solved Reply: Chocolate and Spirituality Discuss why religious groups like Quakers

Reply:

Chocolate and Spirituality 
Discuss why religious groups like Quakers turned chocolatiers and confectionaries. Relate to pacifism, abolition, prohibition, women in industry, and more. Are there other examples of communities and individuals producing/selling “safe” and useful products and creating alternative working conditions and societies in the late 1700s and 1800s, as well as – today?)
In your first post please respond using the following material:
To better understand the background and immediate context, watch this free video on YouTube – Deborah Cadbury: The Chocolate Wars: https://youtu.be/lWq0SJiWJE4 (Links to an external site.) (2 min 42 sec)
The Cadburys (Biography in Sherman, Ch. 17)
Ethical Chocolate and Social Capitalism: Consumers of the World Unite by Mark Christian, 2010:  
https://www.c-spot.com/editorials/ethical-chocolate-social-capitalism-consumers-of-the-world-unite/ (Links to an external site.) 
Early Socialism: Ending Competition and Inequalities (part of the lesson in Ch. 18)
In your second post comment on someone else’s post, and elaborate with new knowledge (in both posts!)
Then read the Biography and about the wider context of the chocolatiers in England.
A Rising Middle-Class Family
The Cadburys

By the late eighteenth century, the Cadburys were a well-established Quaker family of shopkeepers in western England. Young Richard Tapper Cadbury used his father’s connections to find positions as an apprentice and journeyman to drapers (selling retail cloth and dry goods) in Gloucester and London. In 1794, his father helped him again, giving him money to start his own cloth and dry goods store on the main street in Birmingham, one of Britain’s leading industrial cities.
In 1800, Richard, his wife, Elizabeth, and their growing family moved into an apartment above their shop on Bull Street. Middle-class families such as the Cadburys typically lived in the same building as their business until they could afford to buy a separate home.
Elizabeth Cadbury, like most middle-class women of moderate means, worked in the family enterprise but had received no professional training. She picked up skills on the job, helping rather than leading, and taking over for her husband when he was away. As a married woman, Elizabeth had no independent legal identity and could not have owned a business on her own. Formally, their family business belonged to Richard, but like many businesses during the period, it also functioned as an informal partnership between the couple. In addition to working in the business, Elizabeth was also responsible for running the household, which included eight children and young apprentices.
Draper retailers such as the Cadbury family played a major role in the revolution of Britain’s textile industries. Like producers, retailers benefited from the new sources of supply and expanding demand for cloth. The Cadbury shop expanded and brought in enough income for Richard and Elizabeth to rent a house and land for a garden on the outskirts of Birmingham in 1812. The younger children, their nurse, and their pets moved there. Elizabeth and her older daughters traveled back and forth, managing the two households.
Richard and Elizabeth’s sons eventually apprenticed in retail businesses in different cities—Benjamin as a draper, John as a tea and coffee dealer. The daughters had no such training. Instead, they learned what they could from their mother as they helped in the shop, house, and garden.
John (1801–1889) opened a tea and coffee store next door to his parents’ shop (see Figure 17.13). He and his first wife, who died in 1828, lived over the shop. When John accumulated enough money, he also opened a plant to manufacture the cocoa and chocolate for which the family name would become so famous. In 1834, John and his second wife, Candia, moved their home away from the city, with its filth and crowds, to a new, planned middle-class suburb just outside of Birmingham. Candia generally stayed at home, busy with her domestic tasks and gardening, while John rode to town every day to take care of business and political affairs. Candia could not look after the family business as her mother-in-law, Elizabeth, had, for the demands of child-rearing had grown and the training necessary for John’s more complex business had increased. John’s and Candia’s spheres were much more distinct than the elder Cadburys’ had been.

FIGURE 17.13
E. Wall Cousins, The Cadbury Shops, 1824
In 1861, John’s sons, Richard and George, took over their father’s failing business. They visited a chocolate factory in Holland that was using a new process to transform cocoa beans into cocoa and chocolate. In 1866, they successfully introduced that process into their own factory. This new technique helped them to break the near-monopoly that French chocolate products had previously enjoyed in the British market. In the decades that followed, the brothers built Cadbury into a prosperous cocoa and chocolate manufacturing firm. Richard painted the designs for fancy Cadbury chocolate boxes that idealized children and their innocence, using his own children as models.
In 1879, the brothers moved their firm from industrialized Birmingham to a rural site they called Bournville. There they introduced improved conditions for their workers and a private social security program, reforms well ahead of their time. George, holding firmly to the Quaker views of his parents and grandparents, had long taught in a Birmingham “adult school” for workingmen. Concluding that poor housing lay at the root of many social evils, he began building high-quality working-class housing that featured gardens. By 1900, that community included 313 houses and served as a model for British “garden cities” and “garden suburbs.”
In 1901, George and members of his family acquired the London Daily News and other newspapers, which they used to express their Liberal Party views. By this time, Cadbury, which had grown unevenly from the seeds planted by Richard and Elizabeth in 1794, had become a vast, worldwide company.
Middle-class success
In short, the middle-class ideal was a small, private family bonded by love and authority. In such a family, the wife and husband willingly fulfilled the expected roles of their separate spheres. Families measured their success in achieving this ideal by the luxury items they bought, collected, and self-consciously displayed; by the accomplishments of their children; by how well their lives matched the uplifting dramas that the novels and paintings of the day depicted; and by their participation in appropriate social, religious, and philanthropic activities.
Middle-class success is well illustrated by the economic and social rise of wealthy commercial and industrial families such as the Cadburys (see Biography).  1824 drawing by E. Wall Cousins in Figure 17.13 shows the still-modest Cadbury shops on Bull Street in Birmingham. To the right is Richard’s original dry-goods (linens) store; to the left, his son John’s tea and coffee shop. The plate-glass windows and the dress of people on the street indicate the store’s intention to appeal to middle-class and wealthy clients. Above are the family’s apartments, which include plants and pets. When the business expanded, the Cadburys moved away from this store to a suburban house, with separate nursery and schoolrooms for the children. The idea of separate rooms for children, and for eating, cooking, reading, and socializing, was new and reflected the growing wealth of the middle class and how the idea of differentiation—separate areas for different tasks and the division of labor—already spreading in the industrial world affected the domestic sphere as well.
Working-Class Realities
The middle class assumed that its vision of the proper family served as the standard for all. However, this vision did not fit the urban and industrial realities facing the far more numerous working classes.
Women workersIndustrialization pulled many working-class women away from their homes and into factory jobs. Employers preferred to hire women because they worked for lower salaries and seemed more pliable than men. In the early decades, young children often accompanied their mothers, providing even cheaper labor and falling victim to the harsh, disciplined factory environment. During the 1830s and 1840s, the public outcry against child labor (led by middle-class reformers, not the working class) prompted women to leave their younger children at home in the care of an older child or neglectful “baby farmers,” women who took in far too many children. Many mothers resorted to drugging their children with laudanum to keep them out of harm’s way while the adults were at work.
Page 543
Middle-class critics demanded reforms that would limit women’s ability to work away from home, although working-class women objected that they had no better alternatives. As one group of women factory workers from Manchester pointed out, “Handloom has been almost totally superseded by power loom weaving, and no inconsiderable number of females, who must depend on their own exertions, … have been forced … into the manufactories, from their total inability to earn a livelihood at home.” During recessions, women’s plight worsened. Employers laid off the more highly paid men first, leaving women with the overwhelming burden of managing both a paid job and all the domestic tasks at home.
Working-class and peasant families were being pulled apart in other ways as well. Adolescent boys left home to seek work in the mines or cities. Daughters, too, sought jobs as factory laborers or as domestics in middle or upper-class homes. In the cities, women were all the more vulnerable during economic downturns when low-paying jobs disappeared.
From Sherman, 542-543
================================
Lastly, take a look at the question of ethical chocolate: 
Ethical Chocolate and Social Capitalism: Consumers of the World Unite by Mark Christian, 2010:  
https://www.c-spot.com/editorials/ethical-chocolate-social-capitalism-consumers-of-the-world-unite/ (Links to an external site.)