The common belief is that before compulsory education the average person was illiterate and uneducated. This, however, is not the case. The amount of income in England spent on education was about 1%, whereas in 1920 after compulsory education had been in place for several decades the amount of money spent on education had dropped to 0.7%. This proves that parents were willing to spend money to have their children educated. In 1880, the year education became mandatory, over 95% of fifteen-year-olds were literate. The process of compulsory education in England started in 1870 with the government building schools to “Fill in the gaps,” or build schools where there was supposedly little or no education before. The fact that it was a “Fill in the gaps,” policy proves that the government did not think that England had a big education problem where everyone was ignorant, but merely wanted to give education to the few who did not have it before. However, once the schools were built they were only about half full. This caused the government schools to lower their fees in order to attract more students since they could pay for them with tax money. Eventually, this lead to, in 1880, education becoming compulsory and in 1891 government schools becoming “free”. This greatly damaged the business of the private schools who could not afford to have free education.

Liberalism today often brings to mind people like Barack Obama or progressives. This, however, is quite the opposite of what liberalism meant classically. Classical Liberalism favors private property rights, limited government, freedom of speech and of the press, and religious freedom. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were examples of classical liberalists and helped to establish the Virginia statute establishing religious freedom especially for the Baptists there who were regularly brutalized by the Anglicans. Some classical liberal writers were Frederic Bastiat who wrote, “The Law” and Benjamin Constant who was an advocate against the rising sentiment that society should revert back to the liberty of the ancients, and give up their individual rights for a voice in the community.

The Congress of Viena took place from 1814 to 1815 and was conducted between the powers of Europe to decide what to do in a post-Napolean Europe. They had three main principles in the congress, the first being that they did not want France to feel isolated or wronged by the proceedings. They did not want France to be able to nurse bitter resentments that would only lead to more war. France was able to send representatives to the Congress and it was able to keep all its land from before Napolean. After several years France was able to join as one of the leading powers of Europe. This is contrasted with the Treaty of Versailles after World War 1 where Germany was not allowed to the proceedings and kept isolated from Europe. The leaders of the Treaty even studied the Congress of Viena to do the opposite of what they did. The Congress placed an emphasis on legitimate rulers, meaning that Louis XVIII was restored to power as king of France, though he was held back from full power by a constitutional charter. Balance of power was another key principle of the Congress of Viena. This was to make sure no one country held all the power, so often smaller countries would have to give up some territory of move borders in order to balance power, especially the power of the four main countries governing the proceedings, Britain, Prussia, Austria and Russia. The Congress of Vienna was able to successfully reintegrate France into Europe after the turmoil of Napolean.

In response to the revolutionary ideas and revolts, particularly in France but in other places as well, in the post-Napoleonic era, there was something called the Conservative Reaction. This was a tendency to suppress any revolutionary ideas and uprisings and to get things back to the way they were before the French Revolution. Many governments limited the freedom of speech and press in order to do this. One example of this is the Carlsbad decrees from the states in the German confederation. They were originally set in place because a deranged university fraternity member murdered a conservative writer. In response the Austrian Klemens Wenzel von Metternich drew up the Carlsbad decrees. The decrees had three sections. The first was for universities. All university fraternities were disbanded and teachers had to be approved by the government. A government or government-approved censor would reside at universities to make sure no dangerous ideas were being spread. The second area was the press. No daily publication exceeding twenty sheets could be published without the approval of the government. The government could suppress any publication and no appeal could be made from these decisions. The final area was an investigating committee. An investigating committee was to be made to find the origins and facts about any revolutionary plots.

The industrial revolution began in the 18th century with more mechanized ways of doing old tasks. One of the most controversial points of the industrial revolution is the standard of living debate. Did the industrial revolution improve or impoverish people’s lives? To answer this we need to look at the condition of people before the industrial revolution. Before the revolution, most people were involved in agriculture, working long backbreaking hours on a farm. The small percentage of people not involved in agriculture worked in specialized trades, making a few products a day and needing, at some point before, to have been able to afford the tools needed for that trade. If you were not able to do either of these you would most likely starve and even people at work were unimaginably poor. The industrial revolution changed this. Due to more mechanized and efficient processes, fewer people were needed in agriculture, and those people could work in a factory or some other business. While factory conditions were harsh especially compared to modern-day standards, it was better than starving and conditions in work before would have probably been even harsher. In all life expectancy, wages and living conditions all went up, maybe not as much as we would like it, but still, they went up. The fact that people started protesting poverty meant that now they thought there was something wrong with it, whereas, in the 11th century, people did not protest because poverty was what was expected from people’s lives.

Great Britain is one of the primary examples of how to end slavery peacefully, without violence. Quakers were proponents of egalitarianism or equality. This obviously means they would be advocates against slavery. The general population however viewed Quakers as rather unusual so the majority of the population took three arguments against slavery. One was the idea of natural rights, that all people are equal, and have equal rights to own property and pursue happiness. Another point was humanitarianism, that the slaves were often brutally treated and this should be stopped. The third was that slaves were not economically prosperous. Abolitionists had to convince people that their economy would not collapse if there were no more slaves. Slaves had no motivation to work hard if the fruits of their labor were just taken away from them. You also had to keep the slaves all year round even if you need them only for certain seasons. All these arguments came together to, in 1833, abolish all slaves in England and her colonies, breaking with thousands of years old traditions.

The French and American revolutions, while both being revolutions, were very different in their intent and outcome. Friedrich Gentz illustrates this in his book ‘The Origin and principles of the American Revolution Compared With the Origin and Principles of the French Revolution.’ Friedrich Gentzs’ book draws on ideas from Edmund Burke, an 18th-century English politician, who predicted some of the outcomes of the french revolution while it was still in its infancy. One major difference between the two revolutions is that Americans wanted to defend their traditional rights which England had been invading, whereas the french revolution had no stopping point. The french revolution was based upon dismantling old traditions and institutions and making completely new ones. This is dangerous and also lacks humility, as you think that your one brain thinking for a while is going to come up with a better society than the thousands of years of gradual change and experimentation. Another difference is that while in the American revolution there may have been mobs that carried out violence against loyalists, there was not the widespread government-sanctioned violence against perceived opponents of the revolution that was seen in France. These make up some of the major differences between the American and French revolutions.

Mary Wollstonecraft was a full-time writer in the 18th century, publishing for many different newspapers and publishers. However, she is most known for her book ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Woman,’ written in 1792. In this work, she discusses the need for women to be educated and that men and women should use the same curriculum and even the same or similar athletics. She stated that women of her day were prone mostly to trivial things such as gossip and clothes, which further illustrated the need for their education. Wollstonecraft said that while most women would be in the home being wives and mothers, those of a, “Higher cast” should be able to have the opportunity to do things such as run a farm or shop, be a doctor, or be involved in politics. Relationships between women and men should be based on mutual respect, not the man lording his higher intelligence over the woman. In Wollstonecraft’s book, you can see the flavor of modern feminism, which Mary has certainly influenced.

In 1789 France was facing a financial crisis. The large amounts of money spent on the French court, and the wars it had engaged in in the 18th century had led to half of the French government’s income being spent to pay the interest on their debts. Due to this crisis, in 1789 Louis XVI called the Estates-General, which had not been called since 1614. The Estates were comprised of three groups, the clergy of the first estate, aristocracy of the second, and ordinary people in the third, and each group had one vote. This meant that, although the general population of France was comprised of twenty-seven million people, they were usually outvoted by the first two estates. When the Estates-General assemble the third estate demanded twice as many representatives and two votes. They only got twice as many representatives. The third estate decided to break off and form what they called The National Assembly. They met at an indoor tennis court and swore that they would not leave until they had a constitution. This was all not part of the law which was what made this revolutionary. This lead to the storming of the Bastille, in which supposedly, political prisoners were held. In reality, there were a handful of criminals that were set free by this but it was all just part of the wheel of revolution. The movement that started by the third estate breaking away would eventually lead to the monarchy being abolished and the king executed, as well as the Reign of Terror.

The Reign of Terror lasted from 1793 to 1794. It began with the Committee of Public Safety declaring they would eradicate any, “Counter revolutionaries.” What a counter-revolutionary was no one deemed necessary to explain. Therefore much bloodshed ensued. Anyone with religious ties was in danger. Priests, monks, nuns, and even if you were found just making a Rosary could be deemed a fanatic and executed. People who had been in favor of the French Revolution, and were only against the dramatic and bloody turn it was taking, could be executed. The victims of the Reign of Terror were usually political prisoners, with only one-third being the clergy or aristocracy. One exceptionally brutal example of the Reign of Terror were the drownings at Nante. There barges and boats were designed with holes that were then boarded up. The boats would then be loaded with prisoners and taken to the middle of the river where the seals would be taken away. The boats would then fill with water and the people all drown, as they were usually tied together or to the boat. The victims were chosen from the overcrowded prisons in Nante and these drownings were sometimes called, “Republican baptisms.” Overall the numbers of how many people were killed in these drownings range from the one-thousands to the four-thousands, with hundreds being killed on a single voyage.