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!   

Enlightened Absolutism as well as the American Revolution

         "What was 'enlightened absolutism'?"


Enlightened absolutism is the idea of absolutist rulers incorporating enlightenment ideas and principles into practice. In enlightenment principles there is emphasis on the person to use rationality (or at least their idea of it). A few particular commonalities in enlightened absolutism are the desire for education, and freedom of speech and of the press. We can find examples of enlightened absolutist rulers in people such as Frederick the Great, Catherine II of Russia, and Charles III of Spain.

Enlightened absolutism was indeed an interesting development and has become a fascinating study material for students and historians alike.



"What was the constitutional dispute between the colonists and the British government that let to the American Revolution?..."


The constitutional dispute between the American colonists and the British government was one of two very different opinions. You see, the British didn't really have a particular written constitution. Their constitution was that of tradition. The British idea of tradition was whatever the British Parliament decided to pass or institute. The colonists' viewpoint, however, saw tradition as a tad more complex than that. The American colonists' opinion was that tradition was limited. That tradition held the government back in some ways. What I mean by this is that the British government, for a great deal of time, had more or less left the colonists alone to do as they pleased, as far as internal affairs was concerned. And now all of a sudden the British government was coming in and breaking the constitution's "laws" (tradition) by imposing revenue taxes and other seemingly unconstitutional practices on the colonists. We can see this being done through situations such as the Townshend Acts, which were acts carried out by the British government to raise wages for the governors and judges in the colonies, so that they would remain loyal to the British government. Similarly, there were the Coercive Acts which were used greatly for the purpose of getting after Massachusetts, after the Boston Tea Party. These acts were however viewed by the colonists as a violation of their rights. Ultimately, the Coercive Acts simply continued to fan the flames of angry colonists.

The contitutional dispute between the British government and the 13 colonies was definitely a fascinating beginning to the founding of America as an independent nation.

I hope that you have enjoyed my essay! Thanks for reading!       







    

The Success or Failure of the Revolutions of 1848 and Karl Marx

"Were the Revolutions of 1848 successful or unsuccessful? Discuss two examples."


The Revolutions of 1848 were filled with continuous failed revolutions. One of these revolutions was in France, and in France when they set out this time to reform their government. They actually ended up with an emperor named Louis Napoleon III (Napoleon's nephew).

The next revolution in 1848, that I'll talk about, is that of the Non-Austrian Germany. Many of the German states sought to have a new and better united Germany. Many of the states did send delegates, and they did draft a constitution for their new Germany. But the conflict between the grossdeutsch and the kleindeutsch made this difficult. Those in favor of grossdeutsch wanted a large Germany and those in favor of kleindeutsch wanted a small Germany. This basically meant that one group wanted to include Austria and the other did not. The king of Prussia was ultimately offered the crown for this new Germany, but he refused as he did not want to be limited by a constitution of (classical) liberalism. This, of course, lead to the delay of the unification of Germany.

The Revolutions of 1848 seem to have been ultimately unsuccessful. I hope that you have learned some good information from this portion of my essay!




"Why did Karl Marx think socialism was superior to capitalism?"


Karl Marx was in the line of thinking that took socialism and set it up as far above the way of capitalism. He thought that socialism encouraged creativity and imagination by allowing the seller to sell as he wished whereas capitalism forced the seller to tailor what he was selling to the market instead of what he wished to sell. Marx thought that capitalism was an incorrect way of the market and that it encouraged dog-eat-dog mentality, and he did not like the idea of private factory owners and the like. He thought that in socialism the people would all be cooperating and working together unlike how he thought it was in capitalism. He had an elevated view of socialism in comparison with capitalism to say the least.

I hope that these examples have been sufficient for you! Thanks for reading!