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?

Movies...do people always believe what they watch?

Think of Custer.

Ponder.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sd-movies-history-american-made-tom-cruise-20170927-story.html

The Election of 1912 (by Kyle Nero)

After his 8 years of presidency, Theodore Roosevelt had made a great deal of progress in his progressive reforms.  In 1908, he decided not to run again, but wanted to ensure that his legacy would continue and all of his reforms would not go to waste.  For this reason, he recommended his close friend, William Taft, for the election of 1908.  Teddy was a very popular president, and a very likable person.  He had a strong influence over the American people, and so a high percentage of his supporters voted for Taft.  On March 4, 1909, Taft was inaugurated.  It was believed that Taft would be similar to Roosevelt, who was a very charismatic and energetic man.  Many were surprised to find that Taft was actually very different - being a former judge, he was not a quick decision-maker and acted off of facts rather than emotion.

Shortly after his inauguration, Taft had a falling out with Roosevelt.  Roosevelt believed that Taft had not been doing his part to uphold his promise to continue the progressive reforms that he had started.  Roosevelt and Taft year long friendship had been tarnished. 

In 1912, as Taft's presidency began to come to an end, Roosevelt decided to run for President again.  In the election of 1912, there were 4 main candidates - Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, William Taft, and Eugene Debs.  Wilson was the Democratic candidate, Taft was the Republican candidate, and Debs was the Socialist candidate.  Roosevelt, after losing the Republican nomination to Taft,  ran as a candidate for the Populist Party, even though he had run as a Republican in 1900 and 1904.  He knew that if he joined the presidential race, that the Republicans' votes would be split between him and Taft and neither would be able to gain enough votes.

In speeches leading up to the election, Roosevelt often criticized Taft and his policies.  Taft, however, was deeply sorrowed.  He said, "I do not want to fight Theodore Roosevelt.  But I am going to fight him".  After a speech, a reporter found Taft with tears in his eyes, as he said, "Roosevelt was my closest friend". 

As expected, neither Roosevelt or Taft won the election of 1912.  Woodrow Wilson won in a landslide.

The Division of Political Parties

There have been many instances in which there have been two candidates that split the votes of their party, leading to the loss of both candidates. The specific case that we just covered in class was between Taft and Roosevelt. These two were both in the republican party, but they greatly differed in opinion and personality. While Roosevelt was very outgoing and progressive, Taft was somewhat introverted and kept his ideas close to his chest. Taft worked with big businesses, and Roosevelt worked in defiance of them. The aforementioned differences and more drove a wedge between not only Taft and Roosevelt themselves, but also the conservative and progressive republican party. This split led to a democratic win for Woodrow Wilson.

Something similar happened in 2016 with the presidential election, and democratic election that preceded it. There was a lot of support thrown at Bernie Sanders, and when he lost the presidential candidacy, a lot of democrats refused to support Hillary Clinton, the new democratic candidate. This led to many people either choosing not to vote, or voting for third-party candidates that, frankly, had no chance of winning. What would have happened had Bernie Sanders won the democratic candidacy? Would Clinton supporters have done the same as many Sanders supporters did? Would Trump still have won the presidency?

The Early Great Business Leaders

The Early Business Leaders Of America

           In the early stages of the industrial changes in America, many regulations such as the Insider Information law was not in place and a lot of successful business leaders seized that opportunity to dominate the early 20th century American society. In mentally and physically, these dominating business ideals held a strong believe for the workers in the factories that if they had worked hard enough, they will soon become the next Rockefeller. The business world was dominant with Wall Street owners and that power eventually expanded towards the political party. With Morgan saving the National economic crisis twice one.
            With this in mind, it makes me wonder on how much power a company can have that does not interfere with the government and congress decisions. For examples, many of the politicians being elected into the congress often side with the economical powers on Wallstreet because they had simply benefited from these regulations. Such as turning a blind eye on the trust funds, and via vertical or horizontal integrations. All this is a concern of whether, during this period of time, was the American business entrepreneurs doing things and seeing the future for America's future economical benefits or solely for themselves?  

Ellis Island: The Final Mountain to Climb (Adrienne Mitchel)

In my lifelong experience of textbook reading, I have noticed one key element that branches throughout all subjects and types of textbooks — the reading is dry and uninteresting. However, recently Mr. Stewart assigned us a reading for homework that actually caught my attention because I found it to be extremely interesting and insightful. This topic that I found quite fascinating was the process of immigration at the turn of the 20th century through Ellis Island. 
First- and second-class European immigrant passengers easily disembarked at Hudson River piers in New York, only having to pass a quick onboard examination. For steerage passengers, immigrants who couldn’t afford cabins in the pleasant upper decks and had to sleep in the available area below the main deck, there was a second step in the immigration process which would require a small trip to the Ellis Island Immigration Station. At Ellis Island, steerage passengers would be directed by officers of the Bureau of Immigration through multiple buildings. After officials secured an identification tag to each immigrant outside the first building, each immigrant would walk into the building and up the stairs to the Registry Room, while being inspected by Public Health Service doctors through the “six-second exam,” in which doctors would pull aside people who showed signs of sickness or disability. Once immigrants reached the Registry Room, or Great Hall, they had to pass a physical examination, in which a doctor would mark the immigrant's clothing with chalk in a symbol for the disease or issue the immigrant had. Even worse however was the eye test which accounted for the most deportations, as anyone showing signs of trachoma, a contagious infection that could lead to blindness, would be immediately rejected.

Once immigrants passed the physical tests, they had to pass the legal interview, which consisted of a primary inspector asking 29 questions. One of these questions inquired if the immigrant already had work waiting for him or her in the U.S. The purpose of this question was due to the Foran Act, which ensured striking workers wouldn’t be replaced by immigrants by making it illegal for U.S. employers to promise work to foreigners. However, most immigrants weren’t aware of this act and wanted to prove that they would be able to succeed in America, and so reported that there was work waiting for them in America. This would result in detainment.

Looking back, I think the reason this topic piqued my interest is that this process of immigration is so often overlooked in American history, as many wars and governmental issues tend to overshadow something as simple as the steps to be able to live in the United States. But learning about something so intricate and seemingly minute gives a very personable, human-element that so much of the way we learn history is missing.

The Vanderbilt Mentality

Throughout the beginning of the industrial revolution in America there were many questionable things that people did, in particular, richer and more wealthier business men. For example, Vanderbilt was a sailor who ran several trade routs throughout his life. In his earlier days, he ran a sailing business which was extremely rough and functioned even in the worst weather. Vanderbilt was also well known for physically beating his competitors off of his trade routs either directly or indirectly. When the steam ship first came out, Vanderbilt was one of the first ones to buy into the business and start running several routs around his area. He built up such a reputation that the government even came to him with a contract that would ask him to ship military supplies during the civil war. However, Vanderbilt didn't only buy into the boating business, he also was one of the first investors to buy into the railroad business. In fact, he was one of the biggest investors in that industry. But, the Vanderbilt industry did not stop there. Vanderbilt's son continued his fathers business and tippled his fortune in just 3 year.