Question 1: Anne Hutchinson was a threat to Puritan society in a combination of ways that other dissenters were not, which is the reason she was banished. The Puritan society in Massachusetts was established not so that people can exercise freedom of religion, but only so the Puritans can freely exercise their religion. These were a very intolerant people of any one else’s religious belief; and, their leaders did everything possible to keep other religions from prospering. Their main belief was that the entire community had to follow God’s laws as interpreted by their leaders and if they did then God would reward them. However, if the entire community did not follow God’s laws then the entire community would be punished.
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 philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was one of the early founders of existentialism. Although Kierkegaard was a devout Christian, he rejected the Christian Church due to its legalistic nature and the false relationship that people were receiving with God as a result. Kierkegaard believed that the key relationship of an individual was with God. He argued that God has given people freedom to make their own decisions and therefore our decisions are not determined. He thought that our existence is not something determined rationally or part of an on-going process but that it is something specific which is created through the choices we make.
A) What is ironic is that Jefferson, one of the men who was most apposed of the Alien and Sedition Acts, looked down on immigration. He believed that immigrants will bring in ideas from their previous government, and will cause the United States to slowly become an anarchy or a monarchy. (Doc. B) This leads in to another underlying concern with the Alien and Sedition Acts: the fear that the newly formed United States democracy would cave into a monarchy. The Sedition Act made it illegal to insult the federal government verbally or published in writing.
Milgram’s conclusion really advocates King’s belief, because the surprising conclusion of obedience to authority is what King does not believe to be the way of social relations. In the period of segregation, no one was doing anything even though they knew it was wrong because the government was the authority. So King opposes obedience based on his
That is why he wanted the slaves to be freed and removed from the United States all together. He feared of a revolt by them for all the cruel things that were done to them. Thomas Jefferson didn’t hold the views he felt for one group for the other. The African Americans who were brought to America to be slaves that they forced to live how they wanted them to could not coexist with them but the Native Americans who had their own society and their own way of life they could be civil with. I thought that they wanted to preserve the republican society by molding republican machines.
He just wanted the job for himself, and not Caesar. He just said he didn't like the idea of a king as camouflage for his own ambition. That may be unduly cynical on my part, but on the other hand, he certainly took onto himself the kingly power of deciding, all by himself, whether an important government official should live or die. (5) It would mean it was no longer a republic, of course. A king implies that sovereignty no longer lies with the people, but with the king.
De Tocqueville Essay by Abbi Lavine De Tocqueville, in his warning to France, argues that a free republic needs God more than despotism or monarchy. He begins saying that there are people who desire a change in government from monarchy to a republic to gain freedom. These people want a republic but they don’t want God. They don’t want morals and the Deity hanging over their heads and they certainly don’t want a monarch lording over them. Basically, they don’t want any chains, whether in the form of religion or government.
Americans felt that since they had no representation in Parliament, and that there were decisions being made for them without proper representation, that they were slaves to the forceful word of the British crown. Even some countrymen in Great Britain felt that the Americans were being treated unfairly. Lord Camden believed that Americans were not being given their natural born rights as men. “My position is this – I repeat it – I will maintain it to my last hour, - taxation and representation are inseparable: - this position is founded on the laws of nature,” (pg.95, Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, Brown). It seems there was a miscommunication, because Britain was treating the Americans different from other British and also wanted to keep major control in anyway, like restricting trade from any other country (like France and Spain).
Jean Jacques Rousseau concluded that all people were entitled to participate in their government, as well as possessing liberties to political and legal equality (Brinkley Alan pg 142). These ideas only fed colonist’s growing discontent with their mother country, and proved the unjustness of no taxation without representation. With the aid of Enlightenment thinkers, colonists recognized the lack of stability of the British Parliament as well as the excessive power of the king. Although revolutionary issued propaganda, the pamphlet Common Sense by Thomas Paine summarized the lack of just British leadership, and alerted colonists to the country’s abuse of power. The British crown was no