Nineteenth Century

You should be able to find some starting points for your research in these excerpts from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antebellum


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_era

One can hardly call 1800-1850 "early Victorian." Victoria was only born in 1819, and did not take the throne until 1837. A little more precision than that is desirable in historical accounts.

In looking at European history, 1815 is a natural "break point." It was in 1815 that Napoleon was definitively defeated, and the victorious Allies created a "settlement" for Europe at the conference in Vienna in 1815. The entire period form 1793 to 1815--the Wars of the French Revolution and the Wars of Napoleon--defined an era, because all of Europe was involved, and the principle focus of peoples' lives revolved around those events.

After 1815, England tried to return to "normal," but it was unlikely to happen, because with the threat of Napoleon removed, people in England no longer wanted to just accept the old order, they wanted a better life, and labor wanted to organize. In France, the people rested uneasily under the return of the Bourbon monarchy, and the middle class, who had gained so much under the Empire, certainly did not want to give up their gains. Prussia, Russia and Austria formed the "Holy Alliance," which was a bastion of reactionary policies, determined to suffer no repetition of the ideas which had spread outward from revolutionary France. Italy groaned under Austrian control in the north, Papal control in the center, and a repressive, reactionary regime in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, which was basically Italy south of Naples and the island of Sicily.

You can't just look at calendar dates and decide that those can define an era. Wars don't stop because it's a new century. and the influences and ideas of the previous centuries don't go away just because someone arbitrarily decides it's a new century.

In 1819, a "monster meeting" of men, women and children at St. Peters Fields near Manchester was attacked by dragoon militia, in an event which became known as the "Peterloo" massacre--this referring to the battle of Waterloo four years earlier, and an insulting fling at the arch-conservative Duke of Wellington, the victor at Waterloo, and the symbol to working class England of all that was wrong in the old order which the ruling class had rather stupidly assumed could be taken up again as though the events at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th could be ignored. In France, dissatisfaction deepened, as the working class endured, if possible, even greater poverty than they had known before the revolution, and the middle class saw the rights and privileges which they had gained in the counter-revolution and under Napoleon eroding.

So, for western Europe, the next defining era begins in 1830. A decade of labor unrest and dissatisfaction with Parliament eventually lead to Lord Grey's liberal government, and the Reform Act, which overhauled Parliament. In what we think of as Belgium, the population rebelled in 1830 against Dutch control, and the nation of Belgium was created. In France, 1830 saw the final end of the Bourbon monarchy, and Louis-Philippe became "the Citizen King." In Spain, Isabella II accepted a liberal government, leading to a conservative uprising in 1833, which resulted in a 40+ year civil war.

George III went mad in 1810, and his son, George, Prince of Wales, became George, Prince Regent. In 1820, when George III died, he became George IV. His brother, Frederick, Duke of York, was the next in line to the throne. Their younger brother, William, Duke of Clarence, was living with a former actress by whom he had ten bastard children, and he was the despair of the Royal Family. The younger brother, Edward, Duke of Kent, who was the father of Victoria, had died in the same year as his father, and when his daughter was not yet a year old.

Frederick died in 1827, so that when George died in 1830, William became King William IV of England. In the less than three years between the death of Frederick and the death of George IV, they had to hurry up and find William a suitable wife--Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen--and get rid of "Mrs. Jordan," his mistress and the mother of his herd of bastards. Something had to be done for the bastards, too.

William managed to hang on until Victoria reached her majority in 1837, and died about a month later. I'm sure he viewed this with some gratification, as he cordially despised the Duchess of Kent, and would not have wanted to see her as regent of England for even a day.

You can't define eras of history by persons or centuries, unless you are very specific. While England went through the throes of Parliamentary reform and a nascent labor movement in the 1830s, and France began to throw off the vestiges of hereditary monarch and aristocracy for good, things in the "Holy Alliance" were very much different. People there suffered far worse than they did in England and France, and that broke out in the 1848 Socialist uprisings, which were brutally put down, and which define central and eastern Europe far more than did the silly old housewife, Victoria, at Windsor. Victoria was irrelevant to those people, and it would be a mistake to attempt to define their lives by her reign.

Quite apart from that, Victoria reigned from 1837 to 1901. The world certainly did not stand still for those more than 60 years. History is far more complex and cause and effect far more convoluted than silly things like arbitrarily defined centuries, of the names of English monarchs.

If your focus is on the United States, look up "the era of good feelings," "the age of the common man," the trail of tears, the Seminole wars, the Blackhawk war, the Texas revolution, the Mexican war, the wars with the Mormons, the California Gold rush, the Missouri compromise, Bloody Kansas--and that's just some of what went on before 1850.

Butrflynet:
Thanks for your input. It is always welcome. My problem is that I have been using the terms I mentioned (and have overused one - antebellum), then saw at least two more terms used to generally describe this period. I am trying to once again find these other terms for the same period of time. Your listing of the various eras was helpful, and closer to what I am looking for. Thanks again

Setanta:
This may surprise you, but there are writers who do, in fact, include some of those years before 1850 as "early Victorian" - but that was not my point. I was looking for phrases which included any of those years (1800-1850), knowing that some writers used them. I am looking for additional phrases use to describe those years in American history. No one is trying to define "Victorian."

It may surprise you, but i was defining Victorian, because in American history, it is a meaningless rubric. About the only thing the so-called Victorian era gave to America was the architecture of homes, styles of furniture and the smug, self-righteous morals of tight-assed middle class matrons.

In the context of American history, Victorian is meaningless. In the context of anyone else's history, other than in the what was then called the British Empire, Victorian is meaningless.

It may come as a surprise to you, but the assumption that when we speak of history here, it will always automatically be a discussion of American history is unwarranted.

I suspect that many things would come as a surprise to you, if you could but learn them.

Setanta,

A lucid and sweeping encapsulation of the era, wonderfully composed, An informative and delightful read. My hat's off to 'ya.

Thanks very much.

Thanks, Boss . . . the check is on the way . . .

For the second time: I wasn't looking for a discourse about the Victorian era - I wanted another name by which the years 1800 - 1850 are known. It's no sin if you don't know the answer - but I'm not looking for your opinions of the Victorian era. I probably know as much about it as you pretend to. Next time, try to read to question first. When someone asks you for the time, don't tell them how to build a clock.

Next time you have a vague, imprecise question, i'll recall your conceit and assume that you don't really want an answer, because you already know so damned much. I gave several names for periods in the history of the United States prior to 1850, which you seem not to have absorbed. Perhaps reading comprehension doesn't figure into that vast body of knowledge you possess and assume that i don't.

I didn't give you a discourse on the Victorian era, i pointed out to you that it is a chimera, a meaningless label for a complex time in human history.

I also pointed out that your silly question appears to presume that all questions about history are referential to the history of the United States. You didn't specify whose history you were interested in, and in that case, references to "early Victorian" are meaningless in anyone's history other than that of the British Empire. Even had you specified the United States, it wouldn't alter that "Victorian" is meaningless in such a context.

On reflection, don't you think that was a bit churlish ? The name you are looking for many not exist. Setanta was entirely correct about the date at which the "early Victorian" era began, and that reminder, it seems to me, was useful and beneficial to you. Some of us enjoyed his digression, and I can't see that you were harmed in any way by it. Why get sore about it??

amen....when I was 16 and studying Ensor's History of England from 1815...we took 2 years to understand what set took 10 minutes to explain...bravo!

For the third time: Your first five paragraphs were a discourse, a harrangue - an attempt to go on-and-on, "answering" a question I never asked. If anyone asks a "vague, imprecise question" you will too answer it , unfortunately. You always do, and with the same kind of answer you gave to this question - and to many others. You want to display what you think is incredible knowledge on a subject, rather than answer the question. You mentioned names of several periods, but none that applied to what I asked - but Butrflynet did. You should read some of her answers to questions and try to learn from it - rather than your own ego and self-conceit. Just answer the question that was asked. That's all. Just answer the question that was asked, or don't answer at all!

Georgeob1
There isn't just one name, there are at least two. Nor did I tell your friend Setanta that the date was wrong - I told him there is more than one opinion as to the beginning and length of the period. Moreover, some historians identify "periods" by their characteristics, not by the most famous person of that era - but I know that the MAJORITY do give Victoria's accession to the throne and her death as the parameters of the period. Let me clear something up for you: his digression was not "useful and beneficial" to me. I did not ask for 11 paragraphs relating to Napoleon, the Holy Alliance, Italy groaning, the Peterloo Massacre, or "mad" George III, or Frederick's bastards. You seem to feel that I was a bit rough on Setanta - but I wasn't. Knowing now what his answer was, I would have preferred that he not answer at all.

I didn't mention any bastard children of Frederick, the Duke of York--he is believed to have had some, but even that is not certain. It was his younger brother William, the Duke of Clarence, who fathered all the bastards with Mrs. Jordan, to whom i referred. It is hilarious to have seen you suggest that you know more about the period than i do when you don't even know the basic relationships of the royal family which ruled England from 1800 to 1850, and which produced Victoria, for whom a small part of that period was named, and only in reference to the British Empire.

That may be your preference, but it wasn't mine. These threads are not the property of their originators. This thing is about more than just you and your question. However, it appears from your comments that you don't see it that way. That's unfortunate because, with that attitude, you are sure to be frustrated.

Frankly the notion that the so-called Victorian era would include any period during which she was not the monarch has never occurred to me, nor have I ever seen any such reference to such a thing..

Setanta:
Another reply? Don't you have something, anything, else in your life?

woolcott, have you ever had any interest is actual history?

Jesus, woolcott. Better take advantage while you can.