Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
England repealed the Stamp Act and the Two Penny Acts because of colonial uproar. Over and over again the Parliament appeased the colonists, but Parliament had to save face by putting in the clause “Parliament held authority in all cases whatsoever.” The colonists understood this to mean Parliament intended to replace the King as the sovereign and the holder of their charters. This meant that Parliament “virtually” represented them rather than the direct representation formerly held by the King. The colonists desired to send representatives to the August Body, but Parliament declined this proposal citing the many burroughs in Ireland, Scotland, and elsewhere in England that were virtually represented by seats outside their district. Even here Parliament had a precedent from which to cite and the colonists had little to argue. However, the colonists were not without supporters in Parliament such as William Pitt. Nevertheless, Pitt could not wield enough influence to temper Parliament's harsh stance. The colonists proceeded to argue constitutional arguments based on Lockean definitions of property rights derived from moral law (i.e. their charters), and Parliament argued back with Hobbseian definitions of title law (i.e. the transference of powers from the Glorious Revolution of 1688). In sum, the colonists were still looking at matters from a seventeenth century perspective while Parliament was viewing things from an eighteenth century perspective. There was a chronological disconnect in their positions and thus no resolution was possible. So from the colonial perspective, they thought they were arguing things morally from how they always understood things to be, but due to their isolation from Europe and the effects of Salutary Neglect, the colonists did not keep up with the internal changes that occured within the Imperial government. Of course there is a lot more going on here than just what I have said, but it would take me several more posts to lay it out.
Well done Wm Lambert. Christianity was the stimulus that created the technological revolution that became Europe. Islam also contributed later as Christendom had to defend itself from the encroachment of the Muslim armies. Desperation breeds innovation. Then the wars between Christians during the Reformation pushed printers to get out their version of the Bible to win the hearts and minds of the masses to their respective cause. Islam has been traditionally monolithic compared to Christianity basically because there is no ecumenical structure like that of Christianity which reduced the possibility for fratricidal infighting. With no such conflict, the Muslim World became stagnant and complacent. Yet it must not be forgotten that the Arabs gave us Algebra and our current numeral system. The Chinese, with their isolationist culture kept themselves from being exposed to the innovations of other nations, but Marco Polo brought back many things from his journeys of a society that was clearly more advanced architecturally and linguistically……….and don't forget the Chinese invented gun powder. The Mongol hordes of Ghengis Khan overran the Asian Continent with swiftness and efficiency, and they didn't use technology to do it. They willed their way to victory because they were culturally conditioned for war and mentally disciplined to practically live on horseback. Their culture did not value technological advancement to help them achieve conquest, they valued their learned abilities and their steeled discipline for the glory of war. The environment did not make their cultural disposition, they did that themselves. But climate can influence cultural evolution a great deal, but it is not the deciding factor.
I don't know Ms. Bachelor. I'll have to ask my professor about her next time I think about it. Wait a sec, maybe I met her the other day in the library……..I think I met a chick named Michelle who was working the checkout desk. She's a current student as you can email her from her UofL account. I haven't been in contact with many grad students for awhile since I'm done with classes.
You know, the Confederacy was still the fifth most industrialized nation on earth behind England, France, the Netherlands, Prussia, and the North. The South wasn't as backwards as many believe, but the disparity between the North and the South was staggering.
Just a quick response. I am going to have to reserve judgment on any parallels. I'm going to have to say that religiosity as a whole is in decline as more and more folks seek to privatize their beliefs away from traditional institutional churches. The churches who are gaining adherents are the universalist nondenominational sects who market themselves to a younger generation that is growing in apathy to traditional religion. Whether this is a shift in morals or a byproduct of social change is not quite certain. But what is certain, young people are looking for a more modern religious culture that is more inclusive to their more liberal ways. If one is looking for a parallel to the Great Awakening, then this is the only one I can find…..namely the quest for a newer and more vigorously inclusive religion.
Pearl Harbor definetly pushed us into World War II, but there was a great sense of fatigue with world politics after the war ended among America’s citizens. The Marshall Plan was instituted to rebuild Europe and MacArthur remained in Japan to rebuild it in our image. But I suspect had Americans had their way in the late 1940’s and into the 1950’s, they would have drifted happily back into isolationism with no questions asked. But what prevented this relapse was the new and even greater threats of the Soviet Union and Communist China. Americans understood that the world had now become divided into two armed camps and a line had to be drawn. Joseph McCarthy’s Red Scare campaign stirred up American paranoia to where political theories such as the Domino Theory could take root in the American psyche. Americans feared the great Yellow Horde of China and the great Russian Bear woud join together and move to wipe capitalism off the face of the earth. These fears were unfounded, however, as Stalin and Mao had competing brands of communism that kept them from creating a united front against the West. But with the information available then, and the prevailing sense of paranoia, America girded itself for the impending conflict with the communist powers anywhere on the globe a threat appeared to lume omniously. When the Russians fired Sputnik into space in 1957, the fears of falling behind the Soviets technologically aggravated the paranoia to another level. The Cuban Missile Crisis then took that fear to yet another level, but at the same time both sides began to realize how foolish an all out nuclear exchange would be. So global interventionism in regional conflicts became the method of choice to fight the Cold War to prevent it from ever becoming a shooting war. So in short, Vietnam and for the Soviets Afghanistan, were the alternatives to all out nuclear annihilation. Otherwise Americans would not have cared about an obscure nation half way around the world they had never heard of except that it was unacceptable for China to gain possession of it.
Genesis 14: 14-16 Abram led a force of 300 men as far as Dan, and then divided his forces and attacked as far as Hobah, north of Damascus where he successfully rescued Lot and brought back all his goods and possessions.
The corruption of the Grant Administration has a lot to do with it. By 1876, Southern Vigilantes and Washington cronyism had pretty much caused the Reconstruction efforts to produce diminishing returns. Reconstruction was going to end anyway I believe whether Hayes made a backroom deal or not.
I’m going to say the Maxim machine gun was the most devastating and remarkable advancement in warfare. The use of internal energy to self load a weapon in milli-seconds made killing easy enough for event he most novice soldier. The maxi gun made marksmanship a secondary concern as the maxi just sprayed the field with its destruction. Britain maintained a global empire with that remarkable weapon.
I better not lose all my hard earned stuff. 😯
I would hate to think I need to round up Cassius and Brutus to knock some sense in our beloved emperor. 😆
Phid, we have to get you some more members. You've been stuck on that 22 mark for some time. It's not right that you're being neglected. The guys who were coming over here are AWOL. It's a shame because you have the best history forum on the net not being used. 😥I agree, the movie fell short of its potential. Liam Neeson’s character could have hung around a little longer. It was as if they couldn’t wait to kill him off……….guess he had too many committments with Batman Begins to do much more than he did. Orlando Bloom finally stepped up to being the “main guy” as he was just a sidekick in LOTR and in Troy as Paris. Troy was a far better movie I thought. Even Alexander was better and I hate Oliver Stone.
The war reparations were considerable (probably just), but they caused a deep resentment in the German peoples’ hearts. Hitler played upon this resentment and other resentments to seize power and deceive the German nation into following him off to their destruction. When Hitler conquered France, he made the French sign a similarly humiliating treaty in the very same rail car the Germans were made to sign the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler supposedly danced a jig in front of the vanquished French after the ceremony.
Maine had a lucrative fur trade I believe. The early colonists could be lazy and let the Indians grow the food while they hunted for furs. They would trade the furs and trinkets for food, but the trouble would start when they started to encroach on the Indian hunting routes or move their settlements on Native sacred grounds. When the colonists began to clear land for agriculture and more settlement, the aggravations got even worse and that’s when conflicts such as the Pequot War broke out………and the Indians usually wound up on the losing end of these conflicts 99% of the time.
