Congress of Vienna

In class, we were asked a very important question. What should people in power do to protect it when it is threatened? To tackle this tough question, we studied the Congress of Vienna.

Meeting of the Congress of Vienna, Jean Baptiste Isabey (1814-1815)

http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/images/30011286-p%20copy.jpg

The Congress of Vienna, surprisingly held in Vienna, Austria, was a meeting held by Europe's largest powers to discuss what was to become of the world around them. After Napoleon was banished, Europe was left in the ruins of France's control. No boundaries were set in place, revolutions were greatly feared, and governments were in tatters. The great powers at the time, namely Britain, Austria, Russia, Prussia, and France discussed these issues. In class, we were given the task to predict the decision of the Congress on three topics. The first topic or question the Congress tackled was that of the boundaries of the countries. Napoleon had expanded France so much that the borders that existed before were effectively destroyed. What ended up happening, as most of the class guessed, was the reparation of the borders that were in place before Napoleon's influence. However, small changes in the borders were put in place, to ensure a balance of power. The second issue that was covered both in Vienna and in class was that of the ruined governments. Many people wanted to have a democracy like the prospering America, but the leaders present at the Congress only were interested in their own power. The Principle of Legitimacy was put in place, which dictated the idea that rightful monarchs should be restored to the throne. The third and final big point that both the Congress and the class covered was the fear of revolution. The congressmen acknowledged the idea that Napoleon rose from the French Revolution, and the powers were scared that this would happened again. To prevent this and protect their nations and power, they created two principles to deal with this. The first was the Holy Alliance, which described the fact that any revolution was against the will of God, as monarchs had a divine right to rule. The second principle was the Principle of Intervention, which gave any of the great powers the right to help another great power to silence a revolution. England refused to take part in either of these agreements. 

These decisions not only protected Europe as a whole, but the power of the people in the Congress itself. One key point that fortified the royalty's strength was the idea of the Holy Alliance. Not only did this prevent revolutions, but it protected the monarchs in general. The principle that was the baseline beneath the Alliance was the idea that the monarchs had a divine right to rule. Religion was very important to all people back then, and to threaten a ruler chosen by God was unspeakable. Of course, the monarchs at Vienna knew this and created this Alliance to protect themselves. This seems a bit greedy, and as history tells, the people of Europe think so too. 

I think that the decisions made at Vienna were partly good and partly bad. Making the borders of the countries how they were with the careful balance of power was pretty smart. No country really went to war with another. However, the problem lies internally. The time period after the Congress of Vienna was defined by the numerous revolts in many countries. This is due to a variety of reasons, but many of them boil down to the dislike of the monarchs. People got angry about the strict prohibition of revolution, and once one country revolted, many followed suit. The Principle of Intervention had no use if all of the great powers were invested in their own revolutions, and many people I believe saw this weakness and revolted. I think that if the congressmen had been less greedy with their power and gave some to the people, Europe would have been much more peaceful.

Napoleon

Napoleon and his empire left enormous changes on the social, economic, and political structures in Europe. In regards to his social impact on Europe, he was a very famous figure back when he controlled most of Europe, and many people had many different opinions of him. These opinions ranged from complete adoration to bitter hatred. All of these opinions had reasons to back them up, of course, but they still caused tension between people that viewed him differently. Countries that generally liked him would have been viewed negatively in the eyes of countries that didn't, and vice versa. On a smaller scale, this may have torn apart friendships and company's trust in each other. On a more positive side, Napoleon changed a lot in Europe in terms of individual rights and opportunities, adding access to public education as well as other beneficial things. He established what is known now as a meritocracy, where people were rewarded based on skills and hard work rather than social class. This, combined with the abolition of serfdom, gave the lower classes a huge opportunity in life. This was unheard of at the time, and this gave way to many economic changes.

After the social changes that Napoleon put in place, economic changes were already present. With the influx of a new, educated lower class, the economy in many countries started to rise. More people working and creating more supply and demand meant more money flowing through the economy. Napoleon ordered the construction of many roads, canals, and bridges to help trade. These would allow merchants to get from place to place faster, and more money could move faster as a result. In addition, he regulated prices and stimulated new industries, adding more and more to the ever growing economy. These changes were enacted all over Europe, where Napoleon controlled. In France, however, Napoleon got serious. He fixed the budget himself, and made sure massive public works programs were put in place. 

Finally, in addition to the numerous social and economic changes that were put in place, many political changes happened at the same time. Because Napoleon abolished serfdom, previous serfs now had a lot more power than before, and started to stick up for themselves. This lead to many revolutions in Europe about governments. The people realized that most of them didn't want a monarchy, but instead wanted to elect their own leaders and officials. Napoleon also changed some individual countries in a very big way. In 1803, he sold the Louisiana Territory to America. This doubled the size of the new nation and gave way to an age of expansion, which eventually formed the powerful country we know today. In Egypt, Napoleon totally reorganized the government, and at the same time established the Institute of Egypt, which was dedicated to the study of ancient Egypt. Many important parts of ancient Egypt were found due to this increased interest, including the Rosetta Stone. Napoleon definitely had an enormous impact on not only the economic, social, and political structures of back in the 1800's, but today as well.

Socialism, Capitalism, and Communism

In class, we participated in an activity to show how capitalism and communism works. We were given Starbursts at the beginning of class. Some students were given three and others were given ten. As we sat down, our teacher told us these Starbursts represented the money we were provided with at birth, and that the people with ten were wealthy and the people with three were poor. There were very few people with ten, and a lot with three, just like there are many poor people and not many rich people. We were then told to play rock/paper/scissors with other students in the class, and that this represented trading and commerce. If you won the game, you got a Starburst, but if you lost you had to give one up. After a while of constant losses, most of the class had zero candies left, while some had upwards of twelve. We sat down to inspect our loot (or lack of it), when the teacher collected all of the candy. Many people were disappointed, but I, having no candy, was not. The teacher then distributed an even three pieces to every person, and explained that this represented a communist society, where everyone got equal rations. We then had a few minutes to play rock/paper/scissors again if we wanted. In the end, everyone sat down and ate their candy. Many students thought the activity was frustrating, particularly the ones that started off with ten when they walked through the door. Losing Starbursts was not a pleasant feeling, but getting the same amount as everyone else in the end felt good. This eventual equality is intended to represent Karl Marx's idea of communism, where everybody has the same.


Karl Marx's idea of communism is very popular, even today. Countries like Vietnam, Cuba, Russia, North Korea, and China have all used his ideas in the creation of their government. However, this is a contradiction to the true definition of communism, where no government is even present. Marx believed that the general population would regulate their own economy. In this economy, everyone would get the same share of goods, and so the poor and the wealthy would become equals. This idea is far-fetched for obvious reasons, but it was an idea nonetheless. Adam Smith attempted to fix this problem by incorporating the idea of an invisible hand. He wanted a government to be present, but did not want it to have a direct and apparent influence on the economy. Thus the "invisible hand" idea was created, meaning that the economy was left to itself, and individuals can make a profit by themselves. The poor would benefit because the economy was completely controlled by the individual, and the poor could help themselves. People naturally have competition in them, and this is why the invisible hand works. People will always try to be better than everybody else, and this perpetuates the economy.

I believe that there is no one right or wrong answer. Each of these different ideas have their ups and downs, but in the end no one is the better one. Most of these ideas are based on the good qualities of humans, which can sometimes be hard to come by. No society is perfect, and even if they were there is a finite amount of goods that you can earn. As one gets wealthier, others must get relatively poorer. Each idea has a different draw for different people, but as not all people are the same not every idea is equally well liked. Personally, I like the idea of the invisible hand, because working hard gets you the wealth you deserve.

The Luddites

The Luddites were a group of workers in the Industrial Revolution that were famous for destroying machinery. The Luddite ranks were made up of skilled artisans, disgusted that industrialization ruined their welfare. These artisans were very good at their respective trades, whether it be weaving or farming. Unfortunately for them, so were the machines being created and used at an alarming rate in factories around the world. The Luddites, angry that they no longer had jobs- even if they did the wages were awful- and could not sustain themselves, began to destroy the machinery in factories. Many people believe today that "Luddite" is a term for people that are anti-technology, but back when the term was created it did not mean the same thing. The Luddites would form mobs and riots, angry that their living was being challenged by machinery. Below the picture is a fictional letter created to describe what life would have been like being a Luddite in the Industrial Revolution.


Luddites would commonly dress as women to create an image for their cause.

Dear esteemed cousin,
    Being a skilled weaver here in Britain is not as easy or as fun as my previous letters made it out to be. As you know, mills and factories are becoming more and more common here in Europe, and from what you say, also there in America. I have joined a group called the Luddites. We are a revolutionary group that destroys the machines that ruin our well being. When these machines in factories were made common, people bought their goods from them, because they were cheaper. As a result, I wasn't paid enough. I was barely even paid at all. My company soon went under and I am writing this to tell you I have had it with these "industrialists." They have ruined my life as a weaver, which I have spent many years to become. I was once known as one of the best weavers in the county, and it took me many years of personal connections and hard work to become this figure. These stupid machines came out of nowhere, and took my job with them. I can no longer support my family, and I have to work extremely fast to even make scraps of money. Work is awful and I can't stand trying to outwork thousands of machines. It is just not possible. That is why I joined the Luddites, who share the same views and problems as me. They want to destroy these ridiculous machines, and we are marching down Main Street tomorrow in a protest. Some members dress up as women, to give our revolt a face. Don't tell anyone, cousin, but we are also planning an attack on the mills in exactly four days. We are currently stockpiling the weapons and torches needed, but we will make sure that those machines never work again. They are ruining our life.
      Best Regards,
            Your Cousin

Working Conditions in the Industrial Revolution

Working conditions in the Industrial Revolution were awful. In both England and America, many people, including children, suffered from these horrible conditions. Whether these conditions were inevitable or not is a different question, but there is no disputing how terrible the workers had it in factories in both countries. Although there were differences in the two countries, hours became longer and longer as pay became smaller and smaller. It just gets worse from there.

First of all, food in the factories and mills was very bad. In addition to not being nutritious at all, it was distributed in very small amounts. It was full of fat and did not taste like food at all. Oatcake, boiled bacon, and potato pie were common dishes. If you thought they couldn't get worse, they do. Since the workers had no time to spend away from their stations, they had to eat their food at their workplaces, and often cotton or dirt would get blown into the food. There were very little amounts given to each worker because there were so many of them and the overseers were cheap. This caused fights and disputes over the little extra that was left.

Secondly, punishment was common in the workplace. Overseers were typically mean and horribly greedy, and if they didn't meet their quota, they would be punished. To prevent this, they made their inferiors work harder. The easiest way in their eyes was to punish them, and this was common. Common punishments in England included being beat and having your hair cut off, which was devastating for girls. In America, you were blacklisted and prevented from getting another job. Both of these punishments were common for children, because they were inexperienced and didn't usually work as fast.

Another horrible part of working in these factories and mills was deformities in workers. Working so long and hard can cause not only short term injuries, but also long term illnesses too. Standing for so long every day eventually led to many cases of knock knees. In addition to this, some workers lost the arches in their feet. Many cases of repetitive motion injuries were reported. In a couple extreme cases, workers were found to have no bone marrow, leaving very fragile and weak bodies.

Finally, the worst of all were workplace accidents. Many people died in horrible, gruesome accidents. Fast moving machinery could easily pull hair and people into it, and once you were in you weren't getting out. If you were lucky enough to survive, most times you wouldn't be for long. Limbs and hair were common losses, and the lack of medical attention caused many cases of bleeding out. Many kids, because of their small size and lack of strength, would get pulled into machines. The gears were relentless, and many died.

Working in conditions such as above would not be pleasant, to say the least. People dying and getting there bones crushed in machinery is not good, no matter the other conditions. Overseers would not change anything, and the industry only got worse because greed and power corrupted people. On whether England or America had it worse, England is the victor. There were more people, less food, and harsher punishments. I personally would never work in such a factory unless my life depended on it, but even then it is pretty gruesome. Working like that with very little food and extremely long work hours takes a toll on a person.