The Industrial Revolution, the Standard-of-Living Debate, and the Abolition of Slavery

       "What in a nutshell was the Industrial
         Revolution?"


The Industrial Revolution was a revolution which started in Great Britain and then spread to other parts of the Western world. The fancy, new industrial kind of improvements were those that had to do with textiles, machinery in general, transportation, and the like. We see improvements in the cotton industry, roadways, canals, railroads, the metal industry, chemicals, etc. From the Industrial Revolution, we likewise see the ingenuity of the idea of steam power come into play with the invention of the stationary steam engine, which then began taking the place of water and wind power.

The Industrial Revolution was no doubt progress towards the advanced society we have today!




      "What was the standard-of-living debate?"


The standard-of-living debate had to do with whether or not life improved during the Industrial Revolution. Was it better for people to go off and work in hazardous conditions in factory jobs than what was offered before, in regards to occupation and life? This is what the standard-of-living debate was.

The answer? Yes. Facts and history show that people were better off for this simple reason: if they were worse off, then nobody would have taken the jobs. Many had two choices: starve or work in the factory. Poverty was to a point nearly beyond our comprehension. Obviously, if the people were going to be worse off, then they wouldn't have taken the jobs!

The standard-of-living debate now isn't really in question, in regard to the above statements. Now it has more to do with when the people started to have a better standard of living, so-to-speak.

The standard-of-living debate certainly has raised some eyebrows throughout the times since the Industrial Revolution, and I hope that this essay has helped to clear the air to some respect.




"What were the different arguments that combined Britain to pave the way for the abolition of slavery in that country's overseas colonies?"


One of the arguments combined with the others was this: that in order to abolish slavery we should first abolish the slave trade. In theory, this would result in fewer slaves coming in from the African continent. This would eventually run slavery into the ground due to the few numbers of slave shipments.

The first anti-slavery society was begun in 1787. In this society they had many plans and arguments that they would use to abolish slavery.

These arguments included the idea of a person's natural rights, the idea of humanitarianism which was used to fight against the brutality in slavery (not necessarily powerful enough to end slavery but rather to encourage rational thought), and economic principles.

It was thought that the slaves were beneficial to the economy, but rather it would be more beneficial for a plantation owner to simply hire help. The slaves would have to be cared for all year round, but hired help would be needed only part of the year. This would alleviate a great deal of cost for the slave owners.

Lastly, I will note that the general thought had been that slavery helped to protect national security. The research of Thomas Clarkson undermined this theory incredibly. Rather than slavery providing valuable training (which would lay the foundation for a navy life in times of war) for sailors who worked on the slave ships, the sailors would just die. That's how horrid the conditions on those ships were. Henceforth, if you were dead, then you obviously couldn't be used on British navy ships in times of war.

The Arguments that led to the abolition of slavery in that country's overseas colonies were vast and
interesting indeed!   

Robinson Crusoe: Coins

Robinson Crusoe: "Why did he take the coins off the ship?"


In this work, Robinson Crusoe found himself stranded upon a deserted island where he learns how he shall be successful. If you compare chapter eight with one of the beginning chapters you'll see a drastic difference. In one of these chapters, Crusoe finds money on his wrecked ship, and he takes it. The reason that Crusoe took the money, in my opinion, is this: that Crusoe still wanted the money because it was still fresh in his mind and he was used to collecting it. And likewise, that he saw some possible use for it in the future.

Thanks for reading!

The Kulturkampf and Home Rule for Ireland

             "What was the Kulturkampf?"



The Kulturnkampf was a word in German that meant "culture struggle". It referred to a struggle having to do with German power in regards to control over the Catholic church. This included main figures such as Bismark and the Pope. Bismark placed laws of discrimination on the Catholics, and it was not uncommon for Catholics to be arrested, imprisoned or exiled, and for monks and nuns to flat out leave.

Eventually the old pope died, and a new pope who was more willing to negotiate with Bismark came to power. Bismark then sought to bring back the relationship that was once held with the Catholic church. The Kulterkampf was thus erased until not a remnant remained.




"What arguments does Gladstone make in favor of Home Rule for Ireland?"




William Gladstone made several arguments in favor of Home Rule for Ireland. A few of his arguments were that he believed Home Rule would make the Irish economy better, save money for England, and that it was morally right. He also did not approve of violent, revolutionary tactics.

He was ultimately unsuccessful in winning through his arguments

Thanks for reading!

Mandeville and Darwinism

"In what way did Mandeville lay the foundation for Darwinism?"


Particular views of Mandeville's lie in the idea of spontaneous order. Hayek defines this spontaneous order in this sentence.

"Society is the product of human action, not human design."

Darwin seems to have applied this aspect to biology. Him doing so resulted in the springing forth from 18th-century Scottish social philosophy (according to Hayek). This keeps on falling back to Mandeville.

 Mandeville wrote his Fable of the Bees, and him doing so resulted in it being read and it being used continually over the years to back up different economic (or in Darwins's case, biological) principles. ("...human action, not human design.")

Thanks for reading!

The French Revolution and Napoleon's status with the Church

"What happened (involving the Third Estate) during the meeting of the Estates General that set the French Revolution in motion?"


What happened during the meeting of the Estates General set France into complete and utter chaotic revolution. It started innocently enough. The Third Estate wished to have their votes counted per head instead of per Estate. They likewise wanted to be granted more Estate members so that their vote would be able to actually count. If not, then their votes would simply be outweighed by the other two Estates due to their having more members than the Third Estate. But when their request wasn't granted sufficiently they decided to turn it up a notch. They asked the First and Second Estate to join them in establishing a new constitution for France and they did. They (The Third Estate) declared themselves the people. They would be the people's voice. They would be the people's representative. The Third Estate had declared itself a separate assembly. They were the National Assembly for the nation.

Now, I think that I should make it clear that the Third Estate really had no legal power to do this. Henceforth, a revolution sprung itself into French life and existence. People's heads were spinning
and they wanted more. They wanted change, and they were going to get it in the form of the French Revolution.



"What was the situation of the Church in France after Napoleon came to power?"




The situation of the church in France was on a sort of balance beam after Napoleon came to power. Napoleon saw how alienated the church had become through the course of the French revolution and he knew that this was nonsense. He knew that he would have to reconcile with the Catholic church in one form or another. He reconciled by using the pope and in granting the church different freedoms. Napoleon attempted to regain the church in his favor, but he still wanted them under his thumb. He made it so that bishops would have to be nominated by him and then approved by the pope. Bishops would likewise have to appoint priests from a government approved list. Church lands were not returned, and some of the clergy were angered with these events. But, some viewed it differently. Some viewed it like this. At least the "churches" were being reopened, and at least there wasn't a schism as there had been before.

Like I said, the church in France was on a sort of balance beam. They were still under government control in many ways, but at the same time they were more free than they had previously been.

Thanks for reading my essay, and please let me know if you have any thoughts, corrections, etc. My hope for my blog is to create a place where students, historians, teachers, and anyone else can come and learn. I'm hoping that I can learn from you too, and that you'll help me to make my blog as informational and fun as possible.

     

Friedrich Gentz, Edmund Burke, and Mary Wollstonecraft

"How does Friedrich Gentz distinguish between the American and French Revolutions? Do you see the influence of Edmund Burke in his thinking?


Friedrich Gentz distinguishes very particular differences in the American and French Revolutions. He saw the American Revolution as a defensive measure to uphold the rights that they had for over a century. He sees the French Revolution as an offensive measure which tried to pull down French society's fabric and reupholster it.

To answer the question about whether or not I see Edmund Burke's influence in the thinking of Gentz, ultimately yes. I believe that I do see this influence, or at least, I see extreme similarities between these two people's thinking patterns. Burke and Gentz both thought that society is built over time and not simply ripped apart and put together again in a mismatching puzzle piece fashion. Burke had a very conservative thinking process. As stated before, he didn't believe it correct to put together a completely new society in a heartbeat, so to speak. He saw long-standing institutions as being there for a reason. If one existed, for let's say, a thousand years, it's probably a good assumption that there's a reason for this institution being around.

There you have it. Friedrich Gentz, Edmund Burke, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution–distinguished, explained, and pieced together in blog/essay like proportions.



"What points is Mary Wollstonecraft making in the excerpts you read from the beginning of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman? What would she like to see changed in European society?"




In the excerpts I read I found that Mary Wollstonecraft had a deep yearning to see girls educated and given deserving rights of the human species. She likewise thought that women ought to be treated as rational individuals and not simply like alluring objects for a man's short-term fancy.

Allow me to include this excerpt by Mary Wollstonecraft in which she is speaking to the female gender:

  "My own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treat them like rational creatures, instead of flattering their fascinating graces, and viewing them as if they were in a state of perpetual childhood, unable to stand alone."

Simply stated, she didn't particularly enjoy women acting like they had no real intelligence.

I conclude then that Mary Wollstonecraft wished to see women educated, respected even of themselves, and being able to stand on their own two feet in a male-dominated European society.

Thanks for reading!    

The Values of Modernism and the Launch of World War I

"What are the values of Modernism that we see reflected across different fields, and how do they represent a departure from neoclassicism and the Enlightenment?"


There is an abundance of values that are reflected in Modernism. They are likely a perfectly painted picture of the opposite of neoclassicism and the Enlightenment in many ways. The values of Modernism departed from neoclassicism in a way that took an approach that might seem more disorderly than those values which were cherished in neoclassicism. The values in this newer age of thinking followed along a path of mixed emotions, lack of truly noticeable centers, nonsense, and a kind of unique beauty.

Paintings in the age of Modernism had a real feel for the artist's depiction of something rather than perhaps its true nature. Those in science were debating that perhaps this universe may be in some ways, unpredictable. Not to mention the music of this time which was rather out of typical order and very unique in its style. These characteristics were very contradictory of those in neoclassicism and the Enlightenment.

I hope that I have adequately demonstrated the departure from neoclassicism and the Enlightenment to the classification we call Modernism!



"What factors contributed to the coming of World War I?"




The factors which contributed the coming of the horrid war of World War I had much to do with the coming of particular wars, alliances, and the like. So many entered into alliances, fought their wars and such that eventually we have a mishmash of fighting which pulled basically the whole world into its clutches. Henceforth, we have the despicable time period which encompassed World War I.

During the time period which led up to World War I, we had alliances between Germany, Austria, and Russia and between Germany, Austria, and Italy! The last straw was the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand who was the successor to the Austrian throne. After horror and contempt for the plotting of particular individuals in the Serbian government, the Austrians decided on an ultimatum. And congratulations which were received by the Serbs by the Russian Pan-Slavists on the front of Serbian nationalism didn't help matters particularly. This ultimatum would have indeed ended independence for the Serbs. Can you guess what happened next? Despite interference from some of the main powers, the two parties along with their allies helped to send the world into a pit of despair that would be dug into the earth from the summer of 1914-1918. World War I had begun.

The Ptolemaic-Aristotelian View of the Universe, Leonhard Euler, and The Enlightenment

"What was the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian view of the universe, and how did Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton undermine it and institute an alternative?"




The Ptolemaic-Aristotelian view of the universe was that of a geocentric model. The Earth as the center of the universe. Orbits as circles and perfectly rounded planets, as well as stars, were also included in this peculiar idea. This, of course, was not an accurate viewpoint so it was eventually challenged, as so many theories are at one point in time or another.

Some that challenged this way of thinking were the great minds of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton.

Copernicus argued that the sun was the center of the universe. Therefore we see a heliocentric model. He likewise perceived that the Earth rotates on its axis. Common knowledge today, but revolutionary in his time.

Kepler undermined the idea of a Ptolemaic-Aristotelian view by proposing the theory of elliptical orbits instead of the standard idea that the orbits went around in circles. Again, this was revolutionary.

Galileo likewise contributed to this revolutionary process through his observation of moons orbiting Jupiter. This was proof that not everything revolved around the Earth as was previously thought.

I will lastly mention the monumental discoveries of Newton. Newton's ideas of gravity were extraordinary! Newton believed that gravity was the force that kept things moving and kept the air from escaping. He also predicted a transit of Venus. He was, in fact, the first astronomer to successfully do this.

The ideas throughout the centuries have been vast, but far fewer have been true. Copernicus and the others mentioned today knew that they must prove and disprove the world's theories. How few have realized this? There is little to be said for ignorance, but in knowledge there is power.



"Explain the significance of the person you read about for Lesson 48 in 100 words."


In lesson 48 I read about a mathematician/physicist, Leonhard Euler. Euler was known for his discoveries in many areas of study such as fluid dynamics, graph theory, music theory, mathematical function, etc. All of these areas are influential and greatly important, but I took a particular interest in his idea of mathematical function. The idea of numbers and mathematical problems as real life things was greatly fascinating to me.

Leonhard Euler was a mathematician/physicist. He was born in 1707, and he died in 1783. His historical significance was that of stamping a perfectly mathematical footprint on the field of science.



"Describe the main ideas we associate with the Enlightenment."



When you hear the word enlightenment, what is it that you think of? Maybe you think of people coming to great conclusions, philosophical thought, and reason. The idea of reason is one of the key characteristics that is often associated with the Enlightenment. Unfortunately, though, it was, at times, disregarded. For example, during this time people tended to be skeptical of using reason to come to theological points. Then again, they were skeptical of most anything during the course of the Enlightenment.

They weren't particularly fond of accepting age-old inherited ideas either. People of this time had the thought that they should rather look to science for their founding principles of most anything. The people of the Enlightenment did have an agreement for the most part with the idea of religious toleration, though. Yet, they tended to favor the stripping of "ritual" practices from religion.

These ideas laid the foundation of the Enlightenment. And in the Enlightenment, learners of history have found even more to diligently study. I hope that you have enjoyed this personal study of this age. Thanks for reading!

The Gods of the Copybook Headings

"What is one of Kipling's copybook headings that applies to recent public opinion?"


This work of Kipling's speaks of how people wish to stick with their childish fancies. This childishness then leads to death, as experience and truth finds them. The copybook heading in this, which I see very much applying to recent public opinion is, "The Wages of Sin is Death." People wish to do as their foolish religion, whether it be one created by another or a religion of their own mind, says is fine, despite history showing what happens when you live in a fantasy of your own creation, as to the definitions of right and wrong. Whether it be coming to the defense of gays, adultery, divorcing your husband/wife because "you will be happier", though it ends in total annihilation of trust and stability that their children and families have in them, etc., it all leads to this conclusion that brings unwanted consequences.


                             "The Wages of Sin is Death."

The Congress of Vienna, the Carlsbad Decrees, and the Purpose of Compulsory State Education

"What were the major principles guiding the diplomats at the Congress of Vienna?"

The Congress of Vienna was influenced by three major principles that revolved around keeping the peace after the Napoleonic wars.

The first principle is legitimacy focused on (of course) keeping or reinstating the power of the legitimate leader/king/royal family. This basically only works though, if you believe in the idea of the natural power of your leaders. And back then, that had been widely believed.

The second principle is the balance of power. This principle was kept to make sure that the powers were "balanced" as to avoid any one power becoming too great. If one power became too great, then there was too much of a chance for it (the one power) to create more war. And the whole point of the Congress of Vienna, after all, was providing and keeping the peace.

The third principle is compensation. The principle of compensation runs a great deal along the lines of the balance of power. Compensation dealt with the powers being compensated for their losses during the Napoleonic wars. If they lost land, then they would be compensated through the gain of more land. With this though comes the fact that in order to keep a balance of power, then you would have to likewise continue giving land to the other powers to balance things out.


These three guiding principles were used by the Congress of Vienna to keep the peace and reinstate stability for their world. War was undesirable, and where there is war, death quickly follows.


         "What were the Carlsbad Decrees?"

The Carlsbad Decrees were decrees which were put into effect by those whom were on the conservative side, in order to abolish the revolutionary uproar that was occurring at that time. The terribly unfortunate occurrence that truly brought this about was the killing of an individual who was more opposed to the revolutionary ideas by an unstable university fraternity member.

The Carlsbad Decrees put the universities on a leash, dissembled the fraternities, and the like. These decrees were used to demolish the revolutionary tendencies and protect the conservative way of thinking.


"According to Rothbard, did compulsory state education emerge because governments simply wanted their people to become more knowledgeable, or were there other motivations at work?"


Murray Rothbard's idea was not that governments simply wished for their people to be educated. It was that the governments wished for their people to be educated as to instill a nationalistic vigor in them. This technique would then lay the foundations for a people that would rely on their government and trust in its strength.

It's like a parent raising a child. If you raise a child to think a certain way and act a certain way, then that child is much more likely to stick to that way of thinking and choose a life path that runs along with it. Chances are that the child won't turn around, spit on the old principles, and run down the road in the opposite direction.

This technique was supported by both Martin Luther and John Calvin as a resourceful way to instill particular religious views in young people.

Murray Rothbard's view was that the government wished to instill certain ideals and principles in its people, so that the people would trust in the deeds and wishes of the government.


Thanks for reading!  

The French Materialists, Adam Smith, and the War of the Austrian Succession

"Explain the views of the French materialists."


The views of the French materialists revolved around the basic principle that everything was purely matter. Matter was basically their answer to life's questions. They tended to believe that due to the assumption that a person was simply matter/machine, then they should go about seeking sensual pleasure. One particular main view was that of an atheistic presumption. That there is no spiritual realm since everything is just matter. The views of the French materialists were, just as the name implies, focused on the material world.



"What does Adam Smith mean by the 'invisible hand'?"


Adam Smith is using the term of the "invisible hand" to describe the way that the actions of an individual to suit their needs actually ends up affecting society as well. This is the "invisible hand"; That there is an "invisible hand" guiding the market into it's various correct crevices and gaping holes. In effect, arranging the business world like a big 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle.



"Discuss the causes and consequences of the War of the Austrian Succession."


The War of the Austrian Succession was caused by Maria Therese not being accepted as the ruler of the Hapsburg properties. This inconvenience was used by Prussia and France to challenge the Hapsburg ruling. The consequences that ensued include Austria losing Silesia to Prussia, and Louis XV of France losing much respect due to his decision to give back his fought for earnings to his defeated. This was done so that he would not look as if he was a conqueror. His people wanted what they fought for, and for the most part, they didn't get it.

Thanks for reading!





 

Robinson Crusoe (the Storms)

"How important for the narrative are the descriptions of the storms?" (book: Robinson Crusoe)



What is the importance of the descriptions of the storms in Robinson Crusoe? I believe that the stories in Robinson Crusoe don't as much focus on the descriptions of the storms but rather the consequences in Robinson Crusoe's life after the storms/through the storms. His ship sinking, being stranded on an island, etc. are instances and circumstances that I view as the meat of the story.

The storms although important, aren't necessarily the meat of it for me. They're rather the bone marrow, with his actions in response to his life's circumstances being the bones.