American History

The book Unwise Passions by Alan Pell Crawford depicts the true story of Nancy Randolph, a member of an aristocrat family, belonging to Virginia in the United States of America. In course of the narration of Nancys life, the book focuses on the various scandals that brought misery and suffering to Nancy. Leading her life in a period when various changes were taking place in America in the political and economic field, Nancys experiences reflected the changing scenario in her country. By presenting the influence of the changes in the American society during the eighteenth century on aristocracy in Virginia, the various experiences of Nancy Randolph illuminate the larger political, economical, and social issues facing both Virginia and the new United States.

Political Issues
    As Nancy Randolph was born and brought up in a wealthy aristocrat family, she led a comfortable life during the period of her childhood and adolescence. The death of her mother and the consequent remarriage of her father forced Nancy to leave her fathers house and stay with her older sister, Judith, who was married to one of her cousins, Richard Randolph. At the age of eighteenth, Nancys life took an ugly turn as rumors about her pregnancy begin to surface. Richard Randolph was thought to be the father of Nancys child. People also accused Richard of murdering Nancys child upon its birth and throwing the dead body in a heap of trash. Although these rumors were proved to be wrong in the court of law, this scandal brought drastic changes in Nancys social status. The political scenario in the United States during the eighteenth century was changing considerably and this is evident from the vulnerability of Nancy and Richard, members of aristocracy. The hold of aristocracy on the American society was loosening as the nation was advancing towards the implementation of a democratic form of government. In these changed political circumstances, Richard was imprisoned on the charge of murdering Nancys child. People dared to question the conduct of Richard Randolph even though he belonged to an aristocrat family. From almost a century, the Randolphs had made their own rules and carried on with what ordinary folks deemed astonishing license.But now that one of these haughty princelings had been called to answer for his conduct, he needed Henry to save him. (Crawford 17). Nancy belonged to one of the wealthy and illustrious families of the period but still she could not be immune from the criticism of the society regarding her immoral relationship with Richard. The scandal and the consequent trial of Richard bring forth the decline of aristocracy and rise of the power of common people in a situation which points towards the impending advent of democracy.  

Economic Issues
    Nancy Randolphs experiences also point out towards the economic issues that Virginia and the United States were facing during those period. The increasing opposition to slavery was leading to a fall in the tobacco business in the South and decline in the wealth of aristocratic families. Although Nancy was born in a wealthy family, she had to lead a life of poverty in her youth. Being an owner of tobacco plantations and numerous slaves, Nancys father was counted among one of the flourishing businessmen in Virginia. But with the changes in economic situation in the United States, which were brought about by the decline in tobacco plantations in the South and the rise in protests against slavery, the economic position of the Randolph family begin to descend. Richard Randolph was in debts at the time of his death. After Richards death, Nancy was forced by Judith and Richards younger brother, Jack to leave the house. Nancy led a life of poverty following her eviction from Richards house till she married Governor Morris, a wealthy northerner. After her marriage, Nancys financial status improved whereas the wealth of her relatives in the South was dwindling incessantly. The economy in the South, which was dominated by the tobacco-business, was on the verge of a collapse and this was affecting the overall economy of the new United States.

Social Issues
    The thinking and attitudes of the American society were undergoing numerous changes and this is evident from the changed manner in which people treated Nancy following the surfacing of the scandal. The value of equality was taking root in the society, as people came to regard the members of the aristocratic families as equal to themselves. And so when Nancy was thought to be indulging in immoral behavior, the society criticized her and looked down upon her. Even the slaves dared to talk about the immoral conduct of the members of the aristocratic families, which owned them. This shows that the protests against slavery were providing the slaves with the strength to voice their opinions regarding the behavior of the aristocracy. With the decline of aristocracy, the common people begin to realize and utilize their power. 

    The experiences of Nancy Randolph in the book Unwise Passions by Alan Pell Crawford present the impacts the changes in the economy and politics of the American society had on the aristocracy in Virginia. These impacts point towards the larger political, economical, and social issues facing both Virginia and the new United States.

The roots of modern civilization are traceable back to history, from the ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman, Middle age, Renaissance, Reformation up to Modern times. In terms of all the aspects of life today, these old days had an influence on the 17th and 18th century over the whole world. All together, this work will limit itself to the Western civilization especially France and England dissecting their political, social, scientific and intellectual involvement as well as of government relations with their subjects.

The 17th and 18th centuries
As human beings develops from lowest states to high states and forms, the issues of politics and struggles against the daily challenges can be traced back to these centuries different from the early man of the middle ages. However, this presupposition does not mean that they arose by themselves at this time, but through improvement. In terms of politics, both France and Britain were organized under monarch governments. The Monarchy in France had experienced wars in the centuries before the 16th and 17th centuries.

The politics and the idea of government took shape in the form of absolute monarchy,   a position emanating from the state that God ordained Kings to rule over his people. Thus, the Kings were only answerable to God hence their authority was absolute. In France therefore, King Louis XIV was the best example of such absolutism obviously emanating from Cardinal Richelieu who targeted greatly to humble the pride of men. Richelieu succeeded in keeping the central royal authority alive by suppressing the noble conspiracies at a time when King Louis III was still a young boy from 1610 to 1643.

Richelieu in his mission to strengthen the central government through financing, failed because the intendants came into conflict with provincial governors thus they were unpopular and at the same time there were corrupt practices. Thus even the taille doubled, meant to support the Thirty Years War of Hapsburgs, and increased expenditures against the revenues hence French debt sprawled upward. The provincial animosity between the central and provincial administrations continued even after the death of Richelieu, the reign of King Louis XIV and later his son Louis XIII who was only four years old. The wife of the dead King Anne of Austria allowed Cardinal Mazarin naturalized French from Italy who was the trained successor to Richelieu after his death in 1642 to replace Richelieu (Spielvogel, Pp 502).

Mazarin continued with the old policies of Richelieu thus the masses were in conflict with the government and due to the fact that Mazarin was an Italian. This led to the revolt known as the Frondes, the first in 1648 to 1649 and the second in 1650 and was ended by 1652 due to infighting. It is after this that French thought in the way of crown after the death of Mazarin in 1661 that Louis XIV took supreme power. The King controlled the central government while the Parlement made up of provincial governors and noble men had conflicting roles in the note of supremacy.
In Europe on the other hand, the 17th century saw the conflict between the King and the parliament grounded by religious controversy. King James ascension to power after the death of Queen Elizabeth of Tudor Dynasty, thus leaving power to the Stuart Line of rulers her cousins, saw him rise to be King James I in 1602- 1625 in England.  The belief that the King was ordained by God and was responsible to God saw the conflict between the King and the parliament just like in France. The balance of polity was broken and the rise of parliament as a constitutional monarchy for long years to come was rife.

The demands for monies to fund the costs of government by King James were denied by the Parliament which already was against his view about Kings, as being only answerable to God. The conflict between the two powers much aggravated by the conflict between the Puritans and the Anglican made things worse as King James was an Anglican thus he supported them. This sidelining of the Puritans was a great recipe for Revolution as the gentry became part of the Puritans and now during the reign of King Charles I (1625-1649) the son to James. The parliament passed the Petition Right (1628), which required the King to sign it acknowledging power to the parliament. Charles broke the promise on this initial acceptance and found it hard to work with the parliament. In the course of events he pursued personal rule by collecting ship tax and seacoast towns and coast defense levies at the same time not involving the parliament from 1629 to 1640. This money was used for other purposes rather than defense and thus middle class merchants refuted this idea noting that the King had not sort their consent (Spielvogel, Pp 470).

18th century, enlightenment was the name of this age. Immanuel Kant popularized the use of own intelligence and reason, hope, progress and natural law characterized the century.  Fontanelle (1657- 1757) secretary of the French Royal academy of Science (1691-1791) was the man who linked the scientific revolution to all people in this century by witful articulation of all scientific works in his book Plurality of Worlds thus popularized all the works that they became available to people of his upper class and others though himself was never a scientists.  This popularization led to development of new skepticism against religion though the original scientist had done these works in the adoration of God. The religious beliefs were never taken seriously and secularization set in, materialism at its tail. People like Bayle believed that religious toleration was actually beneficial to the state rather forcing the following of only one religion which culminated to hypocrites.

The enlightenment movement was dominant in Paris, France taking the center, affecting individuals every where through out Europe. The movement was strengthened from one country to another thus was like a family circle and calling for freedom, but the following French are worth the mention, Montesquieu, Voltaire and Diderot. The enlightenment age was cosmopolitan as these great men attacked the traditions of religion and argued by better view of things like toleration, deism, condemnation of slavery and the praise of reason to liberate human beings.

This movement had some impact on the political thought of Europe where the idea of natural laws was linked to natural rights, like to be equal before the law, freedom of religious worship, freedom of speech and press and the right to own property and search for happiness. Thus the philosophes saw that the rulers who followed such interest were best in shaping the society and lead the masses to change the society to make it a better place through reasoning. This led to the rise of enlightened absolutism rulers like Catherine of Russia, Frederick II of Prussia and Joseph of Austria (Spielvogel, Pp 539).

The Economic order
The enlightenment saw the change of commercial activities and economic powers as the Dutch and Spain declined leaving England and France with gained new strength. This led to the change from Mediterranean seaboard to the Atlantic waterways. France retained its monarchy despite influence from enlightenment and Louis XIV had left large territories, a huge national debt and an unhappy populace thus trade and commerce continued but it pulled back from international travel scenes due to ruling by immoral, drunk and non committed leaders before Louis XVI had become of age to take over from his grandfathers steps. However, even him he was not experienced in the functions of French government thus French continued to wallow in national debt, crises and great despair and discontent to the French people.

On the other hand the Great Britain was prevented by the Glorious revolution to slip into absolutism. The parliament and the King were at peace and power was bestowed on the parliament with the Kings ministers advising the parliament and in turn being influenced by it. The parliament was made up of House of Lords and House of Commons whose deputies gained support through patronage ad corruption .In 1714 the rise of  the Hanoverians dynasty of the King Georges I, II, III, led to the start of the modern government since they never spoke English. Thus the first Prime Minister Robert Walpole served from 1721 to 1742 pursuing a foreign peaceful policy. However, new forces were interested in trade and world wide empire creating the imperialistic forces that found a voice in Prime minister William Pitt Elder in 1757 acquiring  Canada and India in the Seven Years war which France lost some of its empires (Spielvogel, Pp 540).

The Social order
The family was the unit of societys organization with an interest with patriarchal arrangement. The traditional middle Ages concern for class only allowed marriage between the noble classes within the interests of the governments of the states. Although works of reform spearheaded by enlightenment was attacking the old order, it did not break easily. By the end of the 18th century the old order began crumbling. The peasants were the largest class forming 85 of the population. The landed class dominated over the free and serf peasants.  All over Europe they were treated differently and in Germany they were required to perform labor services, pay taxes and seek permission for marriage and East Europe the conditions were those close to slavery especially in Russia. The peasants lived in villages which were the center of their social lives where they went to church and the central government collected taxes. Usually they were owned by rich aristocrats who controlled the villages.
The nobility on the other hand formed 2 to 3 of the population gaining nobility by birth thus exempted from harsh treatment or punishment. They dominated the government army, councils and they were educated. The possession of land and money made one a noble, and they ate meat fish and cheese in comparison to dark bread, rye, vegetables and potatoes from America. They engaged in trade, glass making, metallurgy and mining. Buildings in England were structured in special elegant and beautiful way that allowed privacy at the same time guests activities all influenced by the Georgian style. Later the fashion came of clearing the peasants away to make space for parks and storey houses for the household and show of class. Again there was the educational tour that English males went to learn and visit abroad tourist attraction and learning sites (Spielvogel, Pp 562).
In comparison, I think Britain was more successful than since after the restoration of Constitutional monarchy, after the Glorious revolution, saw the stability of Britain thus allowing world exploration, trade and commerce when the French were still reeling from bad governance and thus slowed progress. This again is supported by the fact New Scientific methods and reasoning were taken as pride of the Englishman and each wanted to identify with Newtonian genialness thus this propelled Britain to agricultural revolution and later industrial revolution.

Christopher Columbus gets a lot of credit for discovering America but one thing he is not remembered for is creating a new nation. For this, one must look to the original colonies and the people who built them. Several European countries had deep investments in the New World, but one country that stands out prominently is England. From hopes of religious freedom to dreams of financial success, England provided the necessary ingredient for a new nation strong, determined people.

The first successful English venture in America was at Jamestown in Virginia in the year 1607. Within a few decades, more colonies would be established, including two further north, Plymouth and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. All of these colonies were lead by men who were successful enough to succeed into the pages of early American History. But where these men and their missions similar According to the information they left us, no.

First, one needs to look at these successful men. John Smith was an explorer who was looking to profit from his venture to Virginia. This trip was not his first maritime experience and he did not expect it to be his last. He was said to be mischievous, not the best leader, and was even held captive on his own ship for part of the journey. John Winthrop, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony appears to have been the opposite of Smith. Extremely religious, he attempted to live his life as close to the laws of Christianity as possible. He was said to have been the terror of the wicked and the delight of the sober He joined the venture to the Massachusetts Bay Colony with plans to continue living piously and spread the gospel. William Bradford, the second governor of Plymouth, left a well-documented account of the founding and first years of the colony. Bradford did not include much personal information in his journals, but as a Puritan, his writing reflects his sincere devotion to God. Each entry in his diary credits God for any fortunate event, from saving the ship during a storm to good weather and a few hours of much needed rest. From all accounts, it is obvious that the three men believe in God but at various levels. Bradford knew he was pleasing the Lord, Winthrop wanted to please the Lord, and Smith seemed pleased that the Lord was merciful towards him. 

Beyond the men leading the colonies, the colonies themselves must be analyzed. Jamestown was always a business venture, something the king of England encouraged. The men settling Jamestown were laborers, not looking for a better life or even survival. They depended on the hired ships to see to their needs and once the ships left Jamestown, the men struggled to survive. Smith recorded that due to the lack of provisions, conditions and weather, the men were as miserable in this new place as they were in their native country.

The survival experiences of Smith and the other settlers of Jamestown compare somewhat with Bradfords account at Plymouth. Bradford wrote that while the first summer in the colony was plentiful, many people had already died during the winter of 1621, not just of present conditions, but from diseases contracted abroad the Mayflower. Of the people who survived, most were quite ill and only a few men were healthy enough to really be useful. But the few healthy men were remembered as being greatly resourceful, gathering wood and other necessities, and without complaint. This account of Bradfords differs from Smiths, which does not make mention of the Jamestown colonists being so supportive of each other. This comparison reflects that the colonists at Plymouth had made the journey to the New World for freedom, not for profit.

The colony of Massachusetts Bay was slightly different from the others. In the charter, it was not specified that the governors needed to meet in England, thus the king accidentally allowed an autonomous nation to be formed.  From the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the hope was that people would be living a true Christian life, and one of the main tenets was that it was better to give then receive. The people were encouraged to live collectively and doing so, they would remain in Gods favor.

The people of Plymouth were also encouraged to live collectively and at first widely accepted.  But once the colony became more established and Bradford noticed the need for more corn, some of the settlers began to express grievances of collective life. The stronger men were resentful for having to work harder than others, older men felt disrespected, and women did not want to work for men other than their husbands. There was no other option, so the people of Plymouth continued to work together and Bradford considered this a sign that they were in fact men, and was thankful for their religious conviction, for without it they may have been worse. 

Another experience in which all three colonies differed greatly was their interaction with the native people. After local Indians captured John Smith, he spent several weeks as a captive. Earlier in the settlement, Indians had come to the aid of the men when it was desperately needed.  Smith worked and feared for his life until the emperor Powhatan finally released him as a friend.  In Plymouth, the colonists immediately noticed Indians and after six months of little to no interaction, an Indian named Samoset introduced himself and another English speaking Indian, Squanto. A peace treaty was signed and the Indians helped the colonists acclimate to the area. Bradford saw these Indians as a gift from God, because without them, they would not have survived. Winthrop does not mention Indians in his writings.

All of the colonies shared common similarities of the day. The people were frustrated and tired, but persevered towards the goals they each had set before landing in the new world. Strength, patience, and wisdom were all required for survival. And survive they did, despite all differences and difficulties, and are remembered as the beginning of America.

The Camp David Accords of 1978 was a ground-breaking event in the history of the world.  This accord helped bring some measure of peace in the troubled Middle East as the respective leaders of Egypt and Israel, President Anwar Sadat and Primie Minister Menachem Begin, took initial steps in dialogue which led to the Accords with American President Jimmy Carter acting as mediator.

    Prior to the Accords, Israel and Egypt, along with its allies in the Arab League, have been at war with Israel on four occasions.  The 1967 Six-Day War was an Israeli victory that proved costly for the Egyptians as they lost the Sinai Peninsula which they were not able to regain in the following Yom Kippur War despite the improved showing of the Egyptian forces against the Israelis.  It was during this war that Sadat assumed power following the death of Gamal Abdel Nasser.  It was also during the start of his administration that he expelled Soviet advisers from his country as well after being constantly courted by the American government as part of bringing peace to the volatile region (Quandt, 25).  The Americans felt that Sadat was a more amiable person to deal with than Nasser who was a rabid Pan-Arabic nationalist whose policies were anathema to Washingtons foreign policy.

    Peace initiatives have been considered by all parties concerned.  On the part of the Americans, President Carter wanted to get the Middle East peace initiative started after getting stalled during the election campaign. Carter, an avowed pacifist owing to his deep religiosity, wanted to bring peace to the Middle East partly for sentimental reasons.  And his initiatives are consistent to his religious beliefs of beating swords into ploughshares. But several complications have stalled American efforts in getting the peace initiatives going because of the repercussions at the world state.  Because of the perceived foot-dragging of the Americans, Sadat took the initiative by announcing his willingness to visit Israel which he did 10 days later, taking a very bold but risky step in mending the proverbial fences with its enemy.  On the part of the Israelis, they too were tired of fighting and despite their successes and the spoils of war they have reaped, they were paying a heavy price for being occupiers and the leaders then sought the help of its Arab neighbors in dealing with the Palestinian problem which no Arab nation, not even the moderate ones would entertain as they were all united in their goal of destroying the Jewish nation and to entertain Israel would be tantamount to being branded a traitor by their Arab brothers.  When Sadat said he was coming over, the Israelis did not hesitate to receive him, thereby showing that they are not belligerent to Arab nations at all.  Any hope they had in getting friendly with Egypt was dashed after Sadats speech to the Knesset (Parliament) which reflected no change in Egypts stand on the current issues they were facing (Bard, 232).  One of the issues Israel was willing to deal with the Egyptians was the return of the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for recognizing Israeli settlements there.

  This had led to a stand off between the two nations which prompted Carter to take the initiative and invite the two leaders to his presidential retreat at Camp David, Maryland to resume the talks though behind closed doors.  Because of the tense antipathy between the Begin and Sadat, Carter had to approach them individually, willingly acting as a go-between as the two leaders would not speak to one another (Hahn, 62).  This would go on until the 12th day when Carter finally got the two leaders to agree on something.  Israel agreed to relinquish the Sinai to Egypt with the United States offering to help rebuild its military installations in the Negev. In addition, Israel was to freeze settlements in the region.  On the part of Egypt, Sadat was willing to act as representative to the Palestinians in consultations with the Israelis on a condition that Israel recognizes the Palestinians which they were reluctant to do since they were considered terrorists.  Sadat and Begin also agreed to send ambassadors to each other in 9 months after the agreement (Bard, 238).  On the 17th of September, all three leaders signed the agreement which would be the Camp David Accords.  A year later, a formal peace treaty between Israel and Egypt was signed in Washington.

    The Accords and the Treaty were hailed as a successful breakthrough in bringing about peace in the region though not that big yet.  It was a strategic victory in the sense that Egypt was taken out of the equation as far as Israels enemies were concerned.  The United States, Egypts new ally would see to that and at the same time, resume providing economic and technical aid to the country following Sadats expulsion of the Soviets.  While Sadat was hailed as a hero in the world for his initiatives, he was reviled and branded a traitor by extremists in the region and he eventually paid for it with his life in 1981 when he was assassinated (Quandt, 64).  Nonetheless, the Accords and Treaty was only the beginning and in 1995, Israel and Palestine finally brokered a peace treaty in the White House Lawn as Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat finally made peace with President Bill Clinton presiding.  Like Sadat, Rabin would also pay the price for making peace with his life.  Despite the continuing threats, efforts have been made to bring peace in the region, especially by those living there.

Child labor has long been a heavily debated topic in various societies across the globe. Since the age of the Industrial Revolution, how long a person should work, what conditions they should be required to work under and what age and gender was appropriate for workers in factories and labor jobs has been an important area of discussion. Over time, as the world changed and mankind developed new technology and forms of industry, the work day of both the adult and the child laborer has changed and evolved to adapt to changes in culture and industry. Initially, only the work environment of the adult laborer was considered important, because children either didnt work or werent considered important enough to the work force to command equal rights and responsibilities in the workplace. Many politicians and social commentators lobbied to have the work day for the adult laborer limited. Where laborers were once permitted to work as long as they wanted or their employer considered it necessary, workers were limited to a 10-hour workday. As society and culture changed, this limitation on work began to change what the laboring class did with their free time. Changing the work day for adults also changed the way that society viewed child labor, and many historians, politicians and labor union representatives expressed very different viewpoints on the topic of child labor and the impact that child and adult labor laws would have on industry and society as a whole.

    Terence V Powderly distinguished the workday length for manual laborers from that of the more skilled or intellectual working class. He felt that it was inappropriate to require bankers or accountants to work 10 hour days because this would be too intellectually taxing, but that the same principle didnt apply to manual laborers because they did not use their intellect or logic and reasoning skills as much. Powderly felt that the body could withstand a longer work day than the mind. Powderly also felt that the work world would become increasingly intellectual and require the function of the brain even more so than the hand, and that work day lengths should be adjusted in anticipation of this future change. He felt that the shorter workday would allow workers to become more educated and self-sufficient financially, lessening the likelihood of industry strikes. Many advocates for limitation of child laborer workdays also felt that the shorter workday would allow the children to maintain a regulated level of education, ensuring them a brighter future and more possibility for job advancement.

    Peter Roberts also cited the need for regulated working conditions for child laborers to ensure that the children also had an equal opportunity to receive education. In his examination of child workers in the coal mining industry in 1905, Roberts discovered thousands of school-age workers who were being worked for long days and given no opportunity to go to school and be educated. Roberts pointed out that in many cases these boys were forced to take on the role of adult laborers because they came from families of widowed or abandoned mothers and therefore had to assume the role of the man of the house and the main breadwinner, sacrificing their childhood and education in the process. If child laborers were being given the opportunity to earn money and gamble it away like adult workers, they should be given the same protection and regulated work day. It was also argued that child laborer work days should be regulated in order to give children the opportunity to attend school and further their education, allowing them the chance to eventually move out of manual labor jobs and earn more money if they chose.

    In 1916 the United States Congress passed the Keating-Owen Child Labor Act. This act regulated all aspects of child labor practice, establishing regulations for regular inspections of factories and mines that employed underage workers and calling for limits on hours per day and days per week that children were able to work. Child workers between the ages of 14 and 16 were limited to 8 hour work days, were only permitted to work after 6 am and until 7 pm daily, and could work no more than 6 days a week. Fines and jail time were assessed to any companies found to be making or shipping goods through interstate commerce within 30 days of child labor manufacturing.

    After the passage of the act, the US Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional. The Supreme Court felt that Congresss place was to regulate commerce only, not the laborers involved in the manufacturing of the goods being bought and sold. Congress had the right and responsibility to protect the consumer. By prohibiting the interstate sale of goods specifically manufactured by companies that employed child laborers under the sanctioned age or outside of the time limits in the act Congress had overstepped its rights. The act was policing the companies, not the commerce, and attempted to protect the laborers, not the consumer. Congress could regulate interstate commerce, but did not have the right to police local business, companies and trade. This regulation was deemed an invasion of the 10th Amendment and ruled as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

    Congress appealed the overturning of the act, stating that it did not violate any tenets of the constitution and that, while acknowledging that the Congress had no policing power of its own, that it should be allowed to regulate methods of commerce that would affect interstate commerce and also the workers that produced the goods being bought and sold. Members of Congress stated that the Child Labor Act was protecting the rights of children as citizens, which was the primary responsibility of Congress, and therefore the Act itself was not unconstitutional. Congress argued that, since all states had individual laws governing child labor and work days that it would benefit all citizens for there to be federal statutes governing all child labor practices and making equal laws to apply nationally. The Supreme Court refuted this argument, saying that Congress was attempting to establish national control over matters that should be handled by the individual states, therefore overstepping its constitutional boundaries.

The Vietnam conflict is probably the longest war, in which the US has been involved in, in its entire history. The war which lasted for close to two decades was a major loss to the United States. By losing the war basically meant that US did not achieve its main aim of getting involved in the long conflict. The intelligence of the United States was one of the major factors that led to the humiliating defeat of the US by the North Vietnamese forces and their communist allies. The US military failed to take into consideration the Indochina terrain factor in the conflict that was not favorable at all to its military. They also took considerably a long time to realize the guerilla tactics that were being used by the North Vietnamese nationalist forces (Kissinger, 2006).

Why US lost the Vietnam War
The South Vietnamese forces which were being assisted by the American forces in the second Indochina conflict relied so much on this external assistance to the extent of failing to deal with the problem as their own. On their part, the American forces had at first undermined the potential military weight of the north Vietnam and this made the American government to opt not to be directly involved in the conflict during the first few years of the period in which the communist forces were able to establish a good fighting position thus making difficult for the anti communist defeating them. The south anti communist forces that were being supported by the US had perceived the superpower as an indomitable force that could easily crash the communist forces. This made them to shift their commitment in the war to the Americans who at the time were not quick as accepting the informally transferred responsibilities. This is because the US was first interested at making the South Vietnamese forces strong both in terms of military equipment and personnel. The North Vietnamese forces took advantage of this confusion to solidify its position and thus defeat the anti communist forces being led by the US (Zinn et al, 2003).

Despite the fact that the US military was much strong as compared to the communist forces of North Vietnam, they lacked the much needed experience of fighting in a battle field of Vietnam. The US forces were therefore only effective in fighting from the air, which was not yielding much progress for them. The terrain in Vietnam was very rugged making it very difficult for the US soldiers to fight effectively as they were used to fighting on less rugged terrain. On the other hand, the North Vietnam communist forces had ample experience of fighting in this kind of terrain since they had actually been fighting with the French forces for decades on the same terrain and therefore the second Indochina conflict was basically a continuation of the liberation war. This placed the Vietnam forces at a much better position of winning the conflict, which they eventually did after fighting for close to two decades (Logevall, 2001).

The failure of the US military forces of the United States to effectively employ intelligence during the period of this conflict was also a major factor that led to its defeat. In the war between Vietnamese nationalists and their colonial masters that is the French, the Vietnamese nationalists mainly engaged in open air confrontations. The United States military intelligence assumed that the communist forces of Vietnam would continue using the same tactics in the second Indochina conflict. However, to the surprise of the US, the Vietnamese forces had already changed their fighting tactics adopting guerilla warfare tactics. The Vietnamese communist forces were aware that the US military was powerful and therefore deemed it fit to change their fighting tactics. The North Vietnamese forces could in most cases strike the US forces when they were least expected. This enhanced their effectiveness and efficiency in the war since they could first plan their attack before executing it. As a result, the Vietnamese could only suffer limited casualties in the conflict and at the same time employ fewer resources in the conflict. On the other hand, since in most cases the US forces were mostly attacked when they least expected, they ended up suffering immensely in terms of deaths and casualties (Peake, 2007).

Due to the fact that the second Indochina conflict took a very long time before the United States could eventually concede defeat, there were several administrations that ruled during this period. In most cases, every new administration came with its own new policies regarding the continuing in Vietnam thus creating confusion in the war which worked against the US military forces. Whereas the US were inconsistent in the war, the communist forces of Vietnamese nationals were very consistent making it even more possible for them to win the war against the anti communist forces being led by the US (Logevall, 2001).

The North Vietnamese forces involved in the war were very much determined to not only liberate their country from being governed by foreigners, but also ensure that the country was indeed liberated from the foreign political and economic policies. The conviction that was possessed by the Vietnamese nationalists made them to participate in the war with a lot of determination, and they were therefore ready to die for what they believed was the right thing for their country. The same determination was lacking with the Americans who were in fact over confident that they could easily win the war. As a result, the US used psychological strategies that were already outdated and were well known by the Vietnamese forces. This made it to be very easy for the communist forces to predict in advance the most probable move of the US forces. With such accurate predictions, it was very easy for the communist forces to counter attack the US forces and hence defeat them more easily (Kissinger, 2006). 

The main reason that made the United States to join the war in Vietnam in the 1950s was to ensure that the communist ideologies being spread by communist nations were stopped. In this case, the United States used its powers and resources in making sure that country adopted democratic ideologies. The US has in fact participated in several other wars that do not affect it directly in order to ensure that its policies are adopted as opposed to other policies of other nations. The foreign policies of the US of influencing the policies of other nations have resulted into several conflicts leading to massive losses of property and lives. It is not right for the US simply because it is the only super power in the world to force other nations around the world to apply policies so long as they work to the advantage of the US and not the nation in question. If a country and its people are satisfied with the ideologies that are in use in their country, then the US has no obligation of forcing such nations to conform to its ideologies (Zinn et al, 2003). 

The US forces defeat in the second Indochina conflict is perhaps the greatest loss they had ever suffered in history. The loss was inevitable and was precipitated by several factors. The over confidence of the US side cost them dearly in the war in which they were trying to prevent the communist forces from spreading their communist ideologies to this part of the world. The US did not have the much needed experience of fighting in the rugged terrain of Vietnam. Again, the change in fighting tactics by the Vietnamese communist forces made it easier for them to be at a better position of winning the war as opposed to the US forces that had assumed that the Vietnamese forces could not use such fighting tactics as guerilla. After close to decades, the US forces were finally defeated by the north communist Vietnam forces and therefore communist ideologies continued to be used in Vietnam.

The period between 1890 and 1933 was of utmost importance in the history of the United States. Prior to 1890, the US foreign policy remained in line with principles erected by President Washington. According to President Washington, it was important that the US should build commercial relations with other countries, while avoiding any political connections with these countries. According to President Washington, this would minimize chances of war between America and other countries. Washingtons position was supported by the presidents Madison, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson (Raico, 1995).

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, Europe had embraced imperialism and was exploring and establishing colonies all over Africa, Asia and South America. Possibly taking a cue from the European powers, the United States started pushing its foreign policy goals by targeting weaker nations. The US relied heavily on her economic and military power to drive these goals, initiating among others the Spanish-American War which led to the US taking control of Puerto Rico and Philippines which had been Spanish colonies (US Department of State, n.d). It was also during this period that the US jumped into the first of the two world wars.

That US foreign policy was inspired by the desire to expand her foreign markets is not in doubt among historians. The idea of imperialism found spirited support from among others, Theodore Roosevelt, who would later become the president of the USA (Ekirch, Jr, n.d). The imperialist frenzy spread fast among the politicians, culminating in the election of William McKinley as president in 1896. McKinley was a most loyal supporter of the large policy (Raico, 1995). In all, it can be observed that the only reason why the US revised its foreign policy during this period was to expand its presence in foreign markets.