TEST

this is a test. switching over to the new blogger.

Raamin Mostaghimi
AFP Section 1
2/14/07

Summary of McPherson's "British Realpolitik Trumps 'King Cotton'"

McPherson's essay essentially lays out the power politics motives behind international during the civil war. This is a viewpoint not often visited in a standard US History class, and as such was very interesting to me, but there were a few points that I found of more interest than others, and these are the points I'll visit in more detail.
The main point I found interesting was the notion that most of Europe seemed to hold that the war was inevitably going to be won by the South. This runs contrary to everything I was taught in all of my history classes, that despite the superiority of the generals of the South, the North's material advantage was so strong that there was essentially no chance that they'd lose. The South most likely realized this (at least to some degree) and it was for this reason that they were so persistent in trying to gain official recognition of statehood and mediation from European powers. Without some sort of European support, there was no way that the South could even hope to stand a chance against the sheer material the North had, and they knew this, but Europe didn't seem to.
Whether this is a failure simply of European intelligence gathering (which I would assume is really not something too developed at this point in history) or if it was willful blindness on the part of idealistic individuals was not really explained in the article, but I'd guess it was a little of both. European sympathies would have lain squarely in the lap of the "revolutionaries" (especially in France) EXCEPT for the fact that the South supported slavery. As stated in this article, as long as the Union kept the scope of the war away from abolition, the Europeans would be neutral. As soon as Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation, however, the tables turned dramatically in favor of the Union.
Another extremely interesting set of facts was the sheer number of times the European powers (notably Britain) came to within an inch of intervention. The seizure of the two CSA ambassadors is the particular instance that comes to mind as the most egregious of these occurrences, and also the most interesting. Seward's sheer testicular fortitude in standing up to the might of the British Naval Fleet in the face of possible blockade and invasion from Canada is without parallel, and really should have been exemplified in a general as well as a Secretary of State. The fact that the US had to return the ambassadors notwithstanding, the very fact that Seward and Lincoln sent the British back home eating crow is a major victory in and of itself.

AFP NOTES 2/13
midterm exam: march 5, 3-430PM
the foreign policy of civil war 1861-1865
A) DEFINING THE WAR
president abraham lincoln
key players in the war were lincoln and seward
-lincoln was determined to maintain the civil war as just that- the 'civil war'
-this was in part to keep other nations OUT of america or from taking sides
-never once referred to the CSA as confederates, but as 'rebels'
-threatened war against anybody who recognizes the confederacy as an independent nation
-recognition as an independent state was the key aspect of CSA foreign policy
-as early as feb 1861, Jefferson Davis (president of the CSA) tried to get recognition from outside
-they did this for a few reasons
-1) try to finesse slavery (so if slavery became kind of accepted around the world, favor would shift to their side)
-2) recognition would end war (if another nation intervened on their behalf, the north would just be outmatched)
-3) reliance of global economy on cotton (hopefully they could sway people economically)
-there was an uprising of popular support for the CSA in england, largely due to internal british politics
-limited government favored over big government
-decentralization favored over centralization
-self-government favored over empire
-low tariffs preferred over protectionism
-hedge against US expansion
-all of these factors came together to make the brits more likely to support the CSA, but they didnt really do anything just now

Lincoln decided to impose a blockade (april 16)
-did this without consulting congress, because he called the south an 'insurrection'
-called any confederate actions on the high seas 'piracy'
-the british, french recognized the CSA as belligerents
-would allow CSA ships into ports, refuel, etc
-allowed to do non-war actions
-US was PISSED OFF at this
-Charles Francis Adams was sent over to bitch out the brits
-said that if the brits recognized the CSA as an actual state, then the US would be forced to go to war
-it worked

Congress then retroactively empowered the president's blockade
-went one further
-empowered the President to CLOSE ports in the CSA
-allows US to seize any british or any other ships in CSA ports
-british got PISSED OFF at this, said that the US wasn't actually in control of the ports, threatened lincoln
-lincoln took this all into consideration, decided NOT to use congressional authorization to close southern ports

SoS william seward
seward was known to be aggressive in terms of asserting the monroe doctrine
-he was seen as a prime mover behind the civil war
prime minister palmerston

foreign minister russell

B) THE BACKLASH TO EXCEPTIONALISM: THE DECLARATION OF PARIS
commerce raiders
these were essentially privateers
-prior to the declaration of paris, governments could issue 'letters of marque' which allowed them to carry out naval action against enemy ships
-britain was really happy about this, agreed, along with lots of europe
-US refused to sign this (this happened before the war)
-came back to haunt the US, Jefferson Davis employed shitloads of privateers to attack US ships
-when the war starts, US decides it wants to jump on board
british did NOT accept US's claim that the rest of the signatories were forced to help police the seas and take out privateers
-britain still doesn't believe that the CSA are 'insurgents', but possibly something else
-Britain says that they will NOT help enforce the agreement
-US says that this destroys the reciprocity of the treaty, so they decided NOT to enter the declaration of paris
CSA starts building commerce raiders and privateers in english ports to attack US shipping
-britain then passed the 'Foreign Enlistment Act' which forbade the building of warships on british soil or seaports
-CSA gets around this by commissioning regular ships, commissioning big guns, then assembling them somewhere else
because of the blockade, blockade runners (really really fast ships) started getting commissioned to ship cotton out
-in response, lincoln decided to state that the US would start sending out their own privateers to attack the blockade runners
alabama claims
after the war, US claims reparations against the british for building CSA ships
-these claims were called the 'alabama claims'
-US demanded either $2 billion or Canada
-eventually got watered down to $15.5 million in reparations
-this is an incredible precedent of international arbitration, good thing!
-codified some international law (of sorts)

C) THE TRENT AFFAIR
john slidell
sent to europe by CSA after Jefferson Davis wanted to recall his european ambassadors
supposed to go to france
never got to europe
james mason
same situation, supposed to go to england
also never got to europe

both were captured by an American naval captain charles wilkes
charles wilkes
halted the CSA/British blockade runners
-retook the two ambassadors and their staffs

this really turned the tables on britain
-british were stopping american ships and impressing any british citizens, and even slaves, into british service
-'right of search'
-Wilkes turned the tables, retook 'american citizens'
-lincoln said that if the british demanded the ambassadors back, they would return them, but force the brits to admit that they were wrong
-brits would then give up the right to impressment, admit they had been wrong for 60 years
-brits took this as a huge affront to their honor
-sent 11,000 troops to canada with instructions to attack if the british ambassador was withdrawn
-sent much more naval power to enforce a blockade if necessary
-Seward's response- bring it on
-said that he would fight the whole world if necessary to assert american independence
-british embargoed saltpeter to the US in response
-lincoln eventually returns the ambassadors, the brits essentially get morally bitched

D) KING COTTON
south still DOMINATES the international cotton market
-Hammond (congressman from south carolina) said that there was no way any nation would declare war on cotton
-it was just such a necessary commodity
-south provides 75%-80% of cotton to british mills
-problem here was by the time the war began, most of the 1860 crop of cotton was already sent over
-huge surpluses of cotton in british factories
-the only way the south could induce cotton shortages was to deliberately withhold cotton from the rest of the world for a few years
-Jefferson Davis ended up burning a bunch of cotton crops, etc
-problems with this
-no cash flow
-didnt really have any effect
-the people directly affected (laid-off cotton workers) couldnt vote anyways
-other sectors of the economy boomed (shipbuilding, etc)
-british HATED slavery
-US agricultural exports boomed during the same time period (1860-1862)
-rise of 'King Corn'
-british started diversifying their suppliers
-by the time the south realized what was going on, they were screwed
-most of the crop got burned
-transportation infrastructure was shot
-south got BITCHED
E) THE STRUGGLE OVER RECOGNITION
while in the west the south was losing a bit, in the east, the US was just getting shanked by the CSA
-was getting closer to recognition by other nations
-if DC or Baltimore got taken by the CSA, british might have been prepared to step in and mediate peaceful separation, or even declaring war on the US
-this was UNACCEPTABLE to the US
September of 1862, Robert E Lee decided to push north into maryland on an offensive campaign
-Special Order 191 was sent out by Lee
-got INTERCEPTED by the Union, now the US has the war plans
-any better general than McClellan would have OWNED Lee, McClellan just sucks
antietam, September 17, 1862
bloodiest day in american history, basically evenly matched armies just slaughtered each other
the emancipation proclamation, september 22, 1862
announced after the 'victory' at antietam
-all slaves in the CSA were declared as free
-british werent too keen on this
-they thought that the US was just trying to incite slave rebellions and genocide in the south, just trying to destroy the south
-however, this was a HUGE success around the world

F) EUROPEAN INTERVENTION IN MEXICO
maximillian of hapsburg

July 17, 1861
-president of Mexico suspended payments on interest of loans to foreign countires
-this is 'defaulting'
-spain, france, UK in the Treaty of London of 1861
-went into Mexico to get their money back
-US gets pissed at this violation of the Monroe Doctrine
-Seward realizes that they can't actually fight off the europeans out of mexico, kind of whimpers
-spanish install maximillian of hapsburg as emperor of mexico
-revolts breaks out
-after the civil war, the US starts supplying mexican rebels with arms
-feb 12, 1866
-US demands removal of monarchy from mexico
-blockades mexico, etc
-french withdraw, June 1867, maximillian of hapsburg is lined up and shot
-last intervention in the western hemisphere until the cold war

OCC CIV JS MILL STUFF

Questions:

1) What is liberty according to Mill?

both civil and social liberty

-nature and limits of the power which can be legitimiately exercised by society over the individual

-HARM PRINCIPLE

-your rights extend until they violate the rights of others

Three types of liberty

-1) Liberty of Thought and Discussion

-free speech is really really really really important

-humanity is actually harmed by supressing free expression of speech

-2) Liberty of Individuality

-Mill thinks its a real problem that individuality is not recognized as a good in and of itself, rather than a means to an end

-individuality is necessary for Mill's society to function effectively

-individuality is useful because people can learn from nonconformists

-if individual thought is stifled, human thought and exploration stagnates

-3) Harms Principle

-Mill rejects the social contract, but believes that since society is providing certain protection for people, they should act a certain way in return

-example of the principle- a person spends lavishly and can't pay back his debts. he should be punished for not paying his debts, not for living lavishly

-a person's rights extend until they injure the rights of otehrs

2) How does Mill's notion of liberty differ from the range of ideas expressed during the French Revolution on the basis of Hunt's compendium?

Mill's notion of liberty is based on the Harm Principle

-your rights extend until they infringe on the rights of others

-government exists to SERVE THE PEOPLE

Hunt's notion of liberty is based on Human Rights

-your rights are all that is important

-government exists to PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS

-so apparently hunt is telling you what you want government to do for you

-just protect your rights

again:

Mill's notion of liberty is based on the HARM PRINCIPLE: your rights extend until they harm others

Hunt's notion of liberty is based on HUMAN RIGHTS: you have a defined set of natural rights you're born with, which can exclude things that may not harm others

3) What do Mill's ideas have to do with liberalism as described in lectures and in Rapport's text?

classical liberalism is broadly defined as a doctrine stressing the importance of the individual

-subtexts for this include property rights, stressing rationality, natural rights, constitutional limitations on government

Mill's liberalism follows this defnition very closely

-he essentially defines classical liberalism

-his ideas of constitutional limits on government are essentially the defining writings for classical liberalism

-the Tyranny of the Majority is a major concern

-rationality is also big, as is property rights, etc

AFP NOTES 2/12

Problems with expansion:
1) British Encroachment
-Maine, canada, etc
-first 'evil empire'
-biggest security threat to the borders
-american solution to the security threat- acquire as much territory as possible
2) northern encroachment
-southerners feared that the northerners would expand a whole lot, try to eliminate slavery
-the british emancipated slaves throughout the british empire, southerners feared that the north would do the same
-Texans really had this fear, they really really really wanted to keep their slaves
-it was pretty much the reason they seceded from mexico
-southerners feared that if the north emancipated the slaves, slaves from the south would drain straight north
-texas was a 'safety valve' for slavery

March 1, 1845, Tyler signed the annexation of texas
-mexico suspended diplomatic relations

July 1845-
-Zachary Taylor took 4000 troops positioned on the West Bank of the Nueces River across the border
-Nueces river was thought by the mexicans to be the boundary line between mexico and US
-Taylor sent the message that they were actually going to annex all of texas
-January 1846- troops received the order to advance 150 miles south
-May 1846- a few americans are killed in a minor skirmish, became reasoning behind the war
-once again a defensive war
-Congress voted on May 13 to declare war

Oregon's up next
-1818- britain and US vote for JOINT OCCUPATION (citizens of both countries can live inside)
-1827- the treaty is extended 'in perpetuity'
-webster ashburton treaty- 1842- puts border at 49th parallel all the way to the pacific
-luckily for americans, british didnt want war with america, not in their economic interests

Now time for California
-port of San Francisco was really really really important
-1835, 1842, two different presidents tried to buy california, mexico didnt sell
-mexicans really didnt have too much presence there, though
-most of mexican people were in modern-day mexico
-John Sudell (american negotiator) offered $25 million for California & new mexico
-at least $20 million for cali north of monterey
-main point was that money be no object to the purchase of cali
June 14, 1846
-a bunch of guys walked into california statehouse in sonoma and declared California an independent republic
-Zachary Taylor from the North, Winfield scott from the south-- two generals advancing on mexican territory
-mexicans eventually capitulated
-treaty of guadalupe hidalgo
-for $15 million, US takes cali, new mexico, arizona
-polk wasnt too happy with this, but he couldn't renounce the treaty because it got him what he 'officially came for
-a rider was attached to the treaty, preventing slavery from being expanded into those territories
-south really didnt like this, if they couldnt expand slavery, why did they even go to war?
pierce succeeded in buying another part of mexico
-gadsden purchase, part of arizona (i think?)
-why?
-south was still pushing for more slave states
-still pushing the 'diffusion argument
-slaves were draining into latin america, where slavery wasn't permitted
-hedge against disunion
-if the south couldnt reconcile their differences, they needed more territory and resources

real important part-
-CUBA
-seen as ESSENTIAL to american security
-1848- spanish were offered $100 million, no deal
-1854- spanish were offered $130 million, still no deal
-the Ostend Manifesto was then issued
-the problem with spanish control was that there might be a slave revolt, they're gonna set a bad example for the US
-also a big deal- pursuing expansion in latin america, nicaragua, etc
-north begins to realize that expansionary policies are benefiting ONLY the south, not the north
-demands by the south for acquisition aren't legit
-the north would have to keep acquiescing to southern expansionary demands to keep the union together, no deal
-woo civil war.

MICRO NOTES 2/12

Economic Efficiency: State of the world in which it is IMPOSSIBLE to make one consumer better off without making another consumer worse off.

Economic Efficiency is ensured by consumers trading with one another

The system isn't efficient unless both consumers are at points along their indifference curves with EQUAL SLOPES
if they have equal slopes, there's no reason for them to trade anymore
-two consumers can trade for their mutual benefit if, at their original endowment, the slopes of their indifference curves are different
-if their slopes are the same, there's no point in trading

Do equilibrium states deliver economic efficiency?
-sometimes yes, sometimes no

if consumers are in a state of economic efficiency-
-they're offered a chance to trade but dont take it for some reason
-we know at least TWO things about the consumers
-A) at points along the indifference curve of equal slope
-B) they're facing the same prices
if consumers are facing the same prices, they face the same slope of the budget constraint

why is price equilibrium a decent assumption to make?
-arbitrage
-the idea that if a good is offered at different prices in different places, there is the opportunity to make profit by buying low and selling high
-this tends to stabilize prices towards the middle
-arbitrage doesn't work sometimes: when transportation is a factor, for instance

Market Equalizers
-graph ppf vs indifference curve
-if we move along the ppf down and to the right, we can make big amounts of good 2 without sacrificing much 1
-this moves consumers to higher indifference curves (assuming certain slopes on the indifference curve and ppf)

AFP SECTION WRITING 2/7

Writing on Graebner's Manifest Destiny: A Realist Critique
Graebner's article highlighted some extremely interesting points made previously in lecture, but which bear repeating here. One of the main arguments made was that the very idea of "manifest destiny" was made possible by what essentially amounts to an accident of history and geography. America was able to expand 'from sea to shining sea' simply because nobody had gotten there first (at least nobody with a substantive presence), and as such took it into its national psyche to do so. All of the ideas of manifest destiny follow from this basis- from continentalism to '54 40 or fight.'
The 'path of least resistance' was another interesting concept not quite mentioned in the article but alluded to strongly, such as on page 202 where the 'fact' that none but natively American people are able to prosper under American law is quoted as an argument against the annexation of all of Mexico, since there are more ethnic Mexicans there than would be palatable to annex. As mentioned in lecture, the Mexicans are 'too white to enslave, but too dark to give full rights to' and as such pose a problem that is best simply ignored at that point in American history.
The American system of annexation (again, as alluded to in previous lectures) shows through especially strongly in this article. The system of Americans moving in first, becoming a decent portion of the population, revolting against the previous government, and petitioning to the United States for annexation seems to me to be a tremendously efficient method of territorial expansion for the United States, requiring little to no input from the federal government. Actually, if I were to imagine a perfectly efficient system of territorial expansion, it would be something like this, with the desire for expansion coming from within the countries themselves. Unfortunately, I can't see this working too well with any even marginally more populated areas (such as basically any present-day country or territory), due to the fact that the American population would have to effectively outnumber the indigenous population, but it worked well enough for a time.

AFP NOTES 2/6

LECTURE 6 CONTINENTAL EXPANSION

A Entrepreneurial Expansion
Filibusters (part 1)
-filibusters were used much much more in the early days of the republic
-not as annoying as they are now
-well, maybe as annoying, but not as unheard of

B Inheriting Spanish America Case Studies
lots of different people tried to 'inherit' spanish america
-lots of different plots to take back spanish territories like florida
3 step process, laid out in the Mobile act of 1804
1) emigration until a majority are american
2) Agitation for independence
3) Amalgamation leads to statehood

Baton Rouge
September 1810
-wants to become part of america
-pressures state to appeal for annexation
-ends up succeeding
Texas (first republic)
-mexicans revolted against spanish rule
-spanish presence in texas was extremely weak, texans managed to kick them out
-april 1813, they declared themselves a new republic
-lasted only until august 1813 when they were defeated by loyalist army
-the texan army was only around 1500 men strong, half of which were americans

St Mary's Island
-'republic of florida'
-
Amelia Island
-mcGregor seized amelia island in venezualan revolutionary cause
-immediately became haven for pirates
-'mos eisley of the united states'
-independent from june-> december 1817
C Andrew Jackson
-first rises to prominence during the creek war, fought concurrently with the war of 1812 (1812-1814)
-james monroe (secretary of war) sent a message to jackson warning him to take no measures attacking spain
-by the time he got the order, he had already launched the first florida campaign
First Florida Campaign, 1814
-launched without american governmental approval or support
-felt the need to justify the attack
-baia is a cocklicker
-just saying
notes notes notes
-gave jackson huge political gains
-attacked in the 'first seminole war' in nov 1817
-secretary of war decided to give jackson authority to prosecute and end the war

Second Florida Campaign, 1818
-Jackson essentially shanked the floridians
-jackson stationed troops and ports all over florida

-there's a problem here--- america had essentially gone to war with spain without a formal declaration
-adams justifies his action that the executive can authorize military action if it is taken as even proactive defense
-the real reason for justification of jackson's actions was that they really couldn't do anything about him
-he was way too far away

Texas (second republic)
-one problem here
-neither spanish nor french treaties allowed for the annexation of texas, and america really wanted it
-1821- stephen austin
-1823- imperial colonization law
-american colonists continued pouring into mexico
-1835, santa anna proclaimed unified constitution for all mexican territories
-texan settlers threatened to secede if they had to accept the constitution
-why?
-constitution restricted religion, press, slavery, colonists wanted to keep free all three
-march 1836- declaration of texan independence
-april 1836- battle of san jacinto
-after the alamo
-americans kicked the crap out of the mexicans
-mexican surrendered forces signed the treaties of velasco
-treaty gave all the ground between the nueces to the rio grande to the republic of texas
-september 1836, texas votes overwhelmingly to be annexed by america
-this poses a problem to america, which has a real delicate balance between slave and non-slave states
-president van buren refuses the petition
-william henry harrison dies after entering office
-john tyler became president, is given the title 'his accidency'
-tyler wants texas to be incorporated in the union, to protect from british incursion into texas

AFP NOTES 2/5
SECTION 1 HAS MOVED TO BLOOMBERG- SWITCH OUT!!!
SWITCH TO SECTION 2, 7

Lecture 5
Manifest Destiny: Concepts
this lecture to some extent predates an impartial media

A: Macro Forces
1) Natural Growth
-seen as 'organic and vital
-necessary part of the 'youth' of a country
-america was seen as a country in adolescence
-two forces spur this
-internal growth- large childbirth rate
-external growth- lots of immigration
-american population is booming during this time
-there was an 'irresistable tide' of american expansion, threefold process
-overflow of population
-americanization
-incorporation
-the entirety of north america is very fluid, borders are very ill-defined, people expand first, the country comes in later
-americans believe that past the western border of their country is 'uninhabited'
-important because it shows that the americans dont feel like indians or spanish have legit claims to the land
-indians were forcibly removed from their territory, sent farther west
-essentially a state-sponsored form of ethnic cleansing
-most of the reason that americans didnt go farther south is that they'd have to take mexicans with the land
-mexicans were too white to be slaves, but not quite white enough for citizenship rights
-just easier not to take it at all

-emerson puts it this way
-'young america'
-at every age of the world there is a leading nation, it's america's term
-america follows the path of least resistance in expansion
-they failed at invading canada over and over again
-much easier to go against spain, whose empire was already faltering and failing
-another idea was that america's growth was limited by continuity
-continentals made this point
-america can only expand insofar as its territory is continuous
-america should not suffer 'petty rival republics'
-most obvious example of this is texas
-but america should still limit itself to contiguous land

2) Self Defense
-example to be used here is the carribean
-case study here- Danish West Indes
-in 1916, US sec of state contacted the danes and informed him
-in the event that germany forced the danes to hand over the west indes, america would conquer and annex them
-even if the danes voluntarily gave up the islands, the US would invade
-on jan 1917, the islands were sold to the US- are now the US virgin islands
-LAST TERRITORIAL ACQUISITION OF THE UNITED STATES
-self defense vs possible injury as a possible consequence of a possible action against a possible enemy
-wow
-america is in a quest for ideal security
-'america invulnerable'
-this is the idea of the 'no transfer' doctrine of 1811- prohibiting the transfer of spanish florida to any european power because it would be a threat to the US

to sum it up, american expansion was due in large part to the lack of substantive competition
-most expansionary action taken was due in large part to imagined or manufactured threats
manufactured threats used as justification for expansion:
-possible attack by enemy
-possible quarrels with powerful enemy
-possible weak neighbor (who could be conquered by a strong enemy)
-possible imperial rivalry
-possible political interference by strong enemies

B: Micro Forces
3) Technology
-industrial revolution introduces whole bunches of things
-steamboats
-railroads
-telegraphs!
-now, america doesnt have to worry about breakaway republics due to lack of communication or transportation
4) Mission
-america has a sense of obligation and mission
-leads to sense of superiority over the cultures of other societies
-also, trend towards infantilization of other cultures, especially indians

5) Geography
-america decided that it wasnt just going to have isolated settlements, like the french trading posts
-it was going to be actually settled
-especially applied to california
-californians though they had huge potential which wasn't being realized under mexican rule

6) Partisan Politics
-expansion was a 'safety valve'
-slavery got expanded, as did free states
-allowed parties to expand without real opposition from inside the states.

AFP SECTION NOTES 1/31

mabelwong@jhu.edu

put hard copy of weekly response in her mailbox in the department lounge by FRIDAY this week.
focus on the larger of the readings for the week.
not a summary of the argument, but a critical reading of the text

AFP NOTES 1/30

Anglophobia & the Monroe Doctrine

A) France vs Britain
Macon's Bill No. 2
revised version of the first bill, not even supported by macon
-text of bill was that if one country- britain or france- stopped harassing american ships, america would cut off trade with the other
-napoleon immediately agreed to this (he had less to lose)
-however, he didn't actually stop harassing american ships
-this put the ball firmly back into the british court
-irony here was that from Nov 1807- July 1812 the French took many many more american ships than did the british
-another problem here- the british were in fact the lords of the sea
-every neutral country depended on the british navy to ensure their safety on the seas
British Neo-Mercantilism
-Americans felt like the british were sucking them into another system of mercantilism through the seas
-there were many problems with resisting the french
-any attack on the french would necessitate an alliance with the UK
-the french were also one of the most rapacious empires under napoleon, americans bore them no love
The War Hawks
-war was rapidly rising to the forefront
-many southerners and westerners in this camp
-one of the huge issues was the british relationship with the indians
-british were hoping that the indians would unite together in a confederation powerful enough to fight off the americans
-Nov 1811- the battle of Tippecanoe showed that the british were supporting the indian tribes, and this threat would have to be addressed
-the most logical target owned by the british was canada
Canada
-historically we like to invade canada
-before even the declaration of independence, there was an american invasion into canada
-war hawks figured that it'd be easy to invade and take canada
-it was figured that it would only be a 'matter of marching'- US troops would just march straight into canada, canada would surrender
-this just didnt happen
-June 1- Madison sends to congress a request for a declaration of war
-grounds for complaint
-british were still attacking american ships on the open seas
-June 4 the declaration of war was approved by the house
-June 17 the declaration of war was approved by the senate
-first actual declaration of war in american history, also by the closest margin ever, especially in the senate (19-13)
-the vote was extremely divided along party lines
-in London on June 16- 'the order in council' will be suspended
-in London on June 23- the new british government repealed the order in council
-the order in council was the actual main reason that they went to war in the first place, but the americans didn't find out until more than a month later

B) The War of 1812
Stalemate of Britain
-american invasion of canada was a massive failure
-american general in the west was actually thrown out of canada and forced to surrender, and lost detroit and parts of the american northwest
-why did we fail?
-the army was tiny, because the very idea of a standing army was unpalatable
-the militia (backbone of the army) was extremely unreliable
-many state militias refused to serve outside their states
-no money for the war
-republicans had killed the first bank of the united states in 1811, so there was no way to raise money centrally
-most of the big money men who could lend the US money were federalists, who wouldn't lend them anything at all
-there was some success- naval engagements
-on the great lakes and at sea, americans kept winning naval battle
-basically a stalemate for a few years
-august 4, 1814 the british actually invaded washington dc, looted and burned all of the city
-september 13- they try to move to baltimore
-baltimore holds at fort mchenry
-situation got so bad in new england that five states called a convention (hartford convention)
-came really really close to demanding outright secession from the US, ended up sending a list of grievances to the federal government
-meanwhile, american ambassadors had been meeting with british ambassadors in Ghent
-they agree to a treaty on a status quo ante
-nobody gains or loses any territory
-the treaty got signed before january 8, 1815
-british forces tried to invade New Orleans after it was signed- andrew jackson shanks them
-didn't know the war was already over
-what did the war do?
-settled the secession crisis in New England, they weren't gonna secede any time soon
-huge territory gains in the west
-Jackson, prior to the battle of New Orleans, was very active against the creek indians
-Harrison destroys the confederated thames
Pacifying the Frontier
-huge territory gains in the west
-Jackson, prior to the battle of New Orleans, was very active against the creek indians
-Harrison destroys the confederated thames
US Emancipation
-settled the matter of independence
-US was actually recognized as a sovereign state
-all future disputes in the region would be settled by arbitrage
-democratic peace theory was started here, the two democracies didn't really go to war with eachother again
C) US Assertion
Latin American Revolution
-shitloads of revolutions going on in latin america as well
-main instigators:
-simon bolivar
-jose de san martin
-mexico underwent a separate process of revolt 1810-1821
-for a long time, all of south america through half of north america were controlled by spain, all of a sudden they just became independence
-the new states were weak, the holy alliance monarchies decided to re-impose monarchical control over the region, and reestablish european domination
The Holy Alliance
-Russia, Austria, Prussia, France
-these states felt that with their authority they could establish a peace on their terms
-they were anti-democratic, anti-secular, and anti-revolutionary
-congress of verona of 1822
-the other powers in europe greenlighted french intervention in spain to restore spain's king ferdinand VII
-he was thrown off originally, put back so that they could safeguard monarchical power
-the british disagreed with these guys, turned her back on europe
-policy of 'splendid isolation'

Britain Proposes Cooperation
-british prime minister George Canning had huge interests in south/latin america (mostly trade)
-made an ultimatum to the rest of europe, saying that any intervention in the americas would lead to war with britain
-made an offer to the US
-stated that the spanish position was hopeless
-denied any ambition in the region- said that all they wanted was their trade rights to be secured
-opposed any european intervention
-proposed that the US and UK should put forward a joint statement opposing any european intervention in the americas
The Monroe Doctrine
-James Monroe was urged to accept this offer by Jefferson
-a meeting was held on Nov 23, 1823
-british offer would have been accepted right then if not for John Quincy Adams
-adams said that american power was so minimal that it wouldn't really add much to the british declaration, makes US look like britain's bitch
-another agenda was at stake here
-americans were supportive of greek independence
-july 4, 1821- Adams makes some remarks- the DEFINITIVE statement of american exemplaraist foreign policy
-'goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy', etc
-didnt matter, monroe made a statement anyways
-Dec 2, 1823- Monroe Declaration, which became the Monroe Doctrine
-adams thought that the pledge to britain meant that our own expansion would be halted in the western hemisphere, and this would be unacceptable
-specifically texas and cuba

D) The Atlantic System
US Sovereignty
-america was not really extended an invitation into the 'republic of europe'
-UK and US tried to erect a state system similar to the system used in europe (not within states, but the international system)
-there were three main differences between US and europe, though
-slavery
-indian dispossession
-expansion at the expense of their neighbors
-this couldn't happen in europe, happened anyways in the americas
International Rights

AP NOTES 1/30

Political parties have evolved heavily since the beginnings of the presidency
-they've gone from vice to virtue

different functions of parties
-party in the electorate
-the people identify themselves one way or another, hold parades, etc
-party in government
-how much power each party has in congress, eg, speaker, etc
-party as organization
-people who help organize the election machine, registering voters, running campaigns, etc

in the 19th century, the local parties are actually the strongest ones, as opposed to today where the national parties are the most important

by 1856, democratic party has emerged as the party of the south, while republicans are the party of the north
1860 is really the epitome of the split between regional parties
-lincoln carried ONLY the north, scored 59.4% of the electoral vote
-he only won 39.82% of the popular vote
-the north essentially elected the president in 1860
-leads to southern secession, civil war
-lincoln was the consummate party president

Lincoln's a fun guy
-suspends the writ of habeas corpus by executive order
-does this to maintain control over maryland and baltimore especially
-essentially declares martial law in the area
-lincoln is referred to as pretty close to a military dictator
-the only president before to ever even come close was James Polk, with the mexican war, but not really the same
-a lot of the stuff he does is even explicitly banned in the constitution
-it was determined after the war that lincoln had acted unconstitutionally
-lincoln's war powers do NOT last beyond his administration, so no institutionalization
-it was actually unclear as to whether the president even has the authority to end slavery at all
-lincoln just decided 'fuck that'
-emancipation proclamation doesnt actually free all the slaves, only the ones in rebel territory
-that's how he justified it- it would help out in the conduction of the war

Andrew Johnson
-becomes president after lincoln is assassinated
-the real important thing here is the resurgence of congressional authority
-military reconstruction act and tenure of office act essentially emasculate the presidency
-both strip powers from the president-
-military reconstruction act puts congress in the loop in reconstruction
-tenure of office act makes it impossible for him to fire officials without congressional approval
-johnson becomes first president to be impeached, kept in office by only one vote

OCC CIV NOTES 1/30

Marx and Dickens wrote for very different reasons

Marx- to overthrow the capitalist economic hierarchy
-marx attaches no value to capital or materials, only labor

Dickens- accepts the economic hierarchy, works to change conditions within it
-also to sell copies

between 1814-1848, there's little conflict between states, but lots of conflict within society
this era is the era of nationalism and democracy


Nationalism-
-formed on idealistic belief that a Europe formed on nationalistic lines will be peaceful and prosperous
-very different from later jingoistic tendencies
-slavery is abolished in most of europe
-cost of abolishing slavery was equivalent to a 10% tax on all british incomes (because they did it by force)
during the french revolution, all of europe was filled with french refugees, who told tales of the terrible revolution
lots of revolutions are held during the 1840s, nearly all of them fail
-change still happens, however
-monarchical alliances based on personal relationships vanish
there are two branches of nationalism
-both stem from the french revolution
-1- individual libertarianism
-nationalism is an expression of national sovereignty, and the idea that the state is sovereign within its own borders
-the state is subordinate to civil society
-the people themselves exercise sovereignty
-this is called individual libertarianism

-2- collectivist authoritarian nationalism
-the theoretical sovereignty of the people is not derived from the practice of liberty, but from the people's uniqueness

what was state and nation-building in western europe in the 19th century?
-something huge happened
-the crimean war was largely a war of government
-WWI, however was largely a war of PEOPLE
-the people were actually willing to kill eachother en masse without being forced to, the war was not imposed from above as much

3 reform acts that expanded the vote in england, england was one of the more liberal, democratic states in europe
-even so, both political parties in england were nationalistic parties

france was a mixed country, huge class between workers and upper class
-still a very nationalistic country

italy also ended up being extremely nationalistic

germany
-ruled by the junkers (prussians, etc)
-still hugely nationalistic
-all blood germans (not even by lanugage) could return to germany and be recognized

AFP NOTES 1/29

Lec 2 Cont
Exemplarists vs Vindicationists

Pessimistic vs Optimistic


Lec 3- Origins and Founding Principles
Domestic Politics
no unified form of thought, very regionally based

Sectional Priorities
-New England and the South/West
-NE
-Free (regards to slaves)
-pro-improvements (roads, bridges, canals, railways)
-commercial
-British supporters
-Hamilton was proponent
-mainly federalist
-S/W
-Slave (regards to slaves)
-Strict construction (limit power of the government)
-agrarian
-supported the french
-Jefferson was proponent
-mainly republican

the fear that the northerners would sacrifice the mississippi was a huge part of constitutional debate of the time
-this may be the reason that a 2/3 majority in the senate is necessary for any treaties
south was huge proponents of westward expansion
-this leads to tension between the states
british admirals, for instance, were empowered to negotiate with individual states, not just the whole of the united states
new englanders were kind of pissed over the war of 1812, try to maintain their power base
-leads to the Hartford Convention of 1814- no new state can be admitted to the union without the approval of 2/3 of the states
US power is very spread out, population is dispersed, no real military power base

Washington Administration
1) Neutrality Proclamation
-april 22, 1793
-america would not be involved in the european war, nor could any american CITIZENS be involved in the european war
2) Citizen Genet
-ambassador from france
-landed in south carolina
-instead of going to the capital, he starts hiring privateers to invade spanish florida
-embarrassing to the US because it looked like america was gonna be drawn into the war despite the proclamation
-rather than getting recalled after a coup in france, he lived out his life peacefully afterwards in the US
3) Jay Treaty
-signed treaty in November 1794
-compensation to american ships
-england would vacate the 7 british forts in the americas
-in exchange, britain gets favored trading partner status
-several problems, though
-no compensation for slaves confiscated during the revolutionary war
-no agreement to stop impressment by the british
-no negotiation for navigation of the mississippi river
-submitted the treaty in june of 1795
-ratified in august 1795 by the bare minimum votes
4) Farewell Address
-september 1796
-warned against the 'insidious wiles' of foreigners
-in favor of temporary alliances during emergencies, but not permanent in any event
-US should be 'detached and distant'
-this was taken to heart- first permanent alliance made was NATO in 1949

Adams Administration
1) XYZ Affair
-april 1798
-american ambassadors to france were informed that they would get no access to the french government unless they paid bribes to individuals x, y, and z
-this led to a massive outbreak of public hatred for france, increase in armament and military
2) Quasi-war
-american and french warships started attacking each other and each other's warships
-british began moving in and offering to convoy ships and sold supplies and arms
-treaty of Mortefontaine- sep 30
-word of this didnt reach the us for a while, lost adams the election
-had the lag not have existed, the peace might have allowed adams to be re-elected
Jefferson Administration
1) War against Barbary
-decided he didnt want to keep paying ransom money to the barbary pirates, sent the fleet in to destroy them
-1805- william eaton advised jefferson and madison (sec of state) of internal squabbles in Tripoli
-if the US would support one faction in tripoli, the piracy could stop
-jefferson gave eaton the green light
-US was technically NOT AT WAR with tripoli at the time
-two important precedents here
-presidential authority to act militarily without a formal declaration of war in congress
-the 'just war' doctrine (now called 'regime change')
-america would maintain a presence there
2) Saint Domingue
-one of the richest parts of the caribbean
-accounted for a massive chunk of france's finances
-over 500,000 slaves in a place the size of maryland (compare to only 900,000 slaves in all of the US)
-slave revolt happened
-Toussaint L'Ouverture was the slave leader
-Adams supported toussaint
-jefferson flipped american policy 180 degrees
-jefferson even offered to help the french regain control of the slave territory, for ideological reasons
-ultimately jefferson flipped again, opposed the french for another reason
3) Louisiana Purchase
-all of a sudden, the french under napoleon owned the Louisiana territory
-napoleon saw Saint Domingue as a stepping stone to regaining the french empire in the western hemisphere
-napoleon's success rested on three things
-peace with UK
-friendship with US
-success in Saint Domingue
-none of these things ever happened
-Peace of Amiens (between france and uk) ended up failing
-french army in saint domingue was DECIMATED
-not just the resistance, also huge disease attrition
-US refused to help the french all of a sudden
-cut off supplies and finances to france
-at the same time, americans were negotiating to buy the louisiana purchase (but especially new orleans)
-they were offered all of the louisiana territory for $15 million
-napoleon figured he'd sell it to the US rather than go to war with it
4) France vs England
-Jefferson didn't recognize the only other successful revolting colony (Haiti) because of domestic interests
-he embargoed it
-biggest problem here was which side should jefferson support
-jefferson opted for neutrality
-figured he'd capitalize both sides
-jefferson himself, however, felt that britain was the biggest threat
-after the french fleet is annihilated by the british, the french just become incidental, he says that the US should support the french against the british

MICRO SECTION NOTES 1/26

TA: Kevin Hassani
khassani@jhu.edu
office hours:
monday 2:30-3:30
merg 466

OCC CIV NOTES 1/25

most of the books are on 2-hour reserve at the library or on e-reserve (dickens)

interpretations of the french revolution
1. Bourgeois
2. Marxist
3. Burke & Conservatives
4. Furet/totalitarians
5. Hunt and the other revolution
6. 21st century

for a long time, the dominant view of the french revolution was the first- bourgeois
sieyes
guizot saw the revolution as a method to overthrow the aristocracy/monarchy and establish a constitution

revolution hastened not liberal constitutionalism, but centralization and order (epitomized by Napoleon)

marxists-
all you need to run a country is some smart people, and you put them in charge (not too hard)
-why didnt this happen?
marx explained that this was because all human society goes through 5 stages
-primitive
-slaveholding
-feudal
-capitalist
-communist
in each system, marx hypothesized that the nature of the economic system determines the nature of the superstructure above it
-economics determines not only government structure, but also church teachings, etc
why do you need a revolution to switch from feudal to capitalist?
-because the monarchy would never willingly give up power

the (political) right demonized the revolution
-they were fans of security and stability, not revolution
burke was a huge critic of the revolution
-said the english revolution was great, french not so much
the right-wing criticism of the revolution morphed into cults of religion and race
-aided the spread of facism

totalitarian
this view started to get popularized after documents and evidence started coming out of the soviet gulag
-there ended up being an intellectual revolt against communism in europe
-leader of the revolt was francois furet
when leftists start to slide to the right, they dont know when to stop
-eventually the leftists drifted rightward

Hunt
looks for the 'true idea of the revolution'
-finds human rights
how far is too far in the dehumanization of enemies by the state?
human rights woo. ok. continue...
most interesting feature of the french revolution is not the effort to make a better society, but the massive violence
calls napoleon a despot, usurping the power of the people
huge uprising called the 'vendee' that had huge punishments for any counter-revolutionary activities

PoR SECTION NOTES 1/24

Philosophy of Religion

TA- Alex James
ajames13@jhu.edu
Gilman 460 monday 12-1

find this thing of some sort to print out. oy vey.
guidelines for writing a philosophy paper is online and other stuff too

www.jimpryor.net/teaching
^^that's the website

assignment for class was to brainstorm all the different ways to prove that God either exists or doesn't exist

AFP NOTES 1/23

LECTURE 2: The Main Themes of AFP
The source of American Exceptionalism

Identity (in order following list)
race
religion
distance
internal balancing
the frontier

North America c.1750
-three major powers
-to the north- FRENCH CATHOLIC
-to the south- SPANISH CATHOLIC
-stuck in between- WASPy brits

religion played a role
-the protestant puritanism/calvinism contrasted starkly with catholicism surrounding it
-americans believed themselves the chosen instrument of God
-woo american exceptionalism

North America c.1783, territory had changed
-to the north- british empire
-to the south- spanish empire
-stuck in the middle once again, AMERICAN COLONISTS
because of this, americans denied legitimacy to the two european powers, because they weren't indigenous
-said that america had a legitimate sphere of influence over the north american continent
-culminated in 1823 with the Monroe Doctrine- European powers can have NO SAY in any territory they don't already control in the western hemisphere

Note that america is only exceptional in relation with other white nations (non-white nations were never respected anyways)
americans treated indians not as a foreign power, but as an internal group revolting and to be put down

Distance played a huge role in maintaining american independence
-many people tried to emulate the american experience
-France, Latin America
france FAILED
why?
-America had a lot of experience already with self government, because even while it was under royal subjugation it had a great deal of autonomy
-france had no experience at all with this, being ruled by an absolute monarch
-legitimacy of opposition
-after an election, there is a peaceful transfer of power
-this legitimacy broke down in the 1850s, with civil war, but since 1865 this hasn't happened
-france has no experience with this at all
-space and time (distance)
-America had the space and time to deal with revolutionary issues at its own pace
-america even had time to go through two different governments before getting it right
-the cycle in europe was monarchy/oppression, brief burst of liberalism, back to monarchy/oppression
-this just didn't happen in america
-the space/time separation led to the idea of 'america invulnerable'
-wars are something we do to other people, not something other people do to us
-american soil was not touched in any real way from 1815-2001

Internal balancing-
-example of a failure- roman republic
-started out as a republic, but the infrastructure just failed and it led to the empire
-two ideas for dealing with this
-stay small, keep republican tradition, but you're small enough to be picked off
-expand, but lose republican tradition
-hamilton and madison argued that this model didn't apply
-the philadelphian system was a 'confederate republic'- and as such a republican ideal could be maintained
-governing bodies were small enough (states) to be effective republics, but all linked by a federal republic

frederick jackson turner wrote the significance of the frontier (1893)
-argument is that the existence of free land (or a frontier) is the stabilizing force on the american state
-america expanded away from europe and towards autonomy
-independence leads to democracy in america. woot.
reasons for revolution?
-'no taxation without representation'
-somersett's case- 1772
-royal proclamation of 1763
-at the end of the 7 years' war
-indian chief pontiac was owning frontier settlements, makes them very expensive to defend
-the proclamation imposed this geographic line on the Appalachians, no settling past it
-this kept the colonies very centered on the eastern seaboard, near british industry
-uh oh, the frontier closed in 1890, no more real land on the american mainland
-america looks somewhere else... 1898- spanish-american war
-american foreign policy extremely frontier-oriented

America as Realist Power
one of the main expectation of realism- powers will balance against eachother to maintain stability
external balancing
americans were EXTREMELY prejudiced against alliances-
-GW argued against even temporary alliances, only under extraordinary circumstances
around 1800, balancing really plays no role at all
-US doesnt balance- (french/UK wars)
1846-8 - mexico doesnt balance against US
-why?
-only power that mexico could have used to balance the US was the UK
-UK policy post 1815 was one of appeasement
balancing occurs to meet the POSSIBILITY of a threat
-US has the mindset that this possibility doesnt exist
US was essentially at detente with the UK, the only power capable of doing damage to the US
monroe doctrine codifies this
-europe no longer has influence over western hemisphere
-essentially, US becomes monarch over west. hem.
acts as a great power
-louisiana purchase 1803
-mexican-american war 1846-48
these sorts of territorial gains would nto be possible in europe, other powers would have balanced against it

post civil war- 1865-1900
-us population more than doubles
-becomes a major industrial power
-coal production up 800%, steel up 523%, railroad track mileage up 567%
-by 1885, US passes UK in total manufacturing output
-1890- surpasses UK in total energy production
-ends up being as powerful as much of europe combined

US embarks on traditional domination of western hemisphere
-embodied on the roosevelt corollary of 1904
-US becomes 'international police power' of the hemisphere, protecting it against europe
-this is UNILATERAL power, in keeping with american traditions
-key manifestation of this is Roosevelt's takeover of the panama isthmus, specifically in order to build the canal
-pure US self-interest
-US still does this, Grenada and Panama in the 1980s
1898 onwards- america does the same on an international scale
-1899-1902- America gets an actual colony- the Philippines from spain
-since then, US has done this again and again, vietnam, iraq, etc.
this relates to the jeffersonian ideal that the revolution is 'not for ourselves, but for the entire human race'
America as Liberal Power
Heir of the Enlightenment

Foreign Policy Options
Example vs Force

OCC CIV NOTES 1/23

Max Weber defined a state as such-
3 components
-disinterested bureaucracy
-legit monopoly on violence
-ability to uphold that monopoly

french revolutionaries sought out a sort of 'superstate' that intruded on all aspects of life
revolutionaries replace monarchy with popular sovereignty
-put government in the hands of the people, rather than the monarchs

representatives of the revolution called a meeting with representatives from three groups

first period- estates general- May 1789 to 1791
second period- the convention -1792-95- this contained the terror, killing of the king
third period- the directory- 1795-99
-ends with napoleon

estates general-
-after may 5, political parties appeared (real quick)
-summer of 1789, estates general declared itself a legit assembly, most members abandoned designations of noble, commoner, etc
-nationalized all sorts of church lands, etc
-ended censorship
-was supposed to produce a constitution
by 1791 the king and pope were starting to not like the estates general

during the convention
-war solidifies the revolution
-war is initially successful
-new body formed to govern
-european powers saw the french revolution as a big threat
-once the convention voted in 1793 to execute the king, england was like oh shit
-1793 on saw the TERROR
-new french republic owned everybody except england
-1794 brought a revolution against the revolution (counterrevolution)
-robespierre, etc, were executed (there was a new terror)

MICRO NOTES 1/23

State	C	W	DeltaC/DeltaW
A	10	10	-1
B	20	5	-4
C	5	20	-.25
D	5	0	XXXX
E	0	5	0

F

25

40

Comparative Advantage- even though state F is the best corn producer of them all, it should still make wheat, because it has a comparative advantage in doing so

the reason the table only contains two goods is because the blackboard is 2D, and everything said is applicable to more dimensions (it's just more complicated)

the way you make sure the right goods are produced is by assigning prices to goods, and letting the producers decide for themselves.
-They want to make the most profit, so they'll naturally go towards the PPF
-to move along the PPF, just change the prices of the goods to incentivize the production of one or the other

R = PcC + PwW
R = revenue
Pc = price of corn
Pw = price of wheat
C = amount of corn produced
W = amount of wheat produced

C = R/Pc - Pw/Pc * W

only legitimate profits and revenues able to be obtained are the intersections of the revenue line and the PPF


SUPPLY CURVE
A supply curve is a curve that answers the following set of questions
-when the price of wheat is announced, how much wheat do producers want to deliver to the marketplace?
-has NOTHING TO DO with demand or who's gonna buy the wheat