Frederick William shared this view and was unwilling to potentially cause a war with such a powerful state. This caused the Frankfurt Parliament to fail because Prussia did not grasp the opportunity to unite and neither did the King, therefore Germany remained divided. Although he desired power, William IV was not willing to put himself and Prussia under control of the Frankfurt Parliament as he distrusted ‘the gentlemen of Frankfurt’. This meant that the Parliament had no real leader, and so lost support because people distrusted the parliament as an influential figure stated he would not be associated with them. This aided in causing the failure of the Parliament because with no real leader, no one could influence the masses or help to make decisions.
The Reichstag Fire led to the Enabling Act because Hitler had managed to convince Hindenburg that it was a ‘communists uprising’. This manages Hitler to prove to Germany that communists were bad people and he would have get more votes, in the next elections. However, I also disagree with the statement ‘the Reichstag Fire more important than the Enabling Act in allowing Hitler to consolidate power’ because of other several reasons. Firstly, the Enabling Act made a Hitler a virtual dictator. Nobody could stop him, even Hindenburg.
Pitt the reformer became Pitt the reactionary. A major issue for Pitt was certainly that it was going to be difficult for him to take much physical action on the radicals before they actually did anything against the law. In hindsight, we can see how that one of Pitt’s first repressive policies; the suspension of Habeas Corpus, in 1794, gave him more freedom to take control of quelling the threat without going against his own laws. What this policy also installed into the radicals was that now there would be a serious threat of them being sent to prison if they continued their actions; prompting a lowering of support by those who were not truly passionate for the cause. Secondly, another two key repressive policies of William Pitt were the ‘Two Acts’, the Seditious Meetings Act and Treasonable Act, both of 1795.
The enlightenment resulted in the idea of using a democracy to govern, the power of the government from the people, natural rights, freedoms, equality and individuality, all aspects that the French people were fighting for. The first incident or revolt that basically began the French Revolution was Bastille Day. On July fourteenth, 1789, there were rumors in the city of Paris that the king was collecting troops to arrest representatives in the city. In the city was a Medieval Fortress named the Bastille, which at the time was being used as a fortress and an armory. The Parisian people proceeded to attack the fortress to possess military supplies and weapons in defense.
At the time the United States was hoping to use their alliance with France to gain an advantage over the British, but did not want to lose their much needed trade with the British. At the beginning of the revolution, the Americans were enthusiastic and hoped that the revolution would strengthen their alliance with the French against the British. It was the violent nature of the conflict that divided the United States’ views. The changes in France caused the already present political divisions in the United States to grow. Because Jefferson believed the French had supported the United States during their revolution against the British, the pro-French Republicans lead by Thomas Jefferson should in return support the ideals of the French
Civil Disobedience Civil disobedience dates back to the formation of the government organization, where the written constitution was formed. The written constitution is basically a contract between the government, and the people in which it sets forth laws and protects individual right. The framework of the laws, and rights set forth in the constitution is what makes the government orderly. Without order the United States would have an increase in all levels of crime and evil. Henry David Thoreau believed the government to be an unjust institution; he believed people should first do what they think is right, and not abide by the laws of the government.
Like King, he supported the breaking of unjust laws and Jacobus explains the Thoreau belief in that it is not only appropriate but also a moral obligation to revolutionize against immoral laws (Thoreau, 174). He further said that although rebelling against such laws is a tough task, people should do it. Thoreau followed the same path in the American-Mexican War. He denied paying the tax imposed by the U.S government for the economic support of Mexican War. He was against the Mexican War declared by American Government, as it was unjust to colonize other nations (United States itself was separated from British colonization through revolution).
Unlike the previous countries, France viewed reason as their end and their ‘new truth’. Thus, France’s attitude on ‘latitudinarian’ is one of disdain. Under the reign of ‘reason’, the French began to overthrow their society rather than make reasonable improvements. There were constant rebellions and overthrow of powers, which led to the Reign of Terror. Conclusion: Although the 3 revolutions were
The French Revolution is undoubtedly one of modern history’s most defining moments. The course of events in the spring and summer of 1789 proved to be merely the beginning of a long and brutal revolt against hierarchy, institutions and, ultimately, the Ancién Regime. Whilst, as Sieyès reports, the revolution aimed at ‘ideal models of the beautiful and good’ it inadvertently resulted in mass shootings and drownings at the height of the terror. In 1789 few people envisaged what they were expected to support in 1792 - a republic and the trial of the king, let alone 1793 -the Reign of Terror. Whilst the revolution as a whole was dynamic and ever changing, the events of 1789 appear distinctly one dimensional in being brutal and seemingly mindlessly so.
Ross Zimmermann History 10IB Mr. Kindrachuk May 23 2012 The Execution of Louis XVI: Analyzing Conflicting Sources 1. Briefly explain what the following phrases refer to: a) ‘…the tyrant…’ (Document A) The phrase “the tyrant” in Document A refers to King Louis XVI. For many of the French middle class, Louis XVI was seen as a tyrant, having raised bread prices, living a life of complete over-indulgence, compared to their lives of hardship and labor. b) ‘…the frightful event of the 21st…’ (Document B) This phrase refers to the execution of Louis XVI on January 21st, 1793. For a noble, his execution would have been seen as a very worrying event, shown in “the…event...has spread dismay everywhere”.