How far do sources 1,2 and 3 suggest that the main obstacle to solving the Irish national problem was religion? Source 1 is from the Fenians who were extreme nationalists and Catholics meaning the source is going to be bias from the Catholic point of view. It was issued in 1867 the same year Gladstone came to power. The source begins with a quote ‘An alien aristocracy seized our lands and all material wealth and trampled on our rights and liberties’. This source tell us that the Irish believed the English Protestants had no reason to be in Ireland and the only reason they were there was as an oppressive power.
This idea “deemphasized differences and emphasizes instead the need to disregard diversity and accept immigrants as Americans as long as they learned to speak English and became citizens. The most common expression of the melting pot perspective today is the argument that people should be color blind, that people should ignore a person’s skin color.” (p. 169) Different races of color are offended by the color blind attitude because they feel like it implies negativity about their race. People of color feel as though there is no way nor is there a cause for white people to be oblivious to their color of skin. Separatism: started in the early 1920’s and is the most pessimistic of the four attitudes towards diversity. It is the easiest to recognize because “separatists
The terms of the Act meant the Church was disestablished and disowned, leaving it to govern itself. It would also be deprived of some of its property which would now be redistributed for education purposes/catholic churches. It was the most successful Irish Act ever and extended the principle of religious liberalism to Ireland. The Act was so liberal, it could be considered radical. As well as this, Gladstone also wanted to improve landlord and tenant relationships as the landlords could easily evict tenants randomly as it was a very unfair controlling system.
Although, she does admit even she was shocked when listening to the speech, as she explains “the line was not believable”. From this I can conclude that source one doesn’t wholly hold Churchill responsible for the 1945 election defeat, however the reliability of the source is questionable as it is bias towards the conservative party. Source two, an extract from Lord Butler’s memoirs, clearly shows opposition to not only Churchill but also the conservative party, Lord Butler for example describes Churchill’s speech as a “negative attack on the labour party” and believed that he should have instead focused on “post-war policies”. By describing Churchill’s use of the word “Gestapo” as a “strategic blunder” shows that Butler is blaming Churchill in having played a role in the defeat of the 1945 election. Although both members of the conservative party, Butler and Churchill were political enemies, this is evident when looking at the extract: “a poor third place to the concentrated exploitation of Churchill’s personality” – this is a personal attack on Churchill’s actions.
The source is from a modern book named ‘Britain and Ireland, from Home Rule to Independence’ and so you could argue the source is to be given some validity however given that it is a modern text you could question some of the information it presents as it is not a primary source of information. The source suggests that Asquith’s policy and attitude was not proactive enough, therefore criticising his methods. The source states that this as well as his ‘blunder’ of including Ulster in the Home Rule Bill of 1912, which subsequently caused the first and immediate threat of Civil War in Ireland was just some of the error. This source therefore supports this view to a great extent because of this evidence. Source 8 does not support this view, however the only evidence supporting it being that tensions between Nationalists and Unionists was high and that because of their differences Ireland was preparing for a Civil War, as suggested by source 7.
The Wyatt rebellion of 1554 was led by nobles principally Sir Thomas Wyatt from Kent, who along with other men of high authority, posed to end Mary Tudors reign. This was because of the attempts that Mary made to re catholicise England, which feared protestant standing men. This was combined with disapproval of many noblemen at the proposed marriage between Mary and Phillip of Spain. It is argued by some that the rebellion was poised a serious threat to Mary’s authority thus in the following essay I shall be exploring particular reasoning’s ultimately concluding with a judgement on how far I agree with the statement that ‘Wyatt’s rebellion was a serious threat to Mary’s authority.’. The origins of rebellion arose when people in England opposed Mary’s catholic standing and were worrying over the possible return of papal authority over England, since mary’s coronation was in 1553 she quickly placed people of catholic standing in positions within the kingdom, including many positions in the privy council the most influential body within the government.
This did pose a problem for the growth of nationalism as the Northern states looked to Prussian for support, as she was the protestant superpower amongst the German states. The southern states on the other hand looked to Austria, due to her religious alliegience being Catholic. This mutual religion among the northern states caused them to support Prussia, and vice versa in the southern states with Austria. Thus, it was more than just religion that divided the German states. The tension and rivalry that existed between the two largest German states made worse the existing religious divisions and made the possibility of unification more problematic.
Cromwell hoped that the marriage to the German princess would secure support against the Catholic Holy Roman Emperor, and strengthen the bonds of Protestantism. Despite the marriage not working it was clear that Cromwell’s influence was a bad decision on Henry VIII’s behalf look manipulated as he put his trust into Cromwell. Cromwell showed to be more in control with legal issues for example his last office of Lord Great Chamberlain, gave him control over the whole household-above-stairs, Chamber and Privy Chamber, this clearly means that Henry had a lack in control, however his lack in control could of been down to his ill
This act of treason meant that anyone who disagreed with the break with Rome would be executed due to heresy. Therefore, it seems as though Henry did not fully accept the protestant beliefs, because he killed Tyndale for spreading them. And if the King could not fully accept the new Protestant religion, then how was the rest of England expected to? Therefore, this leads to the conclusion that Protestantism made only limited gains in England, due to the fact that it was not as accepted as Catholicism was. The idea shown in source 7 of Henry not being able to fully separate himself from his catholic beliefs is further back up by the evidence found in source 8.
They thought that colonists were British subjects who should obey British law and the taxes were due to the French and Indian War which was fought to protect the colonies. They also felt colonies profited from trade with England, and that the colonies were too far away from England to have representation in Parliament. Patriots believed that they deserved rights that were not to be taken away by the government, and taxation violated those rights. They claimed to have done their part during the French and Indian war fighting, and that they could not be taxed without representation in Parliament. Patriots also believed the British were causing violence, riots, and death (Boston Massacre & Boston Tea Party).