Women’s Rights Movement

Because of the Women’s Rights Movement, women’s voices finally began to be heard.  

The role of women in the 1800’s was to be in control of the chores and general upkeep of the house, while mainly focusing on having children. The Lavender Article discusses the four characteristics of an ideal woman. Those being piety (religious devotion), purity (being free from sin - especially sex), domesticity (working in the household), and submissiveness (being obedient, and dependent on the protection of a husband). Domesticity can be seen in the idea of the public and private sphere. The public sphere being the world of commerce, the economy. A rough world only suitable for men, full of temptations and violence.The private sphere was at home, out of the public view. Being in the home was much safe for “delicate creatures” like women. The Cult of Domesticity reinforces the idea of the private sphere. The lives of middle class women were confined to the home. Their proper place was taking care of the house and children, providing comfort and companionship to men, and remaining out of the public eye.

Those attending the Seneca Falls Convention did not agree with the ideas of the public and private sphere, or the current place of women in society. The Seneca Falls Convention was the first woman's rights convention. The convention discussed the social, civil, and religious rights of women. The Declaration of Sentiments was a document signed by both men and women addressing women’s rights and resolutions giving women more power in society. Similarities can be drawn between the The Declaration of Sentiments and The Declaration of Independence. Both documents share the idea that all men are created equal and they are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”, those rights being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Of the rights discussed at the convention, women’s suffrage was the most controversial. At the time it was believed that if women did have the right to vote, they would vote the same as their husband. Therefore, leaving no need for women to have the right to vote. Some women saw that their were more pressing concerns, like domestic violence.

At the Seneca Falls Convention women’s voices were being heard for the first time, but a great majority of women were left without a voice. The only women allowed in the conference were upper class white women. Leaving Mexican, Native American, Slaves, and lower class white women unheard. In class each group was given a different women’s group. My group was Cherokee women. We read handouts on the rights Cherokee women used to have and the rights they had in 1848. Then, we made posters about the rights we as Cherokee women should be entitled to. As a class we discussed some rights that every group of women could agree were important. We decided that some of the most important ones were freedom of speech, the right to property, laws against rape, and that everyone should be entitled to the same rights that white male landowners had.

I think of all the resolutions mentioned freedom of speech is the most important. With freedom of speech people are given the chance to voice their opinions and advocate for themselves. With freedom of speech people can spread their cause and others can join them. I think in America we have accomplished some of these rights, but definitely not all of them. Women are still abused and raped in America and all over the world. The Huffington Post writes, “One in three women across the globe has experienced physical or sexual violence at the hands of her partner. And in the United States, some 1.3 million women are assaulted by their partner each year”. There is still a wage gap. In some cultures women do not have a voice. For women in America, it has gotten a lot better, but some people around the world aren’t as fortunate.  

Although the rights of women have changed drastically since when the Women’s Rights Movement began, more still needs to be accomplished.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/08/countries-no-domestic-violence-law_n_4918784.html

Test Essay

During Andrew Jackson’s presidency he was known to some as “King Andrew” and to others as “The People’s President”.

Those who did not support Andrew Jackson’s actions referred to him as “King Andrew”, implying that he acted like he had absolute power. Jackson fired enemies and hired friends sometimes regardless of qualifications. This is better known as the Spoils System, which Jackson used to reward supporters. Jackson threatened to use the army to collect tariff of 1812 taxes. Not only did Jackson favor local banks that supported him, his veto of the Bank of the United States charter resulted in an economic crisis. Jackson forced the migration of Native Americans during Indian Removal. He refused to enforce the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the Cherokees saying that, “The Supreme Court has made their decision. Now let them enforce it.” The Supreme Court may have ruled in favor of the Cherokees, but Jackson is the one with the army, not the Supreme Court. Jackson will not support the Supreme Court’s decision.

Andrew Jackson was from the backwoods of the Carolina’s. He was more relatable to the middle class than other candidates, which is how he gained the nickname “The People’s President”. Jackson even used the slogan, “Vote for Andrew Jackson who can fight, not for John Quincy Adams who can write”, showing how he believed strength was more important than education. Jackson created his legacy of defending the United States during the War of 1812, meanwhile making a name for himself in battles with Native Americans. Jackson’s popularity with the people was seen in the Election of 1824, in which Jackson led in both the popular and Electoral College votes, but didn't have the outright majority and lost. There was an outrage over his loss, which just increased his popularity. During South Carolina’s fight against the Tariff of 1828, Jackson kept revolutions at bay and kept the Union intact by preventing South Carolina from nullifying the tariff. Jackson also believed in Manifest Destination, and promoted western expansion.

I believe that the title “King Andrew” would have been more fitting for Andrew Jackson. I agree that at times Jackson’s decisions benefited the people, but only when it also benefited him. Jackson overstepped his power by continuing to pursue Indian Removal after the Supreme Court ruled in the Cherokees favor. Jackson did not want the National Bank because he thought it would be detrimental to his reelection. Jackson fired enemies and hired friends sometimes regardless of qualifications. He kept a “Kitchen Cabinet” in which he used personal friends for advice. He let his personal experiences influence his decisions. He fired the members of his cabinet that wouldn't socialize with Peggy Eaton because his wife endured the same harassment and he could relate to the Eatons. Jackson at times acted for the good of the country but most times his actions were motivated by selfishness.

I believe that the title “King Andrew” would have been more fitting for Andrew Jackson than “The People’s President” because at times he acted for the good of the country, but more so when it also directly benefited him.

If the Monroe Doctrine Was Applied Today...

The Monroe Doctrine was a major element of American foreign policy for decades, and can still be applied in some ways today.

Elizabeth Barber, a writer for Time Magazine, wrote the article, “Top U.S. Commander in Africa Is Optimistic on Liberia’s Battle With Ebola” describing the international effort provided by the American military to aid in the recovery of countries affected by Ebola. United States Army General David M. Rodriguez serving as the Commander for United States Africa Command told reporters that if progress reports for Liberia’s condition continue to show improvement, U.S. troops deployed in Liberia may be shifted to other countries in the region or sent back home. The Ebola virus has infected 17,14, and has killed 6,070 people. Around 2,900 U.S. troops have been deployed to West Africa to try and help contain the virus.   The World Health Organization said that cases in Liberia are “stable or declining”.  Liberia has reported 43 new cases over a five-day period, which has decreased from the 78 cases the previous week.

The Monroe Doctrine has three longstanding principles; separate spheres of influence, non colonization and non intervention. If the U.S was following the principles displayed by the Monroe Doctrine the decision of aiding Ebola stricken countries would have had a much different outcome. If separate spheres of influence was applied, the U.S would not have deployed troops. Soldiers would have stayed in the United States, and those infected with Ebola would stay in their countries. Non colonization cannot be applied in this situation because no one is trying to taking countries affected by Ebola. I think if non intervention was applied there would have been a debate. Non intervention implies that the U.S. won’t intervene unless the issue affects us directly. Some might say that because Ebola hasn't spread to the U.S we aren't directly affected by it, but I disagree. If we were to ignore the issue, then there is the chance that someone infected with the virus could enter the U.S and spread the disease here.  I believe that Ebola is serious enough, and affects the U.S enough for the need of intervention.

In the case of Ebola, the Monroe Doctrine could have been used to decide the U.S’s plan of action to ensure the safety of the citizens of the United States.

http://time.com/3617511/ebola-liberia-us-general/

Race & Identity in Latin American Revolutions and Today

Race and identity were factors in the Mexican Revolution and continue to be factors in the United States today.

The Mexican Revolution began with the famous speech delivered by Father Miguel Hidalgo, a Catholic Priest. The speech, known as the “Grito de Delores” or “Cry of Delores”, which called for the end of the three hundred years of Spanish rule in Mexico, redistribution of land, and racial equality. Hidalgo was eventually defeated, captured and executed. His attempt at revolution sparked many more peasant uprisings, such as José María Morelos. In 1820 liberals took power in Spain, promising to appease the Mexican Revolutionaries. In 1821 Agustín de Iturbide, the leader of the loyalist forces, negotiated the Plan of Iguala. Under the plan, Mexicans of Spanish descent would be seen as equal to pure Spaniards, but Mexicans of mixed or pure Indian blood would have lesser rights. Another racial divide was created by only certain ethnic groups supporting leaders. Hidalgo was supported by Indians and Mestizos, but not by the Creoles. If Hidalgo was successful in his revolution the Creoles would have equal rights with Indians and Mestizos, and the Creoles did not want that.

The current event I chose to find an article on is racial profiling. The article, by Robert King, “Racial Profiling Reaches Up Social Ladder, too”, discusses personal stories from people of color and their encounters with law enforcement. Reverend Theron Williams recalls taking his Corvette out for a drive in Indianapolis and being stopped three times by separate officers. The officers checked whether the car was stolen, cautioned him on his speed and asked him if he had taken part in any afternoon drinking. He drove home without a ticket, believing that his only crime was being a black man driving an expensive car. Williams tells Robert King, “It is just part of the black experience, it just happens when you are African-American.” It is unfair and unacceptable that people of color have to experience any racial profiling. Amp Harris, a promoter handling events for celebrities such as Jay Z and 50 Cent, was pulled over on suspicion of driving a stolen car. He was not driving a stolen car. Harris said that he “wouldn’t dare” be on a dark street to let a cop pull him over. He would have them follow him onto a main street because, “You just don’t know nowadays.” No human being should have to feel in danger near a police officer, someone who is meant to protect them.

I believe that race does continue to affect politics. Someone’s attitude towards a certain race can affect how they vote. For example: A person of color is running for mayor, or governor, and that person has good ideas on how to help the economy, the environment, and the town or state as a whole. But, this person will lose voters based solely on the fact that he or she does not have white skin.

Race continues to be an influence even hundreds of years after the Mexican Revolution.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2014/11/22/racial-profiling-reaches-social-ladder/19428725/

The Congress of Vienna

This unit we studied the Congress of Vienna and the different principles and rights put in place after it met.

The essential question for this unit asked what people in power should do when their power is threatened. Those in power should make every attempt to destroy revolutions and any further spread of revolutions. Although they should try to meet the needs of smaller sects of their people, they must first think of what would most benefit the entire country as a whole. They should work together with other powerful nations to crush revolutions and the spread of revolutions. In class we experienced deciding on how to respond to the threat of power from Metternich’s point of view. We were given scenarios that the Congress of Vienna dealt with and were asked to choose a response that we thought Metternich would have agreed with.

The Congress of Vienna was called to meet in 1814 to settle the many unresolved issues brought about by Napoleon conquering the majority of the continent. The background reading we received in class explained that the Congress of Vienna was a much needed peace conference for those of the war torn continent and the millions of families that lost loved ones during Napoleon’s domination. Together the Congress of Vienna agreed upon the Principle of Intervention. The Principle of Intervention was the ideology that gave the great powers the right to send troops into a country to stop revolutions and restore the monarchs. Since the amount of troops powerful countries were sending into revolution ridden countries outnumbered those in the revolution, revolutions were much more easily put out.

I think the powerful people at the Congress of Vienna made a poor choice. Instead of allowing large countries to separate into some smaller countries they wanted to keep them all together. Independent countries can be more successful than trying to keep the whole country as one. Smaller countries can celebrate their own cultures and religions. If the smaller countries were allowed to rule themselves there would be no need for violent revolutions. The powerful should be willing to sacrifice some of their power in order to keep their entire country from revolting against them.

In class, making the decisions on how to respond from Metternich’s point of view was helpful in understanding why the decisions were made. Looking at it from our point of view and already having an idea of how history played out would have influenced our decisions.

Nationalism

h

Reflection on Napoleon

Napoleon contributed precious artwork and money to France during the French Revolution. He abolished titles of serfdom, nobility, and Church privileges. Under his rule, more citizens had rights to property and education. He also established the Bank of France which balanced the budget and undertook major public works projects. The broad spectrum of varying opinions from the public on Napoleon can be seen in “The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Histories”. On the positive side George Gordon Andrews says that “...Napoleon be worthy of his page in the records of history”. One the negative side of the spectrum Andrews goes on to say, “Napoleon was so inconsistent in many of his actions…”, but goes on to explain, “so untrustworthy in much that he said of himself, and so all-inclusive in his ambitious designs that differing interpretations of the man are inevitable”.

Napoleon restored economic prosperity by controlling prices, encouraging new Industry, by building roads and canals and removing trade barriers. Some areas Napoleon successfully conquered were Italy, Austria (four times), Belgium, Holland, Venice, Cairo and many more. Some saw Napoleon’s invasion of Cairo, Egypt as a good thing, but others view it as negative for those living in Cairo. Napoleon reorganized the government which would have been bad for those who held jobs in the government and those who benefited from the Egyptian form of government. A good thing Napoleon did for Egypt was that he established the Institute of Egypt, which began the study of ancient Egypt.

He established a “meritocracy” where people were rewarded for their skills not their social class. Not everything Napoleon did benefited everyone involved. He was even described as a "moral dwarf". Although he added to France’s art collection, the art was stolen from Italy during the French Revolution. Even though he was abolishing titles of nobility and serfdom across Europe, he was also putting his family in the positions he had “abolished”. Madame de Stael was a member of nobility and the daughter of King Louis XVI’s former financial advisory so she was supportive of the government that Napoleon was overthrowing. Madame de Stael bitterly opposed Napoleon. She viewed him as a tyrant that rose to power through the persuasion of men by cunning and force. Marshal Michel Ney served closely as an officer with Napoleon and respected Napoleon from a military standpoint. Ney says refers to Napoleon as their “sovereign”, their “august emperor” and goes on to say that the right to “rule over our beautiful country” belongs to Napoleon alone.