Power (to the People) Point

Andrew Jackson's actions as president of the United States are not looked back on fondly by many people today. Yet he's the face of our most popular dollar bill and praised by Americans today. He may have made some pretty bad decisions and caused a lot of problems in the long run, but his time in office was a time when democracy was still finding its way in American government. The essential question of this lesson was, Is Andrew Jackson's long-standing reputation as "the people's president" deserved? Why? Why not? 

Watching videos from TED Ed and Crash Course provided general information and then we split into groups to focus on one of the main aspects of Jackson's rule. The first group focused on the worst thing Jackson did during his tenure, the Indian Removal. He forced five tribes to move off their own land and go somewhere they knew nothing about. Jackson claimed it was beneficial for them to relocate far away from white settlements so the groups would no longer have conflicts.The natives of course argued that they had a right to live on their land and had fought on America's side before, it wasn't fair to make them move to an unknown area that they had no resources in.  Jackson however keeps going with his plan and tells congress it must be voluntary, acting as though he knows what is best for the natives and those savages don't know what they're talking about. A lot has changed since then, like the definition of "voluntary" apparently, because pretty soon military force was used to put the natives in concentration camps and then on a winter death march known as the "Trail of Tears".

The next group explained his implementation of "The Spoils System", a tactic in which the leader removes government workers and replaces the position with their own supporters as a reward for their loyalty. Jackson fired 919 people and employed his allies, bribing them with positions of power in exchange for their help. This scheme valued loyalty over competence and ability. Jackson claimed the rotation in employment would spark stimulating ideas from these freshly motivated workers. It worked out really well, especially when he put a longtime supporter, Samuel Swartwout in charge of collecting from the Port of New York's, one of the most valuable in the country. Swartwout ended up stealing $1,222,705.09 from the country, unsurprisingly enough seeing how Jackson had ignored his known proclivity towards criminal activities and warnings that he was making a bad decision from other political leaders, such as Van Buren. 

He also worked to destroy the federal banks in America in "The Bank War"


It may have largely contributed to causing the worst financial crisis in US history and left in it's aftermath, a horrible economic depression, but the motivation behind it was, on paper, in the best interest of the average American citizen. Everything Andrew Jackson did was really an appeal to the wishes of a common man in the country. He was for the people, giving them more of a voice through his position of power. Well, he was for the people who could vote, but if you weren't white and male did you really count as a person back then? He planned genocide of the natives as a way to make sure they didn't take resources and land from the white settlements nearby, He gave jobs to the people, (who helped him); is anything more democratic than literally giving the average man a position of power?  He even collapsed the economy in an attempt to return power over monetary relations back to US citizens and give small businesses more control of the market. His actions didn't really accomplish things in a positive way but he did expand democracy and tried to serve the demands of regular people.

Rise of Democracy

Democracy in the early 1800s was different from how we picture the meaning of that word today. We analyzed documents, art, and charts about democracy's growth in America and drew conclusions about what the information told us about American democracy in the early 1800s. Through it we learned that democracy has negative aspects and isn't always as fair as it sounds. We also saw how voting was not anything like we think of it today, there was much less security and a lot more chaos. The qualifications for the right to vote were very different and they've changed through the years.

This is the poster my group made defining Democracy and how it was used in 1800s America.

Democracy : a system of government where the power is vested in the people or through freely elected representatives

Sources/Information:
Art Source
Art Guide
Voting Chart 1
Voting Chart 2

Quotes on Poster (if hard to see)

Top Right Corner Quote:

"Today a man owns a jackass worth fifty dollars and he is entitled to vote; but 

before the next election the jackass dies.  The man in the meantime has 

become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, 

and his acquaintance with mankind are more extensive, and he is therefore 

better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers – but the jackass is dead 

and the man cannot vote.  Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the 

right of suffrage?  In the man or in the jackass?"

-Benjamin Franklin, The Casket, or Flowers of Literature, Wit and Sentiment (1828)

Above Red Information Box:

"The attempt to govern men without seeking their consent is usurpation and 

tyranny, whether in Ohio or in Austria...I was looking the other day...into Noah 

Webster's Dictionary for the meaning of democracy, and I found as I expected 

that he defines a democrat to be "one who favors universal suffrage."

­ Norton Townshend, Ohio Constitutional Convention, 1850 

(Note:  Ohio became a state in 1803)

The Dorr War

Blatant Racism Sparks Revolutions in Latin America (and the US of America)

When Europeans came to the Americas they took over the current populations and created their own colonies which were controlled by the European powers. By the time of the Latin American Revolutions the idea of race had become so deeply intertwined with the value of a person that people rebelled against the unjust control they were under. Looking back now on the way race was perceived by authority it seems insane that people could ever think that way, yet it is an important topic to discuss if you take a moment to actually look at our society today, the biggest difference is really how blatantly stated the racism was back then. The amount of power, respect, and rights a person got was decided by their race.

The social ranking started with the most powerful:

• Peninsulares (Born in Europe)
• to Creoles (European parents)
• then Mestizos (European parent/Native parent)
• Mulattoes (European parent/African parent) and Free Blacks
• Natives
• and finally African slaves were the very bottom of the social pyramid

Peninsulares = less than 1%

Creoles = 23%

Mestizos = 7%

Indian People = more than 50%

Mulattoes & Free Blacks = 8%

Slaves = 11%

This was severely unfair not simply because of the lack of reasoning in judging a person’s worth by race but also since the most powerful group of people was also the smallest.

The revolutions we discussed were the Mexican, Gran Colombian, and Brazilian revolutions; my group had Mexico specifically so this is the timeline of events for the Mexican Revolution:

Of the three different revolutions we studied there were similarities between each country’s fight for independence. Brazil, Mexico, and Gran Colombia all fought against European rule and had some points of success in their revolution, splitting their ties from Europe. However, after gaining freedom, the first ruler of each newly independent nation did not last long and quickly lost their new-found power. As each was a different situation, there were also stark contrasts between the revolts too. The revolution of Brazil was significantly less violent than the others, no major warfare broke out as a result of wanting independence. Then, in Gran Colombia, from their revolution emerged several new independent countries as opposed to just one in the others. Small countries split off from Mexico as well but not until later. Nevertheless, the main comparison between the revolutions, and the reason we learned them all together, is the involvement of racial inequalities in each rebellion. In Brazil only Peninsulares were allowed to hold high government positions, they had to rebel because if only Europeans had power the people of Brazil would never be able to change that in itself or anything else. In Mexico the Cry of Delores which began the war directly states that it will stop racial discrimination. In Gran Colombia all different people of color banded together with the common goal of fighting the Spanish to stop racial discrimination.

Today race is still a large issue. Latino, Middle Eastern, and Black people are probably the most oppressed races in America currently. They are the most likely to be stopped by police for no reason and randomly selected to get checked at places like airports. Racism is deeply ingrained into society and so common that it tends to go unnoticed by people who are unaffected by the negative consequences. They assume that if there is not direct hatred for a group of people like a straight up “I hate black people” then racism does not exist, but it does in the way that there is already a system of inequality set up to make it much easier for a white person to gain power and money than a person of color. A white man with a criminal record is more likely to be hired than a clean black man competing for the same job. The media is a strong source of subtle racism that can influence opinions about a group of people well enough to trick a whole race of people into believing it doesn’t even exist. Most characters are played by white people and once people of color come in, they play mainly characters as stereotypical as possible or at least a certain aspect of their stereotype is played up. This leads to a subconscious type of racism where we begin to assume about a person by what we’ve seen of their race in media. It also makes white features the standard of beauty and makes it hard for people of color to identify with characters they like giving them a sense of displacement. (Also, why is Jesus depicted as a white dude when he’s from the middle east?) Black people are usually played up to be more “ghetto” and are shown in the role of being less educated and more aggressive than other races. That causes a superiority vibe amongst non-black people and can lead to unwarranted treatment of other races. 

Right now in American cities across the nation people are beginning to see the injustice for themselves, a recent increase in publicity for the Michael Brown situation has called attention to the amount of uncalled for violence towards innocent black people from white police officers. However, during these protests and trials there are many white people defending the police officers actions, as if possibly robbing a convenience store is reason enough to be murdered. If it somehow was though, it would only be fair if white people who robbed convenience stores were also shot repeatedly for their heinous crime. There are many claims disputing race as a factor in the situations altogether but statistics can show the actual race targeting of crime over many years. Just because racism isn’t happening to them, many try to erase its existence altogether. I personally have heard a white person say that white people have been through just as much as other races. This is why we need to study things like Latin America’s revolutions and slavery in school. We came to this half of the globe and forced our kind into power and enslaved people of other races yet today we deny those facts and even try to keep them out of history books so we can continue celebrating Christopher Colombus and mourning the holocaust while we ignore the American genocide of Native Americans. (The holocaust was horrible and should be remembered I am just pointing out how we ignore our own past genocides) 

There is a large amount of white privilege ignored by those who have it as they continue to publicize crimes against white people over things happening to other races and deny the existence of any racism. White people often get offended by things like white privilege, they feel they are being classified as racist, that they are being grouped together and judged solely on the color of their skin, and they don’t like it. This tends to end in discussions about “reverse racism” and then the consequential argument that all racism is just racism not reverse. But both of these things are actually wrong in their own ways. There can be racist comments/actions towards white people. (I heard a kid once say black babies were smarter than white babies) However, pure racism, the actual societal oppression, does not exist towards white people. We still hold the positions of power and have privilege that cannot be rejected. The stats of this very lesson, the population %s and social ranking pyramid, show that this is how it has always been and you can’t say that we’ve been just as oppressed as other races have, since we’ve been doing the oppressing for a long time.

Links:

https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-racial-discrimination

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/21/schools-discrimination_n_5002954.html

http://thoughtcatalog.com/erin-cossetta/2014/04/quotes-that-perfectly-explain-racism-to-people-who-dont-see-color/

http://jamietheignorantamerican.tumblr.com/post/72154890106/go-forth-and-educate-yourselves

http://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/210758.html

http://www.bunchecenter.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/2014-Hollywood-Diversity-Report-2-12-14.pdf

https://www.tumblr.com/search/white+privilege
https://life.indiegogo.com/fundraisers/fund-for-the-children-of-eric-garner#description
http://forcechange.com/124425/punish-police-for-seriously-injuring-unarmed-14-year-old/

Toussaint DBQ

Recently in America, we had elections to vote for congress, senate, and other types of governmental leadership. Picking a leader is always a long and controversial process because there are many characteristics a leader must possess and no one ever agrees on which are the most important and if they outweigh the negative qualities of the person. Political skill, toughness, moral leadership, honesty, eloquence, compassion, and humor are all valued differently depending on the needs of the country and the personal experience of whoever is judging. Abraham Lincoln is the most popular president of the United States. He may have been nicknamed Honest Abe but his honesty was not the reason he’s so well liked as a leader, he had strong morals which resulted in the abolition of slavery in America. Haiti around the 1780s, then named Saint Domingue, was France's most profitable colony thanks to the half a million African slaves working the vast 8,000 plantations covering the island. Saint Domingue needed a someone to lead them in a war for freedom and then rule them in a way that maintains the economy and protects the people. Toussaint Louverture was exactly what they needed. He was morally strong and tough as nails while making smart political decisions for his country. Toussaint Louverture should be remembered as a liberator of slaves, military commander, and the ruler of Saint Domingue.

Toussaint’s role as the liberator of slaves was the most important aspect of his leadership because it was the reasoning for almost every decision he made as a ruler. He began his work as an abolitionist in 1791 in the war against France’s enslavement laws, as a doctor to the troops a commander of his own small group of soldiers. (Doc A) He continues fighting, gaining power and support, until the French eradicate slavery in 1794. (Doc A) The Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801, created and signed by Toussaint himself ensures the termination of slavery in a very clear manner stating that “There cannot exist slaves in this territory, servitude is therein forever abolished. All men are born, live and die free and French.” (Doc C) He remains loyal to his cause regardless of what country he’s supposedly for. Once Napoleon gains control of France the freedom of the ex-slaves is once more going to be taken away. When Toussaint learns of this he threatens fighting his own country to death saying how “if they had a thousand lives, they would sacrifice them all rather than be subjected again to slavery” (Doc B) No matter what, he prioritized liberating slaves before anything else so he should be remembered the same way, as the liberator of slaves, before anything else.

In the fight for freedom, Toussaint became a powerful military commander against slavery’s supporters. His intelligence and bravery made him a trusted leader for his troops and made them a more than capable force in their battles. In Napoleon’s conquest to enslave the newly freed people once again 31,131 troops landed in Samana, a port city of Saint Domingue, ready to fight against Toussaint’s army. But with an inspiring battle cry and brilliant plan from Toussaint himself, the cities they arrived in had been decimated and his troops had taken up base in the mountains.(Doc F)  Napoleon’s soldiers had none of the resources, campsites, or regional knowledge they planned and two years later they withdrew from the country. (Doc F) However, Toussaint’s military command was not all positive, as with any war, he had to do harsh things to establish control sometimes. Toussaint’s adopted nephew, Hyacinthe Moyse, had been appointed commander of the Northern Department and in October of 1801 there was a massacre on the Northern Plain. (Doc E) The revolting men cried “General Moyse is with us - death to all the whites.” (Doc E) Toussaint had to prevent this from happening again and so he picked out men from the rebelling troops and made them shoot themselves in the head. He also then called for the firing squad execution of his nephew and had Moyse call the fire order. (Doc E) His harsh punishment was very effective in stopping revolts. Toussaint was strategic in his battles and ruthless when needed, we should remember this part of his life for the fights it won him and the success it brought the country.

After winning the country’s independence, Saint Domingue now needed someone to restructure its government in a way that excluded slavery. Toussaint Louverture was that person. He was named governor for life in an attempt to make the transitional time of the country go a lot smoother. (Doc C) He was already trusted and well known, providing a constant for the people while changes ensued. However, while he was very important and a prominent figure, Toussaint was not the most popular ruler, hence the revolts involving his nephew. Toussaint’s constitution states that slavery is abolished but also encourages agricultural work where the owner of the land has power and workers share in the profits. (Doc C) This is not a crowd-pleaser and soon he issues a proclamation, enforcing his statements about agricultural work. Citizens can be arrested if they don’t do what they’re supposed to, managers and workers had different punishments depending on the offense. (Doc D) The new freedom had provided people with the option to not work and let themselves be impoverished if they so pleased. This led to most agricultural workers quitting, a huge issue since the island’s main source of economic wealth came from plantations and farming. Toussaint knew he was forcing the people to work under the same conditions they had before but he had to enforce it in order to prevent the country’s complete failure. It was hard for many and a questionable decision but Toussaint did lead the first successful slave revolt and keep the country strong in the face of financial collapse. He may not have made the right decision in the eyes of some people but he was a valuable leader and his impact is important to study today.

Although Toussaint Louverture made some rules and decisions that not everyone agrees were right, his moral compass was always pointing the right way and that cannot be denied from any point of view. His work as the liberator of slaves was not only the entire reason he became a military commander and later ruler of Saint Domingue, but also resulted in the most successful slave revolt ever. He freed hundreds of thousands of humans from the torturous life of enslavement and should be remembered for that accomplishment above all else. His command of the military was the next best aspect of his achievements, inspiring and training troops of unprofessional slaves so well that they defeated some of the greatest militaries in the world at the time. His leadership extended into ruling the nation he saved, his display of power may have seemed severe at times but it was what the country needed in order to prosper. His triumphant legacy should live on forever, Toussaint Louverture: Liberator of Slaves, Military Commander, and Ruler of Saint Domingue.

Sources

Document A: Created from various sources.

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

Document C: The Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801. Signed by Toussaint Louverture in July 1801.

Document D: Toussaint Louverture, “Proclamation, 25 November 1801.”

Document E: Madison Smartt Bell, Toussaint Louverture: A Biography, 2007.

Document 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.

Ideas Can Never Die

Although major war in Europe didn't break out after the congress of Vienna until 1852 there were many smaller rebellions around 1830 and 1848 that were suppressed throughout the continent. Since they did not lead to continental revolution, and in most cases were shut down by a larger controlling power, they have been written off as complete failures. But, as we discussed in class, there are different levels of failure. The worst possible outcome in a rebellion is that they try to fight, are decimated in battle, and current rule becomes even worse. But it could be only a mostly failure if the attempts at fighting are stopped and the current rule stays the same. It could end neutrally, where both sides lose the same amount in battle and as much is gained as is lost. On the success side there could be a partial success where some demands are heard and a few changes occur to the government. And the best is a total success where all the goals and wants of the rebels are met and there is a brand new government based upon the new ideals.

In 1848 France, Louis Philippe's government was widely hated for corruption and a recent recession which raised food prices and cost many French citizens their jobs. Tensions peaked once the government tried to silence their complaints through controlling the media. Liberals wanted voting for all men and the middle class wanted reform that wasn't as extreme as the poor. The goal of the revolution was a French Republic. The ideas of revolution were so strong that in a poem about the fighting  Alphonse de Lamartine says, "You have no need of
mingling in the contest, and shedding French blood. The genius of the revolution fights for all; the
monarchy is falling; it is only necessary to push it; before the sun sets the republic will have triumphed." In February 1848, riots broke out throughout Paris causing King Louis Philippe to step down from his position of power, leaving no official government set in his place. The wealthy stepped in during this period but with no one leader in charge the conflicting ideas of each group (wealthy liberals, socialists, poor liberals) caused distrust and unrest within France.

 By June the upper class liberals had taken control and shut down workshops set up for the working class to provide jobs and the workers rebelled. 1,500 people were killed before the fights were stopped by the government. To reunite the French people the National Assembly created a new French republic, in their proclamation stating "The provisional government has taken all the measures necessary to render impossible the return of the former
dynasty or the advent of a new dynasty.
The republic is proclaimed.
The people are united." The new government was to have a strong president, one house legislation, and the right for all men to vote; for a little while it seemed the revolution was a success. Louis Napoleon won the first election in 1848 with 90% of the votes and it was great until 1852 when he, with the support of the French citizens, declared himself emperor and turned France back into an empire.
Link to our quiz on the French Revolution of 1848
[answers from class]

   

Most of the revolutions failed pretty badly. The French Revolution of 1830 was what caused Louis Philippe to become ruler, which clearly didn't work out. And the Decembrists were basically wiped out completely when they tried to fight in Russia. However, the ideas and goals of each rebellion stayed for much longer and even spread to other countries in Europe and the rest of the world. While the actual attempts at change didn't work out during these revolutions the revolutionary ideas didn't die and inspired more uprisings in the future so they weren't complete failures.

Napoleon

Napoleon was a leader of France, both politically and militarily. He greatly affected Europe and how it was run, because he was running it; Napoleon was in control of most of Europe during his rule. He began in France, his original country, gaining power and later conquering nearby countries. He often redesigned how government ran in each nation and transformed the access and rights of  the people. His ideas lead to huge changes for each country he controlled and his accomplishments are easily seen by the world even today.

Napoleon Crossing the Alps, romantic version by Jacques-Louis David in 1805 

At the time Napoleon came to power class greatly influenced a person's freedoms, power, and education. However, he worked to change that, developing a system of meritocracy so people could get what they deserved by valuing each person's skills instead of rewarding them for their class. He also set up the bank of France, determined the country's budget, promoted industry, and created public works programs which built roads and canals for all of France. In other countries he set up education systems such as the institute of Egypt and removed trade barriers while supporting industry. The people of Europe had more rights to education and property than ever before. Yet Madame de Stael described his rule as having "profound contempt for all the intellectual riches of human nature: virtue, dignity, religion, enthusiasm" Which is strange because you'd think widespread access to education was intellectually rich. But it would make sense for her to think this way since she was part of the nobility and related to an advisor of King Louis XVI before Napoleon took over. She probably did not like that he eradicated titles of nobility and nullified the privileges previously held by the church.

Napoleon was widely disliked as well as praised. The former rulers of the countries he took over were not happy with his different ideals and their loss of power. Also, many members of nobility, aristocracy, the wealthy in general, did not like how he was taking away what they considered natural superiority. His control came through military strategy and war has never resulted in friendships so those who lost something in a battle would not be his fans. As well as people who were unwillingly forced to belong to France when they were loyal to their homeland. I don't agree with the way he took over but the improvements he made to social, economic, and political systems were important for the progression of human rights in Europe and the rest of the world.

Congress of Vienna

The Congress of Vienna was held in 1814 as a way for the powers of Europe to reconstruct their nations after the corruption of Napoleon. Representatives from all over the continent gathered together in Vienna, Austria to construct the best possible solution to fix the mess of Europe. Prince Metternich of Austria, Prince Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand of France, Frederick William III of Prussia, Foreign Secretary Robert Steward, Viscount Castlereagh from Great Britain, and Tsar Alexander of Russia represented the most important countries at the grand peace conference. However, when a large amount of the richest, most vain people in the world get together for any reason not much gets done through the all the partying. This goes on until the next year and finally after Napoleon returns once again to attempt conquering the world, they start making some actual decisions.

Most Famous Painting of the Congress of Vienna

In order to stop any one country from becoming a dominating power in the future, the Congress of Vienna made sure to keep in mind a balance of power when redrawing the borders of each country. France was not punished for the actions of its leader, and was given back its original borders from before taking over everything. Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, and Austria were all given more than what they started with making them the five great powers of Europe. With the majors close to equal the only problem was the small countries, who ended up taken over, given away, or generally excluded completely. For the big countries to expand they took land away from others, angering many people from places such as Poland, Germany, Italy, Norway, and Belgium. This may have stopped fighting between the big nations but the little ones ended up fighting for their own freedom or inclusion.

Personally, I believe the Congress of Vienna was not horrible. They didn't make it as peaceful as they had planned to but in the face of the problems they had, the resolutions they came up with were pretty good. It would've been better if the smaller states were listened to by the big ones instead of ignored and disrespected, so they wouldn't end up so bitter about their fate. Also, each country probably could've been able to reconstruct their own government instead of installing the monarchies back to every single country since that worked out so well before. They shouldn't have let other countries storm in with their military and stop rebellions without permission, it just sounds like a bad idea. But the choices made during the peace treaty were pretty good at preventing any future Napoleonic power from wiping out the entire continent, which was one of the most important concerns they were supposed to deal with. They even managed to stop major warfare for like 40 years, which is pretty amazing for Europe.