I would say that the relationship between Britain and the American colonies were peaceful and harmonious on the subject of Salutary Neglect. Salutary Neglect was placed on the thirteen American colonies as the British had thought that it was best not to interfere and stir up trouble. The policy meant that the Americans could rule their colonies with no restriction unless the governor disapproves. The prime minister at the time had said that “if no restrictions were placed on the colonies, then they would flourish”. They did however have a Charter written up which had a list of people who had privileges and titles.
As Source 5 shows suggests that the Suez crisis “did not destroy the political balance at home” showing that the events did not ruin the fortunes of the Conservative party which would have destroyed the balance between the Conservative and Labour parties into Britain. Source 5 also demonstrates the idea that the Conservative party remained supported and together despite the embarrassment caused shown by the idea that there was “no internal split in the Conservative party”. This again is supported by Source 6 which states that hatred for the Labour party caused by the “spectacle of shrill glee” that they exhibited on the “withdrawal of British troops” did not
All payments went towards the king, this would've also made the Earls not feel powerful enough, especially Harold Godwin who was seen as the most powerful man in England, but theoretically he wasn’t. However the Economy was well governed because the trade increased, which encouraged both the growth of towns and foreign contacts, this demonstrates that England were still involved in trade, which was good for the economy. However the economy was not very well developed especially compared to the Byzantine Empire and Muslim world. Those economies were massive, especially when compared to England’s. Overall I believe that the economy for pre-Conquest England as well- governed to an extent as the King did have large control, he did control this well, but he may have been seen as too powerful where the government is concerned.
Introduction The Labour Governments of 1946-1970 and 1974-1979 faced many problems when they came into power and during their reign; they both inherited a bad economy and came into power they won with a small majority of 3 and 4 seats respectively- both of these factors contributed to the hostility that they received from the general public, and led on to Labour finding it difficult to pass any legislation as well; with a large majority it is easier to pass legislation as there is fewer members of the opposition party to oppose the propositions. Although they faced many challenges, the economy did slowly begin to pick up and pressure began to ease off of the Labour Government, albeit not for long. Successes Labour during these time frames had a few accomplishments; must importantly the changes to society that they made. The Society of the Protection of the Unborn Child and the Abortion Law Reform Association, and the heavy influence that the Thalidomide Disaster gave them, managed to sway public opinion in favour of bringing about a Social Reform to Abortion; it should be made legal- The Abortion Act 1967 permitted legal termination of a pregnancy within 28 weeks, under medical supervision and with the written consent of at least two doctors. This social change helped fortify Labour power and influence upon British politics.
In agreement with these views, source 5 similarly points out that the crisis “did not destroy the political balance at home”. These idea can be backed up by the fact that the Conservatives won the following election in 1959, whilst being lead by Eden’s replacement, Harold Macmillan in 1957; during this time the conservatives were far more affluent and popular than the labour party. Moreover, evidence for lack of political effect grows, as source 5 argues that Eden stepped down as Prime minister “as a result of ill health” rather that being removed from power due to the outcome of Suez. Arguments for his ill health can be supported as Eden lived on a mixture of pills to control his pain as he had never properly recovered from an operation in 1953, and following doctor’s advice to rest, went on holiday in Jamaica. Furthermore, with the help of R.A Butler and Heath, Macmillan quickly took control of the party and began the recovery process for the problems caused by Suez.
Ø Opponents of the French revolution saw the London Correspondent society as French Jacobins. Ø Some historians argue that there was no real revolutionary threat during the 1790’s. Ø Whigs supported the revolution whereas the Pitts party was against it Ø The LCS had a lot of influence on the people. They were open to all, and relatively cheap to join. This made it accessible.
Krikorian presents a good argument and has done his homework. The author seems to respect patriotism and feels we have a greater obligation to our citizens than foreigners. Krikorian speaks of a country we once were when our grandparents came to America but not that same country now. He argues our immigration laws need to be shaped to improve the United States along with the government enforcing more stringent immigration laws. This would shrink the illegal population and life for American workers would improve.
This left the tribes in the areas suddenly changing their view of British colonists from that of oppressors to peacekeepers. At first the British had come into the tribes land and simply said it was theirs, offering them nothing in return. However they did bring stability and unity to the once rival tribes. The British did two things, they united the tribes through a dislike or distrust of the colonists, but they also protected the tribes; be it from each other or western powers. Lord Curzon also helped improved the development of India, helping add around 6000 miles of railway to India’s network, and settling up a railway board.
Contrary to popular belief, the American Revolution did not bring about change, because the rights, class structure and government remained the status quo in the colonies. For the most part, the rights of the colonists did undergo a transformation because of the Revolutionary War. It is a widely held belief that the war was declared in defense of the natural rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, the war did little in protecting these rights. After the war, there was still no liberty for blacks; in fact, the colonists disliked the idea of granting freedom to Blacks that they refused their offer to fight on the side of the patriots.
‘The political establishment in Germany succeeded in maintaining the political status quo through a policy of moderate reform.’ How far do you agree with this statement? During the years 1890-1914, there was very little change to Germany’s political system. At the start of this period the country was governed almost entirely by the autocratic, military-minded emperor, Kaiser Wilhelm II and his advisors, with very little power given to the representative body, the Reichstag. By the end of this period, despite a significant growth in support for left-wing groups, this political system remained unchanged. However, this was not achieved through a policy of moderate reform, but instead it was the structure of the constitution itself which preserved the position of the ruling elites in the years leading up to war.