Probably the most basic answer is that with the mighty Spanish Armada out of commission, it opened the door for the exploration of the American continent by the French and the British. As these two nations built up colonies in the "new world" they became more and more wealthy. Britain, which hadn't nearly enough farmland to outfit an army, and a shortage of lumber that made naval expansion difficult, sought both of these things in the American continent. As they harvested lumber, they built bigger and better ships, which could haul more grain and outfit more firepower, which in turn helped them to secure even more of the continent. Thus, Great Britain and France gained power and wealth from their colonization of the American continent, and their scope of influence around the world grew. Spain, having lost their ability to wage open war on the seas against the two upstart powers, saw their influence in the colonies decline until they were forced to vacate most of the continent to focus on problems at home.
(added Thursday, Dec. 16)
That's not entirely accurate, Bertucci. Britain began its rise in the mid 1600's, as colonization of the New World began to pick up. This was a direct result of the defeat of the Spanish Armada, which allowed Britain to begin building up a Navy. Their power increased greatly under General-At-Sea Robert Blake, who was appointed by Oliver Cromwell. From that point on, Britain's greatest strength was her Navy. Were it not for the defeat of the Spanish Armada, none of this would have been possible. By the time the 1700's rolled around, Spain was nearly a non-factor in world exploration and conquest, leaving France and Britain as the two juggernauts. While the Peace of Utrecht happened nearly 130 years after the Spanish Armada sank, it was that event that paved the way for the massive balance shift in Europe and all over the globe.
because it was unfair for the children to be separated due to race. the whole point of that court case was to make it that both races can be in the same class/ school
The Supreme Court said Mr. Reynolds could not break the law while practicing his religion.
Reynolds v. the United States was heard by the Supreme Court in 1878 in regard the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act placed on the Utah Territory.
Reynolds argued that preventing him to marry more than one woman was a violation of his First Amendment rights to protection of religion. The Supreme Court concluded that he had the right to his belief but he could not go around the law to practice his faith. The law stated marriage was to be between two people only and therefore he could not be married to more than one woman.
