Jackson’s Indian Removal

This cartoon is titled “Great Father to the Indians” and the artist is unknown. Source: http://www.pbs.org/kcet/andrewjackson/features/galleries/cartoons/gallery.html?id=portraits&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true

At the time of Andrew Jackson’s presidency, American territory was expanding westward and Americans believed owning this land would lead to a more successful republic. This presented a problem for the Americans because this land was already inhabited by Natives; the expansion into Indian lands created a controversy. Jackson believed that this wooded territory would be put to better use by the new generation of Americans and would prosper more in their “civilized” control rather than the Indians. Contrastingly, the Cherokee tribe focused on harmonizing with nature and used the land in a more conservative style. As a result of this controversy, Jackson put down an order for all of the Indian tribes to be removed from their land and move further west. Even though the Indians adapted to western civilization and changed their way of life to match the Americans, the government still forced the Indian tribes to leave their former homes.

The political cartoon shown in this post puts a positive light on Jackson’s Indian removal. The cartoonist must have been a supporter of Jackson’s decision; Jackson is portrayed as a helper of the Indians and a compassionate person. This cartoonist was probably an American who believed that Jackson was helping the new republic by removing the Indians while also helping them out too. Personally, I think Jackson’s action was cruel and racist. If some tribes of Indians were willing to coexist with Americans and adapt to their culture, why was it necessary to force them out of their own land? I am disgusted by his actions but I also can understand why he was nicknamed “the people’s president”. Forcing Natives who were completely different than the Americans out of the land made the republic much stronger. A democratic community must have a large population that can speak the same language and have the same culture. Building a democracy in America with separated diverse groups would be a challenge. Jackson’s Indian removal was extremely harsh, but he did it for the newly developing democracy.

 

 

There’s no ‘we’ in Democracy

Current day America is a proud republic that centers around a democratic government. In an overall sense, democracy represents equality and voting of all people. A democracy should include all creeds of people in voting rights and should also allow everyone to vote without any pressure. Another important part of a democracy is the time permitted between elections; candidates should be in office for enough time to make changes but not too long so citizens against the candidate have a chance to vote in someone new. But democracy in America was not always this way.

The nineteenth century brought democracy for America, although, it was a very rough outline of what current day Americans picture a democracy. First of all, only high class white men had the right to vote; at this time slavery was still in place and blacks had little to no rights. Another restraint for voting was the land requirement. Only people with a select amount of acres had the right to vote. Obviously women were out of the question as well. The chart below gives an idea of how the voting worked during the first years of American democracy. This leaves a small minority of the population with voting rights. Not only was there this unfair voting law, but the system of voting itself was flawed. When voting, one would name a candidate aloud to a scribe who wrote it on a ballad; this scribe could easily change the vote and others around could here who the candidate was. Voting took place at an open courtyard where drinks were served. Clearly, the first years of voting in America were flawed, not only in the design but also in the restrictions put on voters.

This chart shows the change in voting systems in the established states of America during the 1800s. Note that as the years passed, most states changed into democracies while some states never did. This chart shows the gradual formation of early democracy in the US. Taken from the course Edline page.

Romanticism

 

This painting is titled “Romans of the Decadence” by French romantic painter Thomas Couture. Source: http://www.wga.hu/support/viewer/z.html

Romanticism was a literary and artistic style that focused on emotion and nature compared to the scientific and logical Enlightenment.  Some themes of romantic art was individuality, emotion, irrationality and awe of nature; each of these themes is portrayed in the painting to the right, and each theme is numbered. Number one exhibits the importance of the individual, as shown by the man high above everyone else. His placement allows him to stand out individually from the crowd. This man also exhibits irrationality, as marked by number three. This man’s action is clearly spontaneous and irrational; his disarrayed cloak and body language show that his action was quick and probably forceful. Looking below him into the crowd, there is a number two to point out the emotion in this painting. Two lovers are shown in the crowd of people, and they symbolize emotion and passion. The last letter, number four, is addressing the nudity in the painting. Nudity represents awe of nature because nudity is a natural thing and almost all of the people in this painting are nude. This painting by Thomas  Couture perfectly exemplifies the style and ideals of romantics in Europe.

Revolutions of 1830 and 1848

Though a student perspective studying history, the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were not truly failures as historians have concluded. A failure is defined by dictionary.com as, “nonperformance of something due, required, or expected”. Looking at the revolutions in Poland, France in 1830 and France in 1848, they do not fit under this definition of failure. The revolutions above may not have had a successful final result, but success was achieved, maybe only for a little, to classify them as small successes.

The first example of minor success was the Polish revolution in 1830. The goal of Polish nationalists was to gain independence from the control of Russia; this fight for independence turned violent and the Poles were able to be free of Russian control in 1831. This initial victory was clearly a large success for the Poles. They met their goal and defeated the Russians in war. This independence lasted for a small period of time before the Russians defeated the Poles at Ostrolka and won back power. Although the final outcome of this war was not in favor of the Polish nationalists, some success was accomplished during the fight for freedom, which is a reason to see this revolution as more than a failure.

As for the French revolution of 1830, most parts of the revolution were successful. French liberals and French radicals both aimed to kick Charles X off of the throne and rebuild the government. Liberals wanted a constitutional monarchy with a new ruler, Louis Philippe, while the radicals wanted a republic. Both groups of revolutionists worked to fight the government until they led Charles X out of power. This was a monumental success for both the liberals and radicals because now the government was ready to be rebuilt. The new government favored the liberals’ goal: a constitutional monarchy with Louis Philippe as the leader. The success ended there for the liberals because after Louis got power, he only extended suffrage to the upper class and limited voting.  All points of the revolution were successful for the liberals, until the king decided to neglect lower classes.

A final example of a somewhat successful revolution was the French revolution of 1848. A need for political, social and economic reforms led rebels (liberals and socialists) to revolt, which caused Louis Philippe to abdicate. Struggles between rebels formed due to the new government. Socialists gained control first of the government positions, followed by upper and middle class bourgeoisie; this control of government and abdication of the former king was one success for the rebels. Another success that resulted from the revolution was the right for citizens to vote. These successes were very important to the revolutionaries in France; the citizens used their new right to vote to choose Louis Napoleon as the new leader of France. Napoleon extended suffrage, but once he took control, he became an absolute ruler and led the French rebels right back to square one. As the revolutions mentioned above, the final result was not in favor of the rebels, but success was achieved along the way.

Even though the Polish and French revolutions were not 100 percent successful, they were not 100 percent failures either. Revolutionists were able to meet some of the goals they had. Unfortunately, each revolution ended in a failure for the rebels. With some success achieved during each revolution, it would be unfair to say that they were complete failures.

This shows the French rebels of the 1830 revolution killing many soldiers. This painting shows how at one point during this revolution the rebels were successful, which is shown by the celebrating citizens who killed soldiers. Source: http://www.superstock.com/stock-photos-images/475-2601

 

Note: My group was assigned the French revolution in 1830 and we were unable to successfully create a presentation. There is no link for my group. 😦

Monroe Doctrine

The United States, being a democratic republic, did not see eye to eye with the conservative Quintuple Alliance. When Spain discussed taking control back of the Latin American colonies, the US was angered. In his speech known as The Monroe Doctrine, President Monroe spoke of the situation with European powers. On the subject of Spanish imposition in the colonies, he said, “We owe it, therefore, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers, to declare, that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere, as dangerous to our peace and safety.” The United States was a strong supporter of the free colonies, and was willing to fight for their independence. Although the Europeans had separate views than Americans, Monroe was level-headed with dealing with Russia. Russia’s claim on the western coast was an inconvenience to Americans trade-wise, yet Monroe stated in the Doctrine that he was willing to, “arrange, by amicable negotiation, the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent.” Monroe acted similarly with England; He denied an alliance with the country, but chose to maintain a polite trading relationship. The United States reacted in a civil manner to the conservative forces of Europe while they also gave off a tone of solidity.

My “Me Thinks” represents what a Russian diplomat’s reaction would be to the green quote from the Monroe Doctrine

 

               On the other side of the Doctrine, Europeans and other countries of the world were upset with Monroe’s strictness on the colonies. My Me Thinks shown above exemplifies how a Russian diplomat would react to the Doctrine. The Congress of Vienna had put in place The Principle of Intervention only 8 years before the speech, and the monarchs believed they had the right to take control over any revolutionaries, including former colonies. Monroe’s firmness caused the indignation of Europeans specifically.  Besides being upset, the world was relieved to see that the US didn’t ally with England. England had the strongest navy in the world, which would give the US much strength in war. Even though the United States had much different government ideas than most of the world, Monroe’s Doctrine allowed the US to get the respect they deserved. His intelligent way of working with foreign policies and his level-headed manner was respected throughout the world. Along with irritation, the world gained respect for the United States. 

Congress of Vienna

The drawing above, titled “The Kings’ Cake”, shows how leaders at the Congress of Vienna had to decide which parts of Europe would belong to them. The cutting of the map is symbolic of the balance of power between countries. Source:http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?assetId=98658&objectId=1338717&partId=1

On September 1, 1814, a group of delegates sent from all around Europe held the first peace conference in Austria, known as the Congress of Vienna. This group was organized to discuss Europe’s new standing without Napoleon in charge. Napoleon had previously spent most of his career conquering Europe under France, but his reign was finally over. The sole purpose of the Congress of Vienna was to find solutions to all of the problems that Napoleon left in his wake and rebuild Europe.

During the meeting, a change to the map of Europe was a problem discussed. Prior to the Congress of Vienna, most of central Europe was conquered by Napoleon. Leaders at the meeting had to figure out how to redraw the map to spread land fairly to Europe’s countries; known as the Balance of Power. This concept was important in preventing any one country from overpowering the rest and maintaining European peace. The balance of power was also instated to prevent any future revolutions. To insure this, France was restored to its boundaries before Napoleon and Russia and Austria gained land that was lost during Napoleon’s conquest. This change allowed Austria, France, Prussia and Britain to be considered equal. As a conservative, Metternich appreciated this equality because he was against revolutions. The balance of power appealed to him as a conservative because it was thought to decrease chances of any European revolutions. The Balance of Power was one of the many concepts established during the conference. Europe reversed Napoleon’s conquests and didn’t hold any grudges against France as a country; all hostility was aimed towards Napoleon himself. The Congress of Vienna ultimately put down new principles that would aid the European countries to maintain peace.