User:Peet/POLS 3631 091307
raw copypaste -- deal with it.
9/13
timeline
1789 judiciary act 1791 hamilton's report on manufacturing 1793 citizen genet affair 1794 jay's treaty, whisky rebellion 1795 pinckney's Treaty 1796 GW's farewell address 1797-8 XYZ affair 1798-1800 quasi war with france, alien and sedition acts 1803 LA purchase 1801-5 1st barbary war 1811 tippecanoe (and tyler, too) 1812 war of 1812 1815 end of war, 2nd barbary war 1819 us gets fl from spain, transcontinental railroad 1821 jqa speech 1823 monroe doc 1830 indian removal act
recall that d sections are....
f 10-11, 11-12 gustavo 711 IAB m lili 5-6 6-7 711 IAB t milan 11-12 4-5 w andre j 6:10-7.10-8 r stefano 10-1050 / 11-1150 1302 IAB
---
so why is the troop pullback bullshit?
it's not a question of when --
most of america's oil doesn't come from the middle east.
if you're going to fight a war, you need stuff. you want stuff, need money. gotta sell stuff for money. iraq's stuff is oil. who gets the oil?
all that really matters is that is there a political prmmise people find acceptable?
times news in brief -- france is talking about rejoining nato. france didn't want to be under america's thumb... gave money to nato, no troops. sarkozy president approached bush about rejoining... so this is interesting because france has been messing up us foreign policy for a while.
2003 - national interest 'the european hegemon' --- for a very long time, the us has tried to make sure that europeans need to remain devided... and preventing a strong european bloc from forming.
new yorker - what happens as we go? george pecker? total disaster is his thesis. so people are trying puzzle over this stuff, but, nobody really has an appropriate answer.
---
concluding the constitution --
we ended with the bill of rights -- how do we know that the us united in 1791. we can get a fix on this stuff by looking at the hallmarks of sovereignty -- the high politics that states do. individual states can only now raise militias and so forth... and all of this is now subsumed to the government at the federal level.
legal power goes to federal.
no such thing at unilateral succession. founding fathers, even pro-southers, say you can't do it. it's set in stone, sorry. you can't nullify something out of bounds. john calhoun and sorts had lots of effective arguments...
does the us divide in the civil war? sociologically, probably. but states don't divide every time someone declares independence. look at the unabomber -- the us didn't divide from that. people like the branch davidians -- didn't divide the country. there's no legal supremacy. people at the time knew that they were sorta doomed. the CSA did pretty much the same thing -- but -- there's no legal supremacy. what do impartial spectators do? france and britain would love the united states to break up at the time of the civil war for the same reason why the usa hates the idea of a united europe. even the british are itching to reconigzed the confederacy, even though they hate slavery... but they still don't. south is doomed from the get go.
conclusion: const is not a triumph of deliberative democracy, but that's as good as we're gonna get. it may have been conceived strangely, but the document is legitimate. it's one of those bedrock concepts. but autonomy and sovereignty are pretty vaguely defined.
we may not have had a ton of consensus -- nothing inevitable about the constitution -- nobody saw unification coming -- but -- it still happened. not the most likely outcome, but...
the most informed states were the most opposed to the const. it was extraordinary politics. (pulling the rug out) washington and madison et al didn't do this, of course, but this is wasn't well seen at the time. what if someone tried to do something like that today? how can we evaluate that vis a vis our long term best interest?
the whole american state is founded on the belief that foundations of power corrupt. the results of this competition is basically equilibrium. this goes to cupidity[?] correlates with capacity. the problem is, because of the founder's skill and luck, the us has a disproportionate allocation of power. so what do we do now? this govt wasn't setup to deal with this much power? the const was not crafted to deal with that? what do we do? maybe it's a good thing, or a bad thing, that the us has this much power? that is what the political elites are doing right now.
---
baby america.
problems: the problem is, the us needs to get started, solidify their govt, and this means a ton of things. clear foreign interference. they're not economic setup to be a unified state at this point. the ties between london and a colony, in some places, are stronger that in tracolony ties. you have to do all of this without much power -- us is weak from the getgo.
policy responses: reorder economy govt trial and error to experiment with policies play off european divisions -- this is a leading motif in american foreign policy. as long as the euros are distracted, we can take advantage of all that.
so what? this is the foundation of the american house. everything comes after this. it's important to formulate a foundation -- but it tells us a lot about foundations of power. what can we expect from rising states like china, etc?
why was the united states not strangled in the crib? did nobody see us growing really big? we have some stuff going on in mexico, but foreign adventurism is very limited. why?
america has forgotten a lot of its own history. it might be important, in light of predictions, but...
recall our notes from today regarding guerrilla tactics by washington.
but do not forget that military projection is not the only way to disrupt a state, as we will see shortly.
---
bargaining for breathing room 90-96
the country starts to come together. judiciary act. powerful tools are being forged. congress agrees, people were still concerned about tyranny, but... economically, a unified footing is where we're trying to go. hamilton's report on manufacturers. countries tend to be rich not because of gold but because of more free trade. so in time of war, there's a big stockpile of resources to wage war. modern states need that stuff.
gibbon's decline and fall
hamilton propounds industry's argument, as above. if you're going to compete, you may as well try to get as many advantages. hamilton advocates protectionist policies. we need manufactureing, etc. and we can't keep being a farm.
unity and coherence where there isn't any. if you were goodnatured and smart -- you'd arrive at a similar conclusion. faction and party were things that americans didn't like. and there had to be bad things if rational people disagree wildly.
so parties start to form... nobody saw this coming. lots of accusations about 'you're wrong, i'm right, you're an asshole about being wrong.' washington tries to restrain people.
the french revolution. it's the famous one! gives birth to tons of political parties! if you believe tocqeville -- the revolution was pretty much for naught. but this was the one that was exported. the americans, on the other hand, become very peaceful and successful -- but not as popular as the french one. some people get fired up... some people don't. we still don't want to piss off england. and so, these groups start butting heads.
jefferson hamilton dispute -- jefferson was slippery, obnoxious -- his argument was saying that the farmers were the center of it all. hamilton: are you nuts? that was yesterday. we need to industrialize, we need trade. it's an image dispute not limited to personality -- but it's also a fight of factions. and they're sort of wagering over what the future of the u should look like. that comprimise shifts more towards hamilton, eventually, but jeffersonian ideals are still there.
many people thought that the us had a treaty obligation with france. implicitly, we were on their side. the french revolution said, hey, we need help. and hamilton basically says, uh, we can't help you. jefferson says yes! let's help! washington sides with hamilton.
around the same time, a new ambassador. genet. he lands in south carolina and starts talking to merchants, not going to the federal government. washington politely asks him to stop. and he doesn't. eentually genet gets to washington, and everyone is very angry at genet.
jacobites come to power in 1794. they want to recall genet -- and kill him. so genet asks to stay. and washington says, okay, yes, just shut up. he dies in upstate new york, marries george clinton's daughter.
jay's treaty -- reestablishs trade with brtain, border disputes. british subjects wanted compensation. so there was bargain about what we owed loyalists, boundaries, the british hadn't cleared out of all their forts... very dangerous stuff.
pinckney's treaty - settles stuff with spain. spain is on the wane. we get to keep the mississippi open.
the british, btw, were performing 'covert action links' via native americans. in pinckney's, we got spain to stop doing that, but britain continued.
1796-1802
whiskey rebellion - the govt is fucking broke, they ned fucking money, and they can't get fucking tax money, or tax things. it's easy to tax things in ports. or, tax durable goods, like whiskey. hamilton creates excise tax on whiskey. it is a regressive tax. you live so far away from a market, so you make whiskey so you have a finished good that keeps. the poor folks make it. and they get hit with the tax. they didn't like it, they protested, and then 'taxation without representation'! nobody really destroys much, but... this escalates to an altercation. ref wikipedia or something... the militia basically gets very angry, kills tax assessors. govt forces 3, whiskey rebels 0, protestors march through pittsburgh, and then go home. total damage, deaths, 1 seized mailbag, 1 burned house. and hamilton says, well, we have to make an example of these people. this is a rebellion -- this is not civil disobedience. washington agrees.
general lee. reason bob lee was such a great person is because his dad was a strange dude. grant was totally disorganized, drunk, scattered -- antithesis of robert lee.
general lee -- 13 to 15k army raised. no resistance to the army. nothing there. they end up killing 2 innocents, 1 insurgent -- two people were convicted and pardoned.
tax resistance keeps going until jefferson stops the whiskey tax.
GW farewell address, 1796 -- more than half of it is spent talking about unity. 'as little political connection as possible... a different course... true policy to steer clear from permanent alliances.' meaning political entanglements, but economic ones are okay.
xyz affair -- tension between france and us. one day, three french agents solicit the us for a bribe. we say no, we're broke. word gets out -- and there's a big sensation. talleyrand (shit in silk stockings)
this starts the quasi war... minor skirmishes. it's a cold war, nobody declares anything, nobody wants to do this. and then france gives up. but what goes on is basically naval engagements.
alien sedition acts -- ye olden versiones of the patriot act. fair amount of resistance. the us tries to ramp up govt spending -- ratchet effect, when war happens taxes go up. they cause a big stir. some people think that pres adams is trying to be too much of a tyrant -- some people agree with this.
fourth rebellion. fries' rebellion. he's not a huge rebel or something, but... anyway, the us passed window taxes. and the people who left germany got uncomfortable -- hearth taxes. hot water rebellion. tihs escalates to the point where tax collectors would abduct people and take them far away for trial.
fries feels that his rights have been trampled -- him and 150 people or so break some friends out of jail. no shooting, whatever. what happens? newspapers say, there's a big rebellion in the backwoods! another army is called up. 1k army w/2k reserves. they go there -- nothing happening. the army says, the rebels are hiding! they swear something is going on! but they end up shooting a bull for a rebel... and that's the only fatality in the rebellion.
fries is captured, arrested, tried twice w/o lawyer, sentenced to death, and adams pardons him against the wishes of his entire cabinet. the public is thunderstruck. everyone gives adams heat for this.
common things about rebellions:
- all frustrated elites who resemble washington
- start as tax grievances
- look similar on their face, but different reactions based on IR happenings.
- there's no real... rebellion. but everyone is convinced that something is going on.
- no clear winners. the govt doesn't really smash anything, and the rebellions continue until tax repeal
---
1803 - 1815 - profiting from european misfortune
LA purchase -- he wants a huge empire. new france. louisiana was going to supply haiti... what happens is, haiti revolts, france can't keep them. without haiti, there's nothing. louisiana becomes worthless. and napoleon needs money. so they try to sell it to the us. and the us wants it. and they don't want britain to have it.
so, they want to sell it for 125 million... 15 million was the final price. we buy it. and we get lewis and clark, they explore...
1801-05 1st 1815 2nd barbary wars
first clash with muslim countries. tons of pirates, they capture some americans, americans don't pay money, and a weak navy is sent to fight. (the shores of tripoli). we don't do very well. the 2nd war is were we actually start winning.
---
buildup to 1812
1812 -- isn't inevitable -- it's a war of accident. nobody wants it, but we get it.
1807 -- blockade of france, we want to trade with both sides, and can't. british impressment of americans. public outcry. britain is inciting people through indian proxies.
madison thinks that we can use economic warfare! this only makes the problem worse.
we also wanted to grab canada...
britain tries to copenhagen... so when war breaks out, britain sinks as many american ships as they can. this happens in the napoleonic wars to denmark. (bombs bursting in air -- these ships were stolen ships...) washington is burned. battle of new orleans -- andrew jackson earns his reputation here. but the battle happens after the war is over.
us deaths - 2,260, disease kills 5x that.
1819 - we buy florida from spain. transcontinental treaty. becomes more relavent with texas later.
---
latin american politics
often it is an afterthought for us these days -- but it used to be crucial. what's interest is because a lot of this is bound up with simon bolivar. he claimed to be a south american george washington. GW does two things 1) frees the US 2) unifies 13 countries
what bolivar does is one of those things. he wants to do both. he wants to join all of south america into one country, and tells everyone about it. better general than washington, better read, very charismatic. except that -- one of them pulle dit off, one didn't.
bolivar is reviled, kicked out of his country in 1830.
the view in south america: nothing. there is nothing happening there. minor unrest tupac amaru -- small revolt in 1780s. [ref shining path] but things are relatively quiet. no revolution. what happens in south america is -- napoleon. he takes over countries in europe, like spain, and puts his brother on the throne. the spanish colonies owe their allegiance to the spanish king. so nobody knows what the hell is going on with these counties -- and they start to become autonomous, do their own thing. and start severing connections with spain.
bolivar (hedonistic playboy) find napoleon alluring because of his ideals of revolution, but repugnant because he's a tyrant.
britain attacks south in 1806. 1811 lots of people start declaring independence from spain. on july 4th. saint martin coming from the north, bolivar coming from the south.
