They were far from perfect leaving many people unhappy with them. To resolve the issues brought about by the Articles the Constitution was produced to mend the flaws of its antecedent. Many people felt the changes brought to the government by the Constitution proved to be an extremely radical departure from the old government that had been established by the Articles and proved too weak for the new country.
This is another point towards poor leadership because there was no clear plan in how they were going to get their terms accepted only what terms they wanted. Another reason the rebellion failed was due to the lack of passion in the rebels. Not everyone knew what they were rebelling for which meant that they wouldn’t fight passionately for what they believed in. There was also a lack of focus because not everyone was fighting for the same cause. Some people were fighting because of the monasteries being dissolved and others were fighting because of rack-renting.
However, many other factors played a role in the demise of the Parliament such as the fact that they were ill-organised, the lack of popular support and their inability to enforce decisions. Frederick William IV was partially responsible for the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament as he was unwilling to accept the ‘crown from the gutter’. William IV was aware that acceptance of the leadership may lead to war with Austria. Austria had no wish to see a united Germany and wanted to keep it weak and divided in order to dominate. Frederick William shared this view and was unwilling to potentially cause a war with such a powerful state.
A). The idea of the small confederacies, though they were not the most efficient ways of governing, seemed safer to many as less likely to abuse power. Others like George Clinton worried that a new, centralized form of government would not be possible to manage or maintain given the large territory of the U.S. and the vastly different interests and politics in the different states, that the country would end up divided. (Doc. D) Another point of opposition to the Constitution was that it lacked a bill of rights.
"To the Argument, that the word 'slaves' and 'slavery' are not to be found in The Constitution, and therefore it was never intended to give any protection or countenance to the slave system, it is sufficient to reply, that no such words are continued in the instrument, other words were used, intelligently and specifically, to meet the necessities of slavery." This says that the constitution can be interpreted differently. Those views that were different came from the North and South. (Document E) The Constitution can be interpreted in many different ways, which leads to sectional discord and tension. For many reasons, the South did not like what the constitution said.
Many counter arguments were formed upon what the constitution clearly states, for example the words ‘slaves’ and ‘slavery’ were nowhere to be found within the text of the Constitution and therefore protection of the slave system was annulled of being backed up constitutionally (Doc. E). The Constitution was interpreted differently and unpredictably, leading to sectional disunity and heavy tension between the North and the South. The South did not like what the Constitution stated, since southerners viewed slavery as an economic necessity. There were many contradictions against the Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Act (Doc.
Although the treaty was signed, not much changed besides there was no war (189-191). That is why there wasn’t total warfare between the New Mexicans and the
He mentions, “The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.” This I thought was hard evidence because it speaks about America not being a country ruled by a king but has given us a government that is for the people. The constitution has changed a bit and it has been working towards the people’s needs. Women being able to vote is one
According to John O’Sullivan in his writing on Annexation (1845) “Their right to independence will be the natural right of self-government belong to any community strong enough to maintain…”. Texas could not be considered an act of imperialism because Texas was occupied with American people without the help of the states. The states did not forced Mexico to open their borders but instead Mexico had open their doors and allowed the American population in to occupy land. There was not unequal territorial relationship because independence was solely the right of the Anglo-American in Mexico and not of the colonies. /Conversely, imperialistic nations were in a race to advance in power to be able to be stronger than their neighbors.
Newly free black, brown, and yellow nations could not support a country that continued treating non-whites like second-class citizens at home. And even conservatives like Richard Nixon himself used the phrase! All in all, this aspect of Civil Rights traditionally isn’t discussed much. To say that Civil Rights came about not just through sheer altruism, but also because of self-interest, diminishes the mythology that has built up around the movement. But it makes more sense.