King of Democracy or King Andrew I?

Andrew Jackson, a hero or a villain? Andrew Jackson is one of the most controversial presidents in United States history! He was one of the great presidents for one and one of the worst for others. He acted and was called the “King of Democracy” for some and “King Andrew I” for others.

    Andrew Jefferson was the 7th president of the United States. He was born in Waxhaws North Carolina and grew up his entire life in the South. In his life as a Southerner he owned over 100 of slaves so his appeal in the North is not very high. Jackson says he runs a democracy of the people as he owns hundreds of living humans. So the whites who have their rights think his is the king of democracy and others think he is the a king, as in African Americans.

    Andrew Jackson was a hero for people, especially his supporters and friends. When the word patronage is said one of the automatic thoughts is Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson gave his democratic followers jobs in the government after he won his election. Instead of letting the job be open for everyone he gave them to his friends and supporters. A good example for Andrew Jacksons patronage system is when he gave a government job to an ex-convict, but a good friend of Jackson, and was accepted for a job in government. Of course the ex-convict stole millions of dollars and everyone knew he only got the job because he was Jacksons friend.

    Another defect in Jackson's presidential reign is the role he played in Indian Removal. The Cherokees owned the land around Georgia and the American people want it. Even though the Supreme Court said the Indians legally own the land, Jackson would not take “no” for an answer. Ignoring the highest court in the land, Jackson went into the Cherokee land and kicked them out, sending them on the “Trail of Tears” to today Oklahoma. So he is not viewed as a king for the Indians but more as a devil.

    So who is Andrew Jackson, “King of Democracy” of “King Andrew I”? He gave no rights to women or African Americans, gave jobs to supporters before others, and kicked the Indians out of their rightful land. The only thing supporting Jackson is the fact he gave every right to the white males, which made up most of America at the time. So most of America saw him as a “King of Democracy but mostly he acted as “King Andrew I”.

Revolutions of 1830 and 1848, failures or not?

           Their were revolutions everywhere in Europe for 1830 through 1848, such as in France, Poland, and Hungary. To represent these revolutions the class had to make a video presentation of the revolution that was assigned, me and my group had to do Hungary. The Hungarian Revolution was in 1848 and showed how even though that revolution failed, it lead to greater democracy for the country.
           The revolution of Poland in 1830 was a good example of a revolution that failed but lead to a greater democracy later. The Polish fought for freedom from Russia in 1830 and to riot the Poles used violence to threaten and kill the Russians. In the end the Russian army was to strong and stopped all attacks from the Poles. But this riot showed how that the Polish will go as far as murder to get their independence, inspiring future Polish to get freedom.
           The revolution of France in 1830 was a little different, the French successfully revolted against Charles X who restricted right to vote. This revolution was lead by Louis Philippe and was successful by having Charles X fleeing to England leaving Louis Philippe in power and wrote constitution for a new France.
            Louis Philippe wasn't the ruler the people in France were looking for. In 1848 Louis Philippe was starting to become like Charles X with decreased voting rights, but on top of that the economy of France was doing bad and everyone blamed Louis Philippe. After revolts Louis Philippe stepped down as leader and a democracy was almost formed with Louis Napoleon being voted in as president. But he started to rule like emperor making the revolution of 1848 a failure. But the French saw a future in the democracy and will fight till it happens!


The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "Revolutions of 1848 (European History)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica. Web. 25 Nov. 2014. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/181144/Revolutions-of-1848>.

Marx or Smith

In class on Friday we used some tasty Hershey kisses to play a game of rock, paper, scissor, shoot to either get or lose a Hershey kiss. But the catch was that some people started out with 10 Hershey kisses while everyone else started out with 3. This activity was fun in the fact that we got to play a beloved game while having chocolate at the same time. But the frustrating part was when you lost all your candy so fast compared to the people with 10 who never lost all their candy, very annoying! But the point of this activity was to represent how the theory of Capitalism, Socialism, Communism affected peoples wealth.

Karl Marx is the creature of the idea of Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism. These ideas make it so the poor are helped in a society. In Capitalism the government gives the economy a right of competition so in this case if your business does good your rich or if your business does bad if your poor. So this idea either makes the poor rich or makes the poor ever poorer. In Socialism the government gets involved and distributes all the candy among everyone in the economy, so everybody is equal in wealth. That idea helps the poor but not so much the rich. After the idea of socialism is achieved then it is time for communism. This is when the government leaves the economy in the equal state that it is and lets the people run the economy until it becomes not equal. Adam Smith had the opposite idea that Karl Marx had, he had the invisible hand idea in which the government would let the business' run the economy. Freedom of competition, freedom of ownership and wealthiness. When this is achieved Smith believes that the people would work it out. So the poor get to try and make a living plus the business' in competition will keep lowering prices so people buy their product, cheaper for the poor.

The theory that is the best in my opinion is the Invisible Hand. Not just because communism was practically a dictatorship in the Soviet Union and China. But because if the government runs the economy their will definitely be someone who does not agree with the government and start a riot. But in the invisible hand the people get to run the economy so everyone will be happy if the economy runs smoothly. That is why I agree with Adam Smith.

The New Slavery?

In class today we discussed child labor today around the world. The assignment was to read about 7 articles and then ask yourself "Would you or would you not buy a product made by child labor?" Then as a class we discussed our ideas for child labor. One point that I had was that the children don't care about their health when they see the paycheck that they will get. Another point that I made was why did the adults have to be so tough to kids that do wrong in the workplace, like when a girl got her hair cut off in the 1800's and now how there is child prostitution. Also a point I made was that there is child labor in America still on the farms because the farmers don't see it as a bad thing, that's how the farmers grew up and they did just fine.

I wasn't the only one who brought up great points, so did all my classmates. One good point made was how maybe child labor was a good thing in the eyes of their parents, teaches the kids how to deal with money plus it gives the kids maturity to do things on there own. Another great point made was the fact that if my family really needed money then they would go into child labor. Even though it is living hell it would be worth it to help the family. Lastly the point that stuck in my head the most was the point that our wants for the products made will make us Americans look away from the fact a child laborer made this product.

Our group did well in the fact that the conversations kept rolling and never really had a point of silence. Even though we got some help by Ms. Gleason by always asking new questions we did a pretty good job in the conversation. Also the group was good in answering every part of a question, every opinion and view of the question. That is how this weeks Socratic seminar went.

Male and Female Textile Workers in Lowell, MA

Lowell was one of the first places to have a Textile mill and here are stats about the type of people that worked there. The amount of girls in the textile mills blows the amount of guys who work there by a huge amount! The difference in 10 years is a way higher amount for women than men, the amount of females working at the mill grew by 1400 females in just 10 years an for men the amount only grows by 900. I see the people running the mills didn't see a decrease of production with women working so they kept the idea of mostly women working in the textiles throughout this 24 year period. Every statistical year there is about 4000 more women then men working in the textiles. This means that women were not doing a bad job in the textiles and that it could make for plenty of jobs for women. That is the ideas that I got from looking at the data in this graph.

Life and Work in the Industrial City

This report dated September 15, 1847 has been provided for the urban planning committees of various cities in England. My name is Jack Monahan, and as a mid-level city inspector I trust that you will use the information within to determine appropriate needs in urban planning for your municipalities. My report has been through as I have made use of all the sources available to me and have worked to guide you through my own analysis and critical thinking to a full description of the issues facing our city.

Positive isn't a word that is used a lot during the Industrial Revolution. But there is a lot of positives when looking at the big picture of what the Industrial Revolution brought to the world. When looking around in my visit to the city I noticed that the amount of people living on the streets is very low. In Doc B John Jones talks about how the cities were such a glorious place with not a lot of people living on the streets, everyone had jobs. Also W.C. Taylor noticed on her trip to a factory that the amount of accidents were low and with working in a factory people had enough money to feed their families. (Doc E) So in some peoples eyes the factory work was worth it for the money and in others eyes the life in a factory was a privilege not a punishment.

Negative is an understatement when talking about the life in factories during the Industrial Revolution. The people were living in pollution and filth, the rivers were even colored by the pollution in the rivers! (Doc A) When living in these conditions the workers had to do the same thing at work everyday! How boring. (Doc A) Also in these jobs were fires always starting and everywhere you would walk their would be smoke being breathed in, work was like a torture device. (Doc C) In these terrible conditions the children were made to work which made them starving, have distorted limbs, and age prematurely. (Doc D) I’m not sure these conditions are worth a pay check.

I think there was more of a negative effects on living conditions in the Industrial Revolution. The people would eat, sleep, breathe smoke. Out of my 5 sources 3 out of the 5 were negative towards the Industrial Revolution. All of the negative sources were about the same thing, how the smoke would ruin peoples lives. In Doc D caught my attention the most when the children would have distorted limbs and would age prematurely. Is this really what the Industrial Revolution wanted to happen? No so the IR was negative compared to what the creators thought it would turn out.