However after Karakazov attempts to assassinate the Tsar in 1866, he becomes much more autocratic, revealing that he had no intention of significantly developing politics, his use of the Zemstvas were in fact to help sustain autocracy, through making local administration more efficient. It can be suggested from this that Alexander II had put the Zemstva Act in place to appease the nobles angered by the Emancipation Act. Alexander III was much more of a successful autocrat. His reactionary attitude led to the reversal of many of his father’s liberal reforms, and was in some cases angered by them. Alexander III re-implements Tsarist form, through the use of repression and terror.
Power can lead anyone to be selfish. This is why we have to keep them contained. Andrew Kohut in his research paper “The people and their Governments” states “Rather than an activist government to deal with the nation’s top problems, the public now wants government reformed and growing numbers want its power curtailed. With the exception of greater regulation of major financial institutions, there is less of an appetite for government solutions to the nation’s problems –
What were the colonists protesting? Their primary grievance was taxation without representation. Various Acts creating laws and taxes were forced upon the colonist by the British government. As new Acts were made or repealed frustrations grew among the colonist leading to the formation of patriotic groups and mumblings of action against the British. Although communication between the King’s representatives and the Crown was slow Britain did react forcefully to the colonist rebellious actions.
4 Pg. 1) It is clear the writers of the constitution used views on natural law when they put in, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The makers of the constitution wrote this because they believed the people of the colonies were not being treated fairly by British government and they were not happy. They believed this gave the citizens of the colony every right to overthrow the government based on natural law when they said, “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government,
[3] When James called his first Parliament into session, he had nothing but good intensions. He wanted to address the grievances both religious and economically, that had been accumulating since Good Queen Bess’ reign. He firmly addressed the issue of religious reform, and clearly stated that he liked the Church of England as it was, had no love of the Pope, Puritans, and Novelists. [4] The other specific grievances addressed were purvayance (the right of the monarch to buy goods and services for his household and the army at fixed prices, usually below market value), monopolies (which allowed certain court favorites sole rights to produce or market goods and services) and wardships (a practice in which heirs of landed gentlemen, who had not yet met their majority, were placed under the protection of the crown and their lives, monies and property were under crown control). [5] It
The nobility claimed that such drastic change could only be decided on by an Estates General (most at the Assembly of Notables accepted the principle of a land tax but not the means of bringing it about) • weaknesses and mistakes of the King and his ministers: mistakes of Calonne in thinking that an Assembly of Notables would agree to such reforms – also of appealing to the public behind the back of the assembly which lost him support. De Brienne was also weak. The King did not effectively support either minister • the May Edicts which deprived the parlements in Paris and elsewhere of their right to register and protest against royal decrees. This increased cries of ‘ministerial despotism’ and there were disturbances (Revolt of Nobles) throughout France in support of the parlements. To reach higher levels, students will need to show the inter-relationship of the reasons given, for example they might show that the Crown
One train of thought suggests that our government should have limited terms to inject new blood into the government. The other train of thought suggests that experienced politicians know how to move political processes forward and limiting their time in office limits this ability. Our government was established by free thinkers that wanted to break away from the tyrannical structure of England. To ensure that our nation does not fall into the same structure, limitations were placed on government positions but not on the overall length of time an official can hold an office overall other than our presidency. This was established to ensure that our representatives could be renewed as often as needed to reflect the public’s beliefs.
In addition, the States had socially influenced Canada greatly, in terms of culture. Canada did gain some political independence, hampered by the fact that Canada depended on the United States for much of its social and economic success. Canada’s prime minister, Mackenzie King, did not follow the regular rules set by Britain. Instead he refused to send Canadian troops with Britain to invade Turkey in 1922. (Cranny p.55) Normally, when Britain went to war, Canada would automatically be at war as well, but King took a big step in not following orders from the mother country.
In the American government, and many others alike, there are taxes you must pay. In Thoreau's time he was arrested for choosing to not pay his general taxes. He paid school and medical taxes, but refused to pay general taxes because he did not support slavery and the Mexican war, which was undoubtedly where the general taxes was going. The problem that Thoreau is addressing is the ability of the government to do such things. In his eyes the people should support only what they want to support, nothing more or less.
He cites the existence of unjust laws and declares that we as citizens should not be obligated to follow them. The basis for this argument is that the government is run by a majority with the most power, not the most valid perspective. This is the reason why Thoreau advises citizens to follow what they believe to be right and not embrace what the government says. Thoreau states that is not a man’s duty to pledge to eradicate all wrongs from his country but that it is one’s duty to “wash his hands” of it and to not support the wrong in anyway (page 183 para13). He continues to tell a story of how he used this method to protest the Mexican American War which was being waged at the time the essay was written.