The Articles of Confederation was a first attempt at a constitution for the United States while it was fighting to gain independence from the British government in the Revolutionary War. First proposed in 1776 by Richard Henry Lee at the Second Continental Congress, the Articles of Confederation were able to maintain some stability for the country through the end of the war. However, it proved to be a highly inadequate form of government when it could not provide for the economic and political demands of a developing nation. The Articles of Confederation were not able support a strong centralized government, therefore resulting in a lack of an authoritative presence with regard to domestic and foreign affairs affecting the thirteen states. The national government was weak and disconnected, and the federal powers were greatly lacking.
The main reason for the failure of the Frankfurt parliament was indefinitely its lack of military power, which could have been used to combat any opposing forces that didn’t follow with their decisions. However Prussia and King Friedrich Wilhelm IV (King Frederick William or KFWIV) must also be counted into the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament, as must the factors of Austrian presence and Internal Problems within the Frankfurt Parliament. Primarily, military power was non-existent in the Frankfurt Parliament and in its endeavours, as there was simply no money to pay for an army. Many states in Germany had armies, but none were as powerful as that of Prussia or Austria. The parliament would have been able to muster volunteers, but there was no money to equip them with weapons, and the only way that the Parliament would have been able to make money, would be by introducing taxes.
In a democracy along the lines of the United States or Great Britain, Hitler could have never risen to power. (1) Germany had no democratic tradition, and in fact many parties were deeply opposed to the creation of a democracy. These included old monarchists, the Army, the industrialists, the Nationalists and several other conservative parties. Many, like the Nazis to come, were not so much members of the Republic as they were conspirators to overthrow it. When it came time to create the Republic, the conservative parties took no part in the process.
After the war, there was still no liberty for blacks; in fact, the colonists disliked the idea of granting freedom to Blacks that they refused their offer to fight on the side of the patriots. George Washington had turned down the requests of blacks, seeking freedom, to fight in the Revolutionary army. Furthermore, many other rights, such as the right of, "no taxation without representation” was violated even after the war. Actually, after the war, the majority of the population still lacked representation, because voting was restricted to land owning, white males, which only made up a fraction of the population. "The Continental Congress, which governed the colonies through the war, was dominated by rich men.
Also the league wasn’t responsible enough to take care of all the problems in Europe as its powers were not so strong. Also the interests of the leading powers were normally fulfilled so the League in reality didn’t have any power to execute its rules they made up, thus being the weakest point of the league. The League of Nations was set up by the twenty six clauses in chorological order from 1~26 in the Treaty of Versailles, it is called the Covenant of the League
Analyze the reasons for the Anti-Federalists opposition to ratify the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists were a diverse coalition of people who opposed the ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists criticized the Constitution for having been drafted in secrecy. They further argued that the Constitution took important powers from the states, and the fact that they could not print money under the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists’ strongest argument, however, was that the Constitution lacked a Bill of Rights.
Finally, Hobson partially blames the ineffectiveness of Imperialism on the British ideal of Anglo superiority, and the British misunderstanding of other cultures (Winks 11). Therefore, as argued by Hobson, British Imperialism of India was neither socially, nor politically, nor economically beneficial for Britain. The British elevated social tensions in India because the British misunderstood Indian culture, were constantly forced to over-expand the British Government, and spent endless amounts in an attempt to maintain order. To begin with, Britain’s Imperialism of India was not socially beneficial. The British were unsuccessful in establishing a working relationship with the Indian people, and, as a result, British Imperialism never reached its maximum potential.
To start off with, there are two main fundamental problems which faced the PG. These were the fact that it had neither authority nor power. To begin with, the PG lacked authority. Its members were not elected even though the PG promised to hold elections to a constituent assemble at the first opportunity – but with a war raging, this was an impossible task. How is this responsible?
Also, another issue with the court system was all the power to the King. This was an issue because a large mass of people (The 3rd Estate) had no share in the government, which meant that the likelihood that they were unhappy was high; to make it worse, Louis XVI was not a great ruler. He was famous for the line, “The thing is legal because I wish it,” which basically means, “What I say goes,” which is not a good plan because there is no planning or foresight involved. Also, he used the lettres de cachet, which is like a warrant where any critic of the government would receive a letter that
Another Major flaw was that “the country, whose president, Woodrow Wilson, had dreamt up the idea of the League - America -, refused to join it.” The league’s most powerful militaries Britain and France not only suffered casualties, but also economically as they were greatly in debt to the United States. Because of this neither country was enthusiastic to get involved in disputes that did not affect Western Europe. Therefore the League had no military might and could only enforce economic sanctions in hope that they worked against aggressive nations. All these flaws point to signs that the League of Nations was a failure. However, even though there were a few setbacks, the league was a success in many ways.