Oliver Cromwell Essay -- Biography

A strong man, with skillful military ability, helped to construct a plan to overthrow King Charles I during his reign of tyranny (Iggulden, Conn and Iggulden 79). Oliver Cromwell was well-known as one of the most controversial heroes of his time. Cromwell played a big part in the military as a soldier and a general. He was also a part of the English Parliament, which was somewhat corrupt during this time period. Oliver Cromwell was born April 25, 1599, in Huntingdon, England; near the end of the Elizabethan age (Kaplan 5). Cromwell was the son of the wealthy Robert Cromwell and Elizabeth Steward. Oliver was vaguely related to Thomas Cromwell; Henry VIII's minister. His early years were ordinary; he went to Huntingdon Grammar School, and went on to complete his education at Sidney Sussex College (â€Å"Oliver Cromwell†). In the year of 1616 Cromwell attended Sidney Sussex College, where he earned a reputation for his commitment to Puritanism. There he was noted for his enthusiasm for sports and games rather than for his academic abilities. Cromwell's university career was cut short when his father died June 1617 and he returned home to manage his family estate and to look after his widowed mother and seven unmarried sisters (â€Å"Oliver Cromwell†). So during those years he lived in London; where he began drinking and wrenching. Through those years his behavior was very much frowned upon in his society (â€Å"Cromwell: Profiles in Power†). On August 22, 1620, at the age of twenty-one he married Elizabeth Bourchier, the daughter of Sir James Bourchier, a wealthy leather merchant. Oliver and his wife had a total of nine children, only eight of them survived infancy. Robert was the oldest child who was born October 1621, died aged 17 ... ...s power to Cromwell. This is ironic because Cromwell and the Parliament were fighting for equal power. The Parliament easily gave away their power without any disagreements. He had more power than King Charles would have ever hoped to have. Cromwell used the Parliament to his advantage; he influenced Parliament into funding just about everything he wanted to do. During that time Parliament helped to fund English wars and stop royalist rebellions (â€Å"Oliver Cromwell†). Cromwell was an excellent military general but not such a great leader. Oliver Cromwell died September 3, 1658 from malaria (Iggulden, Conn and Iggulden 120). His successor was his fifth son Richard but, his reign did not last long. In 1660 Monarchy returned to England and Charles II the son of Charles I became king. Cromwell’s body was embalmed and was secretly held in Westminster Abbey. Oliver Cromwell Essay -- Biography A strong man, with skillful military ability, helped to construct a plan to overthrow King Charles I during his reign of tyranny (Iggulden, Conn and Iggulden 79). Oliver Cromwell was well-known as one of the most controversial heroes of his time. Cromwell played a big part in the military as a soldier and a general. He was also a part of the English Parliament, which was somewhat corrupt during this time period. Oliver Cromwell was born April 25, 1599, in Huntingdon, England; near the end of the Elizabethan age (Kaplan 5). Cromwell was the son of the wealthy Robert Cromwell and Elizabeth Steward. Oliver was vaguely related to Thomas Cromwell; Henry VIII's minister. His early years were ordinary; he went to Huntingdon Grammar School, and went on to complete his education at Sidney Sussex College (â€Å"Oliver Cromwell†). In the year of 1616 Cromwell attended Sidney Sussex College, where he earned a reputation for his commitment to Puritanism. There he was noted for his enthusiasm for sports and games rather than for his academic abilities. Cromwell's university career was cut short when his father died June 1617 and he returned home to manage his family estate and to look after his widowed mother and seven unmarried sisters (â€Å"Oliver Cromwell†). So during those years he lived in London; where he began drinking and wrenching. Through those years his behavior was very much frowned upon in his society (â€Å"Cromwell: Profiles in Power†). On August 22, 1620, at the age of twenty-one he married Elizabeth Bourchier, the daughter of Sir James Bourchier, a wealthy leather merchant. Oliver and his wife had a total of nine children, only eight of them survived infancy. Robert was the oldest child who was born October 1621, died aged 17 ... ...s power to Cromwell. This is ironic because Cromwell and the Parliament were fighting for equal power. The Parliament easily gave away their power without any disagreements. He had more power than King Charles would have ever hoped to have. Cromwell used the Parliament to his advantage; he influenced Parliament into funding just about everything he wanted to do. During that time Parliament helped to fund English wars and stop royalist rebellions (â€Å"Oliver Cromwell†). Cromwell was an excellent military general but not such a great leader. Oliver Cromwell died September 3, 1658 from malaria (Iggulden, Conn and Iggulden 120). His successor was his fifth son Richard but, his reign did not last long. In 1660 Monarchy returned to England and Charles II the son of Charles I became king. Cromwell’s body was embalmed and was secretly held in Westminster Abbey.

Topic civil war

This is to analyze American Civil War based on James McPherson’s For Cause and Comrades and Sam Watkins Company Aytch, by knowing what were the most important factors that led men to join and stay with the armies. This paper will also consider the ways in which those reasons differed between North and South, and discuss why the resolve to fight largely collapsed in the Confederacy by 1865, while it continued to endure in the North. 2. Analysis and Discussion 2. 1 In general, soldier fought for cause and comrades When people go to war they do not do it for nothing.Normally nobody wants to go to war hence going to war must have their good reasons for violating their peace. It must be for reason for cause with the belief that reason of because if more important than allowing the other person of party to continue what he or she must be doing. Tolerance is therefore no longer an option hence resolution by bringing to war is the only best option to resolve the situation. What McPher son tried to paint from his work entitled For Cause and Comrades about the reason that men and women may have in going to war. The very title is speaking for reasons in getting to war.In his work, James McPherson asks that question of the combatants on both sides of the American Civil War. With his subtitle asking the familiar question: â€Å"Why did men fight in the American Civil War? † , one could readily agree that author purposely finds real reason why people go the war. The thesis therefore of this his book is that men and women go to war for cause and for comrade. Allowing the more important word to absorb the less significant one would have reduce the title into War for Cause since doing for comrades is for cause as well.He must have therefore his own reasons for choosing the title and there might be a need for special emphasis for comrades. Hence, McPherson must have been arguing that the main title states the two most important reasons: a cause moved each of them to enlist, but cohesiveness among comrades sustained them to the end. The author reported to have turned the pages of the diaries and letters of 647 Union and 429 Confederate soldiers, and he followed a simple method by categorizing the reasons and inserting four quotations from letters or diaries for each category.It may be noted that about each soldier, McPherson provided basic information: whether the soldier fought for the Union or the Confederacy, and when and to whom he wrote. His comments on each set of quotations are thin. His typical entry, early in the first chapter: quoted â€Å"I am sick of war,† as written by a Confederate officer to his wife in 1863, and of the severance from the dearest objects of life–his family. 2. 3 Resulting answers based McPherson's researchMcPherson's work was able to extract fourteen key answers as reasons for going to war and these include martial enthusiasm, comradeship, character, and discipline and leadership religion. Other rea sons include defense of homeland and preservation of the union. While further reasons include: liberty, slavery, vengeance, duty, glory, and honor. McPherson found both rebels and Yankees to have given similar reasons, except, as expected , on the subject of slavery.In doing his topical index, McPherson inserted other attitudes, motives, and types of experiences the soldiers recorded as the same soldiers followed their reasons for fighting which may be adventure, , desertion, cowardice, the draft, skulking, coercion, desertion. The other reasons for fighting include pursuit of promotion, combat stress, rage, poor morale and homesickness. Using some principles from the work of John A. Lynn, McPherson was steered by three categories of motivation: First is initial motivation, followed by sustaining motivation and finally combat motivation.It was found out the group cohesion and peer pressure were indeed powerful factors in combat motivation and were also connected to the multifaceted mixture of concepts of duty, honor, patriotism , ideology, community of peer pressure and manhood that prompted these soldiers enlist in the army, first place. McPherson then argued for a more relevant relationship among these three categories for Civil War soldiers compared with others’ work major appeal of this book is the purely interesting, sometimes awesome, but always brief stories the soldiers tell to express their reasons for fighting.2. 4 Is there basis to take Soldiers’ Writings at Face Value? McPherson had asked questions whose answers appear from the dairies and letters of soldiers he reviewed . He is therefore, inclined to take what they say at face value. From an objective historian’s point of view, it may be asked whether there is basis to take the writings at their face value. By making his title: For Cause of Comrades, McPherson appeared to have taken upon himself that what he got from the diaries and letter is really what the authors to communi cate.As a general rule a diary is something personal where if the issue is truthfulness of its contents, this researcher therefore would like to give credence the validity of those events happening with the official function of the knowledge as made known to the faculties. Although McPherson's findings represented to have the many letters, he was just trying to extract the motives from those statements. It may be argued that people react differently to situations and reactions to situations could be numerous or the context from which statements were made do really vary hence they could be capable of different meanings.Psychology is different field from law. Although in both field, motives may be used to predict behavior, the predicted behavior may really vary from the actual result. Trying to infer what was the motive by reading statements would have the characteristics of being speculative. If speculation could be away of learning for something that will come then by all means it s hould used not sparingly since the cost could be higher if futures are not studied well in the content of agreement. Motives as used by McPherson has catalogued are not the same as actual events as proved evidence.Realities cannot be equated with simple extraction from testimonies found in letters or diaries. The same argument may hold even by a quantitative statistical analysis of all the letters ever written, combined with sociological, cultural, linguistic, and psychological, principles. It may therefore be safely deduced that motives standing by themselves and by their very nature, possess few of the necessary attributes of fact. One could accept the at the most what could be done in the diaries and letters is just the option of speculation. Fortunately but speculation as sometime done have become useful sometimes.One could therefore speculate on the motive for fighting based on reading the from the testimony of soldiers on their motives for fighting, in terms of the level of co nsciousness motive as they say their own piece of their own stories. In psychology many thing is possible as it could be possible that while at certain time, the writer's conscious motive is to reassure, it is also possible that his unconscious motive is self-delusion. If the soldier asks his own self why he needs to the joining the draft, and thereby answered is religion, then such is a prerogative of any person.Taking the words of soldiers at their face value must be given credence given this may even be sustained in the court of law. In law the express meanings of the word are given preference over the implied meaning. The probability therefore that contents of the diaries are true is more than not has a good chance of being upheld. 2. 5 Questions based on Answers McPherson's latest study on the motives of soldiers from their letters and diaries may be considered as an achievement itself as for further exploration and speculation.Having perhaps taken a necessary first step, while none of the reasons he gives are new, he has assembled together many colorful testimonials of soldier who have the chance to be part of the actual war. He just set to do the laying out of they soldier's own stated reason and he must be given credit for thoroughly doing in good order, and in a readable style. But to consider his approach, as if it has accomplished everything or in a context where he has already provided almost the final answers would be too simplistic.To substitute what could otherwise be an inherently complex dynamic issue where other researcher’s may take several steps further a powerful lead to further research. Some of the questions that could be asked form his work include: Is the person talking or writing a ranking or non-ranking soldier. Is the same soldier from the South or from the North. His work may not be fully compared with the work of Sam Watkins who was part of the Confederates. Having a person interpreting what other people are saying is diffe rent form having the person who actually did it to say.To the appreciate the concept, having a person to testify in court will carry more wait than a mere affidavit of a deposition taken from that person. Sam Watkins may therefore have the chance to write the most famous and most complex memoirs in â€Å"Co. Aytch† as one who was there could actually explain it more fully. The other question that could be asked included the place where the soldier is at the time he writes. This could be Winter quarters, his home, a hospital or a even prison or on a ship. Another angle is the reason for writing which is the immediate reason. Does the writer write to reassure?to reproach? to brag and to justify? Having perhaps answered to these question would make separate research that would further really explain that is causing people to go to war. The fact that one writes in a letter, a diary, or a memoir where each is different from the other. To have a deeper truth is to ask the author to whom does he write? This will normally taking to a mother, a grandmother, a father, a grandfather, a brother, a sister, a uncle, a aunt, a cousin. The following individuals people such a friend, a sweetheart, a politician, a teacher, a wife, a little child, or even fellow soldier.What is logical is a different rhetoric is aimed at each person in this array of types. It is therefore logical to a writer to anticipate the response of his audience. If the audience is one of a variety of people or oneself, a relevant question is would include trying to persuade with such rhetoric, oneself or the other person, or both. Answers to these many questions would provide a complex setting for answers to the question McPherson poses. He doesn't pose these related questions; he does not, therefore, attempt to answer them.He has acquitted himself well of an historian's task: to state a subject that deserves research, uncover what's in the record, and then give a report of the matter. But one shoul d not expect an historian to deal with questions that can be answered most effectively by experts in other disciplines. Most questions about the Civil War are simplistically posed and simplistically answered, because each question is asked is isolation of all or most others, and asked from the perspective of a single discipline. The Civil War in most of its aspects defies single-perspective explanations.Answers to McPherson's question are most useful after the most perspectives have been brought to bear. This is a task of interdisciplinary study: psychology, linguistic anthropology, statistical analysis, cultural geography, religion, political science, social science, literary criticism, military science, etc. No one discipline serves well enough. Such is the art of making further studies in the work of others . The relevancy of questions posed will have now to consider the possibilities for multidisciplinary approaches to address such complex questions.The McPherson's book appendix es points the way to the larger, more complex job to be done. There is indeed the need for more direct interpretation of McPherson's quotations in light of such information is needed. The presence of geographical distribution of white Confederate and of white Union soldiers and their occupations, a provide a mutual misunderstanding. It could thus be asserted the Civil War, was a class war–a rich man's war, but a poor man's fight. What come s next is the unanswerable question that remained? What were the reasons of the poor and illiterate, the white, the black and the foreign born to fight in going to War.3 Conclusions The most important factors that led men to join and stay with armies vary but according to McPherson’s For Cause and Comrades, basically there must be a cause that is defined with the individual level. Fighting for comrades is a cause itself but other soldiers have expressed these reasons in other ways which McPherson was able to extract and categorized f rom the letters and diaries and soldiers involved in the war. McPherson has provided readers with the means to start on asking major questions whose answer may be applied to later years such as the reconstruction era.The same answers may also illuminate one’s understanding of the evolution of the American character from 1865 to the current chapter in our history. The answers may be used also to deal with the legacy of violence, racism, distrust of government, and economic instability, in understanding the lives that Americans have in understanding others who are enduring or surviving the crucible of Civil War around the globe. Understanding the why men and women of past fight may help the Americans to deal with those wars from within and from without more effectively.Knowledge of inner reasons is good starting point of really doing a research that points the wisdom of learning from experience. The value if learning is therefore not to commit the same mistake. The book of Watk inson the other hand was written by a Confederate private who served in the Army of Tennessee for nearly the entirety of the Civil War. Having been extracted from diaries of the author during the war, it carries more credence than that of McPherson since this memoir of civil war experiences from a private's perspective is priceless in terms of primary source material.Watkins was found to be frank and impenitent, thus his book is possessed of a quality that gives the historian with unique material in terms of dealing with the sentiments that the non-elite confederates often held. Watkins’s frankness is almost certainly the most important feature of this work. His hatred of Yankees and the same level as his hatred of some of the Confederate command proposes an individual who most likely defies current simple philosophy of Yankee/Rebel mentality. Watkins is often amusing, especially when reflecting upon feelings that we would now understand as being imbedded in â€Å"class stru ggle†.Of course, Watkins’s frankness extends to his views of blacks and slaves, illuminating an individual who was both racist and yet not in the generally held conventional manner. This paper also considered the ways in which those reasons differed between North and South, and is making a resolution why the resolve to fight largely collapsed in the Confederacy by 1865, while it continued to endure in the North. The earlier collapse in the Confederacy by 1965 may be explained by the fact that the Conferacy often used slaves as naval crewmembers and soldiers, the African American soldiers were paid less than white soldiers.And the African American soldiers were discriminated against and served in segregated units under the command of white officers. It may be given emphasis that the knowledge of knowing the motivation of soldiers would be a good way to prevent a destruction of life that must come out of the war. It is said that not any one really win in war in perfect ma nner for whoever goes of war faces the risk of possible loss of life. Work Cited: McPherson , For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War (Paperback) Oxford University Press, USA, Aug 28, 1998 Watkins, and Inge, Company Aytch, Plume; Subsequent edition (November 1, 1999)

Mexican Involvement in World War II

During World War II, Mexico played a significant role in the Allied effort. Everyone knows the World War II Allied Powers: the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Canada, New Zealand...and Mexico? Thats right, Mexico. In May 1942, the United States of Mexico declared war on the Axis alliance. They even saw some combat: a Mexican fighter squad fought valiantly in the South Pacific in 1945. But their importance to the Allied effort was much greater than a handful of pilots and airplanes. Significant Contributions It is unfortunate that Mexico’s significant contributions are often overlooked. Even before their official declaration of war—and despite the presence of important German interests in the country in the form of iron, hardware, chemicals, and pharmaceutical companies—Mexico closed its ports to  German ships  and submarines. Had they not, the effect on U.S. shipping might have been disastrous. Mexico’s industrial and mineral production was an important part of the U.S. effort, and the economic importance of the thousands of farmworkers manning the fields while the American men were away cannot be overstated. Also, let us not forget that while Mexico officially only saw a bit of aerial combat, thousands of Mexican  servicemen did fight, bleed, and die for the Allied cause, all the while wearing a uniform of the United States. Mexico in the 1930s In the 1930s, Mexico was a devastated land. The Mexican Revolution (1910–1920) had claimed hundreds of thousands of lives; as many more were displaced or saw their homes and cities destroyed. The Revolution was followed by the Cristero War (1926–1929), a series of violent uprisings against the new government. Just as the dust was beginning to settle, the Great Depression started and the Mexican economy suffered badly. Politically, the nation was unstable as Alvaro Obregà ³n, last of the great revolutionary warlords, continued to rule directly or indirectly until 1928. Life in Mexico did not start to improve until 1934 when the honest reformer Là ¡zaro Cà ¡rdenas del Rio took power. He cleaned up as much of the corruption as he could and made great strides toward re-establishing Mexico as a stable, productive nation. He kept Mexico decidedly neutral in the brewing conflict in Europe, even though agents from Germany and the United States continued to try to gain Mexican support. Cà ¡rdenas nationalized Mexicos vast oil reserves and the property of foreign oil companies over the protests of the United States, but the U.S., seeing war on the horizon, was forced to accept it. The Opinions of Many Mexicans As the clouds of war darkened, many Mexicans wanted to join on one side or the other. Mexicos loud communist community first supported Germany while Germany and Russia had a pact, then supported the Allied cause once the Germans invaded Russia in 1941. There was a sizable community of Italian immigrants who supported entry in the war as an Axis power as well. Other Mexicans, disdainful of fascism, supported joining the Allied cause. The attitude of many Mexicans was colored by historical grievances with the U.S.: the loss of Texas and the American west, intervention during the revolution, and repeated incursions into Mexican territory caused a lot of resentment. Some Mexicans felt that the United States was not to be trusted. These Mexicans did not know what to think: some felt that they should join the Axis cause against their old antagonist, while others did not want to give the Americans an excuse to invade again and counseled strict neutrality. Manuel à vila Camacho and Support for the U.S. In 1940, Mexico elected conservative PRI (Revolutionary Party) candidate Manuel à vila Camacho. From the start of his term, à vila decided to stick with the United States. While at first many of his fellow Mexicans disapproved of his support for their traditional foe to the north and railed against à vila, when Germany invaded Russia, many Mexican communists began supporting their president. When Pearl Harbor was attacked in December 1941, Mexico was one of the first countries to pledge support and aid and it severed all diplomatic ties with the Axis powers. At a conference in Rio de Janeiro of Latin American foreign ministers in January 1942, the Mexican delegation convinced many other countries to follow suit and break ties with the Axis powers. Mexico saw immediate rewards for its support. U.S. capital flowed into Mexico, building factories for wartime needs. The U.S. purchased Mexican oil and sent technicians to quickly build up Mexican mining operations for much-needed metals like mercury, zinc, copper and more. The Mexican armed forces were built up with U.S. weapons and training. Loans were made to stabilize and boost industry and security. Benefits up North This invigorated partnership also paid great dividends for the United States of America. For the first time, an official, organized program for migrant farmworkers was developed and thousands of Mexican â€Å"braceros† (literally, â€Å"arms†) flowed north to harvest crops. Mexico produced important wartime goods such as textiles and construction materials. In addition, thousands of Mexicans—some estimates reach as high as a half-million—joined the U.S. armed forces and fought valiantly in Europe and the Pacific. Many were second or third generation and had grown up in the U.S., while others had been born in Mexico. Citizenship was automatically granted to veterans, and  thousands settled in their new homes after the war. Mexico Goes to War Mexico had been cool to Germany since the start of the war and hostile after Pearl Harbor. After German submarines began attacking Mexican merchant ships and oil tankers, Mexico formally declared war on the Axis powers in May 1942. The Mexican navy began actively engaging German vessels and Axis spies in the country were rounded up and arrested. Mexico began to plan to actively join in combat. Eventually, only the Mexican Air Force would see combat. Their pilots trained in the United States and by 1945 they were ready to fight in the Pacific. It was the first time that Mexican armed forces were deliberately prepared for overseas combat. The 201st Air Fighter Squadron, nicknamed the â€Å"Aztec Eagles,† was attached to the 58th fighter group of the United States Air Force and sent to the  Philippines  in March of 1945. The Squadron consisted of 300 men, 30 of whom were pilots for the 25 P-47 aircraft that comprised the unit. The squad saw a fair amount of action in the waning months of the war, mostly flying ground support for infantry operations. By all accounts, they fought bravely and flew skillfully, seamlessly integrating with the 58th. They only lost one pilot and aircraft in combat. Negative Effects in Mexico World War II was not a time of unmitigated goodwill and progress for Mexico. The economic boom was mostly enjoyed by the rich and the gap between the rich and the poor widened to levels unseen since the reign of  Porfirio Dà ­az. Inflation raged out of control, and lesser officials and functionaries of Mexico’s immense bureaucracy,  left out of the economic benefits of the wartime boom, increasingly turned to accepting petty bribes (â€Å"la  mordida,† or â€Å"the bite†) to fulfill their functions. Corruption was rampant at higher levels, too, as wartime contracts and the flow of U.S. dollars created irresistible opportunities for dishonest industrialists and politicians to overcharge for projects or skim from budgets. This new alliance had its doubters on both sides of the borders. Many Americans complained of the high costs of modernizing their neighbor to the south, and some populist Mexican politicians railed against the U.S. intervention—this time economic, not military. Legacy All in all, Mexico’s support of the United States and timely entry into the war would prove highly beneficial. Transportation, industry, agriculture, and the military all took great leaps forward. The economic boom also helped indirectly improve other services such as education and health care. Most of all, the war created and strengthened ties with the U.S. that have lasted to this day. Before the war, relations between the U.S. and Mexico were marked by wars, invasions, conflict, and intervention. For the first time, the two countries worked together against a common enemy and immediately saw the vast benefits of cooperation. Although relations between the North American neighbors have undergone some rough patches since the war, they have never again sunk to the disdain and hatred of the 19th century. Sources Herring, Hubert.  A History of Latin America From the Beginnings to the Present.  New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962.Mathes, Michael. The Two Californias During World War II. California Historical Society Quarterly 44.4 (1965): 323-31.Niblo, Stephen R. Allied Policy toward Axis Interests in Mexico During World War II. Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 17.2 (2001): 351–73.Paz Salinas, Marà ­a Emilia. Strategy, Security, and Spies: Mexico and the U.S. as Allies in World War II. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997