The Earl of Beaconsfield, Benjamin Disraeli was one of the great political minds of the nineteenth century. He helped bring Great Britain through effects of the Industrial Revolution, and maintain a large empire. Though his efforts the workers’ rights were enlarged, and England was able to peacefully transition to democracy. Disraeli, a commoner by birth, was yet an aristocrat in ideology. Through this unique combination of ideals, Disraeli was able navigate Britain through the mid nineteenth century, restore prestige to the monarchy and aristocracy, and enlarge the rights of the commoner. Disraeli sought to preserve the interests of the ruling aristocracy, and maintain the English predominance and freedom in the world. In this regard Disraeli was similar to many of the Tory aristocracy of the eighteenth and nineteenth century who sought to hold onto their power. Members of this class, such as James Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardiganand George Bingham, 3rd Earl of Lucan, disliked any kind of political reform, and sought to hold their power in parliament against the radical Whigs. As a member of a noble family that sought to protect him, James Brudenell was discouraged from entering into military service, but instead, though his father’s influence, obtained and place in the House of Commons. Brudenell was a Member of Parliament for several years, until the 1832 election, when, because of the passage of the Reform Bill, he had to fight a difficult and bitter fight and campaign to hold his seat in Parliament . From Parliament, Bundenell was able to make use of the purchase system to fulfill his lifelong ambition of making a career in the army. From there he took control of the 15th Hussars and made them into his model infantr... ... middle of paper ... ...ower and avoid revolution. Thus, through social reforms Disraeli, in the last half of the nineteenth century, was able to navigate through the waters of power though appeals to the commoner. Similar to Disraeli, Lord Lucan’s son saw the necessity humanity to those in the lower classes, and extended humanitarian efforts to his estates in Ireland. Disraeli, the lonely Christian Jew, was truly a great leader of the nineteenth century. He assisted in preserving the empire, creating a sense of British pride, and providing reform to the government, while maintain his principles and identity. Works Cited Smith, Paul. Disraeli, A Brief Life. Cambridge: University Press,Cambridge, 1996. Woodham-Smith, Cecil. The Reason Why. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1954. Youngs, Fredric. The English Heritage. Vol. 2. 2 vols. Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, 1999.
demonstating his carelessness over casualtiles, Passchendaele proved Currie’s concern for he preservation fo the lives of the men under his command; indeed, Currie’s actons throughout th war stand as strong evidence of his desire, and ability, to win battles only at the least possible cost. A lot of Canadians, veterans and conscripts alike, had little regard for General Currie. Passchendaele convinced many of them that victory was his old consideration.
In 1776, David McCullough gives a vivid portrayal of the Continental Army from October 1775 through January 1777, with sharp focus on the leadership of America’s greatest hero, George Washington. McCullough’s thesis is that had not the right man (George Washington) been leading the Continental Army in 1776, the American Revolution would have resulted in a vastly different outcome. He supports his argument with a critical analysis of Washington’s leadership during the period from the Siege of Boston, through the disastrous defense of New York City, the desperate yet, well ordered retreat through New Jersey against overwhelming odds, and concludes with the inspiring victories of Trenton and Princeton. By keeping his army intact and persevering through 1776, Washington demonstrated to the British Army that the Continental Army was not simply a gang of rabble, but a viable fighting force. Additionally, Mr. McCullough supports his premise that the key to the survival of the American Revolution was not in the defense of Boston, New York City, or any other vital terrain, but rather the survival of the Continental Army itself. A masterful piece of history, 1776 is not a dry retelling of the Revolutionary War, but a compelling character study of George Washington, as well as his key lieutenants, and his British adversaries, the most powerful Army in the 18th Century world. When I read this book, I went from a casual understanding of the hero George Washington to a more specific understanding of why Washington was quite literally the exact right man at the exact right place and time to enable the birth of the United States.
A Fierce Discontent by Michael McGerr delves into the revolution of values from the victorian era to the progressive within the late nineteen century to the early twentieth century. McGerr’s major argument is the contrast between this set of values. The gilded age which McGerr focuses is the period where progressive values begin to take form and societal change ensues. The victorian values are values which epitomizes the British culture as just the name of the era is derived from queen Victoria. Alternatively the progressive era was a political reform focusing on anti corruption, women suffrage, and fixing the social problems plaguing society. McGerr argues that the victorian era and progressive era strikes few similarities within the
When examining the bloody and often tumultuous history of Great Britain prior to their ascent to power, one would not have predicted that they would become the global leader of the 18th century. Prior to the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years War, the Spanish and the Holy Roman Empire held much of the power in Europe. Only with the suppression of Catholicism and the development of national sovereignty did Great Britain have the opportunity to rise through the ranks. While much of continental Europe was seeking to strengthen their absolute monarchies and centralized style of governing, in the 17th and 18th centuries Great Britain was making significant political changes that reflected the ideals of the Age of Enlightenment. The first of the political philosophers was Thomas Hobbes who first introduced the idea that the monarch ruled not by “divine right” but through the consent of the people. This was a radical idea with ramifications that are reflected in the great changed Great Britain made to to their government in the 17th century. Through a series of two violent civil wars between the monarchy and Parliament and the bloodless civil war known as the Glorious Revolution, Parliament was granted the authority to, in essence, “check” the power of the monarchy. The internal shifts of power in Great Britain and the savvy foreign policy skills demonstrated by the British in much of the conflict happening in continental Europe can be credited with England’s rise to power.
Pat Barker's novel Regeneration explores the effects that World War I has on the human condition and more specifically on the condition of the British people. One particular area of exploration is the detrimental presence of class distinctions within the ranks of the British military. This issue of class distinction is addressed specifically on pages 66 and 67 of the novel through a conversation between Billy Prior and Dr. Rivers. The characters' discussion reinforces Barker's theme of the injustices of these class distinctions and the harm they produce on the war front.
...ollectivist approach was used instead. The shocking health issues raised by the Boer War and the medical check-ups in school showed that social reform was evidently needed to maintain national efficiency. The surveys carried out clearly indicated the problem of poverty was not going to solve itself and that action needed to be taken. With the growing electorate, the working classes were more influential than they had been and so political parties were forced to try and accommodate their needs. The Labour party would have been the obvious choice for the working classes and the Liberals and Conservatives knew they had to change their strategies to win favour within that social class. The Liberal reforms in the early 20th century marked a turning point for social reformation. Ultimately, it was all of these reasons that the laissez-faire attitude was abandoned.
During the twentieth century, there were many people, some well known and others not so well known, who contributed to society in one way or another. When determining which one of these people was the biggest contributor to society during the twentieth century, and, therefore, the person of the twentieth century, their lives as a whole should be taken into consideration. In addition to contributing much to society in various ways, the best candidate for person of the century should also have had struggles and experiences that they overcame or went through and from which they learned. Winston Churchill is the person who contributed the most to society during the twentieth century and made it what it is today.
Bierce writes, “we observed that he had one most objectionable and unsoldierly quality: he was vain of his courage” (Bierce 63). Bierce, as an officer in the Army, knows that Brayle’s actions does not reflect the quality of an officer should posses. Although Baryle’s actions might seem courageous and inspiring to an ordinary civilian, anybody with military background and tactical knowledge can see the underlying danger of Brayle’s actions.
The story of Winston Churchill’s upbringing and life through politics and war did not begin as one might expect. More often than not, fictional stories usually portray our main character as a man of little things who climbs the social ladder through their own achievements and intelligence. Instead, Churchill began and ended his extensive life as a privileged being, but it is in the middle where the most interesting facts lay. Winston Churchill is the most influential man in European History. Beginning as a boy who hated school to a man who could sway another with a single speech, his personal change was drastic; but so was the change that he brought to the world and Great Britain.
An upcoming Chartist founder in 1832, Henry Hetherington had quoted that the ‘Reform Act was never intended to do you one particle of good.’ Opinions like Henry Hetherington’s after the passing of 1832 Reform Act eventually led to the emergence of Chartism as a national movement in 1837, who were predominately working class and depicted the ‘Great ‘Reform Act of 1832 as a betrayal and a failure, rather than being ‘Great’. The Reform Act was hoped by many to be a ‘remedy’ for many of those from the lower end of the social classes and finally a chance for them to get their voices heard by the government through enfranchisement, however many thought they were ‘deceived’ by it when it was passed. On the other hand, Historians have contended
The Differences of Gladstone And Disraeli In Their Policies Regarding The British Empire and Foreign Policy
“After the passing of the Great Reform Bill, the liberal Whig leadership struck a snag. Several years of depression put the conservative Tories back in power in 1841. Wages and living conditions grew steadily worse as the industrial revolution permitted the rise of great fortunes for owners and employers along with starvation and poverty for great numbers of the working classes.” (Earl Davis, The Flint and the Flame, Page 115)
The revolution resulted in the development of a new social class the middle class. This class contained factory, min owners as well as engineers, doctors and lawyers. The flourish of this new social class greatly noticeable in Britain as the British scholars were more practical rather than theoretical. As Strayer explains, the discoveries on atmospheres and vacuums promoted the innovation of the steam engine in Britain (Strayer, 2012; 834). The industrial revolution brought the social status of business men up as they benefited the most from the industrial revolution, it can also be said that the factory and min owners were the sponsors of the industrial revolution. Because of their wealth they got the advantage of living a healthy life in the villages away from the diseases that were spreading in the overcrowded cities. However, the aristocrats lost their social power and were harmed by the industrial revolution. They struggled to keep their power in the parliament but as the industrial revolution grew they became less important to the economy and by the end of the nineteenth century they were replaced by businessmen in the parliament. “The aristocracy’s declining political clout was demonstrated in the 1840s when high tariffs on foreign agricultural imports… were finally abolished” (Strayer, 2012; 837), this is when the aristocrats struggled the most because the taxes were very high and they could not pay their
Smith, G., Anderson, I., & Anderson, L. (1899). The United Kingdom: A Political History (Vol. 1). New York: The Macmillan Co.
...se very problems not only signified a fundamental change in the concept of autocratic rule in England, it also paved the way for the development of a more socially equitable system of parliamentary democracy, for once the will of the people is finally recognized, kings are reduced to mere anachronisms.