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.