revolution

Witness to a Revolution, was one of the greatest writers of her age. She passionately campaigned for women’s education, denounced sex discrimination, and matched intelligence not only with her husband, John, but also with Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. She wrote more than two thousand letters about her legacy that her family members saved, recognizing their importance and ignoring her plea to burn them. Abigail’s letters are her biography and it is through them that we understand her unique character, sense of humor, independent spirit, and her English language.

It is through her writing that opens a window to our nation’s history and brings Abigail Adams and her time to life. On November 11, 1744, Abigail Adams was born Abigail Smith. She lived in a small town of Weymouth, Massachusetts and lived with her two parents William and Elizabeth Quincy Smith. She had two sisters and one brother, Mary, Elizabeth, and William. When Abigail was a little girl she always asked her mother if she could go to school. Her mother said no so her grandmother taught her to read and write at home.

Abigail loved to read books from her father’s library and listened in on her father’s meetings. She loved books and politics and was a very clever and talented girl. As a teenager, Abigail had many friends that she wrote letters to. She was always very self-conscious and worried about her spelling and punctuation since she didn’t have a proper education. One of Abigail’s many friends who wrote letters to her was John Adams. When Abigail was nineteen years old she married John Adams on October 25, 1764.

John Adams was a lawyer in the Smith family home of Weymouth, Massachusetts and was married by Abigail’s father, Reverend Smith. As a married couple they moved to Braintree and lived in a house that John inherited from his father. John was a very intelligent man who wanted to become a farmer as a boy, but his father discouraged it and sent him away to school. John got his education from Harvard College and this is where he became a lawyer. John and Abigail had five children together. Their first daughter, Abigail nicknamed Nabby, who was born on July 19, 1765.

Their second child was John who was born on July 17, 1767. Susan was born December 28, 1768, but passed away a year later. Their son Charles was born May 29, 1770 and on September 15, 1770 their son Thomas was born. In 1767, the Adams family was living in Braintree Mass. When the British started requiring taxes on American documents, John knew he wanted to help the colonies and became a well-known spokesman. He was away from home a lot so in 1768, Abigail moved her family to Boston. After the Boston Tea Party event they moved their family back to Braintree.

While John was away traveling it was up to Abigail to raise her first daughter Nabby, along with managing the farm and family money. She also taught a black slave how to read and write. When John was away she was often very lonely and writing letters made her feel better along with the birth of her second child John. John and Abigail had a very good marriage and relationship. She was very intrigued with politics and books and would often ask John what was going on in the world, which was very unusual for women to do so. They often talked about women’s rights.

When John was away Abigail would write to him reminding him of the women. Meaning that he should include women’s rights in the continental congress. In 1770 the Boston Massacre happened where the fire bells were ringing. Abigail rushed home afraid her house may be on fire but were relieved to find out they were safe. The bells sounding the town meant trouble. Some teenage boys were throwing rocks and snow at British soldier, which lead to the soldiers shooting five people dead, and six were very injured. This even was known as the Boston Massacre.

In 1775 the battle of Concord and Lexington marked the beginning of the Revolutionary War. Many people fled Boston for fear of attacks. Abigail invited them in for food and shelter and wrote, “The house is in state of confusion. ” When Johnny was eight years old, Abigail took her son to watch a battle on Breed’s Hill in Boston on June 17th, 1775. After seeing the terrible battle of Bunker Hill she wrote to her husband who showed her letters to George Washington and other leaders about the people’s suffering. In August 1776 the Declaration of Independence was written.

Abigail became the first First Lady to ever live in the White House when John was elected Presidents over the United States. As first Lady she spoke out in favor of the women’s rights. Abigail Adams in an example of a life lived by women in colonial, Revolutionary. While she is best known as an early First Lady and the role she took for women’s rights in letters to her husband she is also known as a farm manager and financial manager. Abigail passed away on October 28, 1818 of typhoid fever. She is buried beside her husband in Quincy, Massachusetts.

She was seventy-three when she died and her last words were, “Do not grieve, my friend, my dearest friend. I am ready to go. And John, it will not be long. ” –Abigail Adams The wife of the second president and the mother of five children, Abigail Adams was an extraordinary women. She experienced the Revolutionary War and saw the battle of Bunker Hill from a hilltop near her home. The letters written by Abigail Adams to her friends and family bring the Revolutionary period alive, with every day life changing events of her time.

She is given her own place in history in this award winning biography that she deserved and more. Natalie S. Bober wrote Abigail Adams, Witness to a Revolution because writing biographies did not only fascinate her, but her goal was to make Abigail Adams heard by everyone. She wanted us readers to know how much of a role she played in sticking up for women’s rights, being a good wife to her husband by caring for her family while he was away, and the decisions she had to make as a strong independent woman that changed the Revolutionary period and made her who she is today.

I don’t think the author took any sides or had any arguments while reading this book. Natalie Bober took a lot of time to research and search many old documents to put together this award winning biography. Reading this book I would recommend it to any strong independent women to reinsure us that there are great role models for us women to look up to. I only hope to be as courageous, intelligent and independent as Abigail Adams some day.

D. Revolutionary Changes in the Atlantic World, 1750-1850

1. The American Revolution never went through the radical phases that the French Revolution did. Yet, the nineteenth-century French government was more conservative than the nineteenth-century U.S. government. Explain.

The American Revolution is not as tough and Radical as the French Revolution because

France provided American forces with financial help and armor support during the American Revolution. The Americans are also greatly influenced by some philosophers that made them not to look up to French’s form of government as a model even though France provided coalitions and even send off fleet and an army to help them triumphed battles effectively.

French government is more conservative than the U.S government during the 19th century because of the absolute monarchy of French government. Americans never went through radical changes since they followed a series  of  board intellectual shifts and social shifts as well that gave them new republican ideals that expands democracy among  American people and created the ethic that formed the core of American political values.

2. What similarities and differences do you see between the nineteenth-century revolutions in Latin America and their French and American predecessors?

The similarities between the 19th century revolution in America and their French American predecessors is that they began to inherit political powers and the idea of a democratic government where the consent lies on the government’s consent. Assertion of liberty, individual rights, equality and hostility towards corruption which are considered as American core values greatly influenced their predecessors. This made realizations to them that they could also break away and become self governing nations.

E. The Early Industrial Revolution

1. How did events in the eighteenth century lead to industrialization in the nineteenth century?  What was the most important catalyst for industrialization?

The industrial Revolution was a result of the outgrown of institutional and social changes in Britain right after the 17th century English Civil War  and  technological innovation

The presence of a large domestic market should also be considered an important driver of the Industrial Revolution, particularly explaining why it occurred in Britain. In other nations, such as France, markets were split up by local regions, which often imposed tolls and tariffs on goods traded amongst them. (Deane, Phyllis. The First Industrial Revolution, Cambridge University Press.)

2. Compare and contrast the impact of the Industrial Revolution on men and women.  How was family life affected by industrialization?

Industrial Revolution have different impact on men and women for men it paved way for more work ad encourage them to more enhanced way of labor through innovation and technology. Forced labor and child labor is also rampant during the years of Industrial revolution which gave workers longer working hours. Women’s job like factories of clothings and the weaving industry is affected by Industrial revolution because machines takes place of the job which is supposedly for the works of women.

The Great Exhibition of 1851 site http://www.victorianstation.com/palace.html

Liberte, Egalite, and Fraternite were the main principles of the French revolution. However, it was a time where these three ideals would be twisted into nothing more than moral and physical violence. The revolution was ultimately a failure which spun out of control and began to murder itself. The French wanted Freedom from its absolutist ruler, but in turn saw themselves being governed by the devil. These citizens wanted a sense of brotherhood amongst their country, but saw their nation being torn apart by violence.

Furthermore, the third estate sought to benefit from a new government that promised equality; however, the result was a further imbalance in an already corrupt society. Ironically, the gruesome reign of terror which was fabricated by the French government, contradicted the ideals of which the very revolution stood for, further illustrating the utter failure of this event. In the beginning, the French saw the revolution as a way to improve their lives, but this path quickly turned into a horrifying ascent into oblivion, which aside from immense suffering, achieved nothing.

During the reign of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, revolutionary ideas flourished through the age of enlightenment. However, Louis made a crucial mistake by aiding the American Revolution; although it was a military success, it was an economic failure. France was bankrupt and the people were starving; they watched as their monarchs, nobles and aristocracy live a life of luxury and wealth while they suffered through poverty, drastically changing how the citizens perceived their monarch. Soon this resentment transformed into pure hatred and nothing could be done to change their minds.

Before long the people revolted and Louis’ powers were stripped away, a new man was then put in his place, Robespierre. Maximilien Francois Marie Isidore de Robespierre was a man who had great power and abused it; to some he was “The Incorruptible”, but in reality was a blood thirsty dictator. As a young man, he studied the law and held a reputation for honesty and compassion. He sought to abolish the death penalty and refused to pronounce a required death sentence after becoming a judge : A victor who kills his captive enemies is called a barbarian!

A grown man who kills a child that he could disarm and punish seems to us a monster! An accused man condemned by society is nothing else for it but a defeated and powerless enemy. Before it, he is weaker than a child before a grown man — to erase from the code of the French the blood laws that command judicial murders, and that their morals and their new constitution reject. I want to prove to them: 1- that the death penalty is essentially unjust and, 2- that it isn’t the most repressive of penalties and that it multiplies crimes more than it prevents them.

However, as the revolution progressed so did his ideas; he soon became the head of the Jacobin club, a radical group who advocated exile or death for the French nobility. By this time the once soft and kind-hearted man, was now replaced by one who had developed a great love of power along with a reputation of intolerance, self-righteousness and cruelty . Robespierre quickly came to a conclusion that the end would justify the means, and that in order to defend the revolution against those who would destroy it, the shedding of blood was justified.

Merlin de Thionville who was a member of several French legislative bodies said commented that: “In those days so rotten had France become that a bloody mountebank without talent or courage, whose name was Robespierre, made every citizen tremble under his tyranny”. The French now lived under fear and oppression of a man who no longer cared for the people of the revolution but rather the revolution itself. Using his great oratory skills he successfully demanded the execution of the king and queen without fair trial or judgement, saying that “Louis must die so that the revolution may live”.

In January 1973 Louis XVI was executed, followed by his wife ten months later. By his own words he had become a monster, “A victor who kills his captive enemies is called a barbarian” . A nation cannot be one when the people do not believe in the ideals of the government. The revolution was merely a civil war which pitted citizens against one another. While many people believed in the revolution, they did not accept the extremist ideas of the Jacobins, and for that thousands of ordinary people were targeted and killed.

The September Massacres was a subsequent mass killing of prisoners, after news that the Prussian Army had invaded France. On September 3, 1792, crowds of French citizens stormed into the prisons where they attacked prisoners and refractory clergy, regardless of their status as counter revolutionary. An account of this event by Nicolas-Edme Restif illustrates the torture the citizens inflicted on the prisoners who were their “brothers”: There had been a pause in the murders. Something was going on inside. . . . I told myself that it was over at last.

Finally, I saw a woman appear, as white as a sheet, being helped by a turnkey. They said to her harshly: “Shout ‘Vive la nation! ‘” “No! No! ” she said. They made her climb up on a pile of corpses. One of the killers grabbed the turnkey and pushed him away. “Oh! ” exclaimed the ill-fated woman, “do not harm him! ” They repeated that she must shout “Vive la nation! ” With disdain, she refused. Then one of the killers grabbed her, tore away her dress, and ripped open her stomach. She fell, and was finished off by the others. Never could I have imagined such horror. I wanted to run, but my legs gave way.

I fainted. When I came to, I saw the bloody head. Someone told me they were going to wash it, curl its hair, stick it on the end of a pike, and carry it past the windows of the Temple. What pointless cruelty! . . The number of active killers who took part in the massacres was about one hundred and fifty. The rest of Paris looked on with fear or approval, and the rest behind closed shutters, signifying the destruction of unity through the people. With a country whose citizens mercilessly killed one another, how could the French have a sense of Fraternite amongst themselves?

A Nation is not united under fear and death but rather through peace and prosperity, which was clearly the opposite of the French Revolution. Equality was promised to the third estate, but the revolution did not create a balance. What it did was further upset the structure of society. In turn the first and second estate was removed from power, and the bourgeoisie put in their place. The rest of the third estate which included the peasants and the working class (sans-culottes), were left with nothing: They were the working people, the farmers, the shop owners, the trades people, the artisans, and even the factory workers.

They were among the prominent losers of the first, more subtle revolution. While the middle class and wealthy classes benefitted greatly from the revolution, the sans-culottes saw their livelihoods disappearing and inflation driving them to fight for survival. The sans-culottes and peasants were generally poor and had little power, they could not vote, hold office, or own land because they did not have the means to do so. Since they could not own land, peasants were angry that they had traded one master for another; once again they had found themselves at the bottom of the ladder.

The Sans-culottes atoned for this by aligning themselves with the Jacobins. While this alliance gave them a facade of power, they were nothing more than henchmen to a group of radical thinkers who needed people to do their dirty work. However, at the end, many of the Sans-culottes found themselves imprisoned and executed by the very revolutionary tribunals that they had supported. The revolution gave nothing more than an illusion of what the common masses craved; while the first and second estates were gone, a new powerful and cruel organization made up of the bourgeoisie were put in their place.

The Reign of Terror was designed to fight the enemies of the revolution; with that in mind the revolution was no longer about freedom, equality and brotherhood, but rather an extremist form of revolutionary ideals. Anyone who had not aligned themselves with the Jacobin rule or had talent and power were seen as a threat to the new revolution, they were subsequently dubbed as traitors and sentenced to the guillotine. For the first time in history, terror became an official government policy, with the intent to use violence to achieve political goals.

In the course of this reign the new regime managed to execute thousands of people who were considered as having the potential to stand up or overthrow the government. Through this, scores of influential people were falsely accused. In one particular execution, a woman by the name of Mme Roland uttered the words that have been immortalized by history, “O Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name”. She was right, the revolution had abused and committed crimes against not only the idea of liberte, but also of egalite and fraternite.

Every person who placed their head upon the guillotine, were there because the three ideals which the revolution stood for were corrupted to support the extremist views of the Jacobins. The modern era has unfolded the shadows of the French revolution. Ultimately this time period did not bring any successes, but rather the opposite. The revolution was purely the product of a few conspiratorial individuals who brainwashed the masses into subverting the old order. The promises of egalite, equalite, and fraternite, were soon lost as violence and bloodshed set in.

The French were eager to be free of the constricting class system and absolute monarchy. However, the people found themselves under the rule of a man who oppressed the people into an absolute state of obedience. Furthermore, the French wanted a sense of unity throughout their country, but instead resorted to the brutal murders of their own people. Ultimately, this reformation was caused by an upset in the balance of equality amongst the classes. The third estate was promised equal status by the revolution, but in the end only the bourgeoisie emerged victorious.

Ironically, the reign of terror distorted the three main ideals for which the revolution stood for. Through the guidance of corrupted leaders, these ideas were washed away in bloodshed. The French revolution is an usurpation of power gone wrong, at the end of this ten year period, nothing was gained, yet everything was lost. The people who once saw this transformation as the answer to an oppressive regime soon realized that had simply set themselves up for a meeting with death.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1706) belonged to the same generation of philosophers.  However, both philosophers viewed English Revolution differently.  Hobbes had experienced the English Revolution as a time of brutality.  Thence, the philosopher compared the revolution to what he referred to as the “state of nature” (or, a state of primitiveness).

This state was ruthless and uncouth.  Hobbes believed that revolutions were similarly a negative state, and in order to guard itself against the malice of revolutions, society needed a strong king and strict governance, somewhat akin to the Panopticon state of Michel Foucault.  Locke, on the other hand, lauded the concept of revolution as a necessity during times of governmental disturbance.  In other words, the philosopher with a good view of revolution believed in dismantling the government if it does not work (“Locke and Hobbes”).

Sharp (2006) explains the difference between Locke’s and Hobbes’ viewpoints on revolution thus:

At least part of the difference between Hobbes and Locke can be attributed to their historical circumstances.  Hobbes witnessed the English Civil War, which destroyed every opportunity for happiness for many people.  His all-powerful state must have seemed like the lesser of two evils, since it would at least be stable and life would not devolve into anarchy.   Locke, however, witnessed the Glorious Revolution, where the government was completely changed without bloodshed.

For him, revolution must not have seemed like such a terrible thing.  Most likely, both views are too extreme.  Revolution is usually a costly endeavor, since those in power rarely relinquish it willingly.  However, the possibility or revolution is a key  part of maintaining rights, since an all-powerful government could suppress our rights without fear of repercussion.

Hobbes, being senior to Locke in age and experience, had apparently seen a bloody war that Locke had not been a witness of.  Thus, the views of the philosophers differed with respect to the English Revolution.  Had Locke also lived through the English Civil War, he might have been bitter about the idea of revolution as well.  Nevertheless, it is important to note that both philosophers believed in human rights.  Locke was not a violent agitator.  Furthermore, it is clear that his philosophy on revolution was written with ultimate peace in mind.

Locke wrote about “abuse of power by the government” as a reason for a revolution.  In order to serve justice, he considered it ethical for citizens to fight for their rights, even if they must fight the government for the same reason.  In Locke’s view, “rebellion” was a necessity at times of governmental corruption and dissidence.  Besides, in the perspective of the philosopher, the people could be trusted to make decisions as regards civil rights.  The important matter to consider remained, however, that people could achieve “restoration of their rights” via a revolution (Kemerling, 2000).

Locke’s philosophy on revolution makes the kinds of allowances for the common people that Hobbes’ philosophy does not allow for.  In the latter’s view, revolutions are bad because they lead to bloodshed.  So therefore, governments should be strong enough to rule the people without letting them express their agitation in any form whatsoever.

Locke’s philosophy can debate with Hobbes’ view quite simply by claiming that the victims of bloodshed are usually the common people; and if they are the ones taking responsibility for a revolution, they are the ones also responsible for guarding their safety at all costs during a revolution.  Governments that try to quell public rebellion through military violence are bad in any case.  Hence, the public is right in demolishing such governments.  At the same time, the public must protect itself from the agitation of the government during a revolution.

Thus Locke’s philosophy of revolution allows for public liberty unlike Hobbes’ philosophy, which is similar to the Panopticon.  Michel Foucault’s (1995) Panopticism begins with a detailed description of the measures to be taken against a seventeenth century plague.

The government was meant to exercise absolute control over all citizens during such time, as spaces were to be partitioned and houses were to be closed off.  Stray animals were to be killed, and human beings were to be advised that they could only leave town if they wanted to be killed too.  Moreover, guards were to be put on duty to keep a constant eye on the people.  Every guard was to be informed that “if he leaves the street, he will be condemned to death.”

The government aimed to create a pure and disciplined community through these orders.  What is more, as Foucault points out, it was a “political dream” to create such an obedient community, even for a brief period of time.  Such an obedient community happens to be a model for other communities and other times.  This plagued community was further marked by:

…strict divisions; not laws transgressed, but the penetration of regulation into even the smallest details of everyday life through the mediation of the complete hierarchy that assured the capillary functioning of power; not masks that were put on and taken off, but the assignment to each individual of his ‘true’ name, his ‘true’ place, his ‘true’ body, his ‘true’ disease.  The plague as a form, at once real and imaginary, of disorder had as its medical and political correlative discipline.  Behind the disciplinary mechanisms can be read the haunting memory of ‘contagions’, of the plague, of rebellions, crimes, vagabondage, desertions, people who appear and disappear, live and die in disorder.

The Panopticon state is the literal embodiment of Hobbes’ philosophy of government.  Totally unlike Locke’s state of freedom, which is equal to democracy in present times, Hobbes’ is a restrictive state with police control at best.  From these two differing philosophies of government arise two dissimilar, defining concepts of revolution.  People through history have found it difficult to believe in both at the same time.  To answer their concerns, both Hobbes and Locke advise their readers and thinkers to use their reason in changing or adopting a form of government (Sharp).

References

Focault, Michel. (1995). Panopticism. Retrieved 20 May 2007, from

c.

Kemerling, Garth. (2000). Locke: Social Order. Philosophy Pages. Retrieved 20 May 2007, from

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4n.htm.

Locke and Hobbes, Two Contrasting Views of the English Revolution. Retrieved 20 May 2007,

from http://www.iun.edu/~hisdcl/h114_2002/Locke%20and%20Hobbes.htm.

Sharp, Robert. (2006, September 5). Hobbes Vs. Locks: A Question of Rights. Retrieved 20 May

2007, from http://philosophy.suite101.com/article.cfm/hobbes_vs__locke.