Category: American history

Morality

One of the biggest arguments I see is the question of morality in this situation. Regardless of whether you believe it ended the war or not, it still killed many innocent civilians. On Monday the 6th of August 1945, a little boy, the name of the nuclear weapon, was dropped on Hiroshima at 580 meters. The height at which the bomb was dropped is significant as this was done to maximize the destruction of the bomb (Cochran). [Change wording and get rid of the date, write a proper intro to morality]

In the 1980s a Harvard professor called Roger Fisher posed a question that instead of a briefcase containing the nuclear launch codes there should instead be carried in a capsule embedded near the heart of a volunteer (Ackland 11). In order to get these codes, this person would have to carry a heavy blade, so in an event of having to use nuclear weapons, the present would have to gouge out the hard to retrieve the codes. The purpose of this question is to argue that if a commander-in-chief is willing to kill thousands, possibly millions, what is the difference if he had to kill one more person? With this analogy we can see that killing a person like this is morally wrong as before killing thousands, the leader must first look at someone and realize what death is and what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. (Fisher). If we take a step back and look at this act in the normal world that you and I live in this would be considered murder but in the realm of geopolitics, this would simply be a necessary action to end a war.

Some historians argue that the use of the atomic bombs on Japan was completely inhumane because of the toxic radiation present in the bombs which made them fundamentally immoral. The creator of the bombs, Robert Oppenheimer, had made comments on the dangers of the bombs saying that The active material of the bomb itself is toxic. There are about 10,000,000,000 times as much toxic material initially in the bomb itself as needed for a single lethal dose. (historycruch.com) This memo shows us the severity of the bombs used on Japan. Contact with this level of radiation would immediately lead to death for anyone close to the initial blast. The injuries caused by the atomic blasts, like burns and radiation sickness, were beyond what is acceptable in a war. Therefore, it has been argued that the bombs were inhumane and should not have been used.

In order to grasp the full extent of the damages the bombs did we must look at some statistics On August 6th, 1945, Little Boy was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The bombing instantly killed 70,000 to 80,000 Japanese in the city and tens of thousands more due to radiation exposure. Three days later on August 9th, the United States dropped another atomic bomb, named the Fat Man, on the city of Nagasaki. The bombing of Nagasaki would kill another 40,000 people (historycruch.com). Besides killing all these people the atomic bombs caused massive destruction in both cities. A whopping 90% of Hiroshima was destroyed when the atomic bomb was dropped. Looking at the instances of kills is another but to delve deeper we must look at the long-term effects these bombs had on the civilians. For example, the water in the area had been contaminated and caused many people to die from radiation poisoning. These people would try to seek medical attention but this was almost impossible as the medical facilities had been destroyed in the blast (Douple). This example is significant because it illustrates that these atomic bombs do not just kill people in their initial blast. In fact, the worst part of these atomic bombs is the nuclear fallout that follows them. This activity demonstrates that the civilians are the ones who are the worst off after an atomic bomb. This clearly raises the question that the United States should not have used the atomic bombs for this reason and should have instead carried out smaller bombing raids that could more easily target specific military targets (Fisher).

Was the USA really out of options?

Was the USA really out of options is a question historians regularly ask themselves. Around July President Harry S Truman was notified of the success of the first atomic bomb calling it the most terrible bomb in the history of the world (National Park Service). Even when thinking like this Truman still thought that the only way to end the war was by using this bomb. However, President Truman had 4 possible options: 1) Bombing of Japanese cities; 2) Full-scale invasion of Japan; 3) the Demonstration of bombs on an unpopulated island to warn Japan of an upcoming attack; 4) Or drop on an inhabited city in Japan. Let’s look at each of these options in more detail

Option 1: Conventional Bombing of the Japanese Home Islands

When the US entered they started bombing Japan from the beginning but only started in earnest in mid-1944. Only in one year, from April 1944-August 1945, an estimated 333,000 people were killed and a further half a million were wounded in the air raids. One of the most significant air raids was the firebombing attack on Tokyo in March 1945. This resulted in severe casualties and the Japanese capitol had almost all been destroyed but regardless the Japanese did not surrender (Pape 163). The firebombing of Tokyo was one of the most terrible things that ever happened, and they didn’t surrender after that although Tokyo was almost completely destroyed. This implies that the Japanese would never surrender under normal warfare circumstances. Truman understood this and knew he would need to show more force for the Japanese to surrender.

Option 2: Ground Invasion of Japanese Home Islands

The US had thought of launching a ground invasion of the Japanese home islands. But the American government realized that the Japanese did not surrender easily and that they had made great sacrifices to defend the smallest islands. The US had already Faced pain on the battlefield resulting in lots of casualties. Truman was afraid that a full-scale invasion of Japan would be met by even more resistance and then result in more casualties. (Grimsley). Truman wrote My object is to save as many American lives as possible but I also have a human feeling for the women and children of Japan. So by August Truman had realized that a ground invasion would lead to more American casualties.

Option 3: Demonstration of the Atomic Bomb on an Unpopulated Area

Another option that was suggested was to demonstrate the power of the atomic bomb to frighten the Japanese into surrendering. This idea actually was considered quite thorough as a target island was selected. But this idea did raise a few questions. The first question that was raised was who would Japan select to evaluate the demonstration and advise the government. A single scientist? A committee of politicians? How much time would elapse before Japan communicated its decision and how would that time be used? To prepare for more fighting? Would a nation surrender based on the opinion of a single person or a small group? (National Park Service). Secondly, the possibility of the bomb being a dud was a thought that was concerning for the Americans. The atomic bomb was a very new weapon that was not fully understood. Thirdly, at the time there were only two atomic bombs so it would have been very wasteful to use 50% of the atomic arsenal on a demonstration.

Option 4: Use of the Atomic Bomb on a Populated Area

The last option, and the one they chose. The US had concluded that the only way to make an adequate impression was to bomb a city. They knew that if they gave any advanced warning that it would put the bomber crews in danger because the Japanese would attempt to shoot them down. The reason why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen is that firstly they had to be a city that had not been too damaged by conventional bombing so that it could be said that all the damage was from the nuclear bomb. Secondly, the city must primarily be used as a military production. However, in Japan workers’ homes were intermingled with the factories that produce weapons.

Did the US break International Law?

The Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907 set the laws on what can and cannot happen in war. If we look at Article 26 states ‘The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.’ (INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS) From this article, we can clearly see that the US did not inform the Japanese of an attack. In one way this makes sense as if they had told the Japanese they would have done something to destroy the bomber crews. On the other hand, it does seem to violate this article as it says except in cases of assault it can be argued that it should not be called an assault but instead should be called an attack.

Secondly, Article 27 states In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand. This article clearly implies that nothing of historical importance should be damaged but the atomic bomb destroys everything even those not related to the war effort (think about hospitals, universities, high schools, primary schools, kindergartens, religious buildings, cultural landmarks, residential suburbs, etc). At least with the conventional bombing, bombers aim for specific military-related targets (like barracks, munitions factories, depots, etc)

To fully understand these laws we must look at the situation the US was in. In regards to Article 26, there was nothing the US could have done to abide by this law. If they did abide by this law the Japanese most likely would have been able to stop the attack. For Article 27 Truman stipulated it should not be a city of traditional cultural significance to Japan, such as Kyoto. Truman did not seek to destroy Japanese culture or people; the goal was to destroy Japan`s ability to make war. (National Park Service) We can clearly

Intro

On the 7th of December 1941, after months of diplomacy and hollow words, the Imperial Japanese Navy launched a surprise attack on the US Pacific Fleet located in Pearl Harbour, Hawaii. This attack sparked the entry of the United States into the Second World War as well as one of the biggest naval battles in history, the Battle of Midway. The Battle of Midway resulted in an American victory and proved to be a significant turning point in the Pacific War, seen by many historians as the most decisive naval battle of WWII. The Battle of Midway was a profusely significant turning point in the war as it constituted the end of Japanese Naval dominance for the rest of the war period, the march of the Imperial Japanese Navy across the Pacific was halted, and it allowed the US to commence their strategy of attrition on the Japanese armed forces as the US economy was prosperous against Japan’s leading the US to “win through to absolute victory”(Franklin D Roosevelt).

In a war where 95% of the battlefield contains 130.8 million square kilometers of pure ocean, it is safe to say that naval dominance is almost essential to success. And for the first 6 months of the war, the Japanese certainly had it. The United States was only just beginning to dust itself off from the depression when Japan hit Pearl Harbour and her fleet was yet to grow to full potential and Admiral Yamamoto knew this. After failing to destroy American carriers at Pearl Harbour, Yamamoto argued that a ‘decisive victory’ was needed if Japan was to have any chance of succeeding in winning the war. They attacked the base of Midway as they knew that the US Pacific Fleet would respond instantly to protect it due to its strategic significance, and respond they did. The Japanese lost all their carriers and the Americans lost one. In a stroke of pure luck, two dive bomber squadrons of the US Air Force sunk two carriers the Hiryu and the Akaga in just 5 minutes! The attack was described by well-noted Midway historian John Parshall as a “devastating blow to the already dwindling possibility of Japanese victory”. It was a defeat of monumental proportions for the Japanese, and a defeat that they would never recover from for the rest of the war, marking the end of Japanese naval dominance in the Pacific.

For months prior to the Battle of Midway, the IJN found themselves gaining territory of astounding proportions, taking the Philippines, Singapore, and most of the East Indies from the Netherlands in a space of 5 months. All of this was in the name of extending Japan’s ‘defensive perimeter’ which could be used as a buffer against the USA invading mainland Japan. The Battle of Midway blows this strategy out of the water, quite literally, as the “Japanese navy is virtually decimated” said the late Chris Trueman. Midway truly marked a turning point in the war, as US Rear Admiral Spruance famously said that because of the victory, “we are finally able to begin fighting this war” as if the fighting hadn’t even begun yet. When looking beneath the surface though, what we see is a look at the US mentality toward the war up until that point. They were able to shift from a defensive mentality to an offensive one. Hone suggests that “After Midway, the Japanese would react to the Americans, and not the other way around”. This means that shattering the IJN’s advance in the Pacific during the Battle of Midway was an outright turning point in the war.

The last reason why the Battle was a significant turning point is to do with attrition and industry. When the war began, in what John Parshall describes as “the carrier scorecard” both sides each had 6 flight decks (heavy carriers) while the Japanese also had an extra 5 light carriers at her disposal with two American carriers off in the Atlantic Ocean leaving the USA with 4, showing a clear Japanese advantage. By the eve of Midway, the USS Lexington was destroyed in the Battle of the Coral Sea and the USS Saratoga was being repaired at Pearl Harbour, leaving only the USS Yorktown, USS Enterprise, and the USS Hornet to fend off 4 Japanese carriers and 5 light carriers in the Battle of Midway. Post-Midway however, all 4 Japanese carriers were destroyed, to the Americans measly 1, in the words of John Parshall “ouch”. By September 1944 Japan had made up her losses at Midway unit for unit, but the Americans went on to build 8x the number of carriers that Japan did, and even built an extra 126 escort carriers as well, simply squashing Japanese industrial capabilities. Hence meaning that because of Midway, there was absolutely no way that the Japanese could ever regain the initiative, and sealed the fate of her demise in the Pacific War.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Battle of Midway was the crescendo in naval warfare during WWII and proved to be absolutely decisive to America and her allies winning the war. Moreover, it is correctly illuminated by historians who highlight it as the turning point in the war, thus making the extent of its influence over the war humongous and conclusive to Allied victory.

After the victory in the Spanish-American War, the United States was known as a world power. Many Americans believed that the nation should expand and claim land overseas due to Manifest Destiny being already complete. During the war, the United States acquired the Philippine archipelago located in Southeast Asia which made the Philippines in the hands of the United States in which President McKinley prayed over what to do with it. The supporters of the annexation of the Philippines gave many reasons why annexation was positive and helpful to the country, one of them being the “White Man’s Burden”: The idea that Americans are superior and they have a moral duty to “civilize and sanitize” the Filipino people. But however, the most important factor that led to President McKinley’s decision to annex the Philippines is the idea that it could become the window for the United States to lucrative Chinese markets. This opportunity provided lots of raw materials and overseas markets for the country as it rapidly industrialized materials. This decision by McKinley became a part of the Treaty of Paris with Spain, which the United States Senate then had to ratify or reject. While many Americans supported and agreed with McKinley and the annexation, the anti-imperialists believed that annexing the Philippines meant that Filipino nationalists would fight against the United States as they had fought against Spain. The hypocrisy of the annexation was clear to the Philippines because Americans had fought the war with Spain in order to free the country of Cuba, and now we’re taking control of the Philippines. The United States had always been fighting for democracy and if the United States annexed the Philippines, it would be against their beliefs and opinions in self-determination. Labor unions, like the AFL, were against the annexation because of the fear of competition from cheap Filipino labor. Despite the opposition, President McKinley still decided on annexing the Philippines which caused more chaos. The Filipinos refused to be controlled and used by another foreign country and rebelled which resulted in two years of guerilla warfare which resulted in the Filipinos’ dream of independence being crushed. During this era, the Supreme Court ruled that the Filipino people would not be entitled to the full rights of American citizenship. The United States took overseas colonies with no intention of ever making them states, unlike the territories that were added to the Union during Manifest Destiny.

As the disasters of WWI finally settled down, the Axis Powers surrendered to the Allies in 1918. The Allied countries, primarily consisting of Britain, France, Italy, and the U.S., were left with rebuilding a broken Europe and the desire to make Germany pay for a war Britain and France thought Germany had incited. Earlier, Wilson had shown his fourteen points, which consisted of goals for creating peace after the world war. After many changes and debates, the Allies came to agree on the Treaty of Versailles, which contained many changes and one of Wilson’s crucial points: The League of Nations. By creating an international organization, the Allied Powers would have liked to solve conflicts with words and treaties, rather than combat. Having fought so persistently for this article, Wilson proposed the Treaty to the Senate for ratification, naively expecting strong support. In a unanimous decision, the Senate dismissed the treaty. Conservatives and liberals alike felt that our country had for quite some time been doing things based on isolationist policies based on former President Washington’s advice to avoid mingling and interacting with other countries. President Wilson went on a campaign to gather support for the passing of the treaty, The nation was separated. Supporters of President Wilson saw the importance of an international organization and felt it was the safest way to ensure worldwide peace. Other people thought that involvement in an International Alliance would threaten the United States’ independence of governing, and drag the U.S. into another war. Reservationists supported an amendment to the treaty, which would preserve Congress’ capacity to declare war and breakpoint our military support for the League of Nations. Congress refused to approve the treaty as is; Wilson refused to accept any changes and passed away. Without United States ratification, a weak League of Nations was created, but without U.S. involvement it remained weak and ineffective. Perhaps if Wilson had gotten the support he expected, the U.S. might have strengthened the League, prevented the rise of dictators, and the declaration of WWII.

Both books recognize that the American Revolution was a far more complicated affair than the more traditional narrative provides. In ‘The Hanging of Thomas Jeremiah: A Free Black Man’s Encounter with Liberty’, J. William Harris is able to show the hypocrisy of a nation that fights for independence while simultaneously denying the same right to others because of racial differences. In ‘The Martyr and the Traitor: Nathan Hale, Moses Dunbar, and the American Revolution’, Virginia DeJohn Anderson provides a dual biography that presents how social networks, religion and locality influence an individual’s alliance. Both books contribute significantly to the bigger picture of the American Revolution.

In ‘The Hanging of Thomas Jeremiah’, chapter one provides a stark contrast between the living conditions of white colonists versus those of African slaves in Charles Town in 1775, primarily focusing on the wealth of slave merchant Henry Laurens. Chapter two highlights the hypocrisy of wealthy individuals like Laurens, who rebelled against the limitless power of the British crown while maintaining those same powers over slaves. Chapter three discusses the trial of a freed slave James Somerset, the ruling suggested that all slavery was now outlawed in England thus convincing Laurens that England was now even more unjust. Chapter four focuses on the growing concerns of the General Committee of Charles Town regarding a possible slave rebellion, while the same committee promises to resist the enslavement by the British. The concern of a slave rebellion makes Thomas Jeremiah an easy target due to his financial success. Chapter five provided a background of Lord William Campbell who became the final British governor of South Carolina during the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Chapter six discuses the division among Patriots in the backcountry of the Carolinas. Harris once again highlights the hypocrisy of the colonist’s fight for freedom from the British while denying Thomas Jeremiah the right to a trial. The final chapter contains the execution of Thomas Jeremiah and provides details of Campbell’s multiple attempts to intervene and Laurens’ lack of knowledge surrounding the trial even though Laurens fully supported the execution.

In the book ‘The Martyr and the Traitor’, Virginia Anderson provides the biographies of two characters, Nathan Hale and Moses Dunbar, to suggest why someone of that time period would choose to fight for either the patriots or loyalists. Chapter one provides the background of the two character’s fathers, providing the reader relevant details of each character’s financial background. The second chapter focuses on the marriage between Dunbar and Phoebe that occurred because of an accidental pregnancy. Dunbar and his father were not financially prepared for a marriage but during the time period there was no other option. After the marriage, Dunbar converts to Anglicanism likely because of his wife. Chapter three talks about the opportunity Hale receives to be able to attend Yale because of his privileged background, an opportunity Dunbar never is privileged enough to receive. Chapter four discusses the growing animosity towards Anglicans which further divides the nation. The chapter discusses events surrounding the Boston Tea Party and the Boston Massacre, indicating that the colonies and Great Britain will never make amends. Chapter five discusses Hale’s conflicting desires to use his Yale degree to teach but also provide a public service for his nation, Hale ends up accepting a position of first lieutenant. Chapter six discusses the growing concern of the patriots after enduring several losses which leads to Hale to aggreging to spy on the British. Hale knows this task was extremely dangerous and was likely to fail, but Hale is determined to provide a service for his nation. In chapter seven, Dunbar’s wife, Phoebe, succumbs to her illness. After this unfortunate event, Dunbar decides to head towards Long Island to enlist in a loyalist regiment likely to support his family. Dunbar has to recruit other men to join the loyalist regiments and he returns to Farmington with the proof, a slip of paper in his pocket. Both Dunbar and Whitmore are convicted of high treason, but Dunbar is the only man hung because his lack of family connections. Chapter seven provides the details of Hale’s execution for spying on the British, his cousin Samuel Hale turns him in. The final chapter, the war finally comes to an end. In 1783, the Patriots defeat the British, but the colonies struggle to close divides among the country in a post-war society.

In ‘The Hanging of Thomas Jeremiah’, Harris focuses on the political environment of Charles Town, South Carolina by providing detailed descriptions of the atmosphere right on the brink of the American Revolution and showing why this leads to the hanging of an innocent and freed man. In T’he Martyr and the Traitor’, Anderson provides the background of two men with opposing political alliances and attempts to explain how the differing alliances form. Both books help the reader understand the complexity of the Revolutionary War. Anderson suggests that the concept of independence in the colonies was not widely understood and the backgrounds of the two men are not bound to produce only once alliance. An important theme of both books is exposing many of the contradictions that occur on both alliances and ultimately were built into the foundation of the United States. Anderson addresses the complexity of humanitarian issues in the revolution; however, the legacies of the two men is determined only by the outcome of the war. Thomas Jeremiah is tried under the Negro Act of 1740 in a slave court, meaning that he is considered to be guilty until proven innocent. The case catches the attention of William Campbell, who at the time is considered to be enslaving the colonies. Campbell believes the accusations to be unjust and tries to intervene but is not successful.

Anderson was successful in providing background information regarding the Revolutionary War making it accessible to readers who may lack experience or knowledge in the subject. Anderson was able to find several letters written by Hale which are included in the book, but presumably had difficulty finding letters written by Dunbar. Even without many writings from Dunbar, Anderson is still able to convey Dunbar’s personality and background throughout the novel. Harris likely experiences the same predicament. The archives unfortunately do not contain many writings from people of color of the time period, likely because of the existing racism or because of primary sources lost or destroyed during the war. This theory explains why the book does not focus heavily on Thomas Jeremiah even though his name is featured in the title of the book. Regardless, Harris is able to present a lesser known, darker side of the American Revolution; a story focusing on the conflicting principles held by the colonists. Both authors are successful in conveying the complexity of the war, suggesting that the war involves much more than just fighting for independence. Before reading the books, the reader may have had a predetermined idea about which alliance they support but after completing the books the reader is likely able to sympathize with both alliances.

When reading ‘The Martyr and the Traitor’, it becomes evident to the reader that book is an incredibly well researched dual biography. By comparing the lives of two Connecticut men, Anderson is able to convey how similar men are pulled into two very different directions. Anderson’s thorough research provides the reader an understanding of how each man’s alliance is predetermined through their cultural and social connections. Harris focuses Thomas Jeremiah in the center of the novel and places other notable characters and their writings around Jeremiah to help better understand the life of Jeremiah because, so few details are known, this is quite an innovative strategy but still deficient in providing the reader enough details regarding the life of Thomas Jeremiah. Both books convey the complexity of the war and the divides it causes in the nation, but ‘The Martyr and the Traitor’ is able to use a wider variety of primary sources to support this argument.

Midway was a crucial battle within the Pacific theatre of World War Two. The events that occurred at the Battle of Midway would change the direction of the war. Before Midway, Japan had launched an unexpected attack on Pearl Harbor. This attack would spur the United States into declaring war on Japan. Going forward, The United States would play a crucial role in fighting the Axis powers in several theatres of war. The film Midway depicts events that occurred in the Pacific theatre and offers insight into the activities of both sides during the conflict.

The film Midway begins in 1937 in Tokyo, Japan. After a formal gathering, Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto and U.S. naval attaché Edwin Layton discuss regional politics and the potential for war in the future. Yamamoto during this discussion explicitly states, regarding U.S. oil supplies to Japan, that if “that supply is threatened it will force us into drastic measures” (“Midway” 4:28-32). This discussion would foreshadow future events. The next scene, which occurred December 7, 1941, on the USS Enterprise, encompasses training and the daily routine of the sailors. Later, the scene shifts to the USS Arizona in Pearl Harbor; Pearl Harbor is under an intense aerial attack by Japan. Following the attack, plans for a response are made; Admiral Chester Nimitz is named the new commander of the severely damaged U.S. Pacific Fleet. Lieutenant Commander Edwin Layton meets Nimitz and he asks, “Didn’t you try to warn my predecessor about the impending attack” (“Midway” 32:50-54). Nimitz, not wanting to repeat his predecessor’s mistake, is highly considerate of Layton and states “I need you to be my Admiral Yamamoto…Tell me what he is going to do next”( “Midway” 38:48-53 ).

In the Marshall Islands in February 1942, the Japanese Fleet is left heavily damaged after heavy fighting ensued. Next, a duo of brief intermediate scenes at an Officer’s Club in Honolulu and at an officer’s home sheds a light on the dynamics between the officers on the ship and their personal lives. On April 18, 1942, Lieutenant Colonel James Doolittle begins his flight to conduct the “Doolittle Raid” where he and his squadron bomb mainland Japan. Doolittle’s squadron, while successful, runs out of fuel and is forced to eject from their planes. In the next scene, Layton tells Nimitz that one of his officers thinks that the “Coral Sea is just a warm-up, they’re planning something much bigger” (“Midway” 53:57-54:02). Subsequently, Layton and Nimitz discuss the Japanese Navy’s next move. There is an important disagreement as Layton believes Midway is the target; however, Washington intelligence believes that the target is the Coral Sea. Nimitz visits Layton’s intelligence codebreakers, where he talks to the main codebreaker Commander Joseph Rochefort. Layton explains that the difference between his and Washington’s intel is about what location the target code named AF. Layton then says “Sir, after Pearl, you told me to stick to my guns. I swear… Joe is right about this” (“Midway” 1:02:18-22). Soon after, a plan devised by Layton confirms that AF is indeed Midway; accordingly, Nimitz plans future operations around Midway.

On June 4th at 6:40 am, the Japanese Carrier Air Group launches an attack on Midway. At 7:10 am, the Midway Island Air Group launches a counterattack on the Japanese Fleet that results in negligible damage. Next, a Japanese pilot spots the U.S Fleet thus spurring the Japanese to order an attack. Later, at approximately 7:45, the submarine USS Nautilus spots a Japanese carrier and unsuccessfully attempts to torpedo the carrier. Additionally, U.S. planes have been launched and are headed for the Japanese Fleet. At 9:38 am, they reach the Japanese Fleet. In the ensuing intense battle, three Japanese carriers are destroyed. Next, Japanese admirals decide to launch a counterattack on the USS Yorktown. The remainder of the USS Enterprise squadron is sent to attack the Japanese Fleet. At 4:56, the US Combined Air Group intensely fights the Japanese squadron and destroys another Japanese carrier. The Battle of Midway ends as Admiral Yamamoto orders the remainder of his fleet to retreat. Layton, after receiving intel, rushes to tell Nimitz that “the Japanese are retreating” (“Midway” 2:01:16-18) to much delight.

One of the most interesting characters in the movie Midway is Lieutenant Dick Best. Best is initially introduced into the movie as a pilot that is cocky and displays a fearless yet slightly unrestrained bravado. However, Best undergoes a character transformation after the death of a young pilot named Willey West whom he mentored. The death of West greatly impacts Best; thinking of the day’s events Best states “I wrote a letter to his mother yesterday, telling her how I failed him” (“Midway” 1:11:10-13). Later as Best is promoted to Executive Officer, he has transformed into a thoughtful and resolute leader who puts his men first. For example, after inhaling tainted oxygen on a flying mission, Best refuses to leave his men at the risk of his health. Best states “I’m not sending the squadron out there without their commander” (“Midway” 1:26:02-05). This is a testament to Best’s character transformation; he was concerned for his men as he coughed blood. This transformation is what makes his Lieutenant Best one of the most interesting characters in the movie.

Another interesting character within the movie was Lieutenant Commander Edwin Layton. Layton is first introduced as a naval attaché at the American Embassy in Tokyo. While there, Layton has an interesting conversation with Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto regarding politics. Layton’s unique intelligence is highlighted as he becomes a naval intelligence officer. Layton’s “gift” is his ability to decipher codes and gather intelligence. Layton, due to his skills, garners the favor of Admiral Chester Nimitz. Nimitz keeps Layton close to him and frequently depends on him for intelligence matters. Moreover, Layton’s intense dedication to his job is what makes his character so interesting. For example, Nimitz implores Layton to get some rest after stating “You’ve memorized every position on that board Layton go home” (“Midway” 1:16:14-17). Layton then responds, “I think I am going to spend the night here sir” (“Midway” 1:16:18-20). Layton is fiercely dedicated to his craft and even hampers his relationship with his wife to accomplish the mission. Layton would go on to correctly predict the attack on Midway and help U.S. forces defeat the Japanese Fleet.

Midway interestingly portrays the history and people of the Pacific War era. Usually, films that deal with the Pacific War paint the Japanese simply as barbaric and cruel; the Allies are painted as brave and heroic. However, Midway took a different neutral tone that dispenses respect for both sides; this neutral tone is evidenced by the film quote “The sea remembers its own” (“Midway” 2:09:05-09). Both sides are illustrated as passionate and strategic; furthermore, each side possesses its emotional desires and motivations to fight. Additionally, the viewpoint of the Japanese is more intricately incorporated into the film. While the film is a more neutral portrayal of the war, it also briefly highlights the employment of violent tactics employed by Japan in China. For example, Lieutenant Colonel Jimmy Doolittle asks a Chinese resistance member about a stack of bodies. The member responds that “they’re targeting people” (“Midway” 59:10-12) to Doolittle’s dismay. The film also highlights the realistic but brutal nature of being captured by Japanese forces during the war. For example, Bruno Gaido (portrayed by Nick Jonas) is interrogated and upon an unsatisfactory answer is thrown overboard the ship. Overall, Midway attempts to portray the events that occurred surrounding the battle of Midway as even-handed as possible.

Moreover, the portrayal of the Pacific War and its participants in Midway is fairly historically accurate. The first reason for this assertion is the fairly impartial portrayal of both sides during the war. The film attempts to delve into the workings of both parties. Another reason that also makes the movie believable is the emotion and passion that the characters possess. Individuals from the pilots like Lieutenant Best to intelligence officers such as Lieutenant Commander Layton are highlighted as fiercely dedicated to their jobs. This realistically illustrates the determination of the service members who valiantly worked in the service of their nation. Lastly, the scenes are realistic and capture several aspects of the lives of service members from personal to work. These aforementioned reasons supply a film that is historically accurate and believable.

Hacksaw Ridge is a film about the Pacific War that chronicles bravery and heroism in a combat theatre similar to Midway. Hacksaw Ridge chronicles the exploits of Medal of Honor recipient Desmond Doss. Doss, who refused to use a weapon, underwent several hardships to serve in combat as a medic without a weapon. At the Battle of Okinawa Doss, under harsh conditions, saved tens of soldiers. One of the settings in Hacksaw Ridge is the Pacific Ocean similar to Midway. Also, Hacksaw Ridge captures U.S. forces in intense combat with Japanese forces as well. Both films highlight bravery under the harsh conditions of war. Another book that I have read that is comparable to Midway is Band of Brothers by Stephen Ambrose. This book chronicles the exploits of the U.S. Army’s Easy Company within the 101st Airborne Division. From D-Day, Easy Company makes their way across Europe to eventually capture Adolf Hitler’s Eagles Nest in southern Germany. Moreover, A difference between this book and the two films is that the setting occurs in the European theatre of World War Two. However, Band of Brothers similarly highlights the heroism of U.S. forces in combat.

Midway is an intriguing and interesting film that explores the events surrounding the Battle of Midway. The film illuminates an intriguing window into a historical event that turned the tide of war in the Pacific. Furthermore, it delves into the conflict on an individual level capturing the thoughts and actions of everyday troops. This film was a good portrayal of the war from a fairly impartial perspective. Japanese troops’ thoughts, actions, and feelings are delved into as well. This is an asset to the film that increases its intriguing aura. The imagery, plot, and acting were great as they aid the overall quality of the film. Moreover, watching the character development and action was an interesting part of the film. This affords a glimpse into the lives of the men who fought in the war. After viewing Midway, I would recommend this film to anyone interested in the Pacific War. The film is captivating and offers a new perspective on the Pacific War.

One of the most important parts of the American Revolution were the weapons. All wars back then were fought with weapons. Weapons were used for other things to, like hunting for food, but weapons were mostly important in wars. The soldiers felt like they could not win without weapons and when they had some decent weapons back then, like the moatar and the cannon, it gave both sides the confidence they needed to win the war.

A frequently asked questions were what were the main types of weapons did they use in the american revolution? They mainly used mid-range and close-range weapons and the most commonly used weapons in the revolution was the musket with a bayonet at the end. Most of them being from America and Brittan. When soldiers were too close and/or out of ammo, they would charge at the enemy side with their bayonet.

We know that in the american revolution they mainly used muskets. But what was the most popular type of musket that they liked to use? Well, the most popular type of musket back then was the Brown-Bess. You might have seen it in american revolution movies or when you think about a musket this type of musket is the one you see in your head. It has an effective range up to 100 but it can actually fire up to 300 yards. Most used and came from the british army. It can fire about 3 to 4 rounds every minute. It had a smooth bore and was loaded through the muzzle. It was one of the best weapons in its time.

This question isn’t really asked too often but it is a question that i found interesting myself and it is “what were their training and battle tactics were like?”. For training, they would shoot at targets on trees and at glass bottles. For battle tactics, they would use a strategy called “linear tactics”. They would stand in horizontal lines, and when the first line shooths, they would kneel down to reload and the second line would fire. Then, they would kneel down to reload and it would repeat. This was pretty effective at the beginning because the patriots did not have a real plan. After they fired up enough rolleys, they would charge at the the enemy with the bayonets. They really just used basic training but their battle tactics were really good but they got sloppy and threw away the plan once they started charging at the enemy’s.

To conclude, there wasn’t really a lot of diversity in the weapons back then like there are now, and they were not as effective, but the weapons did do their purpose. They did help win the war. They were important back then and are still important today. The evolution of weapons from the 18th century to the 21st century is a huge jump.

The moral duality of Thomas Jefferson has been explored in countless papers. How could a man with such enlightened thoughts and an important role in the founding of the government support such a corrupt system like slavery? Monticello tour guides are quick to remind visitors that this Founding Father owned around 600 slaves while arguing that ‘all men are created equal’. However, Jefferson might just be a victim of an evolving moral compass of his time and a flawed perspective from our current time. It could be argued that during Jefferson’s time, slavery was slowly declining and that he himself was opposed to slavery and attempted to limit its spread with all the limited resources he possessed but could not take radical actions against the peculiar institution for fear of shattering the union.

Jefferson’s first initial hypocrisy might stem from the projected decline of slavery in his time. During the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, slavery was projected to soon fizzle out because of its limited profitability. Even then, in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that King George III was guilty of “captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither” (Deleted Passage of Declaration). According to BlackPast.org, Jefferson later admitted that he was forced to remove these passages in exchange for more vague ones to compromise with the Southern delegates. This forecast and compromise could justify Jefferson’s “all men are created equal” phrasing of the Declaration of Independence: he knew slavery was declining and would soon be a thing of the past. However, no one could have predicted a revolutionary invention in 1794: the cotton gin. This mechanism greatly simplified the separation of raw cotton into textiles, which made large-scale farms a lucrative and profitable economic venture. According to the National Archives, “the yield of raw cotton doubled each decade after 1800”. This demand meant that more slaves were required to work longer on larger plantations, continuing the system’s life cycle for another 60 years. The southern slave population rose from about 800,000 in the 1790s to about 3 million in 1850 (Smith). Jefferson’s declaration was written at a time when slavery was at the end of its decline, so his views are seen as much more moral as compared to the general consensus of the time period. Many will argue that Jefferson still owned slaves nonetheless, which immediately puts him on par with all other slaveholders. These people fail to realize that most at the time could not conceive of normal life affairs without slave labor. Slaves were a commodity that farmed plants and generated a steady profit and paying them would greatly decrease profit margins. In addition, slaves were an obvious status symbol reserved for only the wealthiest and most powerful in society. Refusing to use slave labor was seen as a rejection of traditional Southern values and lifestyle.

In his personal and public life, Thomas Jefferson was relatively benevolent to his slaves compared to other slaveholders of the time. While Jefferson owned more than 600 slaves in his lifetime, he was considered a moderate master by other farmers and his views were quite progressive for his time. There are multiple accounts of Jefferson purchasing extra workers to reunite families or to keep mothers with their children (Monticello FAQ Section). He also provided many amenities to them such as fireplaces to stay warm and clothing. According to Monticello.org, excavations uncovered several “log cabins around 12’x14′ to 12’x20 1/2′ … with wooden chimneys” Each one of these houses was around 170 square feet to 240 square feet. He also rarely employed the whip or any sort of severe punishment, instead using positive reinforcements like gratuities or tips. He once wrote that the whip “must not be resorted to except in extremities” (Monticello.org). All of these ‘benefits’ were at a time when slave owners were not required to provide any sort of basic needs or amenities to their ‘property’ and many slaves bled out after hundreds of punishing lashings. Thus, if you view Jefferson’s actions and decisions from an individual twenty-first-century perspective — a time period where human rights are at the highest they’ve ever been — you might consider him a cruel and unfeeling monster that abused hundreds of people for profit, along with the rest of the plantation owners. However, if you start to examine Monticello in comparison to other surrounding plantations, Jefferson’s farm stands out. Jefferson also viewed individual slaves as more equal to himself than other slaveholders. In 1787 he sent for Sally Hemmings, a mixed-race girl enslaved from birth. According to the New York Times, there is a “growing historical consensus” that Jefferson and Sally went on to father several mulatto children. This affair shows that Jefferson considered his slaves, or at least some of them, humans, and not simply property. In fact, according to Annette Gordon-Reed, a professor of Legal History at Harvard, Jefferson freed most of Sally’s children and herself after his death. All of these decisions and beliefs come together to show that Jefferson was rather moderate and progressive in his treatment of slaves for his time period. On many occasions, Thomas Jefferson used his official position to slowly decrease the abundance of slavery. In 1769, Jefferson was admitted to the Virginia House of Burgesses. During his 7 years in that position, he introduced laws that allowed slaveholders to emancipate their slaves. During his subsequent career as a Virginia lawyer, he also argued several cases defending escaped slaves. According to Gordon-Reed, Jefferson even “waived his fee for one client”. After the American Revolution, Jefferson served as the chairman of Committees in Congress. From 1783-84, Jefferson wrote the Jefferson Proviso that called to ban slavery in the United States. William Merkel, from the Charleston School of Law, writes that “while this ordinance failed by a close margin, it set an important future [precedent]”. This precedent helped establish an anti-slavery environment in Congress. Jefferson’s provision was later incorporated into the Northwestern Ordinance and had a direct effect on Northwestern colony law and slavehood. Thus, his actions in court and Congress, directly and indirectly, influenced the lives of many slaves and slowly addressed the issue nationwide.

Thomas Jefferson was a powerful politician and competent president but his actions were nonetheless limited because of his political priorities and the fragile union between the two polarized groups of states. Therefore, he knew that slavery was an important issue that needed to be addressed, but later. If he tried to address it immediately, at the time of his presidency or earlier, it could have torn the young nation in half. There would no doubt be more pushback from his fellow rebellious plantation owners, possibly leading to even more disastrous consequences. Abraham Lincoln tried to address the same issue smoothly and his actions led to an all-out civil war. After his two terms as President, Jefferson also strongly criticized the Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 for fear of the breakup of the Union. He wrote that Missouri’s statehood as a slave state was “the knell of the Union”. When he was asked if the Union would stay together for any considerable time, he replied “I now doubt it much”. These views parallel Jefferson’s actions 20 years earlier. He perhaps believed that slavery was an issue that should be solved by later generations when the country had more public support, not by the third or fifth president. This temporal ignorance of important issues allowed different states with very differing opinions and views of morality to coexist in one union. In short, Jefferson was careful around the issue of slavery so as to not disturb the fragile balance between the different states as well as his own political career.

Thomas Jefferson has been criticized by many historians for his dualistic nature. On one hand, he condemned slavery in his later life, claiming it might be the issue that tears the nation apart. On the other, this same man owned hundreds of slaves to the day he died and only released a dozen after his death. However, it is unfair to look at Jefferson in a vacuum: to judge his actions as only his. Instead, people should consider him a product of his time; a successful man who exploited the most common resources to gain his fortune. It’s hard to label Jefferson as a hypocrite because his actions were not yet established to be moral or immoral by society. Jefferson was a man of his time, a time when profitable slavery was commonplace throughout the South. Even then, Thomas Jefferson did many acts to alleviate the prevalence of slavery including acting benevolently on his personal plantations as well as changing statewide and nationwide legislatures. For these actions, he should be praised, and not labeled a hypocrite.

Works Cited

1. Bear, James A, et al. Jefferson at Monticello. University Press of Virginia, 1995.
2. “Eli Whitney’s Patent for the Cotton Gin.” The National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, 14 June 1997, https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/cotton-gin-patent.
3. Ferling, J. (2013). Jefferson and Hamilton: The Rivalry That Forged a Nation. 1st ed. Chicago.
4. Gordon-Reed, Annette, and Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: an American Controversy. Univ. Press of Virginia, 2000.
5. Kennedy, David M. author. The American Pageant: a History of the American People. Boston, “Slavery at Monticello FAQs – Property.” Monticello, https://www.monticello.org/slavery/slavery-faqs/property/.
6. Stockman, Farah, and Gabriella Demczuk. “Monticello Is Done Avoiding Jefferson’s Relationship With Sally Hemings.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 June 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/16/us/sally-hemings-exhibit-monticello.html.
7. Merkel, William G., Jefferson’s Failed Anti-Slavery Proviso of 1784 and the Nascence of Free Soil Constitutionalism (2008). Seton Hall Law Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2008. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1123973
8. “Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello.” Slave Dwellings | Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello, 19 Nov. 2016, https://web.archive.org/web/20160304054218/https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/slave-dwellings.
9. BlackPast, B. (2009, August 10) (1776) The Deleted Passage of the Declaration of Independence. Retrieved from https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/declaration-independence-and-debate-over-slavery/
10. Smith, Jeremy N. ‘Making Cotton King.’ EBSCOHost Connection. connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/43157258/making-cotton-king. Accessed 20 Oct. 2019. Accession #43157258

Over 58,000 U.S. soldiers were wounded or killed in the Vietnam War. This statistic was a tragic event that occurred in the 1960s. Even though the Vietnam War was a huge downfall in the ’60s, there were some positive events that occurred such as the Civil Rights Movement. The Civil Rights Movement gave African Americans a better future in America. The exploration of space was also a high point of this era. Many people’s lives were changed in the ’60s as a result of The Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War, and The Great Space Race.

Martin Luther King Jr. and Bayard Rustin have changed the course of history tremendously. They held the “March down Washington” on August 28, 1963, and as he once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. Dorothy Height, John Lewis, and Hosea Williams were a big part of the Civil Rights Movement too. The “March down Washington” was for jobs and freedom for the black community in America. (Martin Luther King) was one of the most well-known figures in the era and is also known for using nonviolent civil disobedience grounded in Christian beliefs. He was a pastor, activist, humanitarian, and leader of the Civil Rights Movement. Without the Civil Rights Movement, the black community wouldn’t be where they are today in America.

The Vietnam War started on November 1, 1955, as small Vietnam protests began small among peace activists. The tension between both sides caused the war. 75,000 Vietnam veterans are severely disabled from the war. The north of Vietnam ended up helping out with the southern parts of Vietnam in the war. About 58,00 U.S soldiers died out of about a total of 3,000,000 deaths in the Vietnam War. 2,000,000 civilians from both the U.S. and Vietnam. The war ended up ending on April 30, 1975, because of NVA tanks rolling through the gates of the Presidential Palace in Saigon. Vietnam is located on the eastern edge of the Indochinese. As (John F. Kennedy) once said “Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind”.

On October 4, 1957, the Soviet R-1 Intercontinental ballistic missile launched Sputnik (Russian for travelers). In 1959 the U.S. launched its own satellite designed by the army. It was called Explorer 1. The Great Space Race was on. But everything changed and the Soviets space program designed the Luna 2, the first space probe to hit the moon. Later that May John F. Kennedy claimed that the U.S. would land the first man on the moon before the decade was over. In the process, three astronauts were killed in a launch that caught fire. Then John Glenn was the first man to orbit Earth and the project Apollo was placed. Then (Neil Armstrong), Edwin Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins set off on Apollo II on July 16, 1969, at 7:32 AM. After landing on the moon successfully on July 20, Armstrong became the first man to walk the moon.

Many people’s lives were changed in the 1960s as a result of The Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War, and, The Great Space Race. The facts, the events, and, the statistics had skyrocketed. Over 10 years so many tragic and positive things had happened. NASA launched Apollo II, Martin Luther King held the “March Down Washington“ event, and the Vietnam War killed about 3,000,000 people. The ‘60s is one of the most popular decades in history. The ‘60s had a hit in just about everyone’s life but these 3 topics had a big impact on the whole world.

Hypothesis testing on the Vietnam War

War… war never changes. As man developed better and more efficient ways to kill each other war has continued to plague mankind and all of its lands for millennia. Some campaigns are blatantly justified, and others are still looking for answers as to why they happened. One of these conflicts that are still highly debated throughout the United States is the Vietnam War. Officially involving the United States on November 1st, 1955, the conflict managed to escalate fairly quickly from simply having American military advisors assisting RVN military personnel to have U.S. Marines and Army troops conducting extensive search and destroy missions throughout the Vietnamese countryside by 1964, effectively contributing a substantial amount to the fighting. This critical expansion in the role of American presence in Vietnam happened very quickly under the Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson, who justified this move, however many still questions what the real purpose of American intervention was in Vietnam. Many posited that the intervention truly was meant to halt the spread of communism around the world stemming from North Vietnam, China, and the USSR and to maintain the U.S.’ position within the international system, while others believe that the conflict was based on a lie to maximize U.S. power around the globe and to eventually reach hegemonic prowess, or at the very least, unipolarity, within the international system. There are two possible theoretical explanations that can help explain why this conflict spiraled into an all-out war between the U.S. and the NVA and Vietcong. Defensive realism and its counterpart, Offensive realism, both provide substantial evidence that stipulates incentives for U.S. intervention, or expansion depending on who you ask. Offensive realism ends up being a better guide to understanding this case and provides the strongest evidence that points to the U.S. intervention being a strong reactionary conflict intended to be a bid for U.S. hegemony in Southeast Asia.

The first theoretical framework that seeks to explain the expansion of the U.S.’ role in Vietnam is Defensive realism. Developed in Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics, defensive realism stems from Neorealist theory, which in turn stemmed from the realist school of thought which was influenced by prolific figures such as Rousseau, Machiavelli, and Thucydides. Realism is not one single theory, but rather a collection of theories that share similar characteristics but differ on a number of key aspects. Each realist theory always tends to conserve four basic tenants that have come to define realist theories as such, which are “Groupism, egoism, anarchy, and power politics”. Groupism, stemming from our human nature and disposition toward cohesion and group solidarity, establishes states as the central actors that preside over international politics and foreign policy, not particular leaders or international organizations. Egoism, described by William C. Wohlforth as “when individuals and groups act politically, they are driven principally by narrow self-interest”, thus establishing another central characteristic of human nature that influences foreign policy design in international politics, imperative and rational self-interest. Anarchy is the way that the international system is fundamentally interpreted by realists; a harsh and uncaring world that has no central authority within the international system that constrains adversary aggression, thus further promoting self-help behaviors and exacerbating group egoism. Lastly, Power politics explains the desire for states to pursue power, either through influence or material resources needed to attack or coerce other states, to ensure self-preservation. Defensive realism retains all of these tenants but makes certain assumptions that differ from other realist theories. Firstly, Defensive realists agree that the anarchic stricture of the international system creates potential security threats, however, they also believe that states tend to directly confront and attack other states only when they pose a real and rational threat to their interests. In other words, “states balance against the greatest threat to their interests rather than against the strongest power in the system.” Defensive realists are also very confident about the effectiveness of the balance of power mechanism in restraining aggression. Balance of Power theory, one of the oldest theories in the study of International Relations, postulates that states fear hegemony and that any attempts at hegemony by any other state are faced with a balancing coalition willing to fight the rising hegemonic order, thus resulting in hegemonies being rare and great power war common. In other words, power has been envisioned as a means to maintain peace in three ways, “The first is in the form of a monopoly, the second a balance, and the third a community, of power”. Lastly, defensive realists also believe that if states act aggressively it is not due to anarchy-induced systemic pressures, but rather it is due to domestic variables such as having malevolent leaders, hostile regimes, domestically induced revisionist goals, or very extreme, either deliberately or not deliberately created, misperceptions of external threats to the state. The theory’s independent variable, which is the distribution of power in the anarchic international system, and its dependent variable, the likeliness to go to war, can have several observable implications when examining a case study of an outbreak of war. One of which is a history of the observed state showing limitations on its use of force when confronted with threats that do not directly threaten the interests of the nation. In other words, if the theory were accurate, you would see the observed state only confronting other states when there is a bid for hegemony or when another state directly snatches or destroys valuable resources necessary for a state to survive, such as military bases halting the advance of its adversary. Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, neatly summarized defensive realism’s foreign policy predictions if the theory proves to be correct, saying,

“Defensive realism predicts greater variation in internationally driven expansion and suggests that states ought to generally pursue moderate strategies as the best route to security. Under most circumstances, the stronger states in the international system should pursue military, diplomatic, and foreign economic policies that communicate restraint.”

When examining a case, you would also be able to easily attribute the expansion of the state’s aggressive behavior to a particular revisionist leader who wishes to see his state as the hegemon, or at the very least as being the leader in a unipolar world, that is a world with only one great power.

The next theoretical framework that can help us better understand the reasonings behind the American Intervention in Vietnam is Offensive Realism. Developed by John J. Mearsheimer, in his book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, builds on the four basic tenants of realism and adds another characteristic exclusive to his school of thought and that is that all states have some form of offensive military capabilities to hurt or destroy other states. He then goes on to further establish some of the new characteristics that define offensive realism. To begin, offensive realists agree with defensive realists that predatory states and leaders exist, however, they link the source of predation to a number of other mechanisms. Firstly, offensive realists think that the anarchic nature of the international system leads states to feel uncertain about the adversary’s intentions and thus leads states to adopt worst-case scenario analysis when confronted with possible attacks and international incidents, thus increasing the likelihood of a conflict emerging out of a possible misunderstanding. In other words, “for Offensive realism, when a state believes that it can do harm to you, it will not just”. It has also been theorized that states act aggressively because they perceive expansion as being the best way to obtain security in a really competitive and uncertain world. According to Peter Toft, “States soon realize that the most efficient way to guarantee survival in anarchy is to maximize their relative power with the ultimate aim of becoming the strongest power — that is, a hegemon”. Mearsheimer, in essence, created a depiction of great powers as power-maximizing entities with the aim to dominate the international system. While theory can be great in helping us determine what the purpose actually was for the Vietnam War, we must delve into the history of what actually occurred leading up to the expansion of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Thomas Jefferson was elected in the year 1801 as the third president of the United States. The voting process began in April 1800. Burr ran for vice president while Jefferson ran for the presidency on the same ticket. The constitution demanded the votes be counted separately despite Burr and Jefferson vying for the positions on the same ticket. In January 1801 Burr and Jefferson tied with 73 votes while Adams became third with 63 votes (Brinkley, 2015). The house of Representatives insisted on following the constitutional rules which denied Burr and Jefferson to be elected on the same ticket. Federalist Alexander Hamilton who hated Burr and mistrusted Jefferson urged the House to vote against Burr who he described as the most unfit man for the office of the president. In the year 1804 Jefferson ran for reelection and won overwhelmingly. During the reign of Washington and Adams, federal expenditure had tripled between the years 1793 and 1800.

Hamilton had increased the public debt and had created an internal whiskey tax exercise which was hated by many. In 1802, Jefferson’s government convinced Congress to end the internal taxes. These meant that only customs duties and sales of western lands were sources of revenue. Albert Gallatin (treasury secretary) reduced government spending by reducing the number of staff in the executive department. Jefferson decreased the state debt from $83 million to $45 million during his reign. The American army also reduced from 4,000 men to 2,500. The US Navy was cut from twenty ships to seven ships, and the sailors and officers were reduced accordingly (Brinkley, 2015). Thomas Jefferson feared that a large number of navies might promote commerce overseas and wanted the state to remain practicing agriculture. He also argued that a large army might threaten civil liberties and control the government. While he was reducing the army, he was establishing US military base academy at the West that was founded in the year 1802. The Barbary states of North Africa for example, Morocco, Tripoli, Algiers, and Tunis had been asking money from the countries whose ships accessed the Mediterranean.

These nations which included Great Britain gave a regular contribution to the Barbary pirates. In the 1780s and 1790s, the US agreed to a treaty to contribute money annually to the Barbary states, but Thomas was unwilling to continue with the agreement. In 1801 the Tripoli leader ordered the US flagpole to be removed as a sign of war because Americans did not meet their demand. Jefferson responds by building a fleet in the region. In 1805 the American reached an agreement with Tripoli that ended the payment of ship for sailing in the Mediterranean, but the American was to pay $60,000 for the release of the detained Americans by the Barbary pirates. Jefferson’s government purchased Louisiana territories. Napoleon had offered the United States the entirety of Louisiana, and he sent James Monroe and Livingston to Paris to help in the negotiations. An agreement was signed on April 30, 1803 (Brinkley, 2015). The terms of the treaties stated that the US should pay 80 million francs to the government of France. Also, the US was to grant France commercial privilege in New Orleans and unite the people that lived in Louisiana and offer them the same rights as other citizens. Andrew Jackson won the election in 1828, and his wife died shortly after. People accused Jackson and Rachel of adultery on the basis that Rachel married Jackson without legally divorcing her first husband (Shi & Tindall, 2016). The election of Jackson meant that political power shifted from East to West. The support of Jackson and his opponents led to the emergence of 2 political parties named the pro-Jacksonites (democrats) and anti-Jacksonites whose heads were Webster and Clay. There arose a battle between them which involved the Bank of America. The bank charter was expiring in 1832.

Andrew’s party opposed the Bank saying it is an advantageous institution while Webster and Clay argued for its recharter. Jackson vetoed its recharter in July. Jackson won the reelection over Clay despite the veto controversial. Andrew opposed the South Carolina laws led by Senator John C. Calhoun despite his principle that supported the rights of the states. South Carolina adopted a resolution in the year 1832 that declared federal tariffs passed in 1828 & 1832 null and void and they were prohibited to be enforced on the state (Shi & Tindall, 2016). Andrew urged Congress to lower the high tariffs, and he ordered the armed force to apply federal laws in South Carolina. The violence increased but the South Carolina backed down, and Andrew earned the credit for preserving unity. Andrew did not take any action when Georgia claimed the land that was guaranteed to Cherokee Indians under the law despite standing strong against South Carolina. He also failed to urge the supreme court to make a ruling that Georgia had no authority over the American native lands (Shi & Tindall, 2016). Cherokee signed a treaty in the year 1835 in which he gave up their land in exchange for the west of Arkansas territories. In the year 1835 fifty thousand people headed on foot along the trails of tears led to the death of many people.

Reference

1. Brinkley, A. (2015). American history. NYC: McGraw-Hill. Schultz, K. (2016). HIST 4 (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
2. Shi, D. E., & Tindall, G. B. (2016). America: A narrative history. WW Norton & Company.