Compassionate reasons where one of the underlying reasons many historians argue upon the realise of the report on poverty from booth and rowntree in their study of the English town York , a town not normally associated with extreme poverty they found 29% of the population were well below the poverty line. Another reason was the very real fear workers were discouraged by the poor conditions and governments and may later turn against the government and form mass strikes or in serious cases rebellion or join the communist groups within Britain. Political self interest was high on the liberal’s agenda many historians argue. The franchise was being extended to the average man slowly and the liberals realised the average man did not benefit much from the government’s approach to peoples life’s and with the rise of the labour party and other parties many historians argue that it was out of desire to be re-elected that the liberals slowly brought about this change in reform. They didn’t get a majority government in 1910 like they did in 1906 which led them to think that social reform was the way to gain votes.
The founding father’s were able to give the people a democratic way of electing leaders, while still having the a few of the people making important decisions in the peoples best interest. During the time of the revolution people were sick of the British parliament and felt as though the were not getting a fair and equal share in the decisions pertaining to them. Hence the phrase taxation without representation was coined. When America won the revolution many concerns and issues cropped up with the declaration of independence, it held very small amounts of power. Paying off debuts of the revolution became a choice that most states opted out on because their was no force behind the request.
One of the big issues in these two eras was conflicting definitions of “freedom.” Although people had freedom to make money in the Gilded Era, only a small minority of robber barons could do so. In the Progressive Era, White immigrants and women had more rights and freedom to help improve their own working and living conditions. This ultimately made America better, more democratic, forward and progressive. The ideas of Social Darwinism, the Gospel of Wealth, and Horatio Alger success formula made the Gilded Era. Government played a minor role and cities did not offer public relief.
The ideas behind the Enlightenment were based on equality and a fair system for everyone in the country. During the Enlightenment there was a great social divide between the classes and this caused problems because the peasants were in poor conditions as they barley had any money to survive on unlike the aristocrats and nobles were they were living a life of luxury, moreover the peasants had to put up with higher taxes then the aristocrats and nobles; as they would make laws and rules to benefit themselves and their social class rather benefiting everyone. The people of France wanted to form a republic rather than the current system they had in place, which was an absolute monarchy, this meant that only one leader was making all the decisions for the country. By having a republic it could mean that every social class could have a say in how the country should be run to benefit everyone. The group behind the Enlightenment believed that Catholicism should not be involved in political issues and matters and should not contribute to how the country should run.
These other causes are all political social and economical factors which helped to free the serfs. And had the Tsar taken a more liberal view on his rule the emancipation may never have happened. Firstly there are many political causes for the emancipation of the serfs. The bankruptcy of nobles who were the tsar’s main supporters was, caused because of the inefficiency of using serfs to farm lands, which meant most nobles were losing money and by 1860 over 60% of serfs were mortgaged to the government meaning they were “unofficially” no longer tied to their land. This meant serfdom was already coming to its own natural end, and for Alexander II to support his nobles he had to emancipate the serfs so they could go start increasing their wealth and get out of debt.
If you were a christian, it was all ok, if you had a significant amount of money, you were better off, if you had neither, you are going to have a bad time. They had servants, traditionally the lower class, and slaves. It was a mixture of whites, Englishmen, Scots, Irish,( from known texts, I am using a text from Lerone Bennett ) , Native Americans, and African Americans. However, those in power within the colonies, which usually were planters, people who owned plantations, realised that there was a problem. With white servants, they could easily run away, “..they could escape and blend into the whiteness of their country.” (Bennett, Lerone).
Caesar wanted to give debtors a second chance, with a clean slate, rather than the years of slavery faced by most debtors and their families. Unfortunately, he faced opposition from moneylenders who, unlike the senators he simply could replace, had the power to refuse him capital if he ruled against them. In a deft balancing act, Caesar gave moneylenders the power to confiscate the land of nobles in lieu of debt payments while at the same time ending the practice of selling plebeian delinquent debtors into slavery. Satisfied with their new collection powers, moneylenders were convinced of the prudence of allowing more concessions to debtors. These measures included: wiping the slate clean following a bankruptcy; allowing a man to keep the tools of his trade and related land; and limiting the personal liability of a debtor's immediate and extended family.
The rise of political parties as the fundamental organizing unit of the Second Party System represented a sharp break from the values that had shaped Republican and Federalist political competition. Leaders in the earlier system remained deeply suspicious that parties could corrupt and destroy the young republic. At the heart of the new legitimacy of parties, and their forthright celebration of democracy, was the dramatic expansion of voting rights for white men. Immediately after the Revolution most states retained some property requirements that prevented poor people from voting. Following republican logic, citizens were believed to need an economic stake in society in order to be trusted to vote wisely.
After the conquest and through the declined of the natives surrounding their overworked and poorer conditions, Spaniards did but little to care at the expense of their wealth. Bartolome de las Casas and the New Laws reduced this labor system which angered in part the encomenderos who through civil wars and lack of heirs had their encomiendas reverted to the crown. The repartimiento/mita which is a labor draft within the Inca Empire was changed to a forced labor draft for the Spaniards in order to mine, obraje labor, and agricultural surplus. Negatively speaking, it was an easy faster way to make Spaniards rich. Natives were used to a monetary system and were unconsciously willing to work in order to meet this new type of payments.
Compared to the relatively easy access of property at the beginning of his life, when Anthony Johnson died, his property was seized by the government because he was considered to be an outsider due to the color of his skin. Thus, as slavery proceeded further in time in the American political and economic system, racism followed. It was not the other way around. Therefore, since it is known that racism was not a direct link to slavery, it must be argued that the only logical cause of racism, then, was a globalization mentality that was held by colonists and the British. The fact that the Spanish, the main competitors of the British, were