Sourcing

Johnston, David Claypoole. "The Victim of Ardent Spirits." Teach Us History. 1837-1841. Institute for Museum and Library Sciences and the Massachusetts Cultural Council.
http://www.teachushistory.org/Temperance/ (accessed December 2013)

David Claypoole Johnston was a well known cartoonist in the New England area. He was especially known for his graphic designs. He was an uptight citizen that was against getting drunk. He showed this through his articles. Many of which had to be recalled and not printed because the topic was so controversial. The point that Johnston was trying to get across was that drinking takes the soul out of the man and replaces it with the mind of the devil. Johnston shows this by incorporating little devilish creatures ripping apart his brain, and soul. Johnston is trying to show that drinking makes you act without thinking. This picture is so prevalent to the time period because men over drinking was a huge problem in the time period. This source tells us what alcohol did to many men and their families. Men would go out to bars and drink, and drink, and drink, and if they didn't pass out after spending tons of money that could of been used towards food for the family, some would come home and beat their wives. overall Johnston is trying to show that drinking makes a man a wreck both physically and intelligently.

(Both Citation and Annotation I tried indenting.

Is He the Father?

Andrew Jackson the people's president is what he is called. Made out to be a hero in most historians eyes, but is he really. He wasn't the hero that everyone thought he was. The Indian removal is a perfect example of that. Jackson said if they stay near the white culture to long that they will lose their culture.  He doesn't want it to happen so in order to do it they need to be separated from the colonization of the United States. Jackson's problem with the Natives where they were was that he believed the Cherokee and many other tribes were wasting the and by living in the tree's instead of colonizing the land. This cartoonist shows Andrew Jackson cradling two Native Americans. Jackson thought of himself as the father of the Natives. He said he was protecting the Natives by moving them away from the colonial culture that was surrounding them. The cartoonist portrayed Jackson like this because this is how he was seen, the savoir of all people, even the natives.In my opinion Andrew Jackson is not the democratic ideal. A democrat is someone who one who practices social equality according to Merriam Webster Dictionary, and him forcing the Natives to move from their homes so the land can get colonized is not showing social equality. All in all he does not deserve the name, "The People's President".

The People's Power

Democracy is a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free election. In 19th century the United states of America had become a democratic government. It wasn't always every citizen had the right to vote though, it used to be more difficult for someone to be able to vote. Before the United States switched over to democracy men had to own property to vote. Benjamin Franklin once said "“Today a man owns a jackass worth fifty dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies.  The man in the meantime has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers – but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote.  Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage?  In the man or in the jackass?”  He was basically saying anyone that owned property could vote. For example even if the wisest man in town didn't own property he still would not be able to vote. Another American that shared Franklin's distaste for the suffrage of the united states is Northern Townshend. Townshend realized that the United States was not a complete democracy at the time and wanted universal suffrage so the US would be a true democracy.

Throughout the 1800's the United states government began to morph into a democratic government.The US eased into the idea of giving more voting rights and power to the people. As shown in the graph of Methods of Electing Presidential Electors, the states individually gave up the the legislative's power of voting and handed it over to the people. The only state that had not given it up by 1836 was South Carolina, who eventually gave it up. As time has gone on the US has become more, and more democratic and now we truly are a democratic country because the power of voting is the people's power.

The Destruction of Jerusalem by Titus

The The Destruction of Jerusalem by Titus by Wilhelm Von Kaulbach is a moving picture that clearly shows many Romanticist aspects. Romanticism is a movement in literature, music, and the visual arts that
reacted to the order imposed by the Enlightenment. Some of the clearly shown aspects of Romanticism ares are emotion , Irrationality, Grotesque Horrific, and Importance of individual.

This painting clearly shows grotesque, and Importance of individual aspects. The painter shows Grotesque aspects by showing death and injured people laying on the ground and being dragged. The people surrounded in the green squares are examples of grotesque aspects. The painter of this piece used lighter colors to really brighten up the certain figures in the painting as to draw our eyes to them. For example the man in the center of the painting with the red circle around him. The painter emphasized him to show his importance.

This painting also clearly shows the aspects emotion, and irrationality. The painter shows the emotional aspect by showing peoples facial expression and their body language. In the painting the women surrounded by the blue arrows are examples of the aspect emotion. Wilhelm Von Kaulbach shows irrationality by showing angels swooping in from heaven. In the painting the angels and the heavens are surrounded by a white square.

Were They Really Failures?

The revolutions of 1830  and 1848 were considered by most historians failures. While in fact they where failures, they weren't complete failures. The countries France, Hungary, Poland, and Russia rebelled against the monarchy's at that place in time, All in which failed in the end. These rebellions have gone down as insignificant rebellions that had no affect on the world at all. All of the rebellions fought for what they believed in, even if they did fail it wasn't for nothing.

The Frankfurt Assembly of 1848 was indeed a failure, but not entirely. The assembly had additionally met to discuss reforms in the German government.The assembly wanted national unity and liberal reforms, and to make Germany a united state with Austria with the Prussian king in charge. The German people wanted  unity and property for their country. The only problem was the upper class and conservative forces, and the Prussian Army. King Fredrick said "No Piece of Paper will come between Myself and My People.” He wouldn't let a piece of paper take away his divine right. In the end hundreds of people were killed and many more sent to prison. Plus many Germans left their homeland, King Fredrick was offended, he denied the assemblies request for a constitutional monarchy in his Proclamation of 1849. King Fredrick rejected the offer because it came from the people and not the German princes. Using the Prussian military he shut down the assembly and other conservative forces. All in all the rebellion was classified as a near failure, but not quite. The rebels may have been squashed, but there ideas lived on.

Poland was Poland was a country sick of not having there own government. They wanted to separate from there mother country Russia. Poland was a nationalist country they wanted full independence from Russia. Russia had already granted Poland a constitution in 1815, but that did not satisfy them. The Polish wanted liberty and freedom. Poland's opponent in there rebellion was the Russian government and military. Poland was disgusted by being seen as being weak and enslaved, this anger built up over years and was put towards Russia. When the fighting started the Polish were able to hold off Russia, sadly though they were defeated. When the Russians took Warsaw the revolution was over and Poland had lost. The polish were defeated but the nationalist idea lived on in the people hearts. In the end the rebellion was a failure, but the ideology never died.

The Hungarian revolution of 1848 was ultimately a failure. The goals f the rebellion were to have an independent government, end serfdom, and to create a constitution to protect basic rights. The only problem for the revolutionaries was Austria. The majority of these revolutionaries were students who had bought into the idea of liberalism. In the early stages of the rebellion Austria agreed to the reforms, but it was only temporary. With the help of Russia, Austria defeated the rebels and took back full control over Hungary. During the revolt Metternich fled and was never heard from again. Rated on the scale the Hungarian revolution was as low as possible because the revolutionaries didn't gain anything and there was a lot of bloodshed.

Europe's Future

When Napoleons empire collapsed in 1815, Europe was left in pieces. The powers that were left after Napoleons conquest met in Vienna, Austria. Including Britain, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria. The Congress of Vienna was supposed to decide the future of Europe, but put that on the back burner and spent most of there time in Vienna partying. In the end though, they decided to return to the system of monarchy.

In order to appease people that had enjoyed Napoleon's rule, they made it a constitutional monarchy. The monarchs were afraid of another revolution because they did not want to be dethroned again. So when they were all in Vienna they decided issued a principle, the Principle of Intervention. This principle decreed that any country in the Holy Alliance (  Britain, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria) could send troops into each other's countries to suppress any uprisings. They utilized the concept of the Holy Alliance and the principle of intervention by saying any treason against the Holy Alliance was a treason against god (Britain did not take part in this). This made citizens fear going against the Alliance, not only because they were such a super power but also because it was a sin.

The Congress of Vienna deciding to return to a constitutional monarchy pleased Metternich. He was a conservative, who didn't like change. That's also a reason why he liked the Holy Alliance. The Holy Alliance was a reason for things not to change because people feared sinning.In the 1820s there was an Italian uprising. The Austrians intervened and crushed the uprising and  made an example for other revolutionaries to see. This impacted Europe by having not only uniting the major countries of it, but also  led to peace throughout Europe for many years.

Vine

My video represents nationalism for many reasons.  One reason my video represents nationalism is because it shows two citizens together saying " We are United. " This is significant to nationalism because nationalism is a feeling of strong pride in one's country.  Nationalism describes a group of people “whose people were bound together by shared language, customs, and history.” Another reason my vine represents nationalism is because it shows citizens chasing out a foreign ruler. This is a good example of nationalism because it shows how proud the citizens are of their country and that they will not tolerate being ruled by anyone else. That is why are video represented nationalism.

The other two ideologies are conservatism and liberalism.  The idea behind conservatism is the tendency in politics to preserve what is established. The tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change. Conservatism was focused a lot on tradition and religion. It supported monarch's and aristocrats. Liberalism is quite different. Liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It is more focused on freedom and progression of humanity. Liberalism seeks the freedom for individuals, and putting limitations on power, especially government and religion.

Me Thinks

As president Monroe had the final say in  Responding to the Alliances plan to invade South America to retake the countries that had gained there independence from there mother countries. The US reacted by stating that "we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States." The United States basically said that they would not stand by and watch while other countries that fought for their freedom get slaughtered. If the Quintuple Alliance was planning to take back their colonies in South America then they were going to have to deal with the United States. They would also have to fight Britain because they supported the idea that no European power should have colonies in the Western hemisphere.

The Quintuple Alliance was a force to be feared by every country on earth. That's why Monroe's response was so jaw dropping.  This statement made them realize that the US was not a country to mess with and that they will lose a lot more than they gain if they fight the United States and Britain. The South American countries that had won there independence were grateful and surprised that the US and Britain stood up for them against the Quintuple Alliance.

Why are the British Colonist More Prepared

The British colonist were more prepared than the Latin American colonist on so many levels

One way the British were more prepared for independence was they were united. Everyone in the British colonies spoke the same language which made trade, and other everyday activities simpler. The evidence I have to prove this is document E3. This shows that most of the Northeast population was white and there is a small percentage of slaves and free blacks. The next pie chart shows the southern population of the 1970s in the British colonies. It shows that the south was mostly white's, but also included about 1/3 of the population was free blacks and slaves.Both f these charts show that there were two major cultures that  Another document that proves my statements is E4. This also is a pie chart, but this shows the Latin America population. This chart consist of  Peninsulares, Creoles, Mestizos, Mulattoes, Africans, and Natives. Many of the people in the Latin American colonies came from different cultures and spoke different languages, unlike in the British colonies where everyone spoke the same language. Being unable to communicate with everyone in the community was a disadvantage to Latin America when they declared their independence. The literacy in the British colonies made them a lot more prepared than the colonies in Latin America.

Another thing that made the British colonies more prepared was there political experience. A major part of them self governing themselves was they could enforce their own laws as long as they didn't contradict with British laws. Then when they separated from their mother country they didn't start from scratch like the Latin American countries. Thanks to documents F3 and F4 I learned that Spanish government gave the people of the colonies no political power. Once the Latin America countries were able to gain their freedom they had no prior experience governing themselves. Since the British gave political power they had more experience self governing themselves, making it an easier transition when they declared themselves independent

Haitian Revolution

When Haiti declared its independence from France, it greatly impacted France. One way France was impacted was it lost St. Dominique which was a very important source of income. Also without controlling St. Dominique Napoleon had no way of protecting his land in North America. This led to the Louisiana Purchase. This was known as the biggest bargain in American History. Napoleon sold enough land to double the size of the United States for only 15 million dollars.  Napoleon was very displeased with the loss not only because St. Dominique was an important part of the economy, but also because he was a racist. He looked at blacks as lesser beings meant for slave work.

America was majorly impacted by the Haitian revolution. Soon after the  revolution Napoleon sent his assistant to ask the Thomas Jefferson if he would join him in strike to take back Saint Dominique. Even though the Haitians were fighting for their independence just like he was year ago, Jefferson was on Napoleons side. He was afraid of the repercussions the revolt might have in America. He didn't want the seed of revolution to be planted in the minds of the slaves in America. So he decided he would suppress the revolutionary idea by joining Napoleon in an attack on Saint Dominique.  “Under threat of a French military invasion that aimed at the re-enslavement of the population, the Haitian government had little choice but to agree to pay. Haiti’s government was also forced to finance the debt through loans from a single French bank, which capitalized on its monopoly by gauging Haiti with exorbitant interest rates and fees.” They had to pay France 150 million Francs or else they would be invaded.

The Haitian revolution impacted the Haitians greatly. After having to pay the money to France they were just about broke. An economy that once flourished was now in pieces and didn't seem to be getting any better. Countries surrounding Haiti were no help because no of them were willing to trade with the Haitians. Countries like the US ignoring Haiti and France's demand of money has left Haiti in a terrible state and has led to Haiti having a crippled economy today.

Napoleon

Napoleons impact on social systems was he instated a new social system "meritocracy", and eliminating feudalism. He made the classes more equal as to not have such a large gap between high and low class. He gave citizens more rights and privileges ,which went well for the lower class. As for the upper class though, nobles like Madame de Steel were unhappy.She wrote that "his profound contempt for all the intellectual riches of the human nature: virtue, dignity,  religion, and enthusiasm. She later says she doesn't think he progressed enlightenment ideas, but rather that he manipulated men in order to win the over. Someone who would disagree with her would be Marshal Michel Nay. He was an officer in Napoleons army and he said that Napoleon was a "sovereign", an "august emperor". Nay talks about how Napoleon was crushing the old feudal system and bringing in a new way of life to France.  Both of these people have very different views but, both show the impact Napoleon had on the social system.

Napoleon also impacted Europe's economical system and political system. Since Napoleon conquered almost all countries in Europe he was able to restore the economy during his rule by, controlling prices, establishing the Bank of France, and starting a public works program. Throughout Europe he encouraged new industry and to build better streets and canals. Also Napoleon improved the future economy of Europe by making education available to many more citizens. One major economical/ political  act by Napoleon was the Louisiana purchase. This stimulated American growth and opened many things to the American people. Napoleon positively influenced not only Frances economy, but also the surrounding countries economies as well during his reign. To prove Napoleon had a good influence on France  Marjorie Johnston said "as a usurper, a tyrant, and a greedy, egotistical and ambitious ruler, it has also been found impossible to deny that his work, such as it was, was accomplished with an exquisite efficiency almost amounting to perfection." Even though she described him as a tyrant and greedy she still couldn't deny the fact that Napoleon was a great leader.

Great Britain or The USA

Early in the industrial revolution the choice of settling in the United States or Great Britain was not hard for an industrialist to make.  It became apparent that industrialist would succeed more if they settled in Britain. After reading the chapter "Observations on the Loss of Woolen Spinning, 1794" from the "Modern History" textbook and Porter's article on industrialization. Britain had many advantages that made it that made it successful during the industrial revolution. Since England had such a surplus of workers many of those without work because of the revolution had no choice but to get a job at the factory. This was very good for factory owners. This was good because they could lower wages without having the workers protest, giving them more money to put in their pocket. The workers wouldn't protest because they knew if they did protest their job would be filled by someone who wouldn't protest. Another thing that made Britain better was they got goods/ raw materials from their huge network trading routes. Since England was able to get a large amount of raw materials for its factories, the factories could work as efficiently as possible. A major invention that sped up the transportation of goods was the steam engine. A mining engineer, George Stephenson, developed the first steam-powered locomotive. Steam locomotives transported goods all over the world, by land and by sea. Another reason England was the right choice for industrialist was because it was leading in commercial power making it easy for England to transport goods. All in all Great Britain is the better place to be if you are an industrialist.

Being a worker is a different story though. After reading Early Labor in New England, 1883 and Porter's article on industrialization it was determined that New England was a better place for workers to live . One reason New England would be better for the worker was he/she has more options, they have a wider variety of things they can do for a living. Unlike the urbanized England, New England had huge plots of land with rich soil that a farmer could make a sturdy living on. Also if the farmers were having trouble paying bills (almost all were) they could send their family members to factories to work. Factories in New England were better because the factory owners couldn't lower the wage without getting protested. Plus if there was the owners couldn't replace workers like those owners in Britain. This was great for the factory workers because their wages would be what they were promised . Also living in New England gave people the freedom to contribute to the world by inventing new things and starting up companies. For example because the US had such an abundant supply of wood so they made the best woodworking machines in the world. Another example is young Frenchman named Eleuthère Irénée du Pont de Nemours who brought  the United States his knowledge of the latest French advances in chemistry and gunpowder making. In 1802 he founded what would become one of the largest and most successful American businesses, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, better known simply as DuPont. All in all America was by far a better place to live if you were not high class

Picture From: http://listydoskrecipitki.blog.pl/
Shows steam locomotive from the Industrial revolution times

Letters of Mary Paul

Through her letter, Mary Paul describes her life in the mills and her all around experience in Lowell. Her first letter was to her father. In this letter Mary pleads with her father to let her go to Lowell. The tone of the letter was eager and excited. She gave him several reasons, she could help out with the mortgage, she could buy her own clothes, and there would be one less mouth to feed around the house. Her second letter was also to her father. In this letter she tells him how she has become lonely there and is very homesick. She begs him to have other people write letters to her and to have Julius visit her if he is in town. The tone of the letter is she is lonely and homesick. In her third letter she mentions that a lot of injuries have happened lately at the mill. The tone of this letter is excited, but she may also be scared. Mary seems excited because she says "I think that the factory is the best place for me and if any  girl wants employment I advise them to come to Lowell." What makes her seem nervous though is the fact that she brought up all the injuries. Maybe she was trying to make her father fear for her and send her home. In her fourth letter to her father she begins to be worried.  her pay is beginning to be cut and she won't be able to send as much money home. She also is being told that she is "growing very poor"  health wise at least. The long hours have started to take a toll on her. Her tone in this letter is nervous and anxious. She feels this way because she doesn't know if there is going to be a pay cut or not. In the 5th letter she wrote to her father she talks about how she lost her job and is looking for a new position. She lost her job because she became very ill and had to take six months off from work. During hat time she  went back to her dads farm to heal. Getting a new position wasn't easy. Mary tried several times and was about to give up her job search but then got her old job back. The tone of this letter is negative. She says she ". I do not like here very well and am very sure I never shall". In her final letter (6) she summarizes her experience in Lowell. She talks about how it was kind of a let down. She worked so hard yet was payed so little.

Her experiences change a lot throughout her letters. At first she is getting everything she is promised.As days go on though she realizes that she misses everyone and has no time to see any of them because she has to work. Plus the only person she is talking with via mail is her father. As Mary's time their goes on at the mill her time gets worse and worse. Mary's experience represents a failure of "the Lowell experiment" because a young healthy farm girl is withered down into such a state she wasn't able to work anymore and was forced to go home to rest and regain her strength. In some peoples eyes her experience might seem good because many people that lived in Lowell had equally bad or even worse experiences than Mary, but all in all the experiment was a failure in Mary's case.   

Picture From http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/walter.sargent/public.www/web%20103/outline%2011%20umf%20103_06.htm
Shows Mill Girls Working

Smith PSA

Smith, Adams. The Wealth of Nations (Excerpts). Modified from the Modern History Internet Sourcebook. 1776. Fordham University. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/adamsmith-summary.asp (accessed on September 30, 2013)

In the book "The Wealth of Nations", author Alex Smith focuses on a different economic strategy that is a better fit for the world. Smith is an honest and trustworthy source. He is not only educated but also was a professor at the University of Glasgow. At Glasgow he was known for his insightful lectures that drew many people. Smith known as the father of capitalism had a good life and was never really in a position of being financially unstable. Smith's ideas most related to Capitalism. Smith believed that the harder one worked. Some men that most likely influenced Smith's thoughts were Voltaire, and Rossoue. One reason Smith liked the idea of capitalism was because for a good portion of his adult life he toured Europe with the stepson of Charles Townshend. This affected him because he got to travel all over Europe observing different styles of living and economies.

Luddite Letter

Dear Cousin Tom,
I am really starting to get annoyed with them. The Luddite's have been protesting industrialism for weeks now. They have protested by cross dressing, attacking machines factories, and even having there leader Ned Ludd send threatening letters to us here in Nottingham. I spoke to one of the Luddite prisoners we captured and he said its not that they hate technology, but they hate the fact that it is being misused. Personally I think they are just mad because the machines are faster and make better quality wool and cotton. The machines put them out of the job and forced them to work in the factories.

As a soldier payed by the government I am completely against the Luddite's ways. Why would I support someone who is attacking there own country because they are mad that the machines took their jobs. Soon after the industrial revolution begun I was starting to get impacted by it. I was sent to Nottingham to defend a factory from some Luddite's that had been terrorizing it. I have been here for weeks trying to catch Ned Ludd so we can end this revolt for good, it is said he lives in Sherwood forest. Sadly though our stakeouts have proved useless because it seems he doesn't get his hands dirty.

I must end this letter here for I have another night of waiting and hoping that we can catch the man who caused this mess.

Your Cousin,
Ryan

Curator Post

In order to make our poster my group went through a series of steps.  First we all read each document and then discussed them as a group to get the best idea about the document. Once we did that we wrote down on the outline the first draft of our captions. Then we refined and perfected them to the best of our abilities. It is so important to curate because curating is a great way to give a lot if information clearly in not a lot of words and that is what you want on a poster as to not bore the reader and keep them interested in the poster. The sources we analyzed were all about how steam engines  and railroads improved trade and the lives of the people in Europe during the time. Our exhibit is laid out in a way that each caption you read will give you a helpful load of information that will make you want to read what else the poster has to say.  Almost as if your guided by a railroad. We thought of our title by trying to combine the concepts we had put on the poster. When visitors looked at my poster I hoped they learned about the steam engine and the impact it had on Europe.

Two things I learned from a poster were that children were working in dangerous conditions and that they were working complicated machines every day. Another two things I learned were the power loom didn't need people to power it and the spinning jenny made weavers obsolete. Another thing I learned was slaves was a major part of the industrial revolution and Britain imported cotton from all over the world. I also learned that mostly everybody worked in factories during the revolution and all you could hear were machines. I also learned that people who weren't high class had terrible living conditions.

Engels PSA Assignment

Engels, Friedrich. The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844. London: Swan Sonnenschein            & Co, 1892.

Friedrich Engels is a believable and trustworthy man. I know this for several reasons. One reason he is a trusted person is because he lived during the time of these events. Another reason for him being a trusting source is because he experienced or because he saw other people in these conditions. He is also a trusted source because he was a well respected philosopher. To help him with his research he met Mary Burns who was his guide through Manchester and showed him districts with terrible conditions for his research. Mary Burns was a worker who experienced the problems  in Manchester. Engels was appalled at the conditions in Manchester. He claimed that some parts were almost impossible for people to live in. He said that he was astounded by how much filth there was and little amount of room for a persons living quarters.  The reason Engels wrote about the living conditions in Manchester was to show people how bad some of the districts were and to tell people if they wish "to see in how little space a human being can move, how little air - and such air! - he can breathe, how little of civilisation he may share and yet live". Manchester was a manufacturing town for England, one of the largest actually. It had many districts separating the workers not in the same field from each other.Some districts were kept better than others. For example one of the worst courts to live was Allen's Court . The filth was so bad the sanitary police had evacuate it to clean it. In order to persuade me Engels often used negative words live filth, and dirty when he was talking about Manchester. 

***Couldn't indent every line after the first in the citation and annotation. 

 

Socratic Seminar Review

The situation in Syria has changed a lot since the discussion. At this point in time the UN seems to be finalizing a plan to end the chaos. Earlier this week was a different story. The UN was in a stalemate and had no plan. Throughout the Socratic seminar I noticed that most participants had a strong grasp on the concept.They made several good points by citing their sources and using quotes. The participants in the meeting were split between people who supported foreign intervention and those who did not. The people who did not support it felt that it was important not to interfere because of the rising tensions between the US and other countries (Iran, Russia, etc.) and that the US won't help the situation by adding bullets or bombs. Although I disagree with their decision I see there point. Both sides made some good points to defend their cases. Although they did give a lot of good information I feel they didn't touch on some subjects as much as others. For example I feel like they did not talk a lot about the origin of the problem in Syria. If they spent a little more time on that everyone would have been on the same page.  

They discussed many options in their meeting. An idea they had was to simply follow Obama's plan of using military force. Then they realized it was be more harmful than helpful. Forcing peace would stop the use of tanks and missiles, but it wouldn't settle any problems between the two parties. A peace treaty was impossible because both would refuse to make peace after what the others had done. Sending guns to the rebels would just cause more bloodshed. Taking away the Assad regimes chemical weapons wasn't a bad idea, but there was still going to be a lot of bloodshed between the two parties. The majority of the group was leaning towards foreign intervention seeing as it would be the most logical choice.

In my opinion I think the meeting went rather well. There weren't any lulls that I noticed and the conversation had a great flow to it. I feel the meeting was most productive when new info surfaced and people got to add their opinions to it. The least productive part of the meeting was when information was repeated. It caused a slight pause that stopped the flow of the conversation

In my opinion I agree that with the idea of crippling crippling? Assad by taking away his weapons. This way Obama would not look weak when he said chemical weapons were the "red line" and we would not anger Russia, Iran or China by attacking their ally. All three countries agreed making Assad hand over the weapons was the best choice. The least viable would be to try to use military force while Russia and China are against it because it isn't worth fighting with them over something like this. That could lead to a much larger war that would do harm the US and its allies.

All in all the best choice was the one the UN made.