Summary Of America's Undeclared War

In Paul Johnson’s “American Idealism and Realpolitik Critique” about American involvement in political battles in foreign countries, he brings forth the idea that the American government plays a vital role when it comes to mediating and facilitating conflict. Their importance can often be overshadowed by some opinions that the government, specifically the army, has over stepped its boundaries by intruding on countries and excessively becoming involved in hostility. Johnson notes that without American intervention, there would be cause for a considerable diminish in aid and possibly a rise in disputes. Johnson compares to America’s duties to Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan in which the lack of control over the discord between countries results in an anarchy that would leave the world’s population to “‘continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” (Johnson 387) Although he does put a stress on the significance of the American government, he does not ignore the obvious moral flaws that sometimes tarnish this reputation. When adding up the pros and cons of the United States authority, Johnson’s writing favours the positive aspects but also has hints of neutrality; this attitude is quite fitting considering America’s actions.

Historically, the United States has entered military conflict, direct and indirect, based on the desire to maintain its political ideals and or minimize the expansion of alternative governmental forces. The prevailing sentiment of American policy with regards to military occupation and direct conflicts focuses on the practical irradiation of communism. Military experts and academic scholars debate over the definition of war in America, blurring the lines under which policymakers identify conflict. Ultimately the political objectives, economic frugality and social climate shape the American “way of war”.

Even though the United States emerged as a clear victor of World War I, many Americans after the war felt that their involvement in the conflict had been a mistake (Markus Schoof, “The American Experience During World War II,” slide 3). This belief, however, did not deter the country from engaging in many other international affairs in the future, most importantly the WWII and the Cold War. Right from the Manifest Destiny, which led to expand its empire at home and abroad, to the World War I, the country had come a long way from being somewhat a lonely-land to a global superpower of the 20th century. Its influence in the international arena grew unprecedently after its commitment to the World War II, and like they say, the rest is history. If the WWII was a resounding success to the American legacy, what followed, the Cold War, put many implications on the American diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and to the world. Although the rising Fascism in Europe and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor drove the U.S. to enter the WWII, historians over the years have laid equal blames on both nations for starting the Cold War. These two events helped in shaping up many domestic and foreign policies for the U.S.

Before the 19th century, the United States was a small, developing country. Later, it transformed into a world power. The size of the United States was tripled because of acquisitions such as The Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican Cession with adding Alaska, Florida, Oregon, and Texas. One of the events that caused this expansion was the War of 1812. This war is sometimes called “America’s second war for independence”.

The book, Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer, is organized by chapters and parts. It begins with the introduction, and then it flows into the following parts: The Imperial Era, Covert Action, and Invasions. After these parts are the notes, bibliography, acknowledgments, and index. The book also features pictures of the people and places that are spoken of within it. The book is targeted at a mature, college-aged, or even older, audience, while remaining easy to read, and its tone is not at all tense for the subject portrayed. Overthrow is written as a historical recountal of America’s overthrow of foreign governments, including those of Hawaii, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, Iraq, etc. The book uses these examples to argue that a strong nation strikes against a weaker one because “it seeks to impose its ideology, increase its power, or gain control of valuable resources.” The author of Overthrow did a phenomenal job of proving his thesis statement through his examples and making the book suitable for the audience.

At the end of the 18th century, an undeclared war was going on between the United States and France because of the recent XYZ affair; triggering a positive reaction by Federalists like Fisher Ames to convince the authorities to make the war official. Not knowing what to do, President John Adams appointed former-President George Washington as commander of the army to hopefully resolve the issue with France through diplomacy (as was Washington's stance).

During the early 1900s, America’s reputation as a world power prospered by possessing the third largest navy in the world and a significant domain over smaller countries. It was able to acquire superiority internationally due to its intervention in the intense colonialism of the time, including fast extension, colonization, and rivalry. However, America’s colonial power did not suddenly develop. Though the United States expansionism of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century was an explicit continuation of cultural and social factors that had powered the country’s past expansionism, it was more of a departure from the strategies for the past in which financial and political motives were sought.

Week 7 Assignment America and the Great War HIST 405 Week 7 DQ 1 The Cold War and America HIST 405 Week 7 DQ 2 Terrorism in the 21st Century HIST 405 Entire Course Purchase here https://sellfy.com/p/LgnV/ Product Description HIST 405 Final ExamHIST 405 Quiz Week 2 HIST 405 Quiz Week 4 HIST 405 Quiz Week 6 HIST 405 Week 1 DQ 1 The Cost of Expansion HIST 405 Week 1 DQ 2 Colonial Identities HIST 405 Week 2 DQ 1

The answer of whether or not the Spanish-American and Philipine-American wars were created to build an American empire should be predictable, considering America’s history of beginning wars for their own benefit. Therefore, it is not that much of a shock that these two wars were commenced to benefit the United States in expanding their country and growing more powerful. Initially, President McKinley “did not want war; he had been sincere and tireless in his efforts to maintain the peace” (Zinn 293) against Spain. However, the mostly upper-class and businessmen of the country, who saw it as an opportunity to boost America’s economy, did. Eventually, so did the government, resulting in them giving into their citizens’ wants. They had “power and profit in mind as it observed the events in Cuba” (Zinn 289), and President

Exceptionalism, Expansionism, and Isolationism Throughout the United States’ history three key values has steered our foreign policy; these include exceptionalism, isolationism, and expansionism. These three connected principles fight against American morals and obligation but helped the United States become a superpower. In this paper, I will explain these three forces and how they interconnect, argue the belief that they helped shape America as a supreme power, and look back on these principles and how they led to the Mexican- American War, and provide a contemporary example.

The Spanish-American War served to epitomize the imperialist sentiments inherent to American society of the late 19th century, as it was driven nearly entirely by jingoism and a large degree of sensationalism. When examining this war, many often conclude that it was the result of the pressure placed on McKinley by multiple expansionists within Washington - that such men as Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge were, perhaps, the primary cause for this imperialist endeavour. However, upon deeper inspection it appears to be that such men can not be noted as the sole, or even most responsible, factors in initiating the conflict. For it seems that the evidence is more supportive towards the notion that the general attitudes of the public were mostly to blame, and therefore, the cause of the war must lay with the sensationalistic “yellow-journalism” - which had grown rampant in that period - as the underlying cause of the Spanish-American War. Basically, as shall soon be demonstrated, it appears to be illogical for one to deduce that the pressure expressed onto President McKinley by his imperialist counterparts should be held accountable for the Spanish-American War.

Even though there was still a good amount of people living in rural areas, it was beginning to transform, attracting people more towards urban places

1. "The French and Indian (1754–1763), known as the Seven Years’ War in Europe, proved to be the decisive contest between Britain and France in America"(U.S History, 110). Great Britain had an enormous amount of things to celebrate over after the war was finally over. Morale was high but, " Despite the celebratory mood, the victory over France also produced major problems within the British Empire, problems that would have serious consequences for British colonists in the Americas"(U.S History, 120). The enormous obligation the war produced at home, nonetheless, turned out to be the most difficult issue confronting Great Britain. " Parliament had to find ways to raise revenue to pay off the crippling debt from the war. Everyone would have

In the 1990s the U.s got involved into many wars and conflicts that allowed for peace to prosper in the world.. This includes many brief wars and battles that america was included in order to keep their pacts that they had with other countries. These events will be explained within this essay.

Previously, I perceived our opponents to be the “bad guys” and the United States to be the heroes that were helping people around the world. While this may be true in some applications, I’m no longer naïve to the fact that the U.S. isn’t handing out millions of dollars in economic interest simply because it’s the right thing to do. Rather, I believe that most military conflicts the U.S. has engaged in over the last century, as well as the current battles in Syria and throughout the Middle East, stem principally from economic motivations. While I’m undecided in the political debate that exists between political parties over the term imperialism itself, I’ve become keenly aware of how much of our country’s foreign policy is driven by the economic needs of its citizens. The profound change I’ve experienced is in remaining mindful as to the influence on foreign policy that receptive markets and favorable political conditions in countries throughout the world has.