US Foreign Policy

         One major current event that the United States is affected by is sending rations to all the refugees in Kenya.  The United States is the largest donor to the world food program and they send around 111 million dollars in rations to Kenya. The United States are worried about sending rations to 500,000 rations to refugees to people Dadaab and Kakuma camps in Northern Kenya. Camps throughout Kenya have been flooded with refugees from Southern Sudan since the country descended into civil war. The United States of America are worried that they will not have enough rations to send over to Kenya since the increasing number of people living in the refugee camps. The U.S. urges and need other countries around the world to help donate more rations to Kenya.Without the help of others, the people living in refugee camps will have less food.                            
          The three lasting principles of the Monroe Document is separate spheres of influence, non-colonization, and non-intervention. The part of the Monroe Document that states separate the sphere of influence is really saying that you stay in your region, i'll stay in mine. This U.S. would have to disregard this part of the document in this situation because the wont to help Kenya to thrive, not help it collapse. The part of the Monroe Document that states non-colonization would affect the ration problem in Kenya because the U.S. wants to help them by giving rations to help their country thrive. the U.S. doesn't want to take over the country, they just want to help them. Finally, the part in the Monroe Document that states non-intervention would affect the U.S.. The U.S. and other countries donate millions of dollars to the World Food Program so they can give rations to help other countries survive.  This would affect the U.S. because they are donating millions of dollars to a country that they want to help, so it would directly affect them. The ration problem in Kenya is a major problem for the U.S. foreign policy.                                          

           

Race and Identity

          Race and identity played a large part in the Gran Columbia revolution. Simon Bolivar was the leader of the Gran Colombian revolution and he was originally from Venezuela. In 1810, Bolivar takes control of Venezuela from Spain and in 1811 they are officially independent from Spain, but Spain would eventually regain Venezuela. In 1813,Bolivar retakes Venezuela by defeating Spain in six successful confrontations and in that same year, Bolivar's troops take control of Caracas. By 1814, he loses Caracas to Spain. In 1819, two years after he fled to Jamaica, Bolivar rallies a army of 2,500 and takes over Boyaca and Bogota. After he takes over these two Cities from Spain, the Republica de Columbia is proclaimed. It covers  modern Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela. Bolivar tried to keep Gran Colombia together but eventually retired and died without knowing that Ecuador and Venezuela seceded from Gran Colombia. The reason why race and identity played a large part in the Gran Colombia revolution was because the people from South America did not see themselves as Spaniards, they saw themselves as Venezuelans, Colombians, and Ecuadorians. Simon Bolivar was originally from Venezuela so he did not see himself as a Spaniard and he felt that people in South America shouldn't be viewed as Spaniards. A lot of people agreed with him that is why identity played a large part in the Gran Colombia revolution.
           In today, race can still play a part in the national identity of politics. One example is in Ferguson Missouri, a white police officer named Darren Wilson shot an unarmed black teenager named Michael Brown. Darren Wilson states that the boy was reaching for his gun so he shot and killed Michael Brown. The grand jury decided that Darren Wilson would not be punished and would get no jail time. This outraged many people so there protests throughout the country. The protesters believe that Michael Brown should have justice and that Darren Wilson should have been severely punished for killing this unarmed 18 year old. Race still plays a large part in politics.

The Quadruple Alliance

     

                         The French and Haitian revolutions greatly affected Europe.  Through these two revolutions, properties and towns were destroyed, leaders killed, and many lives were lost. These things could have been prevented if the Quadruple Alliance treated their people better. One thing they could have done is abolish slavery and make life a safer place for Jews. They could have also gotten rid of the Grace of God because the leaders were corrupting what God meant to the people. Finally, the leaders of the Quadruple Alliance could have given their citizens more rights and treated them better.   

                When the Quadruple Alliance first made the Act of God law, they thought they were doing something good. At first it seemed like a good thing because the government knew the people followed God, soon to come, the Act of God law was soon defiled by the leaders.  The monarchs would use the cat of God law to gain more power from the people and use it against them. They would accuse people they didn't like of treason against God and have them killed. This made the citizens angry, and they started a revolution. The government would have threatened to kill all of them with all of their troops, but the citizens would have still revolted. The government would do this to people who might have been plotting against them and even the Jews because they didn't have the same religious views as they did. To solve these problems, they should have abolished the act of God law. If the Quadruple Alliance abolished the Act of God law, then they could establish a better government like a democracy. If they established a democracy, then there would be less corruption and the people would have more rights. Also, if the Quadruple Alliance ended the Act of God law, then the Jews would be safer because they couldn't be persecuted for not having the same religious views as the monarchs.  Through these changes, the Quadruple Alliance could have prevented revolutions.

                One of the most important reasons people revolted was because they didn't have rights. If the Quadruple Alliance gave their citizens more rights, then they would be happier.  The government should have had more religious support for their citizens, gave them freedom of speech, end slavery, and support the arts, science, and education.  The government believed that people, who didn't believe in their god, should be persecuted. If the government supported other people’s religions, then there would be fewer uprisings from that group of people. The government never gave people freedom of speech so the people could not state what they believed.  If they did without the government’s approval, then they would be killed. If the government gave their citizens freedom of speech, the people could talk more about what they believed in and how they could help change the government for the better of the people. Most countries had slaves back then and the slaves were a large part of the population. If the government just abolished slavery, then revolutions like the Haitian Revolution wouldn't have had to happen. Finally, the citizens would have been happier if the Quadruple Alliance supported the arts, the science, and education. If the government supported these three things more than the people would become happier because their lives would become better through these three things. They would learn new things and the people would become smarter because a lot of people were not educated. The Quadruple Alliance could have done many things to prevent these revolutions.

                The Quadruple Alliance could have prevented any of the revolutions that occurred during their existence.  Revolutions happened for reasons like the people didn't have any right and they weren't happy. If the Quadruple Alliance gave their people more rights and cared for them more, then there would have been fewer revolutions.  

Napoleons Impact on the Country's He Conquered

          "A usurper, a tyrant, and greedy, egotistical and ambitious ruler". This quote was said in the article Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians to show that Napoleon Bonaparte was seen as a hero to some but as a greedy dictator to others. Napoleon almost took all of Europe under his control but while doing this, he would be changing the lives of the civilians he over through. When Napoleon took over a country, he would not only change the political stand point, but also the social and economic standpoint.  His impact on these three things would make some people believe that he was a great hero, but some would call him a dictator.

          

          When Napoleon took control of another country, he would immediately change the government. The people of that country would be under his control. When Napoleon was a ruler, many country's were under a monarchy rule. Once he took control of a county, he would destroy the monarchy and declare himself as the ruler. This could be good for the the workers on the lands of the monarchs, but it would anger the monarchs because they would loose all of their power. Not all countries were monarchy's, but in the end, if Napoleon took over their country, they would lose power. Marshal Michel Ney was an officer in one of the country's that Napoleon took over.  He stated "Our sovereign, belongs alone the right to rule over our beautiful country". He opposed Napoleon because he wanted his country to go back to the way it was so he could keep his high possession in the government. When Napoleon took control of another country the political system would change ans so would the economic system.

          When Napoleon took over another country, he would change the economics of that country too. When Napoleon took over another country, he would restore economic prosperity. He would control prices, encouraged new industry, and build roads and canals. Napoleon also established the Bank of France which balanced the budget, and under took massive public building programs. Napoleon would also set up many University's in the countries that he conquered. While Napoleon improved upon the economic situations in the countries he conquered, he would also impact the social systems in the countries he took over too.

          When Napoleon took over a country, he would change the citizens lives forever. He would end serfdom's and then the lower class citizens would be free. The lower class citizens made up a huge part of the civilization back in Napoleons time so it would have a  great impact on the social system in Europe. Also under Napoleons rule, the citizens would have the right to properties and could have got an education. Another thing that Napoleon did was redraw the map of Europe. This could be seen as a bad or good thing by certain countries because they did not want to be under Napoleons control. This could impact the social system of the counties he conquered because they citizens might have disliked Napoleon and did not want to be under his controls.

         Napoleon Bonaparte took over many countries in his life time. Once he took control of a country, he would change the civilians lives forever. He would have a large impact on the political, economic, and social systems in those countries.
         
           

          

The Luddites

During the Industrial Revolution, there were people called Luddites, who protested against economic hardship, and factory owners. Luddites were sometimes cross-dressers who followed a mythical creature named Ned Ludd. The Luddite were not anti-technology, they just didn't want machines to replace the working force of humans. The Luddites would attack local factories and destroy the machines because they disliked the factory owner and the way the factory owners treated their workers. The Luddites destroyed so many machines and factories that the government had to create a law stating that if you destroyed a factory or a machine in the factory then you would be put in jail or worse be sentenced to death. Eventually the government sent out soldiers to protect the factories and its workers. “The owner ordered his men to fire into the crowed, killing at least 3 and wounding 18. Soldiers killed at least 5 more the next day” (Document from Smithsonian.com). This quote shows how the factory owners would do anything to save they’re factory from the Luddites.

 Dear cousin Jim,

The last few months in England have been hectic. My fellow soldiers and I have been told by the government that we have to protect the mills from protesters called Luddites.  The Luddites have been going around England destroying machines in the mills and even burning the mills down. Last week was one of the worst weeks of my life. We were protecting one of the factories from a huge group of protesters and then the mill owners tolled us to fire our weapons at them. Some of the soldiers did, but I didn't. Three Luddites died that day and eighteen were injured. Five more died the next day. The reason I didn't fire was because they are just people protesting for the mill workers to have better wages and that the mill owners have too much money. I agree with them that the mill workers should have higher wages and that the mills owners have too much money, but that doesn't give the Luddites the right to destroy machines and burn down factories. Even though the Luddites think they are doing good, they are actually doing some bad because they are putting people out of work who might need the mill job to support their families. My opinions on the Luddites vary, but I am nor with them and nor against them. The Industrial Revolution has been a bad thing to my family. My little sister has been on strike for almost a few months now and has officially lost her job at the mills. My other sister has wrote to me saying that the factory owners keep on cutting her pay and she has had enough of it. She wants to go on strike, but the money helps our family back on the farm. She doesn't know what to do. I will write to again in the upcoming months about what is going on in our family. I hope you and your family is enjoying your new lives in America.

Signed Chris Watson    

                

Unsuitable Conditions in The American and England Mills, Which Was Worse?

          If you were promised a good life and fair pay, would you take the deal? Most people during the industrial revolution did, but they didn't know what was going to happen to them in the near future. There were mills in both America and England that became unsuitable for all of the workers. There were many dangerous things about the mills including the living conditions, the working conditions and the machines the workers used. Both England and American factories were awful places to work, but I believe the factories in England were worse.

     "We never stop to take our meals; this has gone on for six years". In the mills in England, the workers had barley any brakes and had to eat their meals during their work shifts. I believe the workers who had to be the children. “Infant mortality rate had reached 50%”. This quote helps explain how harsh the living conditions for children working in the mills were. The children had to work with dangerous machines and could have been pulled into them and killed. One girl named Hannah Goode wrote a testimony saying “he does not beat me; he beats the little children if they do not do their work right." What Hannah is saying in this quote is that the children get beat if they do not do their work efficiently and quickly. Sometimes the children were beat almost to death. If one of the children got caught escaping the mills, they would get locked in a dark room getting one meal a day for a few days. This could traumatize a kid for the rest of his life. The children that worked in the mills did not get an education. Hannah Goode also said that “I can read a little; I can't write. I used to go to school before I went to the mills." When the children left the mills around twenty two, how could they get good jobs if they didn't know how to read or write? The women who worked in the mills in England also had hard lives. The women had to live in and work in unsuitable conditions just like the children. The women had pay cuts and they worked the same amount of hours as they did before their pay cuts. The worst thing that happened to the women is if they got in trouble or did not follow to a strict code of ethical, moral and living behavior, they would get blacklisted. This means that if they got fired for any of those reasons, they would be put on a list and no other; mill would hire them for work. They would never be able to work in a mill again. The mills in England were a worse place to work than mills in America. 

            "The happiest he has passed in America". This is how Charles Dickens described the Lowell mills he saw in America. The mills in America weren't the nicest place to work, but the conditions were much better than the ones in England. The workers had more brakes and didn't have to eat their meals during their shifts. "The laws of the State forbid their working more than nine months of the year, and require that they be educated during the other three". This quote explains how it was mandatory for the children who worked in the mills in America had to go to school while the children in England didn't. The children were well fed, had clean cloths, and had good behavior. "I cannot recall one young face that gave a painful impression; not one young girl would I remove from the works if I had the power”. This quote explains how the children did not mind going to work every day. The most important thing about the children was that they were healthy. The women who worked in the mills got the same treatment as the children, good working and living conditions, plus a good pay. The mills in America wasn't the best place to work because it had it also had downfalls like workers being brutally killed by the machines. Even though that this happened, I still believe the conditions in the America mills were still better than the ones in England. 

          During the industrial revolution, families sent their children and family members to the mills because they needed the money to support the rest of their family. If families knew how bad the mills actually were, they would probably not send their family members there. All the mills were bad but I believe the ones in England were worse than the mills in America. Since the start of the industrial revolution, the mills in England had awful living and workers conditions. The food was awful and made many workers sick. The workers had barley any time to rest and got sick from working in the mills for so long. The machines were very dangerous and killed many workers. The children got no education and were badly beaten. The mills in America were a lot better than the conditions in England, but some workers would still get killed by the machines. The workers got fair wages, more brakes, and better living conditions. The children did not get beat and they also got an education. The mills in America were a much better, safer place to work than the mills in England. 

          

          

       

       

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

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

          The topic of my groups poster was the how the steam engine affected the industrial revolution. On our poster, we have many pictures including a picture of the steam engine. The picture shows how a steam engine on a train was run by heat, water, steam, and burned fuel steam. Another picture that we have on our poster is a letter written by Robert Fulton. The letter was about his first steamboat voyage. Fulton is trying to explain how great of an invention the steamboat was for the people of that era, but some were skeptical about the new invention. Another picture that we had on our poster was a picture of the cutting of Billsworth on the London-Birmingham line. This picture shows how railroads were invented. Another picture we have on our poster shows the materials that were used during the industrial revolution. The picture shows that the engineers got their coal near lakes or rivers and that's where coal is found.  The coal is used to make steam boats and trains run back in the late 1700's.They also found metal near lakes and rivers. Another thing that was on the map was the location of where wool was found. The wool was found in the country because that was where the farm were and they could produce wool from animals. One of the last pictures on our poster is a picture of a timeline of the creation of railroads. Finally, the last picture we had on our poster was a picture of two poems, from different eras,  depicting two peoples opinions on the train and the railroads. The poems are by Samuel Smiles and Williams Wordsworth. 
         In this next paragraph I will be talking about the other peoples posters in my class. One of the posters was called Spinning Into The Future, A Woven Destiny. This poster shows that before the industrial revolution, families had to depend on their fathers but because mills needed lots of employees, wives and children would begin working.There was also information on the machines that the mill workers used including the spinning jenny. Another poster that I saw from my class was the one named Cotton or Freedom, You Decide. This poster showed me that during the industrial revolution slavery played a huge part in the production of cotton. The bigger the slave population grew, the more cotton was produced. The third poster that I saw was called The Dark Side of The Industrial Revolution. This poster talked about how the living conditions for the mill workers were very bad. It also talks about how the mills polluted the ocean and the air. Finally, the last poster I saw was called All work And No Play. This poster showed that many different people, like children,  worked during the industrial revolution and they worked many hours to support themselves. It also shows that many young children worked with very dangerous machines and risked there lives.