19th Century Social Reforms Final

19th Century Prison reforms.

Philip: I do not know; what did you see there?
James: We saw a great many men shut up in the rooms, the doors of which were three or four inches thick, and large nails or spikes driven through them, with flatted heads, and so close together that they almost touch each other. The doors were locked with a padlock so large that I could hardly have carried it. The windows had bars of iron in them crossing each other, and so near together that a child could scarcely creep through; and the rooms were so dark and gloomy that we could but just see how dirty and frightful they looked.
Philip: Why were the men shut up in those ugly rooms?

Source: http://www.teachushistory.org/Temperance/t-ten.htm

During the time that this document was made, the 19th century prison reforms were in full stride. People during this time were starting to fight against how people were treated in the Insane asylum and that the people inside deserved better treatment. The document also talks about how people reacted to being treated unfair in the Insane asylum. In the document, the people did not understand why people were treated in such a bad way. They were confused why there was spikes driven in the door and why the room was so dark and scary. This document gives a great image of the 19th century prisons were run and how bad people actually were treated and how bad the insane asylum really was. The source is believable because it's a dialogue between a father and his two kids. The authors claims are that all the people in the asylum because they are drunks and that the drinking is making them act this way. I do not believe that this is completely true because not everyone is a drunk and some people have real problems. So I don't believe his claims are completely true. I think the author created this document to showcase the conditions that the people in the asylum were in. Also, I believe they made this document to show the reasons that they were in there. Some people believe that everyone in the asylum was a drunk and they acted the way they did because they were drunk.

 https://reformproject.wikispaces.com/19th+Century+Prison+Reform+(7A) 

Rise of Democracy

The essential question from class was, How should we define Democracy? How democratic was the United States in the 1800's? To learn more about this topic in class we looked at pictures of county elections are learned what people where able to vote during the time period, which happened to be white male land owners. We also looked at how people voted in the 1800's. In the early 1800's people were mostly elected by the legislature, but in the 1836 every state but South Carolina the President's electors were by people and not by the legislature. Hopefully, from what we learned in class we can answer the essential question.

Andrew Jackson, "The People's President"?

The essential question from class was. is Andrew Jackson's long standing reputation as "the people's president" deserved? Why? Why not? To learn more about this in class we watched a number of videos, including John Greene's crash course and Ted-ED. This videos included the topics of the Bank War, Spoils system and the Indian Removal, we learned about these topics to further our knowledge of how Andrew Jackson handled controversial topics like the Indian removal and how he dealt with problems like the Bank war and the Spoils system. 

Our Project!!:
 https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ieW08p94fU4ZfEJFVK71SKw2Xy2k7y3mrzS5XX45S_4/edit#slide=id.g54c00edfc_079  

The Latin American Revolutions

The essential question from class was,  Why is it essential to acknowledge human value regardless of race? How are the events in the Latin American Revolutions evidence of this social imperative? To learn more about this in class we did a time line of the Brazil,Gran Colombian and the Mexican revolutions then shared them with classmates. Next we made a jigsaw and found two similarities and two differences between revolutions.

In class we were assigned to make a timeline about the Brazilian revolution our timeline was, Brazil

1789 elites in the captaincy of Mina's ferias revolted 

1807 and 1808 Napoloeon invaded Portugal and severed the connections between Portugal and Brazil 

1815 John VI elevated Brazil to the status of a kingdom 

1821 John left Portugal and his 23 year old son Pedro remained as the Prince 

1822 September 7th Pedro declares Brazil and independent kingdom

1825 Portugal recognize  Brazils independence 

1826 many citizens opposed the new constitution

1825-28 struggles with Argentina erupt into the cisplantine war 

1831 wide spread opposition to his rule, Pedro abdicated his throne and returned to Portugal. The revolutions had both similarities and differences, the differences we noticed about the three revolutions were the fact that the revolutions took place in different time periods and all of the revolutions included different types of people. The two commonalities we found between the revolutions were the goal of all three revolutions was to receive a constitution and all the revolutions happened to end around the same time period. Race was an issue of all three because all of the revolutions happened when the Spanish had control in said country. All of the revolutions were lead by people who were enslaved and wanted a constitution. After learning more about these revolutions I realized that race as been an issue for a long time and people need to find a way to fix it. 

An example of judgement being based on race is the issue in Ferguson. The people of Ferguson believe that the boy was shot because of his race which happened to be black. I don't know the whole story but I don't think the officer made the decisions to shoot just because he was black.  Another example of judgement based on race is the Muslim situation. The reason I think this is an issue because some people think that all Muslim are all bad and they all have bad intentions. I think that this is an issue that needs to be fixed because people need to realize that not all Muslims are bad, and that some are against the extremist. I think the issue of race is still a problem because people need to learn that everyone is the same no matter what religion, race or beliefs in god.

Protecting a Nation

The essential question from class was, What makes a nation? To what extend have people in history gone to defend their nation?  How far should people be willing to go for their nation? To learn more about this question in class we learned about the United states, Germany and Italy and how far they are willing to go to protect their nation.

The United States should be considered a nation because they were bound together by shared culture and language and that is the definition of a nation. Since the United States were a new nation there were a couple threats to their national security, one of which was the Holy Alliance of the Europeans powers. As Monroe stated that any European power were to, "Extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety".(Monroe's woes) Monroe is stating that if the European powers tried to extend their power in this part of the hemisphere that the United States would find it a threat to their national security. Monroe said that he will not mess with the Europeans power's existing colonies as long as they keep out of the new Latin American colonies. If Europe decided to attack the new Latin American colonies, the United States finds it an attack on them and they are allowed to use their military power to fight back. President Monroe was so willing to protect the United State's national security that he formed an alliance with Britain in case they go to war with the Holy Alliance and that was how far President Monroe was willing to go to protect the new nation.

Across the pond in Europe during the 1800's Italy and Germany started to consider themselves a new nation. Germany was made up of 39 states organized by the German Confederation that was run by Prussia and Austria. Prussia wanted to become a unified nation but out breaks of revolutions kept getting in the way. Bismarck was appointed the new minister and he could not get the influence from the Austrians to become a new nation so he started a war with France called the, Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871. As stated in the article, " The south German states were obliged to ally with Prussia against France in this conflict, and Austria was too weak to participate". This forced the people who did not want to be united to fight WITH the people who want to be united. After the Prussian victory they were identified the ruler of the German states and after a couple of years Bismarck was able to coexist all the states with a imperial parliament. In other countries like Italy, they also wanted to be unified. After Napoleon's rule ended the Holly Alliance broke apart the land that Napoleon controlled  and gave it back and made it a monarch, but instead the people of those lands wanted to be one unified nation without monarchs instead by a liberal constitution. Austria controlled most the land that Italy owned and was not willing to give it back. Instead Italy started revolting and started to fight against the Austrian dominance to get their freedom back. As one Italian said, I will not say of country or of liberty – but an idea that we Italians could and ought to struggle for the liberty of our country",  this quote is explaining that he is willing to fight for his liberty and that other Italians should too. After years of fighting the last Italian states were free from Austrian Dominance, Venice in 1866 and the Papal States in 1870. What we learned from the German and Italian fight for unification is that their leaders are willing to risk the lives of their people by fighting revolts and wars just to get the freedom and unification they deserve.

I absolutely agree with every decision that the leaders we studied made the right decision. I think individuals should be willing to do anything to protect their nation and willing to sacrifice anything.  For myself I would be willing to make any and every sacrifice to protect my nation.

Sources:
 Italy: http://www.edline.net/files/_6TKkB_/3efb40601739875f3745a49013852ec4/Italian_unification_overview.pdf
Germany:
http://www.edline.net/files/_6TKkb_/d6d88cb77903ec1a3745a49013852ec4/German_unification_overview.pdf
United States:
http://www.edline.net/files/_6TKiQ_/03d8e15f28b67b443745a49013852ec4/Unit_3_Lesson_1_Lesson_Notes.pdf

How should we remember Toussaint Louverture

Matt Weber A-block

How should we remember Toussaint Louverture?

Toussaint Louverture was the leader of the island known as Haiti. Toussaint would do anything and everything to abolish slavery in the world and that’s why he should best be remembered as a liberator of slaves. Toussaint should also be remembered as a supreme military leader and a ruler of Saint Domingue.  

The most important accomplishment Toussaint should be remembered for was his passion to abolish slavery in the world and a liberator of slaves.  In 1791, Toussaint became a doctor for the army when the slave revolt began in Saint Domingue.  It was during the war that Toussaint rose to power and became a military leader.  When the French abolished slavery on the island, Toussaint then started to support the French in abolishing slavery in Spain as well (Document A).  After the French reinstated slavery on the island, in 1797 Toussaint sent a letter to the French Directory. The letter stated, “We have known how to confront danger to our liberty, and we will know how to confront death to preserve it”. (A)  By stating this, Toussaint is telling the rulers of France that he and his people are willing to fight to their death to preserve their freedom and liberty and are not willing to give it up.  (Document B).  The reason that Toussaint’s letter to the French Directory was so admirable was because he is telling the French that they have to fight for freedom and not give it up. These are the qualities of a person that are willing to fight for what they believe in.  Toussaint also created a constitution that abolished slavery on the island of Saint Domingue.  In Document C, it states that Toussaint made a constitution that said, “There cannot exist slaves in this territory, servitude is therein forever abolished. All men are born, live and die free and French” (Document C).  Toussaint should be remembered first and foremost as the liberator of slaves due to of all the sacrifices he made and the dedication he had to fight for what was right.

Toussaint’s second most important contribution in his life was his role as a military leader. When Toussaint first became a military leader he taught his soldiers how to fight, both guerilla warfare and standard European tactics. The reason Toussaint did this was because he wanted to have his soldiers know how to fight in an organized fashion, like the French knew how to, and also to be able to fight in an unorganized chaotic way.  The French only knew how to fight the standard European style, so when Toussaint’s army started to fight guerilla warfare style, it put the French soldiers at a major disadvantage, (Document A).  What also made Toussaint a great military leader was his ability to put away his family ties.  In Document B, it tells the a story of how Toussaint gave the order to kill his own nephew after his nephew lead an attack on a bunch white plantation owners. The reason why Document B is such a good example of his role as military leader is because it shows that Toussaint put away his personal business and kept his army in check at all times.  Toussaint really shines as a military leader in Document F when they talk about his military tactics.  When Toussaint heard that the French were coming back to enslave his island, he made the smartest decision he could make.  Toussaint decided to burn down all the cities and retreat to the mountains.  The reason he did this was because the French would not be able to survive without any food or water, with their cities burnt down and because of these things, the French would start to slowly die off.  Another smart reason to bring his soldiers back to the mountains was because they were trained in guerilla warfare and the French were not.  If the French tried to encroach them on the mountains, they would be at an immediate disadvantage because you can not fight standard European warfare on a mountain.  You can only fight guerilla warfare style and that is what Toussaint’s army was trained in.  As a military leader, Toussaint was unbelievable.  He possessed far superior tactics then whomever he was fighting.

The final accomplishment Toussaint should be remembered for was his role as the leader of Saint Domingue.  As the leader of Saint Domingue, Toussaint was able to give the people of the island what they wanted, which was a constitution and freedom.  The constitution he created made it so that each inhabitant of the island was promised three things.  They were born free, they were born French and servitude was forever abolished.  This constitution was so important because it allowed the people of Saint Domingue to finally have what they wanted and what they had been fighting for for so many years (Document C).  Toussaint issued a proclamation that said people would be punished if they tried to flee from the owners on the plantations, but if they stayed, they would start being paid for their work.  The idea of this proclamation was to control the people who were refusing to work and punish them.  However, this gave the people on the island the feeling that they were still enslaved, and Toussaint did not want people to feel like they were still slaves (Document D).  What made Toussaint a good leader of the Island was his ability to provide for the island’s needs and make tough decisions that might hurt people, but be for the greater good.

Although Toussaint is remembered as a supreme military leader and the Ruler of Saint Domingue, he should be remembered most significantly as the man that freed the the Island of Saint Domingue as the liberator of slaves.

The revolutions of 1830 and 1848

The essential question for this class was, Were the Revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians concluded? To learn more in class we all read about our specific topics and made a survey for the class to be tested on.

My group was assigned the revolution of 1830 France. The whole goal of the French revolution of 1830 was to get Charles X out of power and establish a constitutional monarchy. Charles X had other ideas, he was a strong believer in absolutism and totally rejected the idea of the people's charter. This did make the people of France very happy, they strongly revolted against him and his ideas. The citizens of Paris basically had control of the city within days, they created barricades and fired upon soldiers with items like roof tiles and stones. Charles was so scared he fled to England.
 A quote provides a quick insight how of the people of France were thinking when electing a new King is. "Charles X can no longer return to Paris; he has caused the blood of the people to flow. The Republic would expose us to frightful division; it would embroil us with Europe. The Duke of Orleans [Louis Philippe] is a prince devoted"( Histoire Genrale, 287-288). France wanted to keep the idea of the constitutional monarchy, so the elected a "citizen king" who was the cousin of Charles X. Louis Philippe was later elected by the people to be the new king of France. The people of France thought very fondly of King Philippe. At the Proclamation of Deputes in France, the following quote was said about the soon King Philippe, "The Duke of Orleans (Louis Philippe) is devoted to the national and constitutional cause; he had always defended its interests and professed its principles. He will respect our rights…we shall assure ourselves by laws all the necessary guarantees in order to render liberty strong and durable,"( Lois, 84-85).  The quote is just showing that the people of the French revolution just want a king that is devoted and supports/listens to them. Under the New king only the upper bourgeois flourished and much of the people of France still could not vote and the middle class also flourished at the expense of the workers.  Link to our survey! https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/T7WPJNT


The Decembrist  revolution in my opinion was a failure because the people of Russia did not get the constitution they wanted in the first place. After Tsar Alexander I died, Constantine removed himself from the line of succession because he did not want to deal with the revolts of the people. The revolts of the people were quickly suppressed by Nicholas I and the revolting people did not up getting the constitution they wanted, so I think this revolution was a failure. The second failure of a revolution was the Frankfurt revolution. The people of Germany wanted to have more political rights and also wanted to have more liberty. The reason I think this revolution was a failure was because most of the people of Germany immigrated to places like Texas and the United States and I don't think a revolution can be a success when people flee to other countries. The last failure of revolution I want to talk about was the Revolution of 1830 in France. The reason I think this is a failure was because not all of the social classes got what they wanted. The working class suffered the most because people got benefits from their working expenses another reason it was a failure was because most of the people still could not vote. I think I would have to agree with the historians because most of the revolutions we talked about in class were failures and the ones that did not fail were barely a success.