Answer:
Each British colony had its representative in London (colonial agent). In the American colonies, from the very beginning of their creation, the foundations of self-government were laid. In all types of colonies, there were three of them: royal, proprietary and corporate. The Governor personified the power of the sovereign, the Council, or the upper house of the Assembly - the aristocratic power, the House of Representatives - the democratic one. The governors of corporate colonies were elected by assemblies; in the property colonies, governors were appointed by owners of the colonies, and in the royal ones, respectively, by the English king.
South Carolina, which existed from 1663 to 1712, was controlled by the Lords-proprietors - a group of eight English nobles, informally led by Anthony Ashley-Cooper (1st Earl of Shaftesbury). Dissatisfaction with the administration of the colony led to the appointment of the vice-governor in 1691, who controlled the northern part of the colony. The owner of South Carolina, John Archdale, bought this colony in 1691 from the widow of the former owner, Sir William Berkeley. In 1706, Archdale published a description of his colony; he reported that the royal letter authorized the colony owner to establish nobility, that the latter, together with representatives of the lord-owners, constitute the upper house and that the lower house is elected by the people.
Each proprietary colony was characterized by specific system of governance which reflected the geographic factors and the lord proprietor personality. The colonies of Maryland and New York, based on English law and administration practices, were run effectively. But Carolina was mismanaged.
In 1729, the British government bought rights from the heirs of the lords-proprietors and the province became a royal colony.
Explanation:
In Germany, people would refer to it as "Drittes Reich", which is translated in English to "Third Reich" - and I think this is the answer you are looking for, it's very widely used.
Reich means "Empire" , so it could also be translated to the "third empire" but this is not usual.
I think the answer is no (sorry if i am worng!)
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although you did not specify the time in history or any specific context, we are going to assume that you are referring to the US imperialistic role through history.
Being that the case, we can comment on the following.
The foreign policy actions of the United States reflect selfish, imperialist ambitions since the times of President James Polk and the Manifested Destiny. He expanded the US territory acquiring the Mexican northern states after the Mexican-American War.
Since those years, passing through the times of President Monroe and the Monroe Doctrine and President Theodore Roosevelt and his Roosevelt corollary, the United States has always had interventionist purposes as part of its foreign agenda.
Nobody has granted the US the right or role to be the "big brother" who was looking after the interests of the western hemisphere. That is why the US has had many problems throughout history in the Middle East, Latin America, Europe, and other regions.
"Was _______ a hero or hypocrite?" could be asked about almost any figure in history. Human beings are complicated creatures who live amid conflicting situations. Rarely do you find anyone who is totally consistent in every point of view they hold and every action that they take.
In the case of Thomas Jefferson, the "hero or hypocrite" question tends to focus on his ideals, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence (which he authored), that all people "<span>are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" -- as contrasted with the fact that Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves and fathered several children by Sally Hemings, one of his slaves.
Jefferson indeed was heroic as one of America's founding fathers to set this nation on a course of liberty and justice for all. But slavery was deeply embedded in the colonies and not something easily or quickly undone. Jefferson's slaves were those which he had inherited from his father or acquired by marriage to his wife, Martha (whose family also owned slaves). Jefferson had criticized the British for sponsoring the slave trade. He also led the effort to have the state of Virginia ban the importing of slaves in 1778. Jefferson did have plans for the emancipating of slaves, seen in a bill he proposed as governor of Virginia in 1779, but recommended emancipation as a gradual process due to the complexities of the situation.
So, "hero or hypocrite"? The answer to that is not quick or easy. Jefferson had ideas and plans to address the slavery situation, but recognized the need to proceed gradually in order to make such a transition without great turmoil affecting the new country.</span>
