Amelia Bloomer: The Lily

Bloomer, Amelia Jenks. The Lily. Seneca Falls: Amelia Bloomer, 1849-1853.

Amelia Bloomer was a woman's rights and a temperance advocate who wrote a newspaper called The Lily that was focused mostly on temperance and then later on in publication she also wrote about women's rights.  Amelia Bloomer in The Lily wrote about how people should drink in moderation instead of banning alcohol. She also wrote about how women are victims of drunk men's behavior and that women should speak up about the men's behavior. Amelia Bloomer is a reliable source because she used true stories from women on the effects of alcohol. She also wrote her own newspaper so she could write what she wanted, and not skewed news.  Bloomer focused mostly on temperance because drinking at the time was a serious problem. Men were getting drunk very often and causing problems. This newspaper teaches the reader how excessive drinking effects families and how woman need to stick up for what is right. Bloomer's newspaper gives you a decent picture of the event, it describes the a major problem of the time. Amelia talks about how alcohol affects families in a negative way. She backs up her claims with stories from women that have been abused because of alcohol. The author is trying to convince the reader that alcohol should be used in moderation.

This picture is an ad that tries to prevent heavy drinking.

picture: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18816576

The Presidential Veto and Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson is one of the most controversial presidents. He is considered by some people as the "People's President" while others think the opposite. The Presidential veto is when congress sends the President a bill to approve and the President rejects it. This is controversial to some people because some think that it is a display of how to President has too much power over congress. Unlike the previous presidents Jackson used the veto much more than the other presidents.  In Jackson's eight years in office he vetoed twelve bills. Of those twelve bills seven of those vetoes were "pocket vetoes" which kills the bill by not signing it after congress has adjourned. The six presidents before Jackson only vetoed ten bills combined. The artist created this political cartoon wants to show the viewer that Jackson wasn't a good president. This cartoon displays how Jackson thought that he was above and  shows disregard of the constitution because it is torn up while being stepped on along with the arms of Pennsylvania. It also displays Jackson abusing the veto to use its power to only have the bills he desires and to show his power over the constitution and the Bank of the U.S.. The cartoon shows that Jackson use of the veto makes him like a king.  The artist displays Jackson as thinking of himself as better than others because of the scepter and the apparel of a king.  Jackson was not the peoples president. His actions were not for the people; but more for himself. He used the veto for political reasons that affected him instead of being unselfish and vetoing unconstitutional bills. Jackson put himself above the law and was undemocratic making him not the people president.

Did Everyone Really Have a Say?

In the United States democracy has not always been like it has been today. Democracy is a government run by the people where the majority rules. Back in the 19th century things were run differently but the United States still considered itself as a democratic union.

The United States was less democratic in the 19th century. Instead of having a government that was run by the all people it was run by the property owners. There was a significant amount of people who didn't have the right to vote because they did not own property. Benjamin Franklin said, "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." Benjamin Franklin is saying that even though the man has become more knowledgeable but because his donkey died,  now the man doesn't have fifty dollars worth of property and can't vote. In the 19th century the democratic system was based more on your material possessions rather than the persons intelligence. Today in in the 21st century voting is kept track of by someone so a person can't vote more than once, but in the 19th century all someone had to do was raise their right hand to the judge and say they haven't voted yet. The problem in this is that someone could go to another county and vote again, skewing the results by telling the judge they haven't voted. The results of an election could be changed because everyone casts their vote aloud to the judge and the people close can hear the vote. If a person wanted another person to vote for a different person than the voter wanted to it could cause problems since people can hear vote casted. A voter in the 19th century could be pressured into voting a different way than they wanted to and a judge could write down a different vote than what the voter said.  Today voting is done with panels around the voter so people can't see the vote and it's on paper written by the voter so there is far less chance for the election to be corrupted today unlike in the 19th century. The 19th century was less democratic from the rules of who could vote, and the privacy of the voter. 

In this picture it shows how an election was important and a public occasion.

Picture image:  http://www.terminartors.com/artworkprofile/Bingham_George_Caleb-The_County_Election

Romanticism 



The Romanticism period of time where there was a movement in literature, music, and the visual arts that reacted to the order imposed by the enlightenment. During the Romanticism period the fine arts had special themes that were included in works,  such as: awe of nature, emotion, importance of the individual, grotesque, and or irrational. In the painting above Death of Sardanapalus by Eugene Delacroix, it displays Romanticism themes such as grotesque, emotional, irrational, and the importance of the individual. This painting displays a grotesque theme because in the circle on the right side that includes a man and a woman; the man is stabbing the woman in the neck. I chose this portion of the painting as grotesque since it is a helpless naked woman being murdered by a man with a vicious look on his face. This painting also has a emotional theme. The woman laying on the bed with her arms spread and head down is one of the emotional parts of this painting. It is an emotional part of the painting because it displays by her body language that the woman is sad because everyone else in the painting will be killed. This painting is also very irrational. The theme irrational is not circled because the whole painting doesn't make sense and is irrational. The story behind this painting is Sardanapalus the last king of Nineveh who is represented being the man laying down on the bed in white, found out his city was going to be attacked. Since Sardanapalus didn't want to a humiliating defeat, he decided to burn and destroy his concubines, horses, slaves, and himself. This entire painting is irrational because displays everything that was destroyed and all lives people and animals that were lost. It is also irrational because the painting is based on an event where instead of fighting the king just assumed a loss, burning and destroying this he cared about in his life. This painting displays the theme importance of an individual because it has king Saranapalus wearing all white clothes making him stand out more than other parts of the painting. It is also has this theme because he is important part of this painting, he's the one who made the decision to not fight causing harm to others and himself in the painting.   


source: http://www.artble.com/artists/eugene_delacroix/paintings/the_death_of_sardanapalus

picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Delacroix_-_La_Mort_de_Sardanapale_(1827).jpg

Revolutions of 1830 and 1848

The revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were failures as many historians have concluded. No country had a complete success during these revolutions but some countries suffered more harshly than others. For instance  the Hungarian revolution would be considered as a complete failure. In this revolution their goal was to gain independence from Austria and to make a constitution. There was a terrible result for the Hungarians in this revolution, they didn't gain anything and they started in a worse place than they were in before. Many people died and the people that didn't die were exiled. Although gaining a constitution was a complete failure they Hungarians did manage to force Metternich out of power and have him flee to Vienna during the early stages of the uprising.  

Another revolution that blatantly shows as a complete failure is the Decembrist Revolt in Russia. In this revolution the Russian's goal was to obtain a constitution. Many young people in Russia saw what was going on outside of Russia and could compare to how life was in Russia and wanted a change. The result of this revolution was terrible. They did not gain a constitution and the peasants lost some of their rights putting them in a worse place than before the Decembrist revolt. One of the main reasons for failure was the revolt was not well organised and was in a spur of the moment while the government was in a period of instability. 

Another revolution that was not a complete failure but was close is the Polish Revolution. The goal of this revolution was to gain independence from Russia. The outcome was that Poland gained independence and remained independent for a short while but after a Russian victory at Ostroleka. After the Russian victory the Russians occupied Warsaw, leading to the takeover of the Polish government. This revolution should not be considered a considered a complete failure because there was hope and they gained independence even though they lost it a few months later. 

This just goes to show how the revolutions were concluded as failures. The revolutions described above were the ones with the worst outcomes but the other revolutions like the one in Germany and the two in France weren't complete successes either. Since the majority of the outcomes from these revolutions were negative with little positives historians can conclude that the revolutions were failures. 

This map shows territories revolts of 1848

Showme of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848: http://www.showme.com/sh/?h=h8MbOZk  (not mine, my groups show me did not work)

image link: http://fc.greensboroday.org/~ldrewiczewing/Revolutions1848.JPG

Monroe Doctrine

The United States had different responses to the Quintuple Alliance. Like when Russia tried to take control of Alaska and the northern part of the United States and Alaska to gain the trading ports on the coast; Monroe stepped in and put a stop it. Monroe said to the Russians that it was not their land to claim since the U.S. had also claimed the land. Monroe says "a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the Minister of the United States at St. Petersburgh to arrange, by amicable negotiation, the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent." The United States and the Russians came up with a compromise which concluded that the Russians would still gain more land but the United States could still have the land on the coast to open up trading ports. Another example of the United States reacting to the Quintuple Alliance is when the Monroe made his statement on European powers re-colonizing any country that recently gained their independence. Monroe said "We owe it, therefore, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers, to declare, that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere, as dangerous to our peace and safety." He is telling the European powers as said in this quote that if any of them that try to interfere with another country then they are also interfering with the United States. Lastly when the United States are asked to join an alliance with Britain to stop Spain from regaining colonies and to stop Russia from gaining the Oregon area. The United States declined this offer. Monroe says " nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers" The United States decides to tell Britain they would like to consider working with them but they don't want to ruin their relations with other powers of Europe. 

The world had different reactions on how the United States responded. A Latin American revolutionaries were happy that America was defending them from Spain trying to regain colonies. They would still be resentful to European powers since America was the only one making a stand to protect them and other European powers weren't doing anything like America did.  The Latin American revolutionaries would not like that America chose to still be friendly with countries in Europe. Even though they weren't happy America still being friendly with Europe they were happy with the desicion with Russia on the Oregon area. If Russia colonized the area then the Latin America colonies wouldn't be able to trade there since Russia would close off ports. A Russian diplomat would have mixed feelings on the United States response. They would like Americas approach on the Oregon area since they would be expecting to negotiate on it. They wouldn't be pleased with Monroe's stand about not letting Spain place a monarchy over colonies in Latin America. They would also be worried about the U.S. joining with Britain because combined the two countries would have a very strong navy.  Lastly a member of congress would mostly agree with Monroe's decision. They support his decision with Russia on the Oregon area. They agree with his decision on being both friendly with both Latin America and European countries. A member of congress would be a little worried on Europe taking back back Spanish colonies because America would have to stand true to their stand that they would take action if a European country interfered with Latin American countries. 

This picture below displays that the United States took a confident stand and was hopefully other countries would do the same.

The Congress of Vienna

Multiple concepts came out of the Congress of Vienna.  One that the congress agreed on was the Principle of Legitimacy. This principle restored lawful monarchs as well as making France a constitutional monarchy. Once Napoleon was exiled from France The Congress had to decide who was going to have rule over France. The Principle said "Frenchmen are equal before the law, whatever may be their titles and ranks"; since Louis XVIII was next to be crowned he was appointed King of France.  Metternich would be pleased with the concept because he liked France as a monarchy. He didn't want a ruler of France to not have a blood relation with the family who is ruling. Metternich didn't like the new enlightenment ideas that Napoleon had spread when he was ruling and it would be back to traditional ideas with a monarchy. 

Congress of Vienna meeting and making decisions

The Congress of Vienna had a very big impact on France as a whole. The Principle of Legitimacy which was chosen by the congress but a new ruler in charge of France and had France rule under a constitutional monarchy. The congress place the blame of be an enemy on Napoleon and was France was off the hook with the exception of having to return stolen artwork and pay reparations to the allies. The peace settlement between France and the Allies was not terribly vindictive. After the peace settlement there were no wars between the five major powers of Europe until 1853. Overall the Congress of Vienna had a strong positive affect on France. 

Link for image: http://www.local-life.com/vienna/articles/congress-of-vienna

The Three Ideologies

This vine is a great display of nationalism.is the ideology that stated a nation is a natural, organic entity that tradition is the only trustworthy guide to social and political action. This vine represents conservatism because when I ask Dan if he can spare any change, he says no because he we doesn't want to change his current traditions. Conservatism influenced the social and political action because the people who are nationalists don't want to change what they go by now and want to stay the same.

The other major political ideologies of the 19th century were Liberalism, and nationalism. Liberalism is the ideology that stated the task of government was to promote individual liberty. Liberalism affected social action because liberals are more open to ideas and changing what they believe and do now. In the vine about liberalism displayed it because it showed a few girls reading then it goes to Kyra singing unlike the rest. This shows change since they aren't doing what each other are doing.  Nationalism is the ideology that stated that a nation was a natural, organic entity whose people were bound together by a shared language, customs, and history. This affected social and political action because nationalist want people or ideas like them (nationalists). In the vine Justin was rejected by Julie and Jane because he didn't share history or customs with them.

Preparation for Independence

 The British Colonies were better prepared for independence than the Latin American Colonies in the south for multiple reasons. For starters the British North American colonies were only focusing on gaining independence from Britain unlike the Latin American colonies. In Latin America the colonies along with gaining independence they were also striving to make slavery illegal. The mother countries governing Latin American colonies were more hesitant to resist the push for independence since the colonies wanted slavery abolished as part of the package. British colonies also had the support of other European countries unlike Haiti did since Haiti's views on slavery after their independence.  The British colonies and Britain government had a better relationship unlike where France charged Haiti an "independence debt" that left that Haiti in debt just as it was developing. The U.S. economy was not based on slavery like in Latin America where once slavery was abolished no blacks wanted to work since they thought of it as slavery. The majority of people in U.S. worked so not much changed when they gained independence; unlike in Haiti where everyone was forced to return to working at the plantations so the economy didn't collapse.  The education in the U.S. also helped the colony better prepared.  In the book, Literacy in Colonial New England, Kenneth Lockridge says “in cities such as Boston, the rate had come close to 100 percent by century’s end.” Unlike the United States the Latin America colonies had a much lower literacy rate since the majority of their population were uneducated slaves.  In the source, Empire to Nation: Historical Perspectives on the Making of the Modern World by Joseph Esherick, Hasan Kayalı, and Eric Van Young; they say “the literacy rate in New Spain in 1810 could not have been much higher than 10 percent overall, with much of the literate population compressed spatially into the cities.” With the literacy rate this low it would affect the communication  In America where the majority where literate it was much easier for them to spread ideas and information.. The British were much more prepared for independence since they were much more literate and had the backing to help them succeed. 

This picture shows how many slaves there was before they were freed.

sources: 

Doc A: http://comparativehistoryamericanrevs.weebly.com/doc-set-a.html

Doc B: http://comparativehistoryamericanrevs.weebly.com/doc-set-b.html

Doc C: http://comparativehistoryamericanrevs.weebly.com/doc-set-c.html

Doc F: http://comparativehistoryamericanrevs.weebly.com/doc-set-f.html

picture: http://comparativehistoryamericanrevs.weebly.com/doc-set-a.html

Independence Comes At a Cost

The French colony of Saint Domingue gained their independence in 1804. This happened after the colony's slaves, who make up a majority of the population revolted and killed thousands of people. When San Domingue became independent from France they became Haiti. Countries felt intimidated by Haiti since if slaves could overthrow their masters their it could happen in any other country. Once independent the Republic of Haiti was received negatively. Haiti was ignored globally which made them bitter since they had to pay France an "Independence debt" to make globally recognized. The debt they had to pay was one hundred million francs, and Haiti agreed to pay it by taking out a loan from a French bank. Even though it was wrong for France to charge Haiti for becoming independent. No country stopped France from doing it since other countries were scared of Haiti's independence because they didn't want the slaves revolting in their country. Haiti was still paying off the debt in 1947, 140 years after slave trade was abolished and 85 years after the emancipation proclamation. Overall Haiti was affected severely by not being recognized and having to pay a serious price for independence. 

Battle of Vertières in 1803

Image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/aug/16/haiti-france

Napoleon 

Napoleon was a considered a tyrant by some but others thought he was a hero. Madam de Stael did not think of Napoleon as a hero but rather that "he liked to persuade men by force and by cunning." While some people were not fond of Napoleon other thought of him as a hero like Marshal Michel Ney, who calls him "our august emperor." Napoleon impacted the political, economic, and social systems of Europe.

Napoleon an emperor, a political and military leader.

Napoleon affected the political system of Europe, he created the idea of "meritocracy" which was a political philosophy that secured a persons rewards based on their attributes instead of their social rank. Napoleon also created the "Napoleonic code" which allowed freedom of religion, and stated that jobs in the government should belong to those among the most qualified. In the economic system Napoleon made decision to sell the Louisiana Territory to the United States which doubled the United States in size and caused the US to expand.  Napoleon affected the social system by emancipating the jewish people in his empire. Also while he ruled people got better access to education. Overall Napoleon had a major impact on Europe.

USA and Great Britain Comparison

The majority of industrialists were more likely to succeed in Great Britain. Great Britain had plentiful labor and the population increased since there was better food production which gave more people jobs in the factories. The factory owners made more money when they had more people working in the factories. Unlike in the United states where the labor force was limited to young girls working in the factories. In Great Britain the factory business was booming and new factories would open up. An industrialist would be more likely to succeed in Great Britain with the factories and their productions not slowing down anytime soon. 

A textile mill where the workers would spend the majority of their days.

In the United States the workers had a more positive experience than working in Great Britain. The workers in the United States had a less time consuming schedule, better living conditions, receive a decent education, and in their free time: they got to explore the city, buy what they want with their money, watch plays, and gain their independence. In the United States the living conditions were much better than in Great Britain where there was more factories than in the US polluting the air. The girls experience would be better in Lowell because like it says in the article "Early Factory Labor in New England" it says "In the eyes of her overseer she was but a brute, a slave, to be beaten, pinched and pushed about." This source starts of talking about how in England and France how badly the girls were treated in Britain and that wasn't the case in America as much as it was Britain. In the United States the girls would have a much more positive experience displayed with the reasons I have stated above.

Mary Paul's Letters

Mary Paul was part of the "Lowell Experiment" where young girls from the country moved to Lowell and worked in the textile mills with other girls. This experiment was both a failure and a success. It was a failure because the mills failed to manipulate the girls to work for cheaper pay, the girls had to work for very long period of time each day, and the girls had to withstand exhausting conditions with little sleep. this experiment was a success because the girls got the chance to explore the city, buy what they want with their excess money, and got a chance to gain their independence. 

A woman changes bobbins at a machine

 at the mills in Lowell

When Mary was fifteen she had a desire to got to Lowell and work. Mary is excited to go when she first leaves but after the four years of her being there she is ready to go home. In her first letter Mary asks for her dads consent for her to go to Lowell. To help convince her dad, Mary says that she can earn more there and she needs money for clothes which she couldn't if she stayed at her house. After the first letter Mary is hopeful of going and looking forward to go. By the time Mary sends the second letter Mary is getting homesick she says "tell all friends that I should like to hear from them."  Mary tells her father she only wants to stay another year but she doesn't end up leaving since she stays the four years. By the third letter it is winter and Mary describes how dangerous it is with multiple people dying for different reasons. Mary tells her father about her pay and that she able to buy sufficient clothes with her left over money. In Mary's fourth letter she explains to her father that she has been told that she is "growing very poor".  She tells her father how her day goes everyday and the time the other girls and her girls get to eat the three meals of the day. Mary is happy about the boarding house she has since she is with girls from Vermont and they all are "kind and obliging." In Mary's fifth letter she is exhausted and burnt out. She tells her father that her pay has been reduced to about two dollars a week. Mary tells her father since she has been payed less recently she had to switch to a cheaper and closer boarding house. She tries to find other work or at another mill but they are mostly full of work.  In the final letter Mary sends to her father she is worried about what her pay for the week will be since she missed four days. After Mary sends the letter she heads back to Vermont to live with her family.

Picture citation: http://www.uml.edu/tsongas/bringing-history-home/artifacts/set01.htm

Jason Ewing                                                                                The Works of Adam Smith                          Case Study                     

9/30/13

Bibliography 

Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations (Excerpts). Modified from the Modern History Internet Sourcebook. 1776. Fordham University. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/adamsmith-summary.asp (accessed September 30, 2013).

In the writing The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith who writes about the basis of the free market system. He was considered the "Father of Capitalism" since he created the system of Capitalism.  Adam Smith was born in Kirkcaldy, Scotland. He was educated from a young age and when he got older he attended the University of Glasgow and Oxford University.  While attending Oxford University Smith became interested in the study of society. After Smith met Charles Townshed he acquired a job of being a tutor in France. While in France Smith met Rousseau and Voltaire the famous enlightenment thinkers and gained an interest in moral philosophy and political economy through them.  Smith had the motivation to write the Wealth of Nations since he thought that his setup of capitalism was a successful and self driven system.  In the Wealth of Nations he goes over many of his theories such as the "laissez faire", and the division of labor.  In the "laissez faire" it discouraged the interference of the government in the economic system since it would affect the self regulating free market.  Smith goes over the division of labor; he mentions that in a situation where more people are working together is more productive than one person doing the work on their own. Smith uses the example of of people making pins. He says that when people are working together that they could make 12 pounds of pins a day with four hundred thousand pins in each pound.  If there was only one man working alone Smith mentions that only one pin could be made a day. When the demand goes up the factories will be able to supply this demand using the division of labor idea.  Smith's The Wealth of Nations helped shaped our economy to how we know it today.






  

*note:  The second line and third line of the citation should be indented. The paragraph should be indented inline with the indented part of the citation.*

The Luddites were skilled weavers, mechanics, or other artisans that were protesting factories. They protested because of the factories not paying proper wages, the conditions of factories, and the misuse of technology.  In the Mock primary source letter, Lord Byron talks about how the Luddites has a good reason to protest. For example during some years they didn't even make enough money for the cost of adequate food. 

Dear Cousin, 

I am no longer as selectively needed as the skilled weaver I am. Every since industrialization has started to take over i have been forced to work in the terrible factories. There is a group of people called the Luddites that protest the factories by attacking machines and factories. I am for what they are doing. They are people who have different skills, some are weavers, mechanics, or artisans. The Luddites are playful protesters, some of them cross dress when they protest.  On a different note, I have been seriously impacted by industrialization  I have to leave the nice comfort of my home to work in a disgusting factory. I just man the machines, unlike like at my home where you have to be skilled in what I did. I had no choice other than go to the factory in work since my job at my house was useless because of the factories. I just can't stand working in this factory.  Since these factories are so bad I am for what the Luddites are doing. They have a good thought behind what they are doing. It is they question technology and if it is really necessary or not. I have recently bee thinking about joining the Luddites because I strongly agree with what they are doing. I thought to myself, would I want to just stand around and watch what they are doing or should I get into the action and not let this technology ruin my enjoyment of weaving and my health. I look forward to hear back from you.

                                                              Sincerely,

                                                                  Jason Ewing

The image above is my groups poster.

The analysis process of my group wasn't good at first because we were all going to do separate sources, but then we realized that we would get much better result if we all collaborated together on one source at a time. Our analysis process was an essential part of curating because if my group didn't really analyze the sources we wouldn't get the same detailed results.  Our exhibit displayed the horrid conditions during the industrialization period. The map of industry in the 19th century showed how rapid the industrialization was taking place. The maps shows where factories produced raw materials. In the source "View of Manchester" it shows the visitors to the exhibit how much the factories polluted the air and water. The water was even noted as brown and murky. The source that has earnings and cost of living will show the visitor how poorly the factories paid the workers. In three different sections of years the factory workers were being paid less than the cost of living. In the source that talks about the different views of English industrialization, people who experienced it first hand explained how terrible the factories are the be around and in. In the "Filth of Thanes" a person who was on a steamboat did an experiment by dropping things in the water and said they were indistinguishable after a few inches since the water is so polluted. The last source on the poster was of Dudley street. This source shows how bad the living conditions were. The fact that the workers had to put their shoes outside their house because there wasn't a room to put dirty items would be shocking to the visitor to the exhibit. My group came up with the title by thinking about the two major things, the conditions and the prosperity of the people, that stood out from the sources we analyzed. We incorporated these into a title.

In this exhibit I saw children working heavy machinery. I learned that in 1818 fifty percent of the workers in the factories were ten years old or less.

In this exhibit I saw in the chart that the textile mills in Lowell were rapidly growing. I learned that because of the demand for raw cotton in Britain cause a huge increase of U.S. slaves to pick and process cotton.

In this exhibit I saw the difference between the spinning wheel and the spinning jenny. I learned that the families depended on the fathers wage because the no longer need for the household spinning wheel.

In this exhibit I saw that the steam engine design was simple but people still found it amazing. I learned that between 1760 and 1800 canals in England and Wales were connected for goods to be transported.

Jason Ewing                                                                       Condition of the Working-Class in England

September 16, 2013                                                                                                         Case Study

Bibliography

From Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844 (London: Swan

            Sonnenschein & Co., 1892), pp. 45, 48-53.

In the writing The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844, author Friedrich Engels used his personal observations and research to write the book.  Engels took notes on what he saw, such as child labor, poor working environments, and overworked laborers. Since Engels was actually working at the factory the source must be credible. Engels opinion on the event is what the majority of the people thought but on the other hand there wasn’t that much the factories could do about the pollution. At that time in history there wasn’t a good way to manage the pollution. He had the same perspective as all the other workers. He produced this book to show how bad the conditions really were while he was working there.  Manchester, England was the hub of industrialization.  People had terrible houses to live in, bad air, and a dangerous work environment. Engels claims that the condition of Manchester and all the factories was almost uninhabitable.  Engels says “it’s far from black enough to convey” how truly bad the conditions were for the people living there.

Citizens Have Helpful Opinions 

Syria is in despair!  The unstable government isn't treating citizens the way they should be treated.  Assad the current president most likely was not fairly elected.  At the meeting I attended the participants know what was going on and don’t like it! The participants thought that the children’s education is extremely important. The children are the next generation of Syria; if they are not educated Syria will have a hard time surviving as a country.

The group of participants had a majority opinion of supporting foreign intervention. The people with this opinion wanted help since the conflict isn't getting anywhere.  They also want a foreign intervention because without it the chemical attack would have been blamed on the rebels.  Some people did not want a foreign country to intervene. They think that a foreign intervention could cause a chain reaction making Syria a bigger battle ground.

This town meeting went very well.  The talk about foreign intervention was booming with productivity; which I believe is because each town member wants for what they want to happen with a possibility of compromise.  At times the discussion wasn't very productive with silences at times.  It was when the town meeting was talking about joining in arms. I think this topic wasn't as popular.

Of the opinions discussed I agreed with what the majority of the people thought. I agree with a foreign intervention. I think the most viable way of a foreign intervention is doing it peacefully like a few town members said. I think this is most viable because it is helping to stop the violence without angering Russia and China as it would intervening the Syrian civil war with violence.  The least viable option is to join in arms if you have no fighting experience. A few town people said this was a bad idea because the majority of people joining have no experience fighting. Those people would just be another person to be killed.