Consumerism and Capitalism in Early America

Capitalism is an economic practice in which the government has little or nothing to do with the trading and selling of goods when it comes to private businesses. Consumerism is defined as the protection and promotion of consumer’s interests. America is a country built off of capitalism and the idea that if you make a good enough product, you can make it big by advertising and selling the things you have created, but a quality product is not always what makes you the most money. Big businesses in America realized this and started to cut corners in order to make as much money as possible.

Unsafe goods remained unregulated until 1906 when the FDA was created during Theodore Roosevelt’s time as president. He often denounced companies that sold unsafe goods and was known for helping regulate manufacturing in America. There were several other good regulating administrations that were made after that to assure that the people in America would not be taken advantage of or put in harm’s way just because someone wanted to make a quick buck.

Personal Accounts from WW1 Veterans

I was very intrigued by our WW1 studies, and the documentaries made it all seem so interesting.  Since we all know movies and documentaries aren't always accurate of what really happened, I want to give my classmates a chance to see for themselves with WW1 veteran's personal stories.  Documentaries and especially movies can romanticize war and make people think that it is not as intense as it really is.  Even though they project the "war is hell" and show people getting killed, I nor a few of my classmates feel that they can accurately depict the emotions of the soldiers and emphasize the reality of war.  The first person's story I will transcribe and paraphrase is by William J. Lake, a man who encountered a German sniper at the Meuse - Argonne known as the deadliest battle in American history.  Rubin asks, "what was it like when you [William J. Lake] got to the front?".  Lake describes bullets zipping all over near your head, it was not if you get hit but when, and Lake was very lucky to survive.  Later he describes that he was sitting with another man, and a German sniper shot him, but not Lake.  How Lake felt was extreme guilt, he wondered what if the sniper had picked him instead?  Imagine yourself in Lake's position, being that close to death.

The next story I will retell is one told by Richard Tobin, a man who was sent above the trench.  Quote, “As soon as you got over the top, fear has left you and it is terror. You don’t look, you see. You don’t hear, you listen. Your nose is filled with fumes and death. You taste the top of your mouth... You’re hunted back to the jungle. The veneer of civilization has dropped away.” (telegraph.co.uk).  I think this quote describes a lot more than documentaries and movies.

In documentaries, we see dramatized videos of Woodrow Wilson, unclear footage of battles, and pictures.  I believe the best way to learn about what happened is to get a primary source.  These are a few examples of stories of WW1 veterans, and if you are interested you can research more.

Living History...the past is present

Came across this article...couldn't resist the fact that there are people who literally are "living history."  Interesting to think there are still those amongst us who witnesses things that we think of being lost to the past.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21145911/a-boy-return-world-series-91-years-later

Trench Warfare in WWI

While we were studying World War I, one of the things that interested me the most was life in the trenches: how did the soldiers fight in the trenches? How were the trenches designed? And how miserable really were the people fighting?
According to longlongtrail.co.uk, only a very small portion of the army actually served in the trenches. The trenches were just the front lines, with the majority of people employed in supply lines, workshops, and headquarters behind the trenches. The trenches were designed for a first line of infantry and defense, being armed with mortars, machine guns, and other artillery. Unsurprisingly, digging the trenches was not an easy task. In parts of Italy, people were forced to dig trenches into rock and in Palestine the trenches were dug in the desert. In France, part of the towns were built into the trenches. The living conditions were highly unsanitary. Maggots, flies, corpses, and other vermin ran rampant through the trenches. Men stayed in the trenches for weeks without washing, leading to the spread of disease. The weather was also horrid and caused the death of many. For example, troops in France froze to death and many were prone to frostbite, a disease called frost foot, and other crippling illnesses caused by the living conditions in the World War. So, why did troops agree to fight in the trenches, and why were the trenches such an important part of warfare even though such a small minority of people lived in the trench?

Treaty of Versailles Cartoon

Today I found this cartoon on the Treaty of Versailles, which is relevant to the cartoons we were studying in class, Woodrow Wilson, and the ending of World War I.  Literally, the cartoon depicts leaders of countries attempting to force a pill labeled "peace terms" down the throat of the Germans. The hand represents the Allied nations restricting Germany, and the pill is a representation of the Treaty of Versailles and its terms that forced Germany to take full responsibility in damages caused in the war. It seems to be anti Treaty of Versailles because it shows that the Germans literally could not handle (or in this case swallow) the peace terms that France, Britain, America, Italy, and Japan were forcing down their throats. Is there anything else that this cartoon is saying? Are there any other interpretations that could change the meaning of the cartoon in your point of view?

Woodrow Wilson and His Policies

Woodrow Wilson and His Policies 

                Woodrow Wilson, America's 28th president and creator/initiator of many of America's progressive acts. Such as the Anti corruption law, including Anti trust, election reforms, Workmen's compensation and Regulations of the Banking system. However, despite the brilliant policies made by this man, we saw his "defeat" with his introduction of the League of Nations to the European Nations after the first World War. His policies of the existing 14 points diminished to one lasting point that the League of Nations and further, he was unable to convince the Senate to sign and pass his policies therefore excluding the United States from the League of Nations. With his policies being said, because in class we've looked at a lot of the crucial debate over his progressiveness, I believe that there could of been a direct correlation between Wilson's ideologies as a progressive and the downfall of his time.
                    Aside from his known to be stubbornness and general incorporative actions, Wilson seemed to have a lot of supporters for his progressive policies and ideas such as his influence over the many American soldiers going into World War I hoping to sacrifice and do something for the benefit of America and the whole world. However, aside from these influences, his desperate last campaign for the League of Nations policy to pass still failed. Without the United States' involvement in the League, the policy was later proven to be a fail by many history with the key cause to be the lack of involvement in the United States. To conclude, despite the extreme sickly stubbornness he faced after campaigning, and the lost of followers from African American voters and women's suffrage supporters, the key factor to his downfall was a combination of the lack of attention paid to the Republican parties and officials. As after his mid presidency election, the Republican party began to control the senate. Despite knowing this, Wilson still would not listen to the senate and acted on his own. In the end, I think this was the key factor that caused the downfall of his policies and created the huge flaw in the League of Nations. However, I do wonder, was there any other causes that could've also played a huge factor to the failed policy?

The End of WWI: What's Next?

By 1918, the war outlook was fairly bleak for the Germans and the other Central powers.  In November of that year, they formally surrendered to the Allies.  This left the world with the question: what's next?

As seen in the image below, the Russian, French, and British, were among the nations who suffered the most casualties in war.  They were also faced with billions of dollars of destruction, for which they did not have the money to repair.  For these nations, the answer was simple.  They wanted to place complete war blame on the Germans.  After all, the Germans were the ones that invaded France and technically caused all of the destruction.

As Russia, France, and Britain were the countries who fought most of the war against the Germans, they found it only fair that they should make the decisions to what would happen now that the war was over.  Of course, there would be some issues with their plan to leave Germany with all of the war blame.  This plan was called the Treaty of Versailles.  The Germans strongly felt that this treaty was unfair to them, and that the Allies were just as much to blame for the war as they were.

Across the Atlantic, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson introduced his own plan called the Fourteen Points.  It was composed of fourteen articles that Wilson believed would bring everlasting peace.  The fourteenth and most well known was that which would establish the League of Nations, an alliance consisting of all the world's countries in an attempt to end all international conflict.

In the end, Wilson was unable to convinced the world, let alone the United States of his plan.  Instead, the Treaty of Versailles was the chosen plan, and Germany was forced to suffer.  Looking back, many historians believe that the Treaty of Versailles was rather faulty, as it played a major role in setting into motion a far more massive conflict - World War II.

The Klu Klux Klan in the 1920's

 On August 8th  1925, more than 50,000 members of the Ku Klux Klan paraded through Washington, D.C. Some walked in lines as wide as 20 abreast, while others created formations of the letter K or a Christian cross. A few rode on horseback. Many held American flags. Men and women alike, the marchers carried banners emblazoned with the names of their home states or local chapters, and their procession lasted for more than three hours down a Pennsylvania Avenue lined with spectators. National leaders of the organization were resplendent in colorful satin robes and the rank and file wore white, their regalia adorned with a circular red patch containing a cross with a drop of blood at its center.With most of the KKK’s actions ending up in wearing their mask down, in Washington they kept their mask up. It was thought that it was a sign to demonstrate their newly gained power and the fact that due to their large quantities of members on the march (4 million) it didn’t too well

The Ku Klux was the most popular in the United States during the 1920s, when its reach was nationwide. Its members disproportionately middle class, and many of its very visible public activities geared toward festivities, pageants, and social gatherings. In some ways, it was the Ku Klux Klan that was the evilest. The Klan in 1920s encouraged native-born white Americans to believe that intimidation, harassment, and natural American patron. .

On Thanksgiving night, after riding with about 15 other men in a rented tour bus to a large granite formation outside of the city known as Stone Mountain, Simmons lit a wooden cross aflame and announced the rebirth of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

Alice Roosevelt

Alice Roosevelt Longworth was the child Theodore Roosevelt’s first wife, Alice Hathaway Lee. Two days after she was born, her mother died of Bright's disease. Roosevelt was distraught, so much he decided to move to North Dakota for two years. He left Alice in New York City to be taken care of by his sister, Anna Cowles. Roosevelt remarried to Edith Kermit Karow, but Alice always felt that her father loved her “one-sixth as much as his other children.” Alice was always a bit of a rebel, one thing which the public loved her for later on. The Almanac of Theodore Roosevelt states “Alice smoked cigarettes in public, rode unchaperoned in cars with men, (and) partied late into the night.” According to this source she also participated in some voodoo, and liked making bets with bookies. A bookie was usually someone who took (illegal) bets for horse races, fights, and games. Apparently when the family moved out of the white house, Alice even hid a voodoo doll of the new first lady, Nellie Taft. This of course managed to get her banned from those quarters. She is quite famous for being sent on the “imperial cruise” to Japan. She went with Taft, her future husband, 22 congressmen, 7 senators, and diplomats. She was photographed the entire time, and plastered on practically every newspaper back in the United states. This won her the nickname of “Princess Alice” She did end up marrying Nicholas Longworth, but the marriage was not great and Alice had a well known affair with Senator William Borah. She had a daughter, Paulina Longworth with William. After leaving the white house, Alice continued to show up on news, and stated opinions, as well as favored presidential candidates such as John F. Kennedy.

Nearing an end in a war

Nearing the end of wars in general, people usually think of one stereotypical thing: that a particular country will win and another will suffer a loss, usually a bigger loss than they thought they could repay. However, this isn't necessarily the only perspective that we should look into when talking about wars. So what exactly makes up wars? Country disagreements, weapons, cannons, bombs, large amount of casualties (sometimes even more, like a couple millions), soldiers, generals, and definitely a whole bunch of PTSD's (which stands for post traumatic stress disorder) after the war is over, whether from the winning or losing side. It all starts with a country either being unreasonable or wanting to fight for their values, which probably offends some other country and they would start gathering up their military and weaponry, train the soldiers (and in some cases, put up signs around the neighborhood for young men who want to help the country, for the adventure, expectations of the family, and other reasons), and etc.

One of these examples come from the film we finished watching last week, "The Doughboys". In the film, a couple veterans from WWI talked about their experiences during and after the war. Being a soldier, the veterans had all mentioned, was basically putting your life on the line for the freedom of the country, even when knowing there's a possible chance that they might not succeed. Seeing hundreds of their comrades die each day forced them into the mindset of living each day as if it was their last. While during the war itself, the majority of the soldiers had no time to react or use their emotions to dictate their actions, even if it meant heavy consequences or such. They had to kill the enemy like killing an object, in another word, dehumanize the enemy, even if that person might be a father, husband, a son, or etc. After the war ends, the rush of guilt comes back to haunt these soldiers that lived on to tell the tale with full force, with varying degrees of it. Some have nightmares about killing a man who was only trying to plead for help rather than cause harm or accidentally killing one of their own friends in battle. Others constantly feel the guilt of not being able to save their friends when they were just a couple steps away, and etc. At the end of the film, many veterans who were speakers concluded altogether that going to war was a really dumb thing to do, losing so many lives and families just to prove a point, and the results sometimes isn't even what we hoped for in the first place. "War is hell" they had spoken.

Pre-WWI - WWI Country Relation Effects

At the beginning of World War I, the US traded with Britsh and French because these countries allowed the US to trade with them. The British stopped any ship that was headed toward Germany because they didn't want to let Germany access any trade. The US supported democracies like GB and France which meant that the US was happy trading with them. Americans didn't like the way that submarines affected neutral rights and said the Germans couldn't sink their boats. After the US said this, the Germans blew up the British cruise liner the Lusitania. 1,198 people and also 128 Americans died. This event enraged the US because it harmed Americans. Woodrow Wilson wanted to follow the Unrestricted Submarine Warfare (USW) because of these events.

During the middle of WWI, Great Britain and France, or the Allies, needed more troops for their war effort. The US was considering entering the war to help. One main factor that led to the US people that wanted to fight was the advertising that America was receiving about the war. The US only received information that portrayed Great Britain and France as the "good guys." Also, Great Britain and France portrayed war as heroic and fun which led Americans to think that it would be fulfilling to fight in the war. When the war started, the US claimed to be neutral but they sent materials to the Allies. Because of this, the Germans didn't see the US as neutral. The Germans resorted to going into USW. Germans said they would sink all ships around Great Britain which made Great Britain and countries that traded with Great Britain very unhappy and unsettled. In the end, was the decision of the US to go into war smart for the result of the war and for the well-being of the US.

WWI: Affecting those at Home

              All across Europe during WWI, entire towns and countrysides were burned or decimated by constant fighting. An ocean away, the United States was saved from most of the destruction and saw losses only in troop numbers and resources. This does not mean though that things did not change. World War I was one of the first times America mobilized the entire nation in order to contribute to an effort on this scale. New branches of the federal government were created to manage resources, thousands of men enlisted, and propaganda was able to create an overwhelming American pride despite initial reluctance to war.
              With a national draft set up and 2 million men serving in Europe by the war's end, there was a shortage of men for employment. This lead to two things. The first being the establishment of women as a prominent power in the workforce, with women taking jobs that used to only be open to men. Even if many of these positions would revert when the war ended, it proved women to be capable of taking on such positions. Secondly, many African Americans in the south came north to fill these positions as well, creating bigger black communities in large northern cities. While some blacks might have had positions working towards helping the war effort, this does not mean all African Americans were in favor of war. Some believed that war could be a chance for African Americans to increase equality between themselves and whites, but still others disagreed saying America shouldn't be fighting for democracy in Europe when there is still injustice happening at home with segregation and Jim Crow laws threatening the freedoms of African Americans.
              To pay for the huge expenses of going to war, the United States needed to make a lot of changes. To start, the income tax was raised and the lowest taxable income was lowered so that a greater population was being taxed. This only paid for about a quarter of the money needed though, so American bonds were sold to pay for the rest. The War Industries Board was created by Woodrow Wilson in 1917 to promote the buying of bonds, conservation, and other practices to help in wartime. The board also tried to settle union disputes and set wages and hours in order to increase productivity and limit conflict, increasing jobs and boosting the economy. Materials and metal were scarce and many schools and communities held drives and encouraged conservation. Food was scarce with Allied soldiers and civilians all across Europe in desperate need of help. People at home were encouraged to conserve as much as possible, crop prices were raised, and many people planted gardens of their own. Nationalism peaked with the Espionage Act passed in 1917 and the Sedition Act passed in 1918 which made it easy for people to get punished for acts seen as hindering the war effort or speaking badly of the government. Many argued that these laws were unjustly limiting the freedoms of Americans, and one case came before the Supreme Court in 1919 defending free speech. Do some liberties need to be given up in order to protect a 'greater good?' Should we prioritize the liberties of certain people or only the liberties themselves?


Corinne McCabe              

America Joins WWI

             In the years leading up to 1914, Europe was charged entanglement of alliances and resentment. The majority of countries across the continent made pacts to defend one another in the event of an attack. Imperialism over the past decades created tension between countries like Germany and Great Britain, the former wishing to become a global influence and the latter with colonies around the world. Deep rooted ethnic ties in the Balkans pitted the Austro-Hungarian Empire against Serbia. As one country bulked their navy and armies, other nations followed suit, feeling threatened.  Leading up to World War I, peace was precariously balanced, needing only a slight nudge to bring it all down. 

              The assassination of the archduke of the Austro-Hungarian Empire by Serbian nationalists started war between Austro-Hungary and Serbia, followed quickly by Russia, Germany, Britain, and France and many others. The first World War had started. 

              President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, preached neutrality, citing the precedent set from the birth of the nation and the distance between the European struggles and the United States. American neutrality also allowed the US economy to thrive with businesses able to trade freely with the warring nations in need of supplies and goods. Although America might have been neutral, there were still many who felt strong ties to European countries, and the geological proximity and cultural similarities of some of the Allies lead Americans inevitably do more business with the Allies. 

              German U-boat attacks, specifically on the British passenger ship, the Lusitania, increased tensions between America and the Central powers. The Germans wished to have unrestricted submarine warfare, but agreed to stop their attacks if the United States helped to dismantle the British blockade which they deemed unfair and the United States as partisan for allowing. 

              Neutrality almost worked the United States, but a note was obtained from the German minister in Mexico that encouraged Mexico to join the Central Powers and attack the United States increased American hostility towards the Germans. Wilson had already ramped up the American army and navy in preparation for war. 

              On April 4, 1917, Congress voted to declare war on Germany.

Corinne McCabe

In-Class Imperialism Simulation

We've recently finished a simulation game in class based on Imperialism and its values. We were only given a certain amount of resources, which can also be bought over the course of the game, and the ending goal, which is to reach security for the state. At the beginning of the simulation, people were trying to figure who had what resource and how much of it and what alliances that each group wanted to make. This portion is a reference to real life, a couple years or decades before wars break out. Each country, represented by groups in the simulation, wants to figure out what the other countries have, whether they'll be a potential threat in the future, and whether if that particular country would be willing to forge an alliance with them or a peace treaty (regarding trade, not waging war, or other kinds of terms so that they don't go to war against each other). This aspect of the alliances and/or treaty was represented by pieces of paper with terms on it, signed by both groups (countries) and given to the teacher. Of course, in the real world, the countries' representative or leader would be the ones to negotiate the terms and announced to the world or kept private. And depending on people's choices, the game (the war) could last short or long depending on when people started to wage war on other groups.

Near the end of the simulation, 3 groups teamed up against group 1 with the thought of taking out the weaker countries or just whichever countries that seemed to prove as a threat to them, which turned out to be group 1, with the highest amount of artillery and soldiers. When they commenced with this decision, the groups didn't exactly think it through enough because even though they thought their number of soldiers could overwhelm group 1, they didn't (assumed here) think that the ships and artillery would play a bigger role compared to soldiers in terms of power. The results ended up with the four groups, who were involved, in anarchy, leaving group 2 and 3 in unstable condition. This situation most likely wouldn't have happened in real life, since the majority (maybe all) of the countries would want to be advantageous when going into a war, they would have to consider all aspects, such as soldier number, artillery, ships, air forces, etc, and dominating by a large amount over the opponent (or so they presume that they do) in order for them to win.

In conclusion, the class came up with a couple theories on how each country would operate when time of war is near: some countries may want to eliminate either the weakest countries at the early stages (so they won't grow to become a threat later on or form alliances with other countries that could contribute to other countries' advantages, or choosing to remain neutral to everyone and have a peace treaty for not attacking each other and everyone could just live in harmony.

The Causes of World War I: The European Powder Keg

Many people today have rather spotty knowledge pertaining to the reason for the first world war.  This is because there was no clear single reason for the war, but rather many smaller, somewhat convoluted causes.  In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson's trusted advisor, Edward House, was sent to Europe to investigate the tension between European powers.  What he learned is that Europe was quite clearly on the brink of war, and it needed "only a spark to set the whole thing off".  Historians referred to Europe during that day as a "powder keg", or a barrel of gunpowder, prone to explode at any second.

On June 28, 1914, the spark that House had referred to arrived.  On that morning, Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife visited the capital of Bosnia, which was a province of Austria-Hungary at the time.  While driving through the city, a terrorist suddenly threw a bomb on to the car which Ferdinand and his wife, Sophia, were driving.  Fortunately, the bomb missed the car, so the archduke and his wife continued their tour of the city.  However, a second terrorist by the name of Gavrilo Princip open fired on the car later that day, killing both Ferdinand and Sophia.

At this time in the early 20th century, Europe had an intricate system of alliances between nations, many of these said alliances promising to back other nations in war, should one arise.  Due to this complicated system, when Serbia and Austria-Hungary went to war, several nations took sides and joined in on the conflicts to stick to their treaties.  Among those who sided with Serbia were the Russians, the French, and the British.  The German decided to side with the Austrio-Hungarians.  These superpowers going to war caused a quick escalation due to factors such as nationalism (a sense of pride for one's own country) and militarism (a desire to have the strongest military) and led to what is today known as World War I.

Imperialism of America

Though when we usually think of imperialism, we think about Great Britain, France taking Canada and the scramble for parts of Africa, but what we do not realize that America has been imperialist as well.  Since WWI and WWII, most empires have been extinguished from existence, but the ideals of imperialism are still around.  

Mr. Stewart has given us the example of the hat maker.  He makes too many hats for the American population to buy, but if the US owns a colony somewhere else, since the US controls their economy and government they can force them to only buy hats from the hat maker person.  Part of the reason why we are at war with the Middle East is quite similar.  Before 9/11 we were in a period of peace, but since that event happened we have had an excuse to go to war somewhere.  If there is no war, the companies making machinery and guns and ammunition are not making any money.  So, we have interfered with political issues that have nothing to do with the US in attempt to use up the products made by these companies so they can make money.  

Another reason why countries take over one another is for resources.  European countries all fought over for parts of Africa because they had many resources including people that they could take as slaves.  An example of America taking over other countries for resources is Cuba.  Due to the Spanish-American war, ownership of Cuba was at stake.  The US wanted Cuba because they had sugar plantations, and if the US took control of Cuba then they would also control the sugar trade and make a lot of money.  

When we think of imperialism we think of Great Britain and other large worldly powers, but I personally have never heard anyone say that America is an imperialist country that follows those ideals. When America was first being formed, people forcefully took land away from Native Americans, like how any other imperialist country would.  I think the idea that America was never imperialist should be changed.

George Armstrong Custer "The American hero" (Brendan Gutierrez)

George Armstrong Custer was born December 5th, 1839, in Ohio 22 years before the start of the civil war. George Custer graduated last in his class at west point and was later called to fight for the union in the civil war where he became an effective cavalry commander and eventually became a Major general. After the union won the war Custer the U.S. volunteer service was mustered out and he looked looked for other positions and he was offered the rank of adjutant general of the Mexican leader Benito Juarez who later won the conflict with France on the 5th of may 1862, leading to the creation of the Cinco de mayo celebration. But Custer had refused as he would have had to resign completely from the U.S. army. When he returned to the Army he was reverted to captain and Lieutenant colonel of the 7th cavalry regiment. When accompanying Major general Winfield Scott Hancock duty in 1866 he left his post to visit his wife and when the campaign ended, Custer was arrested and suspended. Custer was released early when he was requested by Major general Sheridan for another campaign against the Native tribes. After locating the group of native tribes Custer decides to fight the group instead of waiting fort the very needed back up. After being heavily outnumbered by the natives Custer and his men could not escape.Following his death many plays and movies were written and created after curster and his final battle giving him a last legacy that may not be entirely based on truth.

Imperialism and The United States

The United States has always wanted to expand its borders to “create new opportunities”. There have been many instances, especially in the “Western Hemisphere” which spanned from Samoa to Brazil. The U.S. “protects” these countries only when it politically or economically beneficial to the U.S.. While it could be argued that the U.S. has helped many of these countries, it can also be said that the U.S. needs to focus more on itself and less on the politics of other countries.

The U.S. even went to war with Spain because we wanted to have Cuba think highly of us so we could call in some favors later on. A similar situation happened with the country of Santa Domingo. Theodore Roosevelt did not want the Europeans in the Western Hemisphere , so when Santa Domingo could not pay back its debts, the U.S. took over Santa Domingo and got the money for Europe. That way the Europeans did not have to intrude on the Western Hemisphere and violate the Monroe doctrine.

Having said all of this, I have a few questions that I imagine are mostly opinion based. Did the U.S. actually help the countries that they fought in the name of? Is the U.S. too powerful since, at least in the 1900s, they seemed to think they had control over all of the Western Hemisphere? Were there good intentions behind the U.S. helping the countries around it? Or was this "help" simply for the United State's gain?

Realism vs. Idealism in U.S. Foreign Policy (Adrienne Mitchel)

Since the 1800s U.S. foreign policy, or the principles, practices, and goals that directs a nation in its relationships with other countries, has been greatly influenced by two differing schools of thought — realism and idealism. Realism is built on the idea that relations with other countries should be based on promoting national self-interest, and foreign policy should have practical goals which benefit America. In contrast, idealism is built on the idea that ideals and values should impact countries’ relationships, and foreign policy should advocate America's founding ideals (democracy, liberty, and rights) to improve the world for all people, not just American people. In a nutshell, realism, a more practical but more selfish vision, stresses the importance of benefiting America, and idealism, a less practical but more selfless vision, stresses the importance of benefiting the whole world. To better understand the differing viewpoints of a realist and an idealist, I will provide two examples of events that occurred in American history and explain how each school of thought felt about it.

When President Thomas Jefferson doubled the United State’s territory by buying the Louisiana territory from France, it became evident that expansionism became a new goal for U.S. foreign policy. Realists were in favor of expansionism because it made the United States more secure by ridding the nation of foreign threats on its borders, as well as giving the U.S. more growing room. Idealists were also in favor of expansionism, but for a different reason than realists — idealists believed that the United States must expand its democracy and founding ideals around the whole world, a belief called manifest destiny. 
The Mexican War, fought between the United States and Mexico over Texas, came to end with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in which Mexico recognized the U.S. Annexation of Texas as well as giving the U.S. a huge region of land from Texas to California. Realists were extremely satisfied with results, as the United States increased its territory by approximately one third and consequently Mexico lost about half of its territory. However, idealists believed the Mexican War was an unnecessary and unjust land grab because they believed the rights of the Mexican people were violated. 

After reading this overview of of the difference between realism and idealism, which school of thought do you think should have more influence in U.S. foreign policy?