A Diplomatic History of the American Revolution by Jonathan R. Dull - Book Report/Review Example

A Diplomatic History of the American Revolution by Jonathan R. Dull For the last two decades, a myriad of accounts of the American Revolution catalyzed publications of different materials detailing modern struggle in different countries. Before the end of the war for the struggle of American independence, all the European powers were involved and so affected by its outcome. Their involvement were however peripheral. Professor Dull approaches the diplomatic and other thematic issues in the book from an international stand point. He places the independence war before the backdrop of relationships within the European powers. Brief in nature, the book begins with the reactions from different European countries over the controversy of the Anglo America. Americans two future friends, Holland and Spain are slightly treated with emphasis on both internal and external relationship of France and Britain intertwined with some of the US policies. Prof. Dull’s argues that diplomacy of the American revolutionary with regards to the internal powers is dependent on foreign help and luck. In analyzing pre-history of the American diplomacy, he presents the maneuvers of both France and British before the start of 1760’s Anglo-American disputes. French’s intervention began with the official sympathy of the colonists, which was aroused further by the declaration of independence. The alliance of France was mainly solicited by a number of commissioners from America who were seated in Paris. According to the author, victory of America over Burgoye convinced French foreign Minister, Vergennes that French should come together with other colonies so that they could have reconciliation with Britain and avoid any possible assault on the French possessions in the West Indies after rebuilding its navy. During the entire period, the congress diplomatic services mainly entailed the discussions with various French agents in the Philadelphia .He presents a narrative through the entry of Spain into war, which played a fundamental role in the American victory in war after their failure to bargain with the Britain. Dull ends the book with the capture of Lord Shelburne’s and Cornwallis and also the possibilities of viable relations between America and Britain. It also explains Vergennes peace negotiations by various American commissioners. It also discusses some of the signed peace treaties signed between great powers. (Dull, 103) By 1782, even countries like France who supported the American independence became anxious that arose from the events that occurred in Eastern Europe as opposed to the fate of Britain’s American colony. During this time, Catharine II became less sympathetic for the Americans and was even less sympathetic for the fate of the British Empire. The merit of Dull’s book is the steadiness of its focus. The author throughout the book never loses the sign of fundamental issues that affected the European powers and how diplomatic issues that faced continental congress were further made complex by the European powers. The author argues that the involvement of France in the war was purely to weaken Britain and as a result giving it an upper hand in controlling Eastern Europe. The author believes that the collapse of Saratoga made no difference. Some of the statements appear to overplay the available evidence. From historical facts, France was careful with any renewed war with British and Saratoga was the main evidence; from the time when Boston collapsed, it was evident that colonists could defeat British in any major engagement. America and France in 1780 had very good reason to bring the war to an end. France’s preoccupation over constant Russians threat over turkey helped in putting America to perspective. (Dull, 103) John Quincy Adams -by Lynn Parsons The book done by Lynn Hudson explains the life of John Quincy Adams. Adams was born in 1767 and became a subject of British Empire. He was a citizen of the United States and became a member of congress during the days of Abraham Lincoln. He was the son of the second president of the United States; he was part of the American dynasty. During his career, Adams became a secretary of the state, congressman, senator, president. Lynn documents Adam’s life from the day he accompanied his father for a mission in France to his last days as an eloquent president and opponent of America’s domestic and foreign policies. He was always connected with the nation’s affairs. Adams died in 1848. In this biography, Lynn narrates and presents some of the most dramatic events during his time as a public servant. In this book, the author chronicles life history of some of the most influential Americans with regards to politics. During his dramatic career, Adams had worked and known Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Castlereagh of Great Britain, Alexander 1 of Russia, and La Fayette of France. During these days, Adams collaborated and in some instances quarreled with Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, Thomas Jefferson, John C.Calhoun, and Andrew Jackson. During his time, both as a congressman and as a president, Americans had strongly fought for the country’s independence, and oversaw the adoption of nation’s constitution. He was also in super wars with Great Britain and the other with Mexico. During this time, through his leadership, Adams expanded the south to the West Pacific to the Rio Grande. In 1848 when Adams died, he was perceived as the only connection of both past and present republic. His death led to the loss of the country’s ties with the country’s founding generation. (Parsons, 81) This book documents John Quincy Adams long life and career. The book summarizes Adams diplomatic life in a formidable manner. The author explains that Adams transformed America by improving it internal systems. He focused on building roads and promotion of national banks so as to form a currency and also to enhance productive enterprise. However his policy on Native Americans landed him into troubles. Lynn argues that Adams is one of the greatest diplomats in history of America. He is remembered for the Monroe doctrine and also for opposing the entanglement of America in European affairs. Some of Adams diplomatic achievement according to the author is treaty of reciprocity with Mexico and Denmark among others. Adams is regarded by the author to have defined America’s diplomatic relations. He did not only oppose what other Americans believed but also disagreed with the congress on a myriad of diplomatic relations. The US diplomacy has in the past faced a lot of criticisms, especially when it comes to the involvement of other nation’s internal affairs. Adams principles on diplomacy are particular documented especially when he served as the chief negotiator for the Treaty of Ghent which led to the end of US and UK war in 1812. (Parsons, 101) Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History -by Frederick Merk In the popular minds and opinions, the words manifest destiny is connected with the outburst that in less than a century, it was possible to expand white English settlement, which is currently referred to as the USA from group of communities on the East Coast to a large super continent, occupied by millions. The conquering outburst is connected to brutality, nationalistic, chauvinism and bellicose arrogance and might likely taint bloody settle and conquest. Merk, through his book, works with the view of disapproving the popular image and through extensive documentary evidence; he proves that the manifest destiny was not just a short lived craze but more of falling apart especially with that of war against Mexico, which occurred in 1848. In the book, Merk states that, despite the fact that US superiority over Mexico was obvious, it was however different to contemporaries. During this time, the Mexican military was bigger than the US peacetime army besides the fact that the Mexican army would be fighting in their soil. Despite the fact that Mexico had a larger army, America’s stiffing corps proved effective and sufficient to defeat the Mexicans. During this time, vociferous lobby, which previously supported President Polks deliberate and cold move towards a war was not about unifying the entire continent but was for the people to make a real choice; the choice of absorbing 20 million English speaking Americans by morsel of 8 million Spanish speaking Catholics in Mexico who were tumultuous, and were separated from the main land by deserts, prairies and mountains. The supporters of the manifest destiny went silent as they were faced with the dilemma and that was the end of the lobby according to Merk. The author however does not trace a direct influence from the copious pamphleteering of the American politics. From these events, the objection in the scenario is clear. Merk’s however fails to mention Indians who appear to be silent partners in the book. Before and after the manifest destiny craze, the Western front was inexorably rolling and cattle’s were already inhabitants of the land. Therefore Manifest Destiny was therefore a movement purposed for the Western people in North America both British colonies remaining in Caribbean, Canada and also the successor states of the old Spanish empire. (Merk, and Lois 93) Merk restates that Manifest destiny is not a variable of the American mentality. He argues that the major variable of the American attitudes towards the politics of America is summarized in the word mission. Merk acknowledges nationalism as part of new manifest destiny which constituted the imperialism of the 1890s. He holds that imperialism was not an ideology in 1840s, rather expasionalism, which was imperialistic and insular, was art of antithesis of the manifest destiny. According to Merk, the major thesis is an expression of the national spirit which is the fundamental concept of the America’s mission. The ideal mission meant that, America was the liberty to the world, which started from the beginning of times a still lives while the manifest destiny came to an end during the 19th century. Despite the fact that the sense of mission was ideal and that the manifest destiny was a selfish idea, the two concepts were linked during the 19th century. If the American freedom spread across the globe and that the manifest destiny was to be fulfilled, liberty would have been a better guide. As explained in the book, mission broke the link and curbed expansion and crusading of the manifest destiny. (Merk, and Lois 39) In a nutshell, it is no doubt that this is an important book. Whether one accepts or disagrees with the book, it is no doubt that the ideas present in the book are challenging. Regardless of explanation presented in the preface section and perfect features adopted, it is no doubt that he presents quotations, which are hard to digest throughout the narrative. Through this book, one gets to understand the Americans diplomacy from past and present perspective. I believe that this is one of the major interpretative works in the subject of diplomacy. Abraham Lincoln and a New Birth of Freedom -Howard Jones Before becoming the president of the United States of America, Abraham Lincoln believed that slavery was morally wrong. Howard explains Abraham’s constitutional dilemma, and made the president to focus and base his argument on the natural rights, which was against slavery or any other kind of human bondage. Abraham recognized during early days of his presidency that it was necessary to ride the union of slavery, which also opened a number of issues. Despite the opposition, it was clear to his mind that slavery was to be abolished during his tenure as the president. At the beginning of the war, Abraham declared the conflict as being necessary in the preservation of the union without mentioning slavery. He wanted a solution that would free slaves but still preserving the union, without causing insurrection and also beat the southern rebels. Abraham’s clear pragmatic stand against slavery was in order to prevent seceding from states such as Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware and Maryland. He also faced a lot of pressure from France and Britain, which already legislated strong laws opposing slavery and at the same time could easily intervene on behalf of South and in turn boosting confederacy. The recognition of the European would also legitimize the position of the South making it almost impossible to preserve the union. There was looming constant foreign intervention given that a number of countries depended on the Southern cotton which was also important staple to their economies. (Jones, 92) The efforts of Lincoln in the creation of perfect union required both moral and political commitment that supported abolition. This however, failed to find support of finding the northern support. Abraham’s attempt put slavery at the peripheral issue of the conflict. At the same time it confused both French and British policy makers as to what direction they should take. French and British both had their selfish motives of having the union dissolved. France wanted to take the advantage of the position of the confederate in the implementation of the design of the Napoleons grand design towards the Americans. This made it possible to take continental land through Mexico at the same time they required recognition of the confederate government. Britain had very minimal confidence that the union could easily establish any political control over the area. However, both countries wanted to act in union but at the same time, they didn’t trust one another due to violent history between them. Both countries engaged in the debate on the impact of war with the union and they could not find reasonable solution to address the delivery issue and the importation of imports on the Border States. As the nations strategized on the best solution and approach, Lincoln was engaged in crafting polies that would address slavery. (Jones, 92) The approach of Abraham confused both nations and prevented them on any possible intervention on behalf of the south. His proposal of emancipation by compensation was not a ratified by state parties, which made him adopt strict position. In 1863, Abraham Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation, which resulted to the freeing of the slaves in the states that rebelled. This order however exempted various state borders. Abraham’s position on slavery was intended to preserve the union and ensure that the rights of the citizen, which was the primary reason and motivation for fighting. The position of the president meant that slavery was to be one of the support directed to the South. Abraham in 1863 gave Gettysburg address during, which he explained and celebrated the new birth of a nation and freedom which was anchored on liberty for all citizens. Through his interventions, and besides other victories by the North, Abraham was able to easily negotiate for a solution for various border state slaves, preserve the union and also avoid any kind of foreign intervention. From the Old Diplomacy to the New -by Robert L. Beisner Robert Beisner provides us with vast information on various diplomatic issues; both in the past and present. The book provides succinct issues surrounding foreign relations within the gilded age and a very good challenge for the future analysis. The author narrates some of the twists that have been recorded within the US diplomatic relations from 1900. During the period of Gilded age and the reconstruction period led to the US rising to be a super power. In his description of the US diplomatic relations, he presents a clear projection of the imperialism in the US into the Americas and the Pacific. Any observant reader might notice the enthusiasm in the empire as the United States matched to the European powers. There is also the reencountering of the long forgotten but still amusing anecdotes. (Beisner, 70) The author also focuses on the career of Acheson’s state department. Throughout his analysis, he discusses Acheson’s relationship with the feisty Midwestern populist, Trauma and cerebral son of the Yale establishment. The author presents to us that Acheson had a strong believe that USSR would have out before economic and a military force. As this came to pass, this was regarded as Acheson’s biggest achievement besides the integration of Japan into the free world. The author also presents some of checkered records of Acheson across the globe apart from the US. Being scornful and bored of the non-European cultures, Acheson saw everything through flawed results and also European prism. Beisner states that the most obvious and clear mistake that Acheson made were failing to support France in Indochina, a result of trying to convince the French to participate in the European integration. This policy according to the author later led his successors to the war in Vietnam War. Beisner believes that the effect of the policy is still being felt today, fallout of same of same weakness for the intransigence by the British colonial into Egypt and Iran. Despite the fact that Beisner believes that Acheson, was Americas best Secretary of State, he does very little to answer the questions posed by his critics. The author argues that the most important thing is to focus on the nature of Acheson’s enemies and how he handled them. He goes on to assert that, despite the fact that he did not handle McCarthyites, Mao and Gen. Douglas MacArthur, no one else could have done better. He agrees with Achesons on the point that involving Soviet Union through Stalin would have been a total wastage of time. (Beisner, 47) Through Beisners work, there is the return of the long forgotten anecdotes. In the book, he mentions a number of incidences of neglect by the Congress besides other lost opportunities. He served to prove that the United States foreign policy was not an overarching and a single doctrine. Beisner believes that for the foreign policy in the United States to hold water, there must be consistent results in economic, social and political arena. The understanding and appreciation of policies by all state agencies in the US is the only way for implementations. When appreciated, it is likely that other international partners would corporate with them. Just like in the past, diplomacy in the US still faces a myriad of challenges, and the digestion and massaging all players to read from a single page is the best approach to convince other countries. Believing in the fundamental ideals and principles of the United states should be the main corner stone of any diplomatic relations. Works Cited Beisner, Robert L. From the Old Diplomacy to the New, 1865-1900. New York: Crowell, 1975. Print.Top of FormBottom of Form Dull, Jonathan R. The French Navy and the Seven Years' War. Lincoln [Neb.: U of Nebraska, 2005. Print. Top of FormBottom of FormJones, Howard. Abraham Lincoln and a New Birth of Freedom: The Union and Slavery in the Diplomacy of the Civil War. Lincoln: U of Nebraska, 1999. Print Merk, Frederick, and Lois Bannister Merk.Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History: A Reinterpretation. New York: Knopf, 1963. Print. Parsons, Lynn H. John Quincy Adams: A Bibliography. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1993. Print Top of FormBottom of FormTop of Form Bottom of Form Read More