Women's Rights Movement

As the 1800s progressed, there was a growing movement in the north to end slavery and racial discrimination.However, equal rights for women had not progressed in the law. Women of this time were looked upon by the leaders of society as weak and to be kept in the home. Unlike white middle class men, they were not allowed to own property, vote, and hold office. Many women had enough of unequal treatment and rights that were simply unfair.These feelings of frustration of many, led women from all over the country to join together in Seneca Falls, New York to build strategies and campaigns to change the common perception of women.  

Although women had obligations, duties in the home, church and community, they had little rights in the republic. An ideal woman in this time had piety. She was to have religious devotion because it was thought to be good for her salvation. God would also bring the world out of sin through her suffering and love of women. Purity was ideal in a woman also. She was to be pure from sexuality, except in devotion to her husband. If she was not pure, she was not considered a woman. She could be unworthy of love and was considered a lower form of being if she was not pure. Her virginity was the treasure of life and she must protect it and remain pure and chaste until marriage. Female purity was also looked at as a weapon by keeping men in control of their sexual desires. An ideal woman was also submissive to the men in their lives. They wore clothing that was designed to reshape and move the body to unrealistic proportions. This illusion prevented proper muscle development and restricted movement. Finally, ideal women were domestic. They stayed in the home where fulfilling purity and piety was easier. Women were seen in the private sphere, which was in the home and they took charge of what went on inside its four walls. The Cult of Domesticity dictated that women should stay at home and should not do any work outside of the home. The women were truly confined to the home and remained out of the public eye.

The quest for women's rights rose in this era of reform and renewal when they pushed for equality. The Seneca Falls convention was the first women's rights gathering. This event was a forum for both men and women to discuss the social, civil, and religious condition and rights of woman. Women were looking for change and equality among the sexes. A proposition was made to create a statement of purpose called "Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions". This document read like the Declaration of Independence, which Thomas Jefferson had written in 1776 outlining the crimes of the King against the Colonies and the determination of the american people to be free. The Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions used similar language, structure, and ideas of lifting oppressed people out of tyranny. Women provided specific examples of why there was not equality of the sexes, just like Jefferson had provided examples of the crimes the King had committed.The Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions said: " He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise." The Declaration of Independence said: " He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people." The most controversial aspect of the Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions was women's suffrage or the right to vote. The resolution passed, but many of the attendees were opposed, because as Quakers they did not believe in voting. There was a lot of outside criticism and mockery after the resolution was passed. Women did not gain the right to vote for another 70 years. 

While caught up in the fight for women's rights, other disadvantaged groups were excluded. The concerns were the concerns of upper class white women, not of other oppressed groups like Cherokees and enslaved  African American women. Cherokee women had been pushed to unfamiliar territories and were not of the concern after the trail of tears. Slaves had no protection under the law and their pursuit of equal rights was not as important to the attendees. My group analyzed women in New Mexico and learned women were oppressed by the law rather than protected by it. Just like white women, Mexican women did not have equal rights over land, divorce, and domestic violence. In class we developed resolutions, such as equal pay for equal work, freedom of speech, women not under the possession of men, no physical and sexual abuse, and the right to own property. The declaration included similarities such as right to own property, right to work, women not under the possession of men, and right to speak up. It differed in ways such as not addressing male violence against women and equal pay for equal work, which our class discussed.

The most important resolution is the right to be treated equally under the law whether man or woman. This is the foundation of the right to work, own property, vote, divorce rights, and authority over children. Many of the objectives have been accomplished and some have not. In the working world, sometimes women are not paid as much as men or given as much responsibility because men in charge do not give an equal chance. The United States has never had a woman elected president because males are always thought of as more dominant leaders. I am confident that in my lifetime we will see a woman president and women in my generation will have as many opportunities as men to succeed. 

King Andrew or The people's President?

Andrew Jackson was known as The People's President. He won the popular vote in three elections, one of which was against John Quincy Adams, who was appointed president by the congress. Jackson beat Quincy Adams in 1828 and Henry Clay 1832. He also served as a military leader in two wars. He was the first president who grew up in a log cabin and was not one of the leaders of the American revolution from Massachusetts or Virginia. He was a soldier in the American Revolution, meaning he was one of the people, not one of the elite. he continued that path into the White House. When Jackson was first elected president, he invited people to come to the White House and celebrate with him and his supporters. He fought the creation of the National Bank because he thought that it would benefit the wealthy and powerful over the ordinary Americans.

Andrew Jackson was also known as King Andrew. Jackson appointed his friends to powerful positions, showing that he did what he wanted to do. He would only allow people who agreed with him to work in the government and disposed of those who didn't agree with him. He was vicious while going after Indians. The court ruled in favor of the Native Americans and Jackson refused to let this happen, so he moved the Indians anyways despite the ruling of the court. As far as the bank of the United States, he believed he was acting for the people over the powerful, but over ruled the will of congress. He took acts that undermined the bank because they wouldn't go along with what he wanted.

I think Andrew Jackson ultimately was The People's President. At times he acted like a dictator, but the actions he took seemed to be in favor of the majority of Americans not the rich and powerful. The one action of his that makes me uncomfortable as a an observer of today, is his brutality in forcing Native Americans out of their home land. He was the first President who grew up among the common people and not among the elite of the American Revolution. His methods were questionable, but he generally acted in the best interest of the majority of the Americans.

Monroe Doctrine and Connections to Today

The failed rescue of American hostage, Luke Somers, who was held captive by al Qaeda in Yemen is an example when the U.S needed to intervene in a foreign country under the principles of the Monroe Doctrine.  The terrorists threatened the U.S directly by kidnapping Somers, an American photo journalist, and South African teacher Pierre Korkie and threatening to kill them. Under the Monroe Doctrine, this is clearly an unfriendly act against the U.S and Western civilization, which caused us to fight back against the terrorists and try to rescue the hostages.

In a CNN article, Lawmakers Defend Failed Hostage Rescue Mission in Yemen, by Sara Fischer, both Republicans and Democrats agreed that President Obama had to order the mission and it was the right thing to do, even though the kidnappers ended up killing the hostages. Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel said: "Is it imperfect? Yes. Is there risk? Yes. But we start with the fact that we have an American that's being held hostage, and that American's life is in danger." House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Mike Rodgers said: "When you pay ransom, you get more kidnappings. If we're going to be extorted into paying ransom to al Qaeda so that they can rape women and blow up buildings and kill civilians, men, women and children, that's a pretty bad plan to start with. I agreed with the President's decision."

Under the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S doesn't intervene in every conflict. However, when terrorists attack Americans or the U.S directly, the U.S must act upon this and the intervention is within the principles of the Monroe Doctrine. The U.S should fight back against terrorists, even though it may cost lives, just like Luke Somers. Sadly, they were probably going to kill him anyway, but we can't let them take away our will to fight.

Race and Identity in Latin American Revolutions and Today

The Mexican Revolution had many Key Events. The first one was The Grito de Delores, which was when Hidalgo and Costilla launched the Mexican War of Independence. Others were the Treaty of Cordoba, Plan of Iguala, Mexican conservatives called for independence and Iturbide declared emperor of Mexico. The Mexican War of independence started because peasants didn't have equal rights. The peninsulares were the peasants and were Indian and mestizo.

Race Continues to affect national unity in America. One recent example has been dominating the news for the last week. That is the decision of the grand jury in Missouri not to charge officer Darren Wilson of the Ferguson Police Department with a crime for shooting African American teenager Michael Brown to death after a confrontation. The grand jury believed that the evidence showed that Officer Wilson was telling the truth when he testified that Brown had attacked him in his car, tried to take his gun, and was coming after him when he shot the teenager.

However, even with these facts, there has been ongoing national debate about relations between white police officers and black young men. In today's New York Times, a front page article described a meeting that President Obama hosted at the White House. He said: "There is a simmering mistrust that exists between too many police departments and too many communities of color." The President proposed: "he would tighten standards on the provision of military-style equipment to local police departments and provide funds for police officers to wear cameras," according to the article Obama Offers New Standards on Police Gear by Mark Lander.

I believe that race does affect identity and politics. Many people assume that the officer shot the young man because he was black and I have those suspicions too, although I don't know. Because many people are suspicious of police, I think it is a good idea for police to wear body cameras to see what happened, instead of debating over the facts.

The Congress of Vienna

What should people do when their power is threatened? In class we had to solve three problems. As Prince Metternich, We had to decide on the most logical answer that would solve the problem asked about Europe. In groups, we all put our heads together and picked and answer and shared why we picked it. After everyone shared, we were told what actually happened in Europe while this problem was occurring.

The Congress of Vienna started in 1815 by the four European powers which had defeated Napoleon. The first goal was to establish a new balance of power in Europe which would prevent imperialism within Europe, such as the Napoleonic empire,  and maintain the peace between the great powers. Metternich and other powerful people of the congress used balance of power so there wouldn't be another domination like Napoleon had done. All countries had equal power.

I think the congress of Vienna made some good choices and some bad. Putting King Louis XVI on the throne was a good idea because it would re establish the line of legitimacy. Also deciding to act in more kindness and consideration towards their people, caused revolutionary ideas to simmer down. People now had freedom of speech and more religious toleration. I think that making more countries and independence from others would have been a better idea. The countries would have brought a greater stability to Europe with different nationalities. The powerful leaders should be able to sacrifice their power for the better sake of others. Doing so can lead to no more revolutions.

 

Napoleon's Impact on the Systems of Europe

Napoleon was a hero to people in France, but a tyrant to others. His drive for military expansion changed the world. He is one of the most celebrated leaders in history. Napoleon had a huge impact on the social, economic, and political systems of Europe.

Napoleon became the ruler of France and was later the ruler of an empire. Napoleon Bonaparte had a positive impact on France and Europe due to the military, political and economic stability he restored to France, the laws he put in place, the reforms he introduced to the European countries he conquered and his improvement of the education system.

According to Madame de Stael, Napoleon's government was made of virtue, religion,  enthusiasm, and dignity. He planned for a universal monarchy when he became head of government. His system was to intrude upon France's liberty and Europe's independence.

Napoleon adopted the legitimate dynasty for France, according to Marshal, Michel Ney, who was one of Napoleon's soldiers. The legitimate dynasty would remount the throne. He didn't want the government suppressing people's rights and instead was leading soldiers to immortal legion.

In the Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians, Napoleon was a military genius. He was eager to promote advancement of race. His power in domination was indispensable. The strategy of Napoleon was to be original unique and unexcelled.He led the French army to many victories from the time he became a commander, and later a general, in the army.


































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































 

Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, and Some Starbursts

Last week in class, we preformed capitalism, socialism, and communism without knowing it yet. We did a starburst activity. Everyone was handed a certain amount of starbursts at the door and started class with that number. Everyone was comparing how many they had to others and many had 3. The game had soon begun of rock, paper, scissors. I had begun the game in a lot of confidence,  until all of my starburst were gone in the first 30 seconds. I was frustrated because I had no way of getting back in the game and I had to sit there watching others win their games. After the games had ended, Mrs. Bailey had collected all the starbursts and redistributed them out evenly 3 to each person. We then were told that if you still wanted to play the game you certainly could. This time only 5 people got up ready to play. Everyone else wanted to hold on to what they got. I was happy that I could have 3 because it's better than the 0 I had ended up with before.

Marx and Smith had theories on the different forms of society. Marx's theory was capitalism, socialism, and communism. Capitalism is private ownership of industry, freedom of competition, and results in un equal economic classes. Socialism is government ownership of industry, goal is to bring economic equality, and aims for a classless society. Communism is goal of classless society achieved, and no government needed. Smith's Theory was the invisible hand. It was that the government leaves people alone, business people offer lower prices, which lead to better goods to attract people, and the competition regulates the market. This would help the poor more than Marx's theory. The poor would be able to afford goods better.

I think that Smith's theory of the invisible hand is best. This theory helps the poor and Marx's theory doesn't appeal best to them. This helping the poor creates a better society to live in and less people staying in poverty. This could lead to a better life for most American's.