The Process of Settlers Migration to the West After the Civil War - Research Paper Example

?After the Civil War, Americans increasingly turned to the western part of what is now the United s. What drew Americans to the west? What role did railroads play in the development of the region? After the Civil War with the destruction and economic deterioration it caused, Americans hoped for economic opportunity, luring immigrants towards the west, especially to the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain region. However, this decision to move to the West was not welcomed by Native Americans, who were battled by settlers for desirable lands. In this context, farms were carved out, and mines and ranches were built. By the end of the century, territories of the West had turned into states, and their residents had become part of a rapidly industrializing economy (Lincoln, 1997). Although economic prosperity was the main motivation behind the move to the West, Native Americans actually suffered deeply during the process due to the struggle with the settlers. After the Civil War, Native Americans confronted a growing wave of settlers, who represented various social classes, including prospectors, ranchers, and farm families (Lincoln, 1997). One of the main problems at that time was that the newcomers brought with them many new diseases that ravaged the tribes. In addition, settlers damaged the Native American economy in many ways, such as by killing off the buffalo, which was one of the main economic resources of Native Americans. Consequently, Native Americans decided to defend their lands and their ways of life against the oncoming settlers. They were engaged in fierce battles during the 1860s and 1870s (Lincoln, 1997). However, lack of resources and spread of diseases led to sharp decreases of the population and power of the tribes. Hence, new settlers succeeded in stabilizing their existence in Western territories, mainly in Oklahoma, Wyoming, and the Dakotas, challenging the traditional Native American way of life. In this context, it has to be stated that railroads played a major role in the development of the region during that time. Essentially, building of the railroads spurred western settlement, as in 1862, Congress gave permission to the construction of two main railroads to link the Midwest and the West Coast. Those two main railroads are The Union Pacific Railroad, which extended westward from Nebraska; and the Central Pacific Railroad, which went eastward from the Pacific Ocean (Lincoln, 1997). These two railroads met at Promontory Summit, Utah, in 1869, signifying a new era in Western history. Indeed, the expansion of railroads was strongly encouraged by Federal and state governments. This sincere belief in the extreme economic importance of railroads pushed Congress to authorize the building of the transcontinental railroad in 1862, although this authorization let them agree to loan hundreds of millions of dollars to the two corporations to construct it. In addition, Congress agreed also to give the railroad companies millions of acres of Western land, which the railroads sold to repay their loans. In that sense, many historians argue that such major railroad companies, with the federal support they got, were the actual colonizers of the West (Lincoln, 1997). To visualize the role of railroads in encouraging migration to the West, it is important to refer to the fact that railroads provided free trips to the West and offered long-term loans to settlers. Hence, it can be concluded that railroads played significant roles in the process of settlers’ migration to the West after the civil war. American foreign policy prior to World War I led it to acquire overseas territory, build the Panama Canal, and police Latin America. How did these events come about? What justifications did Americans use for these actions? Were these actions justifiable? Prior to World War I, the United States pursued an aggressive policy of expansionism, acquiring overseas territories and extending its political and economic influence around the globe. Historically, the United States entered the arena of capitalism as a world power after the Spanish-American War in 1898 (Lincoln, 1997). As a consequence to this war, the United States succeeded in securing undisputed control of many regions, including the American Mediterranean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. In addition, Puerto Rico was annexed and a protectorate was established over Cuba (Lincoln, 1997). This American foreign policy was justified by the protection of American interest, not only within American lands, but around the globe. At the beginning of this American foreign policy, the United States declared war on Spain on April 25, 1898, following the sinking of the Battleship Maine in Havana harbor. This war led to positive results for the Americans, as they signed the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. This was the first successful attempt by the Americans in the process of gaining overseas control. The result is that Spain lost its control over the remains of its overseas empire, including Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippine islands, Guam, and other islands. Turning to Cuba, the United States showed interest in purchasing Cuba long before 1898. After the Ten Years War had ended, American sugar interests bought up large tracts of land in Cuba. By that time, the United States had invested in Cuba heavily and annual trade, mostly in sugar, was enormous. According to American decision makers at that time, this heavy investment in Cuba provided justification for the United States to seek control over that territory. As a result, in 1896, President Cleveland declared that the United States might intervene in case Spain fails to end the crisis in Cuba. Eventually, American war actually began in Cuba in June of the same year when the Marines captured Guantanamo Bay and thousands of troops landed at Siboney and Daiquiri, east of Santiago de Cuba (Lincoln, 1997). As a result of this war, Spain and the United States signed a peace treaty in Paris on December 10, 1898 establishing the independence of Cuba, ceded Puerto Rico and Guam to the United States, and allowed the victorious power to purchase the Philippines Islands from Spain for $20 million. Another sign of the US attempt to establish overseas territories, the United States decided to build the Panama Canal. As a result, Ferdinand de Lesseps, the French engineer who was famous for building the Suez Canal, began to dig a canal across the Isthmus of Panama, in 1878. Despite the fact that tropical disease and engineering problems had halted construction on the canal, yet the New Panama Canal Company still held the rights to this huge project. Consequently, Roosevelt agreed to pay $40 million for the rights, and he began to negotiate with Colombia for control of the land. President Roosevelt believed that he had strong justifications for insisting to build the Panama Canal. This was evident, when he declared, "We were dealing with a government of irresponsible bandits," Roosevelt stormed. "I was prepared to . . . at once occupy the Isthmus anyhow, and proceed to dig the canal. But I deemed it likely that there would be a revolution in Panama soon" (Lincoln, 1997). With this strong belief in the importance of building this Canal, Roosevelt did not hesitate to send the battleship Nashville and a detachment of marines to Panama when the chief engineer of the New Panama Canal Company organized a local revolt. As Roosevelt gave the Rebels an offer of $10 million, they agreed to give the United States complete control of a ten-mile wide canal zone (Lincoln, 1997). Finally, it can be said that despite the reasons given at that time to seek overseas control, spending huge amounts of money and loosing the lives of soldiers are yet not justifiable. How accurate is the image of the 1950s as a period of conservatism and conformity? Be specific in your discussion. During the 1950s, the American economy was on th c upswing, as manufacturing and home construction were on the rise. This period was characterized by a Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, which created a politically conservative climate in the country through the entire decade (Belisle, 2009). At that time, anti-communism was the prevailing sentiment in the United States. In this context, conservatism and conformity characterized the social mores of the time. In essence, the 1950s are generally considered both socially conservative and highly materialistic in nature for the developed Western world, especially the United States. As a sign of conservatism, it is important to refer to the fact that the 1950s is marked as the decade with the least musical innovation, by the US Library of Congress. In addition, the 1950s are known as a time of conformity and –to some extent- rebellion in the history of the United States (Kellner, 2010). This was reflected in some major US events during that decade, including the Korean War and World War II. The second half of this decade marked a turning point in the Cold War and the balance of power in the Middle East. On July 26, 1956, Gamel Abd al-Nasser defied the West and nationalized the Suez Canal. This act eventually led to an Israeli-British-French attack on October 29,1956 (Belisle, 2009). Hence, the US conservatism played an important role in ending this Crisis, when it pushed all sides to agree to cease-fire in November 6,1956. It was the first time for the US to find itself facing the seemingly impossible choice of abandoning its allies or standing on principle. The attitude of the United States towards the invasion on the Suez Canal in 1956 climaxed its conservative policy during that decade. The US did not approve the invasion although it was not happy with Nasser’s decision to nationalize the Canal (Kellner, 2010). This opposed the attitude of the British prime minister at that time, who called the nationalization of the canal "theft." The French and British depended heavily on the canal for transporting oil supplies, and they felt that Nasser had become a threat to their remaining interests in the Middle East and Africa (Belisle, 2009). As such, the British Prime Minister wanted to launch a military action immediately but was informed that Britain was not in a position to do so. Both France and Britain froze Egyptian assets in their countries and increased their military preparedness in the eastern Mediterranean. As Egypt promised to compensate the stockholders of the Suez Canal Company and to guarantee right of access to all ships, it was then difficult for the French and British to rally international support to regain the canal by force. The Soviet Union, its East European allies, and Third World countries generally supported Egypt (Kellner, 2010). The United States moved farther away from Britain and stated that while it opposed the nationalization of the canal, it was against the use of force. This instance of the reluctance of the United States to support the invasion of Suez Canal by Israel, France, and Britain reflected the spirits of conservatism and conformity that marked US foreign policy during the 1950s. Works Cited Belisle, D. (2009). “Suburbanization and Mass Culture in North America.” 09 Mar. 2012. Lincoln, C. (1997). “Centennial of the Spanish-American War.” 09 Mar. 2012. Kellner, D. (2010). “The Elvis Spectacle and the Cultural Industries.” 09 Mar. 2012. Read More