He believed his plans to benefit the poor were more important than restrictions imposed by federal and state legislatures. “He was a crook — but he had no money; a corrupt politician — but the cost of government is third-lowest in the country; a demagogue — but he kept his campaign promises; a hillbilly — but he had no racial prejudices; an ignoramus — but he ran a business administration; a dictator — but he broadened the suffrage; an opportunist — but he had ideals." Drew Pearson uttered this spot on analogy of Huey Long; he depicted Long as an uncouth man who helped raise a state from the depths of hell. Even though his tactics could be characterized as maverick, he effectively allowed for the state of Louisiana to flourish. One reason why people could have believed that he had succumbed to fascist customs is because his ego grew exponentially in office.
Northumberland’s religious views were unclear as he seemed to drift between beliefs in order to achieve the most power possible for himself. This asserted him as a strong politician as he was able to adapt to different situations and remain powerful. On the other hand it made him unpopular with the majority as he was seen as unstable and unreliable. During his time in power, Northumberland and the country made huge steps towards Protestantism whilst maintaining no rebellions. This tells us that he had firm control of the country, and was allowing change in the safest of manors.
This shows that Wolsey was a successful chief minister in terms of justice because he saw it as his duty to bring everyone justice no matter how rich they were. But there were times when Wolsey used the courts to further his own position and carry out personal vendettas against enemies. For example Wolsey had been put in the stocks by Paulet in a bid to teach the young man a lesson about humility and good grace. Wolsey never forgot his humiliation and used his position as Lord Chancellor to have his revenge. Source 8 supports this because it says 'But Wolsey's vision and his originality in
This can be illustrated as it mentions “supreme performance which we shall never see again from him or anyone else”, suggesting that he was the nations back-bone and he was some- what looked up to by the majority of the British public and also some politicians. This could be interpreted as un-reliable as Chips Channon was a strong follower of the conservative, so source B creates the impression that Channon was simply just an admirer of Churchill. Throughout sources D and E there is a sense of appeasement throughout the sources, this can be inferred as source D suggests the appointment of Monckton was made out of sympathy to make Churchill happy, as the conservative party felt in-debt to Churchill after his heroic performance as Prime Minister for Britain. Source E also agrees with the tone of source D, the tone of sympathy and appeasement. This can be illustrated through the source as it says “On the wages front a quite deliberate policy if appeasement was adopted”.
Basil the seconded was a very bold, stingy, and conservative emperor whose unbelievable qualities were highlighted by the powerful government he lead. Michael Psellos loved Basil II as an emperor and later wrote highly of him, in contrast, he wrote terribly of Romanus III and he believed he was not fit
The Roosevelt Revolution In the 1920's, Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration could be described using various adjectives, but a common one would be revolutionary. Being put in the presidency during the Great Depression, Roosevelt had many issues to deal with. His main plan, and his most famous concept, was the New Deal. The New Deal consisted of many components and also had many critics. The New Deal was a complex strategy to help the American economy get back on its feet.
A wise man once said, “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate” (Meyersohn 102). This was said by one of our nation’s most well-known leaders. Although he is most famous for his assassination, he was one of our greatest presidents. He had a lot of courage and did many things to better our country.
Statements like "Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution" evoke strong feelings within each and every person. Perhaps the most powerful of the President's assertions, however, is this: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." This, although it undoubtedly worked well at the time, is still under scrutiny today, and has landed the President in a number of tough situations. That sentence is also a good example of George W. Bush's tone. He is reverent and somber at times, and at others, full of fiery determination.
Because of the depression in 1929, people needed employment, and support through a particular group of people during this tough time. When Speer was a University lecturer, he attended a rally where Hitler spoke. Speer was impressed; Hitler wasn’t at all what Speer expected. He spoke about his love of Germany and compassion and also dressed well which Speer related to, “I was greatly impressed, not only with Hitler's proposals, but also with the man himself”. Albert Speer wasn’t any ordinary citizen, he was smart and sophisticated.
Livy, a descendant from northern Italy, was a very spirited Roman with much love for his city and after reading his history of Rome, the Ab urbe condita (books 6-10), I found myself questioning whether Livy was a true historian, or was he more of a patriot? To me, Livy was very patriotic, his books on Roman expansion in Italy were very pro Roman and he would give no credit to the enemies they faced. While reading, one could clearly tell that Livy favored the Romans, he basically wrote from a single perspective, making him the “least objective historian ever”, and the term historian being used lightly. One example of Livy’s patriotic approach to history is the example with the Volsci, Aequi, Etruscans, and Hernici. The above mentioned places