The chances of WW1 never happening are slimmer than slim, but it could have happened. What if it did? If Gavrilo Princip hadn’t killed the archduke, WW1 MIGHT never have happened. Gavrilo Princip killing the archduke was like a spark. Before WW1, Europe was on edge.
Specifically, Austria and Spain were both still formidable powers and traditional alliance theory would predict some emergence of balancing alliances in the new system. However, a careful look at the details of the alliance formation and actions taken by the allies shows that this balance of power explanation is insufficient. The terms of the creation of the alliance were focused largely on the internal policies of the two nations, and included a stipulation that France destroy one of its ports which had been in use by factions trying to overthrow the British crown. These stipulations do not make sense in an alliance oriented toward an external threat. Additionally, over the course of the alliance, the two nations were constantly at odds with each other, and experienced very different outcomes, with Britain accomplishing its (mostly diplomatic) goals and France loosing much of its influence on the continent.
France at this time did not consider it a great loss as it was expensive maintain and the Louisiana Territory was nothing more than a swamp that did not yield much benefit. When Napoleon Bonaparte seized control of France in 1799 he looked for world domination. One of the areas on his mind was to retake the Louisiana Territory from Spain. In a secret negotiation and deal with Spain, France re-acquired the Louisiana Territory in 1800. Relatively, the Louisiana Purchase included 828 million
Seward’s speech made on March 11, 1850, started off with the issue of admitting California into the Union. Seward is for admitting California, or any other new state. He is against the Compromise proposed by Henry Clay, because he felt that all compromises are wrong and immoral. He is also against slavery, and the proposition of stricter fugitive slave laws. Seward made the point that Slavery is only an intuition and can be removed from a state, and the state would remain, but if you remove freedom, it is no longer a state.
It divided the Republic into two blocs, dreyfusards and anti-dreyfusards. Main effect of this affair was that, anti-Semitism became an option for the right-wing parties to rally masses and to get support from rural areas of France. In addition to that, right-wing took key roles in the French politics after this affair. The Third Republic brought back Captain Dreyfus’s case and found him innocent. Although there were claims that it was a clergy-military conspiracy, they tried to not connect the events with military because they represent French national unity, and targeted relatively easier target: the clergy.
Thomas Jefferson- one of the great American founding fathers with exquisite taste in architecture and French wine, but also known to hold a controversial set of ideas- fought frequently and strongly against the Federalists ideas before he achieved Presidency. Jefferson and the other republican democrats who followed suit held the belief that the powers of the federal government should be left strictly to what is granted to them in the Constitution. Those powers not specifically addressed in the Constitution would then be delegated to the state governments. This is to ensure that the federal government did not have too much power as they believe a country runs best under a form of self-government. While on the other corner of the ring, the Federalists believed that the newly founded country would run best if the national government was strong and powerful and in effect if the Constitution was loosely interpreted.
We may believe that Bush made a poor decision. However, what alternative did he have? What alternative does Obama have? If we simply say the threat is the fear of tyranny from a president swollen with power from foreign wars, we miss the perverse result our constitution has created. In no small measure, our fear of an overly powerful president waging war abroad has had the unintended result that the government has to become more powerful and intrusive because America will not resolve the constitutional issue.
Provoked by actions of Napoleon, Spaniards used the French Enlightenment ideas against French men, creating the constitution of Cardiz in 1812. The absence of a Spanish ruler prompted a formation of juntas-which held provincial sovereignties, which later put them under the Supreme Junta of Seville. Bonaparte did not expect the consequences that his actions brought to Indies and Bolivar, who determined to continue the independence fight. The newly organized juntas could either stay loyal to the king of Spain, accept a new French king or recognize the constitution and step on the road of
In conclusion Imperialism was a big cause of WW1, because with all countries fighting about capturing or colonizing land, they can’t come on an agreement that should get what. Every country wants as much as it can get. Countries were caused to create tensions between each other and declare war on each other if even something small happened. All these countries needed were an excuse or get dragged in by alliance in order to go war so they would have more land and could feel more
Thesis: The Dutch were infuriated by the Hapsburg rulers of Spain and openly opposed them due to the way in which the rulers imposed a ridiculous amount of religious intolerance and taxation which led to the Dutch Revolt. Contextualization: Iconoclast riots in the Netherlands Tax revolts and refusal to pay Pacification of Ghent - alliance of northern Dutch independent states to drive Spanish out of their countries. Body Paragraph #1 Topic sentence: Because the Dutch were dominantly Protestant and the Spanish were primarily Catholic, the religious disputes between each country assisted in political tensions. Doc. #2 Description of Document: The Dutch were explaining how they believed in “freedom to express their opinions” of religion