Women's Rights Movement

During the 19th century women were expected to play a very precise role.

The Lavender article discusses the four characteristics of an ideal woman. One characteristic was "Piety", which means that women were expected to have a deep religious devotion. Another characteristic was "Purity", especially sexual purity. If a woman lacked sexual purity they were considered a "fallen woman" who was now "unworthy of the love of her sex and unfit for their company". The third characteristic of an ideal woman was "Submissiveness", meaning women were expected to be passive and "submit to fate, to duty, to God, and to men." The final characteristic was "Domesticity", which is the fact that a woman's place was in the home. The public sphere during the 19th century was the world outside of the home, where men worked in jobs filled with temptation and violence. On the contrary, the private sphere was the home, where women worked. The Cult of Domesticity was the idea that the role of middle class women was to remain out of the public eye while taking care of the house and children, and providing comfort and companionship to men.

The Seneca Falls Convention was in July of 1848, women from all across the United States came together to discuss the role of women. They proposed reforms that could make the lives of women better. The Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions was created during the Seneca Falls Convention, and it was modeled after the Declaration of Independence. Of course, the wording of the Declaration of Independence had to be changed because women were excluded from the statement “All men are created equal.” Therefore to include women the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions stated “All men and women are created equal.” The idea of women’s suffrage was controversial at the time for various reasons. Many people, including Frederick Douglass believed that that 9th resolution was vital for the complete liberation of women. But others believed it was just too big of a demand for their times, and the suggestion of women’s suffrage would only “heap ridicule” on the movement.

Although the Seneca Falls Convention was meant to represent all women, some voices were left out of the convention. Middle to upper class women were the only women allowed to attend the convention, therefore many other groups of women were left out. Those groups include; Native Americans, Slaves, and Mill Workers. During class we did an activity to show how the convention would have worked, my assigned group was the upper class white women. Each “group of women” came up with a list of resolutions that they would have demanded at the convention, and I do say “would have” because most of the groups wouldn’t have actually been there. Many of the resolutions that my group and the class developed, overlapped with the actual declarations, for example a woman’s right to work wherever she wants. Our group resolved that women should be able to obtain any job that a man could, and in resolution 8 of the Declaration of Sentiments it states “...it is time she should move in the enlarged sphere which her Creator assigned her” meaning it’s time for women to be able to go out into the real world with men. One difference was that in our group we made the women’s right to vote on the top of our resolutions and no one really batted an eye at it. But during the actual convention it was extremely controversial which shows how much times have changed.

I believe that of all the resolutions we covered, slavery is the most important. In my opinion slavery out of all the controversies back then was the most immoral and unconstitutional. Just the thought of a person “owning” another person is ridiculous. To resolve slavery, I believe is very important because so many innocent people were being tortured by their slave owners, and even if they weren’t they still deserve to be free. I think it would be extremely hypocritical to call America “The home of the free”, if slavery had not of been abolished. Although our society has accomplished this resolution and all of the other objectives of the convention, the unjust treatment of African Americans, women, etc. still sadly lingers in today’s society. Racism and sexism are two problems our society deals with to this day, but since the 19th century we have come very far and hopefully we can fully overcome these problems one day for good.

What Nickname does Andrew Jackson Deserve?

Andrew Jackson was the 7th president of the United States, presiding from 1829-1837. Jackson has earned himself many different nicknames, ranging from “Old Hickory” to “King Mob”. His two most popular labels were “The People’s President” and “King Andrew”. One reason he was called “The People’s President” was because he was known for defending the United States, even before he was president, by serving as a general in the War of 1812. Also, Jackson won the popular vote against John Quincy Adams in the election of 1824. Although Jackson did not win the whole election, he won the peoples vote by a huge majority. Lastly, Jackson was known as the “People’s President” because in 1828 he expanded suffrage by giving white, common men the right to vote. Therefore the property requirement for voting was eliminated in most states, which made for a more democratic election.

On the other side of the spectrum, Jackson was known as “King Andrew” which shines light on his less humane side. One huge reason for this nickname is because in 1830 Jackson forced the Native Americans from their homes in the southeast of the United States all the way to  across the Mississippi River. Too add on to that, Jackson goes completely against the Constitution by refusing to uphold the Supreme Court’s decision to let the Indians stay put. Another reason Jackson was known as “King Andrew” is because he caused the United States to go in to a complete economic crisis when he vetoed the Bank of the United States charter. This was only because he favored local banks that threw support towards him, which to the people seemed like a “King” kinda thing to do.

After learning all the facts about President Jackson, I believe that the title of “King Andrew” fits him more appropriately than “The People’s President”. For me, Jackson’s few, but huge indiscretions over power his democratic legacies. Even as a president, Jackson still has to uphold to the constitution. The way he forced the Native Americans out of their own territories shows he is not suitable to protect the unalienable rights of every American. I also believe that how Jackson “rotated the office” just to reward his supporters and ensure his future presidency was a very monarch-like thing to do. Through out everything we have learned about Jackson, I saw him some how abusing his power. For example he is known to “promote western expansion” but throughout the process he harmed the Native Americans. For every one reason he was known as “People’s President’ I see five reasons why he is known as “King Andrew.”

US Response to Drug Wars in Mexico

The United States is dealing with many foreign policy issues currently. Among many issues are conflict in the Middle East, Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, and Iran nuclear talks. But there is one issue that is occurring much closer to the United States, and that is the drug wars in Mexico.

Our southern border country is going through complete turmoil, the drug trafficking organizations in Mexico are causing crime on both sides of the border. “Since 2006, more than 60,000 people have been killed in DTO-related violence, and more than 26,000 have gone missing.” Evelyn Krache Morris states in her article “Think Again: Mexican Drug Cartels”. Those massive numbers demand attention from the United States Government, seeing that these two countries have important ties in economy and culture. “The two countries share a 1,933-mile border that 350 million people cross legally each year, making it the world’s busiest.” Morris states. Yet the United States gives about no attention to the turmoil going on in Mexico. Everybody knows that the United states does give an immense amount of attention to the border security between Mexico and the US. But Morris points out an important observation regarding the United States impact on the border control, she says “Yet the technology and money dedicated to enhancing security there have not been enough to thwart creative DTOs.” The US foreign policy is ignoring the chaos and tragedy going on in Mexico, when it is not only affecting the lives of people in Mexico but in our own great country.

One of the three lasting concepts of the Monroe Doctrine is “Non-Intervention, unless it affects us directly.” The United States “response” to the drug wars (which isn’t much of a response at all) is neglecting that concept of the Doctrine. Yes, the US is not holding an intervention in Mexico which follows the concept of non-intervention BUT it also is not addressing a threat that does indeed affect the US directly. Mexico is the United States’ second largest export market and its third largest import supplier. With Mexico’s economy struggling because of the drug wars, the United States’ economy will be directly affected in a negative way because of their relation with Mexico. If the US were following the three lasting concepts of the Monroe Doctrine they would do many things differently. First the US would not interfere by sending US law enforcement to only be killed and add to the amount of casualties, in order to follow the concept of Separate Spheres. Also the US would only help positively from a distance without dominating Mexico, which would follow the concept of Non-Colonization. But lastly and most importantly, the US should higher the security of the border to catch DTOs and diminish them from coming in to our country. This would follow the concept of Non-Intervention (unless it affects us directly), because the drug wars do affect the United States directly and the US should be holding an Intervention to higher the border control security.

The United States may use the concepts of the Monroe Doctrine for many other issues in foreign policy But their “let’s stay out of it” response to the drug wars in Mexico neglects the three lasting concepts of the Doctrine, because it is going to affect the US directly.

Krache Morris, Evelyn. "Think Again: Mexican Drug Cartels." Foreign Policy Think Again Mexican Drug Cartels Comments. Web. 5 Dec. 2014. <http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/12/04/think-again-mexican-drug-cartels/

Relating Race and Identity in Latin American Revolutions and Today

The Brazilian Revolution began in 1789, when elites under the captaincy of Minas Gerais revolted. They were protesting the imposition of new taxes and wanted imperial control reasserted. After Napoleon and his armies invaded Portugal and Spain in 1807 and 1808, the Spanish American colonies were left isolated from total control. In addition, King John IV arrives in Brazil as Portugal's prince regent after French troops invaded Lisbon in 1807. In 1815, John VI elevates Brazil to a "kingdom", five years later the Portuguese army heads into a revolution hoping to bring a constitutional monarchy. But, in 1821 John VI leaves Brazil, in fear of losing the crown, and leaves his son, Pedro, in charge. A year later, Pedro declares Brazil's independence, which was recognized by Portugal in 1825. Brazil is known as one of the few Latin American colonies to gain independence peacefully. Although race played a large role in most of the Latin American revolutions, it do not have much impact at all in Brazil's revolution. Identity did have a minor role in the revolution, it all began with the Minas Conspiracy which "involved prominent figures as well as military officers". Who people were according to social class had an impact on what they wanted for the country, in that instance the elites wanted imperial control and imposed the new taxes, and this all sparked Brazil's revolution.

In the United States we hear about a new issue that relates to race just about every day. The latest issue is the death of an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, who was shot by a white police officer. This terrible incident occurred on August 9th 2014 in Ferguson Missouri, and sparked many different reactions from people all across America. The Washington Post’s article “Was Michael Brown surrendering or advancing to attack Officer Darren Wilson?” discusses the controversies regarding the shooting and what both Brown’s and Wilson’s intentions were. In the article, author, Kimbriell Kelley, writes “The question of whether Brown charged at Wilson was a key piece of the puzzle for the St. Louis County grand jury, which decided last week that it would not indict the officer in connection with the killing.” Americans are left to interpret this incident by themselves based on whatever information they hear in the news or wherever, so chaos is breaking out all throughout the United States. Kelley wrote “Most of the roughly two dozen witnesses who saw the fatal gunfire Aug. 9 told the grand jury they observed something that was both upsetting and bewildering to them — a wounded black man, his hands raised somehow, walking toward the white police officer who was shooting at him.” The death of Michael Brown has left America wondering whether race is clouding the judgement of law enforcement. I strongly believe that race continues to affect national identity and politics, and it’s a disgrace to our Constitution. The article  “Was Michael Brown surrendering or advancing to attack Officer Darren Wilson?” shed light on the unfair treatment towards people of race by the law enforcement, while also sorting out the logistics of the case. Race and identity should have absolutely no relation to our rights as a citizen of the United States and just as a human. Yet, in this day and age in the United States we still see reports of people being victimized because of their race or identity, when will it come to an end?

Kelley, Kimbriell. "Was Michael Brown Surrendering or Advancing to Attack Officer Darren Wilson?" Washington Post. The Washington Post. Web. 4 Dec. 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/11/29/b99ef7a8-75d3-11e4-a755-e32227229e7b_story.html>.

Congress of Vienna

The time for change had come, Napoleon had been defeated, his whole empire was shattered. Therefore, the Congress of Vienna was held, rulers from all around the world came together in attempt to fix numerous problems. Well, what should people in power do when their power is threatened? One of the problems was redrawing the map of Europe, and their solution; maintain a balance of power where no country can dominate all the others. Another problem was establishing a new French leader, and the result; King Louis XVIII was re-established. One last problem they had to deal with was preparing for the possibility of future revolutions.

Metternich and the other people of power at the Congress of Vienna used the Holy Alliance and the Principle of Intervention to eliminate threats to their power. They saw these two concepts as a solution to prepare for the possibility of future revolutions. The Holy Alliance was initiated by Czar Alexander of Russia and stated that monarchs had divine right to rule. It also stated that any revolution was treason against God, therefore revolutions were a lot less likely to happen if they were considered as going against religion. The Principle of Intervention gave the great powers the right to send troops in to a country to stop revolutions and restore monarchs, having forces available to cease revolutions made it nearly impossible for them to even occur. England did not take part in either of these concepts.

In my opinion, the people at the Congress of Vienna made the right choice. I believe that they made the decisions that would benefit all people affected by Napoleons former mistakes. The "Balance of Power" was a good solution because it prevented from countries dominating others. And also re-establishing King Louis XVIII was an effective decision because under his rule, the Charter of 1814 was established which made France in to a constitutional monarchy with equality and rights. There might of been some instances where the people in power could have sacrificed some of their power. For example instead of using their power to stop revolutions and restore monarchs, they could have used their power to address the underlaying reasons for the revolutions and restore peace once and for all.

The Congress of Vienna by Jean-Baptiste Isabey, 1819.

Napoleon Bonaparte

http://chattahbox.com/images/2009/05/napoleon_bonaparte.jpg

Napoleon Bonaparte was an extremely controversial figure, some saw him as an evil tyrant and others admired him as a strong military leader. Madame de Stael states “His system was to encroach daily upon France’s liberty and Europe’s independence.” While on the other hand Marshal Michel Ney, one of Napoleon’s soldiers, states “To the emperor Napoleon, our sovereign, belongs alone the right to rule over our beautiful country.” Whether people thought he was a menace or a hero, Napoleon had a significant impact on the social, economic, and political systems of Europe.

Socially, Napoleon impacted Europe in numerous ways. First, the French Directory even planned to use Napoleon to further their own goals. That alone shows that he was a man with very good ideas. Also while Napoleon was ruling, more citizens were given rights to property and also access to education, which would allow all of Europe’s social classes to thrive. Napoleon’s armies abolished titles of nobility and serfdom across Europe, which would make for a more equal nation. He also established a “meritocracy”, which let people succeed based on their skills and not their social class. As a child, Napoleon was an outcast and spent a lot of time alone working on his studies, thankfully this led him to become a genius that truly impacted Europe’s social system.

Napoleon also made many economic impacts. As an emperor, he took many steps to restore the economic well-being. For example he built new roads and canals, that would allow trade. Also he sold the Louisiana Territory to the United States, which led the U.S in to an age of expansion. And a huge impact on the economic system was Napoleon established the Bank of France, while balancing the budget, and undertaking major public work programs.

Finally, Napoleon impacted Europe politically. He recreated the map of Europe with only Britain outside of his empire, which shows his ultimate power. Even when Napoleon invaded countries he proceeded to make them better. Like, after invading Egypt, he reorganized the government and established the Institute of Egypt, and thanks to Napoleon the study of ancient Egypt began.

Some people see Napoleon as a burden because of his reckless decisions or for changing the social, political, and economic systems that they may have liked. But for those that admire Napoleon for his power and skills, it is true that he is a hero. The positive impacts he had on Europe definitely outweigh the negative.

RAFT Luddites: Taking Sides

When hearing the word "Luddite" many things might come to your mind, including “people who are like kinda against like technology.” Well, the word’s true meaning has definitely been twisted throughout the centuries, and there is much more to who the original Luddites actually were. Luddites were skilled weavers, mechanics, and other artisans, they were followers of the mythical figure “Ned Ludd”. During the early industrialization they attacked machines and factories to protest against economic hardship. The Luddites wanted more work and better wages, this was the reason behind their outbreaks. The piece that follows is a mock primary source letter, where I am a young girl factory worker, writing to my cousin in America.

         Two Luddites destroying a textile mill in the year 1812.

Dear Marie,

     You should be proud to know that I am the newest factory worker at a mill in Nottingham! But, the reason that I finally got this work is not too pleasant. You see, a handful of workers who call themselves “Luddites”, have been destroying machines. They come to the mill to protest, screaming “We want better wages!”. Of course, the mill owner fired these people and that’s how I ended up with this work. The other Saturday while I was working with my spinning frame, a crazy man started running up the aisles with an axe, it was nearly the most frightful experience of my life. I truly do not understand why these people are making such a fuss over industrialization, I believe it’s been very good, especially for me. Industrialization is providing so many jobs for people who need them, just like me. Now that I’m working here, I can become more independent and use what I earn to support my family back in America. I could not be more against the Luddites, their views on these effective machines are utterly short-sighted. If only they would appreciate these gifts as much as I do, and see how much good they bring to everyone's life. I plan on sticking up for the mill owners and showing my support by continuing my hard work in the mill.