This definition accepts that restrictive policies were in place but implies these were justified as they helped provide security and stability. (A) and (B) propose the more simplistic viewpoint that Napoleon was not just using the police to impose security, but instead using them to crush all opposition and create a “Police State”. (A) and (B) fail to provide enough convincing evidence in favour of their argument and so the title of “security state” is more suitable. However, on the other hand, it is also essential to look at whether this form of policing within France was actually introduced by Napoleon. Even though (A) and (B) present Napoleon’s regime in a rather cynical light, neither claim he solely introduced a “Police State”.
He is protesting against the loyalists who want to stay loyal to Britain and not be free. He says in his writing “Your future connection with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honor, will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the first.” He is urging the people who want to stay loyal to think about it.
I view overcoming estrangement as a path towards conformity because overcoming estrangement requires abolishing our freedom and liberty, our free will. Tinder states we can perhaps hope to achieve harmony and understanding, if human beings are not estranged in essence. He also believes that it would not make sense to say that some people are estranged in essence and others are not. The great historical thinker Thomas Hobbes has argued that human beings are estranged in essence. This question presses on us from different sides and has been the reasoning for philosophical thinkers such as, Thomas Hobbes to shed light on this question, throughout this time; this is not only a question it is an issue in our world today as much as years ago.
To What Extent was Pitt’s repressive policy the MAIN reason for his success in resisting the radical challenge to 1801? In the aftermath of the French Revolution there was a concern that revolution, similar to that which affected France, would sweep through Britain. That there was no such revolution in Britain was due to a number of factors. Certainly, Pitt’s repressive policy, which became known as the “Reign of Terror” in the period 1789 -1801, was a significant, but not the sole reason for Pitt’s success in resisting the radical challenge which was being waged in Britain. It was the combination of the radicals’ failure to develop the organisational structure and tactics necessary to mount a sustained challenge to the governing classes combined with the ability and willingness of the government, led by Pitt, to use all powers at its disposal, which undermined the position of the radical movement.
The sources do suggest that Scotland was a threat towards Henry VIII’s ambitions in France , however only to some extent. Sources 1 and 3 refer to Scotland’s potential to destroy Henrys campaigns in France through invasion and stop him achieving his aim in taking back the regions of Terrain and Thoraine. Source 2 on the otherhand shows us that Henrys troops were strong enough to prevent a Scottish invasion even in his absence, and that he had the support of his first wife Catherine of Aragon. who is acting as regent in henry’s absence, Catherin would have wanted to please henry to keep his moral high as he was also in a battle in France at the time. source 2 shows us that the Scottish had lost in the battle of Flodden in 1513, at a time when henry was absent form his country in France.
How far do sources 1, 2 and 3 suggest that Scotland was, and remained a threat to Henry VIII’s ambitions in France? When examining the sources on face value, source 1 and 3 suggest that Scotland was a threat, whilst source 2 suggests that Scotland was not in fact a threat to Henry’s ambitions in France. Source 1 speaks about the Privy Council choosing to spare the inhabitants of Yorkshire and County Durham from their tax ‘because they did not want the King to be called harsh when he was striving to maintain his subjects’ loyalty’. The source says that they were ‘suspicious of the intentions of James, King of the Scots’, fearing that unless they dealt with the uprising soon, ‘it would give him the hope of undertaking something against King Henry in his absence’. This is referring to Henry’s absence from England due to him going into battle with France.
He thought it would clear "the clouds of evil which threatened not only the hemisphere of Massachusetts, but by spreading its baneful influence, the tranquility of The Union. In the ordinance of 1787, they try to revise The Constitution, but end up throwing it out altogether.
Regardless, it appears as if Harry Truman used Machiavelli’s idea that an initial intense trauma would quickly end any type of rebellion; in Truman’s case, the Japanese. Also, alternatives to end the war were not actively pursued by Truman, which show his somewhat impatience to end the war. Truman ultimately turned out to lead with a heavy fist, perhaps even consequentialist because of the gravity of the decision to actually use such a powerful weapon. Although Machiavelli makes it clear in The Prince that it is important for a ruler to be loved and considered clement by his people, Machiavelli made it even clearer that is more important for a ruler to be feared than loved. In chapter VIII of The Prince, Machiavelli wrote that it, “is much safer to be feared than loved”, thus making dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a perfect example of this Diego Regin 2 ideal(Machiavelli Ch.
Henry pleads with the people to not deceive them. In the remaining paragraphs of Henry’s speech, reasons are given as to why he supposes that war is not only unavoidable but that it had actually already begun. In doing everything to avert the situation at hand, they were now prostrated in attempting reconciliation to England. Even though they had taken this position of the matter, England acted in response with tyrannical hands toward them. Henry viewed this response as violent and an insult.
Both federalists believed the new Constitution would help with providing protection, the general welfare of the people and enforcing the laws. (Doc 1 & 3) Two men, Patrick Henry and Amos Singletree, were both antifederalist and opposed the Constitution. Patrick opposed the Constitution because he believed the states would lose power. He thought it was too late to try to fix something that separated America from Great Britain. Amos Singletree believed the men who drafted the constitution are using it as an excuse to gain more power and money for themselves.