North American Colonists vs. Latin America Colonists

The North American colonists were a lot better prepared for independence than their neighbors to the south for many reasons. One reason was the fact that the North American colonists were more literate. The literacy rate in the North American colonies in the 1800's was around 90%. In Empire to Nation by Joseph Escherick, the literacy rate of the Latin American colonies "could not have been much higher than 10 percent overall, with much of the literate population compressed spatially into the cities, and socially into the upper reaches of the social hierarchy,". Also, the population in the northern colonies was predominantly white, while the population in the southern colonies was predominantly composed of natives at the bottom of the social pyramid. This is a factor because the poor and slaves did not become educated, so having more slave and lower class population, like the Latin American colonies, affected their literacy rate due to the large percentage of people who could not become educated. This meant that the North American colonists could form a more stable government with a better educated population than in Latin America because of their higher free and white population. This also gave the northern colonies an edge in science and other technological advances than their neighbors to the south.

  

The North American colonies also had better political experience. In the Latin American colonies, there were leaders that were part of the nobility that were five rungs lower on the political ladder than the king. This meant that the common people had no 
political power or experience whatsoever. In the publishing, American Passages by Edward L. Ayers, it says, "Niether Spanish colonists or Indians had much say in making and enforcing laws." In the North American colonies, the local people could be a part of the political system. If a colonist was at the lowest rung of the ladder, they were only two rungs from the king. This meant that when it was time to govern themselves, the northern colonies had political experience and could more successfully run themselves than their neighbors to the south.

Lastly, the North American colonies had better reparations and relationships with their former colonial power. When Haiti became independent, it was forced to pay an indemnity to France. In the book “France's Debt of Dishonour to Haiti” by Isabel Macdonald, it says the total amount payed was about "90m gold francs to France." This kept Haiti crippled and drained their treasuries to the point where they were in endless poverty. Even to this day, France has not payed back the unjust indemnity to Haiti. When the American colonies became independent, there were articles in the Treaty of Paris that specifically addressed monetary issues between the two nations. One article stated, "That there shall be no future confiscations made nor any prosecutions commenced against any person or persons for, or by reason of, the part which he or they may have taken in the present war, and that no person shall on that account suffer any future loss or damage, either in his person, liberty, or property;" This prevented the U.S. from suffering the same outcome as Haiti did. This allowed their economy to thrive and have no major setbacks of the kind.  Having not been exploited by British power, the northern colonies "rivaled England itself, as in fisheries and shipbuilding". The North American colonies had better reparations and relationships with their former colonial power which allowed their nation to develop better than their neighbors to the south because of the agreements set to prohibit an indemnity.

(Treaty of Paris)

Republic of Haiti Summary

Haiti gained its independence in 1804 and was not truly accepted by the world once it broke free from France. The Republic of Haiti was shunned by the United States after its revolution. Thomas Jefferson feared that the slave uprising in Haiti could spark a new revolt in the U.S. Jefferson did not officially recognize Haiti as a nation and declared that all trade with Haiti to be suspended and claimed their leaders were "cannibals". Jefferson, being a slave owner, could not be able to deal with, "one group of Africans as leaders and another as chattel."

Haiti, given no help from other countries, fell prey to an unjust indemnity from France. In the article, Ignoring the Revolution Next Door, by Edwidge Danticat, it says that; "Haiti, burdened by its post-independence isolation and the 100 million francs in payment it was forced to give France for official recognition--an amount estimated to be worth nearly $22 billion today" Haiti was kept from prospering by France because of all the money they had to pay back. This indemnity would keep draining their treasury and would make them remain poor. But because of how other countries saw the new nation of Haiti, they did not oppose the unfair payments. Even today, Haiti has still not been payed back for the unfair indemnity. Payments had been made to France up until the 1940's. Had Haiti been given a fair chance by the world, it may have been a flourishing new nation.

Here we see the poverty in Haiti that was heavily caused by the indemnity payed to France.

US and GB Comparison

I believe that industrialists would be more likely to succeed in the United States. The US factories had better working conditions and instituted low earning teenage girls into their factories for cheaper labor. With less people dying because of poor conditions, and less money being paid to the workers, the factories ran smoother and were more effective. Better working conditions means workers are less likely to become ill or die. This means workers won't miss work as much and they will be happier. Farm girls were employed by factories because they could be paid at a much lower wage than men. This made the factories profit because they were getting about the same work done for less money. Overall, better conditions and lower wages paid made US a better place for industrialists.

I think the workers had a more positive experience in the US. The conditions were a lot better in the US and the workers had other options if they didn't want to work at the factory anymore. There was less pollution and death in the US than in GB. The workers obviously would want better conditions because factory work was dangerous enough. But if the workers for whatever reason decided they did not want to work at the factory anymore, they had more options than in GB. In Great Britain, there was little to no farm land, so factory work was they only way most people had to make a living. In  the US, there was so much land to farm on that any factory worker could start a farm if they pleased. This was a lot better because they at least know that factory work wasn't their only option. This is why I feel workers had a better experience in the US.

         This image above depicts the conditions in Great Britain during the Industrial Revolution.

Source: http://www.casahistoria.net/factorylife.htm

Napoleon

Napoleon had many different impacts on the social, economic, and political systems of France.  In the "Two Views of Napoleon" worksheet, there are many examples of how he affected France. Napoleon impacted the economic system of France because he "controlled prices and encouraged new industry". Napoleon also affected the social system when he "abolished titles of nobility and serfdom" Napoleon impacted the political system of France by intending to "overthrow the Directory". The five members resigned after learning of his plan.

Above is a picture of former French Emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte

Mary Paul Letters

      Mary's tone changes throughout each of the 6 letters. In the first letter, she is excited to go to Lowell. She is asking her father to let her go, and even saying that other family members think it is a good idea also. In the second letter, Mary is happy to be in Lowell. She checks into her boarding house, buys a bonnet and other items, and asks her father to tell her friends to write to her. Mary at this point is also feeling a bit homesick because she wants to hear from everyone back home. She still likes being in Lowell despite being away from her friends and family. In the third letter, Mary is not very excited anymore. She tells her father of the many deaths at the factory. One girl slipped on icy stairs and broke her neck. Another man was killed by railroad carts. Despite all of these tragedies, she also tells about her daily life. She says that she goes to the mill at 7am, gets a break at 1230pm for lunch, and then work until 730pm. She also explains how she cannot write back to everyone who wrote to her because of how busy she is. In the fourth letter, Mary explains how she is growing very sick. Her tone seems depressing and the novelty of being in Lowell has definitely worn off by now. In the fifth letter, Mary says that she is so sick that she is unable to work. She says that the company always claims to be losing money so that they can cut the employee's wages. She also tells her father that she is looking for a new job. In the sixth and final letter, Mary says she hasn't worked in 4 days because of her health. Her tone is now very depressed, lonely and sad because she is very poor in health, wealth, and companionship. It is easy to see how Mary's tone changes throughout the letter.

Luddites Assignment

The Luddites were a group of people in Britain during the Industrial Revolution who opposed the wages and processes of the factories. They were based off of a mythical figure named Ned Ludd. The Luddites did not like what the new revolution was doing to the people of Britain. It was causing pollution and child labor. Below I have a letter from the time of the Luddite movement written by a soldier who was sent to guard the factories from the Luddites.

Dear cousin George,
Things are not well here in Britain. There are savages known as the Luddites who dismantle and protest factories. They revolution has been a great thing, I don't know why they would be so opposed to it. It has created new jobs and allowed goods to be cheaper and faster. It has helped some of our family here get jobs at the textile mill and it got me a job as a solider guarding the factories. I am against the Luddites because they are trying to stop a great change in Britain and are illegally dismantling machinery, such as they are doing in the picture below.
But that is all I have to write for now. Take care cousin.
                                                                                      From,
                                                                                              Harold

Marx PSA Assignment

Marx, Karl and Frederich Engels. The Communist Manifesto.  Modified from the Avalon Project.           1848. Yale    University. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/mancont.asp(accessed          September 18, 2013). 

Karl Marx was a German scholar and philosopher. Marx attended University of Bonn in 1835 and University of Berlin in 1836. Karl Marx was a strong advocate of communism. Marx lived in poverty his entire life, and communism was designed with the lower-class in mind. Marx wanted to spread communism so that people did not have to suffer the cruel poverty of capitalism. At the time, capitalism was growing, but so was poverty in Europe. Communism was a plan to make all people equal in society. Marx, being a poor man, promotes communism over capitalism heavily. Marx uses the phrase, "The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!" This is saying the lower class (proletarians) have nothing to lose but their "chains" This is a metaphor for slavery chains, which Marx feels what capitalism does to the lower class. He uses words like monopolized and oppression to describe what he feels capitalism brings upon society. He ends with "Working men of all countries, unite!", and that inspires the communist reader to act upon the reading.