Paired with the speech Antithesis is especially effective in getting his words to inflict impact and feeling for example”One would accept war rather than let a nation survive”this shows how Lincoln is reflecting back on how the war was genuinely petty in how both sides were acting. This is especially effective in getting the audience to reflect on how the war was wrong and it shouldn't of happened showing how wrong both the north and south were in fighting this war over slavery. Antithesis are comparing war and how one nation will
Bismarck did not directly have any impact on how these wars were fought, however he did have a hand in how they started. The war of 1864, as suggested in his speech to Disraeli in 1862, as a pretext to go to war with Austria in the future. One of the reason was that after the Treaty of Vienna in 1815, Prussia had been given the rhineland, which was rich in natural resources, however it was separated from the rest of Prussia due to Hanover, a deeply catholic state that aligned with Austria. By winning over Austria, Bismarck could join all of Northern Germany under Prussian power. Bismarck knew that after beating Denmark, with an army of 61,000 to 38,000 at the outbreak of war, The treaty of Gastein, which would give Schleswig to Prussia and Holstein to Austria, was unlikely to work, as in order for the Austrians to reach Holstein they would have to pass through a hostile Prussia.
At first the Latin American nations saw this as favorable, because they saw that the U.S. could not do anything alone if moving along without the backing of Britain. The military and political power allowed the Monroe Doctrine to be brought about. This doctrine had combined with much of the ideas of Manifest Destiny. Theodore Roosevelt’s Corollary was a great extension of this doctrine, it upturned the original meaning and justified independent intervention of the U.S. in Latin America.
France benefited from the alliance because with Austria as an ally, they could focus on their goals overseas, by both reducing Austrian support of the British in the colonies and allowing Austria to balance Prussian power on the continent, creating a stable domestic environment for France. Indeed, this internal dimension explains France’s refusal to help Austria take Bavaria in exchange for territory in the Netherlands. France feared a powerful Austria that would end the balance of power in Europe, thus a deal such as this that gave absolute
Throughout the duration of Crisis No. 1., Paine knew how to appeal to the colonists in just the right way, and used that to his advantage. Paine played a crucial role in persuading the colonists to go to war with Britain; and some might even say that the gaining of America’s independence would not have happened without him. Thomas Paine knew that America not only needed their independence, but deserved it as well. “Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America”
The American’s or colonists’ way of achieving their independence actually in my opinion would not be consider a smart idea in a perfect world but since it is not a perfect world. Their decision was great. Of course, casualties are an issue due to the war or either diseases, but those soldiers and battles made America what it is today. The colonists may have not accomplished their goal in a way they would want to but it accomplished the goals it should and achieved even more goals. Peace treaties were signed between nations and America got its independence.
When World War 1 broke out in 1914, the United States attempted to remain neutral and was a strong advocate the neutral rights of nations. The U.S. liked to believe that the war was strictly a European conflict, but they would soon understand that they were inadvertently part of the war effort and entering war was inevitable. The U.S. was never truly neutral in the first place, but in fact supporting Europe the whole time. The reasons for breaking neutrality were more political and economic. It was the United States best interest to abandon its neutrality, and choose to go to war on the side of the allies for the future protection of American assets and welfare.
Polk was a strong supporter of the Manifest Destiny. (Roden 317) The president convinced us. This evidence shows the US was justified in going in war because it was the Manifest Destiny. God wanted the US to expand. On the contrary, some individuals claim the US was not justified in going to war with Mexico.
The battle in New Orleans put Jackson on the map and gave him great recognition. The Americans were outnumbered but they pulled through and kept the British from seizing New Orleans. This is very important when you are talking about his leadership style. I do not see this roughness as
Firstly and most obviously, stacking up facts will not make the words an essay. In the passage I wrote, I enlisted the winning battles of Napoleon as an explanation to why he was a great figure. However, it would have been much more clear and persuasive about why he was impressive if I had written about how hard it was at that time to fought against all those anti-France armies and what he did specifically impressive in the battle. Even though it seems to be obvious that simply stacking up facts is not really persuasive, I found myself very easy to write a passage with similar problem when I had a feeling of ‘this seems obvious, why do I need to explain this’ while I should have explained since it is an essay. It also reminds me when I wrote my essay about American economy for AP economics class in my high school, I just stacked up data that I found persuasive as explanation to my thesis, and didn’t really analyze the significance of the data, making that essay less persuasive, too.