In trying to make sense of FDR's domestic policies, historians and political scientists have referred to a "First New Deal," which lasted from 1933 to 1935, and a "Second New Deal," which stretched from 1935 to 1938. (Some scholars believe that a "Third New Deal" began in 1937 but never took root; the descriptor, likewise, has never gained significant currency.) These terms, it should be remembered, are the creations of scholars trying to impose order and organization on the Roosevelt administration's often chaotic, confusing, and contradictory attempts to combat the depression; Roosevelt himself never used them. The idea of a "first "and "second" New Deal is useful insofar as it reflects important shifts in the Roosevelt administration's approach to the nation's economic and social woes. But the boundaries between the first and second New Deals should be viewed as porous rather than concrete. In other words, significant continuities existed between the first and second New Deals that should not be overlooked.
The 17th century was a time of great political and social turmoil in England, marked by civil war and regicide. Matthew White introduces the key events of this period, from the coronation of Charles I to the Glorious Revolution more than 60 years later.
The 17th century was a period of huge political and social upheaval. From an age characterised by the Crown’s tight control of the state, the century witnessed years of war, terror and bloodshed that enveloped the kingdom, as well as the execution of Charles I and the introduction of a republic. Yet all this was again to be overthrown with the restoration of Charles II: a short-lived return to autocratic royal influence finally swept away with the installation of William and Mary as ruling monarchs.
Charles I and notions of absolutism
The origins of the English Civil Wars are firmly rooted in the actions of one man: King Charles I. As a child, Charles was never destined to succeed to the throne. The weak and sickly second son of James I, Charles had lived in the shadow of his elder brother Henry, who was educated in the ways of kingship by his father. All this changed when, in 1612, Henry contracted smallpox and died, suddenly placing Charles as heir to the throne, eventually to be crowned in his own right in 1625. The old king, James I, had been schooled in notions of compromise, forced to negotiate with his nobles on matters of religion and affairs of state. Charles, by contrast, adopted a starkly different approach, believing that his authority alone was supreme and ordained by God: defined by the principle of the ‘Divine Right of Kings’. ‘It is for me to decide how our nation is to be governed’ he wrote; ‘I alone must answer to God for our exercise of the authority he has invested in me’.[1]
Charles I’s absolutism manifested itself at a time of emerging self-confidence among the English elite. Though Parliament met only sporadically during this period – and acted mainly in an advisory role to the sovereign – by the time Charles was crowned he was already highly dependent on the gentry’s ability to raise adequate tax revenues (derived from agricultural rents, which far exceeded any other sources of income). It was this body of landowning gentlemen that constituted the bulk of Members of Parliament, men who, in theory, could by withholding his sources of income, hold the king to account. Conflict between Crown and Parliament arose for a number of reasons. In matters of religion Charles appeared to disregard the Protestant settlement secured by Henry VIII, favouring instead the Catholic mass and, in 1625, marrying a Catholic member of the French nobility, Henrietta Maria. Charles also continued to act unilaterally in matters of foreign policy and, in the face of criticism levelled by his chief advisers, dissolved Parliament in 1629. Parliament would not meet again for another 11 years.
Without Parliament to sanction his financial needs, Charles found himself in increasingly difficult circumstances. Rebellion in Scotland (provoked by Charles’s insensitive imposition of a new prayer book) required that additional revenues be raised in order to finance a military response. Reluctantly, the king convened a new Parliament in 1640.
The new Parliament that met that year was at once openly hostile to the Crown. MPs complained bitterly about the imposition of taxes and the blatant disregard of religious toleration in the north. (The Scots had rejected Charles’s prayer book and drafted a National Covenant in defiance of the king, resisting his religious reforms in favour of a simpler form of Protestant worship.) Sensing weakness in Charles’s position, key concessions were demanded from the king, and personal attacks were launched against his key ministers. Among them, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, was to suffer the death penalty for what Parliament labelled acts of treason against the Scottish nation. A botched attempt to arrest five MPs for treason set the king directly in conflict with his people. The scene was set for civil war.
A nation at war
Fearing for his own safety, in 1642 Charles fled London, first heading north to where he believed his main support lay. At Hull, the king was refused entry to the city by the Lord Mayor, and later that year, in Nottingham, Charles raised his royal standard: the first symbol of open warfare with Parliament.
On 23 October 1642 the first true battle of the Civil Wars took place, at Edgehill in Warwickshire, resulting in stalemate between Parliamentarian and Royalist forces. For four years afterwards skirmishing and warfare erupted across the nation, as Roundheads (labelled for the Parliamentarians’ short cropped hair) and Cavaliers (a derogatory term describing the courtly dress of Royalists) pitched themselves against each other.
Correct answer: CHINA
Context/details:
In 1931, Japan invaded and occupied Manchuria, the northeaster region of China. The invasion followed an explosion that blew up a portion of railroad tracks near the city of Mukden. (Thus it became known as "The Mukden Incident.") The railway was owned by the Japanese, who had invested in development in the region. Japan blamed Chinese nationalists for the explosion, but others thought the bombing may have been done by Japanese military personnel to provide Japan with an excuse for invading and occupying Manchurian territory. The Japanese declared the region to be a new country, independent of China. which the Japanese called Manchuko. In reality, the territory was not independent but was controlled by the occupying Japanese army.
At a meeting of the League of Nations in February, 1933, the League voted on a report that officially laid blame for events in Manchuria on Japan. The report said that Japan should withdraw its troops from Manchuria and restore the country to the governing authority of China. When the vote was taken regarding the report, on February 24, 1933, every nation represented in the League voted in approval except for Japan. After the 42 to 1 vote, the leader of Japan's delegation at the League, Yosuke Matsuoka, said: "The Japanese government is obliged to feel that they have now reached the limit of their endeavors to co-operate with the league regarding Chinese-Japanese differences. It is a source of profound regret and disappointment to the Japanese government that the draft report has now been adopted by this assembly. ... Japan finds it impossible to accept the report adopted by the assembly, and she has taken pains to point out that the recommendations in the report cannot be considered such as would secure peace in that part of the world."
Japan officially withdrew from the League of Nations on that day. In leaving the assembly hall, Matsuoka said, "This means the withdrawal of our delegation from the League. We are not coming back." (Reported by United Press International, February 24, 1933.)
Answer:
3) All people should have the right to choose their leaders.
Explanation:
This is the statement that best reflects what John Locke believed should be a right of all people. In this passage, Locke tells us that all people should have the right to choose their leaders. He states that this is absolutely necessary for a well-ordered society, as no government can expect obedience from a people who have not consented to it.
