I Have Power, Let's Keep it That Way

To answer the question: what should people in power do when their power is threatened; we looked to the Congress of Vienna. First, we read a pleasant little paper with elaborate descriptions and pictures that explained what the Congress was and who attended. After a discussion, we watched a dramatization of Napoleon Bonaparte and Metternich discussing France's plea for peace. In this situation it is Napoleon whose power was being threatened. In exchange for peace between France and the rest of Europe, Metternich, a conservative representative of Austria, demands that France returns the original borders before Napoleon’s conquests and ceases his conquests once and for all. When Napoleon was presented with this, his power threatened, he brought Metternich over to his window to boast about his grand army, trying to intimidate the person who dared to encroach upon his power. Napoleon claims his army has regenerated since it's last battle and will destroy Vienna if Austria declares war. Intimidating, yet still trying to encourage his opponent. 

               As history reports, Napoleon Bonaparte lost even with his rebuilt army, and was exiled once more. To protect against future Napoleons, The Congress of Vienna created acts that would prevent further disturbances in government. The Principle of Intervention is one such act which allowed the Great Powers: Russia, Austria, Prussia, Britain and France (which had returned to a monarchy) a special privilege. These countries could send in their armies to any other country struggling to extinguish a revolution. For personal reasons, England refused to take part in this. In the 1820s this principle was taken advantage of by the Austrians, who put down a revolution of Italian nationalists. The Principle of Intervention came in handy again in 1830 and then in 1848 when waves of revolution swept through Europe. The Congress of Vienna has other impressive deeds as well, like 40 years without war between the five Great Powers and the ever necessary extension of European monarchy, long live the King! 

               The Congress of Vienna, just like Napoleon, had a decision to make when their power was threatened. I do not think they made the right decision, but I do understand where they were coming from. The people attending the Congress were not of middle or poor class, so chances are they were mostly Conservatives who wished to preserve their power, and their choices in Vienna display that. They stuck with Monarchies, even though middle and lower class folk were clearly getting fed up with their current governments. If, instead, the Congress of Vienna had resulted in democracies where everyone gets a say in government, a lot of energy and resources could be saved stopping revolutions because they would be pleasing the majority. It would be a miracle if people in power would be willing to sacrifice some of their power and except a change that would benefit the greatest amount of people. 

Outdated Politics

In History we have endeavored to understand and define the three major ideologies of the 19^th century and their influence on political and social actions. Sectioned off into groups, we read sections of an article by Jeffrey Brautigam, describing nationalism, liberalism and conservatism as they were in the 1800s. Liberalism was the topic I worked on.

This is our final one minute creation. Using the information in the reading we defined Liberals as supporters of individual rights and believers that all people had rights straight from God. One funny little fact I found was that the original supporters came from the middle class, which makes sense. The social action that sprouted from Liberalism was reevaluating tradition, like a return of sorts of the Scientific Revolution. Nothing is safe from being questioned anymore, not when Liberals are around. One tradition that the majority of Liberals were against was the old fashioned ways of finding work. Meritocracy was seen as a better way of doing things. In our video we illustrated meritocracy with a cartoon, the stick figure more adept at the job is hired, and the other stick figure, whose father had had the job before him, is sent home sad. The other political influences of Liberals came in the form of governing ideas like Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand and John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government in which he supports the acknowledgement and promotion of individual liberties. Adam Smith and John Locke were thought of as the creators of liberalism. Their ideas sparked others like Thomas Malthus and Jeremy Bentham to write about utilitarianism and economic competition.

Political Liberalism for Dummies. manwithoutqualities. October 23, 2014.

          Nationalism and Conservatism were explained in other the one minute projects in our class. 19^th Century Nationalism sprouted not from two men, like Liberalism, but the actions of one: the conquests of Napoleon. Nationalists believed in making countries where there were people who shared culture, history, and language. These connections, nationalists believed, would protect these countries from being taken over. Politically Nationalism cried out for an end to foreign rule and a beginning of strict policies on foreign expansion. In the social realm, nationalists like Johann Gottlieb Fichte were arguing and writing to be heard. Unlike Nationalists and Liberals, Conservatives were unallied. Conservatives tended to only agree with other conservatives when it came to political matters, and they believed heavily in tradition. Politically, their dream government was medieval, including both aristocracy and the Church. Socially, like every other major ideology at the time, Conservatives wrote and wrote and wrote. Edmund Burke’s work, Reflections the Revolutions in France inspired people like Joseph de Maistre to pick up a pen and spread their ideas of Conservatism. This was all new information for me and after this lesson I feel slightly less ignorant of modern politics, seeing what things were like in the past does help to understand what is going on now. 

Poor is a Problem (With Solutions)

The most recent big event in history class was learning about Marxism with Hershey’s kisses. First, Mrs. Gallagher distributed the chocolates so that most kids had three candies and two kids had ten. Then we were informed we must play rock paper scissors, and the prize for winning was taking a kiss from whomever you beat. This was Capitalism, and capitalism did not treat me well. I was out and sitting down with no candy after just three games. Ten-holders could afford to lose a couple rounds, but I was not one of them. Next, in following with Marxism, we switched to Socialism. Everyone who had more than three kisses had to give back their winnings so that everyone started with an even three. This time we had a choice, to play or not to play rock paper scissors. I chose not to play because last time had ended so poorly, frankly I was happy I had candy any at all. Still, we were not allowed to eat, but that did not stop Mrs. Gallagher from eating a few in front of us, which truthfully, was painful to watch because the chocolate looked really good. The last step in Marxism was Communism. Everyone was back to having three and no one had a chance to increase their number, but we were finally allowed to eat. These three stages let us experience Marxism and the emotions the wealthy and the poor might feel with these changes.

www.derobertisjewelers.com/collections.php?collectionID=8

Then, we learned about another system, Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand. Both Karl Marx's Marxism and The Invisible Hand had a way to help the poor become more stable economically. In Adam Smith’s system, the government would step back from the economy and let it do its own thing, this way Smith figured that the economy would thrive with businesses competing with each other to create the best product for the least amount of money. This healthy competition would allow the poor to have a wider range of things they could afford, which would make the poor are better off.  In the first step of Marxism, Capitalism, the poor can theoretically change their class, but they do still tend to stay poor. Moving on to Socialism, everyone starts out with an even amount, but poor can still exist if they trade unwisely. It is the third step, Communism, which makes being poor obsolete. There are no more poor people because everyone starts with the same amount and everyone continues with the same amount of money and resources.

Before the lesson, I had heard of Marxism before. Even so, I think Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand is the better approach to help the poor because it seems more realistic. To have no government at all is an incomprehensible idea to me, and that is part of Communism. Having a government, but one that does not control the economy is easier for me to grasp. The only downside I see to the Invisible Hand, and the downside pointed out in the video, is it might take a long time before the economy is at a place where it is capable of competing successfully.  

La Contribution du Napoléon

Before starting the next unit in my History class on Atlantic Revolutions, we learned about the man who planted the idea in the people’s minds to revolt, the great Napoleon Bonaparte. What this man did with his power, conquering and conquering, had large impacts on the economic, political and social systems all throughout Europe. Economically, the new French emperor was an overall blessing. Napoleon, using his armies, controlled market prices and allowed for new industry to flourish. He removed trade barriers by building roads and canals. However it is not all pretty, one country that was hurt economically by Bonaparte was Italy. When Napoleon conquered Italy, he stripped it of generous sums of money and beautiful works of art.

19th century Portrait of Bonaparte, Wikimedia Commons

Politically, Bonaparte shook Europe, erasing boundary lines until just Great Britain was outside his control. The French armies managed to abolish the titles of nobility and serfdom. Under Napoleon, Europe became a meritocracy. Napoleon never sat still politically, so he sold the Louisiana Territory which began the American Expansion and doubled the size of America. After reading an online article entitled The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians by Thomas J. Vance, it was made clear to me in a quoted passage from William Milligan Sloane that Napoleon taught the European countries his ways. Europe, after playing the victim, managed to learn the tactics Napoleon had used for twenty years against them, and after they started seeing his patterns they were able to hold their own ground again. “…the teacher [Napoleon] began to diminish in success and splendor,” Sloane, 1894. That, in Sloane's mind was the downfall of Napoleon. 

The social structure under Napoleon was beneficial for some and annoying for others. There was a larger majority of rights for a larger majority of people. He made education more accessible. Bonaparte also sent out his armies a third time to end Church privilege. With those two actions, the wider education and the end to privileges of the Church, it seems Napoleon has finally managed to put the Middle Ages to rest. Some Europeans were in awe of Napoleon Bonaparte like Marshal Michel Ney, who served close to him and was greatly benefited whenever Napoleon succeeded. He said about Napoleon’s reign, “the times are gone when the people were governed by suppressing their rights.” Another perspective, less overjoyed with Napoleon was Madame de Staël. She said Napoleon was “to encroach daily upon France’s liberty and Europe’s independence…” As a member of nobility who had most of her power and authority stripped from her, this opinion is easy to understand.