For The Masses Or Himself?

President Jackson had a lot of controversy surrounding his position in office. Some people loved him while others could not stand him. This is how he developed two nicknames throughout his presidency; “The people’s president” and “King Andrew”. Some referred to him as the People’s President for a number of reasons. He was the first President to actually start out as someone who has experienced the middle class. Being born in the woods in the Carolinas he was raised up a humble man. He later enrolled in the army serving in both in the American Revolution and The War of 1812; where he was captured as a prisoner of war. Jackson then became a representative for Tennessee in Congress. People used all this background information to touch upon that he would be a good President and know how to make decisions in favor of the people rather than the rich. Which, in some ways he did attest to, like by vetoing the Second Bank’s charter. The Second Bank was a company funded by Congress that was not actually owned by the government that dealt with the debt of America’s wars. Jackson thought that Congress should not be able to erect a private company to deal with the country’s money. Congress felt like this was a foolish move on Jackson’s part; they were wrong. The people were thrilled by this; it gave power back to the smaller banks and small businesses. Which was a key factor to Jackson’s successful reelection. These are some reasons as to why President Jackson was referred to as “The Peoples President”.  

Jackson was also called “King Andrew” because of his tyrannical tendencies throughout his terms. He first exhibited this behavior when he was first welcomed into office and started what is known as the Spoils System. Where Jackson fired all the people in government he possibly could and replaced them with his friends who were not as qualified as the previous place holders. People became weary of Jackson’s ways; saying that he was just going to bring back the ways of monarchy upon America. Later, the word that the President had a secret alliance called the Kitchen Cabinet. Which consisted of unofficial advisors Jackson had constructed. Helping him make decisions with the direction that the government was heading in. Many became infuriated with these private meetings thinking that individuals not elected by the country should have much say in the final stages of an agreement. This is why Jackson won the nickname “King Andrew”.

My personal opinion on President Jackson and how we should remember is as “King Andrew”. Although, I do believe he had little to no intention of establishing a monarchy. I think he made so many questionable decisions that it out ways the good. His repetitive action of firing and rehiring until his secretary did as they were told and replacing positions with his friends was very suspicious. Honestly, his reasoning behind everything was petty and lame on his part. You could tell they were more of excuses rather than reasons. He was just trying to cover and justify his mistakes. Like how he justified the Kitchen Cabinet meetings; he said that it was because people in office had been removed from real life struggles for far too long to make proper accusations. Which makes sense, but these people were elected on the terms that they knew the problems they needed to fix in America. They stated them clearly while campaigning and should continue to fight for them throughout their work in office.  That is why I find this to be a weak reasoning and more of an excuse that most would buy. This is why I believe that Andrew Jackson is more of the “King Andrew” people gave him rather than the more respectable title of “The people’s king”. 

Should The US Get Involved?

The Monroe Doctrine is a document established by President James Monroe addressing how the country under his presidency will evaluate helping foreign countries. He states that the United States will avoid at all costs to do business with other countries unless it directly affects the US. Since, this is only a Doctrine and not a law it is not used by all presidents. Which makes foreign policy such a big dilemma presently; do we help less fortunate countries? Should we let people die and be forced to dictatorship of sorts since it does not directly concern us? These are the difficult questions politicians argue over everyday.

One example of this is the United States decision to aid the Islamic state fight against ISIS and Al Qaeda. The country is currently spending around a billion dollars to give their armies proper ammunition and protection. There is big controversy on the topic of helping Iraq; since it does not directly affect the United States to spend money on their troops there seems to be little point of doing so. Especially since the US is already in major debt as it is, people believe the government should be focusing on paying that off before helping the other countries. But, on the flipside others argue that we do need to fund these people because of if they can end Al Qaeda and ISIS without using their own troops; it could be saving them from two possible future threats. As the days go by ISIS only seems to becoming stronger and abandoning innocent people in horrid times like these is not something people would want to happen.

If we still followed the Monroe Doctrine in its entirety America would not have dealt with Iraq's problems. Due to the fact that the two countries are not even remotely close. If this was occurring in Latin or South America the US would have gotten involved but it is across the Atlantic Ocean. Also, aiding them in their fight would be like a domination of sorts. This is because  they are paying for the whole war as if it is their own. When it is not; the US is in control of how well the military is equipped and performs on the battlefield as if they are with the United States. Lastly, this does not affect America directly so Iraq and it's surrounding countries should fend for themselves, according to the Monroe Doctrine.

Politics are confusing and will remain to be so as long as there is a government standing. Sometimes, the decision that seems the least likely to be effective turns into the most effective solution. You never know until you try; that is why people continue to fight for their beliefs and ideas in and out of government. So even if something seems impossible because keep fighting and raising awareness until something does happen. Instead of ignoring it and letting it become an even bigger problem. That is the main struggle the US is having with aiding Iraq, bringing attention to it may get something done but it does not affect us yet so why bother? Taking both sides to the argument is essential to a good decision and taking account old articles such as the Monroe Doctrine allows us to see what people would have done. Depending on the person, this could be a good or bad thing which is why we try to remember them for future events.

Citation:
"U.S. Ramps Up Military Aid for Islamic State Fight." Foreign Policy US Ramps Up Military Aid for Islamic State Fight Comments. Web. 5 Dec. 2014. <http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/11/21/u-s-ramps-up-military-aid-for-islamic

How To Get Away With Murder

Race and identity factored into the fate of Mexico's Revolution because the natives fought against the powerful Spanish that had claimed their land. They felt as though the Spanish had stripped them of their rights and privileges and wanted to gain them back,  Their forces ultimately defeated the Spanish defence and enforced the document "Cry Of Dolores". This laid out all the regulations the people would have to live under with the new government established. To summarize the document, it laid out the rules of redistribution of land and how there would be racial equality for now on. This ultimately falls through as the people who were of Spanish descent were regarded as full Spaniards and anyone else had less rights in comparison. Mexico became a monarchy and followed the rules of the Catholic Church, who also had many privileges and were big influence. But, as long as the natives have complete control of what they do with their country, then everything was worth it to them.

In our world today, there are many cases of people being viewed as less due to race. The example that everyone is talking about at the moment is the controversy of Ferguson. As the article "Ferguson Burning After Grand Jury Announcement" on the USA Today website elaborates on the debate has been going on for over one hundred days; as though there was much to debate to begin with. A man named Michael Brown, who is black, was shot down walking back from his local gas station when officer Darren Wilson, who is white, proceeded to shoot him six times. 

Wilson claims this to be an act of self defense on his behalf, which most could view one shot as self defense. But he shot him six times and left him out on the street for four and a half hours, neglecting to call an ambulance. There were accusations of Michael Brown having committed petty theft at the gas station he went to (which was later proven wrong); but that still does not mean we as a nation should tolerate killing over petty theft. This was clearly an act of racism and should not be allowed to happen within the United States. Which is why everyone is upset of the grand jury's decision to not press charges on Darren Wilson. Protests all around the nation have erupted and the conditions of Ferguson have barely improved. The police continue to be brutal with the peaceful protesters firing rubber bullets and tear gas at pedestrians. It is clear to see that it does not take over one hundred days to serve justice, but rather it takes that amount of time to think of ways to justify inequality. 

Police Shooting Rubber Bullets At Protestors

Powerful image of  the town trying to mask of the racial injustice

Fires being put out due to the brutality 

There is something that people can do now to help make sure a horrible scene like this does not occur again. There is a petition on Change.org that encouraging the idea of making it a law for the police to wear body cameras. Sign the petition here . This way police cannot defend themselves because of their badge and we can clearly see what happened without any controversy. 

This is how race is still a predominant aspect of our lives. We try to believe that its in the past that nothing like that occurs anymore. Do not ignore what is happening; the only way to make a change is to acknowledge what is going on and spreading the word. This is how we have gotten to where we are today in equality for all so far. Just as the revolutions all across Latin America started, the first starting all the way in Mexico slowly spreading word that they had defeated the powerful rulers and won their independence. This sparked revolution after revolution across the South American continent. 

Citations:

Article and Pictures:

Yamiche Alcindor, Greg Toppo, Gary Strauss, and John Bacon. "Ferguson Burning after Grand Jury Announcement."USA Today. Gannett, 25 Nov. 2014. Web. 2 Dec. 2014. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/24/ferguson-grand-jury-deliberations/19474907/>.

Petiton:

Web. 2 Dec. 2014. <https://www.change.org/p/police-chief-jon-belmar-require-ferguson-and-st-louis-county-and-city-police-officers-to-wear-body-cameras?recruiter=187398846&utm_campaign=signature_

Personal Power, and the People

Once Napoleon Bonaparte was exiled to Elba, Europe had many issues to now elaborate on. To fully answer these questions each powerful country sent a representative to meet up and discuss the future of the continent. This monumental meeting is and was referred to as the Congress of Vienna. The whole time, representatives did not look for the best of the people rather, there was an unspoken question at this meeting.  What should they do when their power is threatened? In class, we were given options to topics to choose from and we had to pick the most logical one to us based on that question. We then compared and contrasted our least popular and most popular votes to the actual decisions during the Congress of Vienna.

One of these concepts was the Principle of Intervention. This was the ideology that allowed the more powerful countries to send troops to a country whose people are demanding a revolution. Metternich and the other people of power used this concept to keep their power stable so that they were never overthrown by the people. The stronger country would come in and cause an abrupt end to the revolution, sufficiently lowering the peoples' future motivation to revolt. Thus, protecting the power that the monarchy was trying to protect. The impact of this concept was that it limited the success of revolutions made within countries. It kept the order of Monarchy in place because since no one had a successful revolt to gain a constitution the government stayed.

Overall, the impact of the Congress of Vienna was that they reinstated monarchy and took power from the common people and gave it to the wealthy. Basically, everything that Napoleon had worked for was thrown away as if it did not even occur. Which lead to many revolutions from the people that were shut down for the most part due to the Principle of Intervention mentioned earlier. The Congress of Vienna also reconstructed country boundaries that Napoleon had destroyed.



There were many other ways the leaders of the Congress of Vienna could have done that would have had a more positive impact. Instead of reintroducing monarchy completely they could have picked bits and pieces of monarchy to reinforce. Also, the Principle of Intervention should not have been enacted. It is just proving to the people that they do not trust them and shows that they were aiming to limit their power. If they had made it look like they did allow them to have some say and trust they would have been less likely to think of even forming an revolution. People of power could really have benefited from the saying "You have to lose some to get some". This means that even if they did give up some control it would have worked out in the end since the people would not have a reason to rebel. So then their title and wealth would not ever be jeopardized.  

The Napoleon Effect

Napoleon Bonaparte is considered one of the greatest conquers even to this day. After single handedly conquering most of Europe it is a shock that the American school system tend to neglect him year after year. He impacted the influenced how Europe ran its economic, social, and political systems.

Economically, Napoleon was able to improve how wealthy France was as a country. He controlled pricing on items, he built all new roads and canals to increase the value of France. He also encouraged people to make new businesses. New businesses meant that people would be making and spending money on new things which is good for the economy. Then, during the French Revolution Napoleon seized many great artworks and large sums of money from Italy for France. Even though this was a blow to Italy it helped France build up their value. Later, in 1803, Napoleon decided to sell the Louisiana Territory to America. Which was good for France since they made a lot of money and also America since they could expand westward. Napoleon the opened the Bank of France which balanced out the budget on projects and was in charge of public work programs. This ensured that not too much money was being used to allow the country to become bankrupt and allowed for more economic freedom.

Napoleon changed how France and Europe functioned socially as well. Alongside his armies he abolished nobel and serfdom titles freeing people of a life of indenturement. Allowing them to be able to rise up in the workplace since he also encouraged new businesses. This made people have a different attitude on how the way the world ran and gave way into new social statuses. He ended church privileges so then the Pope did not have all the power. Thus stopping them from forcing followers to think certain ways and make them obey rules. Under the effect of Napoleon's ruling common people had rights to own property and education was available to anyone. The more educated the people are the higher they will succeed. They will encounter much more dynamic thoughts questioning why things are ran and thoroughly advancing the way we live day by day.

He effected how the political system ran drastically, accommodating to the people and not the wealthy. He was able to diminish the nobility meaning that kings and queens would not power over the people. Napoleon established what we call an "meritocracy" which means people were rewarded on how well they were able to perform a skill rather than a social class they were born into. Napoleon was also able to get the members of the Directory, who ran France, to back down since there were threats of overthrowing them. Allowing Napoleon complete control of France and its people.

Overall, you can see how Napoleon affected the world heavily. He was able to pick France up and get it on the way to economic success. Without him, we may have never known what it is to live without the rule of nobility. Serfdom may have still been alive and it constitutes under the category of slavery. This is why Napoleon is one of the most important people of Europe. Napoleon was cunning enough to be able to change economic systems, switch social systems, and alter political systems.

Capitalism vs. Socialism

The other day for class we experienced the always thrilling concepts of capitalism and socialism. To accomplish this our teacher passed out starbursts which we used as currency. Some people started out better than others; some got ten while others received three. To fully explore the capitalist view, we played rock paper scissors for starbursts. Some people became immensely successful while others lost all their candy, and had resorted to a life of crime. Stealing starbursts from the government and each other. At the end of the activity, our teacher announced she was collecting all the starbursts back and redistributing them to an even amount amongst us. It was frustrating to most of us because the majority had three or more. The people with none or less than three were ecstatic though, they'd be getting more than they lost.This is to display how socialism works and its attempt at being an utopian society. These are two different approaches at government both having clear faults and advantages to them.

The founder of socialism is Karl Marx, he was a prosperous philosopher and co-wrote The Communist Manifesto. Which laid out the the basis of communism and socialism. It states that the government should not exist; that once wealth was evenly distributed between everyone that the it would be unnecessary. People would come together and protect one another and do favors for one another since everyone had the same amount of money. The theory was that it'd end greediness and crime throughout the countries. Marx created communism because he believed that the already emplaced rules of capitalism worked against the poor and gave the wealthy too much power. This way no one was better than the other and it didn't matter how much you worked you still had the same amount of opportunities. 

Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations way before Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto. His thought process was that if the government didn't restrict peoples businesses that the economy would improve. This is because companies would lower the cost of their product until one business changed their product or went of business. People wouldn't be forced to buy pricey items and thus the economy would improve. There's this idea referred to as the invisible hand which is since businesses would hit a roadblock it'd lead them in the right direction. The invisible hand would be beneficial to the poor due to the reduced prices for competition. Though, it would take a long time for all this to even out to be fully effective. 

The better option seems to be capitalism, in my opinion. Socialism and communism is too utopian society esque to work out. Everyone always says that communism looks better on paper than actually used. If the people of this world were flawless it would work. No government aspect of communism is slightly terrifying, there'd be no order. I feel as though the streets would end up as one big war zone. Capitalism on its own wouldn't work either, finding a middle ground between these ideas is crucial for a balanced government. This is how many countries are run now, although it is not a perfect system, it keeps the economy afloat. 

The What Lights?

When the Industrial Revolution had just begun to take storm allowing products such as textiles to be made with little to no skill, a band of people began to rise up. They were known as the Luddites and they were frustrated by how they had been in apprenticeship for so long just to have their jobs be taken away by people and machines with no skill. They came together and decided to protest against the big factories depriving them of money. They were able to sneak into factories and break the machines to send a message across. To bring awareness to the subject they even crossed dressed to grab people’s attention. Below this paragraph is a mock, primary source, letter meant to display the thoughts of people had about the Luddites. It is written from the perspective of a soldier who is conflicted between up keeping his vow of being a soldier and supporting the Luddite’s cause.

Dear Michael,

I am writing to you today because I have some thoughts that I need to get out my system and I cannot leave them lying around. For the fear that my higher ups will find them and escort me away. You probably have not heard of the new movement going on here since you live across the world but, these people refer to themselves as Luddites. Now, the Luddites consist mostly of people who have dedicated their whole lives to a specific craft. Such as my father who is a cobbler as you already know. They are upset by the fact that they know every single thing about their skill and are now not making any money due to the new mills that mass produce everything. They are losing so much money because although there merchandise is of higher quality, it is also very expensive compared to the mills pricing. So they banded together and started to riot the mills and now it is to the point where they are breaking in, destroying equipment, and setting the buildings ablaze.

I am currently positioned at a mill to guard the machines because it has become such a big problem. It’s so hard too, since I am so conflicted about everything now. The Luddites have a very good reason to protest and riot but, does it have to be at this level? For me, I think it does purely based on the fact that no one would blink an eye at them if they just tried to voice their opinions. You know what they say, actions speak louder than words. Since my father is a cobbler I am leaning more towards the Luddites than opposing them.

 As a soldier though I have given my word that I would protect these mills and do whatever I have been instructed. It’s a tough position to be in; I either continue on serving my country or serve against it. Both scenarios make my stomach flip at the mere thought of acting upon them. Our family here in England has never been rich, nor will we ever be. Because of the Industrialization the poverty is becoming worse. My father is receiving less and less jobs and barely selling any of his works. But, we cannot protest against the mills, since we are so poor and we cannot afford much else.

Also, if I am caught being for the Luddites while serving, what will they make of me? Will I become deported? If so our family is really in for trouble, we will have even less money than before. I really need help on this, what do you think I should do? For now I am going to lay low and follow my duties and be the silent cheerer whenever the Luddites have a successful break. I’m just so confused right now, I really need some advice, please reply as soon as possible.

Best Regards,

Richard Cormack  

P.s. here is a good representation of the severity of joining the Luddites cause

Hot Stuff: How the Steam Engine Fired Up the Industrial Revolution

Curating in general is a very important job because you want the viewer to be able receive the essential information about the exhibit piece as quickly as possible. This can become quite tricky as many pieces are packed full of history. It’s necessary to be able to choose what parts are more important to include verses others. This can require a lot of analysis, taking careful note on details that the common bystander would ignore. Then, take that information and pack it into a two sentence statement. Things to look for when analyzing a piece are what the creator wanted you to get out of it. Also, basic information such as the date of when it was created, the title and who exactly created it. We took precise and accurate notes on all the sources to get all the data spread out in front of us. We then highlighted the information we found to be most important and then displayed that on a small card. These are things that my group and I looked for when creating our exhibit on the Industrial Revolution.

                Our exhibit was about the sub group of the Industrial Revolution. How the latest invention of the steam engine advanced the revolution so much further. The first source is a diagram of a steam engine which displays the basic functions of it. It displays the science and why it was able to produce energy. Then, the map of major products produced in Great Britain called Map of Coal and Metal Production with Canals and Rivers in Great Britain. Made to represent the 1750’s to 1800’s. It shows that wool was made in less developed areas and metal was produced in more developed areas. Coal was produced towards the north. Next, we have Industrializing America, 1790-1850, a timeline display the advancements that occurred due to the invention of the steam engine and how it further improved daily life. There’s a photograph named Cutting at Blisworth on the London-Birmingham Line which shines light on all the man power used to cut open mountains to get from one place to another. The cuts in the mountain are ragged compared to how the rocks on the highways are cut which proves improvement because of the Industrial Revolution. Moving away from visual representations, we have letters written by Robert Fulton. He records the times and speeds his first ride on a steamboat went. I traveled a whopping 150 miles in thirty hours, which equates to five miles an hour. Which seems slow now but at the time it was faster than anything else at the time. Lastly, we have a debate on the railways one man named Wordsworth who is against them and Smiles who is all for them. Wordsworth’s was written in 1844 when the skepticism of the steam engine was present since it was so far out of their comfort zone. By the time Smiles writes his piece its 1859 and people have decided that this is a good idea and have been persuaded by time.

                Our exhibit title is Hot Stuff: How the Steam Engine Fired Up the Industrial Revolution. Our group came up with this because I really wanted a pun in our title. I was thinking about how hot was used for something being literally hot and important. The steam engine can be inserted for both definitions. I recommended just “Hot Stuff” as more of a base idea but they seemed to really enjoy the cheesiness of it. We then added onto it, with another pun, to make it clearer to the future viewers. I hope that people get the idea of how the steam engine was really a huge element in the Industrial Revolution. It got people and merchandise from one place to another very efficiently. It also carried out water from coal mines and coal made everything essentially run in the Industrial Revolution. In fact, we still use it as a power source today.  From walking around the other groups I got a sense of cohesiveness and a lot of data in short statements. They also color coordinated everything and it informed me a lot on what went on during the Industrial Revolution.