The Congress of Vienna's Threatened Power: Holy Alliance

Have you ever been the leader of something? Maybe a group project, captain of a sports team, or even just being in charge at home one day while your parents are out. If you have you know that being in charge is not always a good thing. There are always people who want to take your spot so what do you do when your power is threatened? Well, that's up for the leader to decide them self. The essential question we discussed and tried to answer in class this week was, what should people in power do when their power is threatened? This question is relating to the Congress of Vienna and how they took control of Europe after Napoleon made threats towards them. The exercise in class to depict this topic was that we were given multiple different situations which we would then have to make decisions about it just as the Congress of Vienna would. Overall, the lesson in class taught us about the Congress of Vienna and what types of choices they made.

In 1814, Napoleon was seeking to conquer more land and take control of Europe amd threatened the Congress of Vienna's power. Prince Metternich, a host from the Congress of Vienna, witnessed both the French and Haitian revolutions. These revolutions brought over a decade of wars, deaths, properties and towns devastated, and leaders killed. Metternich knew something had to be done to help the Quadruple (Quintuple) Alliance prepare for possible future revolutions. The system that the Congress of Vienna used was the Holy Alliance. The Holy Alliance stated that monarchs had divine right to rule and any revolution was treason and against God. This eliminated threats because it made it so trying to make a revolution would be against God. During this time period Europe was an extremely religious region and the majority of people would never even think to go against God. Another way it protected the Congress's power was because a revolution would be a crime. Before the Holy Alliance, a revolution was not considered treason but now it was a serious crime that had serious consequences. These two statements in the alliance made it so the Congress of Vienna always had power and no one could try and go against them.

Personally, I believe the powerful people at the Congress of Vienna made a good choice by the Holy Alliance. If the Holy Alliance did not exist, anyone could start a revolution which would lead to wars, deaths, and devastation throughout Europe. Although, I do believe that the Holy Alliance was not completely "revolution-proof." There will always be people who go against popular belief, people who are willing to commit crimes and go against God to stand up for what they believe in. Escaping these types of people is impossible because they are everywhere and everyone has different beliefs and values. For the situation of preventing future revolutions in Europe, the Congress of Vienna made the right decision by using the Holy Alliance to protect their power.

Napoleon

Most people remember Napoleon for being a military genius and a tyrannical ruler; however Napoleon’s achievements were many.  His reign as Emperor greatly influenced the social, economic and political systems of Europe.

 

The first way Napoleon influenced Europe was socially. To start, the French Directory was planning to use Napoleon to further their own goals. When Napoleon was a child he was known as an outsider who never wanted to hang out with friends or really leave his house for that matter. He ended up spending his childhood years focusing on his studies and making the most out of his education. This led him to be a very smart man. Napoleon used his knowledge to help people. Under Napoleon’s rule more citizens were afforded rights to property and an education than ever before.  The social structure based on nobility and serfdom was abolished which helped to makes things more fair.  He ended Church privileges as to separate church from state.  Also, he established a meritocracy where people were rewarded based on their merits and skills not their social class. This added to him promoting fairness because people had to work for what they wanted instead of being handed things just because they were born into a specific social class. 

 

As Emperor, Napoleon made many economic changes. Napoleon encouraged new industry so he spent lots of money to build roads and canals to help Europe’s economy grow and prosper. He controlled market prices so he could make things fair for buyers and sellers. He also created the Bank of France, balanced France’s budget and created public work programs so people would have jobs. Not everything Napoleon did was right. During the French Revolution he stole valuable artwork and took extreme amounts of money from Italy. This may have been a good idea to Napoleon himself but was a decision that hurt a whole country.

 

The final way Napoleon impacted Europe was politically. The first thing he did was he built a sovereign nation which included all of Europe except for Britain.  His invasion of Egypt led to the reorganization of Egypt’s government called the Institute of Egypt. Napoleon helped the American expansion by selling the Louisiana Territory to the United States.  By doing so not only did the United States double in size, it also created good relations between Napoleon and the United States.

 

Some say he was a hero, but others say he was the complete opposite. Some don’t like Napoleon for stepping right in and changing most things about Europe’s social, economic, and political systems and others simply don’t like him for the poor choices he has made which have impacted Europe negatively. Although not everything Napoleon did has positive outcomes many people love him for all the great he did instead of the small bad he did for Europe.

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism

In history class we took part in an activity using starbursts to learn about capitalism, socialism, and communism. When we walked into the classroom our teacher randomly handed out starbursts to each student. Some people got two or three pieces of candy while others got more. We were told to then play Rock Paper Scissors to compete for candy. This part of the activity represents capitalism. Each student started with his or her own candy with some people having more than others and this is like private ownership of industry with inequality in capitalism. The freedom of competition was when we could decide who to play and how much to play. The results were unequal economic classes because some people won candy and others lost. Class struggle was when we complained and workers revolt was when people would argue about fairness. The next piece of the activity was when the teacher collected the candy and redistributed it to all the students equally. In socialism this would be government ownership of industry and hoping to bring economic equality. With each student having an equal amount of candy, this is a classless society. After that we showed communism by having a classless society because many students refused to compete for candy and agreed to share which meant that the government was no longer needed and the teacher didn't have to supervise candy distribution. For me, capitalism was very frustrating because a lot of people were stealing and getting things they did not earn. Other than that, I enjoyed how I controlled my own earnings and was not stuck with one amount of starbursts. When the teacher collected all of the candy and redistributed it equally for socialism I felt annoyed because I worked hard to earn my candy and I got some of it taken away from me. If I had less candy then I would appreciate the socialism aspect because I was given more starbursts.

For communism I just wanted to play it safe and not play because I didn't want to lose anymore.

 

Marx and Smith both had ideas on how to help the poor but their minds worked very differently. Marx believed that socialism would eventually lead to socialism. He thought that government ownership and economic equality would eventually lead to a classless society. In a classless society no government would be needed to supervise and regulate money because everyone would be equal, including the ones who were once poor. Smith created the 'Invisible Hand' which meant that the government steps aside and let's the people work things out in business themselves. Without a government, businesses can choose their own prices to charge customers and eventually prices will drop dramatically. The decreasing prices will help the poor because they will then be able to afford to buy the goods they need. The market will then open up and have more job offers for the poor.

 

Personally, I believe that Smith’s theory with the invisible hand is the best. It allows people to work hard and earn what they deserve. This is more beneficial than Marx’s theory because in Marx’s everyone gets money handed to them. The hard workers and the lazy workers are both given the same amount of money and it is unfair. The invisible hand allows diligent workers to increase their success while the lazy ones stayed the same. Smith’s theory is the best option because everyone only earns what they work for and get what they deserve.

Luddites: A Letter to Cousin Lucy

What exactly are luddites? Well, nowadays people use this word to describe people who don’t use technology but that’s not exactly what it means. Luddites are skilled weavers, mechanics, and other artisans who were followers of a mythical figure ‘Ned Ludd’ that attacked machines and factories in early industrialization. Luddites destroyed machines and factories because their jobs were being replaced by technology and they were left with no source of income without jobs. To portray what life was like during the time of the luddite revolts, I wrote a mock primary source letter from the perspective of a young girl, who is around fourteen years old, who recently started working in a factory. The girls name is Anna and she is writing to her cousin Lucy who lives in America.

 

 

   This image shows two luddites in a textile mill destroying machinery in 1812.

Dear Lucy,

    I know I haven’t talked to you in about a month but I started working! I have a job at a cotton mill in Yorkshire and I’m very excited about it. Father says I will be great help to the family because I can help pay the mortgage. When I first got here about a month ago all of the workers gave me a warm welcome and taught me everything I needed to know very quickly. Everyone was exceedingly nice to me and their peers. I enjoyed working but now things have changed and no one is acting friendly with each other anymore. All of the mill workers are stressed out because they think they are going to lose their jobs. No one even talks anymore because they are too busy praying and worrying about having no position at the mills. This is all because of a group of people called Luddites. These people are evil and are trying to ruin us factory workers’ lives! At night when we are all in the boarding house sleeping, the luddites break into the mills (not exactly sure how) and they demolish all of our machines. The more machines we lose to the luddites, the less people will be able to work and thats exactly what the luddites want. They want no more technology and machinery to do work, they want to end the factory business because they believe technology and machinery are taking over their jobs to leave them with nothing. Eventually, we will all lose our jobs in the mills. These people make me so angry, Lucy! The industrialization finally gave me the opportunity for a real job and the chance to finally do something to help my family. This job makes me feel important; I can’t let the luddites take it away from me. The good thing is that me and my friends here won’t lose our jobs without a fight. We have started to make signs to protest and we even convinced the mill owner to reinforce the security system at the factories. Anyway, I have to go to sleep now and prepare to wake up in a few hours for work but I will let you know how all of this plays out. I miss you and please tell Auntie and Uncle I miss them as well.

                                                                                                     With love,

                                                                                                     Anna

Factory Life During the Industrial Revolution

                Both British and American factories were in poor condition during the Industrial Revolution. Although in America, at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution conditions were not always poor.

                Charles Dickens visited the mill factories in Lowell Massachusetts and observed the good conditions for himself in 1842, he stated, “I solemnly declare I cannot recall…one young face that gave me a painful impression; not one young girl.” However, these good conditions were short lived in America.  Factory workers in both America and Britain worked long hours.  A typical day would be to work anywhere from 12 to 15 hours a day. In Britain for example, young girls would spin all day with no breaks and no one overseeing them. Long work hours without breaks placed workers at a higher risk of injury even death due to workers being tired and making mistakes. In Britain, mistakes were not tolerated and the young children who made mistakes in the factory would be beaten.  Over crowdedness and pollution also contributed to the health and safety of the workers, both in the factories and the communities where they lived.  Over industrialization led to cheap housing or so called “slums”.  The factories would cause pollution especially in the rivers. 

                Workers in Lowell once enjoyed their jobs but eventually Massachusetts factories ended up like the factories in Great Britain. Everyone was miserable and not treated with the right amount of respect. There is no doubt that both Britain and America factories had poor working conditions.