In class we have been discussing the fight for women's rights in the 19th century. Many steps were taken to achieve this great feat, especially with the great amount of opposition that faced the reformers. Many felt that they were going against common practices in society. Practices that women wanted to reform can be seen in the document that they created for their movement, called the "Declaration of Rights and Sentiments", a parody on the Declaration of Independence. This document was presented in July of 1848 at the first ever convention for women's rights at Seneca Falls. In July 1848, over 300 men and women gathered at Seneca Falls, New York for the first women’s rights convention. This convention was held to abolish laws against women, such as divorce rights, the law stating women cannot own property, the right to vote, the right to equal pay, and the right to raise their children should the father die.
People at the time of the event had very diverse opinions on the matter. Most men did not wish for women to fight for equality, although there were some that supported the movement. In one newspaper article reporting on the event, the Oneida Wing, it states, "If our ladies will insist on voting and legislating, where, gentlemen, will be our dinners and our elbows? Where our domestic firesides and the holes in our stockings?" and that the convention was "the most shocking incident ever recorded in the history of womanity." In another report in The Recorder, it states, "We need not say we think the movement excessively silly." Although many were opposed to the movement, there were those who did support the fight for equal rights. In The National Reformer, it says "Lucretia Mott delivered one of the most eloquent, logical, and philosophical discourses we have ever listened to." So while many discarded the movement and did not care for it, there were those who did support it and push for equality in the mid 19th century.
Newspaper Reactions to Seneca Falls: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trr040.html
Thanks to the efforts of the reformers, the movement for equal rights between genders succeeded. Women gained voting rights, a right to property and equal pay, as well as more respect. However, men and women still have differences in rights between the two genders in modern society that could be improved. Usually, women are expected to uphold their looks and look good to men rather than be more headstrong and independent. The differences on how society depicts a man and a woman are shown perfectly in a Pantene commercial aired in the Philippines. This commercial shows a man and a woman in the same position, and how society will depict them.
We have most certainly made progress in gender rights since the mid 19th century. However, while men and women have equal rights in a legal sense, there are still many gender stereotypes floating around. Women are more often than not judged on their looks and appearance rather than their personality and integrity. We have come a long way, but there is still more we can do in ending gender stereotypes in modern times.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Insane Asylum
“…I shall be obliged to speak with great plainness, and to reveal many things revolting to the taste, and from which my woman’s nature shrinks with peculiar sensitiveness. But truth is the highest consideration. I tell what I have seen—painful and as shocking as the details often are—that from them you may feel more deeply the imperative obligation which lies upon you to prevent the possibility of a repetition or continuance of such outrages upon humanity. If I inflict pain upon you, and move you to horror, it is to acquaint you with suffering which you have the power to alleviate, and make you hasten to the relief of the victims of legalized barbarity…” —Dorothea Dix, Memorial to the Legislature of Massachusetts
In this Memorial to the Legislature of Massachusetts, the author, Dorothea Dix, holds a strong stance that the prisons need to be reformed. Dorothea Dix was the leading reformer of Massachusetts Prisons and insane asylums in the 19th century. She wanted prisons to be kept in better condition, and for the installment of insane asylums so that the mentally ill could be moved out of prisons. Naturally, she would hold a strong stance for this reform to be made in society. Dorothea wrote this document to try and convince the legislature to create insane asylums for the mentally ill. She prepared this paper to be read by the legislature and hear her opinion on the matter. In the 1800's, the mentally ill were not treated very kindly. Many beliefs and rumors affected their prison conditions. One rumor, for instance, was that the mentally ill could not feel heat or cold, so the prisons put the mentally ill in rooms without heat. They were chained to walls and were treated terribly. This document shows that Dorothea decided to do something about the awful conditions of not only the mentally ill, but prisons in general. She toured the state, examining many prisons and writing a report on each one's conditions. She compiled them into part of this memorial, and the conditions are somewhat patterned from prison to prison: handcuffs and chains, intentional beating, no heat. The writing can almost paint a picture in your head of what the prisons were like and how awful the conditions were. Dorothea claims that the prisons are so awful, that are "revolting to the taste". She states that the reports may "inflict pain upon you, and move you to horror". She is using the second person text to direct the reading towards the reader and make them feel more personal about these horrible conditions.
Source:
Dorothea Dix, “Memorial to the Legislature of Massachusetts”University Park Press, 1843
In this Memorial to the Legislature of Massachusetts, the author, Dorothea Dix, holds a strong stance that the prisons need to be reformed. Dorothea Dix was the leading reformer of Massachusetts Prisons and insane asylums in the 19th century. She wanted prisons to be kept in better condition, and for the installment of insane asylums so that the mentally ill could be moved out of prisons. Naturally, she would hold a strong stance for this reform to be made in society. Dorothea wrote this document to try and convince the legislature to create insane asylums for the mentally ill. She prepared this paper to be read by the legislature and hear her opinion on the matter. In the 1800's, the mentally ill were not treated very kindly. Many beliefs and rumors affected their prison conditions. One rumor, for instance, was that the mentally ill could not feel heat or cold, so the prisons put the mentally ill in rooms without heat. They were chained to walls and were treated terribly. This document shows that Dorothea decided to do something about the awful conditions of not only the mentally ill, but prisons in general. She toured the state, examining many prisons and writing a report on each one's conditions. She compiled them into part of this memorial, and the conditions are somewhat patterned from prison to prison: handcuffs and chains, intentional beating, no heat. The writing can almost paint a picture in your head of what the prisons were like and how awful the conditions were. Dorothea claims that the prisons are so awful, that are "revolting to the taste". She states that the reports may "inflict pain upon you, and move you to horror". She is using the second person text to direct the reading towards the reader and make them feel more personal about these horrible conditions.
Source:
Dorothea Dix, “Memorial to the Legislature of Massachusetts”University Park Press, 1843
Andrew Jackson: The People's President?
In class we learned about the 7th president of the United States, who has come to be known as "The People's President". But does this title really fit him? To figure this out, we divided into groups and chose a certain aspect of Jackson's presidency to research. My group was assigned the Spoils System. We created a Google slideshow to demonstrate our findings on the topic. Using the information we learned, we were able to come to a conclusion on whether Jackson was in fact a "People's President".
Andrew Jackson was the seventh president of the United States. Once he had taken office, many people realized he did not have many characteristics of a leader or a president, as he used to be a drunken gambler. But, he had been a great general in the War of 1812, so this made up for the prior. He is known for three events during his presidency: the Spoils System, the Bank War, and the Indian Removal Act or "The Trail of Tears". The Spoils System was a system devised during the Jacksonian Era, where a candidate would give government positions to his supporters as a reward for helping him win an election, and also as a motive to keep supporting him. As a result, 919 people who had government related jobs were fired to make room for Jackson's supporters. The U.S. Postal Service was hit the hardest, losing 423 postmasters to Jackson's system. The people were selected based on loyalty, rather than competence. There was a major incidence involving the system, where Samuel Swartwout, a man that Jackson had employed to be collector at a port, robbed the U.S. of over 1.2 million dollars. Another aspect of Jackson's presidency was the Bank War. Jackson vetoed the Bank Charter, thinking that the banks were corrupt and they would eradicate small-town businesses and huge companies would take over. This veto sent the economy into collapse, causing the Panic of 1837. The event that Jackson is most likely known for is The Indian Removal Act, where Jackson made several Indian Tribes move west to make room for the U.S. He was mainly answering to the white man's needs, and did not care about the Natives. He even made them march, and in the winter.
Andrew Jackson may have been considered a "People's President", but he only really served a handful of people with each of those aspects. He killed thousands of Indians, only to get more land. In the Bank War, he was trying to save the economy, but launched it into crisis. Also, he removed almost a thousand people from the government to make room for those who supported him. He was not a people's president, as the number of people he harmed far outweighed the number of people he helped.
Andrew Jackson was the seventh president of the United States. Once he had taken office, many people realized he did not have many characteristics of a leader or a president, as he used to be a drunken gambler. But, he had been a great general in the War of 1812, so this made up for the prior. He is known for three events during his presidency: the Spoils System, the Bank War, and the Indian Removal Act or "The Trail of Tears". The Spoils System was a system devised during the Jacksonian Era, where a candidate would give government positions to his supporters as a reward for helping him win an election, and also as a motive to keep supporting him. As a result, 919 people who had government related jobs were fired to make room for Jackson's supporters. The U.S. Postal Service was hit the hardest, losing 423 postmasters to Jackson's system. The people were selected based on loyalty, rather than competence. There was a major incidence involving the system, where Samuel Swartwout, a man that Jackson had employed to be collector at a port, robbed the U.S. of over 1.2 million dollars. Another aspect of Jackson's presidency was the Bank War. Jackson vetoed the Bank Charter, thinking that the banks were corrupt and they would eradicate small-town businesses and huge companies would take over. This veto sent the economy into collapse, causing the Panic of 1837. The event that Jackson is most likely known for is The Indian Removal Act, where Jackson made several Indian Tribes move west to make room for the U.S. He was mainly answering to the white man's needs, and did not care about the Natives. He even made them march, and in the winter.
Andrew Jackson may have been considered a "People's President", but he only really served a handful of people with each of those aspects. He killed thousands of Indians, only to get more land. In the Bank War, he was trying to save the economy, but launched it into crisis. Also, he removed almost a thousand people from the government to make room for those who supported him. He was not a people's president, as the number of people he harmed far outweighed the number of people he helped.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
The Rise of Democracy
Our Video Presentation
The essential question was "How should we define democracy? How democratic was the United States in the early 1800s?" To answer this, my group created a video to try to explain the rise of democracy in the United States in the 19th century. We first analyzed the documents we were given: a painting and an article about it, two charts about the voting from the time period, voting quotes and a primary source about The Dorr War. By reading the documents and taking notes on each, we came up with the definition of democracy as: "Democracy is a form of government in which all legal citizens have the right to vote, and all votes have value." The votes may have direct or indirect impact. In the 1800's only white, male property owners were allowed to vote, not women or African Americans. Voting was not a structured process in the 19th century, as can be seen in the painting, where many of the men voting have already voted, but have sworn that they haven't already. Also, many candidates bought votes or won because certain judges liked them.
The essential question was "How should we define democracy? How democratic was the United States in the early 1800s?" To answer this, my group created a video to try to explain the rise of democracy in the United States in the 19th century. We first analyzed the documents we were given: a painting and an article about it, two charts about the voting from the time period, voting quotes and a primary source about The Dorr War. By reading the documents and taking notes on each, we came up with the definition of democracy as: "Democracy is a form of government in which all legal citizens have the right to vote, and all votes have value." The votes may have direct or indirect impact. In the 1800's only white, male property owners were allowed to vote, not women or African Americans. Voting was not a structured process in the 19th century, as can be seen in the painting, where many of the men voting have already voted, but have sworn that they haven't already. Also, many candidates bought votes or won because certain judges liked them.
Monday, January 12, 2015
Latin American Revolutions
In class, we learned about the revolutions in Latin America. The revolutions of the Latin American countries of Mexico, Brazil, and Gran Columbia led to the abolishment of slavery in those countries, but also brought those countries closer to racial equality. These revolutions were a milestone in the quest to end slavery in many other nations across the globe, and set the motion in the anti-slavery movement. Without these revolutions and the people who contributed to them, slavery ending and racial equality may not have occurred. To further our knowledge on these events, we broke up into groups, each of us studying a different revolution. We read up on documents about the specific revolution, and then created timelines of the major events based on the reading. BY doing this, we not only learned the importance of these revolutions, but also the impacts of race and slavery on the New World colonies.
Our group was given the Gran Colombian Revolution. Here is a timeline of the major events:
Racial inequality is still a problem in modern times. Of course it is not as noticeable as it was during the Civil War period or the Civil Rights movement, but people are still racially profiled and discriminated against everyday. One recent example of this is the shooting in Ferguson, MO, where 18 year old Michael Brown, a black teenager, was shot by officer Darren Wilson, a white cop. This is an extremely controversial case, with protests sparking up all across the country. It is even moire so controversial that the officer was not convicted in his court case, a decision that was widely disliked among people across the country. Although this country has come a long way from its racist past, there is still racism in America, even though it is not nearly as prominent as it was in the past. We need to, as a community and as a country, work to overcome racism and discrimination, just as those in the Latin American Revolutions did.
Our group was given the Gran Colombian Revolution. Here is a timeline of the major events:
- April 19th, 1810: Simón Bolívar leads a conspiracy to take control of the Venezuelan government.
- July, 1811: National Assembly in Caracas declares Venezuela's independence.
- July, 1812: The Spanish regain control of the entire province.
- 1813: Bolívar returns to Venezuela and wins six successive engagements against the Spanish. On August 6, he enters Caracas and takes control.
- July, 1814: Bolívar loses control of Caracas again. Marches to Bogotá, recaptures the city from the Spanish.
- 1817: Bolívar builds up an army
- 1819: Bolívar has an army of 2,500 men. They cross flooded tributaries and mountains, losing a considerable amount of rebels.
- August 7, 1819: Spanish surrender.
- December 17, 1819: Republica de Colombia is proclaimed
- June 21, 1821: Bolívar wins a battle at Carabobo
- May 24, 1822: Bolívar's general wins a battle at Pinchincha
- May, 1830: Bolívar resigns as leader of Colombia and retires to Europe. However, he reaches Santa Marta and dies of tuberculosis.
Racial inequality is still a problem in modern times. Of course it is not as noticeable as it was during the Civil War period or the Civil Rights movement, but people are still racially profiled and discriminated against everyday. One recent example of this is the shooting in Ferguson, MO, where 18 year old Michael Brown, a black teenager, was shot by officer Darren Wilson, a white cop. This is an extremely controversial case, with protests sparking up all across the country. It is even moire so controversial that the officer was not convicted in his court case, a decision that was widely disliked among people across the country. Although this country has come a long way from its racist past, there is still racism in America, even though it is not nearly as prominent as it was in the past. We need to, as a community and as a country, work to overcome racism and discrimination, just as those in the Latin American Revolutions did.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Failed Revolutions
Were the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded? This was the main question in our discussion on the revolutions throughout Europe in 1830 & 1848. They were all sparked by the French Revolution, and as Klemens von Metternich once said, "When France sneezes, Europe catches a cold" These revolutions are referred to as Decembrist, 1830 France, 1848 France, Frankfurt, and Hungary. The class broke into groups and we each analyzed the revolution that was given to us. After reading several primary sources and then creating a survey from the information, one group gave all the others a sheet with the information on it while they answered the survey. After all the groups had presented, we ranked each revolution on a scale from total failure to total success.
My group was given the revolution of 1848 France. The main events were during the months of February and June, when most of the action took place. The people were united against Louis Philippe's corrupt rule, and they desired to instate a French Republic. During the first fighting in February, thousands of citizens who had lost their jobs rose up in the streets and demanded a republic. There was not lots of conflict, however, as Alphonse de Lamartine described, "The people
were not numerous in the streets; they seemed to allow the invisible spirit of revolution to fight for them" (History of the Revolution of 1848 in France) Louis Philippe eventually stepped down from the throne, and the Second Republic was established. It was run mostly by the liberal, upper class of France. They also took away many jobs, and thus the working class revolted. There were many barricades built and lots of fighting this time, as said by Victor Hugo in Les Miserables, "Of what was the barricade made? Of the ruins of three six-story houses, torn down for the purpose, said some." However, this time the government crushed the revolt, and killed 1,500 people, and the Constitution for the Second Republic was written. The plan was for a legislature and a president, and Louis Napoleon was elected, as well as giving 9 million people the right to vote. In time, Louis Napoleon would get 90% of France to vote him as Empower, declaring himself Napoleon III. This led back to a monarchy, which was what the revolution was trying to get away from. Therefore, the revolution was technically a failure, but not completely.
Our survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VZLZM27
Contradictory to what many historians say, the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were not all complete failures. For example, in 1830 France, they instated a new king that they wanted and suffrage was extended, albeit many people could still not vote. Also, in 1848 France, they essentially ended up back where they started, with a king even though they didn't want one. In Hungary, the rebels demanded an independent government and an end to serfdom. Many other areas of the Austrian Empire made similar demands as well. Originally, these demands were met, however Austrian forces soon defeated the rebels and took away their gains. None of these revolutions were successes, but they were neither the total failures that historians make them out to be.
My group was given the revolution of 1848 France. The main events were during the months of February and June, when most of the action took place. The people were united against Louis Philippe's corrupt rule, and they desired to instate a French Republic. During the first fighting in February, thousands of citizens who had lost their jobs rose up in the streets and demanded a republic. There was not lots of conflict, however, as Alphonse de Lamartine described, "The people
were not numerous in the streets; they seemed to allow the invisible spirit of revolution to fight for them" (History of the Revolution of 1848 in France) Louis Philippe eventually stepped down from the throne, and the Second Republic was established. It was run mostly by the liberal, upper class of France. They also took away many jobs, and thus the working class revolted. There were many barricades built and lots of fighting this time, as said by Victor Hugo in Les Miserables, "Of what was the barricade made? Of the ruins of three six-story houses, torn down for the purpose, said some." However, this time the government crushed the revolt, and killed 1,500 people, and the Constitution for the Second Republic was written. The plan was for a legislature and a president, and Louis Napoleon was elected, as well as giving 9 million people the right to vote. In time, Louis Napoleon would get 90% of France to vote him as Empower, declaring himself Napoleon III. This led back to a monarchy, which was what the revolution was trying to get away from. Therefore, the revolution was technically a failure, but not completely.
Our survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VZLZM27
Contradictory to what many historians say, the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were not all complete failures. For example, in 1830 France, they instated a new king that they wanted and suffrage was extended, albeit many people could still not vote. Also, in 1848 France, they essentially ended up back where they started, with a king even though they didn't want one. In Hungary, the rebels demanded an independent government and an end to serfdom. Many other areas of the Austrian Empire made similar demands as well. Originally, these demands were met, however Austrian forces soon defeated the rebels and took away their gains. None of these revolutions were successes, but they were neither the total failures that historians make them out to be.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
The Congress of Vienna.
What should people in power do when their power is threatened? In class we tried to answer this question as we discussed the event that came during Napoleons conquest: The Congress of Vienna. This was held on September 1, 1814 as a meeting of representatives from all of the major powers of Europe. It was located in Vienna, Austria, and lasted until June 8, 1815. The leaders came to Vienna to discuss how to deal with Napoleon and how to fix Europe after he was gone. In class, we watched a video of actors playing Klemens von Metternich, Austria's Foreign Minister, while he goes to Napoleon who is asking for peace, while Metternich's demands are for Napoleon to give up his conquest and restore the old boundaries of Europe, or they will declare war. We then read an article about the Congress and the representatives that were present. They were all there because their power was threatened by Napoleon, who could potentially conquer them all.
When the major powers of Europe felt that their power was in danger, and that there was a risk of them all being conquered, they came up with a solution. Not just one, nut several, all applying to different problems that Napoleon had caused. One of these presented solutions was the Holy Alliance. This idea was initiated by Czar Alexander of Russia, and was a principle that stated that all monarchs of the major powers in Europe had divine right, or that their power as ruler came directly from God. This also meant that any revolution against the monarch was not only treason, but heresy for defying God's choice of ruler, leading to a more severe punishment. All of the major powers agreed with this, except for Britain who did not take part. This concept was used to lessen threats against their rule because nobody would rise up against the monarch, or they are technically rising up against God.
It is difficult to state whether the people at the Congress of Vienna made the correct choice when dealing with the many issues presented. However, with the situation of Napoleon conquering a large portion of Europe, these leaders made the correct choices that would protect their power. They even gave themselves more territory and authority, making it harder for them to lose their power to others. Their idea was to preserve the traditional monarchies of Europe, and to divide Europe into large, major countries that could withstand another invasion. Also, Napoleon was viewed as the enemy, and not France, so there was no severe punishment for the country or its people. There may have been a better solution, such as not combining smaller, minor countries into new ones or giving more rights to the people, but the only ones that had a say at the time were the powerful representatives of the nations. However, the powerful should be willing to sacrifice some of their power for the benefit of all, but the lower classes did not have say and therefore could not argue for equality.
When the major powers of Europe felt that their power was in danger, and that there was a risk of them all being conquered, they came up with a solution. Not just one, nut several, all applying to different problems that Napoleon had caused. One of these presented solutions was the Holy Alliance. This idea was initiated by Czar Alexander of Russia, and was a principle that stated that all monarchs of the major powers in Europe had divine right, or that their power as ruler came directly from God. This also meant that any revolution against the monarch was not only treason, but heresy for defying God's choice of ruler, leading to a more severe punishment. All of the major powers agreed with this, except for Britain who did not take part. This concept was used to lessen threats against their rule because nobody would rise up against the monarch, or they are technically rising up against God.
It is difficult to state whether the people at the Congress of Vienna made the correct choice when dealing with the many issues presented. However, with the situation of Napoleon conquering a large portion of Europe, these leaders made the correct choices that would protect their power. They even gave themselves more territory and authority, making it harder for them to lose their power to others. Their idea was to preserve the traditional monarchies of Europe, and to divide Europe into large, major countries that could withstand another invasion. Also, Napoleon was viewed as the enemy, and not France, so there was no severe punishment for the country or its people. There may have been a better solution, such as not combining smaller, minor countries into new ones or giving more rights to the people, but the only ones that had a say at the time were the powerful representatives of the nations. However, the powerful should be willing to sacrifice some of their power for the benefit of all, but the lower classes did not have say and therefore could not argue for equality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)