In the 1800's, women did not have some...or even most of the opportunities that they do today. The laws were different so that men, in all situations, were the dominant gender. Men were made out to be the superior gender. Whether it was jobs, ownership of property, or even freedom of speech; women were shut down. When women tried to get their rights and fight for their beliefs, it didn't always work. But eventually, they got what they asked for. But there were many steps along the way.
Back before women had all of their rights, there were four characteristics of an ideal woman. Piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity; these were what an ideal woman should have. Piety meant that women should have religious devotion, they should always go to church and must believe in God. Purity meant that women should be pure and cherish her greatest treasure, her virginity. Submissiveness means that women should keep themselves nice and proper and always follow the rules. Lastly, domesticity means that they should care for the house. Women should stay in their homes and do all the chores and care for the children while men were at work. Doesn't seem that fair for the women, does it?
The Seneca Falls Convention was a way that women hoped they could get their voice out there. It was a meeting in July of 1848 where people gathered to discuss women's rights in the U.S. 300 people went to the convention, believe or not but 40 of those people were men! That shows that women weren't the on;y ones who believed that women should be given more fair rights. It seems that only the voices of the rich white women were heard that day. Women of different ethnicity, different culture, and different social class were at the convention but were there but their voices weren't as important as the rich white women.
I think that women should be given almost all the rights they were restricted of. Freedom of speech is the most important because everyone deserves to be heard. It's included in the Declaration of Independence! Why should they be cut of that freedom now? Women still aren't considered equal to men in some places in the modern day life, but times have definitely changed for the better. If change keeps happening like the way that it has over the past couple hundred years, women will one day be equally treated.
Friday, February 27, 2015
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Congress of Vienna
I was absent in class during this discussion but I was able to learn a little about the Congress of Vienna by asking fellow classmates and by reading the packet about it. I learned about who they were and what they did. I also thought a little about the essential question, which was "What should people in power do when their power is threatened?" This is talking about Metternich and the other important people of the Congress of Vienna when the threat of Napoleon was defeated.
One concept that Metternich and other members of the Congress of Vienna used to defeat Napoleon was Principle of Legitimacy. This concept was used to defeat Napoleon and had him be replaced by King Louis XVIII. This concept also returned France back to its original Monarchy government. France also lost control of other European states. The Congress of Vienna was in favor of this because it restored settlement in France and also prevented revolt.
I think that the Congress of Vienna did the right thing by coming up with these 5 concepts. I think this because they showed that France wasn't the bad guy, it was Napoleon who was causing all of the problems. They also made it so that each European state had their own amount of power, so that no states would have control of another. Some powerful people should be able to sacrifice some of their power under some circumstances. But if they are able to prevent having to sacrifice anything, like the Congress of Vienna, they should do exactly what was done. Which was make ways to maintain their power and risk nothing.
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/graphics/Art_Work/history/congress_of_vienna.jpg
One concept that Metternich and other members of the Congress of Vienna used to defeat Napoleon was Principle of Legitimacy. This concept was used to defeat Napoleon and had him be replaced by King Louis XVIII. This concept also returned France back to its original Monarchy government. France also lost control of other European states. The Congress of Vienna was in favor of this because it restored settlement in France and also prevented revolt.
I think that the Congress of Vienna did the right thing by coming up with these 5 concepts. I think this because they showed that France wasn't the bad guy, it was Napoleon who was causing all of the problems. They also made it so that each European state had their own amount of power, so that no states would have control of another. Some powerful people should be able to sacrifice some of their power under some circumstances. But if they are able to prevent having to sacrifice anything, like the Congress of Vienna, they should do exactly what was done. Which was make ways to maintain their power and risk nothing.
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/graphics/Art_Work/history/congress_of_vienna.jpg
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Napoleon's Influence
Napoleon Bonaparte (or "Little Boney) is said top be one of the greatest leaders of all time. Conquering countless countries, taking power of most of Europe, all at a mere 5 and a half feet tall. Countries in Europe hated Napoleon, but at the same time most respected him for his great leadership and power. The way people viewed Napoleon was varied because some people had different ways they were effected by Napoleon. Whether or not they liked him didn't matter at all, because they all know how huge his effect on Europe was. He effected Europe in 3 main ways; economically, politically, and socially.
Napoleons political effect on Europe was definitely his biggest effect. This is because of all of the countries that he conquered. He didn't only conquer European countries, but he definitely focused on those ones and also those had the greatest impact. He had power over many European countries, such as France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and many others. He also strongly influenced Austria and Prussia. Napoleon would conquer these countries and then change the way their government work. He created Meritocracy, which is a way of government in which social class depended on skill and not wealth. When Madam de Stael talks about how Napoleon had an influence on government, she says "His system was to encroach (Intrude) daily upon France's liberty and Europe's independence...By alternating between cunning and force he has subjugated (Conquered) Europe." Here, she's talking about how she viewed the doings of Napoleon. She was more a part of the Old French Government so she wasn't really ready for the change. But Marshal Michel Ney was all for Napoleon, he said "To the emporer Napoleon, our sovereign, belongs alone the right to rule over our beautiful country." So there were many views on what Napoleon was doing to the government. But eventually Napoleon changed the government system for the better, which allowed people to benefit, which is why his impact on political changes were so great.
Napoleon also had a great effect on Europe's economy. Napoleon expanded trade routes and allowed countries to trade with countries that they weren't able to trade with before. He did this by creating new canals and roads, this allowed trade to happen faster and easier. So this fast and easy trading allowed Europe to start making lots and lots of money really fast. Now that Europe was making all of this money, Napoleon established the Bank of France. This was balancing out the money in France which was make money less of a problem. This gave Napoleon a good view from his country, people were really starting to like him more and more because of how much of a great impact he had on Frances economy. This shows how much of a great impact Napoleon had on France's government.
Napoleon also had a very big social effect on Europe. When Napoleon created Meritocracy, he gave everyone a chance to move up in social class. The social classes were based off of skill and not money, or what family you were born into. The middle class was in love with this idea, and the middle class consisted of 98% of people in Europe. But the higher classes weren't too happy about this. Due to Napoleons change in the way things worker, they actually had to do work! It was quite an outrage. People were loving Napoleon but at the same time they were hating him. in The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians it says "Avoiding the large collection of Napoleonic memoirs and those authors who fall into either the hero-worship or anti-Napoleon categories, a review of the handful of the thousands of out-of-print biographies is useful, especially when focusing on those historians who freely shared their opinions about Napoleon." This shows how Napoleon created tons of different opinions and views on him not only back then, but even today.
So Napoleon did all that he could to change things in Europe. Whether it was socially, economically, or politically. He did manage to influence all of those things though. Whether you hated him or loved him, he had one of the greatest impacts on Europe as a whole in all of history.
Napoleons political effect on Europe was definitely his biggest effect. This is because of all of the countries that he conquered. He didn't only conquer European countries, but he definitely focused on those ones and also those had the greatest impact. He had power over many European countries, such as France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and many others. He also strongly influenced Austria and Prussia. Napoleon would conquer these countries and then change the way their government work. He created Meritocracy, which is a way of government in which social class depended on skill and not wealth. When Madam de Stael talks about how Napoleon had an influence on government, she says "His system was to encroach (Intrude) daily upon France's liberty and Europe's independence...By alternating between cunning and force he has subjugated (Conquered) Europe." Here, she's talking about how she viewed the doings of Napoleon. She was more a part of the Old French Government so she wasn't really ready for the change. But Marshal Michel Ney was all for Napoleon, he said "To the emporer Napoleon, our sovereign, belongs alone the right to rule over our beautiful country." So there were many views on what Napoleon was doing to the government. But eventually Napoleon changed the government system for the better, which allowed people to benefit, which is why his impact on political changes were so great.
Napoleon also had a great effect on Europe's economy. Napoleon expanded trade routes and allowed countries to trade with countries that they weren't able to trade with before. He did this by creating new canals and roads, this allowed trade to happen faster and easier. So this fast and easy trading allowed Europe to start making lots and lots of money really fast. Now that Europe was making all of this money, Napoleon established the Bank of France. This was balancing out the money in France which was make money less of a problem. This gave Napoleon a good view from his country, people were really starting to like him more and more because of how much of a great impact he had on Frances economy. This shows how much of a great impact Napoleon had on France's government.
Napoleon also had a very big social effect on Europe. When Napoleon created Meritocracy, he gave everyone a chance to move up in social class. The social classes were based off of skill and not money, or what family you were born into. The middle class was in love with this idea, and the middle class consisted of 98% of people in Europe. But the higher classes weren't too happy about this. Due to Napoleons change in the way things worker, they actually had to do work! It was quite an outrage. People were loving Napoleon but at the same time they were hating him. in The Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians it says "Avoiding the large collection of Napoleonic memoirs and those authors who fall into either the hero-worship or anti-Napoleon categories, a review of the handful of the thousands of out-of-print biographies is useful, especially when focusing on those historians who freely shared their opinions about Napoleon." This shows how Napoleon created tons of different opinions and views on him not only back then, but even today.
So Napoleon did all that he could to change things in Europe. Whether it was socially, economically, or politically. He did manage to influence all of those things though. Whether you hated him or loved him, he had one of the greatest impacts on Europe as a whole in all of history.
http://www.historyteacher.net/APEuroCourse/WebLinks/WebLinks-NapoleonicAge.htm
Friday, October 10, 2014
Blog Post #4 (Marx vs. Smith)
Class last Thursday was a very fun and delicious class. We, as a class, were distributed Starbursts as we walked into the door. Most students were handed 3 Starbursts, but some were handed 10. This uneven handing out of Starbursts represents the uneven distribution of money during the Industrial Revolution. Skill sets did not matter back then, if you were born into a poor family, you grew up poor. The people who were given 3 Starbursts represented those people. The people who were given 10 Starbursts represented the people who were born into rich family. Then students would play rock paper scissors, and the winner would take a Starburst from the loser of the game. Mrs. Bailey represented the government in this game, all she did was give out the Starbursts and then let everyone play. People ended up broke, cheating, and even stealing. This whole situation of uneven distribution represented Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism. This also represented Marx's idea of Laissez Faire , this means that the government let people do their own thing. But after after the class struggle and everyone complaining about all of the mayhem, Mrs. Bailey (The government) collected all of the Starbursts and redistributed an even amount to everyone. Then, she watched over and made sure there was no stealing but still allowed the people to make their own decisions. This represented Smith's idea of the Invisible Hand. After the redistribution of Starbursts, everyone seemed to be more happy with what they had and things worked out on their own.
Both Marx and Smith had very hands-off approaches for government leadership. Both of them wanted to help out the poor by changing the ways of the government. Marx's idea of Laissez Faire was that the government would take no role and let the people do their own thing. The idea was that people would take their own course and they would fix their ow things their way. Smith's idea of the Invisible Hand was a similar idea on how the people would make their won decisions on how they wanted their government to go. But the difference was the Invisible Hand was different then Laissez Faire, in the Invisible Hand, the government gave people guidance and then leave people alone and then the market would improve on its own. The Invisible Hand allowed people to make their own prices and keep lowering prices and keep competing with each other. Both of these ideas both help out the poor. During the Socratic Seminar we talked a lot about how both theories helped out the poor during this period of time. Julianne talked about how some people can be born into rich families and then have no ambition, and also some people are born into poor families and then have a huge ambition to proceed to do good and work hard. When we talked about how they both helped the poor, Mrs. Bailey said how not everyone get what they deserve and how people should be given the opportunities that everyone else gets. This shows how much of a change these theories were from the government at this time, and how this changes helped out the poor.
In my opinion I think that the Invisible Hand is a better theory is a better solution. I think this because even though both theories are hand off, the Invisible Hand theory gives guidance to the people. I think personally that this is a great solution for government because there is no main rules that hold people back. Also people aren't being held back by the social class they were born into. Also, people take their own roles in what they o, but it isn't just one giant free for all. People get their say, but also have the idea of whats going on. The market is being improved, but the government isn't doing it on their own. The people actually are doing most of the work, but aren't completely oblivious to what they're doing.
Both Marx and Smith had very hands-off approaches for government leadership. Both of them wanted to help out the poor by changing the ways of the government. Marx's idea of Laissez Faire was that the government would take no role and let the people do their own thing. The idea was that people would take their own course and they would fix their ow things their way. Smith's idea of the Invisible Hand was a similar idea on how the people would make their won decisions on how they wanted their government to go. But the difference was the Invisible Hand was different then Laissez Faire, in the Invisible Hand, the government gave people guidance and then leave people alone and then the market would improve on its own. The Invisible Hand allowed people to make their own prices and keep lowering prices and keep competing with each other. Both of these ideas both help out the poor. During the Socratic Seminar we talked a lot about how both theories helped out the poor during this period of time. Julianne talked about how some people can be born into rich families and then have no ambition, and also some people are born into poor families and then have a huge ambition to proceed to do good and work hard. When we talked about how they both helped the poor, Mrs. Bailey said how not everyone get what they deserve and how people should be given the opportunities that everyone else gets. This shows how much of a change these theories were from the government at this time, and how this changes helped out the poor.
In my opinion I think that the Invisible Hand is a better theory is a better solution. I think this because even though both theories are hand off, the Invisible Hand theory gives guidance to the people. I think personally that this is a great solution for government because there is no main rules that hold people back. Also people aren't being held back by the social class they were born into. Also, people take their own roles in what they o, but it isn't just one giant free for all. People get their say, but also have the idea of whats going on. The market is being improved, but the government isn't doing it on their own. The people actually are doing most of the work, but aren't completely oblivious to what they're doing.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Blog Post #3 (Luddites:Taking Sides)
Describing the Luddites isn't an easy things to do. They were a very controversial group back then, and still cause debates on whether or not what they did was right today. The Luddites were a group of skilled weavers, mechanics, and other artisans who attacked machines and factories in early industrialization. They were followers of a mythical man named "Ned Ludd" (who still to this day hasn't been proven to have existed) and Ludd apparently got fed up with working and destroyed a machine in one of the factories. The Luddites loved this idea of a man who stood up againts the man and did what he wanted to because he was driven by himself to do this, and not forced to by someone else. And whether or not Ned Ludd was a man or myth, he influenced this group of people to just start destroying machines in the factories . Men would dress in women's clothing and call themselves "General Ludd's Wives" and destroy these machines. They would do it out of mockery to the people who feared them. These men didn't break these machines for no reason, they were protesting. They were protesting against things like reduced skill in work, factory owners, and especially economic hardship. The next paragraph will be written in letter format. This is a mock letter from a skilled weaver to his/her cousin who lives in America describing the Luddites, what they do, how they have effected the weaver, and whether or not the weaver likes the Luddites.
Dear Adam Joos,
Hello cousin, how is everything? How do you like living in America? Lots of things have been happening lately here! Have you heard about these "Luddites" recently" They are a group of weavers, mechanics, and other workers who have been DESTROYING the machinery in factories! All I know about them is that they are rebelling against the government and destroying these machines because of things like the reduced skill in work, the factory owners, and because of the economy. As you know, I am a very skilled weaver, and these guys destroying the machines is costing the factories lots of money so I am afraid that I will be fired from my job. All of these factories opening up have given me a chance at making some money and being able to work all the time. But at the same time, I understand why these men are doing what they are doing. Like I said, these men are fellow weavers. I really like that these men are rebelling and destroying these machines. No one is in favor of the economy right now, not to mention these factories are awful. I am thinking of joining these Luddites and helping them proceed to do this so that the government will change their ways. Write back to me soon!
Yours Truly,
Sean Conroy
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Blog Post #2 (Option 2)
So far in this class we have talked about how much children have taken a role in the Industrial Revolution. But it seems that we have left out how big of a role women took in this period of time. You would wonder why women would want to leave their families and countries and come work in the Lowell Mills. The women that came to the Mills had some benefits from coming, but definitely had some costs that came with it.
The girls who came to the Mills were in way over their heads. They were not expecting to come to another country to have to work all day, make little money, and suffer these horrible conditions. But I mean, why would they come in that case? Instead of telling the girls what they would really be in for, the "Factory Agents" might have exaggerated a little bit. The video we watched called "Daughters of Free Men" talked about how these Factory Agents would come to homes, door to door, and ask the father of the family if they would be willing to send their daughter to America to work in factories and make some money. The Agents would always ask the father because the father of the family is the one who makes all of the decisions, the one who made sure all of the rules were followed, he was the overseer. So the Factory Agent would come and ask the father for his permission to send his daughter to America to come work in these factories where she would be making her own money.
But it was the way the Agent would ask that convinced the father. The Agent would talk about how the daughter of the man would develop lots of working skill, gain lady like habits, find a man to marry, and make herself some money. The video we watched talked about how this convinced the father because back then, women were viewed as fairly useless. They were literally viewed as just an extra mouth to feed. And when a woman met a man, the parents of the girl would pay the parents of the husband because they are basically "taking her off of their hands." This money being paid was called a dowry, so some of the money the woman would make would go towards her dowry. Once the father heard all of this, the daughter was as good as gone.
Believe it or not, their were some benefits of these girls being sent to the Mills in Lowell. The girls would be making their own money while working here. They would also develop friendships with fellow coworkers, they would develop working skills, and learn lady like manners. One of the huge reasons why the women came was because they thought they would meet a nice gentleman to marry. But at the same time there were definitely some costs that came with it. The conditions of the factories were not nearly as great as they were picturing it, "Daughters of Free Men" and the document on Edline called "Labor in Lowell" talks about how the conditions were awful and the work was extremely hard. Plus punishment was very severe for these girls, they would be locked in rooms, threatened, or even scalped.
The "Mill Girl" era ended right around the time of the Civil War, which was around 1863. This era came to an end because eventually the factories cut the pay of the women. When this happened, the women snapped. They went on strike in order to raise the wages, but the first time it didn't work. The women tried it a second time, this is when it finally worked, the factories had shut down. The document on Edline called "Women March in Lowell" talks about how the women made a great attempt, but the first strike ended up unsuccessful. It says "800 women walked out in protest, and held a march through the center of Lowell.
However, the owners quickly recruited replacements from the surrounding countryside, and the strike was defeated."
Describing the "Lowell Experiment" is very hard. Lots of different things happened in a short period of time. These women were persuaded to come to these factories that were projected to lead the woman to have a very nice and successful life. Then they were sent to the factories and realized how miserable it was going to be there. Then their payments got cut, so they protested, and failed. Then they protested again and it actually worked. The actions of these women lead on to women standing up for themselves and lots of them ended up joining the Women's Rights Activists. So a lot happened during Lowell Experiment, and a lot more happened due to the influential acts of these women during this time.
The girls who came to the Mills were in way over their heads. They were not expecting to come to another country to have to work all day, make little money, and suffer these horrible conditions. But I mean, why would they come in that case? Instead of telling the girls what they would really be in for, the "Factory Agents" might have exaggerated a little bit. The video we watched called "Daughters of Free Men" talked about how these Factory Agents would come to homes, door to door, and ask the father of the family if they would be willing to send their daughter to America to work in factories and make some money. The Agents would always ask the father because the father of the family is the one who makes all of the decisions, the one who made sure all of the rules were followed, he was the overseer. So the Factory Agent would come and ask the father for his permission to send his daughter to America to come work in these factories where she would be making her own money.
But it was the way the Agent would ask that convinced the father. The Agent would talk about how the daughter of the man would develop lots of working skill, gain lady like habits, find a man to marry, and make herself some money. The video we watched talked about how this convinced the father because back then, women were viewed as fairly useless. They were literally viewed as just an extra mouth to feed. And when a woman met a man, the parents of the girl would pay the parents of the husband because they are basically "taking her off of their hands." This money being paid was called a dowry, so some of the money the woman would make would go towards her dowry. Once the father heard all of this, the daughter was as good as gone.
Believe it or not, their were some benefits of these girls being sent to the Mills in Lowell. The girls would be making their own money while working here. They would also develop friendships with fellow coworkers, they would develop working skills, and learn lady like manners. One of the huge reasons why the women came was because they thought they would meet a nice gentleman to marry. But at the same time there were definitely some costs that came with it. The conditions of the factories were not nearly as great as they were picturing it, "Daughters of Free Men" and the document on Edline called "Labor in Lowell" talks about how the conditions were awful and the work was extremely hard. Plus punishment was very severe for these girls, they would be locked in rooms, threatened, or even scalped.
The "Mill Girl" era ended right around the time of the Civil War, which was around 1863. This era came to an end because eventually the factories cut the pay of the women. When this happened, the women snapped. They went on strike in order to raise the wages, but the first time it didn't work. The women tried it a second time, this is when it finally worked, the factories had shut down. The document on Edline called "Women March in Lowell" talks about how the women made a great attempt, but the first strike ended up unsuccessful. It says "800 women walked out in protest, and held a march through the center of Lowell.
However, the owners quickly recruited replacements from the surrounding countryside, and the strike was defeated."
Describing the "Lowell Experiment" is very hard. Lots of different things happened in a short period of time. These women were persuaded to come to these factories that were projected to lead the woman to have a very nice and successful life. Then they were sent to the factories and realized how miserable it was going to be there. Then their payments got cut, so they protested, and failed. Then they protested again and it actually worked. The actions of these women lead on to women standing up for themselves and lots of them ended up joining the Women's Rights Activists. So a lot happened during Lowell Experiment, and a lot more happened due to the influential acts of these women during this time.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Conditions During The Industrial Revolution
Conditions During The Industrial Revolution
Sean Conroy
9-16-14
G Block
If I were to wake up around 250 years ago, I would get up at 4:00 am to go to my dangerous and hazardous workplace, and then come home right around 9:00 pm and then go to bed to get ready for work again tomorrow. The Industrial Revolution began in the late 18th Century and and ended around the 1820’s. The Industrial Revolution happened in both the United States, and Great Britain. It was one of the most important things to happen to the United States. Everything we do has to do with the Industrial Revolution; technology, cars, tap water, plumbing, EVERYTHING! The Industrial Revolution happened in both the United States, and Great Britain. But even though it was so important, times were very hard for people during the Industrial Revolution, including young children. Children had to be at work at 5:00 am, would work until 12:00 pm where they would have a short lunch break, would eat dinner while still working at the machines, and then they would finally leave sometime between 9:00 pm and 11:00 pm. So, were the conditions for the workers during the Industrial Revolution inevitable? Absolutely not, but the child labor was most certainly necessary.
In the Background Essay, Dickens talks about how much he wants the British factories to be like the American factories. In the Background Essay, Dickens talks about how terrible the conditions were in the British Factories. So in American Notes, Document A, Charles Dickens talks about the upside of the conditions for the workers. He talks about how the girls looked healthy and clean, and the rooms they were staying in were always nice and neat. In Document A, it says “They were healthy in appearance, many of them remarkably ao, and had the manners of young women: not of degraded brutes of burden.” He is trying to talk about how much better the American Factories were, so that maybe Great Britain would change their ways. In Document A, he mentions how they did not have too many children working, how they had a church, and how clean and nice the rooms were. So clearly conditions did not to be so dangerous, but they could still allow children to work and get the job done.
As if the conditions for the girls weren’t enough, the girls also had to leave their families in order to work there. It wasn’t easy for the girls to leave their families to go work until they’re about 21 years old. In Document B, it says “I cannot but fear the taking such young persons from the eyes of their parents.” This quote was said by one of the masters at the factories, so even they understood how rough it must have been for these girls. This Document also talks about what the “Bobbins Girls” had to do. It talks about how these girls would work on these machines all day without any intermissions. So not only were these girls forced to leave their homes, but they would be working all day non stop. Also, when I say left, I mean left. These girls would be at these factories from whenever they arrived, until the age of 21! So this proves my point because these girls definitely could have gotten their work done, but also had time to visit home.
The conditions of the factories lead to many deaths, not only by accidents, but by illnesses. The terrible quality food, unsanitary surroundings, and lack of sleep slowly killed these children overtime. Document C consits of a series of letters from a girl who worked at the factories namd Mary. Mary wrote these letters to her father to check in. Throughout these letters she discussed things like payments, things happening at the factories, and her health. But when she adresses her health, she talks about how it was fairly good. But at the note in the bottom of the page, it says “She claims her health has been ‘pretty good.’ In reality it had been failing for 3 years.” This shows that she was unaware of her health at the time, but it had been decreasing over time. So it is defintely possible that the factories could have changed their ways to check for health or change their food so that the workers would have the neccesary nutrients so that they could perform this work all day.
The conditions themselves were bad enough in these factories, but the masters made them even worse. If children started to fall asleep while working, they were constantly beaten and abused. The masters were very strict and were always on the workers’ case. They left no slacking time, they didn’t even allow the children to eat away from their machines. In Document D, a 16 year old girl named Hannah Goode’s talks about how they had little to know free time, and how aggresive the masters were. She says “William Crookes is overlooker in our room; he is cross-temprered sometimes. He does not bet me; he beats the little children if they do not do their work right.” So she is talking about how this man will beat small children if they mess up while working for 14 hours a day. This strongly proves my point because the masters could have easily treated the children better when they were doing their work.
The Industrial Revolution was one of the most important things in the United States history, but the condition were just disgusting. They would force these children to work around 14 hours a day and would get to leave once which was for dinner, other meals would be eaten while working. Accidents would happen a lot, and these accicedents weren’t just your average scrape; limbs being torn, bones being crushed, lives being taken. Their frood consisted of little to no nutrients, so they would have no energy in their system to be able to work these kind of hours. Children were being beaten if they weren’t doing their work correctly, or if they were falling asleep on the job. The conditions were not inevitable at all, they could have had better conditions while still getting the work done, but they needed that child labor to do what they did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)