The national government was weak and disconnected, and the federal powers were greatly lacking. After the drafting of the Articles of Confederation, the system controlling domestic affairs was heavily flawed. The federal government was given little power while the states were almost autonomous, creating the root of all problems for the struggling central authority. As a result of the decentralized government, Congress had no authority to impose taxes or regulate domestic and foreign affairs. There was no national court system to settle interstate disputes, forcing settlements to occur in the courts of one of the states involved.
Another weakness of the Articles of Confederation was its inability to levy taxes. Congress was unable to tax the states and, as a result, was unable to reduce the growing debt or provide a national military. In a letter to Congress, in 1782, Rhode Island rejected a federal taxation proposal from Congress saying the amount requested was “unequal in its operation, bearing hardest on the most commercial states.” Rhode Island thought such amount would negatively affect the economy of their state (Doc A). Since the power to tax was given to the individual states and not the federal government, the articles had no way of enforcing such a proposed tax.
The Electoral College system is faulty and needs to be removed from the presidential voting system. “When they [the founding fathers] met in 1787 in Philadelphia, they were uncertain about how to pick a president. At the end of the summer, they arrived at a compromise – something of the best of the worst options; The Electoral College” (Watson n.p.). The founding fathers picked the Electoral College not because they liked the idea of it but because they could not think of a better option. The Electoral College system used for picking the President was not chosen as a primary topic in the constitution, as for instance the right to freedom of speech was, instead it was used for lack of a better solution.
Charles’ army was defeated and he was in deep trouble. Charles had run out of money and no one was paying their taxes. His last resort was… Parliament. In 1640, Charles came back begging for help. Parliament compromised with Charles.
Finally, Hobson partially blames the ineffectiveness of Imperialism on the British ideal of Anglo superiority, and the British misunderstanding of other cultures (Winks 11). Therefore, as argued by Hobson, British Imperialism of India was neither socially, nor politically, nor economically beneficial for Britain. The British elevated social tensions in India because the British misunderstood Indian culture, were constantly forced to over-expand the British Government, and spent endless amounts in an attempt to maintain order. To begin with, Britain’s Imperialism of India was not socially beneficial. The British were unsuccessful in establishing a working relationship with the Indian people, and, as a result, British Imperialism never reached its maximum potential.
This law angered the colonists because this impeded them from obtaining new, cheap land. The Proclamation Act was the first act in which Parliament, and the King imposed on the colonies after the prolonged period of salutary neglect. The colonies were affected them because they were not used to the total control/rule of Britain exercised over them. The Navigation Laws of 1650 were now being enforced in the colonies which only allowed commerce through Britain, and controlled items of trade. Restrictions on what colonist manufactured angered the merchants because they were not allowed to produce certain items in the colonies, just as they were prohibited from distributing paper currency, and the ability of having any legislation passed in the assemblies nullified.
This they could not do because they were not allowed into any college, as another grievance states. Thus women were limited to certain jobs for only a fraction of the pay, as yet another grievance states. These three grievances combined bear a striking resemblance to a grievance in the independence document. The grievance argues that the king has made it difficult for the colonists to participate in government, calling together legislations at places “unusual, uncomfortable, and distant”. In both grievances, it is extremely difficult for the subject to help better themselves and
The difference laid in the fact that he was or was perceived to be an incompetent and indecisive monarch. This indecisiveness caused him to surrender to opposition in court, thus leading him to fail to set up a limited constitutional monarchy, or respond to the need for introducing tax reforms. For example, the appointed financial advisor of the time, Jacques Necker, realised that there was a need for a tax reform, since the current tax system subjected the lower classes to pay high taxes while allowing numerous unfair tax exemptions for the nobles and clergy. Naturally, such a proposed reform met with opposition from the ministers, and the incompetent king yet again backed down and rejected the appeal. Eventually, the king dismissed Necker, which led to the one of the significant events in the revolution, the Storming of the Bastille.
For Trinidadians and Tobagonians it was unfair and unjust. Tobago’s economy was at a downfall during the 1800s. Planters had stopped making sugar and the large estates were not worth much. Little production was being done on the island that it could not support itself. The British did not want to put money into the island.
Firstly there was lack of mass support since the Frankfurt Parliament was mostly made out of middle class people, with only one peasant and no workers. Therefore this overwhelming majority did not represent the people who were about 70% peasants. According thus to the demographics a revolution would fail because it would lack manpower, and instead of asking help from the peasants, the revolutionaries preferred to ask help from the rulers. Frankfurt Parliament has also been accused of wasting valuable time. Marxists argue that if the Parliamentarians, who were neither extreme nor violent, had taken faster action, Wilhelm IV and the other rulers would be unable to refuse the new state and its constitution.