The Revolutionary War: Why was it fought and was it preventable? Many believe that the trouble started brewing in 1763 at the end of the French Indian War but in all truth the colonist first started feeling discontent with the passing of the Navigation laws in 1650. This law stated that all goods flowing to and from the colonies could only be transported in British vessels. It was aimed to hurt rival Dutch shippers. This law kept money in the empire but hurt the pockets of the wealthy colonists mercantilist that depended on the shipping trade.
More importantly, though, this caused great strain on the country and Charles couldn’t find the necessary funding to finance the wars, which lead to him implementing the Forced Loan on December 1627. This meant that people were pressured by ‘commissioners’ to ‘lend’ their money. It caused considerable ill-feeling among Parliament as it was technically a parliamentary taxation but they had not sanctioned it. Lord Chief Crew refused to pay the loan saying it was not legal; he was dismissed and other ‘refusers’ were arrested and imprisoned. As a result seventy six people including Sir Wentworth and other prominent MPs were imprisoned for refusing to pay.
The failure of foreign policy in the years 1514-1525 can be attributed to many things. The combination of Henry's isolation from European affairs and the fact that his attempts to raise tax were ultimately unpopular failures, meant that he had no way to impose himself upon Europe. Even when he did manage to scrape together the finances needed for a strong foreign policy his reliance on his allies led to disaster. As soon as Henry took the throne in 1509, it was obvious that he was a king that wanted to fight a war. However, wars generally led to very expensive costs to the country.
This stimulated what has been termed as an ‘economic revolution’ in Britain and the economy began to rely on the raw materials provided by these new areas of land. Protecting trade meant having control of the areas providing the raw materials, and this became a key factor in encouraging imperial control. 2) East India Company: Based in London and founded in 1600, the company was given a monopoly over British trade with the East. It was given power by the British crown to negotiate and wage war on its behalf. Despite gaining trading rights in India from the Moghul Emperor in 1617, by 1680 the company’s future was uncertain and they had to rely on the costly support of the Moghuls to protect them.
Nasser standing up to Western imperialism is another factor of encouraging Arab unity such as the 1956 Suez crisis. An example is Nasser persuading British troops to leave the Suez Canal showing independence once again. Nasser, viewed as high prestige now, aimed to unite the Arab world. Although the operation was a military success it allowed Israel to occupy the Sinai. However, Nasser had forced the West into submission.
Describe Alexander Hamilton’s agenda for promoting the nations economic growth and stability. Why was his agenda so controversial? Confine your answer to the period from 1775 to 1797. Alexander Hamilton, a native of the British West Indies, was the key figure that the newly independent country that is called America. His idea to promote a strong agenda for America’s government was something that would help and create a strong notorious government that was crippled by what is called the Articles of Confederation.
The colonists believed that they should have separate laws from Britain because they are not directly represented in parliament. When the colonists continued to disobey the new laws, Britain enforced a harsher set of laws, known as the intolerable acts, to show the colonies that Britain was angry for the Boston Tea Party. This further angered the colonists and caused them to rethink the idea of a rebellion. The colonies as well violated the rights they were fighting for, by
They saw India as a country that was fit for democracy. After World War One, many Britons were uncomfortable with the existence of the Empire. They believed the idea of democracy couldn't exist in the Empire, and as such believed that giving colonies dominion would represent the progress and spread of the British ideal of democracy. However, there were others, like Churchill who disagreed with those who were in power at the time. He saw that India had been part of the British Empire since the 18th century; it was the 'Jewel in the crown of the British Empire.'
Since the colonies were part of the British empire, you can classify it as a civil war because part of a nation was succeeding from the empire. The colonists were in support of a different governmental structure. In the Declaration of Independence, it says That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government. The colonists believed that the British government was destructive towards the colonies because it was implementing taxes the colonists believed to be unnecessary with out colonial representation in parliament. Since the colonies were a part of the British empire they believed it was necessary for them to have direct representation in parliament.
“The UK constitution is no longer fit for purpose” Discuss. (40) The UK constitution is currently very flexible due to its un-codified nature which is said to be both an advantage and a disadvantage. The constitution creates an over-powerful executive and does not have many checks on the PM and therefore abuse of power can occur. It is also criticized a lot for its lack of protection against Human Rights due to anti-terrorism acts and the banning of free protest in front of parliament. The constitution allows the government to process legislation that infringes on human rights and liberals would say a codified constitution is needed.