Industrial Revolution Free Response

Explain how the Industrial Revolution influenced the rise of conservative and liberal philosophies and explain how those philosophies competed with or related to nationalism in Greece and Germany.


Thesis: The creation of unions in reaction to the horrific treatment of workers and the lack of restrictions on businesses helped boost nationalism across Europe.


I. Introduction
II. Working Conditions
III. Regulations
IV. Nationalism and the working class
V. Conclusion


The Industrial Revolution was a time of prosperity for Europe, but it was also a time of abuse.  While products were being turned out rapidly and businesses were profiting, people working in the factories were not as lucky.  They were forced to work long hours for barely any compensation.  If they complained, they could be easily fired and replaced.  There was no competition in the market, because factory owners would simply make workers work longer hours to keep prices down.  However, unions changed all that.  The creation of unions in reaction to the horrific treatment of workers and the lack of restrictions on businesses helped boost nationalism across Europe.


The Industrial Revolution was the time when unions first came into play, and with good reason.  The workers were put in dangerous situations on a daily basis, and were forced to work inhuman hours.  Without unions to petition for worker's rights, there was no reason for the owners of factories to change the way that they ran their business.  Because there were laws in many countries saying that only land-owners could vote, the factory workers had no control over matters in their country.  With the creation of unions, the common factory worker had a voice, and therefore had a sense of duty and nationalism to their country. 


By regulating the hours that people could work and the conditions that they could work in, unions also created a more stable economy.  Before unions, there was not competition between business.  To provide a cheaper product, factories would simply pay people the same amount of money to work longer hours.  When unions started regulating hours and salaries, businesses had to compete with each other.  Instead of lowering costs, they had to rely on how good their product was.  This allowed the economy to thrive, because there was choice between products.  With a good economy comes happier people, and with happy people comes loyalty to their country.


Nationalism is feeling a strong connection with one's country.  With nationalism comes loyalty, and loyalty is one of the basic needs for a country to thrive.  Without the loyalty of the working class, a country will crumble.  The working class are the people  who keep the economy, and therefore the country running.  Before unions, people of the working class had no sense of nationalism, simply because they owed their nation nothing.  After unions gave them rights, they felt that their country had respected them, and they felt a sense of pride and loyalty toward it.


The creation of unions across Europe during the Industrial Revolution was a turning point in how people felt about their country.  Being treated fairly and having a voice made all the difference to the working class.  Nationalism was achieved through proper treatment of workers, and therefore, and thriving economy based on that good treatment.  The creation of unions in reaction to the horrific treatment of workers and the lack of restrictions on businesses helped boost nationalism across Europe.

Elizabeth I Outline

Thesis: Elizabeth I's brutal childhood, riddled with being raped by Thomas Seymour and living under constant threat from her sister, was the cause of her becoming an unmarried politique who gave up her own desires for a peaceful, yet uneventful, reign.

Definitions:

Politique- One who gives up personal gain for their politics

Parliament-

Other words to later be defined: TBA

Types of Sources:

Primary:

1559: Response to a Parliamentary Delegation on Her Marriage; 1559: On Religion; 1560: Response to Erik of Sweden's Proposal; 1566: Response to Parliamentary Delegation on Her Marriage; 1583: On Religion; Response to Ambassador of Poland; 1601: The Farewell Speech; 1586: letter from Elizabeth I to Mary, queen of Scots; 1587: letter from Elizabeth I to James VI of Scotland; and other assorted speeches, poetry, and letters

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/elizabeth1.html

http://englishhistory.net/tudor/eliz1-writings.html#Speeches

http://englishhistory.net/tudor/eliz1-writings.html#Letters

http://englishhistory.net/tudor/eliz1-writings.html#Poetry

http://englishhistory.net/tudor/scot-letters.html

Secondary: ES Beesly, Queen Elizabeth (1892)

http://englishhistory.net/tudor/secondary.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/tudors/elizabeth_i_01.shtml

Useful Quotes:

"With Elizabeth the heart never really spoke, and if the senses did, she had them under perfect control. And this was why she never loved or was loved, and never has been or will be regarded with enthusiasm by either man or woman" (http://englishhistory.net/tudor/beeslychapterone.html)

Outline:

1. Introduction and overview of Elizabeth's life

2. Background on family

1. Father-- Henry VIII

2. Mother-- Anne Boleyn

3. Parents were married while Anne was 6 months pregnant

4. All of Henry's children were declared illegitimate besides those produced by Anne

1. Mary was forced to serve Elizabeth as a maidservant

5. Anne Boleyn was executed because she could not produce a male heir

1. Elizabeth was bastardized

3. Early childhood (before father's death)

1. Mother died when she was 2 years and 8 months old

2. Was shown naked to French diplomats as a future wife at the age of 6

3. 1537- Edward was born

4. Lived with her brother Edward at Hatfield House

5. Studied under a governess and became very well educated

4. Childhood (after father's death)

1. 1547- Henry VIII died, and in his will, the line of succession named Elizabeth the heir after Edward and Mary

2. Moved in with Katherine Parr, Henry's widow

3. Katherine married Thomas Seymour, who moved in with her and Elizabeth

4. Thomas started to take an interest in Elizabeth, who was a young teenager at the time

5. He would go into her room while she was asleep and not wearing anything and rape her

6. Occasionally, Katherine Parr would take part as well

7. Katherine eventually kicked Elizabeth out of the house, and Elizabeth went back to Hatfield

8. When Katherine Parr died, Thomas Seymour wanted to marry Elizabeth

9. 1549- Seymour was found guilty of trying to marry her in order to overthrow his brother, and was executed

5. During Mary's Reign

1. 1553- Edward died, and Lady Jane Grey was declared queen.  However, she was only queen for nine days.

2. Mary and Elizabeth travelled to London for Mary to claim her crown.

3. Mary wanted to wipe out all non-Catholics, and ordered everyone to go to mass

4. Elizabeth did, even though she was raised and educated as a Protestant

5. Mary planned to marry Prince Philip of Spain, which made her unpopular

6. Rebels against Mary plotted against her in Elizabeth's name, even though she had nothing to do with it

1. Wyatt's rebellion

7. Elizabeth was put in the Tower, but because she had no connection to the rebels, she was allowed to go back to Hatfield

8. Mary had 2 miscarriages, and her husband went back to Spain

9. 1558- Mary was on her deathbed, and accepted Elizabeth as her heir.  She died in November.

6. Elizabeth's reign

1. 1558- Named queen

2. Her first reform was religion

1. She returned England to being a Protestant country, but didn’t completely erase all traces of Catholicism

7. Marriage, or Lack Thereof

1. Elizabeth refused to marry

2. 1556- Parliament threatened to cut off her funds

1. She addressed them and told them that her priority was England

3. 1559- Elizabeth made it clear that she had feelings for her childhood friend, Robert Dudley by saying that if his wife were to die (she was sick), that she would like to marry him

1. Amy Dudley died by falling down the stairs, which the coroner said was an accident

1. Scandal surrounded her death, and Robert Dudley was suspected to have killed her so that he could marry Elizabeth

4. Although Elizabeth wanted to marry Dudley, she didn’t because the scandal would have been bad for England

5. Her image became that of a Virgin Queen, even though she wasn’t

8. Defensive Foreign Relations

1. 1585- She sent an army to aid to fight with the Protestant Dutch rebels against Philip II

2. 1588- She defended England against the Spanish Armada

3. 1589- Henry IV (who was Protestant) inherited the French throne, Elizabeth sent her military support

9. Conclusion

1. Elizabeth always put the kingdom of England before herself, and she has her early life to thank for that.

Candide Outline

I. Thesis: While optimism is not a bad thing, blind optimism in the face of adversity can be crippling.  Voltaire proves this, and therefore disproves Leibniz's theory using Pangloss's optimism, Martin's pessimism, and Candide's misfortune.

II. Voltaire uses Pangloss to create a satirical profile of Leibniz, while he expressed his own opinions through Martin.

a. Voltaire makes Pangloss look out of touch, while Martin contradicts him in a logical way.  That makes Voltaire's opinion look more valid.

b. Martin thinks that bad things happen, and that they do not necessarily contribute to the greater good.

c. Pangloss thinks that everything that happens is the best possible outcome, so not only does everything happen for a reason, but everything that happens is overwhelmingly good.

III. While Pangloss's philosophy keeps him and his followers happy, it offers no solution for any problems.

a. Even when the Anabaptist could have been saved, Pangloss wouldn't let Candide save him.

b. His explanation of free will contradicts itself, and he never fully explains his philosophy.

c. Even his follower, Candide, doubts his philosophy.

IV. The exaggerated bad luck that befalls Candide and others along his journey proves how ridiculous Pangloss's optimism is compared to Martin's pessimism/realism.

a. Candide gets kicked out of a castle for kissing a girl.  He wasn’t doing anything wrong.  In opposition to Pangloss's theory, a better outcome would have been them not getting caught kissing or Candid not being kicked out.

b. The maidservent who was imprisoned when she was young could have continued living her life peacefully, instead of being raped and having her buttock cut off.

c. Although Pangloss himself would not agree, he could have continued living comfortably instead of going trhough torture, almost being hung, and all of the other horrors that befell him.  He did not have to go through all of that for he good of man.

V. In Voltaire's work, Candide, Pangloss's optimism only offers false hope, while Martin's pessimism provides honesty and realism for Candide's dismal situation.  

French Revolution

• Acts of De-Christianzation across Europe by the French
• National Conference split between Geronimo and Jacobin
• Jacobin said that anyone against them was anti-revolutionary
• Another party starts to develop called the Mountain
• They listen to the ordinary people
• The working class demands control on money
• The Mountain elected Robes Pierre as their leader
• Maximilian Robes Pierre
• Became a lawyer
• Did not believe in capital punishment
• France
• 18th Cebtury, divided into 3 estates
• 1st Estate-Clergy (was close with the church, didn't have to pay for land)
• Hostility between the parish priests and the priests in the nobility
• 2nd Estate- Nobility
• 2% of the population
• Owned 25% of the land
• National Convention appoints the Committee of Public Safety
• Made up of 12 individuals that would run the government
• Robes Pierre was one of the 12
• It was originally formed to protect the people, but they turned into oppressors
• Made it illegal for women to gather
• In July 1794 rebels and conservatives turned against Robes Pierre, he was executed, and the Committee was the disbanded 
• Thermodorians wrote a 3rd French Constitution which went into effect in 1795
• Allowed males to vote for electors that would choose the leaders
• Napoleon Bonaparte 
• He drives out the Hapsburgs
• Sets up a new government 
• 1797- France has an election
• The majority leaders wanted to bring back the exiled Louis
• Napoleon wants to send a force against the royalists in the French government 
• They abandon the election 

• Gottfried Leibniz-
• German mathematician and philosopher
• Known for his treaty on optimism
• Optimism=to it's greatest extent
• Wrote Theodicee, and attempt to justify the imperfections in the world
• If God is all powerful and all knowing, why do bad things happen to good people?
• Anything that happens in the world is the best that it can be
• Results in Voltaire writing Candide (Satire)
• Diderot
• In the Enlightenment
• Enlightenment philosophers thought that fighting over religion was ridiculous
• They wanted to use reason as the way to control life
• The Founding Fathers were the same way
• Wrote an encyclopedia
• Montescue
• Personal essays
• Jonathon Swift
• Pretended to want to eat babies for satire
• Adam Smith
• Father of capitalism
• Capitalism- anyone in society could gain wealth
• Immanuel Kant
• Categorical Imperative
• If you make a rule, it applies to all situations
• Included royalty
• Forced legislatures to be more thoughtful when making laws
• Jeremy Bentham
• Disagreed with Kant
• The Utilitarian Choice- you have to do what is best for the most people

Peter the Great

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_the_great
• Expanded Russia enormously
• Muscovy was a princely state that gradually expanded in size
• He pushed back the neighbors who had blocked their expansion to Moscow
• Dreamed of controlling Constantinople 
• The first of the great Russian Czars to dream of controlling Constantinople
• They lost the fight for the Black Sea
• Forced to surrender for the Turks
• Russian participation in European affairs had been totally minimal
• From he 1620s-1740s, Russia expanded enormously
• Would have an tremendous effect on Europe and Asia
• He opened up Russia (no secular influences) to Western ideas
• He could do what he wanted as the Czar
• Childhood
• very curious
• very smart
• he traveled in order to learn more
• went to Europe
• was constantly sketching things
• very unorthodox
• was interested in cartography, math, and geography
• Tried to open up to commerce
• Trade---> Wealth----> Power
• Tension in Russia about westernization
• Peter had a very bad temper
• Occasionally executed people himself, and loved to torture people
• Harshest about treason
• He liked being with normal people and acting like them
• He refused to act like a Czar much of the time
• Very informal
• Russian culture was completely religious

Exam... Keep Reading If You Really Want To...

Compare and contrast the religious policies of Elizabeth I of England and Catherine de Medicis of France

Thesis:  The brutality of Catherine de Medici towards the Huguenots compared to the respect of Elizabeth the first showed to both Catholics and Protestants represent the differences between Catherine and Elizabeth, and clearly prove that Elizabeth was the better ruler.
I. Introductory Paragraph
II. Elizabeth/ Protestants after Mary I
III. Catherine/ Huguenots
IV. Elizabeth/ Catherine (comparing politiques to queen mothers)
V.Conclusion

While both Catherine de Medici and Elizabeth I ruled European countries at similar times in history, their styles of ruling their people were very different.  Elizabeth I followed her sister, Mary I, in line for the thrown, and had to clean up the mess of Protestants that her sister had left for her.  Catherine was part of the Medici dynasty; a family that not only ruled the city of Florence, but also controlled the banks and the papacy.  They were similar in the sense that they both came from powerful royal families, but different in the sense that Elizabeth had to fight her sister until she accepted her on her deathbed, and Catherine's family remained unified.  The brutality of Catherine de Medici towards the Huguenots compared to the respect of Elizabeth the first showed to both Catholics and Protestants represent the differences between Catherine and Elizabeth, and clearly prove that Elizabeth was the better ruler.

Elizabeth came into power in a dark time in England.  Her sister, Mary I, had been nicknamed "Bloody Mary" for her killings of Protestants.  Elizabeth, a Protestant herself, had been unable to do anything about it until she came to power after her sister's death.  After taking the crown, she stopped the slaughter of the Protestants and helped coax England back into a state of unity.  The significant thing about Elizabeth, however, was that she did not try to retaliate again the Catholics.  Regardless of religion, the people of England were better for her being queen, which is not something that many English monarchs from that time could say.

Catherine de Medici did not share the spirit of equality.  She hated the Huguenots, and did nothing but hurt them.  She spread vicious lies about them to try to discredit their religion, one example being her saying that everything that they say are lies, and that everything they do is without proper religion.  She was obviously trying to eradicate them from France using her influence, which makes her more similar to Mary than Elizabeth.  Without the support of a major religious group, one cannot be very successful while ruling.

Elizabeth and Catherine also differed in their form of ruling.  Catherine was a Queen Mother, one who worked through her sons Francis and Charles.  While it cannot be denied that she had great power, she was not a "true" ruler in the sense that she was held responsible for her sons' actions, even if she swayed them.  Elizabeth, on the other hand, was the Queen of England.  She was held responsible by her people, and did them proud.  Not only that, she was a politique.  She was so dedicated to her country that she did not marry the man she loved because of his questionable past.

The difference between Elizabeth and Catherine can be summed up in saying that Elizabeth was dedicated to doing the best for her country, while Catherine was dedicated to herself.  Elizabeth, while she didn't accomplish as much as some monarchs, kept England in relatively good standing, and managed to become a much loved queen.  Catherine slunk in the shadows behind her sons, getting favors done while hurting a significant portion of France's population.  Catherine and Elizabeth were very different people, and Elizabeth was obviously the better leader.

_________________________

Discuss the political and social consequences of the Protestant Reformation in the first half of the 16th Century.

Thesis: The 95 Theses, the Church losing power, and the new Protestant groups due to the Reformation were some of the best things that ever happened to Europe.
I. Intro
II. 95 Theses
III. Church not being able to control everybody (absolute monarchs)
IV. Rising of other branches of Protestantism
V. Conclusion

The Protestant Reformation in the early 16th Century brought about some of the biggest changes in European history.  Previously, Catholics had really been the only real power in Europe, and anyone who believed otherwise would not be in a position to do anything about it.  The Protestant Reformation changed everything.  Soon, other branches of Christianity were widely accepted and growing.  The 95 Theses, the Church losing power, and the new Protestant groups due to the Reformation were some of the best things that ever happened to Europe.

Martin Luther's 95 Theses was one of the events that got the Reformation off with a bang.  Martin Luther, a Catholic monk, was upset with how the Church was being run, especially with Indulgences for sale from the Church.  He wrote 95 things that the Church could do better, and nailed them to the Church's door.  The Church ignored him, but by doing that, they set him off on a whole new direction.  He accumulated followers, and started Lutheranism.  This was one of the first major branched of Protestantism, and got everyone else off to a good start.

The Church's influence was wounded by the Protestant Reformation, just like the absolute monarch's power.  The Church had the ability to tell people what to do with the treat of Hell before, but they lost a lot of that power when many of the people stopped believing that the Church had the authority to send them to Hell.  Without people being afraid of their religious wrath, the Church couldn't actually control Europe.  This also meant that the absolute rulers that were said to be "chosen by God" lost their authority.  Without people believing in your religion, religious precedence isn't as impressive.

Anabaptists and the Huguenots that were specific to different areas.  The Reformation was allowing religious freedom to be wide spread.

The Protestant Reformation created a good Europe in the 16th century, but it would only get better.  Places like the Dutch Republic would gain benefits from their religious freedom, while places like France would suffer.   Luther was a man trying to work inside the Church, but he started something that has allowed the world more freedom of religion.  The Protestant Reformation brought about positive changes for anyone interested in equality for all religions with Marting Luther's 95 Theses, the Church losing power, and different branched of Protestantism coming into existence.

_________________

Pilgrimage of Grace

Thesis: In the situation pertaining to the Pilgrimage of Grace, both the King and the marchers used unnecessary force, disrespect towards the people on the other side of the argument, and the name of God unnecessarily to do what they wanted and to show the worst side of religion there is.
I. Intro
II. Henry VII putting to death
III. Marchers being racist
IV. Both using the name of God
V. Conclusion

The Pilgrimage of Grace was an event that shows off the worst side of religion, and both sides were at fault for this.  Henry VIII was well within his rights to choose his religion, but he took his Protestantism to a level of violence.  The marchers were well within their rights to protest, but the protested violently and hatefully.  Both the Protestants and the Catholics involved gave Christianity a bad name through their behavior, and they went about what they were doing the wrong way.  In the situation pertaining to the Pilgrimage of Grace, both the King and the marchers used unnecessary force, disrespect towards the people on the other side of the argument, and the name of God unnecessarily to do what they wanted and to show the worst side of religion there is.

Henry VIII was doing fine until he split from the Church in order to get a divorce.  Even then, he could have become a Protestant with grace and stayed under the radar.  Instead, Henry decided to cause the Church as much trouble as possible.  He started shutting down monasteries and taking the Church's land for his own.  Many of the places that he was shutting down were helping the poor in his own country (Doc 11). When people got upset about this and started protesting, he accused them of Treason and had them sentenced to death (Doc 10).  A year before he put them to death, Henry extended his "most gracious pity and mercy" (Doc 9) upon them.  People were afraid to act in case "their actions to be offensive to the Church" (Doc 8).  By pardoning them and then killing them as treasonous, Henry was flaunting his religion in the Church's face, and obviously trying to get revenge for them not signing his divorce papers.

The marchers were at fault for some of their actions throughout the Pilgrimage, but they were also provoked by the irresponsibility by Henry VIII.  They started off totally justified in their anger towards Henry, as their places of worship were being destroyed and sold back for the king.  They even invited people into the march with a warning, "You shall not enter into our Pilgrimage of Grace for worldly gain" (Doc 1).  They also used the words "robbed, soiled, and shorn" (Doc 4), which shows how understandably upset they are about the destruction of their monasteries.  However, they soon started adding their own twists on the events, blaming people who need not have been blamed.  They said that they were "being robbed by thieves and Scots" (Doc 2) which had nothing to do with the Protestant church.  They also asked for the destruction of the religions founded by "Luther, Wycliffe, Hus, and Tyndale" (Doc 5), which is now using the opportunity they have to completely wipe out other religions.

Both sides were wrongfully bringing God into their picture, even though both sides believed that God didn't approve of violence or killing.  Henry says that "God commands you to obey your sovereign in all things" (Doc 9), which is just taking the Catholic version of an absolute ruler and making it Protestant.  The Catholics also used God, but they instead had a symbol of bleeding Jesus on their banners (Doc 3).  Both sides used God for their own gain, without actually thinking about the violence they were casing.

The Pilgrimage of Grace was a march that never should have happened.  While Henry VIII initialized it, the Catholics created an issue that never should have been part of the march.  Both sides were selfish and disrespectful, and just stopped caring about their ethics after a while.  When people defend their religion, they can become irrational and vengeful, which is what happened here.  Both sides were wrong to use force, the name of God, and their opinions to create disrespect within religions.

1. Documant 5- Marin Mersenne 
2. Document 8- Charlton 
3. Document 9- Cavendish 
4. Document 11- Colbert 
5. Document 7 

The theory of heliocentricity became popularized in the 1500-1700's with scientists like Galileo making it widespread knowledge.  He disagreed with both prominent philosophers, such as Copernicus, and with the Church, but the spread of heliocentric belief was still significant.  This spread, however, was many times threatened by the Church.  Because the Church believed something different than Galileo was proving, they tried to discredit him and stop his findings.  In not only the case of the heliocentricity argument, but in other cases as well, those people such as Copernicus, Giovanni Ciampoli, and others associated with the Church are less likely to see reason within clearly logical and supported science than those unaffiliated with the Church.

Copernicus, one of the main philosophers supported by the Church for his theory that the Earth was at the center of the universe, is a good example of religion making people blind.  Instead of taking into account the research that Galileo had done, he instead wrote to Pope Paul III.  In his latter, he displayed two types of ignorance.  He refused to back down from his theory, even though there was counter proof; in fact, he was willing to be bold with his denial of any other possibility so that "learned and unlearned alike may see that I shrink from no man's criticism" (Doc 1).  This is not only ignorance, but arrogance.  He also displays ignorance when he says that the Pope displays a "love of letters and science" (Doc 1).  English philosopher Francis Bacon says that "the true and lawful goal of the sciences is this: that human life be endowed with new discoveries and powers" (Doc 4).  Instead, the Church was only using science that directly backed up the Bible, not science that would allow for new discoveries to be made about their world.

Giovanni Ciampoli is another prime example of religion getting in the way of scientific fact and discovery.  He wrote a letter to Galileo mocking his studies and claiming that the next leap that Galileo would make would be that there were humans living on the moon.  He references Adam and Eve and Noah and the Ark, but never actually references the actual science.  Ciampoli is so caught up in Biblical importance that he doesn't take time to look at simple facts or explanations.

The other side of this argument is that people not associated with the Church were better able to see reason.  John Calvin, the founders of the Calvinists, was proof of this.  Calvin, obviously a religious man to have founded a major branch of Protestantism, applauded the discoveries made using the science of astrology.  He even went so far as to say that astrology "unfold the admirable wisdom of God" (Doc 2).  A man not related to the Church, Calvin didn't have to focus on what was not exactly the same as the Bible teachings, and could actually focus on the facts.

To every rule, there must be exceptions.  For example, a monk, Marin Mersenne, wrote to his noble patron confirming Galileo's studies, and going so far as to say

Thesis Statements

Analyze the ways in which European monarchs used both the arts and the sciences to enhance state power in the period circa 1500–1800.


The European monarchs nurtured artists and scientists to help them grow and to help their community become more powerful and better known; the used the latest art and science as status symbols of the area in which they were living, and they spread the word of their state through the rising popularity of whatever scientist or artist was there.

Separation of Church and State

In 1500 to 1700, the Protestants wanted separation of Church and state.  Catholic monarchs had long been making life hell for Protestants, but if the Church became separate and did not have power over the state, the Protestants would be able to worship in the way in which they were accustomed without fearing death.  Monarchs like Mary I of England showed how dangerous the union of Church and state could be for anyone other than Catholics.  The Medici proved that it was easy to influence the Church, and thereby, easy to influence the state.  The Divine Right of Kings illustrated perfectly the union of church and state, and how corrupt it could be.  The Protestants were right to think that Church and state should be separated, as Mary I, the Medici, and The Divine Right of Kings prove that the union can only lead to corruption.

Mary I of England, otherwise known as Bloody Mary, was a Catholic monarch who used her power to persecute Protestants.  Mary viewed her religion ass the most important duty she had as a queen, and refused to have anyone disagree with her.  Any Protestant living in that time or after would want the separation of Church and state, as it would save the lives of their people.  When only the Catholic or Protestant side is in power, there is an unbalance that can only lead to the abuse of one side.  The only way to avoid that is to remove religion from the equation of ruling.

The Medici were the epitome of corruption of the Church.  They bought the Pope-hood for Giovanni Medici, which was simply a power play on their part.  By placing someone as pope, they became the most powerful family in Florence.  While the papacy is supposed to be incorruptible, the real fault is that they could gain so much power by having a Medici as a pope.  They became the most trusted bank in Florence, which meant that they got to be extremely wealthy.  By buying their way to the top of the Church, the ensured political gain, which should never be able to take place.

The Divine Right of Kings most clearly illustrates the point of why the separation of Church and state was necessary.  The idea behind the Divine Right of Kings was that monarchs were chosen by God to rule.  if they could claim to have the power of God behind them, they could do anything and say that it was God's will.  Kings were pretty much printing out licences to do what they wanted, and there was no way that any Christian could stop them without fearing the wrath of God.  The Divine Right of Kings was the ultimate union of the Church and state, and possibly the most corrupt of all.

The separation of Church and state was an issue that Protestants wanted to see resolved.  It was a way to gain power corruptly, but had almost no good sides to it.  The Church and state, while a powerful bond, was not the moral thing to do, nor was it stable for people in the Church or in government.  The Protestants received the worst end of this deal, and needed some sort of separation to occur.  With the Church ad state unified, the Protestants could expect persecution by Mary I and other Catholic rulers, corrupt gain of power and money by the Medici, and the ability for monarchs to rule with being questioned under the Divine Right of Kings.