World History Homework Nine - Model

1. Now that you've taken the midterm exam, how might you have prepared better? (5 words or less)

By focusing more on how the major empires correlated with one another. (Jenna N.)

Studying the model answers. (Sandro)

2. Religious wars in England: its loss, America's gain. Explain.

During the 1600’s, there was some of the most horrible religious maltreatment in the history of the world. Protestants ruthlessly persecuted each other and there was also incessant conflict between Protestants and the Catholics. The conflict between Anglicans and Puritans in England was extremely severe, and caused many Puritans to flee to New England. This was England’s loss. America’s gain was when the Quakers were persecuted for their Quaker faith, and William Penn founded the state of Pennsylvania. It’s a good thing the Quakers were persecuted because without them coming to Pennsylvania, spreading their faith, and reaching out to people, America might have never turned out to be like it is today. (Jenn)

England lost all decency within its great country. It was organized chaos. America gained more citizens by it because people in England got fed up with everything that was going on. (Nate)

During the religious wars in England, there was a large exodus from England and people traveled to the New World or America. At that time, when a person left home to travel across the world to another place, that person would have to be pretty adventurous to do so. England lost most of its adventurous and creative people which likely slowed down its growth with inventions and knowledge. Now as the New World became known as the United States, this new land had a large group of adventurous people that would be the foundation for this nation. All men created equal and each man could make his fortune based on ability, not birthright. (Sandro)

3. The French Revolution: all bad, or was there something good about it?

The French Revolution basically threw out a tyrannical form of government and replaced it with another—the Parisian mobs, and then Napoleon. France has never fully recovered from the anarchy of the Revolution days, but the Revolution was bound to happen sooner or later. Had the French had great, selfless leaders like George Washington and James Madison, their own revolution might have turned out better. (Duncan)

There probably was some small good that come out of it, but I have no idea what. This was a war in which the leaders had likely adopted the mentality of “the end justifies the means”, which is not a good way to lead a country, even in a revolution. Even if a good end did come, I don’t think that could have justified the senseless murder of innocent civilians. All of France became a slaughterhouse. There may have been some good, but I can’t see it. (Michelle)

4. Pick another revolution and describe it.

The American Revolution was a turning point for the world. Different mind-sets and outlooks on life create different results, and by comparing the French Revolution and the American Revolution, this becomes evident. The American Revolution sought complete freedom for it's people, in the world that they could create. (Anna)

5. Why do you think it took the world so long before revolutions started occurring?

One reason why it took the world so long for revolutions to occur was just because people didn’t know that they were possible. Just like the European philosophers and the concept of “zero”, how could you discover or use something that you didn’t know existed? (Olivia)

In Roman times, the emperor would probably have pretty harsh taxes, and the people would be upset with it. But the tax collectors would take more than what the actual tax was. This made the people angrier at the collector than the emperor. There wouldn’t be much cause of an uproar for just one or two tax collectors, but when you have a Monarchy, there’s only one guy to go to. (Jonathan R.)

Honors Questions (answer any 2 in addition to the above questions)

H1. Does art follow politics, or lead it? Comment in connection with "revolutionary art (including music)."

Neither. I think that they both go hand in hand. I think that both are expressions of moods of the people. I don’t think that one leads the other; I would say that if one seems to be leading the other, it is simply manifesting itself earlier. I would say that in fact, it is the philosophers, thinkers, and scholars that lead both politics and art, because they are the most direct influence on the mood of the people. (Michelle)

H2. Napoleon's Empire: write about any aspect of it that interests you.

I think that the way Napoleon ruled was very interesting. He bred dislike of foreigners and catered to many of the common people’s likes and dislikes, such as the return of another regime. He also gathered power with his support for French institutions such as the “Concordant of 1801” which confirmed the Catholic church as the major church of France. He catered to the people and supported only France and this is how he rose to great power in the empire. (Joseph M.)

The thing I find most interesting about Napoleons Empire is the Napoleonic Code. The Napoleonic Code is a French civil code established in 1804. The Code was a successful system of laws that strongly influenced the laws of many other countries. Many view this code as being one of the few documents which have influenced the whole world. (Amanda)

H3. The Louisiana Purchase was a "win-win" deal, meaning it was advantageous for both sides. Explain.

The Louisiana Purchase was advantageous for both sides in that both America and France got something which they wanted and needed. France (led by Napoleon) got $15 million to fight in Europe with, which she desperately needed at the time, and America received 828,800 square miles of land for settlement. France had no use for the West of North America (it was too far and provided no resources) and the United States did. (Duncan)

H4. Comment on the theory or justification of a revolution, and what you think about it.

The basic idea behind a revolution is that the government is accountable to the people, and that when the government oversteps its authority, the people have a right to change it. While it was a revolutionary idea, this “Social contract” theory makes sense, since it is true that all people inherently have equal rights. This is in fact a Christian idea; Jesus invited the poor and the crippled and the lepers to the dinner table, unrightfully reserved for the rich. One Bible verse which could implicate the theory of revolution is Matthew 22:21, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s….” However, Christ did not condemn wealth or private ownership, and thus not all money actually is Caesar’s. In fact, Caesar all-too-often takes more than his share. When this happens, Caesar is not receiving what is his, but taking what is not his. In this verse, implicit support for revolution can be found, as the verse implies that Caesar’s power is not unlimited. (Addison)

H5. Write about any other aspect of the lecture.