The Government of The Roman Empire

The Government of The Roman Empire Free Online Research Papers The Romans did not have a complex vision of government. Their philosophy and implementation of rule was quite simple. They believed that government should cover two broad categories of control: settling disputes between communities or individuals, and assembling men, goods, or money – jurisdiction and exaction. This philosophy would allow for the little bureaucratic involvement by the empire in the daily affairs of Romans and that of Rome’s conquered peoples. The Romans ruled conquered nations by the Polis, the same standards that they ruled themselves by. Aristotle claimed that the best model for the Polis was the very nature of a good friendship. The Polis precedes the individual; that it is the family, the original polis, and the social group from which our natures as individuals, as mother, father, friend, teacher, arise. He claimed that virtue is the middle ground between excesses, a balance point. What must be practiced in order to be virtuous is anger at the right objects: anger at injustice, for instance, is proper. Rage is not virtuous because it is excessive and uncontrolled. Courage is virtue at the balance point between heedlessness and cowardice, which are both excessive forms of the same thing. The developed Polis depends on friendly relations among members, and lasting friendly relations depend on virtue. The Roman Empire recognized three distinct forms of rule and order: magistrate, a roman government official; soldier, highly respected for their rigorous training, long amounts of marching, fighting in precise formations, and ability to kill their opponent; master of the household, the head male figure of the household. All activity in the empire can be linked with one of these roles. This again relates to the natural order that the Polis teaches both in political and philosophical practice. Rome has also been accused of bureaucracy on the grounds that they took excellent written records of events as they occurred. From taking the minutes of a court hearing or government meetings to the accumulation of archives Romans understood the importance of keeping accurate records. However, virtuosity in the public service should not be confused with professionalism. Research Papers on The Government of The Roman EmpireBringing Democracy to AfricaComparison: Letter from Birmingham and CritoQuebec and CanadaPETSTEL analysis of IndiaAssess the importance of Nationalism 1815-1850 EuropeCanaanite Influence on the Early Israelite ReligionRelationship between Media Coverage and Social andStandardized TestingIncorporating Risk and Uncertainty Factor in CapitalCapital Punishment

Overview of Teddy Roosevelts Bull Moose Party Beliefs

Overview of Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party Beliefs The Bull Moose Party was the unofficial name of President Teddy Roosevelts Progressive Party of 1912. The nickname is said to have arisen from a quote by Theodore Roosevelt. When asked whether he was fit to be president, he responded that he was as fit as a bull moose. Origin of the Bull Moose Party Theodore Roosevelts term as president of the United States ran from 1901 to 1909. Roosevelt was originally elected vice president on the same ticket as  William McKinley in 1900, but in September of 1901, McKinley was assassinated and Roosevelt finished out McKinleys term. He then ran and won the presidency in 1904. By 1908, Roosevelt had decided not to run again, and he urged his personal friend and ally William Howard Taft to run in his place. Taft was chosen and then won the presidency for the Republican Party. Roosevelt became unhappy with Taft, primarily because he wasnt following what Roosevelt considered progressive policies. In 1912, Roosevelt put his name forward to become the Republican Partys nominee again, but the Taft machine pressured Roosevelts supporters to vote for Taft or lose their jobs, and the party chose to stick with Taft. This angered Roosevelt who walked out of the convention and then formed his own party, the Progressive Party, in protest. Hiram Johnson of California was chosen as his running mate. The Platform of the Bull Moose Party The Progressive Party was built on the strength of Roosevelts ideas. Roosevelt portrayed himself as an advocate for the average citizen, whom he said should play a larger role in government. His running mate Johnson was a progressive governor of his state, who had a record of successfully implementing social reforms. True to Roosevelts progressive beliefs, the platform of the party called for major reforms including womens suffrage, social welfare assistance for women and children, farm relief, revisions in banking, health insurance in industries, and workers compensation. The party also wanted an easier method to amend the constitution. Many prominent social reformers were drawn to the Progressives, including Jane Addams of Hull House, Survey magazine editor Paul Kellogg, Florence Kelley of Henry Street Settlement, Owen Lovejoy of the National Child Labor Committee, and Margaret Dreier Robins of the National Womens Trade Union. Election of 1912 In 1912, voters chose between Taft, Roosevelt, and  Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic candidate. Roosevelt shared many of the progressive policies of Wilson, yet his core support came from ex-Republicans who defected from the party. Taft was defeated, getting 3.5 million votes compared to Roosevelts 4.1 million. Together Taft and Roosevelt earned a combined 50% of the popular vote to Wilsons 43%. The two former allies split the vote, however, opening the door for Wilsons victory. Midterm Elections of 1914 While the Bull Moose Party lost at the national level in 1912, they were energized by the force of their support. Continuing to be bolstered by Roosevelts Rough Rider persona, the party named candidates on the ballot at several state and local elections. They were convinced that the Republican party would be swept away, leaving U.S. politics to the Progressives and Democrats. However, after the 1912 campaign, Roosevelt went on a geographic and natural history expedition to the Amazon River in Brazil. The expedition, which began in 1913, was a disaster and Roosevelt returned in 1914, sick, lethargic, and frail. Even though he publicly renewed his pledge to fight for his Progressive party to the end, he was no longer a robust figure. Without the energetic support of Roosevelt, the 1914  election results were disappointing for the Bull Moose Party as many voters returned to the Republican Party.   End of the Bull Moose Party By 1916, the Bull Moose Party had changed: A prominent leader, Perkins, was convinced that the best route was to unite with Republicans against the Democrats. While the Republicans were interested in uniting with the Progressives, they were not interested in Roosevelt. In any case, Roosevelt refused the nomination after the Bull Moose party chose him to be its standard-bearer in the presidential election. The party tried next to give the nomination to Charles Evan Hughes, a sitting justice on the Supreme Court. Hughes also refused. The Progressives held their last executive committee meeting in New York on May 24, 1916, two weeks before the Republican National Convention. But they were unable to come up with a reasonable alternative to Roosevelt. Without its Bull Moose leading the way, the party dissolved shortly thereafter. Roosevelt himself died of stomach cancer in 1919. Sources Dalton, Kathleen. Finding Theodore Roosevelt: A Personal and Political Story. The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, vol. 6, no. 4, 2007, pp. 363–83.Davis, Allen F. The Social Workers and the Progressive Party, 1912–1916. The American Historical Review, vol. 69, no. 3, 1964, pp. 671–88.Green, G. N. Republicans, Bull Moose, and Negroes in Florida, 1912. The Florida Historical Quarterly, vol. 43 no. 2, 1964, pp. 153–64.Ickes, Harold L. Who Killed the Progressive Party? The American Historical Review, vol. 46, no. 2, 1941, pp. 306–37.Pavord, Andrew C. The Gamble for Power: Theodore Roosevelts Decision to Run for the Presidency in 1912. Presidential Studies Quarterly, vol. 26, no. 3, 1996, pp. 633–47.