I need the work below to be completely paraphrased. i need it to look completely different in the eyes of my professor. PLease make sure every sentence is changed. you can change the structure of each paragraph but the order has to be the same.
1. Napoleon III in France
a. France’s Second Republic
i. The reason behind Napoleon Bonaparte victory in the French presidential election of December 1848, were due to his family reputation, his character as a tough ruler (wanted by the middle and the working class, so as to protect them from the socialist challenge of urban workers), his positive program that would benefit France’s economy. The republic of France needed a strong and authoritarian national leader who would be linked to each citizen by direct democracy, his sovereignty uncorrupted by politicians and legislative bodies. The idea of national unity was well received among the people. Napoleon eventually dismissed the national assembly when he came to power and was named emperor.
b. Napoleon III’s Second Empire
i. Under the leadership of emperor Napoleon, France experienced economic success as new banks, railroads, and industries expansion. During these times, the employment rate as well as average wages also increases. To ensure the satisfaction of the working class, Napoleon granted unions, allowing workers to strike.
ii. As a leader, Napoleon built his political power by personally electing each and every political leader under his leadership, allowing them to exercise leadership freedom but does place a limitation.
iii. Napoleon leadership however soon diminished in the 1860’s as many of the middle class wanted a less authoritarian leader to rule France. Napoleon responded by loosening the restrictions imposed, giving the power to the assembly. Eventually, Napoleon granted France a new constitution, which combined a basically parliamentary regime with a hereditary emperor as chief of state.
2. Nation Building in Italy and Germany
a. Italy to 1850
i. The Italian unification process was widely known to have started in the period around 1850. Between 1815 and 1848, the purpose of a unified nation had attracted much attention from the public and was enunciated through 3 different methods.
ii. First, Idealistic patriot Giuseppe Mazzini spoke about a centralized democratic republic established upon the universal male legal rights and the will of the people, which may seem idealistic and too radical.
iii. Secondly, Vincenzo Gioberti, a catholic priest, demanded an alliance of existing states under the presidency of a progressive pope, which Pius IX had given cautious support originally (pontificate 1846–1878). After being temporarily driven from Rome during the 1848 upheavals, Pius opposed national unification and denounced rationalism, socialism, separation of church and state, and religious liberty in his Syllabus Of Errors (1864).
iv. Last but not least, some people went looking for leadership to the autocratic empire of Sardinia-Piedmont and its new sovereign, Victor Emmanuel. From the perspective of some middle classed Italians, Sardinia appeared to be a liberal, progressive state ideally suited to drive Austria out of the northern regions of Italy and lead a free Italy of Independent states.
b. Cavour and Garibaldi in Italy
i. Sardinia’s bright statesman Count Camillo Benso di Cavour had limited and realistic state objectives, pursuing unison only for the states of northern and perhaps central Italy. In 1850s, Cavour consolidated Sardinia as a liberal constitutional state capable of leading northern Italy, effectively structuring support for Sardinia through a program of transportation routes, civil liberties and opposition to clerical privilege. Cavour understood that Sardinia could not drive Austria out of Italy without an influential associate, so he operated for an undisclosed diplomatic alliance with Napoleon III against Austria. When Sardinia aggravated Austria into attacking it in 1859, Napoleon III came to Sardinia’s defense and defeated Austria.
ii. Napoleon then double-backed, abandoning Cavour and making a compromise peace with the Austrians at Villa France in July 1859 that required Austria to give up only Lombardy to Sardinia. Cavour resigned in anger, but his ideas were retrieved by the expert maneuvers of his associates in the moderate nationalist movement. By stimulating popular rebellions, pro-Sardinian nationalists in the small states of central Italy easily overthrew their ruling princes and called for union with Sardinia.
iii. Eventually, Cavour returned to power in early 1860, gained Napoleon III’s backing and accomplished his original goal of a northern Italian State when the people of central Italy voted to join the kingdom of Sardinia under Victor Emmanuel. For super-patriots such as Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807-1882), the job of unification was still incomplete. While using him and planning to get rid of him, Cavour secretly supported Garibaldi’s bold plan to “liberate” the kingdom of the Two Sicilies. In 1860, Garibaldi’s revolutionary band of a thousand Red Shirts seized the imagination of the Sicilian peasantry and outfoxed the twenty-thousand-man Sicilian royal army. Eventually, Garibaldi won the clashes, and thus increased volunteers, and took Palermo.
c. 0The Growing Austro-Prussian Rivalry
i. The outcome of 1848, tension raised between Austria and Prussia as each authority wanted to block the other within the German Confederation.
ii. By 1853, Austria was the sole German Confederation state that had not combined with the German customs union (Zollverein), which provided Prussia, with its primary role within the Zollverein, an advantage in its struggle against Austria’s supremacy in German political affairs. Prussia had arisen from the upheavals of 1848 with a parliament of sorts, and its liberal middle-class representatives wanted to establish once and for all that the parliament, not the king, had the ultimate political power.
iii. Prussia’s tough-minded William I (r. 1861–1888), convinced that great political change and war were quite possible, pushed to increase taxes and increase the defense budget in order to twofold the magnitude of the military. When the Prussian parliament disallowed the military budget in 1862, and the liberals prevailed convincingly in new elections, King William called on Count Otto von Bismarck to lead a fresh bureau and challenge the parliament.
d. Bismarck and the Austro-Prussian War
i. Otto Von Bismarck (1815-1898), a great protagonist to some and a great felon to others, was above all a master of politics who combined a strong personality and desire for power extraordinary flexibility and pragmatism. When he took office as chief minister in 1862, he made a solid but negative imprint by criticizing the middle-class opposition and announcing that the government would rule without parliamentary agreement. Condemned for his opinion that “might make right”, Bismarck restructured the military and had the Prussian bureaucracy go right on assembling taxes, even though the parliament rejects the budget. From 1862 to 1866, the voters of Prussia unrelentingly expressed their opposition by sending large liberal majorities to the parliament, which just stimulated the search for success abroad. In the extremely complicated question of Schleswig-Holstein, two provinces that belonged to Denmark but were followers of the German Confederation, Prussia joined Austria in a short and fruitful confrontation against Denmark.
e. The Taming of the Parliament.
i. Bismarck understood that the patriotism of the liberal middle class was not certainly unreceptive to conservative, authoritarian government, and thus throughout the confrontation on Austria in 1866, he progressively acknowledged Prussia’s fate with the “national development of Germany.” Bismarck then formed a federal constitution for the new North German Confederation in which each state preserved its own native government, but the Prussian king turn out to be president of the confederation. The chancellor—Bismarck—was responsible only to the president, and the federal government— William I and Bismarck—controlled the military and foreign affairs. With followers of the legislature’s lower house voted by universal, single-class male suffrage, Bismarck opened the door to popular participation and the likelihood of going over the head of the middle class directly to the people.
ii. After the constitutional struggle in Prussia had concluded and the German middle class had respectfully acknowledged the monarchical authority that Bismarck represented, the values of the aristocratic Prussian army officer gradually established the social standard.
f. The Franco-Prussian War
i. Bismarck also comprehended that a nationalistic war with France would drive the south German states into his arms. By 1870, the French leaders of the Second Empire, incited by Bismarck and startled by their powerful new neighbor on the Rhine, had decided on a war to punish Prussia.
ii. As soon as war against France break out in 1870, Bismarck had the full backing of the south German states, which by the end of the war agreed to unite as a new German Empire. Paris surrendered in January 1871, and France accepted Bismarck’s harsh peace terms: France was required to recompense a colossal indemnity of 5 billion francs and to surrender the rich eastern province of Alsace and part of Lorraine to Germany. The French people viewed the seizure of Alsace and Lorraine as an appalling delinquency, and associations between France and Germany were dreadfully bitter. The Franco-Prussian War was considered as a test of nations in a pitiless Darwinian struggle for survival, and it released a massive outpouring of faithful feeling towards the nation in Germany.
iii. Eventually, Prussia had developed into the most influential state in Europe in less than a decade, and most Germans were vastly proud, picturing themselves as best of the European types.
3. Nation Building in the United States
i. Around 1850, the mechanizing, developing Northern U.S. states were constructing a system of canals and railroads and drawing the majority of European migrants to the United States. Though ¾ of all Southern white folks were minor agriculturalists and possessed no slaves in 1850, profit-minded farm landlords holding twenty or more slaves dictated the Southern economy and society and expanded their cotton territory across the Deep South. The sizable incomes generated from cotton led influential Southerners to defend slavery, while Northern whites viewed their free-labor structure as economically and morally superior to slavery.
ii. The aftermath of the war ignited a new American nationalism and established for many in the United States that its “manifest destiny” was indeed to unite a continent as a great world power.
4. The Modernization of Russia and the Ottoman Empire.
a. The “Great Reforms” in Russia
i. Both the Russian and the Ottoman empires were already massive multinational states constructed on extensive ethnicities of military conquest and absolutist rule by elites from the prevailing cultural groups. The disadvantages of relentless supremacy politics led the heads of both empires to realize that they had to comprise the practice of modernization in order to contest efficiently with the prominent nations.
ii. In the 1850s, Russia was a poor agrarian society with a fast increasing populace and inadequately developed industry. Serfdom, in which the peasant serf was bound to the lord on a hereditary basis and was slight more than a slave in reality, had become the great moral and political issue for the government by the 1840s. France and Great Britain imposed a shameful loss on Russia in the Crimean War (1853– 1856), exhibiting how far Russia had plummeted way below the swiftly industrializing states of Western Europe. Clearly, Russia needed railroads, better armaments, and restructuring of the military to preserve its international place, as well as reform of serfdom to evade huge country-dweller revolt.
iii. These issues forced Tsar Alexander II (r. 1855–1881) and his ministers along the path of steadfast social revolution and general modernization. The first reform freed the serfs in 1861, however due to shared ownership of the land made it very difficult for individual peasants to improve agricultural methods or leave their villages, the old patterns of behavior predominated and the effects of reform were limited. Most reforms were halfway measures; for example, the new institution of native government, the zemstvo, had locally voted members that dealt with local problems, but each zemstvo remained secondary to the traditional government and the local nobility. The reform of the legal structure, which established independent courts and equality before the law turned out to be more successful.
iv. After 1860, the government fortified and supported private railway companies, which enabled agricultural Russia to export grain and improved the economic modernization of Russia. Strengthened by industrial development, Russia’s military forces began seizing territory to the south and east. The assassination of Alexander II in 1881 by a small group of anarchist terrorists ended the era of reform and ushered in a new tsar, Alexander III (r. 1881–1894), who was a strong-minded reactionary. Led by Sergei Witte, the minister of finance from 1892 to 1903, Russia’s economic modernization sped forward in a massive industrialization surge from 1890 to 1900. Witte doubled the miles of the railroad network, established high protective tariffs, secured a place for the country on the international gold standard, and encouraged foreigners to build factories in Russia. In eastern Ukraine, foreign capitalists and their engineers constructed a massive, modern steel and coal industry.
b. The Russian Revolution of 1905
i. Strikes, peasant uprisings, revolt among minority nationalities, and troop mutinies throughout the summer concluded in October 1905 in a great paralyzing general strike that forced the government to yield. The tsar released the October Manifesto, which approved full civil rights and assured a popularly voted Duma (parliament) with real legislative power. The day before the opening of the first Duma in May 1906, the government issued the new constitution, the Fundamental Laws, in which the tsar held great authorities, including an absolute veto over any laws passed by the Duma. The newly elected Duma saw the Fundamental Laws as a deteriorating phase, which led to a failure in efforts to collaborate with the tsar’s ministers, and after months of stalemate, the tsar terminated the Duma. New elections guaranteed a majority in the Duma that was loyal to the tsar, and Alexander’s chief minister then pushed through important agrarian restructurings intended to break down communal village possession of land.
c. Decline and Reform in the Ottoman Empire
i. The Ottoman Empire, which had progressed to its high point under Suleiman in the sixteenth century, was falling rapidly behind eighteenth-century Europe in science, industrial skill, and in 1816 the Ottomans were required to bequest Serbia local autonomy, and in 1830 the Greeks attained their national independence. The rise of Muhammad Ali, the Ottoman governor in Egypt, whose forces conquered Syria and then Iraq and appeared ready to overthrow the Ottoman sultan Mahmud II (r. 1808–1839), was another threat to the empire that came from within. Because of the European powers, preferring a weak and dependent Ottoman state rather than a strong one with a dynamic leader, forced Muhammad Ali to withdraw, thus the sultan survived. In 1839 liberal Ottoman statesmen launched a series of radical reforms, known as the Tanzimat (literally, regulations or orders), that were meant to remodel the nation on a western European model.
|Due By (Pacific Time)||05/30/2013 04:00 am|
out of 1971 reviews
out of 766 reviews
out of 1164 reviews
out of 721 reviews
out of 1600 reviews
out of 770 reviews
out of 766 reviews
out of 680 reviews