Assess the view that the Supreme Court was the most important branch of federal government in assisting African Americans to achieve their civil rights in the period 1865-1992.
Assess the view that the Supreme Court was the most important branch of federal government in assisting African Americans to achieve their civil rights in the period 1865-1992. The three main branches of America federal government often show great divergence of opinion - something that has a huge impact on the way laws and attitudes in the US change over time - and this is blindingly obvious in terms of the Civil Rights movement and the fight for African American civil rights - for example, even at times when Congress was highly conservative, the Supreme Court was able to make rulings, based on previous legislation, that dramatically improved the rights of African Americans, and even at times when the Supreme Court and Congress were both heavily opposed to further movement on the issue, the President was able to step in and issue Executive Orders. One of the first steps, of course, on the journey toward equal rights for African Americans was the 13th Amendment. Ultimately, unless the slaves had been freed, there could never have been equality for them with the rest of society. Followed by the 14th and 15th Amendments, which further extended the de jure rights of African Americans - indeed, the Amendments gave African Americans equal rights, in a de jure capacity. All three of these amendments were passed by Congress, and are indicative of the positive attitude towards the
Which of the grievances of the Third Estates in France in 1789 were the most important?
Which of the grievances of the Third Estates in France in 1789 were the most important? In 1789 Louis XVI called for a meeting of the Estates-General pressured by social discontent and financial problems. The Estates-General had not met since 1614. This representative institution was divided among three groups: the First Estate, the Second Estate and the Third Estate. This last Estate ostensibly represented every one who did not enjoy of privileges. It consisted of the commoners. The Third Estate included the bourgeoisie and the peasants. On one hand, there were the bourgeoisie. They were the rich ones. They were rentiers, lawyers, financiers, doctors, shopkeepers, ship-owners, commercial traders, low ranking office holders, craft workers and small-scale manufacturers. On the other hand, there were the peasants. They were the poor. They included from gross fermiers to landless labourers. Peasants made up the largest group within the Third Estate. They were 80% of the total population in France. So on the whole, it can be said the Third Estate represented the majority of the French population. In anticipation of the meeting of the Estates-General, the king requested cahiers which were lists of grievances drawn up by local groups of each of the three Estates. Therefore, by 1789, the bourgeoisie along with the peasants had numerous grievances they wished addressed. But which of
Expain why the general strike broke out in 1926
Explain why the General Strike broke out in 1926. May 1926 saw one of the largest acts of union in British workforce history, the general strike saw much of Britain come to a standstill as the country's main traditional, staple industries ceased production. The strike began when 1 million miners were locked out by their employers for refusing to take a pay cut. The response of the British working class was magnificent. Over 2.5 million workers responded to the call for action and refused to work. There are several events that lead up to and caused such anger amongst the workforce and ultimately the General Strike. The first, and one of the most important in my opinion, was the economic situation of the time. Britain was at the beginning of a huge economic depression, and after the war found that they now couldn't compete with other countries in the international export markets. Germany and Poland were using more modern machinery and were able to churn out coal more efficiently and cheaper than Britain as she did not modernise her machinery, only 20% of British coal was cut by machinery, the rest was handpicked. In addition to this both France and Italy were receiving free coal from Germany as part of the reparations so had very little need to buy it from somewhere else. The problems with exports were only made worse by the decision to go back on the gold standard after
Do you accept the view in Source V that Wolseys domestic policies were disappointing?
Question B Do you accept the view in Source V that Wolsey's domestic policies were disappointing? Wolsey was Henry VIII's chief minister and right hand man from his rise to power in 1514 after working himself up until his eventual fall from grace in 1529. During his time in power Wolsey made many changes to England's domestic policy. This essay will consider the view that these policies were disappointing. One of Wolsey's domestic policies that can be viewed as a disappointment is the way he dealt with finances. During this time in power Wolsey introduced amicable bonds. This system of taxation was designed to bring in more money to fund the Kings many European battles and invasions. Unfortunately the extra tax upset members of both the clergy and laity resulting in riots in East Anglia and Suffolk. Source T states that Wolsey's arrogant view that he could get whatever he wanted "aroused against himself the hatred of the whole country". Therefore this shows that this domestic policy was very disappointing as instead of raising much needed funds for the king it caused him great amounts of grief by displeasing so many of the common people and nobles, which also made it harder to bring about other change in his domestic policies. Contrary to this it can be argued that not all of Wolsey's financial policies were a failure such as levying tax which "favoured the people
The impact of the First World War merely heightened existing social and political tensions which had divided Germany before 1914. How far do you agree with this judgement?
'The impact of the First World War merely heightened existing social and political tensions which had divided Germany before 1914.' How far do you agree with this judgement? Germany's certain tensions politically and socially before 1914 can be seen in forms of the strikes that were taking place to deter the government and the military leaders away from the war, essentially the opposition to go to war. So, this would almost keep the tensions consistent as it was already relatively high. Other political tensions prior to the 1914 mark included the Zabern Affair in 1913 which increased tensions of the Reich as it was a political crisis. However, the tensions could have seen to differ after the war especially with growing opposition. As the Second Reich had a lot of issues already so the 'tensions' themselves were already in full effect and could be seen to only get worse with events such as starting a war that was preventable. Social tensions were as the statement suggests were present before WW1 in Germany. Pressure groups highlighted the divisions and tensions in Germany despite them usually focusing on single issues yet after the economic and social changes they emerged due to these changes. Although, it is seen to be that some social effects just didn't affect the tension in Germany. The 'silent dictatorship' also stemmed tensions as in 1916 Bethmann called off
To what extent do you accept the view that the USA and the USSR were already divided by irreconcilable differences by the end of the fighting in Europe in May 1945?
To what extent do you accept the view that the USA and the USSR were already divided by irreconcilable differences by the end of the fighting in Europe in May 1945? I agree to some extent that the USA and USSR were already divided by irreconcilable differences by 1945 due to their ideological differences which contradicted the beliefs of the other nation. The USA believed in a democratic world which would benefit the economic interests of the USA with free open markets. However the USSR with its new position in the world aimed to improve its security by spreading its communist influence in neighbouring countries. Security was an important issue due to its past experiences of being attacked by the west through Eastern Europe such as the west's intervention in the Russian civil war of 1917-18. This experience therefore led the Soviet Union to have a mutual suspicion of the motives of the USA and the west during the war. Therefore the USA and USSR were already divided by 1945. However they were not completely divided as they managed to become allies in their fight against Nazi Germany. The fact that they were able to unite to fight a common cause which was to defeat Nazi Germany illustrates that they were not divided by irreconcilable differences by 1945. The two nations were already divided due to their ideological differences as highlighted in source 1 which is from the
How successful was English foreign policy in the years 1509 1529?
How successful was English foreign policy in the years 1509 - 1529? During these years Henry VIII was the monarch on the English throne, and his foreign policy reflected both his hunger for personal glory, and his desire to see England become a major power in Europe. During the later part of his reign, it seems his wish to control vast parts of Europe, and be an important player in politics, waned; but for the first twenty years of Henry's reign, from 1509-1529, important decisions and actions of the Monarch were dominated by foreign policy, and it was during this time that Thomas Wolsey, Henry's eventual right hand man, would rise to prominence. English policy enjoyed both successes and failures - but it is arguable as to what extent these successes reached. In 1511 was Henry's first opportunity to increase the reach of his control, and take part of France. King Louis XII, who the current ruler of France, had invaded Italy; leaving the Pope Julius II in a position where he was under threat. The Pope formed a Holy League agreement with Ferdinand, King of Spain, and as his son in-law, Henry offered his services. Henry joined the Holy League in the November of 1511, and in early 1512 he sent around 12,000 troops to invade southern France, led by the Marques of Dorset. However, Henry had not been aware that the Spanish had already defeated the French and made peace, and the
How successful were the Five- Year Plans in transforming Russian industry in the years to 1941?
How successful were the Five- Year Plans in transforming Russian industry in the years to 1941? By Gabriella Pink Stalin made three five-year plans spanning from 1928 to 1941. He had very different aims for each of the plans and had some very optimistic targets for the achievements of these plans. An over riding theme of each of the plans was industry. Stalin wanted to restore Russia’s hold on industry and make it a great trading power once again. The five year plans were very successful in helping building up the Russian industry. They did this through many ways, each contributing in a different manner. The production of raw materials increased dramatically thought eh five-year plans and industry on a whole became a lot more efficient. This can be seen through statistics that show the production in tonnes. Such materials as; coal, iron and steel, all rose in production quite dramatically. Iron rose from 4.2 million tonnes to 6.2 million tonnes, coal from 29.1 million tonnes to 64.3 million tonnes and steel from 4.0 million tonnes to 5.9 million tonnes. These were huge increases at that time. For an country that was struggling as much as Russia was at that time, it was an achievement. Stalin had many initiatives to achieve a better industry. He put in place a reward scheme for workers if they helped reach the targets that were set. Workers were encouraged to work for
How far do you agree that the Cold War broke out in Europe because the USA and the USSR disagreed fundamentally about how they should treat the shattered European economy?
How far do you agree that the Cold War broke out in Europe because the USA and the USSR disagreed fundamentally about how they should treat the shattered European economy? Subsequent to the Second World War in 1945, the European economy was in tatters as much of the infrastructure had been laid to waste and industrial centres destroyed. As such, the two main victors of the war, the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), declared their commitment to postwar unity and mutual cooperation in improving global conditions. 1 Yet, in less than two years, a fervent rivalry between the two nations led to a breaking up of accord, concerning mutual blaming, the division of Europe, as well as the difference in political ideologies. The Cold War broke out in Europe in 1947, signifying a sharp and unexpected deterioration in postwar relations between the USA and USSR. Yet all through this period, the rivalry between the two superpowers was played out in numerous areas: military coalitions; ideology, military, industrial, and technological developments. Europe was split in half, with Western Europe supporting the USA, and Eastern Europe being an ally of the USSR. So, was the disagreement on how to deal with the shattered European economy between the USA and USSR the sole reason for the Cold War? I would agree with this statement only to a small
Explain how the effects of the First World War caused the collapse of the Tsarist regime
) Explain how the effects of the First World War caused the collapse of the Tsarist regime (8 marks) There were many causes of the collapse of the Tsarist regime. One of the biggest causes, however, was the First World War, as it had many effects on everyone in Russia, who all blamed the Tsar. The Tsar abdicated in 1917 because he had no control over anyone in Russia. He had no support. This was because everyone in Russia blamed the Tsar for something. They layed all the blame at his feet because he was in charge and was the only person who could change things. One of the main reasons why the 1905 revolution failed was because the Tsar had the support and control of the military. By the time the 1917 revolution had started, the Tsar had lost this support and control. He had no protection. This happened because of the war. Firstly, the army was very poorly equipped, as some men didn't have any boots and only a third of men had rifles. The army also had very incompetent leaders. There is evidence of this in the battles at Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes. In both of these, the 'huge Russian armies' (Brooman 1994) were wiped out when they should have easily beaten a single German army. The poor leadership combined with the poorly equipped army made Russia suffer many defeats in the war. By 1917, 0.8 million Russian troops had been killed, 4.6 million wounded and 3.3 million
