1. How did Manifest Destiny spur nation-building in the U.S.?
Manifest Destiny, a phrase coined in 1845, and was used to express the philosophy behind the 19th Century United States territorial expansion and nation building in the U.S. The Manifest Destiny philosophy held that the United States was destined by God, where its advocates believed they were obliged to expand its dominion and spread democracy and capitalism across the entire North American continent.
2. How did the idea of “the Nation” begin to change?
On 9th September the Continental Congress formally declared the name of the new nation to be named as the “United States” of America. Previously, the term “United Colonies,” had been in general use. Congress had created a country from a cluster of colonies, while the name of the new nation reflected that reality.
3. How were the unification of Germany and Italy similar?
The unification of Germany and Italy was similar wherein both Germany and Italy unification under one leading state. In Germany, all states unified under Prussia which had the strongest military power. In Italy the Kingdom of Sardinia which was led by Count Cavour became the leading power; thus it became the Kingdom of Italy in 1861. Another similarity is that the unification movements of both countries took place almost at the same time in the mid 19th century motivated by similar historical trends of liberalism and nationalism.
4. What problems did the Austro-Hungarian Empire have?
The major issues for the breakup of Austria-Hungary Empire were that the monarchy could not satisfy its nationalities’ claims, and the second is its military defeat during the First World War. There was also hunger and discontent which had spread among the civilian and military populations of the Austro-Hungarian Empire bringing conflict within its government.
5. What domestic issues did England and France have?
The historical ties on domestic issues between France and England are long and complex characterized by wars, conquest, and alliances at various points of their history. The interaction of domestic institutional structures and preexisting ideas in England and France is critical towards the explanation and understanding of the cross-national differences in the impact of international ideas. The interaction of decentralized policymaking and liberal gatekeepers in England, for example, led to the acceptance of educational multiculturalism, whereas France's centralized system and republican and laïque priors prevented its approval. Examination of the differential impact of educational multiculturalism in relatively similar countries has contributed to ongoing debates on the implications of foreign ideas on domestic politics.
