|  Author | Topic: AP Euro Backup (Read 94 times) |
Moriko
Administrator
member is offline
![[aim]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/aim.gif)
Joined: Nov 2006
Gender: Male 
Posts: 64
Location: Dalmasca
Karma: 0 |  | AP Euro Backup
« Thread Started on Dec 22, 2006, 1:07am » | ![[Quote]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/quote.gif) |
Question 1: How do Haller, Hill, and Stone differ in their approach to the causes of the civil war?
Answer: William Haller basically saw the English revolution as a struggle for religious liberty that had broadened into a political topic. William Haller took on a strongly religious view of the causes of the revolution, and this is clearly evident in his Tracts on Liberty in the Puritan Revolution. He quotes: "Controversy in that great crisis revolved in ever widening circles about religious questions which came not to be solved, so much as dismissed, or, it would be better to say, transformed beyond recognition." People were beginning to lose faith in the Catholic Church, especially when new enlightened thinkers began questioning the church. The people's view of the church became even more bleak as the church would twist and morph there questions into ludicrous ideas. Controversy around the Church grew, and people began to get and take action. This can be related to the philosophy of John Locke, who said that if a person didn't like the government, it was their duty to rebel. The church owned large portions of the best land, and it had enormous power so it was in a sense governing the people! The church strongly opposed change, especially when it came from people questioning their motives. Here, Haller says: "To attempt to reform the English Church in the seventeenth century was to attempt the reorganization of society." Society was molded around the church, it was used to having a lot of power so radical change in the church would not be easy, especially since it had so much power. However as the revolution moves on, more and more people are beginning to doubt the church more, and the religious and supernatural laws that had embedded themselves in the individual began to become corrupt and obscure. Haller supports this statement by saying: "The religious doctrine of a supernatural law evoked the rational doctrine of natural law and natural rights which emerged as the modern doctrine of liberty. But the religious and theological terms and images in which that doctrine took form did much to obscure the sources from which it sprang." Tat sources happened to be the Church, and people were becoming more and more discontent wit it. Thus, the Puritan revolution was born. Instead of demanding religious liberties, people now began civil liberties. Why should they want religious liberties that came from such a such a corrupt and controversial religious body that was the church? You see that as the revolution moves on more, emphasis is shifted from the religious aspect to the political one. Haller quotes: "The beginnings of the war, so largely scriptural and theological to begin with, became increasingly rationalistic, naturalistic and secular." And this is where enlightenment ideas begin to take shape.
Christopher Hill saw the causes of the revolution in a more economical and social way. In his opinion, religious rhetoric cloaked economical impulses. Hill quotes: "Parliament beat the king because it could appeal to the enthusiastic support of the trading and industrial classes in town and countryside." This statement is very true. The Bourgeois were a growing wealthy middle class who were consistently gaining more and more power. He thought, as said before that religious rhetoric cloaked economic impulses. His negative criticism towards the religious view of war continues with him sating: "The orthodox attitude to the seventeenth century revolution is misleading because it does not try to penetrate below the surface." He says that the way to figure why all this fighting was occurring was to see what the people said why it was occurring In this he criticizes the religious view for being solely based on what people say and for not looking at the true core reasons of the war. He also seems to have a negative view on what the leaders of Parliament say caused the war, and although Hill agrees with what the Parliament leaders say the causes of the war were, ( Parliamentary armies were fighting for the liberty of the individual and his rights in law against a tyrannical government) he criticizes that fact because it fails to answer the basic questions, such as "Why was the King tyrannical" And "Why did the classes have to fight for their liberty?" Hill's view is purely economical, and it mostly involves the nobility In his The English Revolution, Hill quotes: The government represented the bankrupt land owning nobles, who were busy sucking the life blood from the whole people by methods of economical exploitation which we shall be considering later on." He is basically saying that the "whole people" or the true honest people were becoming increasingly angry at the nobility. The nobility exploited the money of the normal people and often brutalized the peasantry. The people did not think that this was fair and thus began to question the government. With the government not helping much, the people themselves had to take action, thus causing the Puritan Revolution. Also, Hill quotes: "The middle-class struggle to shake off the control of this group was not merely selfish; it fulfilled a progressive historical function . . . . It was necessary for the further development of capitalism that the choking parasitism should be ended by the smashing of the feudal state." Hill was completely right. The "choking parasitism" that he is referring to is the nobility. This parasite could only be ended by eliminating the last remnants of the feudal system in which the nobility exploited the common people. This, is what Hill says caused the revolution.
Stone pointed the blame to the King as well as to the differences of the people. In Stone's The Past and the Present, Stone quotes: "The collapse was caused not only by the undeniable ineptitude of the King and his advisors, but also by certain specific historical trends." He is saying here that the King as well as his advisors are a core cause of the revolution. His inability at being a good leader did not go too well with the people. Stone also mentions how lawyers played a crucial part in the cause of the revolution. In his document Stone quotes: "As for lawyers, they had their own grievances against the crown and the prerogative courts, noticeably their hostility to the interference of the church courts in common law business. They also strongly resented the competition to the common law courts by the overlapping jurisdictions of the two regional prerogative courts." This dispute between the lawyers took on political overtones which also aided in the causes of the revolution. As you can see, these 3 authors all have three distinct views on how the war started, and you can clearly see that all these causes outlined by the authors definitely contributed their own part in starting the English civil war. Much more could be said but Mrs. Santarelli has many more papers to grade and she doesn't want to spend her Christmas reading my ridiculously long issues paper! 
Question 2: How did Oliver Cromwell defend his actions? Do you find the defense convincing?
Answer: Oliver Cromwell was a strict Puritan, and he was hated by the people of England. In fact, he was hated so much that after his death, his corpse was hung, and then beheaded following the Glorious Revolution! Oliver Cromwell's chief achievement was being the victor of the English Civil war but even more importantly, he turned England into a common wealth. Cromwell defended his actions by basing his right to govern England on scripture and on God, which was very similar to the Divine Right theory. He allowed scripture to justify his rule mainly. In Oliver Cromwell's Letter to Colonel Hammond Cromwell uses the scripture verse: "God hath appointed authorities among the nations, to which active or passive obedience is to be yielded." The authority, or Cromwell, resided in England, therefore, obedience should go to him. Cromwell strongly felt that God had chosen him to lead England, and that every won war meant that God approved of what he did, and that every failed war meant that God wanted him to take a different plan of action. Cromwell supports this in his letter by saying: Authorities and powers are in the ordinance of God." Cromwell also believed that the monarchy before him was corrupt and he thought that it was his duty to rule for the sake of the people. When it came to Parliament, Cromwell had a strongly negative view on them which caused him to ultimately dismiss them. In Oliver Cromwell's Dismissal of the Rump Parliament, Oliver Cromwell reportedly said "This time I must do it; and suddenly standing up, made a speech, wherein he loaded the Parliament with the vilest reproaches, charging them not to have a heart to do anything for the public good, to have espoused the corrupt interests of Presbytery and the lawyers, who were the supporters of tyranny and oppression, and accusing them to perpetuate themselves to a position of power." In Cromwell's bold act of defiance, he was basically telling that Parliament was a corrupt, in efficient ruling body, and told them that they were power hungry and mean hearted people. You can tell why the people of England hated him so much, especially Parliament. Cromwell also implies Parliament's ineffectiveness in Clarendon's History of the Rebellion. Clarendon happens to be a person who refuses to pay a tax that was issued by Cromwell without the consent of Parliament. Upon hearing this, Cromwell backfires, saying that he Magna Carta should not control his actions, which he knew were for the safety of the Commonwealth." Cromwell implied that Parliament and the Magna Carta weren't anything to be taken seriously, and that they were completely useless. He also implied that the tax that he imposed did not have to be approved by Parliament, which offended it greatly. I find Cromwell's defense not convincing. Cromwell's scripture based defense would do very well to justify his rule in a deeply religious area. However, Cromwell got tangled up with the wrong people. Cromwell's strict Puritan beliefs caused him to shut down bars and theaters, the places where people got entertainment. This strict code did not go well at all with the people. Also, religion was beginning to lose it's grip so although Cromwell's scriptural based defense is strong, it simply failed.
Question 3: All the legislation signed by Charles before the outbreak of the war remained in affect after the restoration. How would this affect future relationships between King and Parliament?
Answer: Charles signed numerous documents before the English Civil war. The fact that they remained in effect after the war forever meant that for once, Parliament would have more power than the King, and the the King isn't always right. The people have a right to rebel when their king isn't doing a good. This was a philosophy of John Locke, and enlightenment thinker. King Charles I was actually executed. For once, the King wasn't this all powerful, God given monarch. Enlightenment thinking had shown to Europe that they have a right to liberty and that it is their duty to rebel if the government isn't doing an adequate job. Many of the documents signed by Charles gave Parliament more power while decreasing the power of the King. In The Rights of the House of Commons Parliament declares that the King can't make any religiously based laws without the consent of Parliament. This statement is strongly supported by a quote from Parliament, which said: "For matter of religion, it will appear by examination of truth and right that your majesty should be misinformed if any man should deliver that that the King of England have any absolute power in themselves either to alter religion." This was a powerful quote, because Parliament asserts that the King can't make any religious choices without Parliament, and they are limiting his power. In Parliament and Taxation Parliament complains about new taxes that were levied by the King. They even quote: "That all impositions set without the assent of Parliament may be quite abolished and taken away." Here you see that Parliament begins to show it's true power, and now you have a government where Parliament has more power than the monarch. In Commons Protestation, 1621 Parliament showed that any important topic was a fit subject of debate, and that rights and liberties of Parliament are ancient and true. The document quotes: That the liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of Parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England."This statement would prove important and it would also foreshadow that after the Civil War, Parliament would always have power and that the King and Parliament would always work together. The Petition of Right was another extremely important document and had started due to the ascension of King Charles I. Charles was a high Church Anglican, and he had married a papist wife, Henrietta Maria of France. Because of this, Parliament was very suspicious of Charles' religious policy and refused to grant him rights of taxation. Because of this, Charles' was forced to used forced loans which ironically make Parliament protest, and thus, the Petition of Right was issued. It addressed many of the issues that Parliament was having with the King and seeked to redress on the following points, such as forced loans, arbitrary arrest, imprisonment contrary to the Magna Carta, arbitrary interference with property rights, lack of enforcement of habeas corpus, forced billeting of troops, imposition of martial law, and the exemption of officials from due process.
|
[center]![[image]](http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l280/BetaMode/sdaji.jpg) ![[image]](http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l280/BetaMode/sora.jpg) ![[image]](http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/3451/atticuswq0.jpg) |
|
Moriko
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 64
Location: Dalmasca
Karma: 0 | | Re: AP Euro Backup
« Reply #1 on Dec 22, 2006, 1:07am » | |
The English Civil War- Religous
Conflict? Class Struggle?
Constitutional Dispute?
Michael Boodoo
Mrs. Santarelli
A.P. European History
|
[center] |
|
Moriko
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 64
Location: Dalmasca
Karma: 0 | | Re: AP Euro Backup
« Reply #2 on Dec 23, 2006, 6:01pm » | |
I backed up I disagreeignment so in case it didn't print right in school I could go online and get.
|
[center] |
|
Moriko
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 64
Location: Dalmasca
Karma: 0 | | Re: AP Euro Backup
« Reply #3 on Dec 24, 2006, 1:50pm » | |
Yes, unfortunately that class is very hard, and I have ti take 5 AP's next year.
|
[center] |
|
Moriko
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 64
Location: Dalmasca
Karma: 0 | | Re: AP Euro Backup
« Reply #4 on Dec 24, 2006, 2:15pm » | |
Advanced Placement, it means college level.
|
[center] |
|
Moriko
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 64
Location: Dalmasca
Karma: 0 | | Re: AP Euro Backup
« Reply #5 on Jan 3, 2007, 6:56am » | |
Question 1: Using population studies as one example, discuss some of the problems that historians face in analyzing the nature and causes of the Industrial Revolution.
Answer: The phrase revolution industrielle was used first in France in the 1820's, when themechanization of the cotto industry was compared to the French Revolution of 1789. Arnold Toynbee (1852-1883), an English economist and reformer, described the industrial revolution as a dynamic change in the course of Western civilization. Most historians believe that the industrial revolution began in England, after which it spread throughout the continent, and eentually the entire world. An American economist, Charles beard (1874-1948) saw the revolution as almost erupting on an almost medieval England "like a thunderbolt from a clear sky." Some other historians even say that the revoution was an "evolutionary" process that took about 200 years and that was in preperation for about 200 years. The problem with all these explanations is that it is hard to distinguish between cause and effect. Population studies support this statement, for example in England, between 1700 and 800 the pop. was 61%, and between 1800 and 1831, the pop. increased by 64 %. While it seems that this massive pop. growth was directly due to the revolution, there are other factors, and the revolution would have occured, even without these people. Also, during this time, the birth did not increase significantly, the pop. rise was because of a lower mortality rate. People were becoming cleaner and they were now exposed to more balanced diet. Improved drainage systems, paved roads, laws agaist burials near the town and the elimination of open wells all contributed. medical advances, especially in surgery, strongly helped to lower the motality rate as well. When historians take population studies, they consider many factors, such as the average age that women marry, the economy, the agriculture, etc... With all these factors involved, you can see why sometimes it can be hard to come up with a single solid reason as to how or where the revolution started.
Question 2: How did the Enclosure Movement contribute to conditions favoring an Indutrial Revolution?
Answer: Enclosure is the process of conversion of common land to private ownership. Historically, enclosure is primarily associated with the privatization of land in England from the 12th to 19th centuries. There were divisions of large open fields into privately controlled plots of land, usually hedged and known at the time as "severals". This land was already owned, but under a concept of ownership that gave the owners rights to the crops, but also meant that other people might have rights to partial use of that land. For example, villagers might have the right to graze their animals on the stubble in the open fields after the harvest was taken, or in a hay meadow after the haying. This land was private, but subject to certain public rights, usually known as "common rights". Because there were these wealthy landowners buying all the land, they could afford to invest in new technologies that make agriculture more easy. New artificial methods of livestock breeding, more efficient use of fertilizers, and more advanced crop rotations techniques all greatly increased agricultural productivity. The industrial revolution played a major role in this growing agricultural area. With the production and refinement of iron into plows after 1800, Jethro Tull's invention of the seed drill, and the availability of McCormick reaper after 1834, farming became more like an industry, and it had a rational system of organization. It used enlightenment ideas such as scientific methods to study productivity, and used machinery produced by inventors of the age. The agricultural revolution helped to create a landless and mobile working class. Also, another inportant aspect was that no longer were so many people needed to grow food for everyone else. The surplus of people leaving the agricultural industry created a ready source of labor for the new industries developing in towns.
Question 3: Define Capitalism, and identify the sources of capital available to entrepreneurs during the early years of industrialization in England.
Answer: Capitalism refers to the several theories that developed in the context of the Industrial Revolution and the meant to explain, justify, or critique the private ownership of capital; to explain the operation of capitalistic markets; and to guide the application or elimination of government regulation of property and markets. Capitalist economic practices became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, although some features of capitalist organization existed in the ancient world. Capitalism has emerged as the Western world's dominant economic system since the decline of feudalism, which eroded traditional political and religious restraints on capitalist exchange. Since the Industrial Revolution, capitalism gradually spread from Europe, particularly from Britain, across political and cultural frontiers. In the 19th and 20th centuries, capitalism provided the main, but not exclusive, means of industrialization throughout much of the world. A flexible and sophisticated monetary system supplemented by an adequete and relatively heap supply was another prerequiset for the Revolution. The Revolution enlarged the range of economic activity from a local level to a world wide level, and it provided an important source of capital as well as a motivation for profit making. The growth of English colonies in North America in the 17th century contributed to the accumulation of large amounts of capital, much of it coming from the proftis made during the slave trade. The most effectuve means of assembling capital from the middle classes was the insurance business.
Question 4: In the mid 18th century, France was richer, more powerful, and larger in area and population than England. ow therefore can you accounr for he fact that the Industrial Revolution began in England?
Answer: France would have been England's most likely challenger to where the revolution started in terms of strength, population and richness. France had 20 million people to England's 5.8 million. By 1780, France's pop. had grown by 35%, compared to the 29% gain by England. However, England's smaller size was an advantage. Urban markets were never very distant from sources of supply, but in France, trasportation lines were longer and ost more money. The French economy suffered from strict mercantalistic policies well into the 18th century. People were more interested in a free market, no one would have wanted to establish a store where there were strict codes. In England, mercantailsm was talked about and debated more than it was practiced. Also, France had gone through a financial crisis in 1723, started by the actions of a scot named John Law. This resulted in the end of the French equivalent of a centrl bank. By 1780, England was tchnologically ahed of France, also, Parliament had passed an act in 1624 which ended monopolistic pratices, and at the same time, they also issued a patent system. Inventors prospered and new inventions filled England. Also, Puritans, who had been used to breaking from custom, began makig their own schools and universities, which put more emphasis on industrial ideas rather than religious, although religion was still a central theme. France had become a terrible place to live for Hugenots, because the Edict of Nantes had been revoked. as a result, many of the Hugenots fled to England, taking their talents and skill, furthur making France a less ideal place for an industrial revolution to occur. Here we see that England is making many advancements which favored growth and prosperity. Compared to France, England would have been the ideal place for an industrial revolution to start.
Question 5: "Overall, the Industrial Revolution improved the material well-being of most people. The same cannot be said about the quality of life." Evaluate the validaty of this statement in regard to women, children, entrepreneurs, and skilled artisians.
|
[center] |
| |
|
![[Home]](http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l280/BetaMode/bhome.png)
![[Help]](http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l280/BetaMode/bhelp.png)
![[Search]](http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l280/BetaMode/bsearch.png)
![[Login]](http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l280/BetaMode/blogin.png)
![[Register]](http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l280/BetaMode/bregister.png)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Reply]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/reply.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Logged