It could be argued that salutary neglect weakened the relationship, however the colonist's may have enjoyed this freedom to do what they wanted and make there own decisions. The colonies and the mother country had little to do with eachother, which caused a peaceful relationship between the two. Britain and the American colonies fought on the same side, as seen in the Seven Years War. When in 1756 Britain finally declared war on France, the colonists and the British joined forces against their Catholic French enemies. The fact that 25,000 American colonists agreed to risk their lives for their mother country clearly shows agreement in action, signalling a harmonious relationship.
Although, she does admit even she was shocked when listening to the speech, as she explains “the line was not believable”. From this I can conclude that source one doesn’t wholly hold Churchill responsible for the 1945 election defeat, however the reliability of the source is questionable as it is bias towards the conservative party. Source two, an extract from Lord Butler’s memoirs, clearly shows opposition to not only Churchill but also the conservative party, Lord Butler for example describes Churchill’s speech as a “negative attack on the labour party” and believed that he should have instead focused on “post-war policies”. By describing Churchill’s use of the word “Gestapo” as a “strategic blunder” shows that Butler is blaming Churchill in having played a role in the defeat of the 1945 election. Although both members of the conservative party, Butler and Churchill were political enemies, this is evident when looking at the extract: “a poor third place to the concentrated exploitation of Churchill’s personality” – this is a personal attack on Churchill’s actions.
On the contrary this shows that the disputes between these factions may imply that the King was weak and not in control thus significantly threatening the stability of government . However the rivalry between factions could not be seen as an significant threat to Henrys government because a more important factor jeopardised the stability of the government. Foreign Policy dominates during the last years of Henrys VIIs reign. The difficulties in Scotland contributed greatly to financial complications thus effecting the stability of the government and shadowing the rivalry between reformist and conservatives which would suggest that the threat was not major. Henry was exposed to the pull of the factions but a new aristocratic approach to the government strengthened the conservative faction however with the arrest of Duke of Norfolk (1547) and the dismissal of Gardiner from the Privy Chamber the reformists gained the much needed advantage .
I think that Presidential action was somewhat passive throughout the 1940s and 1950s. In particular Dwight Eisenhower failed to respond to the calls for greater equality as, although he was not actively racist, he was reluctant to lead the country into the next step of improving civil rights. I would say that the responsibility for improving civil rights should fall onto another individual which was Earl Warren. Despite the President calling him the ‘biggest damned-fool I’d ever made’, he was the one that destroyed the legal basis of segregation whilst in his role as Supreme Chief Justice. However, it would not be fair to say that Presidential action was non-existence.
DBQ 17 British imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries resulted in negative and positive effects on India and Britain itself. The British were positively affected by imperialism, while India was both positively and negatively affected by the imperialism. Indian natives had no say in government, and were pretty much ruled over, but were also positively affected, like adopting a parliamentary system of government. Britain was positively affected and gained mass amounts of natural resources and processed them, also known as mercantilism. There were many positive affects to Imperialism in India.
Balfour’s position as Conservative prime minister after Salisbury’s death in 1902 did not help the Conservative cause. Although he was highly intelligent, Balfour lacked political skills. He was not as sensitive to public opinion as Salisbury, proved indecisive on tariffs and seriously miscalculated the reaction of the working class on key issues. Balfour had piloted the 1902 Education Act through parliament and so incurred the hostility of the nonconformists. He failed to foresee the anger that both the Chinese labour issue and his refusal to reverse Taff Vale would cause amongst British working men.
How far do the sources suggest that the British army leaders were not concerned with the welfare of soldiers in the British army? Although it does not directly state that the British army leaders were not concerned with soldiers welfare, you can infer from the sources that they mainly agree with the statement. Source 1 by William Russell was written on the 25th November 1854, the same day The Times began their campaign to report the truth on the Crimea instead of glossing over the gore and death; therefore this report could be more reliable as the purpose is to expose the lack of concern on welfare or exaggerated to deliberately expose individuals. Nevertheless, it states that the soldiers were not given the necessary provisions to deal with the harsh winter nor were they given time off after long hours. This shows a lack of care or consideration from the leaders for their troops as they are willing to allow their soldiers out in these conditions whilst knowing how bad they were.
The British public, army and the government themselves were not expecting such a strong resistance by the Boer tribes. This made the public question the current government. It seemed to them that the government had allowed the British army to become weak and send them into battle without preparation and also without them being healthy enough to fight, this began to give the Tories a bad name. Also the Boer war may have been a reason and incentive for Chamberlain, the sectary of state for the colonies, tariff reform campaign, which had a huge part to play in the Unionist split.
In the year 1967 The Sexual Offences Act was put in place meaning that people could no longer be arrested for being homosexual. Although this was a positive change for people that were homosexual it on the other hand was a negative for people that thought homosexuality was wrong, such as religious or conservative people. People’s attitudes towards homosexuality did not change showing in my opinion that social attitudes did not change in the years 1955-75. In conclusion I believe that although there were many changed between the years 1955-75 they however mostly didn’t change the social attitudes of people living in
In the 1956 Suez crisis Nasser, thw leader of Egypt was only after more power and he didn't think of how his actions would affect the rest of the stab states, which shows us that the self-interest of an Arab state caused disunity amongst the Arabs. During the 1967 arab-Israeli war Syria and Lebanon didn't send troops to help the Arab army