However, many other factors played a role in the demise of the Parliament such as the fact that they were ill-organised, the lack of popular support and their inability to enforce decisions. Frederick William IV was partially responsible for the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament as he was unwilling to accept the ‘crown from the gutter’. William IV was aware that acceptance of the leadership may lead to war with Austria. Austria had no wish to see a united Germany and wanted to keep it weak and divided in order to dominate. Frederick William shared this view and was unwilling to potentially cause a war with such a powerful state.
In this speech he talks about the violence in Longton he says, "I warned all who had been part of it that they were not the friends, but the enemies of freedom. I told them that this strike for the Charter would bring ruin, if those who claimed to be its supports broke on law". From this source we can see that he believes the violence undermined the Chartist cause. He states that if the people involved in the violence admitted to being Chartists then they would essentially just been seen as a bunch of hooligans which is evidently not the image the Chartists were going for when they needed to be taken seriously amongst a cabinet completely full of middle to upper class Ministers. Thomas Cooper clearly believed that any violence would undermine the cause.
There manifesto was the agreement of people which favoured the ordinary citizens and wanted them to gain more rights than rich property owners. They organized the Putney debates where army general council met with leveller spokesmen and they agreed that they should break the back of the rank and file agitation. The leveller’s strong influence on the army played a role in the failure as it made it difficult for the army and parliament to agree with one
Although there was changed tactics and a greater push from suffrage organisations to achieve the vote, it in some cases in fact alienated politicians and the public. As source 13 states “we have been told that we cannot have the same political rights which men have won unless we convert the whole country to our side”. This source being written by Emmeline Pankhurst means it very useful as it shows how people directly involved felt about what the suffrage movement had achieved, and from the implications of this source that was very little. If the leader of the WSPU claims herself that the movement is not making ‘substantial progress’ then it is very difficult to argue against this. They were beginning to make headway however this was still a long way to go before the movement had made substantial enough progress to gain the
Because most laws affect women as much as men. The final point made on the leaflet was simple: 'Because, to sum up all reasons in one – it is just. 'This piece of propaganda fueled the whole sufffragete movement. Another argument Was that if women were not given the vote then they shouldn't have to pay tax. Though through many debates with the government, the government still did not award the suffragettes with the vote until 1894.
Womens suffrage synthesis paper. Women have always been under suffrage from the superior male empowerment. they endure depression of rights such as voting and freedom of speech, the thought of women having such straightforward authority to do the bare bone basic in nationalistic movement of voting and cary an impact on our developed country is profound even today in the eyes of a man. people in general can ignore womens suffrage all they desire but it is sure to catch up to any who oppose it, the accusation that women ask to much of the present society almost as if they want more then they need, all together the men have stronger thought towards why women need to be relieved of there freedom. Women are always becoming more independent as time moves on, starting with only a few fighting for freedom to many thousands of women protesting for there rights.
On the other hand, source 5 suggests that imperialism was ok, but the way the Boer war was fought was not. I agree with the view that the public got swept away with the ideas of imperialism because everyone else seemed to be believing in it, but I also think that this generalisation is fairly unreliable because it shouldn’t be applied to the whole population, because there must have been some people who were against it, or saw through the press and propaganda; how they were trying desperately hard to influence people’s opinions. Firstly, Source 4 suggests that the capital of England, London, were overjoyed at the news of the relief of Mafeking, supporting the view in question that the public were enthusiastic about the Empire’s advances: “celebrated”, and words such as “fireworks” and “brass bands” give connotations of happiness and festivity. However, this Source also implies that the root of people’s merriment (imperialism) was spread and emphasised by the “new halfpenny press”. From my own knowledge, I know that there were numerous newspapers that were ‘pro-war, such as The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and The Morning Post and their
On the other hand, source 5 suggests that imperialism was ok, but the way the Boer war was fought was not. I agree with the view that the public got swept away with the ideas of imperialism because everyone else seemed to be believing in it, but I also think that this generalisation is fairly unreliable because it shouldn’t be applied to the whole population, because there must have been some people who were against it, or saw through the press and propaganda; how they were trying desperately hard to influence people’s opinions. Firstly, Source 4 suggests that the capital of England, London, were overjoyed at the news of the relief of Mafeking, supporting the view in question that the public were enthusiastic about the Empire’s advances: “celebrated”, and words such as “fireworks” and “brass bands” give connotations of happiness and festivity. However, this Source also implies that the root of people’s merriment (imperialism) was spread and emphasised by the “new halfpenny press”. From my own knowledge, I know that there were numerous newspapers that were ‘pro-war, such as The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and The Morning Post and their
“ The syntax of this part of the story shows that the author is trying to explain the character of Prynne and then compare it to what people believe she would look like. This is important because what it shows is that Prynne is not what the people seem to believe. The sin committed by Prynne, had an effect on her that was very different then the effect of the sin on Dimmesdale and Chillingworth. The effect of the sin on Prynne was very hurtful but the way she took the pain was by doing well in society again and by working and proving that the Scarlett Letter was nothing more than a letter. For a large majority of the story, the Scarlett Letter meant Adultery, but as time changed the letter a meant able.
"Suffragette" is a term coined by the Daily Mail newspaper as a derogatory label for members of the late 19th and early 20th century movement for women's suffrage in the United Kingdom, in particular members of the Women's Social and Political Union. However, after former and then active members of the movement began to reclaim the word, the term became a label without negative connotations. It derives from the term "suffragist," which proponents of women's "suffrage," or right to vote, originally adopted. They wanted to be involved in the running of the country and they wanted to be treated as equals to men. The main thing the suffragettes pretested about was the fact that only men could vote.