He believed this because he was a political writer and aristocrat who was born into these beliefs (7 pov). King Louis XIV wanted his people to follow the Catholic faith and do away with the Protestant religion; he revoked the Edict of Nantes. He forbid the exercise of the Protestant religion in any place or private house (8). All of these people go together because they had the same mind set on keeping the religion in one's state the same. Secondly, Kings and Priests in some states allowed some freedom but with limitations also in their states/cities.
Jefferson supported ideas that were beneficial to the nation even if he had to compromise with the Federalists which caused him to be seen as a political compromiser. Morton Borden thinks Jefferson was a political compromiser because he made decisions that benefited the nation even though his Republican beliefs disapproved them. Borden states Jefferson’s presidency was marked by Federalist policies which encouraged the growth of central power. More specifically, Jefferson believed the Louisiana Purchase Treaty would greatly benefit the nation, but the constitution didn’t allow such acquisition of foreign territory. Jefferson being a strict constructionist approved the purchase, even though it went against his belief of strict construction, because he knew it would increase federal power and be a giant step towards democracy.
Michelle Smith HSC 1102 (Midterm paper Gandhi vs. King) March 18, 2013 Both Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. used a policy of nonviolent resistance to campaign for change. Instead of countering violence with violence against their aggressors, they chose to resist unfair laws and call for collective social reform by nonviolent methods such as boycotting. After the British forced the Indians to become dependent on British cloth imports, Gandhi led a complete Indian boycott of British clothes. Similarly, King later organized a complete boycott of buses to promote his cause until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregation on public buses was unconstitutional. A major difference was that Gandhi campaigned against unjust laws of the British government, while Martin Luther King Jr. campaigned for rights that "colored" people were already lawfully supposed to have.
The idea of self-sufficient rural communities caught on and the Indian peasant masses began to take notice of Gandhi and see him as someone whose ideas they could identify with. The Indians masses not only began to identify with his ideas but also with Gandhi himself. Gandhi brought a new style to Indian Nationalism and his tactics of peaceful protest were difficult for the British to deal with. Gandhi recognised that the British Empire could be defeated by mass
Visualizing an infallible government, free of harm, fault, and malfunction Thoreau was a true transcendentalist. Vindicating nonviolent actions, civil disobedience is bluntly defined as “refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation”. Martyrs like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. also believed and preached their own theories on civil disobedience. Having distinct motives for advocating civil disobedience, Mahatma Gandhi wanted to stop the South African government
The Hundred Flowers campaign and the Cultural Revolution had several benefits for Mao, in some respects they allowed for Mao to gage the feeling of the country and try to reconnect the party with the people to prevent bureaucracy. Another possible advantage could’ve been the advancement of agricultural and industrial policies given the right outcome. However to ignore the idea that the Cultural Revolution didn’t help Mao consolidate his political control would be foolhardy as both campaigns helped Mao both expose and purge political opponents from within the CCP and from Chinese society as a whole. One point that suggests that the Hundred Flowers campaign was carried out for reasons other than consolidating political control is the idea suggested by Mao's personal physician Li Zhisui which stipulates that Mao hoped that Chinese society would make criticisms of the soviet inspired 5 year plans and that Mao could use this as evidence of popular support to advance his own style industrial and agricultural plans. It is suggested that only after this had failed and criticism began to stack up against the policies of the CCP that Mao decided to begin his anti-rightist campaigns as some form of damage control to lessen the disastrous impact that the hundred flowers campaign had taken on the CCP by 1957.
The emancipation of the serfs appeared to have strengthened the loyalty of most peasants to the tsarist regime leading the peasants to greet the Populists with hostility due to their loyalty to the tsar. The serfs were hostile towards the populists as the serfs felt that populists did not understand their way of life through the involvement of ‘going to the people’ which was an idea from Lavrov in order to encourage peasants to rise up to revolution. The church taught the peasants to see Alexander as ‘little father’ which meant someone who was on their side. In my opinion Alexander II dealt with opposition very successfully between 1855-81 as he had the majority of the population against the Populists as serfs took up 80% of the population. Another way Alexander II successfully dealt with opposition was through censorship, he had utter control of media throughout Russia making it very difficult for opposition groups to spread their ideas and communicate with each other.
Question 1: Anne Hutchinson was a threat to Puritan society in a combination of ways that other dissenters were not, which is the reason she was banished. The Puritan society in Massachusetts was established not so that people can exercise freedom of religion, but only so the Puritans can freely exercise their religion. These were a very intolerant people of any one else’s religious belief; and, their leaders did everything possible to keep other religions from prospering. Their main belief was that the entire community had to follow God’s laws as interpreted by their leaders and if they did then God would reward them. However, if the entire community did not follow God’s laws then the entire community would be punished.
Legistlative Branch was to make laws, the Executive Branch is to enforce the laws, and the Judicial Brance is to interpret the laws. The Consititution banned states from being completely independent from one another but still be able to have their rights in independence for the people. Though these branches had remanded in the plans, it also followed into the Constitution. This new government would allow for a republic to rule, where the people had the oppurtunity to voice for themselves and to be heard that would respectfully benefit everyone in the country, and not just the majority. Peple had feared the Constitution, as it could potentially threaten their rights and properties.
Indians for example, had rituals they performed to placate the spirits of the animals they had killed. Because Indians did not have a sharp distinction between natural and supernatural, or secular and religious traditions, Europeans believed Indians actually lacked religion or worshipped the devil. For Europeans, religion dictated to them that uniformity was essential to public order. They found freedom through servitude and churches dictated what forms of religious worship and beliefs were acceptable. Europeans were ruled by a king who claimed authority over them via God.