Views of Women in the 1800's and the Seneca Falls Convention

The 1800’s were a time of reform for lots of social classes and ethnic groups, but no group saw more change than women. Although women were not granted suffrage until 1920, women in the 1800’s fought for other things more successfully, for example abolition of slavery. Professor Catherine Lavender from the College of Staten Island, CUNY, wrote an essay entitled “Notes on The Cult of Domesticity and True Womanhood”, which explains the role of women in the 1800’s in great detail. In this essay, Professor Lavender said that there were two “spheres” which separated the place the woman worked from the place the man worked. The “public sphere” is where the man worked- the “harsh, unforgiving” working world that was “no place for a woman”. The term “private sphere” pertains to the home, where the woman was supposed to make a comfortable, safe place for the man to live. The role of women in the 1800’s is simplified best with the term “The Cult of Domesticity”, which was used to generalize what a woman was expected to do.

Professor Lavender also described the four expected characteristics of women in the 1800’s in her essay. Luckily, our modern-day society has moved on from these ideals, but the four qualities that women were expected to have were: Piety (purification through religious devotion), Purity (abstinence from sexual intercourse), submissiveness, and domesticity (staying in the “private sphere”). By maintaining these ideals, a woman would become a “complement to leisure”, meaning she would become nothing more than a pretty face to remain at home for her husband.

On July 19th and 20th, 1848, a group of approximately 300 delegates met in Seneca Falls, New York, to discuss the social inequality between men and women. They addressed many ideas, eventually settling on resolving the following issues: basic equality, job separation, education and religion, expectations of women vs. men, public speech, the two spheres, capability regardless of sex, and, most controversially, women’s suffrage. At the end of the Convention, a document was created which stated the rights that the attendees felt should be granted to women. This document was called the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments, and it became the basis for the women’s rights movement for decades afterward. The inclusion of women’s suffrage in the Declaration was the only point that was not unanimously agreed upon, since many people thought it was too advanced for the man-dominated government and press of the time, and that its inclusion would turn the Declaration into a laughingstock. However, the majority won, and women’s suffrage was included in the Declaration.

Since the Seneca Falls Convention was meant to give women a chance to share their opinions, the 40 men that showed up were asked to keep silent. However, women from many different social classes were represented, including upper and middle class white women, New England mill worker women, enslaved African-American women, women from New Mexico (considered “Mexican”), and Cherokee women. Our history class participated in a recreation of the Seneca Falls Convention, with several groups, each of whom was assigned to one of the attending social classes. My group was the Cherokee women, and we were arguing for the female-empowering Cherokee society to be brought back to life and given to all women. We also wanted to ensure that Cherokee land would remain protected from the “manifest destiny” that all white settlers were obsessed with. However, the class as a whole came up with a much longer list of resolutions, which were as follows:

1. Preserve Cherokee land (honor treaties)
2. Everyone has a right to be free from abuse (physical, emotional or sexual)
3. Equal pay for equal work
4. End slavery
5. Women have a right to hold office and/or vote
6. Women have a right to own land/property
7. Taxes should be based on wages
8. Women have a right to freedom of speech/speak in public
9. Everyone should have a right to a basic level of education
10. Education in multiple languages

The Declaration of Rights and Sentiments touched upon many of these issues, especially numbers 2,3,5, and 8.

Although all of these resolutions are very important, I think one stands out above all the rest. The right to be free from abuse, be it physical, emotional, or sexual, is one of the basic human rights that allows us to express ourselves and be who we are without fear of harassment or persecution. Although it is only one specific idea of the women’s rights movement, I believe this is the core of it, seeing as freedom from abuse is one of the most basic rights a person should have, and if the movement was to accomplish anything, it needed to lay this foundation. However, one thing is for certain: the 1800’s were a time of rapid change for women’s rights that were spurred on by the resolutions created by the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. Without this meeting, women might still be seen as objects of leisure that belong in the “private sphere” and should fit with the four characteristics of an “ideal woman” (purity, piety, submissiveness, and domesticity). Even though our society has come to regard these views as sexist and wrong, we still have a long way to go if we want to achieve perfect gender equality.

The Monroe Doctrine and Its Modern Application

Travis Giragosian

12/2/14

F Block History

The Monroe Doctrine and Its Modern Application

            James Monroe is not the most memorable President of the United States. However, he passed one act that was not only revolutionary at the time; but is still (or at least should be) in effect today- The Monroe Doctrine. This was a speech (and an act passed) given by James Monroe that outlined the policies of the US in foreign affairs. There are three lasting principles of the Doctrine, which are as follows:

1.      Separate spheres of influence- the Americas and Europe will not try to become part of each other.

2.      Non-colonization- there will be no new colonies in the Americas (though the not-yet-independent colonies can remain as they are).

3.      Non-intervention- the Americas will not intervene with Europe’s problems, and Europe will do likewise with the Americas.

After the creation of the Monroe Doctrine, any violation of these principles would be considered a threat to US security. However, the document was very controversial, as it went directly against the Old World ideals of the Congress of Vienna and Europe, which were founded mostly on the hope for success based on a autocratic and monarchic society. But the US upheld the Doctrine anyway.

            Foreign policy is something that is constantly being tested, especially in such a country as America, where democracy is the way of life. The news is filled with stories of the US’s involvement (or lack thereof) in foreign affairs. Perhaps the best example of this can be found in the drug wars going on in Mexico, our southern neighbor. Truthout, a non-profit organization dedicated to spreading the word on social injustice and bringing nonpartisan views to light, published an article about this that directly explains the US’s involvement in the drug wars. The Truthout article says that the US is heavily involved in the Mexican drug wars for several reasons, the main one being that we have sent the Mexican government over $100 million per year in military and police assistance, as well as world-class warfare. The US has also been vying for the extradition (the right to move the trial to another country) to the US of Mexican drug lord El Chapo, who founded the Sinaloa Drug Cartel. This shows that the US is in pretty deep.

            According to the Monroe Doctrine, the US should not be doing these things. The “Separate Spheres of Influence” principle is broken in that the US has sent plenty of people to Mexico, many of whom have even been disguised as Mexican marines for lengthy periods of time, according to the Truthout article. The “Non-colonization” principle has not necessarily been broken, although some could argue otherwise. However, the “Non-intervention” principle has not only been broken, it has been shattered, stepped on, and swept into the dust pan. The United States has interfered to a high degree in the Mexican army, sending highly dangerous tactical weapons that send Mexican intelligence many years into the future. This is not to mention the many US government officials who have become involved in the drug trade, “over 1000”, according to the article.

            If the US keeps on violating its own laws like this, our foreign policy methods will become even more flawed. We need to look at the Monroe Doctrine, flawed as it may be, for inspiration in how to handle affairs in other countries. The Mexican drug wars are only one example of this.

Lasusa, Mike, and Angelika Albaladejo. "US Support for Mexico's Drug War Goes Beyond Guns and Money." Truthout. Truthout, 1 Dec. 2014. Web. 3 Dec. 2014. .

The Brazilian Revolution: Connections to Today

                  The Brazilian Revolution for independence from Portugal was an unusual one. It lasted from roughly 1789 to 1831, although there was no (or very, very little) actual bloodshed. The first hint of revolution came in 1789 when officials in the Brazilian military city of Minas Gerais revolted against imperial control. However, this small revolt was largely ignored. In 1807, Napoleon conquered Portugal, but not before the monarchy could relocate to Brazil. By 1815, Portugal’s king, King John VI, had come to love Brazil so much that he declared it a kingdom that year. Also in 1815, Napoleon was defeated. This allowed the monarchy to move back to Portugal- although they didn’t want to. So, like the last person at a party who just won’t leave, King John VI and his family stuck around. However, by 1821, the Brazilian people had gotten so fed up with having their king so close by that they forced him to return to Portugal. King John VI, although reluctantly forced back to his less-exciting homeland of Portugal, left his son Pedro behind to rule as Prince Regent. In the next year, talks began to declare Brazil independent from Portugal. Pedro became aware of this, and, rather than to oppose this and become the enemy of the people, he decided to side with them and declare Brazil an independent country in 1822. By 1825, Portugal had officially recognized this declaration. However, in 1831, Pedro realized that he was receiving some negativity from Brazilian people who saw him as Portuguese rather than Brazilian, and, not looking for bloodshed as per usual, he decided to abdicate the throne and return to Portugal. Pedro left the throne to his son, the 5-year-old Pedro II, for whom a team of advisors ruled until he was of age.

The key factor in this revolution was nationality and identity- who was Brazilian and who was Portuguese? King John VI was forced to leave Brazil because he was seen as “too Portuguese”. Brazil declared themselves independent because they didn’t feel they were a part of Portugal. King Pedro abdicated the Brazilian throne because he knew the people saw him as Portuguese rather than Brazilian. It’s all of these things that lead one to believe that identity and nationality drove the Brazilian Revolution.

The conflict of identity in relation to certain countries is still thriving in today’s society. Recently, President Barack Obama passed an executive action (an order from the President that doesn’t require Congressional approval) that will make it much easier for undocumented immigrants to stay in the US and not be deported, which eliminates the negative social status of millions of people that are living in the country illegally. An article in the Boston Globe by Chris Caesar and Eric Levenson titled “President Obama Announces Executive Action on Immigration Reform” outlines the entirety of the plan, but the jist of President Obama’s plan is not difficult to comprehend- according to the article, “Under the plan, undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for five years or more, have children who are citizens or legal residents, formally register, pass a criminal background check, and are willing to pay their “fair share” of taxes will be able to stay in the country without fear of deportation, the President said.” This action was, however, very controversial. I believe that President Obama’s plan is sound, but many people saw it as outside the POTUS’s rights in office, and are calling for impeachment. These people probably believe that the term “American” should only apply to those that were born here or those that moved in with family or friends that were born here, which reminds me of a similar conflict- the Brazilians saw themselves as one people, and wanted their children to be identified differently from Portugal’s children. This applies perfectly to today’s conflict, where many people believe that US citizenship should not be all-inclusive.

Bibliography:

Caesar, Chris, and Eric Levenson. "President Obama Announces Executive Action on Immigration Reform." Boston.com. The Boston Globe, 20 Nov. 2014. Web. 26 Nov. 2014. 

Congress of Vienna reflection

            When a person is in a position of power and this title is threatened, they have several options. They may choose to lash out violently, causing the problem to be aggravated further. They may choose to accept fate and move on. Or, they may do like the Congress of Vienna, and gather with people in a similar situation to come up with the best possible solution together. The Congress of Vienna was a meeting of several countries’ delegates in order to solve the problem of the newly beaten Napoleon. In class, we took the place of Prince Metternich of Austria and tried to simulate his point of view in the Congress of which he was the host, learning the many concepts addressed there in the process.

           

            One of the major ideas of the Congress of Vienna was the Principle of Legitimacy. The Principle of Legitimacy was the action taken by the Congress to put a familiar face on the throne of France once Napoleon was kicked out of power. Once the minute ruler had been exiled, Prince Metternich reestablished the Bourbon line by appointing Louis XVIII (brother of Louis XVI, who was beheaded in 1792). This put power back in the hands of the wealthy and influential, and things returned to how they were prior to Napoleon, at least in France. By giving power back to the old rulers, the countries involved in the Congress of Vienna gained a powerful ally who could easily control the excitable French people.

         

            I believe that the members of the Congress of Vienna made a good choice by reinstating the Bourbon dynasty. This gave them a large amount of control of the French people, who were the biggest concern for leaders in Europe at the time. Although ending Napoleon’s rule (temporarily) made the Congress somewhat unpopular in France, it was a strategic move for the great world powers. They truly did the best thing to hold on to the power that they had just gained back from Napoleon. 

 
A painting of the Congress of Vienna from Encyclopaedia Britannica. 
Site: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/628086/Congress-of-Vienna

Napoleon Bonaparte Reflection

Many great leaders have left their impact throughout history, especially ones that were particularly controversial at the time of their leadership. Abraham Lincoln is now famous for freeing the slaves, but at the time of his presidency, people felt that he left a country divided after the Civil War. No leader is more controversial, however, than Napoleon Bonaparte, emperor of France from 1804-1814. As George Gordon Andrews wrote, "His record is a long one and there are many blots, falsifications and obscure passages."  Napoleon, as a general, conquered more of Europe than any other individual in all of history. This military skill led to a controversial outlook towards him, but it can’t be denied that Napoleon had an enormous impact on the social, economic, and political systems of the European countries he conquered. 

http://www.medindia.net/news/britain-appeals-to-keep-napoleon-bonapartes-death-mask-127759-1.htm

            Napoleon instituted a series of reforms that made many countries he took over completely different from how they used to be. In Egypt, he totally rearranged the government, which may have been unpopular, but he also created the first study into ancient Egyptian history. In all of the places he conquered, Napoleon established a meritocracy, a system of rewards based on skills rather than social class, which ties in largely to the American system of partial capitalism. Napoleon also contributed to American expansion by authorizing the sale of the Louisiana Purchase. Perhaps the most important thing Napoleon did, however, was to remove a lot of the Catholic Church's influence in politics in the countries he conquered. This gave more power to the people, who now were beginning to form a middle class under Napoleon's rule.

          Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte changed many things with his rule over the European countries. He influenced many other countries so that they were able to expand greatly, like Egypt being able to dive into its own history and the USA growing greatly in size. However, Napoleon's European property experienced many changes to their social, economic, and political systems under his rule. 

Blog Post #2: Conditions for Workers in the Industrial Revolution

                Nobody wants to work somewhere that leaves them feeling worthless at the end of the day. This is true of adults and teens in the workforce of today’s society, but it was especially so for the child laborers (and older workers) of the Industrial Revolution, especially in England. The working conditions in the mills and factories of industrial-age cities made working a hellish experience for the poor children who were stuck there.

                The worst conditions were found in Industrial Britain, the heart of which was the city of Manchester (incidentally, now home to the worst soccer team, Manchester United, but also one of the best, Manchester City). Here, workers were treated no better than slaves. Punishments in English factories were very extreme, with overseers whipping children, and cutting girls’ hair too short if they disobeyed their masters. Food was limited to tasteless slop, usually consisting of hard oats, potatoes, and fatty bacon. Meals were never eaten sitting down.  Though there were dangers in American factories as well, most reported incidents came from English cities. The children in these factories could have had limbs crushed in the machines, and if clothing or hair got caught, the rest of a child’s body could have been taken, too.  Other physical deformities arose from too much joint use and wearing-down of the bones. As William Dodd, a child worker in a factory said in reference to his hurt arm after working there for several years- “On dissection, the bones of the forearm presented a very curious appearance - something similar to an empty honeycombe, the marrow having totally disappeared.”

                Though American mills and factories were certainly not perfect, most historians and primary sources state that things were better there, especially in the city of Lowell. Unlike British factory workers, American girls working in Lowell mills were given free room and board, as well as a small salary to use for themselves. Most girls remained quite healthy and very few suffered the physical deformities their English counterparts did. Since the United States were not quite as poor and industrial as England, the mills overall were quite clean and healthy to be in. As novelist Charles Dickens wrote upon his visit to the Lowell mills, “The rooms in which [the factory girls] worked were as well ordered as themselves.” Also, most workers were there voluntarily; most likely farm girls from a neighboring region.

                Though it can be argued that an increase in industrialization of a city can lead to a decline in the working conditions there, there is a sharp contrast between the two hubs of the Industrial Revolution. It is hard to say what the USA was able to do that Britain could not, but the difference in worker morale and health in the two countries is astounding. However, industrial-age cities, especially in England, didn't have particularly child-friendly working conditions.

Industrial Revolution Museum Curator Project Reflection

This week my history class participated in a project which involved analyzing several documents related to a component of the industrial revolution.  We split into groups that focused on each topic and became curators of an imaginary museum, turning the documents into an exhibit. The groups learned how to examine documents, beginning with looking at them together as a group.

                There was no splitting up of documents, as every group member had to be familiar with every document. We interpreted the sources and their citations to find the title, creator, date, location, reason for creation, and significance.  We then put all of this information into a master sheet (though everyone had one of their one) for reference while creating the exhibit. We then put all the documents onto a piece of poster board and created placards to describe each one. It is important to take the curating process seriously, as you have to convey the information to people who aren’t familiar with it at all.

                My group’s project was one that had a lot of our hearts and souls poured into it. The topic was slavery and cotton during the industrial revolution, which was why I thought of the title “Products of a Dark Time”. Our documents included an article on Richard Arkwright (creator of the water frame), an engraving of a Lowell mill, a chart and a graph on the increase of slavery, a map showing the slave/cotton trade routes, and a cartoon showing how slavery fed the industrial revolution. I hope that viewers can gather this information in their minds and understand that this innovative time in history was fed by a darker force than just the human mind.

                I, personally, learned a lot from viewing the other groups’ projects. From “The Devastation of Child Labor”, I learned that a problem just as painful as slavery during the revolution was child labor. The exhibit taught me that 50% of factory workers were under the age of 10, doing jobs that nowadays would be performed by adult males. Now there’s a painful statistic. “’Not-So-Great Britain’: Why Industrialization Wasn’t Always a Good Thing” explained the economic and ecological ramifications of the industrial revolution.  More people should know that the steamboat was horrible to the environment, as it polluted water at a frightening rate. Speaking of transportation, “From Countrysides to the Big City” spoke on this very topic. It explained that transportation was constantly evolving throughout the industrial revolution, although some people were against this rapid expansion. The last poster I viewed was “Weaving a New World”, which, although it was similar to my group’s project in that it talked about clothing production, focused more on innovations in weaving. It explained that cotton factory jobs created another source of income for families, as it gave the women a salary of their own.

                After looking at all the posters in our makeshift “museum”, I can say with honesty the following: when one looks at a time in history as important as the industrial revolution, it takes some good museum curators, like us, to effectively convey this information to the public. Different minds, working together to share their intelligence, is one of the most powerful ways to communicate with a larger audience.