Great Reforms Essay

Anti-slavery, perfect societies, connections with nature, and less alcohol were just some of the issues discussed and acted upon during the Age of Reform. The Age of Reform was a social reform, or an attempt to improve upon issues in society, occurred in America during the mid-1800’s. Reform movements such as public education and women’s rights both made essential impacts on American Society.

Before a Joint Session of Congress, a new President Lyndon Johnson gave speech to Americans. “ All I have I would have given gladly not to be standing here today,” he said.In 1963, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy gave shock to the United States and the world. In November 22, 1963, Johnson was sworn in as President on the Air Force One. To succeed the legacy of Kennedy, Johnson practiced his new program, the Great Society, in 1964-65, in order to reduce poverty, and to provide safety and to promote a better quality of life in the U.S. However, while he was practicing many programs during the Great Society, many people thought the government was caring people too much, therefore it created “welfare state.” Because the government

‘Reform movements in the United States sought to expand democratic ideals. Assess the validity of this statement with specific reference to the years 1825-1850.’

The fall of the Romanov Dynasty in 1914 proved that the Tsar could not handle the problems of Russia. Ironically, he would have been ideal as a constitutional monarch, but was adamant against the idea. As the First World War started Russia’s problems arises, from short-term and long-term causes. The war brought back inflation which led to “demonstrations over food shortages combined with workers’ grievances,” (Hosking, 2012, p. 91) thus this destroyed Nicholas’s image as Father of Russia. Military became ineffective as the transport system was not adequate, thus leading to food supplies decreasing in key cities such as Petrograd. Historians believe the impacts of the First World War led to Russian society becoming unstable and was ultimately the main reason of the downfall of the Tsar. However other factors, such as the Tsarina placing large amounts of trust into Rasputin who was notorious for his reputation as an alcoholic and a womanizer (Westwood, 2002, p. 215) and the role of the revolutionaries due to Lenin promising peace, land and bread, eventually leading to the growth of the Bolsheviks Party. Although, it can most rightfully be deemed that the impact of the war was the main reason for the fall of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917.

Gender inequality and slavery were the two biggest evils that reformers tried eliminating in the time period. The abolition of slavery had many reformers behind it. Two very important men trying to achieve this were Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison, a white man, going to show there was support from all types of people. Two of the women’s rights advocates were Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Sarah Grimke. They both achieved great things to help out their cause. Although slavery and gender equality are arguably the most important evils in the time period there were still many other. One of these was alcohol. During the time period the Temperance

The lower class of Russia, which was composed of the working people felt misrepresented- or not represented at all.Nicholas II was the son of Alexander III of Russia, who was also the Emperor of Russia, before Nicholas. He was the heir of approximately 200 years of Czarist rule in Russia.Coming from a very rich family, Nicholas could hardly relate to the lower class. He had inherited Russia’s rule from his dad, and was not elected, which meant he was not necessarily qualified to correctly rule Russia, as he later proved through his actions.After he had angered the working class by slaughtering their own people, losing major battles in the war with Japan as well as in WWI, there was no way for him to amend for the mistakes he had made. Therefore, had the people been given the choice of taking down the Czar, they would have not hesitated.Their anger was represented through Lenin, with whom they felt they could connect to.Due to their dislike for the Czar, not many were dissatisfied when he was overthrown, and lated ordered to be executed by

The first of these tsars, Ivan III, also known as “Ivan the Great”, defied Mongol control and declared the autonomy of Moscow. Ivan III was soon followed by Ivan IV, also known as “Ivan the Terrible”, who declared his power by pushing aside his advisors, crowning himself tsar and crushing boyars, who were Russian nobles. At first, Ivan’s reign was successful as he added vast new territories to the Russian empire. Later, after his wife’s death, Ivan’s power and prosperity declined because he started persecuting those whom he believed opposed him. This resulted in the execution of many nobles and their families, friends, servants and peasants, in which he replaced with a new service nobility, whose loyalty was “guaranteed by their dependent on the state for land and titles.” [1] Ivan the Terrible nor Ivan III were never absolute rulers- their ways of ruling just helped lay the foundation for Russian absolutism. After Ivan IV and his successor died, Russia entered a “Time of Troubles”, which lasted from 1598-1613, in which the peasant warrior bands known as Cossacks, rebelled against their nobles who fought back and defeated the Cossacks. Ivan’s grand-nephew, Michael Romanov, was soon elected by the Zensky Sober- a body of nobles, and placed efforts toward state-building. He was succeeded by “Peter the Great”, the Russian king that truly consolidated Russian

From 1900-1920 in the United States of America the reformers of the Progressive Era and the Federal Government were effective bringing about reform dealing with reforms to improve the social disgrace of the working conditions, the enthusiasm to be a nation of self-governed people, and the individual interests of presidents despite limitations in the rulings of court cases, the application of reforms reached, and the varying effectiveness of presidents.

Slavery in the United States of America started with the arrival of the first slaves from Africa in 1619. Slavery continued even after it was abolished; it greatly influenced the events in the country. From the very beginning, anti-slavery movement and slave resistance played a big role in the efforts to uphold the values of the new, rising nation and its belief that all men are equal. Advocates for the anti-slavery movement were not united from the start; some supported gradual emancipation of slaves, others were for immediate and radical abolishment, while free-soil activists argued for restriction of slavery to certain areas in order to prevent its spread across the country. Radical abolition movement was part of the reform movements related to religious revivals in an effort to create a righteous society that would fulfill the high ideals of America. These reforms were a response to economic and social changes which historians termed as “the market revolution” and the “transportation revolution”. After the 1812 war, a tremendous development occurred; improved roads improved transport and increased profits among many farm entrepreneurs, artisans, and manufacturers. In the eyes of many religious leaders, America was dominated and obsessed with materialism and greed and they started to question the fundamentals of human life, justice, and sinful motives. Before the 1930s, the anti-slavery movement was not what one would consider well-organized. However, at that time

Reform was the goal of the Progressive movement, and with that in mind the reformers had great success. Progressive reformers were made up primarily of middle class men and women whose two main goals were to limit the trusts and to improve conditions of life and labor. These people were part of both political parties at the time, as well as in all regions of the country, and in all levels of the government. They wanted to remove bribed members of the legislature so that just laws and regulations were made that would benefit the people rather than the power-hungry corporations. This major movement altered all aspects of life creating a better living and working environment for people. The Progressive Era reformers and federal

In spite of the fact that industrialization in the United States raised ways of life for some, it had a dull side. Corporate managers, in some cases alluded to as "burglar aristocrats," sought after exploitative and out of line business rehearses gone for taking out rivalry and expanding benefits. Assembly line laborers, large portions of them late migrants, were much of the time subjected to severe and hazardous working and living conditions. Political debasement enhanced legislators to the detriment of the lower and regular workers, who attempted to make a decent living. The crevice between "those who are well off" and "the poor" was augmenting.

The Reformists were justified in challenging the Catholic church. John Wycliffe states “...[bishops and high priests] make many new points of belief, and say it is not enough to believe in Jesus Christ…unless a man also believe[s] that the bishop of Rome is head of holy church.” This proves why it was okay for the Reformists to challenge the church because the pope was making up lies so others think they control the church. Desiderius Erasmus explains the church lied to people by saying that sins can be forgiven if they paid money. This demonstrates why it was justifiable to challenge the Catholic church because the pope doesn’t have power to forgive sins. Martin Luther proves this by stating that people who have indulgence letters think they

There has not been as much scholarship on the Great Reforms as one would think. Certain aspects of the reforms have always been topics of study, such as the emancipation of the serfs, but it was during the 1960s that scholarship on the Great Reforms as a whole began to develop in earnest. Subtle differences arose throughout the fifty-years of scholarship this paper describes. Some historians thought failure was inevitable, while others attempted to determine a more nuanced outcome to the reforms. New archival material became available during the early 1970s that reinvigorated western scholarship on the subject, especially pertaining to the zemstvos and law reforms. The common theme of failure that permeated early scholarship was replaced with

Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in order to give a voice to the struggling classes in Europe. In the document he expressed the frustrations of the lower class. As Marx began his document with "the history of all hitherto societies has been the history of class struggles" he gave power to the lower classes and sparked a destruction of their opressors.1 He argued that during the nineteenth century Europe was divided into two main classes: the wealthy upper class, the bourgeoisie, and the lower working class, the proletariat. After years of suffering oppression the proletariats decided to use their autonomy and make a choice to gain power. During the

Because are so many different kinds of revolutions with their own theoretical frameworks, I will analyze the merits of Marxism as it unfolds in the various authors. Because the writers speak of a particular time and place, all examinations will limit itself to the Europe in the lifetimes of the authors, drawing from V for Vendetta and modernity mostly as counterexamples. Therefore, this paper will focus on Marxist revolutions in mid-19th century to early 20th century Europe.