For the People?

Andrew Jackson was an individual who rose to power during the United States “Rise to Democracy.” Jackson was widely recognized as “The People President.” This past week we spent classes debating and learning about whether or not he deserved the title “The People’s President.” Our essential question for class was his reputation as “The People’s President well deserved? Why? Or why not? In order to help answer this question we learned about three different situations Andrew Jackson dealt with during his tenure as president, and whether or not his decisions were for the people.

The first system we learned about was the Spoil System which can be defined as a system where a newly elected leader fires many former workers in order to reward supporters who have remained loyal to their campaign. Jackson removed 919 from their jobs to free up space for men who were loyal to him. One of Jackson’s worst mistakes was hiring Samuel Swartwout who was a convicted criminal. Swartwout was appointed as a tax collector and he went on to steal slightly more than 1.2 million dollars. The spoil system did not benefit all of the people, but it only helped a select group of people who were loyal to Jackson. In fact it made about 1,000 people jobless. Next, Jackson played a significant role in the Indian Removal. Jackson felt that it was necessary to force the people of five major Native American tribes west of the Mississippi  River. Jackson went on to force the natives to do so by using violence. Many natives marched on a trail out west where many died and it is now known The Trail of Tears. This decision helped white people in the US because it freed up important land but it ruined the lives of many Native Americans. Finally, the Bank War was when a wealthy banker named Daniel Webster who proposed an idea to help grow banks across the U.S. Jackson vetoed this idea because he did not want the banks to over power the people. This shows that Jackson was for the people because he was afraid of them being taken over by the wealthy and powerful banks. Personally because of these three reasons I would say Jackson showed flashes of being the peoples president but I do not think he deserves the title.

Spoil System

Blueprint for Democracy

This past week in our honors history class we studied the rise of democracy in the United States during 1800s. The United States was one of the earliest democratic states in the world. Democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Democracy in the United States gave some people a chance to help decide how the country would be run and who would run it. In England no citizens had any power in deciding who got to rule. There was a king and a queen and their bloodline would remain in power. United States citizens did not have to deal with the same family for fifty or more years if they did not like their political views because they can vote for whom they want.

This chart shows that in 1816 all the states on the chart all voted by legislature and then by 1836 all these states voted by the people except South Carolina. One problem with the early United States democracy was that many states had restrictions on who could vote. Many places had a certain amount of property someone has to own before they can vote. 

Our Poster

No More Europe Control

This past week in my Honors History class we learned about the revolutions of Latin America. We split into three groups and each group was assigned either Mexico, Gran Colombia or Brazil. After the groups were made we had to analyze a Casta Painting and create a pie chart with the percentage of each race such as Peninsulares, Creoles, Mestizo, Indian People, and Slaves. After the analyzation and pie chart were done each group had to create a timeline for their assigned revolution. The timelines had to give the dates of major events in each revolution. After each group completed their timelines each group split so that there were two representatives for each country in each group. Once the groups were formed each twosome took turns summarizing their timelines to the others.

Our group was assigned the Brazil revolution. Everything started when Napoleon and his troops forced many people out of Portugal so the leader of Portugal, John VI and 10,000 others fled to Brazil. After a while John was forced to return back to Brazil to serve as a constitutional monarch. When he left his son Pedro took his place on the throne. Before pedro inherited the throne Brazil declared independence from Brazil. Portugal did not put up much of a fight and they recognized Brazil’s independence three years later. After everyone shared timelines we discussed similarities and differences of all the revolutions. One similarity between all the revolutions were that they were all seeking freedom from a European country. (Brazil from Portugal, Mexico from Spain, and Gran Colombia from Spain. Next, all the leaders of the countries did not last long. In Brazil John VI had to return to Portugal. In Mexico Iturbide was dethroned by republican leaders Guadalupe Victoria, and Santa Anna. In Gran Colombia Simon Bolivar was forced to go to Venezuela and then to Jamaica and Haiti.  One difference was that Brazil was not as violent as Mexico and Gran Colombia. In Brazil there was no real war and Portugal did not put up much of a fight. Secondly, Gran Colombia resulted in several different countries, and Brazil stayed as one. Mexico slit a little later than Gran Colombia. Race played a role in all revolutions. In Brazil Pedro only allowed Peninsulares into his government. In Mexico the entire revolution was for racial equality. Finally, in Colombia everyone who was not enslaved united in order to fight the Spanish.

Race was a major issue during these revolutions, however race still is a major problem today. As many of you may know there have been some serious problems involving race in Ferguson, Missouri. In Ferguson an African American unarmed teenager was shot and killed by a policeman. The policeman, who was white, has now been proven not guilty, and this verdict caused massive uproar in the town. Riots broke out all over Ferguson and people were seriously injured. Also, because of the riots there were many cases of looting. In these cases many businesses in Ferguson were damaged. This all started because a caucasian male shot and killed an unarmed African American teenager. This story has been all over the news and many people with white and black have expressed outrage over the verdict via social media. Ferguson, Missouri was the head trending topic on twitter all day yesterday. The story has been drawing many comparisons to the Treyvon Martin trial about a year ago, in which a teenage African American was shot and killed by a man, and the man was found not guilty. Both of these stories prove that race is still a massive problem in our world today.

Mexico Revolution
Gran Colombia

Toussaint Louverture: One of the Best

Adolf Hitler did some awful things to this world but he certainly knew how to captivate a group of people and motivate them to accomplish a common goal. Hitler excelled in the area of eloquence, but lacked heavily in moral leadership, political skill, toughness and honesty. Toussaint Louverture excelled in the area of Moral Leadership, toughness, eloquence and honesty. Unlike Hitler, Louverture managed to free a large group of people as opposed to murdering a large group of people. Toussaint started as a slave in Saint Domingue. He worked as a herder, a coachman and then an overseer of fellow slaves. Later, his owner freed him. Toussaint went on to rent his own plantation and he hired 12 slaves of his own. Toussaint Louverture should mostly be remembered as a liberator of the slaves, because many people were great leaders, but few leaders gained and helped sustain freedom for a massive group of people. Also, Toussaint was a great leader of his people and an exceptional military commander.

As a liberator of the slaves Toussaint displayed massive amounts of moral leadership, eloquence, and toughness. The French Revolution began in 1789 and this started to get many people on the island of Saint Domingue talking about freedom for the slaves. In 1791 the first of several slave revolts takes place. In this revolt a man named Toussaint Louverture joined the slaves and worked as a doctor for the soldiers. (Doc A) Toussaint also doubled as a commander of a small troop of men. (Doc A) After slavery is abolished by France in 1794 Toussaint joins their side. Then, he started fighting the British, who he defeated, and gained control of Saint Domingue in 1798. (Doc A) Later, in 1801 Toussaint gains control of the Spanish portion of the island. (Doc A) now that Toussaint is the outright leader of Saint Domingue he had some important decisions to make. He decided to meet with Napoleon to debate the reinstatement of slavery and he was captured and sent to France. Fortunately the men Toussaint commanded for several years were tough and well educated in how to fight the European and the slaves defeated the French in 1804. (Doc A) Toussaint warned the French that the slaves would fight back if they tried to reinstate slavery on his island. In a letter to the French Directory in 1797 Toussaint said, “… if this were to be done, I declare to you that this would be to attempt the impossible: We have known how to confront danger to our liberty, and we will know how to confront death to preserve it.” (Doc B)  In this quote Toussaint is making it clear that reinstating slavery is a bad move and that he trained his men well enough to defend against them. The French do not believe Toussaint and his men made them pay for it. Toussaint was a vital piece of the army of Saint Domingue and without him they may not have been able to defeat the powerful French. Toussaint was very well liked because of his distaste for slavery. In the Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801 article 28 states, “The constitution nominate citizen Toussaint-Louverture, Chief General of the army of Saint-Domingue and… he is entrusted the direction thereof the remainder of his glorious life.” (Doc C) This quote shows that the majority of Saint Domingue believed that Toussaint Louverture was a phenomenal leader because he was a liberator of the slaves. Also, this quote shows that the citizens of Saint Domingue also had a large amount of trust in Toussaint because they said that he would be the ruler for as long as he lives his “glorious life.” When it comes down to it without Toussaint Louverture there would have been slaves on the island of Saint Domingue for a much longer period of time.

In addition to being one of the greatest liberators of slaves to grace the earth Toussiant was also a fantastic leader of his people. He literally managed to work his way up from a slave to leader of his country. Toussaint helped create the Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801. In this constitution Toussiant lays down many ground rules to ensure that Saint Domingue will remain a great country. For example, article 16 states, “ Each cultivator and each worker is a member of the family and is entitled to a share of revenues.” (Doc C) In the constitution Toussaint tries to help unit all the people of Saint Domingue into a family. His idea of creating a family included that everyone who owns a plantation is the father to all of his workers. This implies that Toussiant wants everyone to treat everyone else as they would their brothers and sisters or their mothers and fathers. In Toussaint’s Proclamation of 1801 he lays down a set of rules that everyone in the country should follow in order to maintain the safety and well being of his country. He wants to make sure that no dangerous revolts or revolutions occur. In the second paragraph of his proclamation he states, “Any individual … tending to incite sedition shall be brought before a court martial and be punished in conformity with the law.” (Doc D) He wants to make sure that everyone knows that if they commit a crime against his country they will be punished, no exceptions. This is very important in keeping the order of his country, and it is part of the reason why he was such a great leader of his people. Toussaint made his rules clear to everyone to make sure that people live within them and so that everyone will live a better life.

              Finally, Toussaint was a phenomenal military commander. As a military leader Toussaint did not mess around. People who crossed him and caused up roar were punished harshly. For example, in 1801 a massacre of many white men and women of Saint Domingue took place. The man behind the revolt was Toussiant’s nephew Hyacinthe Moyse. Moyse organized a group of former slaves to attack and kill as many whites as possible. Toussaint gathered as many of the former slaves involved as he could and he ordered them to commit suicide in front of him. This may seem like a harsh punishment, but it helped Toussiantt, as a military leader, set example that he wasn’t going to put up with any of these revolts. When it came to his own nephew, Toussaint ordered him to death by firing squad also to set an example. (Doc E) When France came to Saint Domingue in order to reinstate slavery Toussiant remained calm and he said “All France is coming to St. Domingo, to try agin to put the felters upon our limbs; but not France, with all her troops of the Rhine, the Alps, The Nile, The Tiber, nor all of Europe to help her, can extinguish the soul of Africa.” (Doc F) This speech may not seem like much, but it certainly seems like something that will modivate all of Toussiant’s army to go and take back their freedom. Toussaint wants to make it clear to his men that no one, no matter where they are from can take away the pride that all the African people in Saint Domingue poses.

Toussiant did many great things. Whether it was thousands of slaves from the iron hand of France, ruling his country with a zero tolerance policy, or making his men realize that no one can take there pride on the battle field. The most important part of these accomplishments would be freeing the slaves. Of course his skills as a leader and a military commander helped accomplish this task, but there is something special about being able to help thousands of people who had no rights earn a new life. Also, this helps single Toussaint out among other leaders because many people were great leaders and military commanders but a small fraction of those people helped gain freedom for a massive congregation of human beings.

Doc A: Various Sources, “Timeline of Abolition in Saint Domingue”

Doc B: Toussaint Louverture “Letter to the French Directory, November 1797.”

Doc C: The Saint Domingue Constitution. Signed but Toussaint Louverture in July 1801.

Doc D: Toussaint Louverture "Proclamation, 25 November 1801."

Doc E: Madison Smartt Bell, “Toussaint Louverture: A Biography”

Doc F:  William Wells Brown, “A Description of Toussaint Louverture,” from The Black Man, His Antecedents, His Genius, and His Achievements, 2nd edition, 1863. Engraving of Toussaint Louverture, 1802.  

Failure or Success

This past week in class we have been learning about the revolutions of 1830 and 1848. We learned about the Decembrist, 1830 French revolution, 1848 French Revolution, Frankfort Assembly, and 1848 Hungarian Revolution. While analyzing these revolution we had one main question in mind, and that was “Were the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded?” To help answer this question we split into groups and each group was responsible for a revolution. Each group made a survey with ten or more questions about their revolutions using survey monkey. Finally, everyone took every groups survey.

Take My Survey

My group was in charge of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848.  The revolution all started when a revolt broke out in Vienna. This revolt forced Metternich, who was the head of Austrian government, to flee his own country. This revolt had a domino effect and then led to a revolt in Budapest, where a Hungarian nationalist Louis Kossuth led revolts to try and end serfdom, protect rights, and to create an independent government. In Kossuth’s declaration to the diet he said, “Our task is to found a happier future on the brotherhood of all the races in Austria for a union enforced by bayonets and police spies let us substitute the enduring bond of a free constitution.” This quote shows that Kossuth wants wants basic rights for all people of Hungary. Later at the Declaration Relative to the Separation of Hungary from Austria representatives of Hungary gathered in the Diet to show why the Hapsburg - Lorraine family should not be in power. In the end Hungary gained some ground against Austria but Austria then paired up with Russia, using the principle of intervention, to defeat the revolt. This picture shows that Austria and Russia paired up to defeat the monster which was the revolution. In the end I feel that this revolt was only a partial failure because Hungary did gain some ground on Austria for a while and some changes were made, but once Russia came in many revolutionaries were killed or arrested.

Responses to a Survey Question

One revolution we learned about was the Decembrist Revolt of 1825 and this was the only revolution that was a complete failure. The Decembrist Revolt was a complete failure because the rebels lacked organization, support, and Czar Nicholas swiftly took care of the rebels. The Frankfurt Assembly was started by university students in German States wanted liberal reforms. Also peasants in German States were frustrated with the economy and the lack of food. Then, delegates met in Frankfurt. The delegates wanted to debate between a republic or a monarchy. They decided to offer Frederick William IV the crown, but he rejected it. In the end the rebellion was crushed by conservatives, and many were killed. I would deem this a partial failure. Finally, in The French Revolution of 1830 when Charles X took over power he aggressively took away the power of the press, took away the power to vote, and limited the legislature. This furiated many French liberals. The liberals took over Paris and the king fled to England. Then, a constitutional monarchy was in place with Louis Philippe. I would consider this a partial success because the king was forced out of France. Overall, I feel that the revolutions were mostly a partial failure. In most cases the rebels gained some ground but in the end they were defeated.

Success or Failure?

This past week in our honors history class we learned about the Congress of Vienna. The essential question is what should people in power do when there power is threatened? The man in power of Austria was Klemens Von Metternich. He held a crucial role of power because there was tension between France and Austria, and tempers were raging all over Europe. In class we watched a video of a conversation between Metternich and Napoleon. In this video Napoleon asked for peace, but Metternich wanted him to restore the natural boundaries. Napoleon was appalled by this request and threatened war. Secondly, we analyzed a map which showed the spread of revolutions across Europe.

Klemons Von Metternich

After all the chaos the Congress of Vienna was called to meet. Representatives from United Kingdom, Austria, Prussia, and Russia met in Vienna to restore peace to Europe. The first thing they had to do was decide how reset the borders. Once this was done they faced several new problems. These problems included,  Balance of Power, Principle of Legitimacy, Holy Alliance, and Principal of Intervention. The Congress did not exactly solve these problems quickly. Vienna was a very beautiful and lively city so naturally the men enjoyed that by going out and drinking and partying. For that reason they were not extremely productive most of the time. The main problem I will focus on is the Principle of Intervention. This is principle was put in place to limit revolutions around the continent because one revolution leads to another and another. The principle of Intervention meant that any great power could send their troops into another country to extinguish any revolution happening there. The intruding country did not need permission to insert themselve into harms way. Not everyone was crazy about this idea because some people don't want foreign countries barging in. More Info

I believe that the way European powers handled the threat to power by assembling the Congress of Vienna was a good solution. I believe that the result of the Congress of Vienna was more of a success than it was failure. After the congress there was not major wars in Europe for the remainder of the 19th century. I feel that powerful people should be willing to sacrafice some of there power if that is what is better for the country, but unfortunately there are few people back then, and today who are willing to do so.

Interesting Idealogies

What were the major ideologies of the 19^th century and how did they influence social and political action? Ideologies are recognized as systems of ideas and that form the basics of economic and political theory. To answer this question in class we split into six groups and everyone did a 60 second presentation on their ideologies. There were only three ideologies so there were two groups per each ideology. Once the presentations were prepared the two groups that had he same ideology faced off against each other and the class voted on the better one.

Our presentation helped define our ideology by showing points of view from several different social classes. We had a middle class male, an aristocrat, a liberal leader, and a poor man. Each person had a different view on liberalism. Liberalism influenced political action because liberals pushed for a constitutional monarchy over absolutism. Socially, liberalism influenced the middle class male because liberals believed that the middle class deserved more power in politics so it wasn’t just all-aristocratic points of view. Liberals felt that there was god given rights in every person and people could show them using reason. Liberals felt that traditions were mostly had no facts to back them up. 

Conservatism was very different from liberalism. In conservatism tradition is vitally important because these people felt that tradition was proven over time to be successful. Conservatives pushed for a monarchy, and wanted mainly aristocrats in power. Conservatives felt that reform and revolution led to serious problems. Nationalists believed that a nation was an important place where everyone had shared interests and characteristics. For example language and heritage are some characteristics that bonded people together. Nationalists did not like when borders were interfered with. 

How Powerful Was Napoleon?

Napoleon Bonaparte had a unique influence on not only France, but many other countries as well. Napoleon was a general of the French army, and is recognized by many as the greatest general of all time. The essential question in class was, “What was Napoleon’s impact on the social, economic and political systems of Europe?” In class we answered this question by analyzing several documents and maps about Napoleon.  We used a document from Madame de Stael, a document from Marshal Michel Nay, and a Map of all the countries Napoleon ruled. In the documents from Stael and Ney we highlighted any points that either of them made about Napoleon.

Napoleon on his horse directing the troops.

Napoleon heavily influenced the social, economic, and political systems of Europe. He influenced the social environment in Europe because wherever he traveled people trembled. Napoleon conquered many countries and because of this he influenced many lives. In places he conquered most of the people who lived there had to change the way they live in order to follow his rules. When Madame de Stael was describing Napoleon she said,” By Alternating between cunning and force he has subjugated [conquered] Europe.” This quote proves that people knew Napoleon wasn’t afraid to use brute force to overtake a country. Politically, Napoleon mainly influenced France. Napoleon had enough power that he was able to make himself emperor of France. Napoleon worked to create a system where people were rewarded based on how hard they worked as opposed to their family. Economically, Napoleon made several key decisions that greatly influenced France. First, he was in charge of how much people could charge for items. He tried to be fair with these prices. Second, Napoleon made the decision to sell Louisiana in 1803. Even though France received a decent amount of money, the sale of Louisiana doubled the size of the United States.

Overall, I feel that Napoleon generally was a great help to France during this time. I agree more with Marshal Michel Ney than with Madame de Stael because I feel that de Stael’s opinion is biased because she is a member of the aristocracy and Napoleon was a believer in earning your value in life, and he wasn’t all about the aristocracy. 

Website for Image