The Industrial Revolution began in the 18th century and continued on throughout the majority of the 19th century. It was a time when industry began to boom, and products were being manufactured faster than ever before. But in a nutshell what was the industrial revolution?
The Industrial Revolution was a period in history where the effects of scientific and technological development were very apparent. Factories became a prominent change at the time with the creation of the manufacturing process. This pushed out products more quickly than ever before. This lowered prices, which enabled more people to be able to access more things. This improved the agricultural situation, and lowered the demand of agriculture because new and better tools were created to help the farmer. Overall this was a very exciting time in history, and was crucial in the development of the west.
Mary Wollstonecraft(1759-1797), was one of the earliest feminists in history. Her major work, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, contained her major ideas and beliefs on the topic of women’s rights. What were some of the points that Wollstonecraft made in the excerpts I read from the beginning of her major written work? What would she like to see changed in European society?
Mary’s written work was intended to lift women up to the intellectual level of the men at the time. Mary did not like the qualities of the majority of women at the time, who in her opinion were frivolous and weak. Which was her reasoning on why women were not treated justly by men. She wanted women to now lift themselves up so they can be seen as intellectual beings instead of a beautiful object.
Friedrich Gentz(1764-1832), was a German diplomat and writer, who in his written work: The Origins and Principles of the American Revolution, Compared With the Origins and Principles of the French Revolution, compared the American and French revolutions. How does Friedrich Gentz distinguish between the American and the French Revolutions? Do I see the influence of the Irish statesman, Edmund Burke in Gentz’ thinking?
Gentz distinguished between the two revolutions on the note of tradition; both revolutions revolved around tradition but in different ways. For example the American revolution revolved around preserving and defending the old traditions and ways of England such as freedom, which was being changed by the English themselves. The French Revolution on the completely opposite note wanted to destroy and get rid of everything from the past, to demolish everything from the past government, regardless of the fact that some of those traditions are in place for a good reason. Edmund Burke’s influence is seen in Gentz’ thinking because some of the specific points that Gentz made in his comparisons were quite similar to those of Burke’s, who was critical towards the French Revolution.
Thus, the way that Friedrich Gentz distinguishes between the American and French Revolution is by pointing out how both revolutions revolved around tradition one way or another, in opposite ways. His thinking is influenced by Edmund Burke who was critical of the French Revolution.
The French Revolution(1789-1799), was a very tense and heated situation, which quickly accelerated into full on chaos and destruction. But what were the principles of the French Revolution in the early years of the Revolution, or the first three years of the Revolution?
The first three years of the Revolution was the laying of the foundation of a new government, which included a new constitution. This was the time when the lands of the church were being confiscated, and the church was beginning to receive pressure into changing the way it was run. The first three years were probably the most reasonable and mellow, but after this period of three years things went into further madness, with the execution of many individuals. Thus, these were the principles of the French Revolution in its first three years.
France during the later period of the 18th century was in complete disarray, with financial struggles, and a number of other problems, which ultimately led to the French Revolution. Before the Revolution itself a meeting was held of the Estates General; what happened at this meeting that set the French Revolution in motion?
The Third Estate(the commoners), of the three Estates in the Estates General, wanted equal voting rights, since they had no representation. At the beginning of the French Revolution the people involved wanted to be rid of heavy debt and taxes, while also abolishing the privilege of the aristocrats. The Third Estate also wanted a new constitution of France, which was one of their ultimate goals, which was eventually carried out in 1791.
The French Revolution was probably one of the most impactful events in European history or at least the history of France. It completely altered the course of the French government, or how France was to be governed; changing it from a monarchy.
In the history of revolutions the American Revolution probably was the most successful in many ways, and was a revolution that was not carried out for the wrong principles. Like every revolution the American Revolution had its causes, and the reason why it was carried out. Before this revolution America or technically the thirteen colonies was under control of the British; the colonies and Britain got along alright during the beginning but things began to sour. Before the revolution itself there was a constitutional dispute between the colonists and the British government. What was this constitutional dispute between the colonists and the British government that ultimately led to the American Revolution?
The colonists wanted a government that they themselves governed with little involvement from the British. The British government had other ideas, and began to put in place new taxes, which the colonists rejected. In 1767 in the Townshend Acts, the colonists boycotted these new taxes which forced the British to repeal them. They repealed all the new taxes except for the one on tea, which was to show that they still had control over the colonists. This control did not last much longer though.
To conclude, this was the constitutional dispute between the colonists and the British Government that led to the American Revolution.
Redistribution of wealth done by the state is a controversial topic, with many points on one side and many points on another. Some may say that the state has the right to redistribute wealth for the “good,” of the less fortunate, and others completely are against it. Regardless of these views and the large debate surrounding redistribution I might ask, does the state actually have the right to redistribute wealth?
First of all, what does the redistribution of wealth mean? The redistribution of wealth is a concept in which one group(aka the government in this situation), takes from one group and gives to another. This in government situations usually comes in the form of taxes. The statement, “tax the rich, and give to the poor,” pretty much defines what redistribution is, except a lot of the time in today’s society the people who are taxed in the majority are the middle class. The words, “taking from one group,” sounds very similar to the concept of stealing; stealing is taking from one group or an individual. Which is why I believe that redistribution of wealth is technically stealing if one looks at it in that light.
Does the state have the right to redistribute wealth? Like, somebody does not have the right to steal from another, the state also does not have the right to steal also. One could say that, “it’s different from stealing because the state is giving the money to a group,” but the act of obtaining the money to give is the same as the concept of stealing, though it is masked through taxes, etc. But the state technically does not have the right whatsoever to redistribute wealth; just because they are able to in some societies does not mean it is a “right,” or is right to do so.
To conclude, the state does not have the right to redistribute wealth, regardless of that “wealth,” being given to the less fortunate. A “right,” does not involve the taking or stealing from others. Regardless of this truth, redistribution of wealth is still a highly debated topic that will most likely not be resolved any time soon.
During the Enlightenment period in Europe there were quite a few rulers who actually adopted some of the beliefs, new ideas, and principles in their rule, which was thus “enlightened absolutism.” The majority of these rulers also fell into the category of being an absolutist monarch which was why this new way of rule is known as “enlightened absolutism.”
The key features of an “enlightened absolutist,” ruler include: interaction and discussion with well known enlightenment philosophers, religious toleration, judicial reform, etc. These rulers did not necessarily give more freedom to their “people,” but they were not as harsh as before the enlightenment. This new form of rule was especially seen in the countries of Prussia and Austria. To conclude, this is “enlightened absolutism.”
The War of Austrian Succession(1740-1748), involved the Prussian king Frederick II, and the Austrian ruler, Maria Theresa. Both contending parties had different reasons to wage this war. But what were the overall causes and consequences of the war of Austrian Succession?
The causes of this war included the truth that Maria Theresa was overlooked as a ruler until she became a pretty dominant power. This led to her being bribed and pressured by other rulers including Frederick II, who wanted a piece of land called Silesia, which was part of Theresa’s territory. She rejected those bribes which thus brought forth the War of Austrian Succession. The war itself had victories on both sides, but ultimately in the end Frederick was ultimately victorious, and thus winning the land of Silesia. In short, those were the causes and consequences of the War of Austrian Succession.
Adam Smith(1723-1790), was an important British economist and figure of the Scottish Enlightenment period. Smith further developed the concept of economics and was a pretty important influence to the founders of America. One of his economic concepts is known as the “Invisible Hand.” What does Smith mean by his concept of the “Invisible Hand?”
The “Invisible Hand,” in Smith’s definition is the demands of society, or the trading market, which depends on self interest. Smith stated that when someone is led by their self-interest, they usually end up helping others in the outcome, which is the “Invisible Hand,” guiding them. This is only really possible in a free market society. Thus, this is what Adam Smith meant by the “Invisible Hand.”