Ideologies

The vine my group made was based on the political ideology of liberalism during the nineteenth century. Liberalism was the idea that government should allow individual liberty. In the vine, three people with the same colored clothes are all reading the same piece of lined paper. These people are supposed to represent the government, where each representative follows the same traditions. The classical music in the background is also used to show the similarity between the people and the old traditions they follow. The last person shown represents a liberal, where she has a white shirt on and rips the piece of paper. She is also singing a pop song. All of her actions show how liberals strayed from tradition and promoted individualism. As seen in the vine, liberals called for a political and social reform. Politically, liberalism brought up the idea of a meritocracy, a government run by selected individuals. They also thought a constitutional monarchy should be installed instead of absolutism. This change in government would allow not just aristocracy or Church officials to be involved; middle class people could also participate. Socially, liberals believed every man had natural rights given from God. They wanted social reform from old traditions and for individuals to express themselves.

The opposite of liberalism at that time was conservatism. Conservatives believed monarchy was the best political system and supported a social hierarchy with aristocracy and the Church in control. Socially, they followed all traditions and opposed any reform or change from the old order. Conservatives were afraid of any violence as the result of revolts. The third political ideology in nineteenth century was nationalism. Nationalism was the pride and loyalty for one’s country. Nationalists were against foreign rule and they believed having a local ruler would make the nation stronger. Nationalism promoted a social bond between citizens in each nation; having shared languages and cultures would unite everyone. Liberalism, conservatism and nationalism were the three main political ideologies during the nineteenth century.

Latin America vs British Colonies

The above map shows which parts of the New World were ruled by each European countries. Take notice of the Spanish dominance in Latin America and the British coast of North America. Source: http://history.howstuffworks.com/south-american-history/history-of-south-america2.htm

At different points in history, colonies in the “New World”, including North, Central and South America, all fought for independence from their European controllers. England had control of the North American colony on the east coast and Spain had most power in Central and South America, known as Latin America. British colonists and Latin American colonists both wanted freedom from their European rulers, which lead to revolutions. British colonists were seen by historians to have been better prepared for freedom after the revolution than the Latin Americans. Many factors contributed to why the British were more ready for independence than the Latin Americans.

A major difference between the revolutions in North America and Latin America was the racial situations. Racial problems, or a lack thereof, was one factor that put British colonies in an advantage during the revolution. During the time of the American Revolution, British colonists were not yet involved with racial problems.  As R.R. Palmer wrote in “The American Revolution in Comparative Perspective”,  “But neither slavery or racial questions were ever at issue between Britain and America at the time of the Revolution, as they might have been if the white Americans had rebelled a half-century later.” Colonists only focused on independence from England because slavery was not yet an issue. Contrarily, colonists in Latin America were extremely involved in abolishing slavery and creating equality for natives and Africans. Along with this slave revolt, colonists were also fighting against Spain for freedom. Pie charts of the two populations also give insight as to why the British did not face racial tensions during the time of their revolution. In the northeast British colony, the majority of colonists were white with approximately 5% enslaved persons, while the pie chart for Saint Domingue shows the majority (approx. 85%) of people were enslaved. Latin Americans had more complex problems than the British colonists, which is why British colonists were much better prepared for freedom after the revolution.

Government involvement was another important aspect that caused British colonists to be more prepared for independence than Latin American colonists. Due to the majority of native people in Latin America, colonists were not allowed to have any involvement in government, not even in a jury. The government system in Spanish colonies were organized under a main monarch that appointed Spanish judges rather than locals. Only a select few Spaniards were allowed to rule colonies which caused locals to have no experience in governing. This lack of experience was a disadvantage to the Latin Americans after they won independence because most people didn’t know how to run a government correctly. Unlike the Latin Americans, British colonists were not shunned from their government system. A government graphic of the British colony shows how the government system worked; the British King appointed a Royal Governor and under him, locals of the colony could either be a part of a Council or a Royal Assembly. Even though the colonists had to follow under British law, they had some powers in the colony and could control things like taxes and could make laws. This government experience was vital, because colonists were, “Accustomed to a considerable measure of self-government exercised through elected assemblies…North Americans had developed largely autonomous economics and policies…” as Anthony McFarlane wrote in “Independence and Revolution in the Americas”. The British colony was ready to build a new republic after gaining independence but the Latin Americans struggled to do it as well as the British.

Haitian Revolution

After gaining independence from France, Haiti was a republic run by black people, specifically Toussaint Louverture. Most other countries at this time were still deeply involved with slavery. To have a republic with abolished slaves and a black governor was completely out of the norm during the early 1800s. Surrounding countries were astounded by Haiti, but also feared the slaves of their countries would get the idea to revolt. Thomas Jefferson was especially nervous US slaves would follow after the Haitians, so he asked the US government to cut off trade with the island, which was denied. Despite these concerns from the global community, Haiti was ignored by the world. This lack of global support caused the republic to fall into poverty. As “Ignoring the Revolution Next Door” by Edwidge Danticat states, “Haiti, burdened by its post-independence isolation and the 100 million francs in payment it was forced to give France for official recognition–an amount estimated to be worth nearly $22 billion today, which some Haitians insist should be repaid–began its perilous slide toward turmoil and dependency…”. Countries completely ignored Haiti in fear that contact would cause a revolution in their slave-dependent countries.

This graphic sketch depicts the Haitians violently fighting for their independence. In this case, they are hanging a French soldier. Source: http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/haitian-revolution.htm

Combined with global isolation, countries also neglected Haiti when Charles X demanded an “independence debt” of 90 million gold francs from Haiti. This unlawful tax put Haiti in huge debt, which continued to be paid off until 1947. In “Frances Debt of Dishonor to Haiti” written by Isabel Macdonald, the author explains, “Following Haiti’s independence, former French slave-owners submitted detailed tabulations of their losses to the French government, with line items for each of ‘their’ slaves that had been ‘lost’ with Haitian independence.” This quote gave an outlook on how French aristocracy felt about the Revolution; clearly they were at a loss from losing their profitable slave business. No outside help was offered to Haiti during this stressful time. Overall, the republic of Haiti was forced into poverty due to the lack of global support.

Napoleon

As emperor, Napoleon declared himself the absolute ruler of France. This picture shows Napoleon’s love for power and how powerful he was in France and most of Europe. Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ingres,_Napoleon_on_his_Imperial _throne.jpg

For most of his life, Napoleon served as the military leader for France. Politically, Napoleon changed many aspects for France. He became an absolute ruler of France and also declared himself Emperor. His rule replaced the monarchy in France. This political change was also a social change for France. Before Napoleon’s time and before the Revolution, nobles and monarchy were the top class of the French. With Napoleon becoming the absolute ruler, all nobility were pushed down the social class. As Madame de Staël clearly expressed in her writing, the French nobility were not happy with this change. She wrote “His system was to encroach daily France’s liberty and Europe’s independence…By alternating between cunning and force he has subjugated Europe.” The condescending tone she uses to describe Napoleon shows her hatred towards him.  On the other hand, Napoleon was admired by low-class French people. In his speech, Marshal Michel Ney said, “Liberty triumphs in the end, and Napoleon, our august emperor, comes to confirm it.” Soldiers especially appreciated Napoleon and acknowledged his intelligent decision during his rule. Napoleon was not an unfair ruler. Economically, he made fair decisions and eased the lower-class of the ridiculous taxes they previously were forced to pay. France was always a strong European country, and under Napoleon it continued to thrive.

France was only one of the many European countries Napoleon changed economically, socially or politically. For countries that Napoleon controlled, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, the Confederation of the Rhine and the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, he changed the political systems. He took complete control of the mentioned areas, which forced any previous rulers off of their throne.  Countries at war with France, mainly Great Britain and Portugal, suffered some economic strain due to the expenses of war. During his rule, Napoleon went to war with most countries in central Europe. An excerpt from “The Lost Voices of Napoleonic History” helps to explain Napoleon’s character and his thirst for domination. The excerpt states, “But, wrote Headley, Napoleon was a ‘moral dwarf’ who even in his ‘magnanimous deeds, always advanced his fame. He aspired after unquestioned preeminence among the thrones of Europe, but he had not the higher qualities of heart and the pure philanthropy which would have made it safe to hold the power that seemed at times within his grasp.'” The writer mentioned explains that it was clear Napoleon was obsessed with taking power in Europe, rather than genuinely caring about his subjects. Nevertheless, Napoleon succeeded in changing up Europe socially, economically and politically.

GB US Comparison

Great Britain took the lead in industrialization in the late 1700s, where factories spread like wildfire across England. With that said, Great Britain would be a better place for an industrialist to profit than an industrialist in the US. According to “The Industrial Revolution” article, the vast amount of coal and iron resources was a reason why Great Britain advanced during the industrial revolution. The English government was also a large supporter of industrialization. As an industrialist, working in Great Britain would be a huge advantage. Many new types of technology were invented to increase effectiveness while producing products cheaply. Laborers were more easily available in Great Britain due to the loss of farmland as industry grew. Families in Great Britain depended solely on city jobs once they were pushed out of their farms. Keep in mind that Great Britain is an island with limited space and the US had plenty of land for farmers to utilize.  Years later when industry grew popular in the US, American citizens had more freedom to decide whether they wanted to stay on the farm or move to the city, which forced US factory owners to try to persuade families to allow young girls to work. In her autobiography of life in Lowell, Harriet Hanson Robinson wrote, “Help was in great demand and stories were told all over the country of the new factory place, and the high wages that were offered to all classes of work­people…” People in the US saw how poorly workers were treated in Great Britain, forcing industrialists to create better working environments. Industrialists had a harder time recruiting workers to work at their factories, and the workers would not settle for cheap wages. Clearly Great Britain would allow an industrialist to be more successful, due to the abundance of cheap laborers, support from government and the growing Industrial Revolution.

Contrary to the above paragraph, workers had a better experience in the US. Industrialization didn’t spread to the states until more than 50 years after Great Britain’s Industrial Revolution. Once America became industrialized, Great Britain was used as an example of how to run the factories. Harriet Hanson Robinson claimed in her autobiography that 14 hours was the minimum working hours per day! She also explained protests workers had when wages were cut; factory workers in the US were much more conscious of unfairness from factory owners. Nevertheless, workers in Great Britain had much worse conditions. Robinson wrote about workers in England and France in her autobiography, where she said, “In the eyes of her overseer she was but a brute, a slave, to be beaten, pinched and pushed about.” She goes on to say that the higher wages US workers were paid broke that prejudice. Although conditions for factory workers were never perfect, the US had more humane working conditions at the time. A factory worker would be much better off living in the US than Great Britain.

 The map shown gives a visual on the abundance of coal and iron in Great Britain, which were vital to the Industrial Revolution. The vast amount of factories are also shown spread among the land. Taken from http://www.wall-maps.com/classroom/history/world/industrial-revolution-map.asp

Mary Paul Letters

Seen above is a photograph of a street found in Lowell Ma, taken from http://www.uml.edu/tsongas/bringing-hisEtory-home/endings/31_sb1.htm

Mary started her letters with an eager tone, asking her father to allow her to work at the mill. She was in need of clothes and a higher wage, and she claimed working at the mill would provide her with enough income to help her buy clothes. Once Mary got a job, she became homesick, which is evident in letters two and three. In both letters, she asks about many family members. She wanted more letters from them, while she really wanted to write to them but didn’t have the paper. At the same time, Mary seemed to be content with her work. In her third letter she wrote, “I get along very well with my work. I can doff as fast as any girl in our room…I think that the factory is the best place for me and if any girl wants employment I advise them to come to Lowell.” Her salary seemed to be enough for her living cost, and she was proud of how fast she learned to work the machines. This set of mind didn’t last long, though. By her fourth letter, Mary explained how she was working much more, yet she wasn’t being paid fairly. Her living situation was still fine, but she told her father her friends warned her that she would soon be poor. She continued to mention her family and wondered if they will visit her. By the time she wrote her fifth letter, Mary was extremely worn down from the intense work. She lost her original job due to illness, but luckily found a new one. She wrote in the letter, “It is very hard indeed and sometimes I think I shall not be able to endure it. I never worked so hard in my life but perhaps I shall get used to it.” Clearly the long work hours and strenuous labor were very stressful on the mill workers, but Mary also wrote that she planned on enduring it to keep up her salary. At this point in her career, her body was wearing out due to the hard labor. Her last letter was written as her mill career was coming to an end. Mary explained how her salary will not be high because she was out of work for four days. She seems upset to leave her job with little money, but at the same time she seemed ready to leave.

Ultimately, Mary is an example of the success of the “Lowell Experiment”. The main goal of the “Lowell Experiment” was to manipulate girls into working the factories with little wages and no uprisings. Mary started her first year of work learning quickly and willing to work a lot. For most of the letters, Mary explained how much she loved the boardinghouses and her work environment. In her fifth letter, Mary talked about how full the mills were with help. Clearly many girls were manipulated into getting jobs. Mary was a perfect example of what the factory owners wanted; a hard-working and timid laborer. Although Mary complained of the wage cut and the tiring work, she never mentioned an uprising. She allowed herself to be manipulated into lower wages, so she personally failed. The owners of the mills succeeded in using her for cheap labor, but Mary never earned the large amount of money she wanted. Lowell  proved not to be the best place for fair wages.