There is a moral difference between Shelton’s killing of his attackers and that of his other victims. Darby and Ames caused personal harm to Shelton and thus gave him the moral right to try and prevent any other future pain that could be caused by these men, but the other victims were combatants in the war that Shelton waged against the “system”. When looking at Darby and Ames, Shelton takes a more utilitarian approach when dealing with their killings. The government “system” is supposed to punish those who are wrong. But in the trial of Darby and Ames, only Ames was punished severely while Darby was allowed to go free.
Secondly, another two key repressive policies of William Pitt were the ‘Two Acts’, the Seditious Meetings Act and Treasonable Act, both of 1795. The Treasonable Act appeared to be a vicious attack on personal liberties. Similarly to the suspension of Habeas Corpus, it was put it in by Pitt to install fear into radicals by extending the definition of the word ‘treason’ to both speaking and writing. However, this was arguably more effective than the abolition of Habeas Corpus as it lowered the amount of people writing about the cause to gain support, as people such as Paine and Hardy were effectively spreading the radical message
The Scratch of a Pen The year of 1763 marked an important year in the transformation of North America. This year marked many struggles in America between the Indians, British, Spanish, French, and the colonist. The events of 1763 not only redrew the political map of North America, but the also changed its human geography. Diseases and wars over power and land were the main causes for death and confrontations throughout this book since everybody wanted to gain control these vast lands. During this period of time Benjamin Franklin described, “everything seems in this country, once the land of peace and order, to be running fast into anarchy and confusion.” In the book this is clearly apparent with the power balances between colonist, natives and the present British army.
If too kind he will be taken advantage of and if too cruel he will be hated by his subjects. However he will have better security of his kingdom by being feared rather than loved. Therefore, a prince must be cruel to teach a lesson, gain loyalty, and strike fear of his subjects, which is what Peter the Great did during his reign of Russia. Peter's cruelty influenced many of his decisions concerning the Russian Military. He was quick to suppress any revolts and his punishments were almost always harsh to show that he was not to be betrayed.
By never striking back, both Gandhi and King portrayed their causes as civilized and just, capturing the sympathy of onlookers and even their oppressors. In Gandhi's case, he made the British look like the ones who were uncultured and cruel, beating and even killing Indians who never used a fist back. In King's case, he too exemplified the Christian doctrine of "turning the other cheek" and "loving your enemies," gathering the sympathy of bystanders and drawing people's attention on the urgency for change. The weakness of nonviolence, however, is that many of the people promoting the cause nonviolently will have to take in blows and suffer great losses, risking their own lives as well as that of their families' and
He references documents such as the United States Constitution and The Declaration of Independence as grounds for his arguments against the “Taylor Machine”. Holding the ideals that he was raised upon is how Jefferson Smith demonstrates the same idea of civil disobedience that Thoreau refers to. Senator Paine was oblivious to the strong heart and mind of Jefferson Smith. I believe that Smith was looked down upon and maybe even considered an imbecile due to his lack of knowledge about political affairs. Had Paine known of his plans to build a facility near Willet Creek then he surely would not have allowed him to be sworn in.
This essay will explain and analyze two essays by individuals who express entirely different opinions of civil disobedience. In his essay, “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy”, Lewis H. Van Dusen strongly discourages the use of civil disobedience as a means for change. He feels that this act of disobedience directly contradicts our democratic system. The other individual being compared in this essay is Henry David Thoreau; who in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, supports the act of peacefully challenging or protesting unjust laws. He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice.
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).
Even though the names and roles of the political parties were changed throughout time, they still divided and created turmoil because of the competition between them. This issue was foreseen by the first president George Washington. He even warned about it by writing it in his Farewell Address to America (cite) yet despite of his warning they instead continue with the political parties. Those parties became the Republican Party in the North and the Democratic Party in the South. There were many differences between the two and each difference created more and more tension until they reached the breaking point of war.
The beliefs of Brigham Young and the Latter-day Saints had been challenged for thirty years. The Mormons literally ran out of anywhere else to escape and build their sanctuary. Their morals and values received constant challenge and they themselves were frequently and violently confronted. The Mormons found themselves as outcasts in their own country. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution only seemed to apply to those with more conventional