"Blood is Thicker than Water": Anglo-American Rapprochement in the Mid-Nineteenth Century, 1823-1872
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.
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.
The right to cast a meaningful vote, equal in value to other votes, is a fundamental tenet US elections. Despite the 1964 Supreme Court decision formally establishing the one person, one vote principle as a legal requirement of elections, our democracy consistently falls short of it. With mechanisms including the winner-take-all format in the Electoral College, disproportioned geographic allocation of senators, extreme partisan gerrymandering in the House of Representatives, and first-past-the-post elections, many voters experience severe vote dilution. <br/><br/>In order to legitimize our democratic structures, American elections should be reformed so every person’s vote has equal weight, ensuring that the election outcomes reflect the will of the people. Altering the current election structure to include more proportional structures including rank choice voting and population-based representation, will result in a democracy more compatible with the one person, one vote principle.