According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, war is described as “a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism; a state of usual open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations; a struggle between opposing forces or for a particular end.” This is a logical explanation, but it brings up a question. Is war all bad? Can’t war have good points as well as bad ones? There are good things, too. You don’t believe me?
During history it seems that nationalism manifested its self in an era of colapse of bounderies, economic expansion, mas migration, general insecurity, drastic militarisation, which finaly led to war. Nations went to war against all that, in an atempt to preserve the things taken away by the string of events pointed out earlier. The chalenge of modernity forced ancient ethnic groups to find new ways to ensure their survival by obtaining either power sharing or separate states. In general both modernists and nationalist agree that modernism provides the main reasons for nationalist conflicts. In that context globalization has been described either the next logical step from modernism or as a separate event called postmodernity.
The Democratic-Republicans sought to limit federal control and preferred local power as the dominant force. Chiefly, the emergence of the American two-party system arose from strongly opposed political views, but also developed out of experience and a struggle for power. As previously stated, the main reason for the development of the party system in the United States, or any political party for that matter, is a difference in beliefs on how a government should be operated. The Federalists, formed by Alexander Hamilton – Washington’s Treasury Secretary – in 1794, favored federalism with government having the power to control commerce, tax, declare war, and make treaties among other powers.
In others, theories about public works and, eventually, the Keynesian - bombastically titled "general" - framework became popular, rationalizing the permanent increases in governments' roles in raising and allocating capital. At the same time, "crime" took ominous "national and racist" meanings in some countries - Germany was the most prominent - with the new theories "justifying" confiscation of capital, be it from "foreigners" or groups made "foreigners" by novel theorizing. Neither the new rationalizations of Greece's Golden Dawn party, the Catalans' and Scots' wishes to secede, nor the many other parties emerging across Europe along its older "tribal" lines should come as a surprise: it has all happened before - although it might come as a surprise to link them to grave monetary mistakes, drastic expansions of credit, and lack of international
The economic side effects of entering a war can be beneficial to a country. The need for weapons and machinery can jump start industrial production. World War I, as well as WWII, was considered total wars, which means that a country put all of its resources into the war. When America officially
Title Page The War that Made America US History to 1877 It is accurate to say that the French and Indian War shaped America. When the war was being fought, several key things transpired to help develop this country: the colonists defined their own identity as a community, conflicts between colonists and Britain escalated, and the relationship between America and Britain strained as the colonist grew tired of unfair treatment. These three factors vitally changed how the colonists responded to various taxes that Britain imposed upon them. The first two years of the war was close to a “catastrophe” for Britain. In order for Britain to win the war, they needed to alter their war strategies.
Rather, evidence points to a hybrid of them all. The sensationalised press undoubtedly cultivated mass jingoism amongst the American public, sparking a hysteric challenge to McKinley’s political prestige. Despite early reluctance from business constituents, by 1898 Wall Street financiers were also pushing interventionist agendas, therefore providing weight to the Marxist interpretation of a more planned, economically-based US imperialism (certainly prominent in subsequent efforts to muzzle Cuban and Filipino independence). Internal Hawks continued to vehemently criticise McKinley’s hesitation. The spectacular continental expansion Westward and the advent of new technologies during the industrial revolution were rapidly allowing for new concepts and new propositions.
▪ Ironically, the Civil War brought about in large part because of the South’s desire for increased states’ rights resulted in the opposite; an increase in the political power of the national government. o The debate over the division of powers in our federal system can be viewed as progressing through at least 3 stages since the Civil War: ▪ Dual Federalism: a doctrine that emphasizes a distinction between federal and state spheres of government authority. Is commonly depicted as a layer cake, because the state governments and the national government are viewed as separate entities, like separate layers in a cake. • The Courts tended to support the states’ rights to exercise their police powers and concurrent powers in regard to the regulation of intrastate activities. ▪ Cooperative Federalism: the states and the national government cooperate in solving complex common
Embarking to achieve this objective, Roosevelt came to be a president of the normal man while Wilson turned into the "better" dynamic president. Despite the fact that they were both progressives, the two presidents had distinctive ways as a primary concern for the fate of the United States. Their alternate point of view and necessities were apparent in their addresses: New Nationalism by Roosevelt and New Freedom by Wilson. Wilson's New Freedom looked to the demolition of all trusts to push budgetary rivalry and allow little organizations by and by to thrive. While the national government was to utilize its energy on a one-time premise to bust all trusts, the central government was to have no part in managing business.
My current stance on the topic of war is that I am affirmative of war because the purpose of war is something I believe truly in. The purpose of intent in war is to unify the country which is something that I find value in. In rare situations, war could sometimes be altered with a better alternative, which then would make the war at that time pointless. If my writing ability allows, this research paper could be one of the best that I have written. If not, it sure will be an adventurous one in the least.