Matching Items (4)
Filtering by
- Genre: Academic theses
Description
Time magazine called 1976 "the year of the evangelical" partly in response to the rapid political ascent of the previously little-known Georgia governor Jimmy Carter. A Sunday school teacher and deacon in his local church, Carter emphasized the important role of faith in his life in a way that no presidential candidate had done in recent memory. However, scholarly assessments of Carter's foreign policy have primarily focused on his management style or the bureaucratic politics in his administration. This study adds to the growing literature in American diplomatic history analyzing religion and foreign policy by focusing on how Carter's Christian beliefs and worldview shaped his policymaking and how his religious convictions affected his advisors. To better demonstrate this connection, this dissertation primarily discusses Carter's foreign policy vis-à-vis religious nationalist groups of the three Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). By drawing on archival materials from the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library, Carter's own voluminous writings, and memoirs of other administration officials, this dissertation argues that Carter's religious values factored into policymaking decisions, although sometimes in a subtle fashion due to his strong Baptist doctrinal commitment to the separation of church and state. Moreover, Carter's initial success in using his religious beliefs in the Camp David negotiations raised expectations among administration officials and others when crises arose, such as the hostage taking in Iran and the electoral threat of the Christian Right. Despite his success at Camp David, invoking religious values can complicate situations already fraught with sacred symbolism. Ultimately, this dissertation points to the benefits and limits of foreign policy shaped by a president with strong public religious convictions as well as the advantages and pitfalls of scholars examining the impact of religion on presidential decision making.
ContributorsJones, Blake (Author) / Longley, Kyle (Thesis advisor) / O'Donnell, Catherine (Committee member) / Summitt, April (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
"Blood is Thicker than Water": Anglo-American Rapprochement in the Mid-Nineteenth Century, 1823-1872
Description
ABSTRACT
Historians of Anglo-American diplomacy in the nineteenth century tend to focus on the beginning of the century, when tensions ran high, or the end, when the United States and Britain sowed the seeds that would grow into one of the most fruitful alliances of the twentieth century. This dissertation bridges the gap between the century's bookends. It employs world history methodology, giving close attention to how each nation's domestic politics and global priorities played a vital role in shaping bilateral relations. In this manner, it explains how two nations that repeatedly approached the brink of war actually shared remarkably similar visions of peace, free trade, and neutral rights throughout the world. A careful consideration of the shifting priorities of the British Empire demonstrates that London approached trans-Atlantic relations as merely one part of a worldwide strategy to preserve its prestige and economic ascendancy. Meanwhile, naval inferiority, sectional tensions, and cultural affinity ensured that American belligerence never crossed the threshold from bluster to military action. By examining a handful of diplomatic crises originating far from the centers of power in London and Washington, this study argues that disputes between the United States and Britain arose from disagreements regarding the proper means to achieve common ends. During nearly half a century between the Monroe Doctrine and the Treaty of Washington, the two countries reached a mutual understanding regarding the best ways to communicate, cooperate, and pursue common economic and geopolitical goals. Giving this period its due attention as the link between post-Revolutionary reconciliation and pre-World War I alliance promotes a more comprehensive understanding of Anglo-American rapprochement in the nineteenth century.
Historians of Anglo-American diplomacy in the nineteenth century tend to focus on the beginning of the century, when tensions ran high, or the end, when the United States and Britain sowed the seeds that would grow into one of the most fruitful alliances of the twentieth century. This dissertation bridges the gap between the century's bookends. It employs world history methodology, giving close attention to how each nation's domestic politics and global priorities played a vital role in shaping bilateral relations. In this manner, it explains how two nations that repeatedly approached the brink of war actually shared remarkably similar visions of peace, free trade, and neutral rights throughout the world. A careful consideration of the shifting priorities of the British Empire demonstrates that London approached trans-Atlantic relations as merely one part of a worldwide strategy to preserve its prestige and economic ascendancy. Meanwhile, naval inferiority, sectional tensions, and cultural affinity ensured that American belligerence never crossed the threshold from bluster to military action. By examining a handful of diplomatic crises originating far from the centers of power in London and Washington, this study argues that disputes between the United States and Britain arose from disagreements regarding the proper means to achieve common ends. During nearly half a century between the Monroe Doctrine and the Treaty of Washington, the two countries reached a mutual understanding regarding the best ways to communicate, cooperate, and pursue common economic and geopolitical goals. Giving this period its due attention as the link between post-Revolutionary reconciliation and pre-World War I alliance promotes a more comprehensive understanding of Anglo-American rapprochement in the nineteenth century.
ContributorsFlashnick, Jon M. (Author) / Longley, Kyle (Thesis advisor) / O'Donnell, Catherine (Committee member) / Stoner, K. Lynn (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
The historiography of the Vietnam War's effect on American society and culture often focuses on the public image of its veterans. Historians and other scholars credit liberal and apolitical Vietnam veterans for reshaping Americans' opinions of those who served. These men deserve significant recognition for these changes; however, historians consistently overlook another aspect this topic. Conservative Republicans in the mid-1970s through the early 1990s made a concerted effort to alter how Americans viewed Vietnam veterans and their performance in the conflict. The few scholars who have examined this issue suggest conservatives wanted to quell Americans' distaste for military endeavors after the loss in Southeast Asia, a concept known as the Vietnam Syndrome.
This dissertation argues conservatives' efforts were more complex than simply wanting to break down the syndrome. The war and its loss threatened their understandings of the exceptional nature of the United States. This notion of exceptionalism stemmed from the immense success of the country territorially, economically, and in the international system, accomplishments realized with the assistance of the American military. The performance of the military establishment and its soldiers in the Vietnam War and the negative international and domestic opinions of the country in the wake of this loss threatened those elements of American success that conservatives viewed as imperative to maintaining the idea of exceptionalism and the power of the United States. As a result, a disparate group of conservative Republicans in the post-Vietnam era attempted to alter American understandings of the nation's martial tradition and the concept of martial masculinity, both ravaged by the war. This dissertation adds another layer to the historiography of the effects of the Vietnam War by arguing that conservatives not only shored up Americans' belief in the martial tradition and reshaped the definition of martial masculinity, but that they also significantly influenced Americans' newfound positive opinions of Vietnam veterans.
This dissertation argues conservatives' efforts were more complex than simply wanting to break down the syndrome. The war and its loss threatened their understandings of the exceptional nature of the United States. This notion of exceptionalism stemmed from the immense success of the country territorially, economically, and in the international system, accomplishments realized with the assistance of the American military. The performance of the military establishment and its soldiers in the Vietnam War and the negative international and domestic opinions of the country in the wake of this loss threatened those elements of American success that conservatives viewed as imperative to maintaining the idea of exceptionalism and the power of the United States. As a result, a disparate group of conservative Republicans in the post-Vietnam era attempted to alter American understandings of the nation's martial tradition and the concept of martial masculinity, both ravaged by the war. This dissertation adds another layer to the historiography of the effects of the Vietnam War by arguing that conservatives not only shored up Americans' belief in the martial tradition and reshaped the definition of martial masculinity, but that they also significantly influenced Americans' newfound positive opinions of Vietnam veterans.
ContributorsStevens, Jean-Marie (Author) / Longley, Kyle (Thesis advisor) / Rush, James R. (Committee member) / Miller, Keith D. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
The Second World War has been portrayed as the central event for understanding the history of America in the 20th Century. This dissertation will examine the acts of commemoration and remembrance by veterans who served on the escort carriers, USS Block Island, CVE-21 & CVE-106. Acts of remembrance and commemoration, in this case, refer to the authorship of memoirs, the donation of symbolic objects that represent military service to museums, and the formation of a veteran's organization, which also serves as a means of social support. I am interested in the way stories of the conflict that fall outside the dominant narratives of the Second World War, namely the famous battles of land, sea, and air, have been commemorated by the veterans who were part of them. Utilizing primary source material and oral histories, I examine how acts of remembrance and commemoration have changed over time. An analysis of the shifting meanings sheds light on how individual memories of the war have changed, in light of the history of the larger war that continues to ignore small ships and sea battles.
ContributorsHruska, Benjamin J. (Author) / Thompson, Victoria (Thesis advisor) / Warren-Findley, Jannelle (Committee member) / Longley, Kyle (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012