England managing to successfully pursue a policy of peace making in the years 1514-21 and how Wolsey was very sly and flexible in his diplomacy and arguments which disagree with the statement, for example it could also be seen that Henry’s chief aim, the invasion of France, was unpopular with people at the time and that Henry’s foreign policy was too costly when compared with the few benefits it brought to England. Henry’s allies often let him down and were much more interested in their own aims and not so much of England’s. A point in support of the view that the successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures is that England had successfully delivered a policy of peace making in the years 1514-21. This is seen in source 4, in which M.D. Palmer writes about how Wolsey successfully brought about peace between England and France in 1514, and that he engineered the universal peace of London in 1518.
The British blockades and direct attacks on tobacco stores and other US trade goods made it difficult to conduct commerce during the war ( Spangled Banner Historical Trail, 2013). Russia realized that this was a problem, therefore was one of the main reasons that Czar Alexander convinced these nations to come to an agreement. He knew that if the war were to end he would be able to make high seas commerce safer, as well as more lucrative. These changes to the economic system were positive for all, and due to the treaty created a lasting relationship between the United States of America and for the United
Although Jackson’s involvement in the demise of the Second National Bank is generally noted as a significant event, this book regards it with less consideration. Jackson did not like the bank because of his suspicion of speculators and paper money. This hatred arose from bad experiences he had as a young man. He also believed that the bank threatened individual liberties, and that the money in the bank had been used against him in the election of 1828. Jackson thought that the bank served only the wealthy at the expense of the average citizen.
The main reason for Conservative dominance in the years 1951 - 1964 was due to Labour disunity. (45) Labour's disunity was one of the reasons which help explain the dominance of the Conservatives in the years 1951 - 1964, however, there are various other reasons which also contribute to this. For example, the end of austerity, role of Macmillan, postwar consensus etc. Some historians will argue that the reason for the Conservative dominance was because they got lucky with their timing as austerity had needed and Britain was just beginning to recover its economy and living standards were rising when they came to power. For instance, more and more people were owning cars, men's wages had risen from £8.30 I'm 1951 to £15.35 in 1961, rationing was ended in 1954 and farmers were making profit.
After the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson was elected president, and James Madison was the Secretary of State under Jefferson. Jefferson was well-known for being very pro states’ rights and the rural general public. However, Jefferson decided it was time to lessen the differences between the two parties. He did so with many accomplishments throughout his two terms. He was elected as a Democratic-Republican, but through his term he embraced many Federalist views in order to accomplish what was best for the country.
President Hoover was actually more liberal than many believed as he tried to provide some assistance but the problem was most assistance did not reach the people who needed it most. President FDR, however, was liberal because he did try to help Americans in need, but might have been conservative because he could have spent more money to help the Great Depression sooner. President Hoover was actually more liberal than many believed as he tried to provide some assistance but the problem was that it did not get to the people that needed it. In Document A, Hoover aspired to help America, but controlling could ruin liberalism for America. Hoover helped but to a certain point that was to protect America’s individual liberalism.
“Era of Good Feelings” DBQ After much fighting and wars, America entered a period of time labeled “Era of Good Feelings.” After winning the War of 1812, lots of America’s problems began to go away and the atmosphere of America turned good. Before the victory of the War of 1812, America had a lot of debates and arguments over foreign controls and politics, but after the War of 1812, America had much more nationalism and positive growth. Besides nationalism, America was also a sectionalist country, making sure to please the North and South with its compromises. However, America still had many difficulties during this “Era of Good Feelings.” Despite the difficulties, in the end, America took a big step forward and had positive growth. America became more united and powerful like never before.
Although some things were carried out well under the Conservatives, there were many missed opportunities and mistakes under the 4 prime ministers. I think that some of the prime ministers contributed more to the ‘wasted years’ than others, notably Eden, who made mistakes with both the Suez Crisis and the EDC. I also think that Britain missing out on the EEC and Europe is one of the main reasons why these years were wasted. Once it became clear that Britain’s role in the world was declining, and her Empire was changing to a Commonwealth, I think that the Conservatives should have seen that as the reason to lean more towards Europe. Although our relations with America did improve, and have later proved to be very important, missing out on Europe was a major mistake.
The British made many poor decisions aided in the success of the American army. It could be said that America did not so much win the war, but instead, allowed Britain to lose. Popular support for the Revolution and simple American patriotism were possibly the most influential factors in the American victory and British defeat. Support cut across region, religion, and social rank. Common farmers, artisans, shopkeepers, and petty merchants were major actors during the Revolution.
To a certain extent I believe that the impact of the 1st World War was beneficial to the economy and society of the USA. However, on the other hand I don’t agree with the statement as some problems did occur in the society and economy of the USA. It can be argued that the impact of the 1st World War was important on the economy, especially employment. This is a strong argument because during the war employment increased to an extent where 1.3 million jobs were created. It could be argued that this was due to America’s neutrality to the war until April 1917 causing the USA not to have any war damage and this changed America’s economy as they replaced Britain and London as the USA and New York became the Financial Centre of the world.