How did the territorial acquisitions of the US contribute to the onset of the Civil War?

How did king Stephen die?

Liber Eliensis 371, ed. E.O. Blake Camden Society, 3rd ser., xcii, 1962) writes that he died of dysentery. The symptoms, stomach disorders, may have been cramps but a contemporary, Gervase of Canterbury, describes internal bleeding. These appear to be classic dystentery symptoms. Causes of dystentery are poor hygiene and contaminated food and water. Stephen, perhaps up to a week before the onset of symptoms, would have ingested the dystentery bacteria that proceeded to attack his intestal lining. Had he lived today, modern medical procedures would have saved him. Liber Eliensis 371, ed. E.O. Blake Camden Society, 3rd ser., xcii, 1962) writes that he died of dysentery. The symptoms, stomach disorders, may have been cramps but a contemporary, Gervase of Canterbury, describes internal bleeding. These appear to be classic dystentery symptoms. Causes of dystentery are poor hygiene and contaminated food and water. Stephen, perhaps up to a week before the onset of symptoms, would have ingested the dystentery bacteria that proceeded to attack his intestal lining. Had he lived today, modern medical procedures would have saved him.

Who said Iron Curtain?

Winston Churchill first coined the term "Iron Curtain" in his 'Sinews of Peace' address to Westminster College in Fulton , Missouri . ~ See related link below to further information regarding the Iron Curtain .

Where did writing develop?

Once men found that they could make marks to signify syllables and sounds, there was no longer a need to draw pictures. By 3000 BC, the Sumerians, the Hittites, the Babylonians, and the Assyrians developed cuneiform writing, a system of wedge-shaped marks impressed in clay that was able to completely express the various languages. By 1700 BC, the Minoan Empire had developed and actual script. The wedge shaped figures disappeared, and people began to write in flowing curves. But it still represented only items and ideas and, at the best, a few syllables. An alphabet was needed. It arrived a thousand years after the onset of the Minoan script, and it began a whole new era. The ancient Romans gave us most of our modern languages. Their language was Latin, the basis for most of the Western tongues. The actual shapes of the letters we use in print today are descended from the shapes of the early Roman letters. Then, writing came to another stand still. The alphabet had been formalized, standard shapes for all the letters had been adopted, and that was it. Learning to read was a luxury because it was so difficult to obtain reading material. A new invention was needed - a way to make many copies easily and cheaply. The date was 1440 and it marked man's first use of movable type.

What is the political system in France?

The Constitution of 1791 provided for a limited Monarchy; it divided government between th King and the National Assembly. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but not to Louis XVI, who soon attempted to escape from France, after which he would have tried to retake the country by force with the aid of Austria and Prussia, and re-establish the absolute monarchy. In the event, he was brought back to Paris and the result was the First Republic.

Who were the Conservatives in the French Revolution?

They were the ones who were against the French Revolution and preferred the status quo.=============================================================Edit: Just to let people know that, that lazy, undefiled vague, along with a multitude of other negative descriptions that could be used, but wont for the sake of time, that definition was not me. It is truly an awful answer. Not really an actual definition or description, just a basic definition of a conservative, and then applied too the French Revolution. I think the question being asked is what social, economic, and religious groups did they make up, as well as possibly the events, groups, and ideologies they were opposed to, and that's what I will answer. If you just want that, it's the last paragraph, in a funny font. I was so outraged when I saw that, I decided I couldn't leave it as it was. I will leave it up there, even though I am answering the question with an actual answer, and some background knowledge exactly what you should look for on these sites. If you like this, and want me to answer another question that needs elaboration, you can contact me. This is my first answer, so I don't know how that would be done, or what it entails, but I'm sure that there is some way to do it.I'm going to give the straight answers, and they will be right after the bold, in a different font than the rest of the paper. Background of what the conservative French politicians were dealing with, in terms of political opposition and population differences, as well as a brief description/criticism on how outdated and unwieldy the system they were trying to maintain is included.For a basic answer, like if you are in a rush, and you don't care about background, you could just read the last paragraph the summary. It will be in italics. I would suggest you read at least most of this for an in depth understanding. This, ideally along with visiting a few other sources, sources that can be cited, and check out some of this info, to make sure that I didn't mess this up too majorly.The Estates-General of 1789 was an early attempt at appeasing the growingly restless, silently frustrated, underrepresented, and increasingly dissatisfied 97% of citizens in the Third Estate, by King Louis the Sixteenth(XVI), though it was a complete failure, resulting in the next three years setting the stage for the next sixty or so years of French history. King Louis the 16th called the Estates-General to congress. As a preemptive way of appeasing the commoners' representatives, the Third Estate was allowed double representation, as per the population differences, which was intended to be a way to appease their representatives. The plan was, though, rather than counting the vote of each delegate, the decisions of the estates were to be weighted. The collective views each estate would all be equal counted equally, with no regard to population. This made the small progress they had been afforded meaningless and was intended to pacify without changing any actual policies.As the First and the Second Estates had historically voted together, eliminating the role the Third Estate played, it was easily visible that as long as the oppressed majority would be outvoted, no true improvements could be made, Eventually, the Third Estate succeeded in forcing their increasingly fallible monarch to count representative votes per head rather than affiliation, and also in a manner that failed to make it seem like a gift, a privilege allowed to them by a gracious king, as a monarch able to exercise stronger leadership would have.The way it actually occurred showed that although the king's power may be strong in name, the intentions and desires of the people would always be his major priority, rather than living his exuberant lifestyle. This showed the Third Estate, that with effort and deliberation, they could manipulate the king, if the need arose in order to improve their situation, and to repair some of the injustices in their society.After the initial error in communication was resolved to the frustration of the upper classes, as well as the king, deliberation moved forward. After a week of debate, a pivotal issue arose out of the field, and consumed the entirety of the Representatives focus. It involved the organization of the legislature, namely the separation of the estates in legislature. The Third Estate argued that legislature would be more efficient if the estates were in one body, rather than be divided. The First and Second Estates could see that they only stood to lose power by joining with the Third Estate, and stood firm on their separation from each other.A pivotal moment had been reached. A nobleman, by the name of Honore Mirabeau, and a member of the clergy named Abbe Sieyes, who had both been elected to the Third Estate, rather than their own peer groups, announced that the Commons (a name taken by the elected commoners) would leave the Estates-General. They announced, and backed up their decision with the still new rights of double representation, and deliberation by ballot, rather than estate, and they would be leaving the Estates-General to form the National Assembly, where the people of France would hold some usable power. An invitation was left to the now redundant and ignorable representatives for the privileged inviting any member of either Estate to take part in the new system.Along with the eventful and promising example set by the Estates-General of 1789, and the growth from their role as the ineffective representation of Third Estate, to equals and leaders in the National Assembly, and forming of the new body of legislature, both established by and composed of commonly elected representatives. A first in France.The Tennis Court Oath, and the events which incited it, offered a more promise for possible repair of the social system and the possibility of complete democracy within reach. Merely three days after the Formation of the National Assembly, on June 20th, the sole representatives of France had begun to convene, the new legislators found their assembly hall locked and guarded by soldiers. Fearing the king was planning to stage a coup, and restore the old balance, the assembly members met in a nearby indoor tennis court.Their they took the Tennis Court Oath, which declared that the new National Assembly was not the building where its members met, it was the assembly of men, publicly chosen for their ability. They then declared that they would not waver or slow in their deliberation, until a just and effective Constitution had been completed for the Kingdom of France. The members of Third Estate, as well as several of the First, swore an oath, to remain a part of the National Assembly, as well as "to meet where circumstances demand, until the constitution of the kingdom is established and affirmed on solid foundations."For three days they remained in the Tennis Court, continuing as if nothing had changed. The members of the assembly displayed such remarkable stoicism and determination in the pursuit of their goals, that even with the possibility of capital punishment being ordered by the establishment they were firm on dismantling and reestablishing as well as publicly resisting. This behavior forced King Louis to, not only concede back to them their headquarters, which was the former meeting place for the Estates-General, and now, officially the meeting place of National Assembly, he was forced to ask the remainder of the First Estate and the entirety of the Second Estate to join the National Assembly, which was renamed the National Constituent Assembly. The resulting changes made in legislative transition were surprisingly few, but remarkably important, and they drastically changed the way it was run.The name of the legislature changed. This may seem insignificant, but if it was renamed three times within a single week, the participants must have felt that it was important. They went from the Estates-General to the National Assembly. That single event displayed a major transition in the way French government was running. The message sent by the name, Estate-General was such: "The divided parts of French society, working separately, restricting the ability of the French legislature to protect its own people." With the switch to National Assembly, a more positive and powerful message was being communicated, as: "Politicians, selected by the French people working as a group to better our society." Already massive shifts in the government in France was headed began to take place. Another name change announced what they would be working for. In going from National Assembly to National Constituent Assembly, they are becoming a group like our Continental Congress, and they are telling the French people, the aristocrats, the clergy, and the king that as a people, they will decide what form their government takes. The people are the deciders when it comes to their nation, and any government they establish will be a resource for them, not the other way around.The power in decision shifted from the privileged minority to the public majority. Prior to the power shift, the legislature consisted of the First and the Second Estates protecting their interests, while simultaneously shutting down any and all changes that the people tried to make. After power had been asserted over those at the top, legislature became a device of the people, to the extent that it was used to restrict the power of their king.The writing of The Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen was a major French political landmark, produced as the model of their next political system. It incorporated ideas from thinkers like Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu, and Rousseau, and is comparable to our Constitution, along with having similarities and parallels to the Declaration of Independence, incorporating many of the greatest ideas to come out of the Enlightenment. It was possibly the most important French document of its time in that it offered final protection of the rights and equality of those in the Third Estate, it restricted the monarchy, expanded the legislature, aimed to eased the financial burden held by those in poverty, among other successes.Around the dissolving of their legacy, the world that the French aristocracy had built around them was crashing, and crashing hard. The Age of the King was passing. Those that were adapted, naturally good at surviving in that context, e.g. the Nobles, the clergy, the royalty, were not going to make it through the coming storm. They thrived in a system dying slowly. They lived off the suffering of those who would begin the next age. A new era, where those who were failing in the last will be able to thrive. Those who lived well before were becoming obsolete. Those necessary to life before would not be necessary for what's next. What was happening, the important thing was the transition. When the final days of French monarchy came around, things got violent, like they always do when an old society dies, clean up for the next, something to start with. The terrible, bloody death of the power of nobility left the country crumbling. In France, with such a powerful royal tradition the shift between monarchy and democracy was going to be gruesome, it was inevitable, it was necessary; it was not the first time. In history, whenever to opposing ideals collide, one is eliminated and absorbed, which leaves the stronger one to carry on. It happened with the Greeks and Persians as logic and autocracy, with the Romans and Europe, as organization and anarchy, with the U.S. and the Soviet Union, as capitalism versus communism. If one is going to go down, it won't be quiet, it won't be peacefully. When it's anything as ancient and as powerful as monarchy, which has been such a major part of human history, it won't go peacefully. It'll kick and scream; it'll burn cities and cripple nations, leaving nothing but shambles in its final struggle.As the widely remembered evangelical Billy Graham so eloquently put it,"But now we have a choice: whether to implode and disintegrate... as a people and a nation -- or, whether we choose to become stronger through all of this struggle -- to rebuild on a solid foundation."Shambles are a good place to start.To just answer the question minus any insight, the conservatives were the First and Second Estates. Along with the royal family, this powerful and wealthy 3% of the French population were very likely the only group satisfied or happy with their society as it was. The First Estate was composed of the clergy, notoriously those higher officials, e.g. the cardinals, archbishops, bishops, and they were thought to be overly extravagant, which was extremely distasteful in clergy. This group stood to lose much of the privilege and luxury afforded to them by the monarchs with the separation of church and state. This is a moderately new idea, and existed in only in America, although it was based on French Enlightenment ideals, which the French wanted for their own nation. The Second Estate was the nobility. They were wealthy nobles, whose power and born rights and advantages would be at risk with the reform the populous wanted. French society catered to these two groups, was even based around their satisfaction, something that they were unwilling to let change. As a group, they were opposed to and threatened by the use of the Estates-General, the formation of the National Assembly, and the National Constituent Assembly, as well as the development of a written constitution. All of these were expected to change their position, and diminish their power. All these reforms led to the improvement of the peasants role in government, In addition to making those not members of the clergy or aristocracy 97% of French society better represented, or at even represented at all, seeing as this group essentially had no political influence prior to 1789. They were forced to live as tools to those who had power, to be used at their discretion, even while supporting the entire government while at a poverty level, funding two wars with the British Empire, one was the American Revolution and the other a planned invasion of England, which was in the process of preparation during the onset of the French Revolution, so with all the political and social changes, it was just never launched. These factors diminished the sway that that the nobles held in the government, particularly the legislature.

How did the territorial acquisitions of the US contribute to the onset of the Civil War?

Add your answer:

How did king Stephen die?

Who said Iron Curtain?

Where did writing develop?

What is the political system in France?

Who were the Conservatives in the French Revolution?

What did not contribute to the onset of the American Civil War?

How did slavery contribute to the onset of the civil war?

Did not contribute to the onset of the American Civil War?

Which of the following did not contribute to the onset of the American Civil War?

What can contribute to more severe hot-flashes?

Is aluminum bad for health?

Is aluminum bad for your health?

What was the status of the Union army at the onset of the civil war?

What is a key factor to an early onset of criminality?

Which individuals played a direct role in the onset of the civil war?

Is there statute of limitations for civil rights violations?

How did the weakness of the weimar republic after ww1 contribute to the onset of World War 2?

Resources

Top Categories

Product

Company