, and to make sure that ideas of revolt couldn't spread. The outcome of this revolution was the people of France receiving a new king named Louis Philippe, who was also referred to as “The Citizen King”. “The Duke of Orleans [Louis Philippe] is a prince devoted to the cause of the Revolution…The Duke of Orleans is a citizen king, …It is from the French people that he will hold the crown.” This is an excerpt from Theirs, Adolphe.2 “Orleanist Manifesto..., and it tells that the new king was voted on. Louis Philippe extended suffrage but only for the wealthier of Frances citizens. Under his reign the upper bourgeoisie prospered, and the majority of the people were still unable to vote. The French Revolution of 1830 falls under the category of either a neutral revolution or moderately successful revolution; things were changed for the better, but not necessarily for everyone that was asking for the change. Click here to take our group's Survey Monkey.

This is a screenshot of the answers my classmates gave when answering this question,
clearly the majority understood where the French Revolution of 1830 fell on the scale of success and failure.

The European revolutions of 1830 and 1848, overall were more so successes than failures, the only true failure seemed to be the Decembrist revolt. The French Revolution of 1830 was a revolution that was trying to gain rights for middle class and to give people the right to vote, this goal was achieved. Not necessarily for all classes but for some. “It is from the French people that he will hold the crown.” This quote from Theirs, Adolphe.2 “Orleanist Manifesto... is saying that Louis Philippe obtained the crown, because of the french people that decided he was fit for it. The Hungarian Revolution was more of a neutral war; this was a battle that called for the countries independence and an outline of the people’s basic rights. The outcome of the Hungarian revolution was that for some time the independence was granted as told in this excerpt from Hungarian Declaration of Independence, April 1849; “WE, the legally constituted representatives of the Hungarian nation, assembled in Diet, do by these presents solemnly proclaim, in maintenance of the inalienable natural rights of Hungary, with all its dependencies, to occupy the position of an independent European State”. Shorty after the claims were taken back, but the goal of the revolution was achieved for an amount of time. Many historians have concluded that the European Revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were overall failures, but I think differently.

Liberalism, Nationalism, and Conservatism, Oh My!

During the 19th century there were multiple ideas that influenced the way people thought and  acted. These ideas are called ideologies. The three that we focused on most recently in History were Liberalism, Conservatism and Nationalism. Our job was to find out what the three ideologies were all about and what they did to influence the political and social systems of the time. We kicked off the lesson by trying to come up with our own definitions, which was quite difficult to create the modern meanings never mind the 19th century ones; then when the time allotted for that was up we were given more accurate definitions. To really understand what each of the ideologies meant we then split into groups and came up with a one-minute presentation to explain our ideology to the rest of the class.

My group covered Liberalism. This is the idea that the government’s job is to make sure that the liberty of the people is reserved. Liberals were open to new ideas as long as they can be supported by reason. The criteria for this presentation was that it could not be any longer than one minute, and at least somewhere around 57 seconds. We could use any program that we wanted, chatterpix, educreations, we could make a video and there were many more options too. My group chose to use chatterpix; this is an app that allows you to find a still picture and add voice to make it look like the picture is talking.

These were the different faces of our presentation, cartoon man, John Locke, and Adam Smith.

To try to teach the class about each part of Liberalism we had one figure talking about the definition of 19th century liberalism. In this we informed the class that Liberalism is the idea that the governments job is to reserve the rights and liberties of the people. Also that John Locke and Adam smith were large pioneers for this idea; building off of that we had Adam Smith and John Locke talk to the class about how their ideas were liberal. John Locke explained that he made the argument that regardless of class, people are born with the same natural rights as others. Adam Smith also played a roll in our presentation, he explained his theory of “The Invisible Hand” which is if the government sits back then the economy will regulate itself and people will compete among themselves. These ideas along with liberalism impacted many people and things during this time; some of these being the social and political systems. John Locke’s liberal idea made all people aspire to have equal rights, which caused middle class to want to take part in their government. Adam Smith’s liberal philosophy of the invisible hand impacted the social system greatly at this time; people would compete to be better than others, to see who would have the most money. The government has to be present to be sure that no one is being mistreated but they also stay behind and let things play out instead of interfering. Liberalism changed many things in the 19th century, and impacted many people. The idea that the government should protect the peoples rights was a very important one, and many benefiting things came from it.

In class the other groups taught us about the other two ideologies of the time: Conservatism and Nationalism. I also learned about them from this article. Conservatism is the is that old ways and traditions are kept. This is because when you need guidance; you may go to someone experienced for guidance. This makes sense because then you will know what has worked in the past and what hasn't. Looking to the past for successful ways of life and keeping those ideas and traditions is the idea of conservatism. This impacted social and political systems of the time because aristocrats that ruled in the past, kept their place in society and in the government. Nationalism is another ideology of the 29th century. This is the unification of similar languages, cultures, races, and histories. Nationalists also do not want foreign rulers. This impacts the social and political systems because people who weren't the same race as the majority would have been the lower class. Those that were all for their country and strong willed would make up the government. Overall the three ideologies of the time, Liberalism, Conservatism, and Nationalism all impacted the political and social systems, as well as many peoples lives.

A Napoleonic Age

Napoleon Bonaparte was considered to be one of the most strategic and successful military leaders and emperors to ever live. He was constantly expanding his empire all over Europe. Bonaparte had a large impact on the social economic and political systems of Europe; some bad some good. He could benefit you or completely turn your lifestyle in the opposite direction. Napoleon was a person that most were impressed by, not only for his military skills but for his amazing skill with motivational speaking. He spoke to millions of Frenchmen and at the drop of a hat convinced nearly all of them to join him in battle. Napoleon was a powerful man that made many changes to many peoples lifestyles, some having good results for everyone, but most benefiting one side of the issue. To find out more about Napoleon and his ways watch this video.

Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the Greatest Military leaders to ever live.
http://www.domainedechantilly.com/sites/default/files/Napol%C3%A9on%20Bonaparte%20Consul-fran%C3%A7ois%20G%C3%A9rard%C2%A9RMN_0.jpg 

The many parts to Napoleon’s take over included redesigning the political, social, and economical systems of many countries. In regards of France Napoleon impacted the political system very positively. He conquered many places, expanding Frances territory and therefore making France a larger and much more dominant country than anywhere else. Bonaparte also altered the Social order in many places. Napoleon created a meritocracy in which people would be rewarded based on their skills not their social class. In “Two Views of Napoleon” Madame de Stael sees Napoleon as forceful and intruding on the perfect order of France. This may be because she was the daughter of one of King Louis XVI’s financial advisers, giving her the most lavish lifestyle possible, so when Napoleon changes the way people would be rewarded it completely changed her way of life. In other words Madame de Stael was part of the nobility; when the social system was altered she was knocked down a few pegs, not robbed of every cent she had. In the same article “Two Views of Napoleon” one of Napoleons devoted war generals; Marshal Michel Ney praises Napoleon Bonaparte, calling him an “august emperor” and and “immortal legion”. He sees Napoleon as the future of Europe and the only person who could give the people liberty. The general also is slightly biased; being close to Napoleon he is most likely rewarded for following him and sees him in a slightly better light than most others. Still Napoleon did give people what they wanted, he changed their lives for the better. Bonaparte controlled prices, encouraged new industry and built more roads and canals. This created more jobs and options for people.

Marshal Michel Ney, one of the loyal companions that helped Napoleon get where he was.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Marechal_Ney.jpg

In “The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians” it says “... while we recognize these defects and faults, let us be equally frank in acknowledging his great qualities, -- his untiring industry, his devotion to the public service, his enlightened views of government and legislation, his humanity." Napoleon did have faults; he overcame the continent of Europe with the terrible conditions of war, he stole precious pieces of culture to make himself more wealthy, but he always had the best interest of the people on his mind. In some parts of the article it talks about how Napoleon would have been seen as a perfect ruler if he had not took that one last step into the territory of an overpowering tyrant.

My opinion on Napoleon Bonaparte is that there were many things that he did some bad, but most benefiting the majority of the population. He may have done things that were not necessary to achieve his goal, but overall he changed the way people lived in a positive way. Bonaparte changed how social class determined everything about you; you could come from a not so well off family, and still manage to make a name for yourself if you worked hard enough. I think that when some people, particularly nobles were put off by his remodel, he still impacted their lives in a positive way as well.

Which Way is Best? The World May Never Know

Recently in class we did an activity to represent the different kinds of government that influenced the industrial revolution. We played Rock Paper Scissors; we each started with 3 Hershey kisses, this represents the amount of money each of us had. The only exception was a few of us, those few started with 10. Then we played the game; we got to choose who we played with and if we lost you give your opponent one of your Hershey kisses. This keeps going and if you run out of Hershey kisses then you sit down and you are out, this was the result of most people’s games. The few exceptions though, got to keep playing. Even if you have only one Hershey kiss left and you don't want to risk getting out; you still have to play. This game created some frustration because the majority of us had only 3 to start with and we had a disadvantage to the few people that had 10. After a while we stopped and the teacher collected all of our chocolate, then redistributed it evenly so that each one of us had the exact same amount. Next we were given the option to play or not, when in the first round we had to play. This resulted in most people not playing because wisely, they did not want to risk losing their candy. This activity was fun in the sense that we were playing a silly game and only gambling candy, but for the people whose government this was representing they were gambling their health and their comfort. Needless to say our version of this was much less stressful but very depictive of the struggle none the less.

Both Karl Marx and Adam Smith wanted to help the poor, but they had drastically different approaches. Marxism is the process of Capitalism, then Socialism, then Communism. This means that at first in the step of Capitalism the economic classes were unequal. Some people had wealth beyond belief, but most had next to nothing; people were completely on their own. Next in Socialism what happened was that the government took control and then redistributed the resources evenly. Once everyone has equal ownership, classless society has been reached, and now communism begins. In communism people will not gamble their wealth in order to become more wealthy, they would rather stay at the same level as others rather than risk being less. This means there is no government needed, people will make agreements with others and will take care of themselves. The poor benefit from this system because they will then have the same amount of resources as everyone else. The The Invisible Hand is the form of government that Adam Smith created in order to help reduce poverty. This system is the idea that free trade, free migration and limited government will turn the economy around. This system is when the government sits back and doesn't do much when it comes down to controlling the people. It plays out to be people competing against each other for business, even if it means lower setting a lower price. This gives the buyer more options when it comes down to what they can afford. Benefitting the poor amazingly The Invisible Hand is also a form of government that helps out our economy.

Marxism and Smith’s Invisible Hand Theory are very different. In Marxism, the government has to take control of the people in order for them to eventually be equal and for the government to be nonexistent. In The Invisible Hand the government does nothing at all and lets people who sell things compete against each other for lower prices. I think that the Invisible Hand is a better system of government than Marxism. This is because in Marxism, the government has to take away some people’s wealth, that is something that they may have worked very hard for. Otherwise in The Invisible Hand people don’t necessarily have to have the same amount of everything, but they still end up having a better life than they would have without a system like this.

A Mill Girl Revolution

During the Industrial Revolution many mills were built to contribute to the revolution. Obviously with these factories people were needed to work in them, at this time boys were a good workforce but at the same time they were needed to help out on the farm; they were too valuable to give up. Girls on the other hand could also be put to work but weren't as helpful when it came to the family farm. This is the reason for why girls primarily were the ones put to work in the mills. Women who had the option to go to Lowell, most likely would make the decision to go. In Daughters of Free Men, Lucy Hall a somewhat younger mill girl, it was slightly because she desired freedom from her father, and some money to spend on herself. For most girls this was the reasoning, in most cases the daughters would send a part of their pay back home to be sure they were still somewhat helping out.

This is the cover of a book that contains stories from the mill girls themselves.

While these women were working in Lowell, they had many advantages. During time off from working, they had the chance to read, as this picture shows. This tells us the girls had the opportunity to get an education; for most this was better than anything they could have gotten at home. There would have been no opportunity for them there, in the case of Lucy Hall, when she went to work in Lowell she had the chance to attend a lecture from an author. These girls were not slighted at all when it came to opportunity. Other pros to working in Lowell were that the environment was shown to be peaceful and relaxing; good for any kind of reflecting or relaxation that I’m sure needed to be done.

When working in Lowell brought many advantages to these girls it also caused some grief for them as well. Overseers in the mills could sometimes be tyrannical and very demanding. They would be little these girls and cause them to think that being quiet and not standing up for yourself was the only way you could get anywhere in life. Other downfalls to working in Lowell were the obvious constant fear of wage cuts, frequently the girls pay was reduced because of the hard times everyone was facing. When this affects everyone it was more unfair towards the women who had given up their lives to work, if things did not work out and the pay could not support them then they would have nothing. If you worked in the mills then your were also in constant peril. Machines were very dangerous and the tiniest of things would cost you your health. In many cases girls with long hair were scalped, their hair was completely ripped off. other health issues were presented as well; machines were so loud it cost most people their hearing. Also the food the girls were provided was not even close to nutritious, it wasn’t giving these girls the proper nutrients their bodies would require to work as much as they did.

These opportunities and restrictions on the mill girls reflects the attitude toward women in the 1800s. Before the mill girls there was little to no education for women, this created more rights for women in general. The act of girls going to work in Lowell changed the way people viewed women working outside of their home and living away from their parents in a good way. Since the girls were watched over when they were working they never got out of line. These well behaved mill girls created a good image for the Lowell mills and the girls. The way people viewed women in general was also changed through this process, many of these girls who grew up working in the mills went on to become women’s right activists; really making a difference for themselves and others.