Summary Of The Revolution In The British Monarchy Of Government

The American Revolution was far from being the first conflict to occur on the soil of the New World. There were multiple skirmishes, battles, and official wars fought in the territory that resulted in severe bloodshed before the idea of the American Revolution was even conceived. One of the most significant of these wars was the French and Indian War or as it was known in Europe, the Seven Years’ War. At its conclusion in 1763, the Treaty of Paris was signed. The English received a substantial amount of new land for the Empire (94). However, with the acquisition of new land and a significant amount of debt from the extensive war efforts, the British government had to reevaluate many of their policies (95-96). After the Treaty of Paris of 1763, the British were confident in their mastery of North America. However by attempting to tighten their control over their American colonies they initiated a series of poorly thought out programs and policies which resulted in a disastrous rebellion.

In the 19th century American’s were overjoyed when they gain their independence from Great Britain in 1776 and soon established a government under The Articles of Confederation. However, The Articles of Confederation were unstable and provided America with a weak central government, because of the lack authority needed to sustain a nation. Yet, many Americans opposed the idea of having a strong central government, because they feared America would shift into a dictatorship. While others felt that a strong government would sufficiently help the nation run as one. “The constitution of 1787 created a “federal’ system of dispersed and divided authority- authority divided between national and state governments, authority divided among executive,

The Constitution placed a great deal of power back into the hands of a strong, central government much like that of a monarchy. “The extraordinarily powerful national government that emerged from Philadelphia possessed far more than the additional congressional powers that were required to solve the United States’ difficulties” (Wood 151). The U.S. government was extremely revolutionary though, in the way that it viewed and handled sovereignty. “Unlike the British in relation to their House of Commons, the American people never surrendered to any political institution…their full and final sovereign power” (Wood 160). Throughout the entire American struggle to establish a suitable government, the citizens maintained their ability to influence policy in a way that the British never could.

When our country was in its infancy and the freedom hard-earned in the American Revolution was in jeopardy of crumbling, representatives of the people met with the purpose of creating a “more perfect union” – a government that could stand the test of time. The story goes that as Benjamin Franklin exited the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked him, “Well, Doctor, what have you given us, a monarchy?” To which Franklin quickly replied, “No Ma’am, we’ve given you a Republic, if you can keep it!”

They probably think they have power to decide what's right. The colonies voted for them to represent them. In the Declaration they state that whenever the system of government doesn't work for they colonist, they do have the right to change it. All the problems listed there on the paper such as taxes with out representation in Parliament or trials without jurisdiction. These are major problems that need to be resolved. In the Declaration describe King George III as a prince who is described by his actions, which is true. So, the signers of the Declaration of Independence do have the right to change the system of government. Especially, with them being elected and the King acting like a big jerk. My answer still stands that they do have the

To first understand the derivative of America’s government we need to first understand ourselves, sounds quite simplistic, but to understand ourselves as human beings. This is best articulated in a quote by James Madison, co-founder of our nation and its government, as he stated, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” This is mighty true, but as a freshman prior to taking a political science course in college I was told growing up that a synonym for politician was a magician; one who “spontaneously” finds a lot of money and is able to strike a deal with someone higher up in his favor. Now to fully understand why our government was strictly unique to that of Britain and histories past another founder to the nation, Thomas Jefferson, fancily sums it up by saying, “experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power, have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” Now I’m not here to stultify you as you read this paper, but it’s critical to understand why the framers drafted up the type of government that we have today. It’s inevitable to put all the power into one’s hands without being corrupt, as equally as it is impossible to have a democratic government of old Athens. The framers- who, as I take this class, begin to think were the brightest individuals far beyond their time- came up with a consensus to form a mixed government; one with checks and balances to avoid the potential of a branch

The Glorious Revolution was primarily completed when King James II of England was overthrown due to the mutiny of selected English Parliamentarians. The revolution was completed under the leadership of William III of Orange-Nassau from Denmark. The primary reason for the need of this revolution was King James' religious policies in the mid-1680s. His approach was receiving severe opposition from the leaders involved in his government as well as neighbouring governments. The main concern for most political leaders was King James' strong Catholic roots and his close-knit relations with France. This crisis further escalated with the birth of King James' son (James Francis Edward Stuart) which led to the probability of the Roman Catholic Empire even stronger. Also, the birth of his son set array the present line of succession which was for his daughter Mary who was married to William III of Orange. Many of the opposition parties joined hands including the leaders of Tories and invited William III to the region to initiate a military intervention (Pincus, 2009).

The idea that a monarchy is the ideal form of government is a fallacy. Al-Farabi and Aquinas’ ideas about government are wrong, and are filled with irreparable holes. In modern times, the idea of a monarchy has become counter-intuitive and counter-productive. A democratic republic paired with an educated and empowered middle-class is the solution to the quandary of how to create the perfect government. While the ideas of the Arabic philosophers are interesting, there ideas on the perfection of monocratic rule are outdated by both new technology and new ideas

Many colonist were against the revolution for independence from England for many different reasons. Some reasons were that the colonies were too commercially dependent on England, that they had superior numbers and they also had a stronger navy against the colonies, and that the existing political system would breakdown and all of this would leave America prey to attacks from other foreign countries. Tomas Paine thought differently on the results of the revolution. His answers to the counter these arguments made by the colonist that were against the revolution was that, being commercially dependent on England, America will go to ruins, America does not need more people to fight but that the colonies need to band together and for England’s navy, not all of her ships are in use or ready to be in use and America can also build her own navy comparable in size. Lastly, Paine suggest that the colonies should adopt a representative democracy, which will give equal representation to all colonies.

The U.S. has experienced almost a century and a half of political stability and this was largely owed to the system of checks and balances in the national government. The masses are generally focused on supporting a regime that is politically stable, as they know that this is likely to improve conditions in their community and prevent immoral individuals from taking power in the state. One of the principal purposes of the American system of government is to ensure that the country's leadership is unable to create a dictatorship (York 175). However, the system is

Lord Halisham famously spoke of the formation of an “elective dictatorship” referring to the ability of a strong British Government with a high Parliamentary majority to lawfully pursue any course of action potentially strengthening their political power to an unprecedented extent. This could be prevented with the integration of distinctive limitations on executive power similar to those adopted in the US, the codified nature of such a constitution would prevent governments from establishing their dictatorial rule through legislative action due to the large amounts of support required to do so.

The way that the constitutional monarchy was able to succeed in England is based on: geographic location and the power of the army. In the case of geographic location, it was more difficult for the king to raise a large army. This is because England was protected from a number of potential threats as an island. Over the centuries, this made it difficult for the king to raise an independent military force outside of the nobility. Instead, he had to work aristocrats and powerful landowners to create a military. This reduced the power of the king by forcing him to give more authority to Parliament. They are an institution that was established to control the power of monarchy. This is significant by showing how the king had fewer options in working with the nobility. As a result, this forced him to share power with Parliament in order to maintain control. Once this happened, is the point that Parliament began to exercise its authority in a number of areas. (Hirst, 1998, pp. 3 14)

Ever since the beginning of history, societies are constantly undergoing change. As the world modernizes, some governments become outdated and call for a change through revolution. Revolution is a change in the economic, culture and political structures of a government.

The first bourgeois revolution in the history of Western Civilization took place in the seventeenth century in England. In 1640, began the Puritan Revolution and in 1688, there was the Glorious Revolution. However, both belong to the same revolutionary process, which led to the denomination of it as English Revolution and not English Revolutions, considering that the real revolution took place in the course of the Puritan Revolution between 1640 and 1649 and that the Glorious Revolution 1688 was only its natural complement. Since then, various approaches have resulted in different views of the Revolution.

The popular expansion of national public authority, coupled with the flourishing existence of open and natural environments have been integral to the history and progress of American democracy and capitalism. The open frontier of the New World established an inescapable feeling of freedom, individualism, and independence. Out of these sentiments, a supportive political environment emerged, one that harmoniously worked to uphold the same ideas of equality and security that were meshing to form the foundation of America. These separate focal points worked in unison to shape what is now known as the “Great Experiment.” Yet, this experiment has enlightened most citizens of the ways in which America is changing and the unsettling future of American democracy. A popular misconception concerning the “inevitability” of American democracy has shadowed most citizens from detecting its limitations. This paper will address the validity of the statement that the world today “demonstrates the victory of the American model of competitive capitalism and representative democracy.” Additionally, this paper will analyze the “superiority of the American system of free markets and democratic politics,” as well as the inevitability of both institutions.