The Articles of Confederation was a first attempt at a constitution for the United States while it was fighting to gain independence from the British government in the Revolutionary War. First proposed in 1776 by Richard Henry Lee at the Second Continental Congress, the Articles of Confederation were able to maintain some stability for the country through the end of the war. However, it proved to be a highly inadequate form of government when it could not provide for the economic and political demands of a developing nation. The Articles of Confederation were not able support a strong centralized government, therefore resulting in a lack of an authoritative presence with regard to domestic and foreign affairs affecting the thirteen states. The national government was weak and disconnected, and the federal powers were greatly lacking.
“Under the Articles, disorder within the states were not manageable. Some states adopted trade tariffs and further barriers to foreign commerce that were contrary to the interests of other states. Tax and other barriers were also being erected between the states. But even after the ratification of the Constitution, the states continued to be more important than the national government. For nearly a century and a half, virtually all of the fundamental policies governing the lives of Americans were made by the state legislatures, not by congress.” (American Government pg.
During the time of the revolution, John Dickinson drafted the first constitution of the United States, the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation established a central government that consisted of just one body, a Congress. There were many strengths and weaknesses of the Articles. Many of the strengths of the Articles included the powers to declare war, make treaties, and borrow money. However, under the Articles, the national government was weak and states operated like independent countries.
During George Washington’s term, Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed with each other’s views of how the government should run. Jefferson was very strict with staying and adhering to the Constitution, while Hamilton wanted to form new policies that would further progress the economy. Furthermore, foreign affairs such as beginning with the policies towards the French Revolution became a motivating force for influencing American politics. It had then seemed very obvious that these were factors that lead to the success of American politics. In the early 1790’s Washington was elected for president and Alexander Hamilton came along with him.
Republican governments of post Restorationist Spain generally didn't fair as well as their Western European counterparts for a variety of reasons. The Second Spanish Republic, as indicated by its name, only had one predecessor, which lasted less than two years. It would therefore be fair to say that a generation of people accustomed to monarchism and dictatorships were unfamiliar with the bipolar system thrust upon them. People lacked confidence in the system, which favoured majority voting and usually unilaterally supported laws. Another contribution was the lack of participation on behalf of two big groups, Anarchists and Syndicalists, who refused to run in elections.
Also with the France, Britain and USA not agreeing on the terms of the treaty made it even harder for it to end. Germany’s anger from the treaty came from a few of conditions which one wasn’t entirely true. The first of these conditions were that they were to blame for the war, this condition so bad that no man in Germany would sign it not even a soldier under direct orders. Also the amount of money that Germany had to pay back was very unrealistic ($6600 million) and would cripple their country for years to come. There were other factors that Germany thought that were very unfair such as their tiny army and the amount of land that was taken from them.
The U.S. President and the British Prime Minister are both very powerful with respect to their government, but there are fundamental systematic differences that are important to understand. The American President is the head of the government as well as the head of the state, the nation’s foreign policy, and commander in chief. Every government has a head of state, but America’s is the head of government as well, which is far different from the head of state. It is debatable weather this is too much power to be in the hands of one individual, but it also allows for any process to be expedited if required. Over the past 200 years, power in the U.S. has shifted towards the President; President Regan, who wanted to give power back to the states instead of centralizing it, challenged this.
During the years 1822-1846, the main foreign secretaries were Canning, Lord Palmerston and Lord Aberdeen. One interpretation of British foreign policy in this period is that supporting foreign movements for national independence (i.e. Liberal revolutions) was a key aspect of it; however, an alternate interpretation is that a desire for peace and a balance of power in Europe were more important in influencing British foreign policy during this period. British support for foreign movements for national independence saw British intervention on a scale which few other factors have rivalled, highlighting its relative importance by comparison. The issuing of the Polignac Memorandum in October 1823 by George Canning, stating that Great Britain had no intention of helping Spain in the retention of her colonies is indicative of this interventionist nature, with Britain recognising the independence of Mexico, Columbia and Buenos Aires.
Was the League of Nations a failure? The League of Nations is thought to be a failure by many, because of hard irony and limitation on military might. The League accomplished very little in stopping wars and conflicts while having very little power. Often they just shook fists at ruthless, evil dictators such as Germany’s Adolf Hitler and his conquests, without intervening. Another Major flaw was that “the country, whose president, Woodrow Wilson, had dreamt up the idea of the League - America -, refused to join it.” The league’s most powerful militaries Britain and France not only suffered casualties, but also economically as they were greatly in debt to the United States.
The possession of provinces, cities, fortresses, roads, bridges, etc., may be the immediate objective of an engagement, but never the ultimate one. Karl Von Clausewitz The American Revolution is an historical analogy of David and Goliath. As in the biblical story, the numerically inferior and untested Colonial forces led by General George Washington (David) prevailed over Great Britain’s vastly superior and experienced forces led by General William Howe (Goliath). Some will claim that America’s victory, like David’s, was the result of divine providence but military strategists will tell you that it was America’s superior strategy that delivered the military outcome necessary for it to assert independence from Great Britain. General George Washington’s strategy of erosion effectively outlasted Great Britain’s will to fight a costly war on American soil.