Willaim Cobbett & Rural Rides

• William Cobbett was a political Journalist in the early to mid 19th century.
• He was writing and living in the times when Britain (mainly England) was changing dramatically, due to the Industrial revolution. new cities and towns where popping up all over the  country.
• William Cobbett grew up in the country side in Farnham surrey.
• He grew up in a farming family and from a young age he was a farmer. He was very passionate about farming and he was scarred that the rapid growth of industrialisation would ruin the country side and the farming culture.
• He was born in 1763 and had to older brothers
• In 1784 he joined the army and spent time in America. Once he returned to England from the army, he had found out the wages had almost halved.
• Cobbett had some weird views on Potatoes, he believed that they were unfit for human consumption.




William Cobbett


• He despised the government for taxes that ruined Farmers and fed the lazy, he had no time for the church and thought that the Army were freeloaders.
• He also hated London, he thought that Londoners got payed for doing nothing and got fed by the sweat of rural laborers. He also thought London was unhealthy.
• He loved Pigs and he believed that Pigs were the animal of the working class because he believed that if you had Pigs, you couldn't starve.
• In the later years of his life, Cobbett joined parliament.
• He liked machines, because he believed it showed the growth of man, but also believed that the machines and the industrial revolution on a whole would take the farmers and rural workers away from the country side and to the city to work in factories. This is what he was against.
• Check out the videos below as I found it helpfull for me to understand William Cobbett's radical Journalism.

Everything On Marx That I May Have Forgotten

Marx believed that money was the dominant factor in determining ones social class. Marx came to England in 1849, which was the height of the industrial revolution and at that time, most English men were either jobless or worked in factories. The Bourgeoisie ran the factories, which was the first problem for Marx because he believe this is where power became an issue. The Bourgeoisie had power and control over the proletariat (working class), which means they controlled how many hours they would work in a day and also, their pay –which was often very little when the amount of hard labour they did was taken in to consideration. Marx believed that the factory workers were alienated from the Bourgeoisie and from each other. He believed this because in the factories, each worker was told to work at a station on an assembly line, for example, if ones job was to put a wheel on the product, one would come to work every day and all one would do for the whole day, would be screwing the wheel on, then most likely never see the product again. Marx believed this would lead to ‘Alienation’, because one would be alienated from their co-workers at other stations and also from the final product.

In the time of Karl Marx, England was (and still is) a capitalist society, run by the Bourgeoisie. This was what Marx was against. He wanted England to become a communist society. He believed that in order for this to happen, the proletariats would have to overthrow the Bourgeoisie. He thought that this would happen by way of the factory workers finally getting frustrated with their working conditions enough to form trade unions, eventually growing large enough to overthrow the Bourgeoisie. He believed that once this had been achieved, we would finally have a communist society and that the power and social class issues would be eradicated. 

The Dreyfus Affair and J' accuse

• Dreyfus was sent to Devil's Island, he was a French soldier.
• Bismark attempted to unify Germany (the Prussian and German states)
• The French got defeated by Germany but France couldn't handle the defeat so they invented a conspiracy theory. They thought there were French soldiers acting on behalf of the Germans.
• The Germans took over Paris and all the French, rich people fled to the countryside. The only people who remained were the poor people. The poor were so desperate for food that they went to the zoo and ate all the animals apart from the lions.
• The French were made to pay for the damages of the war by the Germans.
• Also, the Germans wanted to have a parade through Paris to celebrate the war victory. Once the Germans left, the rich came back to Paris and demanded rent money from the poor for staying in Paris during their absence.
• The French Commune
• The right wing is the military and the Catholics, also the people who want to bring back the King.
• The left wing was the socialists and intellectuals.
• Drayfus was from Alsace, which was taken over by the Germans. He was also a Jew.
• He was patriotic towards the French because he hated the Germans for taking over Alsace. He went to military school and was very smart and wealthy.
• The information that was found in the waste paper basket was blamed on Dreyfus because he was a Jew and from Alsac, which meant he was considered a German.



Dreyfus

• The information that was found in the waste paper basket was information on the French army that was given to the Germans.
• Dreyfus was innocent, the person who really did it, was a Frenchman who was in the army, but a spy for the Germans. His name was Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy.
• After the cba ge of government, Dreyfus was brought back for another trial, but even with all the new evidence, he was still found guilty.
• Before the trial, the barrister was shot by gunmen because he was said to be on Dreyfus' side. The barrister still attended the trial.
• The final irony, was that Dreyfus' granddaughter was killed in Auschwitz.
• At Zola's funeral, Dreyfus was the guest of honour and he was approached by a gunman.
• Zola was the journalist who stood up for Dreyfus and wrote a letter to the President of the republic to accuse the people were currupt in the French Ministry of War. And also Esterhazy. His Article was published on the front page of the Paris Daily.

Seminar Paper on Emile Zola's, J' accuse



This article was published on January 13th, 1898 on the front page of the Paris Daily. It was written by Emile Zola in regards to the Dreyfus Affair. In this article, Zola is writing to the president of the French republic, who was Mr Felix Faure, to accuse the government of Anti- Semitism in the Dreyfus affair.

At the start of his letter to the president, it is almost as if Zola is trying to praise the president for all that he has done up until this point, because he says ' You have passed healthy and safe through base calumnies; you have conquered hearts. You appear radiant in the apotheosis of this patriotic festival that the Russian alliance was for France, and you prepare to preside over the solemn triumph of our world fair, which will crown our great work, truth and freedom. But what a spot of mud on your name-I was going to say on your reign-is this abominable Dreyfus affair!' From this, you could say Zola starts off by acknowledging all of the presidents past achievements because he wants him to see that after all the great things he has done in the past, the Dreyfus affair could tarnish his reputation, which would ultimately ruin his reign as President. You can see a more clear indication of this by when Zola writes 'History will write that it was under your presidency that such a social crime could be committed'.

In the next paragraph, Zola says ' I do not want to be an accomplice. My nights would be haunted by the specter of innocence that suffer there, through the most dreadful of tortures, for a crime it did not commit'. By Zola saying this, it is like he is saying to the President; I don't know how you can sleep at night, knowing that a man is in jail for a crime that he did not commit.

The first person who Zola accuses about the Dreyfus affair is Lieutenant Colonel Du Paty de Clam, who he claims is the one who was building up a misleading and scandalous case against Dreyfus and was the first culprit in the appalling miscarriage of justice committed. However, there are three other people who he mentions in the next paragraph, whom he believes turned a blind eye to the case and who did not investigate the case as well as they could have. The three people were the Minister of war, General Mercier, the assistant manager of high command, General Gonse and lastly the head of high command, General De Boisdeffre.

Zola thinks that it is well and truly a hoax and very foolish that Dreyfus was initially arrested in private by Colonel Du Paty de Clam based on his imaginary and false reasons for doing so. Colonel Du Paty de Clam told Dreyfus's wife that if she speaks, her husband is lost.

 Emile Zola

When Dreyfus was brought to court Zola reminds us that the twenty three officers whose testimonies overpowered Dreyfus, all belonged to the war office, which is run by the four culprits that Zola has already accused. He also reminds us that it was the high command who wanted to file a lawsuit against Dreyfus.

Zola then moves on to discuss the new information that the French ministry of War had received on Commander Esterhazy. They received information that Esterhazy had received a letter telegram from an agent of a foreign high power in 1896. Zola states that the French Ministry of War opened an investigation on this from May till September of 1896. Once the investigation was closed they did not want to accuse Esterhazy because that would mean the revision of Dreyfus's trial and the High Command wanted to avoid that at any cost.

The reason why The French High Command hated Dreyfus so much was because he was known to be of German origin and also a Jew. So, because of the recent embarrassing defeat that the French took at the hands of the Germans in the war, which was not to long before the Dreyfus affair, Dreyfus was considered to be almost like an enemy because the French hated the Germans and Jews.

Zola then goes on to say in the next two paragraphs how he believes that General Billot is the most guilty of them all, because he succeeded General Mercier ministry of  war. Therefore, when General Billot took his position he came in knowing that Dreyfus was innocent and that Esterhazy was the real culprit, but even with all the new evidence he had, he still decided to side with Colonel Du Paty de Clam, General Gonse and  General De Boisdeffre. Zola says that General Billot could have been ' the master of justice '.

Zola then tells the President that Major Picquart had fulfilled his duty as an honest man, because he insisted to his superiors that in the name of justice, Dreyfus should not be wrongly accused, but because the High Command did not want Major Picquart to be involved any further, they sent him on a mission to Tunisia, just to get him out of the picture. Zola, in addition, tells the President that Mr. Scheurer-Kestner believed that the truth should come out before the situation gets worse and becomes a public disaster.

Subsequently, Zola clearly states that the memo was written by Commander Esterhazy, not Dreyfus. ‘Mr. Mathieu Dreyfus denounced Commander Esterhazy as the true author of the memo just as Mr. Scheurer-Kestner demanded a revision of the case to the Minister of Justice. Zola then says how just before the trial of Esterhazy, the evidence against him was taken away and given to the high command which Zola believes was the work of Colonel Du Paty de Clam. So because of the lack of evidence against Esterhazy, he was not found guilty. Also, Zola says that the judges were brought to their seats.

Zola proceeds to mock the French army by saying 'It cannot restore his (Dreyfus’) innocence without all the High Command being guilty' and ' what of people I know who, faced the possibility of war, tremble of anguish knowing in what hands lies national defence!'

In the last part of the letter, Zola tries to make the President realise how wrong everyone involved in this is, he describes it as the truth is locked away and needs to come out. This is clear from what we can see Zola says here ' and he repeats it here: ‘when one locks up the truth underground, it piles up there, it takes there a force such of explosion, that, the day when it bursts, it makes everything leap out with it. We will see, if we do not prepare for later, the most resounding of disasters.’

Then lastly, comes Zola's ‘I accuse’. He finally says that he accuses Colonel Du Paty de Clam, General De Boisdeffre and General Gonse , General Billot, General Mercier, General De Pellieux for their part in covering up the truth. Also, the three handwriting experts, sirs Belhomme Varinard and Couard, of submitting untrue and fraudulent reports. Finally Zola accuses the first council of war for violating the law by condemning a defendant with unrevealed evidence.

In the time that this was happening in France, I can imagine that a letter like this being published on the front page of the Paris daily was probably really big and shocking news, especially when the author is blatantly accusing people who are suppose to be honourable members of the French society. To my knowledge I cannot remember anything like this happening since I've been alive, but I would imagine that if it was to happen, there would be a big buzz around the letter and it would probably be headline news in the papers and on TV. Lastly I would like to find out where Zola got all of his information from because he does not say in his letter and it would have been unethical for him to falsify information. It would be interesting to know if the French general public took this letter seriously or even the president, for that matter.