American nationalistic Founders sought to describe and define national good that transcended prejudices and local interest. This national good would encompass merits of self-defense and wealth that were to be realized by the active participation of all Americans in a large commercial nation that could be able to defend itself in an ever changing and unpredictable world. It was only by the use of the constitutional rule of law that national interest and America’s higher purpose would be attained. This higher purpose would involve demonstrating to mankind that self-governance was feasible, and sustainable justice would be the ground and foundation upon which relations amongst people and nations of the whole world would be based.
The honor and obligation to strive for moral justice, domestic and international peace is what the sole source of the American character was according to the Spanish-American War. The United States committed itself to defend, support and advance the course of freedom in all places. America would serve as a refuge for the industrious, sober and virtuous world and all victims of persecution. America would show itself as a true friend of humanity by using sympathy and appropriate action.
Throughout history, the American clarion call and revolution would and has always been independence. This would be an important historic event and one that would separate America from Britain as reported in The World War 1. The founders of America and their children in subsequent generations had to understand the significance of national independence that they were celebrating.
The American’s have for a long time through their generations fought for independence, independence from the royal Britain army, royal overseers, military occupation, and taxation without representation, arbitrary laws and as expressed in the Declaration of Independence- everything that is an establishment for or evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism this is according to Social Darwinism. In doing this, the country declared their unity in all the states and as a nation. The meaning of independence at this time was two-fold to mean separation from Britain and the creation of a new country that would be governed by its means and its ways.
Independence has been a profound principle and one that has altered the history and legacy of the American nation for long. Independence for America has profound implications on how America has been governed over time and how this great nation finds justification in their independence act on the world stage as reported in the Atomic Bombing of Japan. In the early years of the republic, many policy makers were divided on their foreign policy: Alexander Hamilton wanted to build a strong military and join the team with the Britons while Thomas Jefferson though it wise to approach on a diplomatic front and join an alliance with the French. These divisions on foreign policy were the roots that stemmed the formation of the first political parties. The founders may have had different ideologies, but they were of the same mind, they agreed on core matters on not only the nature of America but also its sovereign independence and the most important cause of independence in the whole world.
When we approach a broader view, it becomes possible for us to be able to see and develop an underlying consensus of the history and legacy of the American nation as propagated by the founders thinking about foreign policy and many other policies. Contemporary and modern thinking on foreign interactions between different nations preys. These dichotomies include isolation versus internationalism, realism versus idealism. These ideologies have a great impact on America’s relationship with other countries and throughout history. The founders, on the other hand, encapsulated the idea of strategic independence that offers a way out of these illusions of unsatisfying and problematic theories. The founder’s theory offers a framework of prudence that is very much consistent with the core values that America embraces.
The Vietnam conflict
According to The Vietnam Conflict the war was started as a result of US desire to contain the rapid spread of communism in Asian countries. France defeat in trying to defeat anti-colonial insurgents primarily led to this problem. The country had been divide to two with communist regime insurgents to the North and an anticommunist regime in the south. The South received the backing of the US military. It so happened that once the insurgents almost succeeded in toppling the government of South Vietnam, the then US President Lyndon approved and sent American combat soldiers to the country so as to give support and strengthen the regime. The battle was fought until a ceasefire agreement was reached in 1973 (Campbell 5). There was a raging public debate back at home on whether the American soldiers should be used to establish a regime in Vietnam.
There were differing schools of thought about the war with President Harry Truman accepting through an article written by Richard Nixon that communist nations were strategically spreading communism in and around the world’s nations and that this would lead to the topple of the free world. President Johnson had been informed by this ideology as he sent troops to Vietnam. The then president during this invasion held that the Republic of South Vietnam had been attacked by North Vietnam. The American government had made a solemn vow and promised that they would protect the freedom of South Vietnam, and this made them interfere in the conflict.
While the administration of that time favored the decision to go to war, there was criticism emanating from various quarters about the American government’s interference and participation in the war. A part of the administration found fault in what they saw as an interference with the Vietnamese civil war. As a result of this interference the Vietnamese Army switched its aggression from the French to the Americans. History today has judged America is harshly saying that it exhibited arrogance of power and that it tried to attempt to thwart a war of liberation, this is according to The Vietnam Conflict.
In the history of America, foreign policy has always been approached on two fronts that are idealism and realism. From idealism approach, nations should act on the rationale of exclusion to practical concerns and self-interest. In realism, military strength may be a huge motivator, security and economic factors may also be catalysts instead of other principles. The difference is false as well as it is misleading. In the history of the US it has been demonstrated that idealism rejects the practical application of certain national interests for dogmatic moralism, while realism is minimalist in approach, narrow and cynical. Realism excludes the moral considerations while dealing with other nations.
At the early time of the nation’s birth, America was a very weak and fledging nation and dedicated to the task of claiming its republican institutions. The country was also quite vulnerable to the many world powers that dominated the world. The objectives of the young republic were to make its constitutional government secure, build on its military capacity so that it could be able to defend itself and remove the influence of Europe from its jurisdiction. America’s decision turned out to be to be historic and monumental as it affected the state of the nation today making it superior to the transatlantic force and all the instruments of European greatness. Because of this decision of prudence and wisdom in foreign affairs America was able to dictate the terms of the connection between the new world and the old world.
Meat packing industry
In early 1900 a publication by Sinclair revealed the dirt and unprofessional practice that was happening in the meat packing houses of Chicago. The resultant public out roar resulted to the enactment of legislation that enforced very strict rules governing meat inspection. This shaped US meat industry in leaps and in a way that is likely not to be forgotten at all.
In his publication, Sinclair gave a vivid description of the filthy conditions that were to be witnessed in slaughterhouses. These conditions lead to the sale of diseased and uncontaminated meat to the civilians with retrogressive and at times lethal health effects (Kauffman 6). It was not a big surprise for meat that was not fit for human consumption to be sold to the members of the American society. Proponents who crusaded for tougher measures in the meat industry argued that the 1891 legislation was not robust enough to protect the American civilian as legislation passed in 1891 was used to cover meat exports while leaving the domestic consumers at risk and exposure of taking in contaminated meat.
Other Americans were also opposed to the account given by Sinclair, they held that it was largely exaggerated, and it was brown out of proportion, this was seen to hurt the meat industry as a result of bad publicity. The critics asserted that there were several government inspectors, and they had visited various slaughterhouses in Chicago and gave the industry a clean bill of health. The industry owners claimed that none of the inspectors who had visited the slaughterhouses had come to the conclusion that Sinclair published and they, therefore, read malice in Sinclair’s efforts to sanitize the industry. Industry owners further argued that they observed the highest standards and that what Sinclair and his supporters were pointing out at were a few isolated incidences that can be observed at any normal curve. The slaughterhouse operators claimed that one cannot necessarily be in control of each and every worker at a particular point in time.
The publication of Sinclair’s book had a devastating effect at the time of its publication in those meat sales both locally and for export declined fast. Nonetheless, it defined and shaped the meat packing industry in a permanent way. To cushion the industry, large meat packing industries called for very strict government inspection procedures so as to reassure European importers of safe meat.
Social Darwinism
American intellectuals in the late 19th century advocated for social Darwinism to be adopted in the society. This was in the period between1870 to 1899. The theory suggested that just as in the evolution theory unfit members of the society were let off to die, in the same manner those who were unable to keep up with changes in the American social and economic life should be let go to die. Businessmen argued that it was in the best interest to let such weak members be weeded out of the society and perish. Proponents of this theory were against the government’s effort in trying to bail out the poor and they tried to thwart any government affirmative programs that were aimed at giving leverage and stimulus to the poor.
Proponents for this theorem argued that aiding the poor was demeaning to both the poor and the well-off in the society (Boddener 2). First, any help afforded to the poor meant that the society was awarding failure in the American society and encouraging a cycle of failure. Further, this was seen as inequality to the hard working civilians who would have to fund the poor by contributing money from their own pockets. Financial aid that would be given to the poor would further undermine their sense of self-worth and respect this is according to Social Darwinism.
Those who argued against this theorem acknowledged that man was not just a passive onlooker to the process of evolution but an active participant. By using compassion and cooperation from others, the man was able to change his circumstance and fate. Human beings can unlike animals and plants use their intelligence to change their course in time and space. There were several ways in which this could be done and one was the collective engagement of government. The government was under the moral obligation to protect its citizens and especially the weaker ones. Help extended to such weaker members of the society went a long way in ensuring that other problems like crime were done away with as the poor would not need to engage in crime to fend themselves.
The popularity of this theorem declined in time at the end of 19thcentury as one of the worst economic depression at to that time took place. There is a probability that as many people lost their jobs in this era and productivity decreased that many Americans saw themselves also likely to be caught up in the same situation and receiving a dose of their own medicine. This theory though nowhere near as the Nazis murderous antics, they had an underlying notions that were similar.
The Spanish American War
The American and Spanish war defined greatly the history and terrain of America’s policy and principles. America had to make a decision on whether to interfere in the Cuban affairs with its colonial master Spain which had broken out in 1898. Did the American people have any obligation to aid the Cuban people to get rid of the oppressive rule of the Spanish government? As usual, there were those who were against and for this approach.
Those who supported the idea of interfering in the war felt that America had a moral obligation to help its neighbors rid of oppressive rule (Bricker 4). The government of America would further stand to win territories that would help it to increase its investments. The economic effects of interfering in the war were greater and would bring along with them many benefits that would stimulate the American economy.
Critics that crusaded for non-interference in the Cuban crisis cited many reasons as to why America should not engage Spain in its duel with Cuba. First and foremost, critics argued that there was no real reason why the US should interfere in the war. The critics noted that the only real motivation to joining the war was a result of economic expansion interests. America stood to benefit from the colonies that Spain would lose. However, this was not America’s idea and value of economic expansion. War was expensive regarding human life loss and destruction to the social life of victims of war and economics as it is expensive to fund any army. America engaging in a war that was much considered not its own was considered as an option of last resort.
According to the Spanish-American war, the war proponents claimed that a gross misrule of the Cuban’s necessitated the intervention of America in the war. President McKinnley vividly described the tactics that Spain was using to crush rebels in Cuba. He argued in Congress that the methods adopted by Spain were provoking the common decency and therefore put a moral obligation on the US to act for Spain.
Unemployment and the new deal
During the presidency of Roosevelt when he ascended to power in 1933, there was so much financial stress and a big economic crisis that practically a quarter of the population was unemployed according to the Unemployment and the New Deal. The economic recession took place between 1929 and 1945 at the time of the World War 2. The new deal was a series of government projects that was supposed to create economic emancipation for all Americans (Fasulo 10). As usual, not every person was ready to accept the government’s plan without criticism, however, and notably the deal was able to lift up the government from depression in several ways. The project restored faith and hope of the American people in government and heralded the promise of a brighter future. The project offered s stimulus package to the country by making infrastructure and providing hundreds of thousands of Americans new job opportunities.
People who opposed the deal say that it is not the deal that lifted the country out of the depression but the world war. Wartime expansion sharply increased the rate of GDP and also made it a reality for full employment to be realized. America’s decision to engage in the war, therefore, shaped the history of America once more in an unforgettable way.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Once again as the issue of foreign policy and the New Deal, America has found itself on the cross roads with the civil rights movement of 1964 (Bodenner 5). This was yet a momentous time in US history that has shaped its legacy and reputation. It had to be decided whether the Act was necessary to end racial discrimination in America or not. The southerners argued that this was an intrusion to their way of life, and the US government was intruding on the social life of the Southern states. Proponents of the Act, however, put a strong case that the Southerners were violating the rights of blacks that they were supposed to enjoy as it was a constitutional guarantee. This law was one among several others that shaped US history in a momentous way, the federal government upheld the law and declared everyone equal whether black or white
Works Cited
Bodenner, Chris. “Social Darwinism.” Issues & Controversies in American History. Infobase Learning, 18 July 2007. Web. 19 Apr. 2016. <http://icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107251>.
Bodenner, Chris. “Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Issues & Controversies in American History. Infobase Learning, 12June 2006. Web. 19 Apr. 2016. <http://icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107312>.
Briker, Jason. “Spanish-American War.” Issues & Controversies in American History. Infobase Learning, 21Feb. 2006. Web. 19 Apr. 2016. <http://icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107257>.
Campbell, Ballard C. “World War I.” Issues & Controversies in American History. Infobase Learning, 1 May2015. Web. 19 Apr. 2016. <http://icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107281>.
Fasulo, David F. “The New Deal.” Issues & Controversies in American History. Infobase Learning, 20 Sept.2013. Web. 19 Apr. 2016. <http://icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=134553>.
Kauffman, Jill. “Meat Packing Industry.” Issues & Controversies in American History. Infobase Learning, 15Apr. 2008. Web. 19 Apr. 2016. <http://icah.infobaselearning.com/icahfullarticle.aspx?ID=107271>.
