In History class last week we
attempted to understand what makes a nation and to what extent historically
people have gone to defend their nation. Then we asked ourselves haw far people
should be willing to go for their nation. First, we defined the word nation.
The definition my group came up with was using what we had learned previously
about nationalism. We said that a nation was a group of people that are bonded
by shared language, culture, history, decent, and customs. People in a nation
live in a certain area with natural boundaries. The next activity was analyzing
a timeline. On the timeline were four events, The Congress of Vienna, Monroe
Presidency, Russia shutting off Oregon to trading, and the Latin American
Revolutions. The timeline, once fully understood, was a good representation of
a nation, the United States, being asked what it is willing to do to defend
itself. After the timeline we had more to analyze, three quotes from the Monroe
doctrine which were the official rebuttals in response to the advances from other
nations. For the last part of the lesson we looked to Italy and Germany to see
what they were willing to do in their own defense.
1820 America was a nation. After the Revolutionary War, this country of America met the criteria of our definition of a nation, it
shares a main language, has natural boundaries, and the people have similar enough histories. The threats aimed at the U. S. were the events of the timeline above. First
it was the Congress of Vienna, ending in 1815. Britain agreed with everything the
Congress came up with except the Principle of Intervention. Because of this,
Britain proposed that America and Britain create an alliance to protect any colonies
in the Americas that might want to revolt against the Holy Alliance’s power of
repression. In the Monroe Doctrine, the president gently declines Great Britain’s
proposition. This is an example of what America is not willing to do; it will
not participate in a just-in-case alliance. The second Event, occurring in 1821
and ending two years later is Russia shutting off the Oregon trade. Russia’s
goal was to take complete control over trade between Asia and the Americas.
This would partially shut down The United States’ economy. Monroe would not
stand for that. “…a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the
minister of the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable
negotiation the respective rights and interest of the two nations on the
northwest coast of this continent.”
America is not willing to stand by and let their trade routes with Asia
disappear, so someone went and had a friendly discussion with Russian officials
to find a compromise. The third and last interference with America were the
Latin American Revolutions going from 1804 until 1839. It was feared this was
the opportunity where the Holy Alliance might stretch its Principle of
Intervention across the water. So, out of fear of the disturbance to American peace
and safety, Monroe said that the hemispheres should stick to themselves.
Regarding the European colonies in the Americas, Monroe planned to do what he
already had been, nothing. However, with those countries that like the U. S.
had declared their independence, America would work to keep them independent
even if it meant getting involved in war.
Over in the German Confederation,
Otto Von Bismarck was up to no good. Okay, there was some good in his antics, but they were completely unrestricted and
probably broke several laws. First off, Germany must be considered a nation
because of its extensive boundaries (Baltic Sea, the Alps and the Russian
Empire) and its shared language, German. Bismarck’s main goals were to unify
German states and decrease Austrian influence (Austrian was the other big power
in Germany at the time). Bismarck was strategic when harming Austria, “We had
to avoid wounding Austria too severely; we had to avoid leaving behind in her
any unnecessary bitterness of feeling or desire for revenge; we ought rather to
reserve the possibility of becoming friends again with our adversary of the
moment, and in any case to regard the Austrian state as a piece on the European
chessboard.” In order to officially establish a German nation, Bismarck was
willing to go to start and fight in a war against France. The Franco-Prussian
war brought together Prussian and the other German states (minus Austria) which,
when the war ended with Prussian victory, made Prussia the leader of Germany.
 |
| https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/520567782380167168/photo/1 |
I am probably bias because I am American, but I stand by President Monroe's decisions and believe he made the right choices. I am able to rationalize with his reasoning. I can see how he would have thought he was making the right decisions to decline a British alliance, protect trading routes, and help newly independent countries in the Americas. With Bismarck in Prussia, although I applaud his cunning mind, I think starting a war to become the ruling state of Germany is not worth the risk. I think that when it comes to protecting a nation, people should be on the defensive and not the offensive. There should be no starting of wars, only defense when a war is upon your country. Just-in-case alliances are also a negative, they are asking for trouble. Bringing up Ferguson Missouri again, like in the last post, because of what is happening, people there have been burning American flags. In response to this burning, some people are more outraged by a desecrated flag than what is going on. I would not be and are not one of those people. As a form of protest, this action is not against any laws, just certain moral ones. I am not willing to get overworked about flag desecration when people are dead who should not be.
Works Cited
Message of President James Monroe at the commencement of the first session of the 18th Congress (The Monroe Doctrine), 12/02/1823; Presidential Messages of the 18th Congress, ca. 12/02/1823-ca. 03/03/1825; Record Group 46; Records of the United States Senate, 1789-1990; National Archives.)
James Harvey Robinson, ed., Readings in European History, 2 Vols., (Boston: Ginn and Co., 1904-1905), II:571-
575; Otto von Bismarck, The Man and Statesman, (New York, 1899), II:48-51
Scanned by: J. S. Arkenberg, Dept. of History, Cal. State Fullerton. Prof. Arkenberg has modernized the text.
No comments:
Post a Comment