SORRY IF I’M LATE IK IK, YOU DON’T HAVE TO DO IT BUT LIKE I JUST WROTE IT IN 48 MINUTES SO I’D APPRECIATE FEEDBACK ON IT.
This is the link (docs and prompt are from fiveable): https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSpjS4rcDra3oEbUy6lK-wczvyYehkip8qUOAMIoPrC93iwTyDM6M5asnbgR3ppSBIl3JwJPmx5ObQI/pub
THIS IS MY DBQ:
During the time period that led to the political revolutions in the Americas and eventually all over the world, the Enlightenment flourished. The enlightenment was a huge event where people started thinking with reason and science, and abandoning old traditions. Many started believing in natural rights given to them directly from birth. This eventually spread to the lower class (and higher class in Latin America) and lead to widespread revolutions as they too now believed they were endowed with unalienable natural rights. These revolutions would have a huge effect on social hierarchies and power shifts throughout the world. Although revolutionary thinking spread all throughout the world, because only some classes were able to achieve freedom and change and in other places, social order stayed the same, the revolutions in the Americas between 1700-1825 did not change social hierarchies globally, but did in individual nations.
Although the revolutions did not spread globally, they did have a huge effect on the social hierarchies in some places. In Haiti, the Haitian revolution, as shown in the picture, led to black slaves rising up and gaining freedom, even through the lynching of French officers. (Doc. 1). This supports my argument because it shows how these revolutions did change social hierarchies in some places, like Haiti, where the few French plantation onwers were violently revolted against by the slaves. The context of this document is that the Haitains saw the Americans and French rebelling, and realized they should have the right to freedom, especially if their home state is rebelling for freedom. This led to many slaves to rise up and lead the revolut like Tousannte L’Oveture. The American revolutions also had an affect in France. The 3rd estate (the commoners) of France rose up in a bloody revolution and beheaded the king along with establishing their own constitution. This supports my argument because it shows how the American revolutionary ideas did spread to some places leading to even the murder of the royalty, like France. The American revolutions also successfully changed social hierarchies in the North American colonies of the British. The American slaves were taken refuge by the British in their Army and the Americas demanded them to return back. However, the British declared them free and helped them to safety. (Doc. 2). This supports my argument because it shows how the revolutions changed social hierarchies of the slaves in the Americas because it spread to other places, who eventually helped the slaves to their freedom, leading them to be free, moving them up the social hierarchy. The purpose of this document by the black preacher is to praise the British for helping the slaves, as he called them compassionate and furnishing. He was trying to show the population of British how the Americans were treating the slaves very harshly against them and spread word about the cruel ways and how Britain helped take those dreadful days away from the slaves through their protection. In Latin America, specifically Argentina, the revolutions were also successful. The social order was changed by the creoles and a new constitution was established that preached order and liberty. (Doc. 3). This supports my argument because it shows how the American revolutions had a profound effect in Latin America, leading the usually exploited creoles to rise up against the higher classes, successfully changing the social hierarchy. The context of this document is that the creoles, Europeans born in the Americas, were tired of the peninsulares, Europeans born in Europe, because they were taking all the government jobs and money and looking down upon the creoles, however the creoles felt because they were European too they deserved the same rights. This led them to rise up under many leaders like Simon Bolivar and gain independence from the European mercantilist monarchies.
However, the revolutions in the Americas did not globally change social hierarchies because it did not always fully change social orders in states. In Mexico, many thought that the government after the Spanish rulers still ruled the same even after he was gone. Lots of indigenous communities, like Xonacatlan, believed that their rights were not being protected and that the ruler was a tyrant who only wanted whats best for him. (Doc. 5). This supports my argument because it shows how governments and social orders did not successfully change in some places due to revolutions in the Americas, like in indigenous communities in Mexico, where the rulers still oppressed the lower class and kept power in their hands. This continuity remained in Colombia also. In many places like cafes, such as Senor Coralles’, white people were still only aloud to take a seat in the shop. Many people who were being oppressed and not allowed to sit or enjoy the same freedoms as the whites resented this, like the author of this document who wanted a constitution protecting his rights, as he called Senor Coralles a dolt (stupid person). (Doc. 4). This supports my argument because it shows how in many places after the American revolutions, social order stayed the same and the constitutions were not strong enough as the upper class (white people) remained in power and had much more freedoms than those of lower classes. This continuity of unchanged social hierarchies also also occurred in the British colonies of New Zealand. The Maori people fought the New Zealand wars against the British in order to take power and change the social hierarchy that the British tried to implement by colonizing their area. However, they failed, and the social hierarchy stayed the same. This supports my argument because it shows how in many places the American revolutions did not change hierarchies because the lower class was just not powerful and strong enough to beat the upper class who was exploiting them, leading to no change in social order.