Balancing the Power of the Five Great Powers

Today in class we learned about the Congress of Vienna, and the changes put in place after Napoleon's conquest as the ruler of France. We worked to answer the question, "What should people in power do when their power is threatened? And in this case, their power was being threatened by Napoleon. We watched a video clip showing a recreation of a conversation between Klemens von Metternich, the ruler of Austria, and Napoleon. (Napoleon-Metternich and Napoleon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJGW0jf-rmU&feature=youtu.be) During the conversation, Napoleon is seeking peace with Austria, and Matternich is stating his demands. Metternich demands that Napoleon gives up his conquest, and when he succeeds, he summons the Congress of Vienna to decide how to fix Europe and eliminate threats to power.

The Congress of Vienna consisted of representatives from Russia, Austria, Prussia, Britain, and France, or the Five Great Powers of Europe. They discussed the problems they were facing in Europe after the defeat of Napoleon. One problem they faced was how to reconstruct the map of Europe after Napoleon's conquest. They decided to solve this problem with the "Balance of Powers." This system brought French territory back to where it was before its expansion, and gave other countries more land as condolences for all they lost during Napoleon's rule. They also wanted to ensure that no country would try to take over the others, as France had done, so they decided that if the Great Powers worked together they wouldn't try to conquer one another. This system did work for a while, and due to the Balance of Powers there was no conflict between the Great Powers for the next 30 years. But, there were numerous revolutions within the countries that couldn't be contained, and eventually led to a revolution. 

I believe that the Congress of Vienna did make the right choice by creating the Balance of Powers. It kept Europe peaceful for a while, and restored land to the countries that lost it. They did the right thing by balancing the major powers, but within their own countries the leaders could have focused more on what the citizens wanted. I believe that people in power should give up some of their power in certain circumstances. For example, if all the people during uprising wanted was some minor changes in government, the ruler should do what is best for the country, not what keeps him in power the longest. Again, the Congress of Vienna made the correct choice to exterminate threats to their power, because if they didn't, Europe may have been at war for those three somewhat peaceful decades.

Picture: "Congress of Vienna." Encyclopedia Brittanica.  http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/628086/Congress-of-Vienna

Liberalism, Conservatism, and Nationalism

For the past couple of days in class we have been learning about political ideologies and their impact on social and political action. An ideology is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. It can also be the ideas and manner of thinking characteristic of a group, social class, or individual. The three ideologies we learned about were liberalism, conservatism, and nationalism. In class, we were put into groups and given an ideology to become experts on. My group was assigned liberalism. We started by reading an article on our ideology, and then created a 1 minute presentation describing it.

Our project on Liberalism in the 19th century.

Our project was a Common Craft video describing liberalism, and the influence it had on social and political action in the 19th century. We defined liberalism as a system that supported individual rights, innovation and reform. It disapproved of absolutism and aristocracy. Liberals believed everyone had god-given natural rights, and no one could tell anyone what rights they had based on their social status. Socially, liberalism led to a system of meritocracy, where people were rewarded based on their skills and abilities, and everyone had a chance to change their social class. Politically, liberalism gave way to the idea that government did not have rule over everything, and economic laws would guide people in society.

The other two ideologies we learned about were conservatism and nationalism. Conservatives, in contrast to liberals, did not support innovation and reform. They wanted to keep the church and the monarchies in power, and their belief was that what worked in the past was the best. They didn't want change because they believed that chaos and revolutions would be the result. Different from both liberalism and conservatism, nationalists believed that they should bring together nations with shared ideas. They thought that people with the same ideals and beliefs should unite under one government because it would make them stronger. All three of these ideologies each have a different system of beliefs, but they all had an impact on the political and social system in 19th century Europe.

Under Napoleonic Rule

Napoleon Bonaparte was a military and political leader after the French Revolution. Throughout his conquest Napoleon successfully took over most European counties including Spain, Belgium, Holland, Portugal, Italy, and the majority of the Americas. Napoleon commanded a large and powerful army, and while he was feared throughout the world, he was admired as one of the strongest leaders of the time. The actions he took were controversial, and while they were beneficial to some, they ruined the lives of others. People viewed Napoleon in different ways, and questioned his impact on Europe's social, economic, and political systems. 

Throughout his rule Napoleon made changes to societies that he overtook. In France, he abolished the Directory, a government system that gave only five men power over the country. This was a good step at first because the citizens of France no longer had to live under the unfair government, but later on Napoleon became emperor and ruled no better than the Directory. In other countries, Napoleon took power away from rulers and forced them to abide by Napoleon law. Commoners benefited from his rule, but he had a negative impact on the nobility he took power away from. Throughout his rule, Napoleon's political actions had mixed affects on the countries he overtook. But, he had a more positive overall impact on the economic and social systems of Europe.

Napoleon encouraged new industry, the sharing of new ideas and new economic systems, and the building roads and canals. He encouraged economic prosperity, and allowed France to control trade with countries that he overtook. As for the social systems of Europe, Napoleon established a meritocracy where people were rewarded based on their abilities rather than social class. This upset the nobility because they were stripped of their inherited money and power. Madame de Staël, a member of the nobility, believed that Napoleon held "profound contempt for all the intellectual riches of human nature." She did not believe he was doing what was best for the country, which including taking away her power. But, the meritocracy was beneficial to the lower classes because for the first time they had the ability to move up or down the social ladder. People were able to improve their own life, have rights to property, and access to education. 

Although Napoleon was a powerful war leader, and through the eyes of some, a tyrannical ruler, many of his actions positively impacted the social, economic, and political systems of the countries in Europe under his control. According to John C. Ropes, author of The First Napoleon: A Sketch, Political and Military, Napoleon had many great qualities including "his untiring industry, his devotion to the public service, his enlightened views of government and legislation, and his humanity." Although he overtook countries by force, these qualities helped him improve their systems for the better.

Vance, Thomas J. . "The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians." The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2014. <http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/biographies/c_historians.html>.
"The Years of Exile," by Madame de Staël, trans. Doris Beik (Saturday Review Press 1972)
Picture: Jacques-Louis David, "Napoleon Bonaparte" http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-24305144

Rock, Paper, Scissors... and Communism

As we began learning about the systems of capitalism, socialism, and communism, we did an activity in class simulating the major ideas of these three theories. The activity included using Hershey's Kisses and playing games of Rock, Paper, Scissors. Each person was given a certain number of Kisses. Then as we played the game, people lost and gained more Kisses. This game was frustrating because within the first three games I lost all of my Kisses and wasn't able to play the rest of the time. Although, it did help me understand the theories of government set up by Karl Marx and Adam Smith.

Marx and Smith both came up with systems to allow the people to have control over their economy without the involvement of the government. Marx's theory of capitalism, socialism, and communism decided that there should be no government whatsoever in a country, and the people would agree to a classless society. Smith's theory of the Invisible Hand states that the government should not be involved in the economy, so that the people can buy and sell things the way they want. This way, the market will take care of itself as if guided by an "invisible hand." Both Marx and Smith had the poor in mind when creating their theories, Marx believed that the poor would be able to help themselves into a better economy, and Smith wanted the invisible hand to bring the economy to a better state.

I believe that are modern day systems of government are the best systems, but between the theories of Marx and Smith, I believe that Smith has the better theory. Smith's theory allows for people to have control over their own money and businesses, as well as decide what they spend their money on. It also included a government, but excluding its involvement in economy. Marx's system, without a government, wouldn't create a country that is unorganized and dangerous. In modern times, a county without a government wouldn't have a way to organize important things such as a law enforcement system, an education system, or international affairs. These theories both allow for people to have control over what they buy and sell and for how much, but Smith's theory allows for a government to have control over things that the people themselves wouldn't be able to organize.

Picture: "Karl Heinrich Marx." Bio. A&E Television Networks, 2014. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.