Peace is harder to keep in a society that revolves around warfare and defense, hence why Republics are better. The main reasons Monarchy’s are rather trash at keeping peace is because of walls. If their walls are closed and no one is allowed in, there can’t be trade. Without trade a Monarchy would fall, they don 't have enough jobs and people to sustain themselves forever.
First of all, the checks and balances guards against tyranny because if we don't stay in check someone might gain too much power. This is very bad because then if they have all the power they want they can do pretty much whatever they want. Many people would end up not agreeing to the laws they make this would basically guarantee a tyranny. The next reason is because checks keep a strong government. An example is without keeping check then the government wouldn't be as strong because of having multiple people with power there would only be one.
A king is undemocratic because he has all the power in an autocratic government and so this title shows that Jackson was using too much power. He also often went against the advice of Congress, and one example of this is the Bank War. Congress agreed that the bank was constitutional and members of Congress and his cabinet advised him not to veto the bank charter, but he ignored them and made the decision to do it anyway. The autocratic nature of his decision-making overall gave him too much influence and decreased representation by limiting the number of people involved in making
He then claims that he has already set plans into motion, and is currently working on a plot to overthrow the king. Finally claiming that he does not believe in the “hocus pocus” of prophecies, or dreams of foolish men, he is fixed on setting his brother, the king, up for a fall that he will not recover from. Richard, the lowly Duke of Gloucester does not realize, that his actions will set up England for the success it would later enjoy under the Tudors. His treachery will bring forth the beginnings of new empire. Even though, one could assume Richard knew the risks of his actions, he could not have predicted that his selfish ambition would lay the foundation for a powerful England.
Jackson wanted to keep the union together and didn’t approve of the nullification. Andrew Jackson did not promote democracy well. This is true because he was not maintaining peace/stability and he was too strong of a leader. Andrew Jackson didn’t promote democracy well because he wasn’t maintaining peace and stability. In “The Trail of Tears” Jackson wasn’t maintaining stability by kicking the American Indians out
Absolute power..good or bad?It's a topics often brought up in discussion. can Absolutism be justified as a means of providing order in otherwise unstable societies?Absolutism would help a unstable country because having at least one person running it is better than none because if the people were to decide they wouldn't agree on things and it would just huge mess and they would live in chaos. Document 2,6, and 7 help support my thesis. Absolute monarchy is a type of government in which the monarch has absolute power/control over his people.
An untrustworthy man can never be remembered as a great leader (Alter; Schuman). Ulysses S. Grant was not a great president, but his military knowledge and love for others allowed him to be a leader who left a positive imprint on others. Grant shaped America’s foundation through revolutionary ideas and his actions as eighteenth president. His lasting legacy is testament to these facts; however, Grant’s story should be a cautionary one. A president’s reputation is a direct reflection of the people he surrounds himself with and a tarnished reputation overshadows
They were skeptical of him, many liberals didn 't think he would bring the peace to France like he promised. But, while Louis-Napoleon was emperor, he built railroads, promoted public job programs, and encouraged the building
They censored all newspapers and books, before anything was published it had to be sent to the government for approval, this happened because the Tsar wanted to make sure any information publicized was not opposing the Tsar in anyway so any content the Okhrana felt was dangerous towards Nicholas himself or his position as Tsar was banned. The Okhrana would use surveillance and informers to spy on the people of Russia and political groups. If anyone was to be found with any anti-tsarist material or heard speaking badly about the Tsar they could be executed or exiled to Siberia. Historian Orlando Figes says “No subject of the tsar regardless of his rank or class, could sleep securely in his bed in the knowledge that his house would to be subject to a search or he himself to arrest”. When the Okhrana could not cope the Cossacks were brought in.
One of them is when Bethmann-Hollweg answered the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum while the Kaiser was away cruising in Scandinavia. When the Kaiser came back he was furious and even though Bethmann-Hollweg proposed to step down, the Kaiser refused and said that he will to sort out the situation meaning that he might have wanted to prevent the war. This means that a misunderstanding between the head of states might have in part caused the war. Germany was under huge amount of pressure. They had to answer Austro-Hungary’s request imperatively.
One of the problems Henry II faced was the barons. Under Stephen the baron had become too powerful and Henry had the issue of regaining this power. Many baron had taken advantage over Stephens lack of control and authority, several barons built castles without asking the kings permission and had taken over large areas of land Henry had to reassert his authority as the barons where becoming too powerful. If the barons carried on as they were Henrys fate would have ultimately reflected that of Stephens. Also the barons would have been seen as undreaming the king’s power and authority.
As standing armies were marching along the debate floor another issue was power of state authority over Federal authority. This clash in authority came from the juiced up legislatures which were often extremely powerful under the Articles. Considered by Rutland as ”a loose, incomplete agreement”, the issue for Anti-Federalists was the weak powerful government was morphing into an aristocratic system. Rutland points out a few words from George Mason, who believed the Constitution “Would erect at the outset a moderate aristocracy. Which would evolve into either a monarchy or a corrupt, tyrannical aristocracy”(42)and called on the hatred of monarchy by local people.
A good leader would think things through and come to the best solution possible, especially if those actions will be affecting other people. Another example would be that of relationships, when dealing with other people, there are many instances in which we may be frustrated and want to leave that particular person, because of disagreements or fights. If we were to act spontaneously in those cases, every human would be alone for the rest of their lives. The proper thing to do would be to think things over, to look at every angle of the situation and act accordingly. Relationships, whether they are with a significant other or with a direct family member always take much effort.
The articles of confederation was written right after the revolutionary war was fought, however, the AOC failed, so they had to start all over with a new document called the constitution. 9 out of 13 colonies needed to ratify the new constitution for it to take effect. When it came to organize the government after the AOC, the people were divided on how the government should handle the fears of social, political, and economic fears which motivated the 2 parties, federalist and antifederalist. The federalists supported the new constitution, while the anti federalists were opposed. The political motivation for the federalists to support the ratification was they believed that a stronger government was necessary as the AOC had failed previously
Rome was the center of one of the world's greatest empires. It began as an unremarkable settlement. Rome had become powerful by conquering territory. But Rome soon discovered that size has its problems. Controlling an expanded empire, meant a need for more food, clothing, weapons and supplies.