Constitutional Nationalism succeeded in achieving its aims whereas revolutionary nationalism failed and cultural nationalism proved to be of little relevance
"Constitutional Nationalism succeeded in achieving its aims whereas revolutionary nationalism failed and cultural nationalism proved to be of little relevance." How far do you agree with this statement in reference to 19th century Ireland? In this answer I am going to discuss the successes and failures of constitutional nationalism, revolutionary nationalism and cultural nationalism in the 19th century in order to compare the impact that they had on Irish society. In particular, I will consider the constitutional nationalists Daniel O'Connell and Charles Stewart Parnell alongside the revolutionary nationalists Robert Emmet, John Mitchel and the Irish Confederation and John O'Mahony & James Stephens, the leaders of the Fenians. Also, with regards to cultural nationalism, I will consider Thomas Davis, the Gaelic League and the GAA. I will consider each nationalist group, specifically with regards to their aims and subsequent achievements. Firstly, I will consider the revolutionary nationalists, who were committed to extreme and violent ,methods to achieve their aims and any failures or indeed successes that these particular nationalists encountered. On of the earliest revolutionary nationalists during this period was Robert Emmet who as a previous member of the United Irishmen wanted specifically to resurrect Wolfe Tone's work, after the failed rebellion of 1798, in order
To what extent could the Liberal reforms of 1906-1914 be described as a radical attempt to alleviate poverty?
To what extent could the Liberal reforms of 1906-1914 be described as a radical attempt to alleviate poverty? This essay will explore the Liberal reforms introduced between 1906-1914 and assess the government's efficacy in tackling poverty. In the early 20th century poverty was becoming an increasingly important issue and for a variety of reasons. Poverty had risen up the political agenda not least because of the advent of the Labour Party and their programme for social reform. At one end of the spectrum it is argued that the Liberal Government were crusaders for social reform, fighting oppression and poverty to emancipate the working classes. At the other end, the Liberals were seen as a Government with no plan or coherent strategy to deal with these issues and were not even united; with legislation being introduced piece meal as a response to individual crisis. At the turn of the century large numbers of men, women and children had to endure deplorable living and working conditions. The estimated unemployment rate for 15 to 64 year olds in 1902 was 69%1, although the unemployment rate as measured by those claiming unemployment related benefit was as low as 5%. However this raises questions about the accuracy of measuring and reporting conditions and begins to signify the potential numbers living on the poverty line. In 1900 trade union membership represented only 11% of
Henry IV of France
Henry IV of France Henry IV of France was born on December 13th 1553, in Pau, Bearn, in the province of Navarre. He was the son of Antoine de Bourbon, the duc de Vendome and Jeanne d'Albret, queen of Navarre from 1555. It was extremely unlikely that Henry would ever ascend to the throne due to the fact that Catherine de Medici had already had three male children by the time Henry was born and would son have a fourth. Henry spent much of his early childhood growing up in Bearn, however from 1561 to 1567 he lived with his second cousins, the children of Henry II, the King of France, one of which was his future wife Marguerite. It was at about this time that the religious problems between Protestants and Catholics came to ahead; Henry's father joined the side of the Protestants, but later changed sides during the long period of civil war, and was killed during this time. Despite this Henry's mother held firm and announced that she was a Calvinist in 1560. Henry was therefore brought up to be a strict Protestant. Aged about 13 Henry began his military education, and in the autumn of 1567 he led a campaign against the rebellious heads of the Catholic gentry of southern Navarre, resulting in an easy victory. During the third religious war in France Henry was proclaimed the head of the Protestant army, although in reality this post was truly held by Gaspard de Coligny. In June of
Assess the impact of the period from 1969-1982 on the IRA/Sinn Fein and their development into a significant political force in Northern Ireland
Preliminary Modern History Assessment Task 4 Historical Investigation "Assess the impact of the period from 1969 - 1982 on the IRA/Sinn Fein and their development into a significant political force in Northern Ireland" "Assess the impact of the period from 1969 - 1982 on the IRA/Sinn Fein and their development into a significant political force in Northern Ireland" During the period from 1969-1982 both the IRA and Sinn Fein underwent significant change. Sinn Fein moved from a fringe role, in the nationalist movement of Northern Ireland, to a dominant political position. During a time of intense violence in the region an internal discussion was taking place, deliberating on the value of armed resistance versus political engagement. The ideals that rose out of this transformed the movement and laid the basis for the central role it would play in the eventual Good Friday Agreement of 1998. The re-emergence of the nationalist movement led to the rise and resurrection of groups such as the IRA. Naturally this caused much tension, and incidences of violence began to rise. Acts of exceptional protest showed the incomparable power of politics over violence and led to international recognition of the issue. Ultimately Sinn Fein developed into one of the most powerful political forces in Northern Ireland. After years in the dark the nationalist movement began to rapidly gain
Queen Elizabeth I - Later Years essay plans and notes
Later Years of Elizabeth Essay Plans The Elizabethan government was seriously threatened by discontent in the 1590s. How far do you agree? Not seriously threatened but it was arguably the period in her reign with the most discontent, although much of this wasn’t down to what she had done. During the last years of Elizabeth’s reign, England became an unstable kingdom, menaced by crisis. How far do you agree with this statement? Compared to the rest of her reign, this was a relatively tumultuous time, but compared to the reigns of her siblings and father, she handled the crises she was faced with well. Lack of Effectiveness in Parliament (inc. factionalism) * Yes * Elizabeth summoned parliament more often during the later stages of her rule, often do to with economic issues, especially those caused by war. * The commons were worried about Sir Walter Mildmay’s granting of an unusually high subsidy in 1589(double subsidy and 4 tenths&fifteenths) (2x ammt of normal grant), as they were concerned that this generosity might become “the occasion of a precedent to posterity”- they didn’t want this grant to become the norm. There was much debate in parliament over how much the queen should be granted. The Commons feared that, in the passing of subsidies, their privileges were being infringed upon by the Lords. * By the late 1590s, the Cecil-Essex rivalry
How far were James I's problems inherited, how far of his own making?
How far were James I's problems inherited, how far of his own making? The position which James VI of Scotland inherited when he became James I of England was not one of imminent or inevitable danger but it was one for clear-sighted and realistic statesmanship. There is no doubt that James possessed some major shortcomings as a ruler, the most damaging of which were his over-reliance on favourites such as Buckingham, his complete neglect of his public image and his inability to live within his financial means. It would however be folly to presume that James's statecraft was completely without redeeming features. His experience gleamed from rule in Scotland did prepare him, though not completely, for rule in England. As Alan Smith has said "James VI was one of the most successful Scottish monarchs but James I was a 'relative failure' as a ruler of England". This statement however is over harsh and exemplifies a negative image of James pioneered by Anthony Weldon in the early seventeenth century. It is clear that James's problems were on the whole of his own making. It has been argued by many in the 'Weldon school' that amongst other things James I was "stammering, slobbering...trembling at a drawn sword and talking in a style alternately of a buffoon and a pedagogue." More recently however historians have begun to emancipate themselves and present a 'more balanced' picture of
Analyse the ways in which Shakespeare dramatises his exploration of the idea of leadership in
Analyse the ways in which Shakespeare dramatises his exploration of the idea of leadership in "Henry V" At the time when "Henry V" was written in 1599, England was in chaos, facing many dilemmas. The country was coming to the end of the Elizabethan era. Queen Elizabeth was in the final years of her reign and she was getting old, which must be taken into consideration. Therefore, the issue of succession was very topical. Who was to become the next monarch of England? This issue arose because there was no heir to the throne since the Queen had no children and had remained unmarried. Powerful Catholic countries surrounded England, who had broken away from the Pope in the reign of Henry VIII. They saw England as a potential country to invade and reconvert to Catholicism. The possibility of civil war was becoming a real threat, as many people believed that they had a rightful claim to the throne. Therefore there was much discontent throughout the country. When Shakespeare's play was written, the English were vulnerable, weak and living in fear. Shakespeare's intention was to increase the morel of the citizens of England by reuniting the country, making the English feel proud and of their noble heritage. By writing the play, he hoped to raise their self-esteem and enthusiasm for the forthcoming events. He wanted to remind the English about the good times in the past and their
Was the Henrician Reformation inevitable?
Was the Henrician Reformation inevitable? In 1534 Henry VIII was declared " the only Supreme Head on Earth of the Church in England...having full power and authority.....to the pleasure of Almighty God1" The Reformation resulted in both political changes such as the headship of the Church, and religious movement away from strong Catholic beliefs such as superstition and purgatory. Traditional historians such as G.R.Elton and A.G.Dickins hold widely different views to revisionist historians such a C.Haigh and J.J.Scarisbrick concerning if the Henrician reformation was inevitable or not. Yet which of these views is most creditable? Henry wanted increased power and he saw that by becoming the supreme head, the church could bring him increased power and revenues. According to J.J Scarisbrick, there were two political ideas present in Henry's mind. The first was that he must get his divorce and the idea of 'caesaropapism' was one that seemed to grow with the divorce. Scarisbrick believed Henry had been having these ideas as early as 1515, and that if there had been no divorce, there would probably still have been a confrontation between the clerical estate and Henry; who was beginning to claim new spiritual jurisdiction. The second idea was "That Kingship conferred on him a position in the Christian community that was not actually his, which had been usurped by others, which he
'In His Domestic Policy Between 1515 and 1529 Wolsey Promised Much But Achieved Little' - How Far Do You Agree With This Statement?
'In His Domestic Policy Between 1515 and 1529 Wolsey Promised Much But Achieved Little' - How Far Do You Agree With This Statement? Wolsey was a man of much promise. Born a butchers son in Ipswich in either 1472 or 1473, he had an undisputedly low say in the running of the country. He rose through the ranks of the English church, and excelled himself until the King, Henry VIII, appointed him Lord Chancellor in 1515. When in this positioned, he promised great amounts of modification to the Church, the people and the foreign policy. Not all of this was achieved though, and some would say that Wolsey achieved little. He did not. Wolsey made many promises, because he tried to impress people, and most importantly, Henry. He made so many promises because he wanted to keep his position in power, and the way to keep this was to promise people he would do things for them, even though he may have eventually not got round to doing them. Maybe Wolsey was greedy? Maybe he wanted to be King, but Henry just stood in his way? We do not know precisely why Wolsey promised so much; we can only assume that it was to keep his power. Wolsey had a programme for reformation of the government. He disliked anybody that came close to the King and threatened his position, and tried to get rid of them in a clever way, for example, the minions. Wolsey, when in his privy chamber, would have the Great
To what extent can the Revolt of 1381 be explained as a protest against taxation?
To what extent can the Revolt of 1381 be explained as a protest against taxation? It is without question that the rebel uprising, or 'Peasants' Revolt' of 1381, was a major turning point in Medieval British History. Alastair Dunn for example, labels it 'the most significant outbreak of popular protest in British history'1, something which, when looking at the aftermath, can hardly be denied. Although undoubtedly sparked by the poll tax impinged on the people at the time, the Revolt can also be attributed to several underlying social and economic issues which plagued the country during the fourteenth century. These issues directly affected the course England would take as a country; and played an undeniable part in causing the unrest that manifested itself as the revolt of 1381. Occurring after decades of oppression of tenants under the idea of Serfdom, the Peasants' revolt was essentially a sudden and unpremeditated2 backlash against the King and his officials.
