Reflections on Napoleon

From 1775 to 1779 France was in a tumultuous state. The revolution’s radicals had left the country with a destroyed government and the people were still not satisfied. Enter Napoleon Bonaparte, a dashing, successful military leader who was loved by the people of France. Apart from being smart and military-minded, Napoleon was one more thing: power hungry. Although Napoleon’s need to possess power assisted him as he patched together France’s government, it was also what led to his downfall as he crossed over the line from visionary leader to crazed dictator.

By 1798 the French government didn’t stand a chance. Not even the spirit of the French people could save the dictatorial Directory that was reversing all of the work that the French people had done to get equal rights. Could the French government have survived without Napoleon’s coup? In my opinion, it could not have. Napoleon’s intervention was necessary; a strong, cunning leader was needed to patch together of fractured France. Much of Napoleon’s government was about gaining power, manipulating deals, and getting the French people, and any other countries, to succumb to his will. Napoleon made peace with the Old Regime nobles, the church and the middle class. He set out the idea of a family unit where the father had complete power over his wife and children, much like Napoleon’s power over all of France. Could it be said that Napoleon’s creation of a patriarchal family unit be considered propaganda? Reflecting on the political environment, I believe Napoleon used this as a form of propaganda. As the southerners of the antebellum South in America in protecting their patriarchal power of both family and slaves promoted this concept of both paternal oversight and social stratification, so too did Napoleon wish to convey both an image of a protector and a ruler. This image is one that the French commoner would both understand and accept as the head of their government. It was Napoleon’s insight that finally led to unity in France, but Napoleon’s agenda went beyond the unification of France to the domination of a great empire.

It cannot be denied that Napoleon was a genius when it came to the strategies of the battlefield. Against most of Europe, Napoleon was able to amass a “Grand Empire”. By 1802, Napoleon had no need to battle others, he was popular with the French people, the government was stable, and all outside threats were gone; however, war was in Napoleon’s blood, so he fought. After a devastating loss to Lord Nelson in 1805 Napoleon defeated the third coalition, which was made up of Austria, Russia, Sweden and Britain. He began to organize a blockade, preventing British trade.

But war is costly. There is pay for the men, the purchase firearms and munitions, ships, food, lodging, training and countless other expenses necessary for success and Napoleon was successful. To afford these conquests, Napoleon began to tax the French heavily and draft copious numbers of men for his army. Napoleon’s attempt to blockade British trade backfired for Britain had decided to counter blockade. This kept the British from suffering from the French blockade while depriving the French middle class of their livelihood that was tied to trade. The cost of war and the deprivations linked to war dulled the golden light that had surrounded Napoleon and he was no longer a hero. He had become a tyrant.

Had Napoleon continued a successful march through Europe, conquering each subsequent country, his financial demands would have been met with a patriotic French populace but Napoleon committed military suicide in his attempt to overcome Moscow. Now crazed in his effort to gain power, Napoleon marched through Russia to the city of Moscow. But Moscow could not be defeated and Napoleon retreated, bringing home only half of the 600,000 men from his original army. Unclouded by his military ambition, Napoleon could have settled on a proposal to restore France to its former size. Instead Napoleon returned to France, raised a new army and set out to recover and then add to the land he had amassed, in earlier conquests.

Even after being exiled to the island of Elba, Napoleon attempted to stage a comeback. But such an attitude, originally viewed as heroic must be question. Napoleon provided direction and strength when the country needed a leader. But when does it go to far? It was said that if Napoleon had just accepted France at it’s historical size that he would have been saved, but his own persistence turned around and slapped him. However, was it possible for a man with less of a vision and thirst for power to restore tumultuous France, I’m not so sure. Like many other great historical figures, Napoleon was a blend of genius and crazy, and his forceful ways did help restore France after the bloodiest revolution in history.

Is Violence Really Necessary?

In his "The Terror Justified" speech to the National Convention on February 5, 1794, Maximilien Robespierre describes the goals of the Revolution. "It is time to mark clearly the aim of the Revolution and the end toward which we wish to move;" To sum up Robespierre's justification of the Great Terror, he reasoned that only through violence can a people achieve equality. His words echo those of other great revolutionaries. The legendary Che Guevara once said "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." Both Robespierre and Guevara believed in revolution as the birth to equality and as the antithesis to oppression. The question is; is violence justified in the pursuit of liberty (happiness)? Is it necessary? Certainly, the sans-culottes depicted in Delacroix's "Liberty Leading the People" fearlessly pursue Liberty clad with swords and muskets as the American colonists pursued her against the British. Rather than taking a stance personally on this question, I'd like to see what others think first. If you don't believe that violence is necessary to achieve equality, can you provide a historical event that supports you? Or would you agree with Robespierre? and feel that he is vindicated in sending tens of thousands to their deaths. Che Guevara once said that a revolutionary is guided by love. But does love automatically guide us into violence?

The Second Revolution & The Emergence of Political Groups

The Second Revolution was a period of the greater French Revolution that marked the government's rapid radicalization following the fall of the monarchy under Louis XVI. During this period, two political groups arose within the National Convention, the "Girondists" and "The Mountain", both seeking to control the republic. There is a distinct parallel in the emergence of political groups in both the French and the American Revolution. In both revolutions, each political group shared the similar foundational beliefs of government, yet had contrasting ideas as to carrying out these beliefs. Based on these two revolutions, political groups are a key feature of any changing nation's government. So on what basis did these political groups originate in France? Who were the "Girondists" and "The Mountain" and just what drove them to opposition?

With the imprisonment of Louis XVI, France found itself in utter ferment and bedlam. During the September Massacres, hordes of angry crowds invaded Paris' prisons, killing nearly half of the people they found, under the suspicion that imprisoned counter-revolutionaries were plotting with invaders. In response to the chaos of the city, the popularly elected National Convention proclaimed the nation a republic in September 1792. As a whole, the republic wished to create a different popular culture that advocated its new order. Among the elements that it supported were: a new calendar system, and democratic festivals where the enthusiasm of the masses was directed to secular holidays that were meant to arouse the love of the nation.

While the governmental members of the new republic agreed on these elements, there arose a clear divide within the National Convention. Much like the divide during the American Revolution of Republicans and Federalists, the Convention was divided into two groups of Jacobin members, the Girondists and the Mountain. The Jacobin was one of the political clubs that had permeated the neighborhoods of Paris from the inception of the Revolution. In these clubs, members both men and women debated the most pressing issues of the day. The Girondists were named after the southwestern department of France that was home to its leaders. The Mountain was named so because of its members' position on the upper bench of the assembly hall, and was recognizable by their famous leaders such as Robespierre. The emergence of these separate groups came about as a result of a most important political decision. While the National Convention agreed in its fundamental decision to convict Louis XVI of treason, there was quite a rift as to its terms. The Girondists did not want the king to be executed, while the Mountain called for his death. The Mountain ultimately won this battle with a slim margin of victory, and Louis was executed with the guillotine on January 21, 1793.

Despite their disagreement on this issue, both groups sought to further the "war against tyranny"; however, their differences of opinion did not end with the execution of King Louis. In the spring of 1793 "sans-culottes", or the laboring poor began to rise up in a demand for their daily bread during ravaging food shortages in Paris. Initially both groups agreed to ignore their demands, but soon the Mountain leader Robespierre sympathized with their suffering. Joining forces, the "sans-culotte" and the Mountain persuaded the convention to arrest 31 Girondist deputies for treason on June 2. It was at this point of the Second Revolution that the Mountain had gained control of the nation's power.

The events of the Second Revolution are quite similar to the division of political groups that came about during the American Revolution. In that case, both groups had fought for their nation's independence and sought to make their nation better, but disagreed as to where the power should lie, the Republicans advocating a weaker national government, while the Federalists advocated a strong one, both parties disagreeing on countless other issues. For France, their groups' basic beliefs were the same in that the king was treasonous, but how they handled it led to the divergence of their opinions. Each group had its own idea as to how to run the government.
Personally, I believe that when a nation's government is coming into its own, the division into political parties is unavoidable. Despite the warning of George Washington in America, the Continental Congress split into the very first of the nation's political parties, as did the National Convention of France. Furthermore, I don't believe that this is at all a bad thing. In class we discussed this in depth. I believe that the emergence of political groups helps to represent all of the ideas of a nation. The way that groups work to better the government and represent everyone's ideas is to strike balance in their decision, as the Americans were able to do when they wrote the Great Compromise. Instead, during the French Revolution each group was essentially unwilling to compromise, seeking only to assert their own control over the government, as the Mountain forced the Convention to arrest members with opposing beliefs.

Based on this analysis of the Second Revolution, answer one or more of the following questions: Do you agree that there are there parallels between the emergence of political parties during both the American and the French Revolutions?
Is the emergence of political groups inevitable in government?
Do you believe that the emergence of political groups ultimately hurt France during the Second Revolution?
Is there such thing as "balance" in government? If so, could France have potentially achieved it?

Image Sources

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SeptemberMassacres.jpg

http://customerservicevoodoo.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/founders-washington-presiding-over-constitutional-convention.jpg

http://jspivey.wikispaces.com/Upper+Nobility+CY

French Revolution = American Revolution?

During the period of time between 1789-1791, there were many political and economic reforms made. Before this time, France's social system was in shambles, as it made the lowest class, the peasant and urban poor, pay the highest amount of taxes, giving them a scarce amount of money for necessities like food. Food prices were rising as well, which did not help the peasants, as they could barely make only a half of what the bread was sold for. The commoners, both men and women, were both frustrated with their lifestyle and their social status. They started to make multiple attacks on political figures and start many revolts. This was the beginning of a revolution. However, to keep the commoners at bay, the monarchy, under the king, had passed multiple laws that are very familiar to those which were passed after the American Revolution under the Constitution. An example is the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen." Just from the title, it can be said that it is similar to the Declaration of Independence. Not only that, but the philosophy of both documents were strikingly similar. The French version states, "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights," while the Declaration of Independence states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Both these lines sound the same and convey the same message.
However, both documents had different opinions about them. The Declaration of Independence had much favor from the Colonies, the exception being the Loyalists. However, the French document, instead of bringing peace, brought more revolt and havoc. The king had passed this bill, and the poor women of France had rebelled against him almost immediately. It also didn't bring peace as the Declaration of Independence did. Why did it turn out the way it did in France? Are the French just naturally chaotic? Were the people of the Colonies just more government-fearing? Why were they different?
The Frech did not respond as positively as the Colonists did, for the French had other aspects of their lives that remained unchanged, that kept them angry. It kept them against the government. They still had to pay their taxes and the vast majority still had them at a fairly high level. The Colonies, on the other hand, solved their issues on the battleground. It ended after the Declaration of Independence because the Colonies did not have any other issues besides equality and equal representation. The French, on the other hand, had many more reasons for the continuation of protest. The prices of bread were still rising, and the women were getting frustrated. Also, Marie Antoinette was simply despised by the people of France.
What do the similarities mean? They were similar because most people during this time period were slowly reforming their idea of certain types of people being above the rest, and developing a sense of equality and things being fair and just. The Colonists reformed their idea of the British being on top, and made their new country all equal, with the exception of slaves, of course, but that was abolished soon after. The French were also reorganizing their social system and made the people equal in terms of rights and liberty, however the financial classes still remained. These similarities opened up the new age of civilizations and empires having equal treatment, and the word "equal" to be applied to such aspects as slavery and women's rights.

Comparing the French and American Revolutions

As it is always beneficial to make connections between various stages and units in history, and seeing that we just finished learning about the American Revolution and just started the French revolution, I figured it would be logical to compare and contrast the two. As I read the textbook, thoughts kept popping up in my head, such as “This seems quite similar to an aspect of the American revolution” or “Yet this information seems different.” The section entitled American Revolution’s effect on the French Revolution confirmed my suspected thoughts on the parallels and distinctions between these two fascinating periods in history. Without further ado, here are my thoughts:

Both the American Revolution and French Revolution were prompted in similar ways, though the French Revolution was more based on social inequities than the Americans’ desire for political independence. In 1748, a 5% income tax was appointed on every French civilian, regardless of social class. The tax was implemented in an attempt to pay off the huge debt from the War of the Austrian Succession. In fact, France would become even more indebted after helping the Americans with their revolution. Likewise, Britain first taxed the colonists with a similar goal: to pay off the expenses from the French and Indian War. The first tax to cause a major uproar amongst the American colonists was the Stamp act. In both of these situations, the taxes were protested against. French civilians claimed that the new taxes gave too much power to the king and violated their liberty. A significant difference though, is how France and Britain chose to respond to these complaints. While France caved in and dropped the taxes, we know that Britain stood adamant with the decisions, at first suppressing the colonists, but finally repealing the Stamp Act in 1766.


Despite the similarities stated above, it is equally important to touch on the obvious differences between these two historical events. The French and American revolutions were both based on Enlightenment values that emphasized the ideas of equality and natural rights, but the American revolution was fought to gain political freedom/equality, while, from what we have read, the French Revolution sought to achieve social equality between the three French estates. Another of the most fundamental differences between the two revolutions was their contexts. The American Revolution was fought against the tyrant Britain to gain complete independence from the tyrant Britain while the French Revolution was more of a civil war fought amongst the French people rather than another country.

Though the French Revolution was in theory inspired by the American Revolution, which could be considered the first democratic revolution in history, it did not closely parallel it. Though it may seem there are many connections between the two, as we read on, we will see that the two revolutions were in fact very different in motives and outcome. What do you guys think? Do you see the connections between the American and French Revolutions, and what are your predictions for how the French Revolution will play out?

The Challenges Ahead for the New Nation after the Constitution

The Signing of the Constitution

Slavery in America

America circa 1790s

After the battles of the Revolution had been fought, after the struggle of creating a government was lessening, and after the Constitution was written, there were still many unanswered questions and challenges ahead for the new nation.   The nation had succeeded thus far in establishing a good system of government with mostly fair rights for men (white property male landowners, that is), and a new vision of equality that inspired oppressed peoples around the world to revolt as well.  Leaders such as Alexander Hamilton, who created an excellent program for the Treasury, and Benjamin Franklin, who made too many contributions to America to name, instilled ideals about equality of opportunity that  left an indelible mark on our nation and the world.  However, many issues were still unresolved.  Foremost, there lay the great pending question of what to do about slavery. 

              During the process of writing the Constitution, dissension arose about whether slaves 'counted' as people or not when deciding taxes.  The result was the grossly unjust "Great Compromise", which declared that slaves counted as 3/5 of a person.  The more anti-slavery Founding Fathers compromised even further with their Southern opponents and stated that the government could not stop the slave trade for twenty years forward.  And in fact, in the Constitution, the word "slavery" was omitted, as if  the writers were indeed ashamed of the wrongness of it.  Slavery was a topic that would have rather been avoided because the practice of it contradicted the ideas of equality that were spoken of so strongly by leaders who in fact had slaves of their own.  Although the compromise saved the Southern states from seceding from the nation, would it have been a better decision to abolish slavery in the first place?  As we  know, much controversy ensued and Abraham Lincoln faced these consequences during his presidency as he struggled to heal a divided nation. 

     Another unanswered question regarded the rights and placement of the indigenous people of America.  The Constitution did not address their citizenship or any rights with clarity.  The ordinances especially created encounters with Indians and displaced the more peaceful relationship that had been in place before.  More unfairness and persecution followed for the tribes.  Numerous tribes were driven from their homelands on the Trail of Tears, along with many other unfair acts inflicted upon them by the U.S. Government. 

       And yet another challenge for the new nation was the problem of national stability and staying true to the ideals of the Constitution.  For instance, John Adam's signing of the Alien and Sedition Acts

created a huge controversy as the Acts not only made immigration difficult and furthered discrimination against people who were akin to the enemy, such as French Roman Catholics,  but also made it illegal to write anything that  denounced the government or reflected 'treasonous' sentiments.   These Acts were declared to be unconstitutional by Adams' vice president Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans using the Tenth Amendment.   The disagreement between the Republicans and Federalists over this matter divided the nation.  Matters such as these made the Republicans fear that America was becoming reminiscent of Britain, which was exactly what they had tried to avoid.  Britain had created advantages for people of better birth, economic or social, and these protesters demanded that opportunity should be equal and thus no ethnic group should have more value than another.   Challenging it was for the government to strike a balance between the ideals of the Federalists and the Republicans. 

So, as the new nation struggled to face these challenges, which challenge do you think was the greatest or the most valid?  What do you think should have been done beforehand so that these challenges would not have such a taxing cost on the American people? (i.e. what do you believe could have been done to prevent the conflicts of the future?) What strategies would you suggest to the leaders of America as they moved forwards towards these challenges?

Hamilton: The Shaping of America

Before the beginning of the Revolutionary War, parties of individuals with common interests and goals ran the government according to what suited their parties’ needs. The colonists saw how this corrupted the government and after separating themselves from the English in the war, strove for this to never occur within their own government. But as we have seen time and time again, History is doomed to repeat itself, and the first party system formed with the re-emergence of differing views of what America should be. From the Federalist side, led predominantly by Alexander Hamilton, came the idea of a self-supporting, industrialized America fueled by the strength of a strong economy and the wealthy upper class, Hamilton’s intended audience for his message. The Republicans on the other hand wanted a society based on equality of opportunity for all men, but also for our society to be based off of the effort of the workingman. The Republicans saw Hamilton’s views as a return to the ways of old, back when Parliament was looking for financial gain from the colonies. But was this really so bad?

Let’s imagine a situation. George Washington, instead of naming Hamilton to be his Secretary of the Treasury, he names Madison. Washington, assuming his position of political indifference, allows Madison to implement his ideas for the nation. Madison creates a series of bills, plans and taxes that will eventually lead to the nation becoming a country fueled by agriculture and based off of the workingman mentality that the Republican Party advocated. Imagine the America that we live in today, except instead of being based off of the Federalist mentality of economic power and self-industry, it’s based off of the early Republican idea of the workingman’s paradise.

                                                          (A little outdated, but you get the point)

Going back to the original point, what was so wrong with Hamilton’s goal of economic power and self-sufficiency of goods by giving the wealthy a reason to support the party that gave fruition to these ideas? The wealthy had power and wealth, things that Hamilton and the Federalist Party needed in order for their goals for the nation to succeed. What was so wrong with giving them a reason to support these ideas by giving them a stake in the government? Why do people support candidates nowadays? Is it because they agree with their idea’s and standpoints completely and entirely? Maybe, but most likely the candidate that they support has some sort of plan, idea or action that will benefit the voter in some way or another. That is how advertising works and fund raising works: You give the intended audience a reason to care.

Without Hamilton’s vision for the country, would America be the economic superpower and semi-self sufficient country that we are today? So, do you think that the Republican Parties claims that the Federalist Party tending to the will of the wealthy in order to attain a government that was returning to the ways of old, was in fact wrong? Feel free to share your ideas.

Balance: The Low Carb Donut

Everyone at MKA knows of the Step team. At any event, be it the Gathering or a sport event, it is an eagerly anticipated and watched group. Why? Simple. It is a group of people working together in unison. Everything they do as a group is balanced. They balance on one foot and tap their other shoe together. They split into two groups, four, and then back again having already choreographed and compromised. Their performance is an exhibit of when something is in balance, or unison. In our day to day lives you hardly ever see that. Whether that is a comment on our eye sight or our society, I’ll leave that up to you to decide.

On the radio it isn’t uncommon to hear advertisements say “America Runs on Dunkin’ (Donuts)” in a nice little jingle that gets stuck in one’s head. Some might agree, but personally I prefer, ‘America Runs on Balance’. It has less of a ring to it, but it has more truth -- simply look to the history of the Constitution if you disagree.

In the beginning, there was fear. Fear set apart those who preferred to wait and watch American events and those, like George Washington, who finally made the Decision to join the Constitutional Convention. George Washington’s fear after Shay’s Rebellion was that “mankind when left to themselves are unfit for their own Government” and that what America’s “trans-Atlantic foe has predicted” would come true (Letter from George Washington to Henry Lee, October 31, 1786). Only after the fear had set in did the Constitutional Convention get started, and for that matter, only after a national celebrity, George Washington, admitted his fear. The fear was like a match starting off a stick of dynamite. After the dynamite blew up half a hill, one could start to see the diamonds hidden in the rough. In this case, the diamonds were the Constitution and the dynamite was any and all compromises of the Convention.

Similar to modern times, the successes of the Constitutional Convention was defined by its compromises. The Constitutional Convention started off in unison on two things: George Washington would chair the convention and that everything concerning the meetings would be closed to the public. Then, ironically for this piece, they quickly agreed that each delegation would have a single vote and even the major events wouldn’t require a unanimous vote, merely a majority. Since humans are different and will always disagree, this immediately balanced unanimity with productivity. After this there was the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey Plan. The Virginia Plan was all about balancing the powers, starting off by saying that “a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive and Judiciary” (Brinkley, pg 144). This part was quickly approved. The problem occurred on how states would be represented in the new government. The New Jersey Plan suggested that there should be only one house with equal representation for every state despite the size of the state. The New Jersey Plan was rejected, but it brought rise to a compromise. The compromise said that members of the upper house could be elected by the state governments. One of the major debates of the Convention was over slavery. The slave-dependent states wanted slaves to count as population and property, but the slave-independent states wanted slaves to count only for property purposes (and therefore for taxes). After a lot of debate and the Convention was almost dissolved, again the Convention jumped over a hurdle by created a compromise by balancing the two extreme opinions. They did this by counting slaves as three fifths of a free person and of a piece of property. A compromise between powers was also reached by banning the government from stopping the slave trade, or as a result, even talking about it for twenty years.

This, finally in the long list of major compromises, brought the conversation to the balance of power and limitations. If the scale of power wasn’t level on average, then America would collapse. If the scale of power was level, then it would be a testament to the world. The Convention agreed that the purpose of the Constitution was to create the Supreme law, but not the Supreme man. The people would give power to the constitution which would then give power to the government, which, in turn, would give power to the people via the social contract of Locke and Hobbes. To cement this, every branch of government had “checks and balances” which kept any one branch from having too much power and thus becoming tyrannical. The Constitutional Convention originally wanted to limit power so that there wouldn’t be too little liberty, but men like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton feared too much liberty. After the Sheys’ Rebellion, like a number of the people who joined the Convention after the Rebellion, began to fear what happened when the liberty itself of the people was unchecked. To solve this issue, the president was set to be elected by an electoral college and thus made the government not of the people, but of the chosen people.

These compromises and balances of power, people and beliefs are what keeps America on the thick and narrow. When things get unbalanced, people notice. Due to the nature of human kind, the masses never agree on what they notice, merely that something was messed up. When someone on the step team hesitates or messes up, people notice. A sort of feeling circulates around the flood of bodies as one neighbor whispers inaudibly to the next and then continues to fixedly watch the performance. For one second, the unison was broken. For one second the balance was uneven. For that one second, they were again watching the human nature they see in their day to day life. Today, when congress doesn’t work together and certain parties are at vicious odds apposed to complementary sides of a scale, the nation notices and complains.

The interpretation of the Constitution is constantly changing. For example, during the Founding Fathers’ times, guns were a necessity of life for hunting. For a large majority of the nation, if one didn’t have farm animals, trapping or a gun was the only way to get a supply of meat. Today, hunting is more of a culture than a necessity. In America, one can simply go to the grocery store if they were simply hungry. Over time, society has changed. In this debate in particular, their are two extreme views on this right in the Bill of Rights. Some think people should view the constitution strictly as to what the Founding Fathers wrote or view the constitution liberally in what the Founding Fathers meant and bending how it applies to new times (and social demands) as needed. Why is it that we even have this debate, to read the vague constitution strictly or liberally? Why is it that we today, as an American community, do not trust ourselves to grapple with the constitution and change it as needed now, instead of looking back to the founding fathers of then? What is it they have that we don’t? Simply, the Founding Fathers were human and we are human and thus both parties are flawed. We are flawed; our ideas are flawed; and our actions are flawed. Eventually all of the flaws even out, but as humans we question flaws and thus we question everything, whether or not we should. We look back to the Founding Fathers because the difference between them and us it that they had experienced recent tyranny, had more compromise (in their system) and had an absolute need and conviction to create the Constitution. If modern Americans were trying to redo the constitution, they would not be able to get the same protection against tyranny because they had not experienced the same dilemmas. The Founding Fathers created the Constitution with the intent of keeping America free from tyranny in the future generations, but is it possible for any man to truly prepare for the future? If there is any tool that can be used to create a valid plan for the future, it is compromise. And if there's compromise, there thus will be balance. Last time I checked, donuts aren't nearly as useful.


Elephant Picture

Logic Behind the AoC

Where the Americans right to worry about having a strong central government?

America wrote the Articles of Confederation to provide a weak central government. This was an understandable move, considering their previous experiences with strong central governments like those of Britain and France: France got into a war with Britain that many colonists got stuck in the middle of, and Britain caused enough anger among the Americans to result in a revolution. After all the trouble strong governments that the people had no say in, go the people into, it makes sense they would want to try something else. There is logic to their worry about making another governmental position that could become too strong to be checked. All the same, I am not sure that it was a truly necessary action.
While it was logical, yes, to fear a strong government, they did not need to go as far as they did: to handi-cap their leading body. Government is defined, among other things, as A) a form or system of rule by which a community of some sort is governed, and B) direction; control; management; rule. The government makes the laws, enforces the laws, and generally deals with the system. It is meant to protect the people and the greater interests of the people, as defined in the social contract. The Americans were worried about giving a loaded gun to a crooked cop. But they went too far in the other direction: if you give a policeman a bubblegun, he won't be able to stop much crime. An ineffective government is just that- ineffective

The Americans should have, instead of weakening the government, left the government with moderate power and worked on weeding out the 'crooked cops': perhaps by adding requirements on who can run for what office, how. 


What do you think? Were the Americans right to react as they did, to prevent a strong government? Were their actions logical?

AoC
water gun

Was America Justified in Starting a Revoultion.

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/uploaded_images/slave_irons-745469.jpg

It is without doubt that the American Revolution was a great time in our country's history. Without it America would not be able to stand as the pillar of freedom and opportunity that it stands as today. But there was one blotch that stained the valiant effort that the colonists put on by taking on the British empire. Whilst the colonists were calling for freedom, they were in fact the owners and traders of slaves themselves. So this brings me to the question that I want to raise for this blog post, were the colonists justified in starting a revolution whilst they were oppressing and enslaving so many people.
In my opinion, they were not. The revolution was a time for freedom and a time where the idea of quality of life was very important. The main complaint of the Americans was that they felt oppressed and unable to have a say in how they were governed. Patrick Henry went as far as to say that the colonists were slaves of England and needed to break free through war. Thomas Jefferson wrote to the king of England in the Declaration of Independence that the colonists were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html). He further stated that America was defecting from Britain because the King had failed to provide the colonists with these rights. I feel that America had no place demanding these rights when they were, as Alan Brinkley put it, "fighting both to secure freedom for themselves and to preserve slavery for others". (Brinkley, 127)
So, what do you guys think? Do you agree with me or feel that America, even though it enslaved other people, could demand freedom for themselves. Leave a comment below telling me your opinions.

Alternatives to Revolution

Patrick Henry- http://www.familyfoundationblog.com/2009/12/30/we-leave-you-with-patrick-henry/

When we were younger, we learned that the American Revolution was a huge and unequivocal triumph. The process of breaking away from the oppressive rule of Britain to become independent was viewed as a courageous act that allowed the colonies to eventually evolve into the great nation that we live in today. Now, with a more mature point of view, we are able to examine the revolution in a more objective way, understanding the intentions of both the colonists and the British. As we discussed in class, it was interesting to hear that some students agreed with the actions of the colonies, while other students were more sympathetic to the endeavors of the British government. The opinion that the colonies were “whiny” and “immature” was also presented. As we continue to explore the reasons behind the American Revolution, we should consider the innumerable other paths that history could have taken.
Patrick Henry, one of the founding fathers and a strong advocate of the revolution, made a famous speech in 1776. In this speech, he speaks of the revolt, saying, “In vain, after all these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation? There is no longer any room for hope.” (MP, 99). Patrick Henry reveals that he is of the belief that the rebellion has already been set in motion and that it is unstoppable. His viewpoint makes it seem like revolution is inevitable, but was it really? Radical Possibilities of American Revolution states that, “There was little evidence of those social conditions we often associate with revolution.” For example, Gordon S. Wood cites that the colonies did not have “mass poverty…seething social discontent…[or] grinding oppression”, which were often conditions necessary to ignite revolution (MP, 110). In fact, he says, “For most white Americans there was greater prosperity than anywhere else in the world.” In comparison to most other pre-revolutionary societies, white colonial settlers enjoyed relative prosperity, access to resources, and social freedoms. So, what caused various colonial discontents to transform into a large-scale revolution?
No one can say exactly when the American Revolution began. Certainly a series of smaller events helped to initiate it, such as Britain’s announcement of various taxes on the colonies, and the colonists’ rebellious Boston Tea Party. Was there a specific moment of no return? Perhaps if the “shots heard around the world” hadn’t been fired, we would still be English. At this stage in our education, we are better prepared to formulate a more informed and impartial opinion of the revolution. There are three key questions for us to consider after tonight’s reading. First, at what point in time was it too late for either party to turn back from war? Second, did the colonists and/or the British have any other, less violent, alternatives to the revolution? Lastly, what would have happened if Britain and the colonies had been able to negotiate reconciliation, and the British government had continued to rule the colonies?

A new reading revolution

So I had this thought over the weekend, and thought I would throw it out, and see if anyone wanted to respond. We read about the reading revolution during the last unit, and its effects on society and ideas. Is the internet producing a new reading revolution, by changing the way people read, and therefore think? And if so, what effects will it have? Will they be as far reaching as the Enlightenment?

Some relevant links:

• The author Nicholas Carr has written extensively on the way the internet is changing the way we read, most famously in an article called "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" and most recently in a book called The Shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. Nicholas Carr's blog/website is here, and you can read some reviews/summaries of his book here, here, and here.
• "Ten Reading Revolutions Before E-Books"
• A critique of the reading revolution idea

Dr. K

Analysis of American Virtue

http://dc-mrg.english.ucsb.edu/WarnerTeach/E172/images/Boston.tea.party.1746.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/images/2cris2378b.jpg

Throughout the reading, we have heard the American colonies petitioning for representation in the British Parliament as well as their own power as individual assemblies. The American colonies manage to make it look like they are the oppressed minority, fighting the greater ruling power, England, for their fair share of political representation. Throughout the reading, America is portrayed as a small,innocent, and struggling body, when through their actions prove otherwise.

Samuel Adams, a major voice in the colonies' revolt against British rule, went as far as saying: "England...had become a place of morass of sin and corruption; only in America did public virtue survive". Is this true? Did America obtain such a high degree of moral competence that it could affirm that no other nations, especially Britain, possessed virtue? I think not. Although America had justified cause to try and rid themselves of Britain's ominous monopoly in the colonies, be it because of lack of parliamentary representation, the unfair Townshend Duties of 1767 passed by Charles Townshend that imposed taxes on imported goods such as paper, paint and tea, which were all vital supplies in the colonies, the Mutiny Act of 1765 that forced colonists to shelter and provide for British troops, or the Tea Act of 1773 that exempted Britain's East India Company from paying all the regular taxes that colonial merchants had to pay, which was followed by what the Americans deemed the Intolerable Acts of 1774 which put further constraints on autonomy in the colonies. We read all this information that deemed England to be uncooperative, unrelenting, and worst of all, corrupt, but what we need to realize is that America was not as virtuous as they claimed to be. In fact, on many occasions, Americans became violent as we see in events such as the Boston Massacre, which the Americans failed to accept was their own fault. The Americans were in fact no where near virtuous, they were in fact more morally corrupt than England. The Americans saw physical violence as their means of getting the representation and equality from England that they deserved. They tarred and feathered customs officials and a mob of patriots pillaged and sank English ships and their tea cargo which became known as the Boston Tea Party. The colonies willingness to revert to violence in no way reflects virtuous nature, but rather savage and wild behaviors that could possibly further contribute to Britain's hesitance to allow them representation in Parliament. For the Americans to think that they were the only nation of virtue is completely biased and false. Do you agree or disagree? Was America as virtuous as they claimed to be? Or where they just as or even more uncivil than the English? Was Samuel Adams correct?

Women In The Enlightenment

After reading about the Later Enlightenment, one main concept caught my attention. This concept was the role, however small or big, that women played in the Enlightenment. During the later Enlightenment (during the 1800's), there were some highly educated french women who were of high class. These women held litirary salons where great aristocrats, wealthy middle-class financiers, high-ranking officials, and noteworthy foreigners came and discussed uncensored observations on literature, science, and philosophy. The main role of Women in the enlightenment was to advocate it. These women were called philosophes, intellectuals who strongly endorsed progress. These women publically supported the enlightenment by discussing their opinions on the matter and basically spreading the word to other women. They also helped other philosophes to avoid censorship. The main questions here are: did women really benefit from their part, was their role in the Enlightenment that significant, and if so what did they accomplish (how did they help the enlightenment to progress)? In my opinion, no, the women's role was not that significant. They did not benefit from it because the philosophes barley mentioned the rights and abilities of women. Even Rousseau, an important enlightenment thinker, stated that men and women were in seperate spheres and that women should not be granted the same rights as man, even going as far to say that women who "pulled the strings of power" had a corrupting effect on politics and society. What do you guys think?

Hobbes vs. Locke and Voltaire's Opinion on Equality

After Friday’s reading I have two topics that I would like discuss.

The first is whom do you agree with more, Thomas Hobbes or John Locke? Personally, I cannot truly take either side because I agree with certain elements from both of their arguments. According to Hobbes, people are inherently dishonest, violent, and uncontrollable in the State of Nature. On the other hand, Locke believes that people are intrinsically good people. Perhaps I am too cynical, but I agree with Thomas Hobbes. If morals and social norms did not limit people’s behavior, we would still be cavemen and cavewomen. However, I agree with the rest of Locke’s case. I do not believe that all power and trust should be invested in one dictator. Instead, the people should consent to an overall legislative assembly as Locke suggests. I understand that Hobbes believes that the worst possible evil is anarchy and that a strong leader must rule over the people. I agree that the government should be a powerful force in order to execute laws and control its people. However, a dictator in Hobbes’s theory would abuse power. Over all, I agree with Locke about how government should rule a country, but I concur with Hobbes’s theory of mankind in the State of Nature. What is your opinion?

The other topic I would like discuss is Voltaire’s opinion on human equality. Unlike Montesquieu who believed that all are created equal, Voltaire believed that inequality is inevitable. In his opinion, it is impossible for servants to have equal status as their masters. In some ways, I have to agree with Voltaire. Obviously, I believe that all people are created equal and that everyone should have the same opportunities. However, it is impossible for a country to function if everyone has the same opportunities. If everyone had the same amount of money, then surely everyone would complete a high level of education. As people in each family became more educated and aware about the world, values about the importance of education would be passed down. Therefore, people would naturally work harder. In this scenario, society would dramatically alter for the better. The only drawback is who would physically build roads, take orders at a restaurant, or work as flight attendants? A constant society is completely impossible.

Alexa Bieler's Post

The first thing that jumped out at me during the assigned reading was the fact that Isaac Newton was incredibly religious. Much of our reading over the summer and in the past few weeks has dealt with the effect of religion on scientists and the scientific revolution and the controversy attached to this discussion. Yet one of the greatest thinkers of the time, Isaac Newton was able to believe in his faith and create one unified solar system. My question is this; “Can the study of science work in tandem with the blind faith of religion?” And by extension, “Does strong religious bel­­iefs repress the progress of science?” Newton seemed to be able to balance his religious beliefs with his scientific theories, but as science progresses, will it still possible to be faithful to science and religion?

The textbook describes four main contributors to the scientific revolution; Medieval universities, Renaissance mathematics and patrons, navigational problems, and better instruments. For this discussion, I am posing the question first: “Which contributing factor played the most significant role in the Scientific Revolution or do you believe that all the contributors are equally important?” My position is that the medieval schools were the most important contributors. They gave scientists a place to learn, work, and collaborate with other great minds of the time. Collaboration is incredibly important as evidenced by Descartes and Bacon. Both men were brilliant, but their knowledge was confined to their unique study. But when their ideas were combined, the scientific method appeared and the study of science advanced.

The textbook states that during the scientific revolution, the position of women in society deteriorated, lowering rather than elevating women’s standing. I don’t believe that the book makes a convincing case on this point. There does not appear to be a correlation between scientific research and an expected change in women’s status as the book would insinuate and personally, I would not expect the position of women to change due to scientific discoveries. Further, I do not agree with the book that women’s position worsened. It is true that women were not allowed into scientific communities, but that condition was not new, such limitations for women existed prior to the scientific revolution. That women were offered academy posts, and had jobs relating to science in a more artistic form surprised me and suggest that women were afforded some social and intellectual standing. Where do you stand on this subject? Were women given less opportunity than you expected or more?

At the conclusion of this section, the book states that the scientific revolution was an intellectual revolution, a conclusion to which I agree. There are periods in history when a combination of circumstances coupled with the great minds of the time create an environment of highly charged intellectual exchange. The confluence of the scientific pursuits of such men as Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Descartes, and Bacon at that time in history makes for a rare moment in scientific advancement. Do you agree with this last statement, that this period marked a unique moment in scientific history?

Alex Amari's post

I'm reposting Alex's discussion piece here, as a post, so everyone can easily find it. Thanks, Alex. Please read and comment.

***

After completing tonight’s reading, I’d like to know what other people think of similarities between Galileo’s world and our own. I don’t believe this is something we’ve talked about in class with detail thus far but it probably will come up in the near future. The Catholic Church in the play is depicted, in my opinion, as “the evil system” or “the man” in pop culture. The church is made up of those who would vanquish change to represent their personal agendas. Perhaps the major question presented by Brecht is, to what extent can we allow doubt to rule our lives? Should we eliminate doubt altogether and live within a bubble of complacency or should we sacrifice faith and risk the crumbling of society itself? Every time I turn on the news I see these same issues raised in our modern world. What information should be withheld from the public? The images we see in the paper or on TV of our wars overseas or of our disasters at home only tell one side of the story, but perhaps the other side could have disastrous consequences if it were revealed. I don’t want to seem like a conspiracy theorist but I’d like to see what you guys think about issues between doubt and faith in our modern world. Do you think that truth is, “the daughter of time” and will eventually surface?

Welcome to Revolutions Honors, Block 1

Welcome! This is the class blog for Revolutions Honors, block 1. You should use this blog to post your thought piece on the night's reading (when it's your turn) and to comment on others' thought pieces. I look forward to some stimulating conversation. Enjoy!