This quiz covers Chapter 1 of your textbook and consists of 20 questions worth 5 points each for a total of 100 points. This quiz is a combination of multiple choice and True-False questions and MUST be completed by the deadline. This quiz must be completed in one sitting. You have 60 minutes in which to complete this exam. You also have only one attempt to complete this quiz. Please do not miss the due date for this quiz.
Good luck!
This quiz was locked Mar 20 at 11:59pm.
Correct answers are hidden.
Score for this attempt: 100 out of 100
Question 1
5 / 5 pts
The Progressive Era lasted from: 1890 – 1920
1960 – 1969
1890 – 1920
1933 – 1836
1901 – 1909
Question 2
5 / 5 pts
____________ created and passed by a legislature was considered inferior to the judge-made common law for most of America’s history. Statutory law
Criminal law
Administrative law
Statutory law
Common law
Question 3
5 / 5 pts
____________ has come to dominate the American legal system. Statutory law
Federal law
Statutory law
Common law
Criminal law
Question 4
5 / 5 pts
During their first year, most law school students are immersed in the common law system. T
True
False
Question 5
5 / 5 pts
Chief Justice Melville Weston Fuller proclaimed the superiority of legislation in 1908. F
True
False
Question 6
5 / 5 pts
Two ways in which the courts impede or thwart social legislation by the industrial conditions of today include: narrow construction of constitutional provisions and narrow attitude toward legislation
illiberal construction and federal power
express language and legislative demand
narrow construction of constitutional provisions and narrow attitude toward legislation
through alien element and state provision
Question 7
5 / 5 pts
Which of the following is NOT one of the four ways in which courts might deal with a legislative innovation? NOT A
They might receive it fully into the body of law to be reasoned from by analogy the same as any other rule.
They might not make it a rule to be applied or a principle from which to reason and not hold it as an expression of good will.
They might refuse to reason from it by analogy and apply it only directly.
They might refuse to receive it fully into the body of law and only give direct effect to it.
Question 8
5 / 5 pts
Which of the following represents the orthodox common law attitude toward legislative innovations? They might refuse to reason from it by analogy and apply it only directly
They might not make it a rule to be applied or a principle from which to reason and not hold it as an expression of good will.
They might receive it fully into the body of law to be reasoned from by analogy the same as any other rule.
They might refuse to receive it fully into the body of law and only give direct effect to it.
They might refuse to reason from it by analogy and apply it only directly
Question 9
5 / 5 pts
American courts are restrained by doctrine of parliamentary supremacy. F
True
False
Question 10
5 / 5 pts
Common law was believed superior to legislation because: it was customary and rested upon consent of the governed.
it was common among the people.
it was a custom of judicial decision.
it was customary and rested upon consent of the governed.
it often characterized American lawmaking, both judicial and legislative
Question 11
5 / 5 pts
When it comes to legislation, the new principles are in ______________, the old principles are in _______________. legislation, common law
legislation, common law
common law, legislation
the legislative, the executive
theory, practice
Question 12
5 / 5 pts
The best known saying about legislation is attributed to _______________. German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck
United States President Woodrow Wilson
Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist
England’s Queen Elizabeth II
German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck
Question 13
5 / 5 pts
James Madison had hoped that American legislators would master three ‘fundamental competencies’ EXCEPT: Partisanship
Patriotism
Justice
Partisanship
Wisdom
Question 14
5 / 5 pts
A legislator’s sympathy for the circumstances of all their constituents including opponents and strangers best reflects: Patriotism
Justice
Partisanship
Wisdom
Patriotism
Question 15
5 / 5 pts
_________________ and ______________ insisted that legislative institutions in a free society must teach their members to govern well. James Madison, John Stuart Mill
Roscoe Pound, Alan Rosenthal
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton
William N. Eskridge, Phillip P. Frickery
James Madison, John Stuart Mill
Question 16
5 / 5 pts
Which branch of the U.S. Government is responsible for making laws? The Legislative Branch
The Legislative Branch
The Department of Justice
The Executive Branch
The Judiciary Branch
Question 17
5 / 5 pts
The Legislative Process of American Government mainly unfolds in what institution? Congress
The Presidency
Congress
The Courts
Supreme Court of the United States
Question 18
5 / 5 pts
Congress’ TWO most basic functions are: Legislation and Representation
Legislation and Representation
Legislation and Authorization
Authorization and Appropriation
Representation and Authorization
Question 19
5 / 5 pts
The American Legislative Process unfolds in a ___________ legislature. Bicameral
Multicameral
Bicameral
Unicameral
Republican
Question 20
5 / 5 pts
There are ______________ members that make of the U.S. Congress. 535
This week we are learning about absolute monarchs. Two monarchs who had a huge impact on Europe included Louis XIV of France and Peter the Great of Russia. After reading Chapter 15, what did Louis XIV and Peter the Great have in common? (provide at least two examples). What did each monarch deal with those who resisted their attempt to impose absolutist rule? And finally, which ruler do you feel was more of an absolute monarch and why?
Louis XIV of France and Peter the Great of Russia were both powerful monarchs who had a significant impact on Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. Both rulers attempted to centralize power in the hands of the monarchy. Louis XIV did this through his famous phrase, “L’état, c’est moi” (I am the state), while Peter the Great worked to westernize and modernize Russia, centralizing power in the process.
Both monarchs also implemented significant religious and cultural changes in their countries. Louis XIV promoted the Catholic Church and sought to impose a single, unified culture in France, while Peter the Great encouraged the spread of Western culture and education in Russia.
In terms of dealing with those who resisted their attempts to impose absolutist rule, both monarchs took strong measures to suppress any opposition. Louis XIV used a combination of military force and political manipulation to maintain his power, while Peter the Great relied heavily on military force and repression to control and subjugate any opposition.
It can be argued that both Louis XIV and Peter the Great were absolutist rulers, however Louis XIV may be considered as more of an absolute monarch due to his extensive use of censorship, propaganda and the establishment of a powerful secret police to control the population and stamp out any opposition. While Peter the Great also took strong measures to maintain his power, Louis XIV’s use of these tactics was more extensive and sophisticated.
Louis XIV and Peter the Great seemingly had similar successes during their rule. They both brought great economic wealth to their country, even if the poorest people didn’t see any of that wealth, they both built something massive that’s still standing to this day as an example of their power, The Palace of Versailles built by Louis XIV and St. Petersburg built by Peter the Great, and they were both absolutists. They believed that they were direct descendants of God to rule over their country and people with total control. According to Western Civilization 5th edition, if there was any resistance to his rule, Louis XIV would exile anybody that opposed him. Peter the Great was much more brutal to resistance, like the time he stopped a rebellion by executing everyone involved and leaving their corpses in front of the Kremlin for months to remind people what happens when they try to oppose Peter. I believe the more absolute monarch was Peter the Great. This is because he did not inherit a country anywhere near as rich and well connected as France and he propped it up to the powerhouse it has become today. He also had a larger influence on the culture of Russia by forcing people to dress and act a certain way distancing themselves from their culture and copying western culture.
what did Louis XIV and Peter the Great have in common?
Both Louis XIV and Peter the great had a big influence back then and brings us to where we are today. First off, they were both autocrats who had all and unlimited power and helped their nations in very similar ways. They both helped France and Russia improve their ways of trade. Peter helped Russia to make connections with the western world, which allowed them to trade; and Louis regulated trade in France by placing high tariffs on imports and building more export industries that allowed more money to come into France.
What did each monarch deal with those who resisted their attempt to impose absolutist rule?
Both rulers viewed themselves as god’s representatives on earth, present with the divine right to show off the absolute power the monarchy had. In Louis’s case, he controlled the nobles by making them spend lots of time in the Versailles to avert them from developing their own regional power and manipulated them in ways that would keep them competing for his approval and not for his power. Peter the great passed laws that protected his noble’s needs, such as their land, which encouraged them to serve the state.
which ruler do you feel was more of an absolute monarch and why?
I believe Peter was more of an absolute monarch because he actually worked with his nobles and made equal exchanges with them, while Louis seemed more selfish and exploited his nobles.
Both Louis XIV and Peter the Great were very powerful and very successful over their time periods as rulers. I think that the main thing that they both shared was that they were able to build a central hub for their government. Louis XIV was able to build the palace of Versailles which was a huge palace that was created by using very advanced architecture. Before the palace was built Versailles was just a hunting lodge and he was able to transform it into a place where many nobles and officials moved to. Peter the Great was able to accomplish something similar when he was able to build St. Petersburg from swampy land along the Baltic Sea. Similar to Louis XIV he used very advanced architecture. He needed to bring in architects from Italy to be able to complete the construction. Another similarity between Louis XIV and Peter the Great is that they were both able to expand their empires to be more powerful than they were before they took power. Peter was able to expand his empire by using the powerful military he built to expand west and begin trading with Europe. Louis was able to expand his empire by fighting wars against other European countries and was able to place tariffs on imported goods, created overseas colonies, and regulated trade. Both rulers were able to keep absolute rule by using their power. Louis was able to do this by giving benefits to high ranking government officials and Peter accomplished it by using his powerful military. I think that Peter the Great was the better absolute monarch because he was able to change his empire more. He was able to abandon old traditions and was willing to travel west to learn from other great empires which overall allowed him to improve his own.
Peter the great and Louis the 14th were both recognized as one of the greatest rulers of their times. They were both autocrats with unlimited power and were recognized for their contributions to their nations. Louis the 14th was the ruler of France who focused on improving and increasing the overall territories of France, and Peter the Great focused on improving the overall condition of Russia. For some context, there are many differences between Peter the Great and Louis the 14th as they had different levels of success; however, they had many similarities. For example, when it comes to buildings, Louis the 14th built the Palace of Versailles to demonstrate control and power effectively (Beik, (2005)). In contrast, Peter the Great effectively built Saint Petersburg to showcase the country’s nobility (Waugh, (2001)).
Furthermore, it is essential understand that, Another significant similarity between the two is that they had traumatic childhoods, as they were not shown respect as a child and were often ignored. Furthermore, they also utilized their ability to make sure that they could remain in power and that both were well recognized for their benefits and contributions to the overall development of their nations. Furthermore, they also inherited decentralized countries, effectively showcasing the similarities between the two and how they were recognized as the greatest rulers of their time.
The most obvious similarity between Louis XIV of France and Peter the Great of Russia is the fact that they were both absolute monarchs who held strong beliefs in the Diving Right of Kings. This ancient and medieval way of thinking meant that they believed themselves to be the law, appointed by God. They had total power over their nations. Another aspect of their kingship that these rulers had in common was their handling of their country’s economy. Both rulers used trade and taxes on imported goods as a means of bringing extreme wealth to their countries.
The people who resisted Louis XIV’s rule, would inevitably face negative consequences. One prime example of this came from the members of regional parliments who were exiled for refusing to approve Louis XIV’s laws. This practice enforced his total rule over government. When it came to religion, those who refused to follow the specific Roman Catholic ideas that Louis XIV appointed would be jailed or exiled. The earliest example of people who refused Peter the Great’s rule came when an inside rebellion attempted to give the Russian throne back to his half-sister Sophia. The 1000+ people who were suspected to have been involved in this rebellion were executed. It was clear that Peter the Great had a set vision for his country and he would do whatever it took to secure it.
Between these two rulers, I believe that Peter the Great was more of an absolute monarch. Although Louis XIV had several corrupt practices, it is clear that Peter the Great was more forceful and strict. Peter the Great’s Western vision of Russia impacted the daily lives of his people on a much grander scale than Louis XIV’s policies ever did. In addition to this, the refusal to follow these new Western customs and other rules would be far more deadly.
During their rules, both King Louis XIV and Peter the Great were both big leaders during their times, however their ideals were different, as Peter wanted a strong militaristic nation, Louis XIV wanted religious unity. Despite their differences, the two rulers were well alike. Both rulers came to the throne at very young ages. Another Similarity to make was their way of rule, both leaders ruled with absolute power and had made their own changes to their respective governments. Peter and Louis were both known for their ways of ruling, but they were also well known for building their biggest achievements. During his rule, Peter had constructed St. Petersburg, which later became the the center of Russian culture, commerce, and government. Louis had constructed the Palace of Versailles, where he had his nobles and government administrators reside. His palace was a way to show off King Louis XIV’s wealth, power, and status as royalty.
During their rulings, they had the right to deal with those that oppose them. During the early years of Peter’s rule, at the age of 17, he overthrew his half sister. The Streltsy rebelled but was dealt with. Around 1,200 conspirators were executed and others were left to be displayed as a reminder for those that wished to challenge his authority.
During King Louis XIV’s rule, leading nobles were required to live with Louis to greatly reduce the possibility of disobedience. The nobility however, despite giving up most of their powers, they reserve the privileges and rights over peasants under their rule. The relationship between the King and nobility were regarded as a “negotiated settlement”(Cole, 2020), instead of total control. Another way King Louis XIV dealt with opposition was within the French administrations to shape policies. “Members of regional parliaments (law courts) that refused to approve his laws were exiled” (Cole, 2020).
While understanding the meaning of an absolute monarch of being the monarch rules with no limitations and absolute power, I personally feel that Peter the Great was more of an absolute monarch from the way he had ruled. Instead of negotiation as King Louis XIV had with his nobles, Peter reconstructed the noble system and dealt with opposition in a savage manner.
Both Louis XIV and Peter the Great were monarchs of both France and Russia respectively. They both ruled under absolute monarchy, which is when all of parliament and government officials that give all their authority in the king. Back then These Kings felt as god put them into that position to rule and conquer so when they did it was under a religious belief so religion had a lot to do with royalty. Both Louis XIV and Peter the Great also built these great palaces to show how their characteristics in their ruling. Louis XIV built the palace of Versailles to show his strength and authority while Peter the Great built St. Petersburg to show no nobility. They also were involved in many wars for example Louis XIV and they both took the thrown at a very young age. They both had rule of the their people that they even had laws under what they should wear and behave.
When People would revolt and deny their absolutist rule Louis XIV would be revengeful and attack his own citizens or if they didn’t practice his religion he would burn down churches and on occasions schools as well. Peter the Great would just slaughter them if they didn’t agree with his rules. For instance when he thought his own son was going to revolt against him he killed him and that left no no king or hierarchy when he died.
I believe Peter the Great was more of an absolute monarch because even though they were both ruthless and ruled this way Peter the Great, in my opinion, ruled under the definition of an absolute monarchy. He did go to war to gain territory, such as the war they had with Sweden, but he also taxed Russia for every inconvenience. For he wanted clean shaven men and if that wasn’t possible the men were taxed on their beards. But all taxes were benefiting the army he was trying to build for Russia.
Louis XIV and Peter the Great have a few things in common that I noticed when I read the current chapter. One of the things they have in common is that they both had to rule the throne at a young age. Another thing they had in common is that they both reformed their taxing system so that way they could receive more funds through taxes. Each monarch had their own way of handling those who opposed their power. One way Louis XIV of France punished those who resisted his absolutist rule was by exiling them. Peter the Great would punish any sort of resistance through executions as he did with his palace guard, who had attempted to give power of the throne back to his half sister, Sophia. I believe Peter the Great was more of an absolute monarch as he seemed to be stricter with social and societal rules, such as men having to cut their long beards or forbidding the act of spitting on the floor. He also completely changed the hierarchy of Russian nobles, as he made nobles work their way up from being the lower landlord noble class, to being an administrative noble class, then to the military class, which was the highest noble class. Louis XIV seemed less strict when it came to his nobility as he would seem to negotiate more with them and allowed them to keep their privileges that peasants did not have.
One of the things they had in common was that they both had their nobles under control in different ways but both of them did not want them to revolt or start their own regional power. The other thing they had in common was how both in a short time made their countries the biggest powers in the world although in different ways but both made their ways work. Louis the 14th made the nobles stay at Versailles for a very long time while Peter made them work their whole life for the government to impose their absolutist rule. I believe Louis the 14th had a more absolute monarch because he didn’t change his religious ways or didn’t impose much cultural change while Peter the Great didn’t make drastic changes in the culture and even the structures by bringing different cultures’ ideas into theirs. Another thing why I believe he fits more the absolutist rule idea was by saying and imposing that he is the “sun king” basically saying that everyone and everything revolves around him.
Louis XIV and Peter the Great had several things in common, one of them being that they were both absolutists. In their domains, absolutist rulers asserted a monopoly of power and authority. The military and legal system of the states were under jurisdiction of the absolutist monarchs. Additionally, they claimed unrestricted access to the states’ financial assets to collect and spend. Another similarity between Louis XIV and Peter the Great was that both men reduced the influence of the nobility. While Peter the Great forced his nobles into lifelong government service, Louis XIV stripped the French nobility of political influence while increasing their social standing by making them reside at his court at Versailles. However, rather than a royal victory, Louis XIV’s relationship with the nobles was more of a negotiated settlement.
Exile was imposed on members of regional parliaments who objected to Louis XIV’s policies. On the other hand, Peter the Great used fear and intimidation to push his ideals. It’s said that Peter had his son Alexey tortured and imprisoned for the rest of his life after he returned from fleeing Moscow as part of a conspiracy. Peter the Great beheaded his enemies and anybody who opposed him and kept their heads in a pickle jar for his own amusement.
Like Peter, Louis XIV had all the traits of an absolute monarch. Louis XIV promoted the arts and literature and raised funds by doing so. He significantly increased his nation’s strength and respectability on an international level.
Louis XIV and Peter the Great shared a few things in common which then led them both to become very powerful monarchs. Both of these absolute monarchs had stepped up to the throne at a very young age. Louis XIV became king at 4 years old and Peter the Great became the joint Tsar with his brother at ten years old. Since both of them became rulers at such a young age you know the must have felt invincible. Both of these rulers were absolutists meaning the had absolute control and power over their country and could basically do anything they wanted. Louis XIV would convict people and put them in a special court to those who resisted his rule while Peter the Great would have people excecated in public as a sign to show people not to resist him. I feel as Peter the Great was a more absolute monarch simply due to the fact he was much more harsh on people who were against him and they way he would handle it by giving out many taxes and taking away their rights.
This was a very interesting read about Monarchies and Absolutism. The two Monarchs that implemented Absolute Monarchy the most effectively were King Louis XIV and Russian Zsar Peter I also know as Peter the Great. According to the textbook, Cole, Joshua, Symes, Western Civilizations, Brief 5th ed., e-book ed., W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 2020 the two Monarchs had a few things in common. The first item they had in common is that they both ruled by using an Absolute Monarchy system. The second similarity was that they both invoked massive construction projects. King Louis XIV overtook the task of building the Palace of Versailles which was a monumental palace that originally was a hunting lodge, expanded to a hunting Chateau, then developed to one of the grandest palaces of the time. Peter the Great supervised the design and construction of an entire city called St. Petersburg.
Both monarchs made their Nobles and Aristocrats live with the rulers to reduce the ability of the Nobles or Aristocrats to become resistant to the Absolute Monarchies. Peter the Great. According to the text book, Cole, Joshua, Symes, pg. 512, Western Civilizations, Brief 5th ed., e-book ed., W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 2020, “Louis XIV deprived the French nobility of political power but increased their social prestige by making them live at his court at Versailles.”, and as mentioned in the textbook, Cole, Joshua, Symes, pg. 532, Western Civilizations, Brief 5th ed., e-book ed., W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 2020, Peter the Great interrogated, tortured, and executed any Nobles that opposed the Absolute Monarchy of his rule.
I think Peter the Great was more of an Absolute Monarch because of the way he dealt with his opposers in a more vicious manner and displayed their dead bodies as a reminder to the other nobles not to challenge his authority.
During the 17th and 18th centuries, great rulers Louis XIV of France and Peter the Great of Russia both had a big influence on Europe. Both kings made an effort to consolidate the monarchy’s hold on power. Significant religious and cultural changes were also enacted by both rulers in their respective nations. While Peter the Great promoted the expansion of Western culture and education in Russia, Louis XIV promoted the Catholic Church and aimed to establish a single, united culture in France. Despite the fact that the poorest citizens did not benefit from their vast economic contributions, they both erected enormous structures that are still standing today as symbols of their dominance. Both kings saw themselves as god’s emissaries on earth, with the divine right to flaunt the monarchy’s unbridled authority. In Louis’s case, he kept the nobles under control by forcing them to spend a lot of time in Versailles in order to prevent them from establishing their own local power and by manipulating them in such a way that they would continue to vie for his favor rather than his power.
Because Peter truly collaborated with his nobility and engaged in equal business with them, whereas Louis seemed more egotistical and exploited his nobles, I think Peter was a more absolute monarch.
One thing that Louis XIV and Peter the Great had in common was that they both built large cities as displays of their sovereignty. They both also forced people to live in these cities. Louis XIV forced French nobles to live in his court in Versailles and Peter the Great forced 1000 aristocrats to move to the city he had built with their families even though they protested against it. Louis XIV took those who attempted to resist his rule to court and sentenced them with his own verdicts. He also took the rights of the nobles who opposed him and replaced them with others to come to an agreement of sorts. Peter the Great did something similar by taking rights and replacing them with others but both of these absolutists captured and slaughtered the people and territories of those who came in their way. I believe Peter the Great was more of an absolute monarch because the way he ruled established that all of Russia belonged to him and every person within was expected to serve him, some of them even being classified as property.
Louis XIV and Peter the Great are similar in having created a grand centralized capital city for their respective nation. These capitals, Versailles and St. Petersburg, were the de facto centers of culture, commerce, and government. Another aspect in which the two leaders are similar is their use of war to secure their country’s presence on the world stage. Finally, both rulers manipulated nobles and established immense bureaucracies to weaken those that resist them, and they were unafraid of using violence on their own subjects when necessary.
I believe that Louis XIV was more of an absolute monarch than Peter the Great. While Peter the Great had an iron grip on Russia, he significantly improved the lives of millions of his countrymen by modernizing the nation. On the other hand, Louis XIV wanted to squeeze an already developed nation to its limit, for his own gain. His goal was to use incredible amounts of France’s resources to project opulence and godliness unto himself, and I would have to say that he succeeded.
Louis XIV and Peter the Great did have a lot in common, for examples both Louis XIV had the ability to turn their military into the most powerful military, giving them everything they needed to be strong and successful. And both Peter the Great and Louis XIV were very greedy and wanted total control on everything and everyone in their state.
Absolute monarchies did not have any pity for people that opposed their rules, Both leaders wanted power of everything and believe what they say goes for everyone whether they have an opinion or not. And for the people that did have an opinion, they were either persecuted immediately or the absolute monarchies raised taxes, which was very difficult to abide by. And lastly, in my opinion I feel like was Louis XIV was more of a absolute monarch. Both Louis XIV and Peter the Great were the greatest leader in their time and put their own people through suffering time, Louis XIV made grand history with his country because when something didn’t go his way, he started problems with everyone around him. He built his country and made is very strong and successful. Louis XIV was great at showing his greed and was eager, cold hearted during the rise of his country.
Two things that Louis XIV and Peter the Great have in common are that they both were the best rulers of their time. They both also had similar goals. For example, they were both committed to proving that their rule would go down in history by making their buildings last. Louis XIV would find a way to lure the people who resisted the attempt to impose absolutist rule to his court and habituate them to the wealthy lifestyle there or he would attack them into exile. Peter the Great wanted to strengthen his military and consolidate power. I think I would say that Peter the Great was more of an absolute monarch because of all the things he did for his country and his focus on keeping his military strong while expanding Russian borders. On the other hand, Louis XIV was violent toward his people and was revengeful and rude to them especially when they wouldn’t listen or he didn’t get his way. Peter the Great is known as the most absolute ruler. He did not share his power with anyone.
What did Louis XIV and Peter the Great have in common?
Louis XIV and Peter the Great had many similarities within power, ambition, and their growth. Both rulers were able to rise to power as autocrats. Louis XIV main goal was to expand France in territory and cultural value. Louis XIV built many historical buildings, including the Palace of Versailles to mark France’s power. Peter the Great’s main goal was to advance Russia intro a new era, by increasing their economical status, military, and power. Peter the Great also built historical buildings, once notably being St. Petersburg to demonstrate power and the nobility of the people. As well as he also reorganized the Russian military and created the Russian Navy. Although Louis XIV and Peter the Great had absolute power as autocrats, they were also absolutist.
What did each monarch deal with those who resisted their attempt to impose absolutist rule?
Both rulers needed zero consent to order over the people. The people of Russia felt that Peter the Great was making Russia too “western”, even the military, as he ordered them to shave to match European style. Louis XIV faced the backlash of taxing, which the people felt unfair, the fall of the Protestant population, and draining the resources and money of the country. The people resisted the idea of rule that was against the people’s will.
And finally, which ruler do you feel was more of an absolute monarch and why?
I believe both were absolute monarchs, as they both had great failures, but accomplished a lot for their countries that would establish them culturally, economically, and military wise. Despite a lot of their choices being looked down on, and many who targeted their rule as the center of problems.
what did Louis XIV and Peter the Great have in common? (Provide at least two examples).
Both Louis XIV and Peter the Great, would begin to reign at a very young age and due to their young age, both would be advised until they reached a relevant age to begin to assume power (Louis XIV was advised by his mother and Cardinal Mazarin and then would begin to rule on his own at 22 years old, and Peter, would take power at 17 years old after having overthrown his sister Sophia).
Both Louis XIV and Peter I proved to be very successful rulers, achieving very important accomplishments for their nations during their terms of office. For King Louis XIV, it was the positioning of 17th century France as one of the major dominant powers in Europe, thanks to the implementation of reforms that would improve trade, and its focus on arts and sciences; and the expansion of Muscovite Russia that would position it as one of the major European powers, on the side of Peter I. (One of his major achievements was the reform of his armies and his domination of trade after obtaining a port after the Great Northern War.
What did each monarch deal with those who resisted their attempt to impose absolutist rule?
Louis XIV: It can be affirmed that King Louis XIV embraced absolutism after having pronounced the words “L’État, c’est moi” (I am the state) during the parliament of Paris on April 13, 1655, a phrase that would put him in conflict with the Huguenots and the papacy. Peter the Great’s method was through the reform of the internal structure of Russia.
And finally, which ruler do you feel was more of an absolute monarch and why?
I consider King Louis XIV to have been the ruler who was most attached to absolutism in his government for more than 72 years.
This, of course, was due to several strategies and facts that little by little demonstrated that he intended to make his nation understand that they should follow the orders that he proclaimed.
From calling himself “king of the sun”, believing that his subjects and everyone around him revolved around him, to the well-known phrase “L’État, c’est moi”, or even his determination for an approach that denoted authority, invading the Spanish Netherlands, and even ordering the construction of the Palace of Versailles where he would live during his time as governor, are several proposals that proclaim Louis XIV of France as one of the most controversial governors due to his interest in absolute government.
There are several different inventions and new technology that are discussed in Chapter 19. Pick one invention or piece of technology that you feel changed society in Europe (it can be for the good or the worse). Explain why with at least two examples in your initial response. Make sure to include a list of any sources (including your textbook) that you use in creating your response.
One of the latest inventions that completely changed and redesigned the world’s environment is The smoke-free tower, which is a purifying system. Named the smoke-free tower, it was created by the Dutch artist and inventor Dan rosegarden. This smoke-free tower can improve the quality of air that the citizens of the area breathe, and it can specifically reduce the level of air pollution. For example, it is a 7-meter-high structure that acts as a giant smoke vacuum cleaner, can purify over 30,000 cubic meters of air per hour, and uses very little green energy. Furthermore, it can capture over 75% of the PM 2.5 and other smoke particles and make sure that clean air can be released to the surrounding areas. This project over this tower can significantly improve the overall air quality of any given area and is now being utilized in various highly polluted areas of the world. This is a tower that a Dutch artist installed by the name of Daan Roosegarde And. This tower can effectively create over 30,000 cubic meters of air And takes in carbon from the surrounding area, which is later utilized to create gemstones that are used for jewelry. This effectively showcases how it has completely changed society in Europe by effectively do you take the different areas where the amount of smoke is extremely high. For example, many are placed around Poland, China, and other high-density areas where the amount of smoke is extremely high. This technology currency specifically improved the quality of air that individuals breathe. The carbon taken in by the smoke-free tower can be effectively utilized again for various decoration purposes and jewelry.
While there were many inventions introduced in Chapter 19, I believe that James Watt’s engine had one of the greatest impacts during the industrial revolution in Europe. As one of the many positives, “it was soon adapted to produce a rotary motion that could be used industrially in a multitude of ways, including grinding milling, sawing, and weaving” (Cole, 2020).The production of this engine eases the workflow in many industrial fields and can be seen as a way of profit for many merchants. On the effect of society, the engine affected many businesses and workers. Those seeking profit “depended on their ability to find sawyers, weavers, and field workers who were willing to accept a new way of working” (Cole, 2020). Service and demand has also increased for larger amounts of finished wood, clothing, and grain, affecting many businesses. People would begin working as wage laborers, working with machines rather than only working on manual labour with their own tools.
One invention/piece of technology that changed society in Europe in both good and bad ways was the spinning jenny. It was invented by James Hargreaves in 1764 and one of the reasons it was so revolutionizing was because it “could spin from six to twenty-four times more yarn than a hand spinner in the same amount of time” (Textbook). One of the good effects of this was great economic growth with imports/exports increasing by more then 100x in around 80 years. The bad effects of this invention were plentiful though. The conditions of the factories in which these machines were used were often harsh with many brutal injuries and young girls/women who were often overworked and payed little with shifts “that [sometimes] stretched from 3:00AM to 10:00PM” (Textbook). Alongside this, some traditional weavers were of course put out of employment without access to these machines as the price of cotton goods fell dramatically greatly impacting the profits of those unable to keep up. Another lasting effect of this which took years to amend was the use of child labor in the factories and in the newly created coal/iron mines that were rapidly expanding Europe’s intercontinental trade/export.
In my opinion, the invention that changed European society for the better is the steam engine. Not only was this invention revolutionary, but it also had the longest-lasting legacy when it comes to the industrialization of Europe. The steam engine was such a revolutionary technological breakthrough because it could be combined with other preexisting technologies in order to generate a variety of different uses.
One reason why the steam engine was so impactful is the fact that it revolutionized transportation. This did not just apply to the transportation of people, but also to that of goods and services. Because of inventions that were a result of or enhanced by the steam engine, such as ships and the railway system, it was now possible to efficiently transport goods. Specifically, ones that were too heavy to transport before, such as coal. This newfound transportation of goods greatly benefitted the speed and efficiency of trade, which in turn, stimulated the economy greatly and furthered the advancement of European society.
Another reason why the steam engine was so groundbreaking was its contribution to the factory work scene. As mentioned before, the steam engine could be combined with other pieces of technology in order to enhance their productivity. This especially applied to machines that were used both in factory work and to power factories as a whole. The steam engine helped factory workers move towards a system in which they could start relying on machines for the more grueling aspects of the labor they performed. Overall, the steam engine was an imperative tool when it came to the industrialization of Europe. In addition to this, the steam engine would act as a basis for new advancements in power sources for years to come.
Works Cited
Cole, Joshua, and Carol Symes. Western Civilizations (Brief Edition, Volume 2). Available from: VitalSource Bookshelf, (5th Edition). W. W. Norton, 2020.
Channel 5. “How The British Railway Created Time | How The Victorians Built Britain | Channel 5 #History.” YouTube, 31 March 2020,https://youtu.be/-TbLTpR0njo
As we read in chapter 19 many things were invented during the industrial revolution, such as Thomas Newcomen’s steam engine invented in 1711 but James and his partner added another condenser to the steam engine to generate more power and less fuel, industries technological leaps in creating cotton textiles and John Kay’s flying shuttle, which made the process of weaving a lot faster. One major invention was the spinning jenny by James Hargreaves which would make 16 threads at once. The cotton gin invented by Eli Whitney in 1793 helped the process of taking out the seeds from the fiber and speeding up process and cost of cotton. By creating machines to help process and thread cotton faster but also separate the seeds in cotton from the fiber it allowed citizens to purchase clothing, different from wool, cheaper. But even though this has been a great invention that has impacted even our generation but I feel the best invention would be the modifications and improvements James Watt had on the steam engine.
As I stated above, James Watt and Matthew Boulton added a condenser to the steam engine and that generated more power but with this slight improvement it lead to more improvements on the engine which lead to something that transformed the world in the steam-driven locomotive. By creating these engines, trains were created and the first modern railway. The first run being from a coalfield in Stockton to Darlington. These locomotives also were helping transport goods and materials to these other cities or close ports to help expand the transportation and trading good industry. Even though the machines that help thread cotton and make clothes is a great invention I feel with the steam engine and the improvements on it helped transport the goods and help build factories in other cities and help build machines in factories.
As a result of the steam-driven locomotive not only were goods transported but also coal and metal were also a necessities in other cities. As a result, this helped build and expand the cities for more citizens to live close by for work. Then these engines had found another purpose on boats. This allowed for trades across the sea but at a faster pace. As we know in the 1850’s electricity was in development and by the 1900’s it was used everywhere but is needed for this production. Pumps were created to go with the steam engines to dig deeper into mines for coal.
Work cited:
Cole, Joshua, and Carol Symes. Western Civilizations Brief edition, volume 2. Vital source bookshelf (5th edition). W.W. Norton, 2020.
The spinning jenny was invented by James Hargreaves. It was created to transform the process of cotton spinning. It assisted in more threads of cotton being made at once by fewer spinners. The invention was much faster than hand spinning, which helped speed up the process in producing textiles. It overall made the production of cotton more efficient and quicker. With that being said, I believe this invention changed society in Europe both good and bad ways. It expanded the Industrial Revolution from England to the whole world, but it negatively impacted slavery as it made it more profitable. This eventually led into bigger issues such as the Domestic Slave Trade and the Civil War.
Hello Everyone,
One of the inventions in my opinion that definitely changed the culture and society in Europe during the Industrial revolution was the invention of the Steam Engine. According to the textbook Western Civilizations, Brief Fifth Edition, Vol.2 (2020) p.641 The Steam engine was created in 1712 by Thomas Newcomen, but it was an underpowered engine that was limited in its use. It wasn’t until over 60 years later a Scottish mechanic named James Watt took the steam engine design and made some modifications that produced much great power ratios, while at the same time reducing the consumption of coal to operate the engine. This design change and with the adaptation of rotary motion, propelled the steam engine into many new production processes, and eventually into the transportation industry powering Locomotives, Boats and Ships across Europe. Many industries benefitted from the steam engine because it opened the doors to faster results, production, and the transport of goods and textiles.
The next invention I chose is arguably one of the most important inventions in the textile manufacturing industry. According to the textbook Western Civilizations, Brief Fifth Edition, Vol.2 (2020) p.645, the invention is the Spinning Jenny, created by James Hargreaves in 1764. The Spinning Jenny allowed the process of spinning thread to keep up with the relentless demand required in the process of weaving cloth for the textile industry. The Spinning Jenny was able to spin 16 threads at the same time, rather than one thread at a time. Later other inventions were spawned from its creation that furthered the textile industry to producing cloth for more and more areas of Europe.
There are many inventions and overall new technology mentioned in chapter 19. The one that stuck out to me the most was the railways. Transporting materials that were not easy to transport due to weight, such as coal, needed something that could easily take them to their destinations, whether it be for trading or for resupplying businesses. The railways made this possible, thus single-handedly changing the way we transport heavier supplies to other locations, Doing this made transportation so much easier for society in Europe overall. The railways benefitted Europe as it allowed more supplies to be transported at a time, while also shortening the time it took originally to transport these items. Production of goods and supplies, such as coal for example, expanded completely. However, this meant that the demand for it went up. While it became much faster to ship out items to various locations, it meant that the demand for such items would go up, which also meant that more labor was called for.
I think that one of the most impactful pieces of technology that changed society in Europe was railways. I think that the reason that railways affected society so much is because of the speed that they traveled. They were able to travel on land at 15 miles per hour while carrying heavy materials. This allowed for more innovation because the transportation of materials became less of an issue which allowed for a lot of advancement in the industrial revolution. I think that another way rail roads changed society in Europe was it allowed them to transport large numbers of people from one location to another quickly. Overall I think that railways in Europe allowed for Europe to advance in many different facets and I believe that they caused the greatest impact on European society.
The introduction of railways in Europe had a major impact on society and the economy. The railway system had a transformative impact on European society, shaping its social, economic, and cultural landscape in ways that continue to be felt today. Some examples of this would be railways transformed transportation, making it faster, more effective, and more accessible to a larger population, among other ways. This made it easy to move products and people over long distances, enhancing trade and commerce. Another way railways influenced Europe was through industry. Railways eased the transfer of raw materials and completed commodities, which aided in Europe’s industrialization. As a result, manufacturing businesses expanded, producing new jobs and contributing to the region’s economic prosperity.
Railways not only changed society in Europe but in other parts of the world too. According to the article “8 Ways Railway Travel Changed Everything for Britain” the development of the railway made it possible to transfer products, information, and people from one end of the nation to the other in a matter of hours as opposed to days. Additionally, according to page 648 of our book “Western Civilizations” the construction of railways grew to be a significant undertaking and a “risky” but lucrative business opportunity.
While there were many different advancements in technology in this weeks chapter I think the one that stood out the most to me was the invention of the railway. Railways were able to connect the European continent like nothing that had come before it. In just 20 years there were over twenty-three thousand miles of railways built. The speed of these being built combined with the many subsidies that countries were giving corporations to build more rails clearly demonstrates how important they were to everyone. They also allowed trade at a scale that was not possible before over land as well as being able to easily transport resources and heavy building materials to where it would have been much harder to do so beforehand.
The invention of the steam engine was revolutionary to not only Europe, but the world. At the time the steam engine was invented, it put a lot of European nations ahead in terms of power. It advanced society with technology that could speed or cut work force. This allowed Europe to step into industrialization, and in a span of 100 years Europe progressed rapidly more than it had progressed in 500 years of advancement. This followed many inventions that would later give them an upper hand towards exploring new grounds.
In the current decade that we live, there is still the question on how such tiny nations were able to conquer such massive, and powerful lands. In reality, the most important factors that allowed Europe to bombard it’s way into Africa, were their advances in technology and weapons. Inventions like the steam engine and new forms of guns, gave nations in Europe the advantage to threaten and further invade places in Africa that had not been seen. It paved a way for colonization and exploitation, extracting all natural goods and treasures in uncommon lands.
Resources
Cole, Joshua; Symes Carol. Western Civilizations. New York, NY, W. W. Norton & Company, 2020.
Trains were an important technological development that was crucial in shaping modern Europe.
These vehicles were vital to industrial pursuits. Trains efficiently transport raw materials to factories or refineries, then deliver finished products to distributors. Industrial output and commercial availability of modern products increased greatly thanks to the train.
Trains also transport the workers who make the goods. Europe developed mass transit rail networks in many cities, which provided a timely and reliable commute to millions of workers. Factories could hire more people than ever before, and more people could earn a wage than ever before.
As a person who grew up around cities with subway systems, I miss trains so much. If I wanted to go somewhere busy like downtown, I could just buy a ticket and be there faster than in a car, and I could read the entire time. I wouldn’t have to look for parking or pay lot fees either.
The invention of technology I choose that changed society in Europe is the Electrical Telegraph. I feel like this invention changed Europe society because, it was an easier way for money to be sent and it help wars that were being fought.
The telegraph was an easier way to send money because, with the telegraph money was easier to be sent by “wire” rather than doing it by foot. Money was “wired” across wide distances.
And lastly, the telegraph helped wars that were being fought because whoever was in charge had easier access to quickly rely messages to the soldiers on the field and their own people to keep everyone updated.
During the Industrial Revolution, the introduction of railways in Europe drastically altered time and distance. With less transportation time, businesses could push for a higher output of goods, maximizing profit. Overall, railways provided a completely new perspective on the industrial revolution.
The federal government provided land grants along major railroad rights-of-way. The railroads could then sell this land and profit not only from shipping but also from land sales. Another factor that aided railroad growth was the United States’ rapid westward expansion following the Civil War. Railroads made society more interconnected. Because of the reduced travel time, counties were able to collaborate more easily. With the help of a steam engine, People could travel to distant locations much faster than if they had only used potency transportation.
Cole, Joshua & Carol Symes. Western Civilizations, brief 5th edition Vol 2. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 2020.
Please pick one of the following essay prompts for your paper assignment:
What were the effects of the Glorious Revolution on English society and government? Use at least three example effects in your response.
What impact did the Enlightenment have on government in the 18th Century? Provide at least three examples in your response.
Why is it inaccurate to view the causes of the French Revolution as a struggle between the bourgeoisie and aristocracy? What were the reasons for the Revolution? Provide at least three examples in your response.
Your paper should be a minimum of 3 pages and no more than 4 pages, typed, 12 point font, Times New Roman, double-spaced. This page count does not include your Works Cited page.
Your papers must have a thesis statement. The rest of your paper must explain/defend/back up/give evidence backing up your thesis. For each idea/example you should create a new paragraph.
Your paper must also have in-text citations for quoted and paraphrased material and a Works Cited page.
You must use your textbook as one source and at least one additional secondary source that is a peer-reviewed article accessed from the library databases, such as JSTOR.
Websites are not acceptable as sources unless approved by me in advance.
I am happy to read and give feedback on rough drafts, as long as I receive them one week in advance, which is no later than Sunday, February 12 at midnight.
Although there is variation among proposal formats, these are the sections that are commonly found in federal grant applications. Many agencies have specific requirements for length of proposals, either page number or word count limits. For this Mini-Grant Project, the page limitations are noted with each section. It is very important for your writing to be clear, succinct, and comprehensive.
Assignment Guidelines
Needs Assessment (2–3 pages)
Introduction: A general overview of the main idea of the project and its importance. Be sure to include the target population and approximately how many people will be served.
Problem statement: Concise and clearly articulates the depth of the problem and why it is a concern.
Purpose statement: Limit to one or two key areas as to what the project will involve and what it will accomplish.
Program goals and objectives
Goals are clear and concise statements as to what will be accomplished.
Objectives are specific outcomes of the program that can be evaluated.
Review of Literature: (2–3 pages). 5 articles published with the last five years drawing upon research, local and national data, or government statistics to summarize:
Epidemiologic facts and statistics related to:
Person, Place, and Time.
Significance of the disease or condition and its impact on the health of the vulnerable population.
Epidemiologic framework (epidemiological triangle, web of causation, ecological model) depicting specific risk factors of disease or condition (2–3 pages). Special consideration will be given to applicants that provide a graphic illustration.
The HLA-DRB1 gene is the gene most strongly associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), contributing to up to one-third of the genetic predisposition to RA (Tobon, Youinou, & Saraux, 2010). The PTPN22 gene on chromosome 1 is the other main gene that increases susceptibility to RA, however, PTPN22 polymorphisms are rarely found in Asian populations (Tobon et al., 2010). Polymorphisms of the PADI4 gene are most consistently associated with RA in the Asian population (Tobon et al., 2010). “The HLA-DRB1 shared epitope and PTPN22 risk alleles are associated only with the RA pattern characterized by the presence of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA) and rheumatoid factor” (RF; Tobon et al., 2010, p.12).
Smoking
The strongest known environmental risk factor for RA is smoking (Liao, Alfredsson, & Karlson, 2009). Developing RA is two times higher for male smokers and 1.3 times greater for female smokers versus for non-smokers (Sugiyama, Nishimura, & Tamaki, 2009). The risk was the same for men and women, however, if smoking was heavy (20 or more pack-years; Sugiyama et al., 2009). The risk of smoking and the development of RA is further increased if smokers carry the shared epitope on the HLA-DRB1 allele and the risk of developing ACPA and RA is 21-fold higher for smokers that carry two copies of the shared epitope than non-smokers who do not carry the shared epitope (Liao et al., 2009).
Alcohol
Individuals that consume less than 0.5g of alcohol in a week are at increased risk of developing RA (Liao et al., 2009). Those that consume more than five drinks or 80gm of alcohol in a week have a 40-50% risk reduction compared to those with little or no consumption of alcohol and this risk is further reduced for shared epitope carriers (Liao et al., 2009).
Geography and Environment
In the United States, those living in the Northeast or mid-west have the highest risk of developing RA (Liao et al., 2009). Living in an urban setting, lower altitudes, and exposure to traffic pollution all affect susceptibility to RA (Liao et al., 2009; Tobon et al., 2010).
Gender and Age
RA is three times more frequent in women than in men and prevalence and incidence rises with age; and the highest maximal incidence is in the age group 65-74 years (Myasoedova, Crowson, Kremers, Therneau, & Gabriel, 2010; Tobon et al., 2010).
Education and Occupation
Liao et al. (2009) states the risk of RA is two-fold when comparing individuals with college degrees with those without college degrees and for individuals in an occupation that requires manual labor, the risk of RA was 20% more than non-manual laborers.
Birthweight
Birthweight greater than 4 kilograms is associated with a three-fold increase in the risk of RA and birthweight greater than 4.54 kilograms is associated with a two-fold increase in the risk of RA (Liao et al., 2009; Tobon et al., 2010).
Click here to view the infographic.
https://d1lexza0zk46za.cloudfront.net/Political_Science/We_the_People/WTP12/Who+Are+Americans/Infographics/WTP12_WAA_PACs.jpg
Based on the information presented in this activity, which of the following statements is accurate?
PACs spent equally on Republicans and Democrats in 2016.
PACs representing financial groups spent the most.
PACs representing all sectors have always spent more on Republicans than Democrats.
PACs representing financial groups and agricultural groups tend to favor Democrats, while PACs representing lawyers and lobbyists favor Republicans.
Question 2
(Q002) Approximately how much did PACs representing the transportation industry spend in 2016?
$120 million
$26 million
$9 million
$5 million
Question 3
(Q003) Which of the following industries’ PACs most heavily favored Republican candidates?
lawyers and lobbyists
agribusiness
defense
labor
Question 4
(Q004) Why do you think PACs have recently been more likely to donate to Republican candidates than to Democratic candidates?
As a student at UMGC, you have been asked to join a fictional committee that will partner with new students in various programs of study. You will work alongside UMGC students from other programs to coordinate a weekend event that includes a tour of the campus, an informal meeting with students who are interested in your program, and a lunch-and-learn session with a panel of experts from various fields.
During the meeting with students who may be interested in your field of study, one student mentions that a program requirement is statistics. That student asks you why statistics is needed in this program. Do research online and create a thoughtful reply to the student, including a list of at least 3 specific ways in which statistics is used in your field. Include references from the online sources. This serves as your initial post to the discussion and is due by 11:59 pm EST on Saturday.
Read the replies from the other members of the class and compare the role that statistics plays in various fields. Are you surprised by any of the ways that statistics can be used across disciplines? Did you see any commonalities? Make at least one substantive peer reply post by 11:59 pm EST on Tuesday.