The Texians became quite displeased with Mexico’s shift towards centralism and their abolition of slavery in 1831. The Mexicans were also becoming quite peeved, as America had already tried to procure Texas for some time. The Mexican authorities mainly blamed the Texain disturbance on American immigrants since the majority of them didn't even try to acclimate themselves to Mexican culture. The Texians cracked first. They engaged Mexican troops in October of 1836, starting the first official battle pf the Texas Revolution.
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.
At the time of the Mexican War, two American generals would emerge as having the vast majority of responsibility for the fighting at hand. Both generals, Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor, were well respected leaders but polar opposites when it came to war fighting strategies. Throughout the war both generals fought their style of campaign, but in the end it would be General Scott who captured the glory in his campaign to capture the Mexican capital of Mexico City. The campaign for Mexico City was one that held interest too many, including the Duke of Wellington. The Duke, having interest in military conquest, followed the exploits of the American Army engaged in the Mexican War.
Europeans considered them as being “uncivilized”, but I believe they were always civilized. Some tribes waged war more than others, but some Europeans were very warlike as well; some tribes were very vicious in war but that also applies for the Europeans also. Most tribes fought for their land when they were invaded by the Europeans, but so would the English, Spanish and French fight for their land if they would be invaded by a different nation. Besides the war they started with the natives in order to conquer their land, they also brought a new,unheard or unseen major problem with them: smallpox. Many European trade sellers were known for purposely selling infected blankets By the simple fact that they fought to defend their territory, Europeans look at natives like they were savages, uncivilized and cruel, but they forget that they are the ones who are causing all of this.
Houston’s goal was to conduct a campaign of his choosing and not that of the Mexican army. His retreat from the open plains to the wooded areas of East Texas made this possible. The two armies later met in a decisive battle, the battle of San Jacinto. Yet some historians believe it was Santa Anna’s impetuous disregard for life and the Texas colonists that led him to make tactical errors, which led to the loss of the battle of San Jacinto. This paper will attempt to present this counterpoint argument throughout the composition.
Paper #2 The Tet offensive proved to be the turning point of the war, delivering a fatal blow to political support for the war in the United States. Even though Tet was a disappointing defeat for North Vietnam in strictly military terms, it exposed the bankruptcy of U.S. war policy and aims in Vietnam, and paved the way for America’s eventual humiliation. The most surprising aspect of the Tet offensive was that it was not really a surprise at all. Yet the episode shows how even a superior force can be taken by surprise both militarily and politically when it lacks the initiative in war. Since the North Vietnamese had the initiative instead of the U.S., it was possible for their elaborate campaign of deception to succeed in maintaining the element of surprise, even though the U.S. discovered numerous details of the attack to come.
The message of the representation is that Americans is losing the war and wants out and it is clearly shown in the poster "I WANR OUT". This shows that it is accurate because I know from my own personal knowledge that the 1971 protest in America were getting bigger, more violent and serious for the government. However, representation 3 is not totally accurate because not all of America were against the war. I know this because there was a huge questionnaire on if people were against or for the war. 40% said they were for the war and 60% said against the war.
Many of his decisions led to uproar, but one in the end set the ground for the United States as we know it today. James McPherson tries to get many points across in “As Commander-in-Chief I Have a Right to Take Any Measure Which May Best Subdue the Enemy.” It seems at times that he will go as far as calling Lincoln a man who is unconstitutional and even goes against his own morals. As his article progresses you see more of the main point that McPherson is trying to make. Early in his document, McPherson says when referring to Lincoln declaring war, “The
In a CBS special, Cronkite concluded, "To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past, to say we are mired in a bloody stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory conclusion" ( Hallin, 1986, p.170) This did not help increase the support for our troops in Vietnam. The overall support for the war was diminished by Cronkite's report. The negative coverage of the war influenced politicians, the public, and the American soldier. Concerned with losing support, politicians started to really get involved. The TeT offensive was a last ditch effort for the communists.
It has hurt our credibility across the world and caused a loss of faith in government by its citizens. Although the necessity of the war is argued by many, it is only done in an analysis of its occurrence. Had it not happened and the world possibly fell under Communism, then we would be arguing the exact opposite. The United States did what it felt it had to do at the time, given the information it had. To go to war in Vietnam was a risk the US felt it had to take in order to contain Communism, thus securing its economic prosperity and worldwide dominance.