People Still React Differently to Women

Recently in class we learned about the women’s reform and how women were treated in mid-19th century society. The essential questions for this topic are: How did mid-19th century society react to women’s demands for equality? Does 21st century society still react differently to men and women?

Women in the mid-19th century were treated much different from men. Women were supposed to stay at home, cook, clean and take care of the kids while the husband would go out and work to get money for their family. Here is a picture of a woman taking care of the children and doing other things that women were expected to do during this time period.

http://www.edline.net/files/_AIGmX_/90f5674f15c6c9f63745a49013852ec4/Activity_8_-_Lesson_Notes.pdf

Some other things that women were expected to do was to educate the girls and teach them how to read because girls typically didn’t go to school because they believe that it is useless to learn things that they wouldn’t actually do, so the girls would stay at home and learn how to cook, clean, sew and many other things. Women would also fix toys and clothes that were broken or ripped and take care of any pets that they had. Women were also treated differently working at the same job as men. If women were going to work really the only job they could get was as a teacher. Women would be paid around 20-30% less than what men would be paid for the same exact job. The mid-19th century did not like the idea of women getting more rights and treated more equal to men because men like to feel superior over women and they were worried that if women started getting more jobs there would be no one at home to cook, clean and take care of the kids.

21st century society does still react differently to men and women but definitely not as much as people reacted back in the mid-19th century society. In the 21st century women do have the same opportunities as men and they get paid the same amount, but a women’s personality can be perceived differently from men which causes society to label women differently than men. Here is a Pantene commercial that shows how society labels women differently from men who both work and are going for the same thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K2kfgW7708&feature=youtu.be

This Pantene commercial does a good job of showing how men and women are perceived and labeled differently today in society. Although 21st century society doesn’t react as strongly to the equality of men and women as in mid-19th century society it is still there and we can find a way to stop it.

A True Story

Robert G. Ingersoll, Out of an Insane Alysum: A Released Patient’s Remarkable Story of Cruel Treatment (New York, March 26, 1880)

These three excerpts come from a document titled Out of an Insane Asylum, describing the very harsh conditions of a mental hospital. The author is Robert G. Ingersoll, was a lawyer, political leader and orator in the early 1900s. Ingersoll had talked to a man name John Carrol and wrote this document about his experience in the Insane Asylum.
The reason for producing this
document was to make people aware of how mentally ill people were treated and
to try to make people act against it to prevent it from happening in the
future. This source seems to be pretty trustworthy because it was published in The New York Times newspaper, which is a newspaper that I have heard
about before. This document was written before the Prison reform which was to
put the mentally insane in hospitals instead of in jails and to care for them
and give them reasonable living quarters. From reading this document, I can
tell that the people who worked at the jails did not treat the mentally ill
nicely and did not give them nice rooms to sleep in. In the excerpt Carrol
tells Ingersoll that one time he wanted to come out of his room and when he
walked out of the room three people attacked him, they beat and kicked him
until he was unconscious. This is just one example of how the patients were
treated at the Insane Asylum. I feel like this document gives me a full picture
of how harshly the mentally ill were treated. This document gives a full
picture because it is very descriptive and explains everything that happens,
but also it is told from the point of view from a person who actually lived in
an Insane Asylum, so we can hear every detail from their torturous life. In the
last paragraph o the excerpt Carrol said that one of his roommates could not
find one of his stockings, the “watcher” got mad and tried to kill the man.
Carrol then says, “While he lay on the floor, Swanson had three violent fits in
succession. When he came to the asylum he was a strong, healthy young man, and
quite inoffensive. In a few weeks he was reduced to almost a skeleton.” This
also shows how the mentally ill were treated. Another thing that this quote
represents what the author is trying to convince. The author is trying to
convince the reader that the mentally ill were beatened almost to the point of
death and were even starved. He proves that when they first come they are very
health but over time they became even sicker. Throughout this document the
author writes in a very serious tone to get the point across of how serious
this situation really was.

He Does not Deserve that Title

Last week in class we learned about Andrew Jackson and how he was involved in the Indian Removal Act by watching videos and reading documents about the Indian Removal. Andrew Jackson was the 17th president of the united states. The Indian Removal act was passed by congress on May 28, 1830, during the time that Andrew Jackson was president. The law authorized the president to negotiate with Indian tribes in the Southern United States for their removal to federal territory west of the Mississippi River. The Indians did not want to leave their territory, they were very peaceful people and never bother anyone, but Andrew Jackson was holding a grudge against the Indians because one of his family members was killed in an Indian war so he wanted them gone. The essential question is: Is Andrew Jackson’s long-standing reputation as “the people’s president” deserved? Why? Why not? After learning about the Indian Removal and how horrible Andrew Jackson treated the Indians, Andrew does not deserve the title “the people’s president”. After watching the videos and taking noted on Andrew Jackson we made a video answering the essential question

Here is the video explaining why Andrew Jackson did not deserve the reputation as “the people’s president”:

The Rise of Democracy

The other day in class we learned about what democracy is and how it rose in the early 1800s in the United states. We did this by looking at some documents and answering the two essential questions: How should we define democracy? and How democratic was the United States in the early 1800s? One document was a picture of people gathered to vote and it showed how different voting was then than it is now. There were also two graphs, one showed the property and tax paying requirements to be able to vote and how the number of states with property requirements went down while the number states in union went up over the years; the other graph showed the method of electing presidents and over the year the number of people able to vote instead of legislatures increased. We had two quotes that were both basically saying that democracy means that anyone has the right to vote but the people were not getting what they wanted and the state was not practicing democracy. Finally we had a document about the Dorr War, which was talking about Dorr and how he organized a convention to frame a new constitution and change the voting laws. He tried to capture the state arsenal and then was arrested. To appease popular resentment the governor pardoned Dorr, and Rhode Island adopted a new constitution.

This is the poster we made in class to show everything that we learned about the Rise of Democracy:

We Should Be Treating Everyone Equally

The essential questions for this week are why is it essential to acknowledge human value regardless race? And how are the events in the Latin American Revolutions evidence of this imperative? These questions are important to think about because we can reflects how throughout the years we treated people of different race differently than us and how we can fix those ways today. We studied the impact of race on the Latin American Revolution for independence in class by first making a pie chart showing the race population in Latin America. Then we divided into three groups each with a different revolution and made timelines of all the important events in each revolution. After we mixed the groups and we shared our timelines, tried to find two differences and two similarities between all three revolutions and then tried to answer the essential question.

Here is a picture of the pie chart showing the race as a percent of the population in Latin America:

My group was The Revolution of Gran Colombia; here is a picture of the timeline of important dates:

After all the timelines were shared, we brainstormed a list of two similarities and two differences from all three of the revolutions. Two similarities are that all of the revolutions ended around the same time and they all happened in Latin America. Two differences that we came up with are that they speak different languages and the revolutions were all lead by different people. Race was an issue in all three because there is one social status fighting against another and they are all fighting against the unfair rule and creating social status. People did not like how depending on your race you were treated fairly or unfairly. Being discriminated due to race led to the revolts, fighting on discrimination based on born race and racial equalities.

Judgments are still made based on race in society today. People judge people of a certain race as not being as smart and not being able to get well-paying job, while other people are stereotyped as being really smart. An example of race based judgment is when an officer shot an innocent darker colored skin boy just because he was suspicious looking and the police officer isn’t really getting into as much trouble as he should of, but let’s say if it was a darker colored skin officer shooting a white man, the dark skinned police officer would get into more trouble. I think it is definitely still important to consider the issue of race in our lives today; we should be treating people fairly and equally.

He May Have Had His Flaws

Leaders come in all shapes and sizes and they are all around us. Leaders are people who lead or command a group, organization, country or even just one person; people can also be considered leaders by having a big influence on someone else or setting the example. A good example of a leader is a parent or guardian because they have to set good examples for their children so that when they grow up they can set good examples for their kids and so that they do not get into any trouble. Another good example of a leader was Toussaint Louverture. Toussaint was born around 1743 and was the leader of the Haitian revolution. Toussaint’s main goal was to free the slaves. This revolution took place on a Caribbean island called Hispaniola, two centuries later the French took control of the western half and named it Saint Domingue which today is called Haiti. Saint Domingue was a very economically valuable colony because there were 8,000 plantations that were producing 40 percent of the world’s sugar and more than half of the world’s coffee. The entire slave population of the United States in 1800 was around one million; the slave population in Saint Domingue was about 500,000. This is important to think about because there is half of the United States slave population in the tiny city of Saint Domingue. The reason why Toussaint fought against the French as a slave rebel leader in 1793, was made commander-in-chief of the French colonial army in Saint Domingue after 1794, and then fought again against the French in 1802 is because he was a young slave himself until he was granted freedom by his owner. Once Toussaint was free he rented a small coffee plantation and had a few slaves of his of his own, he encouraged his slaves to fight for their freedom. Toussaint always wanted to end slavery and finally France fought against slavery, but soon the French decided to bring slavery back which caused Toussaint to fight against them. In 1804 Haiti declared their independence but Toussaint was not able to celebrate this because he was dying from pneumonia in a French jail and he never knew that Haiti actually gained their independence (background essay). Toussaint Louverture should be remembered as a liberator of slaves, the ruler of Saint Domingue, and a military commander. Although Toussaint should be remembered for being a military commander and the ruler of Saint Domingue, the most important reason he should be remembered as is a liberator of slaves because without him the slaves would not have been free and Haiti would have may never have gained their independence.

The most important reason as to why Toussaint Louverture should be remembered as is a liberator of slaves. In 1789 the French revolution begins and the declaration of the rights of man which later triggered the slave revolution of Saint Domingue. At first Toussaint serves as a doctor to the troops and then after a while of being the doctor he became commander of a small detachment of the slave soldiers. Toussaint trained his soldiers in both guerilla tactics and “European style” fighting because the opponents did not know what guerilla tactics were it would be more effective because they would not be ready. Guerilla tactics mean that the soldiers ambush the opponents and surprise them; “European style” means that all the soldiers march at the enemy shoulder to shoulder. In the Timeline of Abolition in Saint Domingue it says that in 1794 Toussaint stopped his revolt against the French colonial troops and now supports the French because the French have now abolished slavery. In 1798 he became ruler of Saint Domingue and then in 1801 he gained control of the Spanish side of the island (document A).  In a letter written by Toussaint Louverture it says, “could men who have once enjoyed the benefits of liberty look calmly while it is taken from them!..." We have known how to confront danger to our liberty and we will know how to confront death to preserve it.” Toussaint is expressing his anger about how slavery was coming back to Saint Domingue. He is saying that once people have been freed it is going to be impossible to go back to the way they were living before as slaves. It also says that they will fight to the death just to keep their freedom (document B). In the Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801 article 3 states “All men are born, live and die free and French.” This is promising that there should be no more slaves and everyone should live and die free. The work that this constitution encourages is farming agriculture because people can only make profits from the farming. According to the constitution the owner has the power to run the plantations, the owners were are also known as the “father” and the formers slaves are considered family and now work for money unlike they did before (document C). If Toussaint was not able to free the slaves there may still be slaves in Haiti today. Toussaint cared more about freeing the slaves than he did about fighting the French.

Another way that Toussaint Louverture should be remembered is as the ruler of Saint Domingue. The Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801 was signed by Toussaint in July of 1801, in part VIII article 28 is says, “The constitution nominate Citizen Toussaint Louverture, chief General of the Army of Saint Domingue and... he is entrusted the direction thereof for the remainder of his glorious life.” This states that Toussaint is the ruler of Saint Domingue until he dies. There are definitely some advantages and disadvantages of having the same ruler until he dies. The advantage is that he is a smart, good leader, but the disadvantage is that if people revolt there is no way to get rid of him except to kill him and if he is captured the people of Saint Domingue will then not have a ruler (document C). In the Proclamation written on November 25, 1801 Toussaint states, “...Tending to incite sedition [actions against authority of the nation] shall be brought before a court martial [military court] and punished in conformity with the law.” Toussaint’s goal throughout this whole Proclamation is to maintain order and to try to prevent any more violence and revolt like before, but especially in this statement Toussaint is saying that anyone who breaks a law is going to go to court and get punished. Some of the consequences that Toussaint sets in place for the people who break the rules are getting arrested or going to court. Mainly Vagabond cultivators who are people who refuse to work get arrested and the manager of a plantation goes to jail is a worker from another plantation takes refuge in their plantation and they know they are not from there but does not report it. There are four months between the signing of the constitution of 1801 and this Proclamation, in those four months there have been many revolts. The Constitution of 1801 was the nice way of writing all the rules for Saint Domingue but that did not seem to be working so the Proclamation was written to maintain authority and show the people of Saint Domingue who is in charge (document D). These documents show that even though Toussaint may have had his flaws he was a good ruler and he just wanted everything to be in good order with no violence.

The final way as to how Toussaint Louverture should be remembered as is a military commander. In a Biography about Toussaint Louverture it says, “... discontent with Toussaint’s draconian [cruel] labor policy and gathering suspicion of his friendliness with the white planter class.” This is saying the people are starting to fight against Toussaint and disagree with the way he is ruling Saint Domingue. Hyacinthe Moyse, Toussaint Overture’s nephew, distrusted Toussaint and so did all of the former slaves. They were unhappy with his cruel labor policy and they were gathering suspicion about how nice he was to the white planter class. Many of the former slaves object to plantation farming because they did not want to do it again but soon they were forced to work. The former slaves wanted to work in small holdings instead of the large plantations because there would be less people to work around and it would be less crowded. On October 29, 1801 a revolt broke out on the northern plane lead by Moyse, Toussaint reacted by forcing Moyse to watch the soldiers step out of line and one by one shoot themselves. Then Moyse was arrested and later executed. It was not a good idea to execute Moyse because he is his nephew, they are family, and instead he could have just taken him down from power or punished him another way (document E). A Description of Toussaint Louverture written from “The black man” was written in 1863 and is a secondary source. In this document is explains some of Toussaint’s character traits that he possesses that helped him gain his soldiers confidence and respect. Toussaint Louverture was said to have superior knowledge, race, humanity, generosity and courage. According to Toussaint the French were coming to the port city of Samana because Napoleon wanted to take control. Toussaint reacts to this by deciding to burn down Samana because Napoleon wants to reinstate slavery. Toussaint then waited for the French army in the mountain to use the guerilla tactics on them. This would be very effective because the French army would not be prepared because they have never been trained to use this strategy and it would give his soldiers an advantage (document F). These documents show that Toussaint was a good military commander and he really knew what he was doing and he would be able to lead his soldiers to victory.

Although Toussaint Louverture should be remembered for being a military commander and the ruler of Saint Domingue, the most important reason as to why he should be remembered as is a liberator of slaves because without him the slaves would have not been free and Haiti would have may have never gained their independence. Though Toussaint was not always gentle and nice about his methods he really did know what he was doing and he definitely lead Saint Domingue in the right direction. He understood how the slaves felt because he was a slave once himself so he made his point to finally set slaves free. Toussaint was definitely a great revolutionary leader of that time.

They Weren't all Complete Failures

Last week in class we separated into five groups each assigned a different revolution. The different revolutions were: The Decembrist revolt, 1830 France, 1848 France, Frankfurt Assembly and the 1484 Hungary revolt. After we got assigned a revolution we read some primary sources and determine whether it was a success or failure. Then we made a survey monkey, where were would make questions based on our revolt and the class would take the survey. After everyone answered all the questions we were able to see the results and see how many people got the correct answer.The essential question that will be answered throughout this blog post is, were the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded?

The revolution that I was assigned to was the Decembrist Revolt of 1825. The Decembrist Revolt took place in Russia. The goal of this revolt was to assassinate Tsar Alexander, the rule of the Russian empire. Everyone was against Tsar Alexander because he failed to grant  meaningful constitutional change. As said before they planned to assassinate him, but a few days before Tsar Alexander died of natural causes. Now that Tsar Alexander has died the people were able to fight back, They wanted to Constantine (Alexander’s older brother) to become the new Tsar but he refused and then Nicholas (ALexander’s son) found out that he was next in line to become Tsar. In a primary source Nicholas I is speaking about the Decembrists to the French Ambassador he says, “The leaders and the instigators of the conspiracy will be dealt with without pity, without mercy.” He is saying that he is not going to be merciful toward the people and he is trying to teach the rebels a lesson that monarchies will not be overthrown. Tsar Nicholas is trying to stop the revolt and show that he is in power. In another primary source Alexander Pushkin says, “This is the cause of the swift decline of our nobility: the grandfather was rich, the son is needy, the grandson will go begging.” This is showing that Nicholas is not being that good of a ruler because Russia is continuing to decline and nothing is getting better. This war was a complete failure because the people did not get what they want, they wanted Constantine to be the new Tsar instead of Nicholas and as soon as Nicholas became Tsar Russia began to decline and many people became poor.

Here is one of the questions that everyone answered right. This question was a true or false saying, Russian rebels executed Tsar Alexander so that they could have a new king which was false. The people planned to execute Tsar Alexander but he died a few days before it was supposed to happen.

This question was asking if this revolt was a success or failure. Most people said is was a failure, two people said semi failure and then one person said neither success or failure. Like I said before this was definitely a failure because the people did not even come close to what they wanted in the first place. I think a lot of people did learn from this survey monkey because most people got the correct answer when we looked at the results.

In my opinion I don’t think that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were really all failures as many historians have concluded. Out of all the revolutions only one of the revolutions was a complete failure. This revolution was the Decembrist Revolt. All the other revolutions were between semi-failure meaning the people got some things they wanted but not all to success meaning the people got everything that they wanted. For example the 1830 France revolt was a moderate success because they almost got everything they wanted but not quite. Louis XVIII made the effort to compromise satisfied some people. After Louis XVIII died, Charles X took over but many people did not like Charles and people started getting angry and fighting back. Charles was afraid and fled back to angry. With the king gone they wanted to set up a republic, They Louis Philip became king and everyone got along very well with him, they called him the “Citizen King”. Another revolution that was a success was the Frankfurt assembly meaning the people got what they wanted. King Frederick obliged to the constitutions cerastes by the Frankfurt Assembly. Germany was united and King Frederick became a constitutional monarch. Even though some of the revolutions did end up being failures there were many that were actually success’ so I do not think the historians were correct in saying that all the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 are really failures.