One of the six revolutions
that I have studied independently is the Glorious Revolution. The Glorious
Revolution took place in England during 1688 to 1689. James II and the Catholic
church were in control of the land.
The old regime was James II, along with
the Catholic church. James II, the second surviving son of Charles I, became
king of England in 1685. James crushed two revolts upon his newly found land.
One, controlled by his nephew, James Scott, duke of Monmouth, and the other
controlled by Archibald Campbell, ninth earl of Argyll. The people were not
happy with his performance handling these revolts. James had also ended religious
restrictions in 1687, which caused an increase religious tension. On June
10, 1688, William of Orange, later to become William III, was asked to take
the throne of England, there by starting the beginning of the revolution.
So, now Parliament and William of Orange and his wife Mary and the Catholic
church help all the power in England, being the moderates of the revolution.
Seeing, as how there were no radicals, there could be no accession of them,
nor could there be a reign of terror. Convalescence was reached when Mary
and William signed the Declaration of Power. Also, there
was now a ruler
According to Crane Brintonís "Course That Revolutions Seem To Take",
there is only one situation that occurred in the Glorious Revolution. Revolutionaries
gain power and seem united. This was shown by how William and Mary and Parliament
and the Catholic Church all joined up together to rule over England successfully.
None of the other 9 happened during this revolution.
I donít believe that
the Glorious Revolution was a revolution at all. First off, the only two things
that the people didnít like were that there was a lot of religious tension
and that they thought James was a bad ruler because he was trying to protect
the country. I surely hope that Bill Clinton would try to protect us from
any outside enemies that tried to take over The United States. I wouldnít
care how he did it, just as long as the American people were safe. Second,
There was only one part from "The Course That Revolutions Seem To Take". I
feel that if this was truly to be a revolution, there would have to be more
than just one. I might be able to see how it was a revolution if there were
more than four sections, or maybe even a very powerful two, but not just one

Category: History