History: Welfare, Reform and World War 1 Did World War I kill the progressive movement? Or was the crusade to make the world safe for democracy absorb the reforming zeal of the progressive era? It was believed that reform was stopped in its tracks by the start of World War I. “It is now shown the relationship between social reform and World War I is more complex that what earlier historians thought.” (Page 516) How the war brought the progressive era to a slow declining halt. The author Allen F. Davis reinforced my perception of the topic of the progressive movement and how the entry into the war didn’t totally end the movement.
The last years of Henrys reign was dominated by conservative and reformist factions . In this essay I will assess the extent of the threat created due to the rivalry of factions that had affected the stability of the government. The execution of Cromwell (1940) was a success for conservatives as was also Henrys marriage to Catharine Haword. The marriage was a gateway to influencing Henry by carving out a new royal policy via Catharine H. This increased tension between the Reformists and conservatives and so the reformists took action to destroy the reputations of Cahrine H , Duke of Norfolk and Gardiner. 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 .
Account for the growth of liberal government in Europe during the period 1815-1914 At the beginning of the nineteenth-century, a war was on-going between liberals and those in aristocratic/monarchical rule. Liberalist movements at their heart contained 3 main elements; the belief in a constitutional and parliamentary government, a desire for the protection of private property in a free market, and the want for the separation of religious authority from political authority (Gould, 1998). Yet at that time, Europe was the complete opposite of the way liberals felt that it should be, with monarchs, aristocrats and clergy men predominantly in power, the poorer and middle class had barely little access to their rights, freedoms and few or no privileges. The French Revolution of 1789 began to change all of that, followed closely by the Revolutions of 1830 and 1848. All three Revolutions played significant part in what came to be a significantly liberalist Europe, including Industrialisation.
During the period 1896 – 1912 the Republicans were extremely dominant for several reasons. These can be summarised as the economic influences of Mark Hanna; the victory in the Spanish-American war and they were a reformist party. Alongside this were the weaknesses of the Democratic Party which include deep divisions; defeat of the civil war; failure to impose significant tariffs. The democrat party claim to be the oldest party, formed in 1796. Due to their defeat in the civil war between the times period 1861 – 1865, their reputation was starting to become slightly crumpled.
Also, events such as the Hottentot election of 1907 and the Daily Telegraph affair were examples of when the Kaiser had to work and deal with the democratic sides of the constitution. Taking these examples into account, the Kaiser acted as an autocrat in areas where the Reichstag had no constitutional authority. The Second Reich with its new constitution gave near-autocratic powers to the Kaiser. It recognised the sovereign leader of the Reichstag as well as the Commander-in-Chief of the army. One of the factors that possibly made Germany seem very much like an autocracy is the power the Kaiser had to dissolve the Reichstag ant to appoint a Chancellor of his choice.
To what extent was 1822 a turning point in British politics? The year 1822 is seen by some as a key turning point in British politics as it saw the introduction of liberal Tories, enforcing liberal attitudes upon parliament. However, I would argue that 1822 was not a turning point, but rather a year of half-hearted enforcements of reforms in order to avoid political unrest. In 1822, Lord Liverpool hoped that by introducing four key individuals, by the names of Canning, Peel, Huskisson and Robinson, into the cabinet, the social reforms they would introduce would reduce demand for political reform. I would argue that this decision would suggest continuity as opposed to change within the political system as it was a way for the Government to seem more liberal.
It would appear that in the eyes of Zinn, President Clinton left behind nothing but complications and a feeling of uneasiness for the next president to pick up. My reactions to these recent chapters are not very diverse. I am no longer surprised by the sheer amount of opinion that is put into this text. While I do not think badly of our past presidents, it is getting harder to separate my beliefs with Zinn’s “people’s perspective” since I have been immersed in his chapters for a long time. I can acknowledge an opinion, especially if it is an informed one, however, I must say my reaction to this chapter is one of slight disgust at the lack of respect Zinn shows for a previous president.
More rigorous empirical studies were done over the last twenty years and they were still not conclusive. It is the recent studies done in 2009 by the U.K. that has conclusive evidence regarding the histamine release caused by food additives and dye. The author’s purpose for this article is to address the fact that the British government has requested that the food manufacturers remove most artificial dyes from their products.
Similarly Source K exhibits the hatred Ulster Unionists felt towards Home Rule as they ‘would resort to force’ to ensure their prosperity was not compromised by a terrorists wishes to become independent. The media displayed negative views to Parnell also, Source R indicates how publications like The Times linked Parnell to Fenianism, ‘series of articles on ‘Parnelism and Crime’. Being associated with Parnell made Gladstone’s struggle for Home Rule harder, perhaps the reasons the 1886 Bill failed both houses but the 1893 Bill made it through Common’s as Parnell’s involvement in Home Rule had dramatically decreased in the years beforehand. The split in the Liberal party meant internally the party had opposition indicating that while divided amongst themselves there was no chance to defeat the conservative dominated House of Lords. Overall numerous factors contributed to the downfall of both Bills but the main reason inevitably was the immediate rejection to the Bill by the Conservatives as it opposed what they believed so neither Parnell or Gladstone could
Unfortunately, similar to the Roman Empire, its fall was both unanticipated and catastrophic. With two world wars, the fall of a long dominant region (Europe) and the rise to power of two new superpowers, the world had changed. The empire fell due a fortunate combination of motives: the anti-imperialist ideology of the US, public opinion in Britain, the appearance of Europe as an alternative, the strong rise of nationalism and most importantly economic distress in Britain. Even though they were all interlinked and nationalism received a lot of attention by the media and historians alike, the underlying factor was that of financial crisis. Nationalism was partly responsible for the rapid fall of British Empire.