To what extent did the Liberals, Conservatives, IPP, the Ulster Unionists and the Southern achieve their political objectives during the Home Rule crisis of 1912-14? During the third Home Rule bill crisis of 1912-1914 there was many differing objectives among those who lived in Ireland and those in Westminster who governed Ireland. The Liberal Party and the Irish Parliamentary Party, otherwise known as the IPP, wanted Home Rule for all of Ireland. However the Conservative Party and Ulster and Southern Unionists wanted to prevent Home Rule completely. Home Rule for Ireland meant that an Independent Irish Parliament would stand in Dublin to govern Irish affairs, still having an Irish representation in Westminster, whilst Westminster would govern all issues to do with the crown, defence and imperial government.
In 1898, the United States fought the Spanish-American War. The victory over Spain made the United States a colonial power. The Spanish colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, as well as the formerly independent nation of Hawaii, became American possessions. In 1895 civil war broke out in Cuba between Spain and the Cubans. The conflict was described by Senator Redfield Proctor of Vermont as bloody and brutal.
This tells us that he had firm control of the country, and was allowing change in the safest of manors. On the other hand the lack of rebellions may have been due to Northumberland’s ruthless nature during previous rebellions making people afraid of repeating the same outcome. The movement to Protestantism can be attributed more to the Kings wishes, and not represent what Northumberland himself wanted. Northumberland’s social and economic ideas were primarily aiming towards getting the government’s finances back to stability. After Henry VIII’s erratic spending the crown and country were in financial crisis and this systematic and logical approach made by Northumberland towards the crisis shows his ability in this area of ruling.
From then on party leaders were erratic and kept changing, meaning there was little stability in the Conservative party, which made them vulnerable to attack. After Peel was beaten in the Corn Laws crisis, many strong leader figures left with him such as Gladstone. This meant the party was left with the back bench aristocracy who were not all that interested in the wellbeing of the party and let it deteriorate. This was not at all the only problem that the conservatives faced. The truth was that their policies simply did not appeal to the majority of the voting population any more.
10f. Thomas Paine's Common Sense Thomas Paine Americans could not break their ties with Britain easily. Despite all the recent hardships, the majority of colonists since birth were reared to believe that England was to be loved and its monarch revered. Fear was another factor. Any student of history was familiar with the harsh manner the British employed on Irish rebels.
“Between 1933 and 1937, the British public’s hostility to the confrontation of foreign powers left the National Government with no alternative to a policy of appeasing Hitler and Mussolini.” – How far do you agree with this judgement? Due to the aftermath of the First World War and the oncoming threat of further war, the general public opinion was to avoid war at all costs during the time between 1933 and 1937. It was in British interests to maintain peace because of similar reasons, and because of the state of the British economy. The British public were therefore not hostile to confrontation of foreign powers, but wanted to avoid the conflict, meaning there was a strong influence on the National Government to please the general public, and appeasement was a better option than to use violence. The public opinion of wanting to be peaceful was the main reason why the National Government felt as if there was no alternative to appeasing Hitler and Mussolini.
• The executive branch held too much power. All these are valid points and I would say that they were right in resisting to sign the Constitution, specially with no limits on the rights the government would have over states. They wanted to make sure where the states would still have power over some of their issues. They had just faced having to take care of soldiers, being prosecuted without trials, not being able to talk
Some say he should be held responsible for underestimating the enemy. He once said that machine guns were over rated and only got two per battalion whereas the Germans got a lot more. He also underestimated the amount soldiers and weaponry used. This was probably because he was inexperienced in the new trench warfare and used to the old ways which is where he became known. Most of his tactics were outdated and predictable for the Germans.
We have a statement from one of the Major Generals “It is much more civilised in this district no more inadequate behaviour.” My final point proving Cromwell to be a villain is when Cromwell used his army when he wanted to take power that he couldn’t get lawfully. One thing Cromwell could do is take advantage of what he had got, this was the army. For an example he disagreed with parliament twice so on both occasions he marched in to Parliament with his army behind ordering parliament to be shut down. This shows he would use his advantages to get what he wants without caring about the civilians who look up to him and think he is a
These arguments, although they do not specifically state to physically riot against authority, become enabling factors by which the population should rebel. To begin with, Paine argues that the population of each individual colony would be subjected to better living should they be responsible for their own governing laws. Rather than follow the set rules of the British monarchy, Paine suggests the citizens should “establish a common interest with every part of the community, [and] they will mutually and naturally support each other.” (Paine, 49) Next, he argues that the British monarchy is very complex, contradictory, and unfair to its citizens. For instance, Paine notes that the monarchy “first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required.” (Paine, 50) The contradictory case does not just end here, it is also witnessed in the fact that the monarchy continues through the act of hereditary succession – whereby the King’s descendent automatically becomes heir to the throne. He