NAME____________________________________________________ PERIOD __________

PART I
DO FIRST: Read Bismarck’s “Blood and Iron” Speech.
https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum-development/kla/pshe/references-and-resources/histo
ry/making_of_modern_world_source10_eng.pdf

1. Why did the Frankfurt Parliament of 1848 fail in its attempt to create a unified German state and
compare its efforts to the tactics successfully employed by Otto von Bismarck?

2. How did autocrats such as Emperor Napoleon III of France and Tsar Alexander II of Russia use
nationalism as a force in building their states?

PART II
Lesson Key Points
• Internal and external factors often limit the success of revolutions. As a result, despite the
revolutionary rhetoric, the new societies frequently are more “evolutions” rather than full-on
reorganizations.
• People who lead the revolutions often gain more from the revolutions, while women and racial
minorities can still be left out of the new society.
• Common continuities in countries after the Atlantic revolutions are in the economic situation,
social hierarchies, and political systems.
• More specifically, these continuities entailed:
o America People who wrote the Constitution were from the elite of society, so they created a
system that reflected their concerns and upheld slavery.
o Haiti The Island was in a very bad economic situation after the end of the revolution and needed
to recover, worsened by the fact that France required Haiti to pay 150 billion francs in reparations. This
led to a distrust of whites who had been seen as the enemy, and harsh measures to improve the
economy.
o Latin America Strongman leaders took charge, using the justification that the region isn’t ready
for democracy. Additionally, the region was economically dependent on exports to Europe.

Art History mini project- Choose a European work of art - painting, music, or literature - from the third
quarter of the nineteenth century and identify the characteristics that link it with the period in which it was
created. Groups of 2 or on your own(20 minutes)
CFS
1. Write in full sentences
NAME____________________________________________________ PERIOD __________

2. Context- Link the historical work to the time period using background information

Works to choose from:

http://spenceralley.blogspot.com/2017/09/third-quarter-of-19th-century.html

PART III- ​EXIT TICKET

EQ: For whom were the Atlantic Revolutions most revolutionary? Why?

YOU MUST ANNOTATE THOROUGHLY AS YOU READ—BE READY TO DISCUSS IN SEMINAR ON

TUESDAY (TOMORROW)
NAME____________________________________________________ PERIOD __________

Source #1​: ​Howard Zinn, “A Kind of Revolution,” in A People’s History of the United States

In the northern states [after the American Revolution], the combination of blacks in the military, the lack
of powerful economic need for slaves, and the rhetoric of Revolution led to the end of slavery-but very
slowly. As late as 1810, thirty thousand blacks, one-fourth of the black population of the North, remained
slaves. In 1840 there were still a thousand slaves in the North. In the upper South, there were more free
Negroes than before, leading to more control legislation. In the lower South, slavery expanded with the
growth of rice and cotton plantations.

What the Revolution did was to create space and opportunity for blacks to begin making demands of
white society. Sometimes these demands came from the new, small black elites in Baltimore,
Philadelphia, Richmond, Savannah, sometimes from articulate and bold slaves. Pointing to the
Declaration of Independence, blacks petitioned Congress and the state legislatures to abolish slavery, to
give blacks equal rights. In Boston, blacks asked for city money, which whites were getting, to educate
their children. In Norfolk, they asked to he allowed to testify in court. Nashville blacks asserted that free
Negroes "ought to have the same opportunities of doing well that any Person ... would have."

Peter Mathews, a free Negro butcher in Charleston, joined other free black artisans and tradesmen in
petitioning the legislature to repeal discriminatory laws against blacks, hi 1780, seven blacks in
Dartmouth, Massachusetts, petitioned the legislature for the right to vote, linking taxation to
representation:
... we apprehend ourselves to be Aggreeved, in that while we are not allowed the Privilege of freemen of
the State having no vote or Influence in the Election of those that Tax us yet many of our Colour (as is
well known) have cheerfully Entered the field of Battle in the defense of the Common Cause and that (as
we conceive) against a similar Exertion of Power (in Regard to taxation) too well known to need a recital
in this place.. ..

A black man, Benjamin Banneker, who taught himself mathematics and astronomy, predicted accurately
a solar eclipse, and was appointed to plan the new city of Washington, wrote to Thomas Jefferson:
I suppose it is a truth too well attested to you, to need a proof here, that we are a race of beings, who
have long labored under the abuse and censure of the world; that we have long been looked upon with
an eye of contempt; and that we have long been considered rather as brutish than human, and scarcely
capable of mental endowments. ... I apprehend you will embrace every opportunity to eradicate that train
of absurd and false ideas and opinions, which so generally prevails with respect to us; and that your
sentiments are concurrent with mine, which are, that one universal Father hath given being to us all; and
that he hath not only made us all of one flesh, but that he hath also, without partiality, afforded us all the
same sensations and endowed us all with the same facilities. ..
Banneker asked Jefferson "to wean yourselves from those narrow prejudices which you have imbibed."

Jefferson tried his best, as an enlightened, thoughtful individual might. But the structure of American
society, the power of the cotton plantation, the slave trade, the politics of unity between northern and
southern elites, and the long culture of race prejudice in the colonies, as well as his own
NAME____________________________________________________ PERIOD __________

weaknesses-that combination of practical need and ideological fixation-kept Jefferson a slaveowner

throughout his life.

The inferior position of blacks, the exclusion of Indians from the new society, the establishment of
supremacy for the rich and powerful in the new nation-all this was already settled in the colonies by the
time of the Revolution. With the English out of the way, it could now be put on paper, solidified,
regularized, made legitimate, by the Constitution of the United States, drafted at a convention of
Revolutionary leaders in Philadelphia.

To many Americans over the years, the Constitution drawn up in 1787 has seemed a work of genius put
together by wise, humane men who created a legal framework for democracy and equality. This view is
stated, a bit extravagantly, by the historian George Bancroft, writing in the early nineteenth century:
The Constitution establishes nothing that interferes with equality and individuality. It knows nothing of
differences by descent, or opinions, of favored classes, or legalized religion, or the political power of
property. It leaves the individual alongside of the individual. ... As the sea is made up of drops, American
society is composed of separate, free, and constantly moving atoms, ever in reciprocal action ... so that
the institutions and laws of the country rise out of the masses of individual thought which, like the waters
of the ocean, are rolling evermore.

Another view of the Constitution was put forward early in the twentieth century by the historian Charles
Beard (arousing anger and indignation, including a denunciatory editorial in the New York Times). He
wrote in his book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution:
Inasmuch as the primary object of a government, beyond the mere repression of physical violence, is
the making of the rules which determine the property relations of members of society, the dominant
classes whose rights are thus to be determined must perforce obtain from the government such rules as
are consonant with the larger interests necessary to the continuance of their economic processes, or
they must themselves control the organs of government.

In short, Beard said, the rich must, in their own interest, either control the government directly or control
the laws by which government operates.

Beard applied this general idea to the Constitution, by studying the economic backgrounds and political
ideas of the fifty-five men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to draw up the Constitution. He found
that a majority of them were lawyers by profession, that most of them were men of wealth, in land,
slaves, manufacturing, or shipping, that half of them had money loaned out at interest, and that forty of
the fifty-five held government bonds, according to the records of the Treasury Department.

Thus, Beard found that most of the makers of the Constitution had some direct economic interest in
establishing a strong federal government: the manufacturers needed protective tariffs; the moneylenders
wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts; the land speculators wanted protection as they
invaded Indian lands; slaveowners needed federal security against slave revolts and runaways;
bondholders wanted a government able to raise money by nationwide taxation, to pay off those bonds.
NAME____________________________________________________ PERIOD __________

Four groups, Beard noted, were not represented in the Constitutional Convention: slaves, indentured
servants, women, men without property. And so the Constitution did not reflect the interests of those
groups.

He wanted to make it clear that he did not think the Constitution was written merely to benefit the
Founding Fathers personally, although one could not ignore the $150,000 fortune of Benjamin Franklin,
the connections of Alexander Hamilton to wealthy interests through his father-in-law and brother-in-law,
the great slave plantations of James Madison, the enormous landholdings of George Washington.
Rather, it was to benefit the groups the Founders represented, the "economic interests they understood
and felt in concrete, definite form through their own personal experience."
Not everyone at the Philadelphia Convention fitted Beard's scheme. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts
was a holder of landed property, and yet he opposed the ratification of the Constitution. Similarly, Luther
Martin of Maryland, whose ancestors had obtained large tracts of land in New Jersey, opposed
ratification. But, with a few exceptions, Beard found a strong connection between wealth and support of
the Constitution.

Source #2A​:​ Bob Corbett, Professor of Philosophy, Webster University

The immediate post-revolutionary period of Haitian history was a terribly difficult one. The country was in
shambles. Most of the plantations were destroyed, many skilled overseers were gone (either dead, in
hiding, or having fled for their lives because of the treatment of slaves), skilled managers were often also
gone, the former slaves did not want to work someone else's plantation, there was a grave fear that
France would re-invade, and the rest of the international community was either openly hostile or totally
uninterested in Haiti.

The opening sentence is the Heinls' treatment of this period is: "With the dawn of 1804, Haiti's highest
hour has passed." (Heinl and Heinl, 1978) This sad judgment seems to me to reflect the views of most
Haitians I've ever talked with, and most histories, both Haitian and foreign.

If ever an historical moment stood out, Haiti's Revolution is one such event and is Haiti's glory forever,
and a major source of national pride. Perhaps with the determination of today's progressive groups, Haiti
could be at the beginnings of a new "great moment," though it is much slower to success than most
would wish -- but, then, so were the earliest years of the Revolution.

At any rate, January 1, 1804 left Haiti facing a desperate task. She was:
• virtually broke.
• her base of wealth, the agriculture of sugar, coffee, spices and indigo, was in physical ruins, most
plantations having been burned and ravaged.
• the management structure of agriculture was in total disarray. Formerly worked by unwilling
slaves and overseen by foreigners, Haiti was now populated by free peasants unwilling to work for
another and wanting their own land.
NAME____________________________________________________ PERIOD __________

• the international community was overtly hostile to this former slave nation. Remember that the
U.S., France, Britain and Spain were all still slave nations. Haiti's servile revolution was a frightful model
to these powerful nations. (This hostility was not overridden by the fact that some nations, Britain first
and foremost and the U.S. to a significant degree, continued to carry on a quiet trade with this nation
that they regarded as an international pariah.)
• a huge source of revenue: slave trade, was now closed to Haiti. (Though some Haitians
suggested renewing it to increase the number of field workers.)
• despite a constitution of free persons, already in 1804 the directions toward despotic rule by a
small rich, powerful elite clique was forming.
• finally, the external world was changing. The coming Industrial Revolution was already coming to
claim its place in world history. This would have three notable impacts on Haiti:
1. Her agriculture products and slave trade, so central to European economy in the previous
century, would begin to make her potential economic potential less important, even in some ideal world's
free trade.
2. Her lack of natural resources appropriate to industrialization, the lack of capital and skilled
industrialists would condemn her to an increasingly less important potential.
3. The international community's hostility toward Haiti and deliberate marginalization of her, would
mean that the Industrial Revolution wold virtually pass Haiti by. If one looks at Haiti in mid-1995, one
sees a small modicum of electric service and telecommunications, and a handful of assembly plants.
But, in the main, nearly 200 years after the Haitian Revolution, and 150 years after the vigor of the
industrial revolution, Haiti is a nation to which the Industrial Revolution never came.

The first leader of free and independent Haiti was Jean-Jacques Dessalines, a former slave and victim
of a cruel and brutal master, furious warrior, hero and leader of the last days of the revolution, and sworn
enemy of whites, especially the French. Dessalines was quite worried, even completely preoccupied,
with the expectation that the French would come back and try to re-subjugate Haiti. One recent work
even suggested that some of Dessalines' declamation that the French were coming, and his harsh
treatment of Haitian free workers, were, in part, tactics to remind them of the dangers of a French return,
thus keeping the militarist spirit alive in order to insure a willing military readiness to defend the nation.

Dessalines first decided to get rid of the French who were in Haiti. Early in 1804, his first year of rule, he
had the French killed, sparing only a few doctors, priests and essential exporters. It is generally thought
that around 20,000 French were slaughtered, and it was a brutal and harsh extermination. This had
important consequences for Haiti, giving her critics something concrete to latch onto and helping to build
the picture of a savage nation incapable of being part of the world community.

At the same time, Dessalines, realizing the horrible economic position of Haiti decided to get the
economy moving again and decided to reinstate the French plantation system and rebuild the sugar
industry. This presented a difficult problem. How was one to get free people to do the work formerly
done by slaves?

This was not a new problem, thought the environment of the problem was new. The slaves had been
free since 1794. Toussaint had introduced a system call fermage and managed to significantly rebuild
NAME____________________________________________________ PERIOD __________

the sugar trade. Under fermage the land belonged to the government. It would be leased out to
managers and worked by workers who were obligated to remain on the land in much the same way that
serfs were in Europe. The workers, while bound to the land, did receive 25% of the value of the crops to
divide amoung themselves, and housing, food, clothing and basic care. However, their lives were
vigorously regulated and discipline was strict. While the old slave whip was gone, discipline did use the
cocomacaque stick.

When Dessalines heard that Napoleon was to be made an emperor, he decided to do so too, and
actually beat Napoleon to the coronation. On October 8, 1804 Jean-Jacques Dessalines became
JACQUES I, EMPEROR. Unlike Henry Christophe a few years later, he did not create any other nobles,
claiming that he alone was noble.

Perhaps that spirit characterizes much that went wrong with Dessalines. He was stern, even cruel,
demanded unflinching obedience and ruled with an iron hand. This was not what most of the Haitian
people thought that had fought a war of independence for, and discontent was widespread.
[By 1818, Haiti looks like this:] The huge mass of Haitian people still struggle along doing subsistence
farming and supplementing this with a bit of trade at the markets. The rich of the cities still make their
money by ownership of rural land, and exporting crops which they've gotten from the peasant for
sharecropping, or purchasing for a pittance at market. The elite are more color-mixed than in the past,
but it is still a very tiny portion of the people, in the vicinity of 3% who live lives of great wealth, extracting
that wealth from the peasants, who live lives of extreme poverty and powerlessness.

Source #2B​:​ Strayer, Ways of the World.

In defining all Haitians as “black,” Haiti directly confronted an emerging racism, even as they declared all
citizens legally equal regardless of race, color, or class. Economically, the country’s plantation system,
oriented wholly toward the export of sugar and cof- fee, had been largely destroyed.As whites fled or
were killed, both private and state lands were redistributed among former slaves and free blacks, and
Haiti became a nation of small-scale farmers producing mostly for their own needs, with a much smaller
export sector.

In the early nineteenth century, the revolution was a source of enormous hope and of great fear. Within
weeks of the Haitian slave uprising in 1791, Jamaican slaves had composed songs in its honor, and it
was not long before slave owners in the Caribbean and North America observed a new “insolence” in
their slaves. Certainly its example inspired other slave rebellions, gave a boost to the dawning
abolitionist movement, and has been a source of pride for people of African descent ever since.

To whites throughout the hemisphere, the cautionary saying “Remember Haiti” reflected a sense of
horror at what had occurred there and a determination not to allow political change to reproduce that
fearful outcome again. Particularly in Latin America, it injected a deep caution and social conservatism in
the elites that led their countries to independence in the early nineteenth century. Ironically, though, the
Haitian Revolution also led to a temporary expansion of slavery else- where. Cuban plantations and their
NAME____________________________________________________ PERIOD __________

slave workers considerably increased their pro- duction of sugar as that of Haiti declined. Moreover,
Napoleon’s defeat in Haiti persuaded him to sell to the United States the French territories known as the
Louisiana Purchase, from which a number of “slave states” were carved out. In such contradictory ways
did the echoes of the Haitian Revolution reverberate in the Atlantic world.

Source #3​: ​Francisco Bilbao, America in Danger, 1862.

In this document, Bilbao tries to explain the justification or thought process that new military leaders
used in the aftermath of the Latin American revolutions.

The conquest of power is the supreme goal. This leads to the immoral doctrine that "the end justifies the
means. . ." But since there are constitutional provisions that guarantee everyone his rights, and I cannot
violate them, I invoke the system of "preserving the form." If the constitution declares: "Thought is free," I
add: "within the limits established by law"---and since the law referred to is not the constitutional
provision but one that was issued afterwards. . .The election is free, it is said: but what if I control the
election returns? What if I, the established power, name the inspector of the election returns, if the law
permits one to vote twenty times a day in the same election? What if I dominate the elections and
frighten my opponents away with impunity? What happens then? Why, the government party is
perpetuated in office, and the popular will is flouted and swindled. But "the form has been preserved,"
and long live free elections! . . . "The death penalty in political cases is abolished," but I shoot prisoners
because I consider that these are not "political cases"; and since I am the infallible authority I declare
that these political prisoners are bandits, and "the form has been preserved."

"The guarantees established by this constitution cannot be suspended." But if I have the power to
declare a province or the Republic in a state of siege...what security can a citizen have? . . .There is
discussion, the press is free; citizens come together, for they have the right of assembly; an enlightened
public opinion almost unanimously clamors for reforms; preparations are made for elections that will
bring to power representatives of the reform movement; and then the Executive Power declares the
province or the Republic in a state of siege, and the suspended guarantees soar over the abyss of
"legal" dictatorship and constitutional despotism! And then? Either resignation or despair, or civil war,
etc., etc. Then revolution raises its terrible banner, and blood flows in battles and on scaffolds. Respect
for law and authority is lost, and only force holds sway, proclaiming its triumph to be that of liberty and
justice. . .And if it governs with coups d'etat, states of siege, or permanent or transitory dictatorships,
while the constitutional guarantees are flouted, mocked, or suppressed, the party in power will tell you:
civilization has triumphed over barbarism, authority over anarchy, virtue over crime, truth over lie. . .We
have behind us a half-century of independence from Spain. How many years of true liberty have any of
the new nations enjoyed? That is difficult to say; it is easier to reckon the years of anarchy and
despotism that they have endured.

Source #3B: John Green, Crash Course

[The Latin American Revolutions] are pretty remarkable, especially when you consider that most of this
territory had been under Spanish or Portuguese control for almost 300 years. The most revolutionary
NAME____________________________________________________ PERIOD __________

thing about these independence movements were that they enshrined the idea of so called popular
sovereignty in the New World. Never again would Latin America be under the permanent control of a
European power, and the relatively quick division of Latin America into individual states, despite
Bolivar’s pan South American dream, showed how quickly the people in these regions developed a
sense of themselves as nations distinct from Europe, and from each other.

This division into nation states foreshadows what would happen to Europe in the mid-19th century, and
in that sense, Latin America is the leader of 19th century world history. And Latin American history
presages another key theme in modern life - multiculturalism.

And all of that makes Latin America sound very modern, but in a number of ways, Latin American
independence was incomplete. First, while the Peninsulares were gone, the rigid social hierarchy, with
the wealthy creoles at the top, remained. Second, whereas revolutions in both France and America
weakened the power of the established church, in Latin America, the Catholic Church remained very
powerful in people’s everyday lives.

And then, there is the patriarchy. Although there were many women who took up arms in the struggle for
independence, including Juana Azurduy who led a cavalry charge against Spanish forces in Bolivia,
patriarchy remained strong in Latin America. Women weren’t allowed to vote in national elections in
Mexico until 1953. And Peru didn’t extend voting rights to women until 1955.

Also, Latin America’s revolutionary wars were long and bloody: 425,000 people died in Mexico’s war for
independence. And they didn’t always lead to stability: Venezuela, for instance, experienced war for
much of the 19th century, leading to as many as a million deaths.

And it’s important to note that fighting for freedom doesn’t always lead to freedom; the past two centuries
in Latin America have seen many military dictatorships that protect private property at the expense of
egalitarian governance.
Write another question about any/all of the reading that might help drive our discussion forward:

Introduction Paragraph :
❏ ·​ ​Identifies a broader pattern of the periodization that connects to the thesis
❏ ·​ ​Describes this pattern using specific vocabulary and examples
❏ ·​ ​Links this pattern to the thesis
❏ Includes a defensible thesis that answers the question and lays out a line of reasoning
NAME____________________________________________________ PERIOD __________

Contextualization and Thesis: Develop an argument that evaluates how one or more revolutions
led to political and social change in the period 1750 to 1900.