Do you agree with the view that Henry VIII’s foreign policy in the years 1514-1525 failed because he lacked the resources to fulfil his aims? The failure of Henrys foreign policy in the years 1514-1525 could be blamed on a number of different reasons, with the countries lack of resources certainly playing a large part as he was unable to fund battles with other countries. Other factors contributing to this failure however were the unreliability of his allies and his indecisiveness in regards to allying with other countries. Sources 4 and 6 agree with the statement that the foreign policy failed due to a lack of resources but sources 4 and 5 also give other reasons as to why it failed, such as the unreliability of his allies and great changes in power that he could not control. Henry’s foreign policy was a failure due to England’s lack of resources.
Furthermore, Congress was disappointed in the fact that Wilson left some important things in order to compromise with the other countries. Many people believed the League of Nations was completely unnecessary for the US, since it mostly dealt with issues not concerning the US. They did not want to get involved with future European affairs. However, Wilson believed that the only way to prevent future wars was to establish the League of Nations. Wilson’s rock solid position on the League of Nations was one of the most significant reasons why the treaty was never passed.
He did nothing to help his case with the League of Nations. He would have it his way or he would not approve of it. (Doc C) This is what made it so weird when Wilson urged his supporters to go against his own proposal. Many people harshly judged Wilson for this as they should have. Even liberals like W.E.B.
Buckingham who was a close ally to Richard III was denied a reward that Richard III had promised. Offended by this, Buckingham took part in the rebellion later on. As a result, the rebellion was known as the ‘Duke of Buckingham’s Rebellion’. But this was inaccurate because he did not lead the rebellion nor did he organize it. The cause of Buckingham’s rebellion was clearly due to Richard III’s powerlessness in the political aspect of his reign.
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.
Source 2 also suggest that Charles ‘proceeded even when a policy was arousing great opposition’ which also agrees with Source 1 that suggests that Charles ‘saw no need to explain his action’ therefore suggesting that Chares lacked political judgement as he was very inflexible which many people around him found difficult to work with, ‘unworkable’ which led to a problem. Source 1 strongly emphasises that Charles’ elder brother James was ‘accomplished’ whereas Charles was ‘weak’; alternatively source 2 does not mention anything about James. Source 1 suggests that the reason for Charles’ poor communication skills may have been due to the fact that Charles was not brought up to be a ruler, James was. This therefore suggests that the reason Charles ‘failed to understand viewpoints’ may have been due to this fact which again proved to be a major problem in Charles’ personality. Source 1 also strongly emphasises the fact that Charles was ‘short’ and had a ‘stammer’ whereas Source 2 shows no knowledge of this.
Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience shows his dislike of the government. We live in a world where everything we do is related to the government. There are many things that happen in which the citizens do not agree with but we have to or get ourselves killed or into jail. There are many things that the government has not done right but I do not believe that we should have a government at all as Thoreau suggested. The government should not be used to control the people but to direct them in the right direction.
Like stated before, Schenck was the Secretary of the Socialist Party. The main reason that he was in trouble was because he was distributing leaflets that were basically arguing against the draft that was instituted in WWI. The First Amendment did not protect speech encouraging insubordination, since, "when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right"(Wikipedia.com). In other words, the court held, the
Our country is as divided as ever and there is a substantial lack of unity among the political parties and the citizens of the United States. At the federal level, the two political parties refuse to work together in the best interest of our country. In addition to seeking reelection, their main focus is furthering their political agenda as they refuse to compromise and negotiate with one another. In addition, citizens do not feel accurately represented by these elected federal officials. The citizens are given limited options when voting because only the dominant parties have a realistic chance of winning.
He called together meetings in places that were far away from their own public records only to pretty much bore and tire them into obeying whatever he wanted. Then he repeatedly broke up the Representative Houses for opposing his views on invading into the rights of the people. The Representative House didn’t like how the king wanted to attack people’s personal rights so the king would just get rid of them. Then, after terminating them, he refused for a long time to allow others to be elected into those positions. His actions just showed how much he didn’t care and how he got in the way of the development of the state as a whole.