The Monroe Doctrine, a policy of the United States introduced on December 2, 1823, expressed the idea, among other important foreign policy objectives, that new countries should be allowed to develop without interference from stronger nations. It stated that future efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression (USDS Basic Readings). Some of the major events that caused President James Monroe and his secretary of state, John Quincy Adams to develop this Doctrine concerned South American countries and their newly achieved independence. „The end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 marked the breakup of the Spanish empire in the New World. Between 1815 and 1822 Jose de San Martin led Argentina to independence, while Bernardo O'Higgins in Chile and Simon Bolivar in Venezuela guided their countries out of colonialism.
The root of this decision lies in the pirate activity of the four African Barbary states (Document D). When Tripoli demanded the US buy protection in order to stop the naval harassment, Jefferson refused, negating the views of other Federalists who would have done differently. Tripoli declared war on the United States, and Jefferson was forced to augment the size of the navy in order to defeat the Barbary pirates. The Louisiana Purchase is another course of action taken by Jefferson known for contradicting his strict constructionist views. Neglecting the fact that there is no clause in the Constitution permitting him to purchase land, Jefferson used Napoleon’s European conquest to help him get rid of New World worries.
The British did not want to have war, but after hearing about the ultimatum that was sent to Belgium, Britain sent an ultimatum to Germany asking them to respect that Belgium was neutral. Germany refused, and on August 4th Britain declared war on Germany. In late August, Japan joined in on the war on the side of the allies. Turkey soon joined the war on the side of the Central Powers. By the end of 1914 the central powers consisted of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and
Locke's influence can be seen in documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Locke’s philosophy of government, freedom, and natural rights challenged the power of England’s monarchy in Europe over the colonies in America. Although the foundations of these documents are highly influenced by John Locke's ideology, there are parts of these documents that stray away from his views. In this paper I will examine certain parts of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Federalist Papers and argue that for the most part, if John Locke were alive today he would be pleased with these documents but I will also highlight parts of these documents that would concern him. The first document I will analyze is The Declaration of Independence which I consider to be the most influenced by Locke's ideology of any document the founders drafted.
The Proclamation of 1763 was the first to anger the colonist. In order to assure the Indians that settlers would not invade tribal lands, Britain emphasized colonist not to expand to the westward region. Shortly after, the use of writs of assistance, which allowed customs to search anywhere without the used of a warrant, placed a major infringement upon colonial natural rights. The Sugar Act (established at the same time) was an attempt to discourage smuggling by lowering the price of molasses below smugglers cost. It also stated that exports could only go through British ports before being sold to foreign countries.
Revolutionary Americans resented the economic restrictions, finding them exploitative. They claimed the policy restricted colonial trade and industry and raised the cost of many consumer goods. In his 1774 pamphlet, "A Summary View of the Rights of British America, " Thomas Jefferson asserted the Navigation Acts had infringed upon the colonists' freedom in preventing the "exercise of free trade with all parts of the world, possessed by the American colonists, as of natural right." Yet, as O. M. Dickerson points out, it is difficult to find opposition to the mercantile system among the colonists when the measures were purely regulatory and did not levy a tax on them. The British mercantile system did after all allow for colonial monopoly over certain markets such as tobacco, and not only encouraged, but with its 1660 regulation was instrumental in, the development of colonial shipbuilding.
President Polk want to go to war with Mexico, while the Wig protested against going to war with Mexico. Document G. Sumner argued against the war because it all started because of the States annexing Texas, and it was unconstitutional to annex Texas at the first place. While in document H, the editor of New York Sun stated it was fine to go to war with Mexico because it brings the Mexicans liberty, safety, and prosperity. Another problem was the compromise for Oregon between the States and British. Due to the compromise, the northern border of the Oregon territory was set at the 49th parallel.
It also helped shaped the amendments of the constitution. Without the Declaration of Independence, the United States wouldn’t have existed and would probably still be under the British
In an effort to avoid a possible war with Britain, Washington sent Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay to Great Britain to negotiate. The verdict was that the British promised to evacuate outposts on United States soil (not likely) and pay for damages for seized American vessels, with no promise to stop future seizures. In exchange, the United States had to pay back Revolutionary War debts and abide by Great Britain’s restrictive trading policies toward France. The treaty was not extremely popular, but for the Federalists it was an opportunity to create a better relationship with Britain. For the Democratic-Republicans, it was more like surrender to Britain and a betrayal of the South, who would have to pay a major share of the war debt while wealthy Federalist shippers were being
Bismarck’s desire was to alienate France from European affairs, a France which had become resurgent and powerful after the Franco-Prussian war. In order to achieve this, he needed to remain on good terms with both Russia and Austria-Hungary, thus he formed the Dreikaiserbund (1873-1878). However, the significance of this alliance was not so great, as Austria refused to agree to any military help. Furthermore, both Russia and Austria-Hungary were rivals in the Balkans, thus making the relations between them and Germany volatile. A few years later, a crisis arose in the Balkans, as a result of which, the Dreikaiserbund was terminated.