Prostitutes, Prostitutes, Prostitutes

The Industrial Revolution resulted in a period of upheaval that changed the face of society. The greatest difference was the breakup of social groups. Both the middle and the working class separated into three groups. For the middle class, it was upper, middle and lower. Although, each class had different jobs, they were united by a certain lifestyle. Since the middle class had extra money, they could buy the new mass produced goods. Everyone began to have the same items because they were buying the same goods. The middle class were also motivated by their desire to emulate the upper class so they adopted lifestyles that mirrored some upper-class traditions. 

Like first world problems of today, the middle
class were united by different issues and desires.

The working class had a similar breakup of skills. They were separated into highly skilled, semiskilled, and unskilled. These factions were less united than the middle class due to the tension that existed among them. Due to the industrial revolution, machines were beginning to take the place of highly skilled workers. There was no need to pay a skilled worker to do a job that could be easily be accomplished by an underpaid unskilled worker and a machine. The skilled workers were threatened by the unskilled workers who could easily take their job by taking care of a machine. Some workers even formed a group called the Luddites that destroyed that machines that they believed were stealing their jobs. 

Sexual relationships were also beginning to change as illustrated in the title. With the concentration of people in the city, prostitution began to grow as well as illegitimacy. The lack of societal restrictions allowed men and women to have improper relationships. Men found it easier to see prostitutes in the city and women had premarital sex. Without the controls found in rural society, people were allowed to make decisions they would not have normally man. 

The movement of society to the city opened the doors for many actions that would have be frowned upon in the past. Society altered along with the public. 

Industrialization Q&A

What were the four main agents of industrialization?

1. British technology

The British tried to keep their technical discoveries a secret from other European nations. British law prohibited artisans and skilled mechanics to leave Britain until 1825, and until 1843 the export of textile machinery and other equipment was prohibited. Some ambitious workers fled Britain illegally and introduced the new technologies in other countries, thus spreading the Industrial Revolution throughout Europe. William Cockerill was an example of one of these ambitious men. Cockerill developed cotton-spinning equipment in French-occupied Belgium, and soon talented workers left Britain to work for him. With them these workers brought British plans and technological secrets to Cockerill, spreading British technology throughout Europe and developing it further.

2. Entrepreneurs

Talented entrepreneurs such as Fritz Harkfort sought to take British technology and build businesses upon it. Harkfort, a German business pioneer, was serving in England during the Napoleonic wars and was impressed with the British machinery. He decided that Germany had to catch up with Britain's achievements, and used English mechanics and iron parts to build and sell engines in Germany. Entrepreneurs as such, in seeking to create big business and increase their success, helped spread industrialization throughout Europe, creating jobs for and selling technology to the population.

3. Government

Governments often helped business people in continental countries to overcome some of their difficulties. Tariff protection, for example, benefited the profits of big businesses (though they increased burdens on the poor). (Gyarn side note - do tariff protection and nationalism coincide? It is, indeed, of national interest to protect domestic industry. However tariff protection comes down hard on the poor which can reduce the poor's sense of national unity, economic equality, and appreciation for government, which so crucially contribute to nationalism.) Many governments also bore the costs of building roads, railroads, and canals, to help domestic trade flourish and tie the nation together.

4. Banks

Banks played a more significant role in continental Europe vs. Britain. In the 1830s, two Belgian banks moved away from the commonplace of small, private banks organized as secret partnerships. They received permission from the government to establish themselves as corporations enjoying limited liability. Limited liability means that a stock-holder could lose only his or her original investment in the bank's common stock and could not be assessed for any additional losses. This attracted investors and shareholders, allowing the banks to build impressive resources for investment in big companies. These banks thus became industrial banks, promoting industrialization, and many continental European banks soon followed in these footsteps.

Just how important was the industrialization to the nation-state during this period? How did Friedrich make Germany a nation-state?

The Industrial Revolution was crucial to the development of the nation-state. Industrialization created jobs, stimulated economy, and created new working classes. Industrialization majorly contributed to nationalism, and to the creation of the nation-state, through economic nationalism. Friedrich List promoted industry, considering the "growth of modern industry of most importance because manufacturing was a primary means of increasing people's well-being and relieving their poverty." He supported the formation of a customs union, or Zollverein, among separate German states. He allowed trade between German states to go without tariff, but enacted a tariff for international trade. In doing so he eliminated much of the disunity among the German states and created a sense of nationalism among them, while also promoting industry and stimulating the economy.

The Effects of Industrialization

Child labor existed at this time not because people had worse morals than they do today, but because most people weren't aware of the physical and mental exertion put on children in the factories. Previously, children worked on their family's farm, where the treatment of the children was evident to the entire family and community. But in factories and coal mines, the owners and supervisors often overworked the laborers and lied about their treatment to the public. They preferred children for their tiny fingers and cheaper price. Families needed their children to work for the extra wages that could go toward the rent.
The public, for a long time, had no way of knowing what happened to children inside the factories. When the abuse became more well-known, humanists and activists headed a commission to "find the truth and protect the youth" (thank angelica for that one). The commission was successful in that it banned women and children under 12 from working in the factories and mines.


The issues that the factory workers faced can be considered a failure of the ideas of liberalism.  Liberalism pushed for an end to government interference in all economic affairs. But when factories and mines were not monitored by the government, they abused their power and exploited both children and adults. The best solution would be a happy medium with the government only interfering to prohibit illegal and wrongful actions committed by big companies.
There is such a thing as positive and negative liberty. Should people have freedom from or freedom to do something. For example, should a person have freedom from big companies'  labor abuse or the freedom to work for whatever company they choose.

Was there any room for liberalism in Paris? No, because in Parisian urban society, people were able to live in freedom but still be able to adapt to the changing circumstances linked to industrialization. There was also more of a chance to move up the social ladder in the post-industrial society- more jobs were created that separated the small elite class and the large laboring poor. The major downturn of industrialization in Paris was poo. Because of the lack of transportation and the government's inability to react quickly enough to the changing atmosphere, the poo piled up. Poo.

Despite there being more opportunities for work in the urban environment, the upper class continued to make the highest percentage of money. The poorest 80% (working classes) received less income altogether than the two richest classes combined.

The Factory Act and the Mines Act both protected the businessman over the worker. But the next big act from government was the Combination Act, which protected the worker over the businessman. These almost-contradictory set of acts represents the government's new need to pay more attention to what the people wanted after the voting population expanded in England. The government had to pay more attention to the needs of the majority instead of to those of the elite few.

Industrial Underwear

Why of all places did the Industrial Revolution start in Britain?

1. Agriculture
• Thanks to the enclosure movement, people were able to experiment more with various methods of agriculture. This produced new methods of farming that included new inventions. By improving agriculture, the supply of food increased and prices went down. Now, all classes could enjoy the luxury of paying for their food and for manufactured goods. As a result, domestic demand for manufactured goods increased.
2. Atlantic Economy
• North America, Latin America, and Africa opened up the market for Great Britain. Not only was there a demand for manufactured goods and agricultural products domestically, but also internationally. Since Great Britain was the strongest naval power, it was cheaper to trade by water. Canals and rivers made domestic shipping possible as well.

 

Triangle trade

1. Support System (Assets)
• Great Britain had a stable structure, government, and economy that acted as a support system which allowed the industrial revolution to prosper. The central bank allowed the government to regulate currency. As Becky pointed out, the currency needed to have elasticity. Additionally, Great Britain had a well developed credit market. This means that capitalists and other businessmen had ample opportunity to get loans and to get credit because investors were willing to loan and raise the capital to make the companies that would create factories. This is contrary to France where private investment had been crowded of credit markets because the government was borrowing so much money to fund the wars and Versailles there was less credit available for private French business to start industrial companies. 

What was the greatest change to occur in Britain thanks to the Revolution? Underwear. Or body linen as it was known. Previously, only the wealthy could afford such luxuries as underwear. However, thanks to greater production and, therefore, more widespread prosperity, everyone, including the peasants achieved a higher standard of living. Factories allowed for more products to be produced and for more people to have work as compared to the putting out system. This is because people did not have to be skilled to work in a factory since they could rely on machines, which made efficient production possible. 

The technological revolution advanced along side the industrial revolution. New technology also acted as a support for the industrial revolution. Machinery such as the spinning jenny and water frame acted as catalysts for the formation of factories and for the creation of other inventions which would support the high demand for manufactured goods. 

Water Frame 

Spinning Jenny 

One of the most important inventions, the steam engine, temporarily solved the nation’s energy problem. Previously, factories had to rely on wood (charcoal) for energy. However, as the population grew, forests were being cut down. The supply of wood was depleting. The early steam engines were powerful albeit inefficient converters of energy. The steam engines would burn coal to produce steam which would then be used to operate a pump. James Watt increased the efficiency of the steam engine by adding a separate condenser. For the first time humans had almost unlimited power at their disposal. Thanks to Watt, steam engines were used to advance and expand many industries. 

Watt's Steam Engine 

Later, the steam engines would give birth to the railroads. The railroad reduced the cost and uncertainty of shipping freight over land. Markets grew larger and nationwide. The larger markets encouraged larger factories, which produced more goods. Since the factories produced more, their goods were cheaper. As a result, cottage workers and urban artisans faced competitive pressures from the large companies. The railroad also created a strong demand for unskilled labor and many men began to look towards cities and towns for work. 


The conditions were perfect for the creation of the Industrial Revolution in Europe. The Industrial Revolution not only transformed the British economy, but also its culture and society. 

The people don't like their government?! No way!!

There were major problems happening in three countries at this time: England, Ireland, and France. What a surprise!!!

First off, the mess that is England.
Who's in charge? The two major bodies in Parliament were the Whigs and the Tories. At the advent of all these radical movements, the Tories were fearful of anyone demanding change. They repressed all kinds of popular protest. But as time went by, they adapted to the changes in the political atmosphere and became more open-minded. For instance, the Tories passed the Ten Hours Act of 1847, which limited the workday for women and young people to 10 hours. In contrast, the Whigs were consistently pro-business and manufacturing. The one major exception to this was that they pushed through the Reform Bill of 1832, which gave new industrial areas of the country more representation and eliminated the "rotten boroughs" (electoral districts bought by the aristocracy). Although the Whigs were responsible for this bill, the Tories were the ones who responded to the byproduct of this bill- that they had to become more responsive to the needs of the masses (mass politics) or be voted out.

What was going on? The Chartist movement was the major radical program being pushed at this time. It called for universal male suffrage. This movement was extremely radical for its time but when compared to the Revolutions of 1848, it doesn't seem so bad. While both of these things failed, they did sew the seeds for change in the second half of the century.

Second off, poor Ireland, which was COMPLETELY ABANDONED by the British (yes I'm still bitter)
What was going on? The potato famine was devastating almost the entire population, whose only source of substinence was the potato. Absentee lordism was one of the major reasons for the famine. The liberalism of the parties in England just let things be and didn't regulate the work of the Irish farmers. This laissez faire economy only aggravated the situation in Ireland. To make things worse, English lords, even during the famine, demanded that the Irish continue to pay the same amount of taxes and export their same amount of crops to them.

Lastly, weak and fragile France.
Who was in charge?
Louis XVIII was a weak, weak ruler. His inability to pick a side in the debate between the aristocracy and the middle/lower class earned him no supporters. His one major contribution, the Constitutional Charter, was basically a liberal constitution so it angered the aristocracy.  However, it was far from a democratic charter, power was only given to the wealthiest of people who, with the king and his ministers, ruled the land.

Charles X can be characterized as a true reactionary. This means that he was ultra-conservative. Instead of wanting to keep things the way they were, he wanted to turn back the block to the time of Louis XVI. He repudiated (barfed on) the Constitutional Charter and gained much resistance from the radical part of the population (which consisted of the majority of people in France) So basically, after the entire country had just begun to recover from the destruction caused by a revolution against a monarch and aristocratic system, Charles thought it would be a good idea to bring that system back.

Louis Philippe's rule was rather ineffective. His "bourgeois monarchy" produced a lack of social legislation, and a corrupt system dominated by the rich. While he did accept the Constitutional Charter, he was not able to prevent the Revolutions of 1848 from overtaking the nation.

Love, flowers, and .... revolutions?

Romance: a concept littered with the idea of love, flowers, and .... revolutions? The romantic movement was an artistic movement centered on emotional exuberance, unrestrained imagination, and spontaneity of art and life. This Romantic thought perfectly complemented the political and social situation of the times. 

The Romantic movement coincided with rebellions and revolutions throughout Europe. These movements were a hotbed for emotions. The people were inspired with the ideas of liberalism and nationalism and ran with it. Revolutions were emotionally charged as the passion of their caused united the people. The passions of the time were reflected in the emotional art of the times.

The above paintings illustrate the revolutionary thought that was combined with Romantic art. Romantic art and Revolutions perfectly balanced each other with their passionate natures. Emotions ran high in both the art and the political situation. 

Of course, we can only thank the Enlightenment for the beauty of the Romantic movement. The Romantic movement was a reaction to the Enlightenment. Where the Enlightenment was facts and reason, the Romantic movement was emotions. The Enlightenment was ruled by the head and the Romantic by the heart. 

****

While emotions were governing the heart of many Europeans, Britain was going through a period of reform. Britain at this time was not completely democratic. 

There were elements of a democracy, but they had not been combined for a truly democratic nation. The Reform Bill of 1832 was the first steps of England to change this. This bill gave industrial areas more representation and redistributed the seats. More people were finally able to have the right to vote. The Chartist movement took this idea one step further, calling for universal male suffrage. However, they had to wait for a while before their objective was completed.  

Radical, Revolutionary, Both, or Neither?

One of the major ideas fueling the French Revolution was classical liberalism. Focused on two major principles, liberty and equality, liberalism called for representative government as opposed to autocratic monarchy, equality before the law as opposed to legally separate classes, and specific individual freedoms including of the press, of speech, of assembly, and from arbitrary arrest. It consisted of free enterprise and a self-regulating market as put forth by Adam Smith, and called for a lot of power to be rested in the hands of the people. The ideas (and spirit) set forth by liberalism stuck around long after the revolutionary era, and provided the groundwork for many later European revolutionary and radical movements, and for modern day Republicanism. 

Liberalism was radical in the sense that it opposed the long-standing construct of an autocratic monarch and an obeying, classified people. It became revolutionary when it was put to action. 

Nationalism was an idea cultivated in the years of and following the Napoleonic Era. Early advocates of the "national idea" sought to turn cultural unity - this idea that each people had its own genius and self-evident unity based on common language, history, and territory - into a political reality. Nationalism often manifested among the people in the "we-they" outlook. Citizens of a nation would refer to themselves as a "we," and pit themselves against the general "they," meaning another specific nation or other nations. The creation of common loyalties and common enemies was one of the greatest catalysts for nationalism.

Early nationalism was ambiguous. It was mainly liberal and democratic in motivation and in nature, but it lead to ideas of national superiority and national mission that could unite a nation and lead to aggression and conflict. 

Nationalism was not very "radical" in the sense that it was not outlandish or reformative. It did, however, revolutionize society when it was put to proper use. The idea of nationalism could bind nations, creating common language, common culture, and common enemies and loyalties. Binding a nation in this sense could lead not only to internalized successes (for example, a flourishing economy and a sense of national pride) but also to overseas successes, as nationalists would fight at all costs to defend their nation. 

Metternich argued strictly against liberalism and nationalism, believing their combination could lead to chaos and anarchy. Critics of nationalism, then and and in the modern world, often argued similarly, believing that nationalism could lead to a population blindly following an unqualified leader or its own fervent passion for the nation.

Socialism was the most radical idea of the era. Flawless in theory yet almost impossible to execute, socialism grew as a reaction to liberalism and to laissez-faire capitalism. It saw the need to reorganize society and establish a sense of community among a population, and argued for economic planning in order to avoid the destructive competition of a free market. Early French socialists also advocated for economic equality, provision for the poor, and government-regulated property ownership.

French utopian socialists included Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Louis Blanc, who believed respectively that social organization, the abolition of marriage, and government-guaranteed employment would lead to a more perfect, equal, and peaceful society.

Marx was less idealistic than the French utopians, but many of his socialist ideas were similar. He most notably hated the separation of the bourgeoise (those who own property and profit from the work of the 'doers') and the proletariat (the modern working class). He believed that the bourgeoise were idle, feeding off the labor of and stealing wages from the working class. Marx synthesized French utopian socialism with German philosophy and English classical economics. He and Friedrich Engels' The Communist Manifesto became the bible of socialism, and Marxism is hugely referred to and debated in modern politics.

The Terrible Tale of Metternich

There once was a man named Metternich. Metternich was an aristocrat in Austria desperately trying to keep his nation together. Austria was both strong and weak. It was strong due to its vast territories but weak because it was divided by different nationalities There were Germans, Italians, Hungarians, and many more. With all these nationalities, it was safe to assume a rise in nationalism would divide each group of people and therefore divide Austria. As an aristocrat, a divided Austria would not benefit him so Metternich fought against nationalism and liberalism in all countries. 

His crusade against these ideas focused primarily on not allowing what happened in France to happen any where else. He was totally against revolution. Metternich believed liberalism lead to war. His idea was similar to Hobbes who believed people left on their own would result in chaos. 

Hobbes and Metternich would have been bffs if it wasn't for the minor fact Metternich was born a 100 years after Hobbes died.

One thing Metternich lead was the Holy Alliance. This was an alliance between Austria, Prussia, and Russia and is not to be confused with Quadruple Alliance which was Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Britain or the Great Powers which was Austria, Prussia, Russia, Britain, and France. The Holy Alliance was a symbol of the repression of revolutionary movements and in some ways was successful. It resorted Ferdinand to the throne of Two Sicilies and controlled the German Confederation. Through the German Confederation, Metternich issued the Carlsbad Decrees which suppressed the freedom of the press and made a committee of spies to punish liberal organization. I guess you could say Metternich put the bad in Carlsbad. (lol I'm so funny)

However, as hard as Metternich tried, he was a conservative living in a world of revolution. As though he might try, the revolutions at this time could not be stop. For example, when Greece revolted against the Turks, Metternich sided with the Turks. He believed that no one should revolt from their leaders no matter what. France along with many other countries sided with the Greeks however because they felt a connection to them and because the Turks were Muslim.  This strong public opinion forced Metternich to stand down. Furthermore, as hard as he tried Austria still revolted. They were defeated by the Austrian army but it showed the revolutionary spirit was still there. It seemed that the more he tried to enforce his policies the more people revolted.

Metternich may have thought he was putting out the fires of revolution but more often than not he was just adding fuel to the fire. 

All of Metternich policies violated one thing: self determination.  Previously countries were okay with other countries actions as long as they did not effect themselves. However, this changed when Quadruple Alliance decided on a ruler for France. Furthermore, when Ferdinand was crowned king was another violation of self determination. Because countries were afraid of other countries effecting them with their ideas, they used this to justify intervening with other countries' governments. 

Small Man vs. the World

Napoleon vs. Louis XVI

 

Would the French Revolution have happened if Napoleon was in power in 1789?

Before and after the French Revolution, an absolutist ruler sat at the head of government. The two rulers differed in that Napoleon was stronger than Louis XVI. Napoleon was the leader Louis XVI wished he could have been. However, the French Revolution would have occurred even if Louis XVI was not in power and Napoleon was. Louis XVI was weak and his subjects took advantage of this. But, economic (bankruptcy), social (three estates), and political (each estate’s power in government) distress were factors that would have catalyzed a revolution unaffected by who ran government. It is true that Napoleon’s appeal to the peasants, healing of religious division, and domestic initiatives, which gave the French a sense of stability and national unity. would have helped him 1789. However, it was because his rule began after chaos that he was so well accepted. He offered the stability the French was so desperate for. If Napoleon demonstrated his strength in 1789 while the estates were fighting for power in government, I do not think he would have been received well. All these things that Napoleon did well would not have been enough to stop the tide of the French Revolution. Additionally, Napoleon took away freedom during his reign by confiscating women’s rights, freedom of press and speech, and placing spies everywhere. 

All of which would have hurt him during a time when the French were fighting for greater freedom. 

Napoleon vs. the world

Countries such as Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Great Britain formed coalitions to check Napoleon’s new found strength and create a balance of power in Europe. Austria, Prussia, and Russia were actually once allies of the Napoleon’s Great Empire, but joined the coalition when Napoleon turned on them and they saw how he threatened their power. Napoleon retaliated via the Continental System in which France did not trade with England and a blockade was placed on them. Two important battles to remember are: the Battle of Trafalgar and the Battle of Waterloo. 

The Battle of Trafalgar occurred on October 21, 1805. Napoleon tried to bring his Mediterranean fleet around Gibraltar to northern France and the combined French and Spanish fleets were annihilated by Lord Nelson. 

Battle of Trafalgar 

The Battle of Waterloo occurred on June 18, 1815 after the Hundred Days (when Napoleon returned to power in France). It is important because it ended the Hundred Days and Napoleon’s reign. The allies curshed Napoleon’s forces and Napoleon was imprisoned in St. Helena off the coast of Africa. 

Battle of Waterloo 

Napoleon vs. Metternich 

Nationalism and liberalism was the two headed monster Metternich wanted to slay. 

Napoleon encouraged nationalism by encroaching on regions beyond central France. In facing the threat of France, countries such as Italy and Germany found unity against a common enemy. Napoleon ignited nationalistic tendencies by causing regions to want to form their own government and have a say in it. Metternich worked to put out these nationalistic fires. French nationalism grew because their country was expanding and because of the Napoleonic code. Metternich valued legitimacy, in which there is a hereditary absolutist monarchy, and stability, or balance of power in Europe. Basically, Metternich wanted to prevent another Napoleon. 

Napoleon was small in stature, but definitely not in power and strength.