Diplomacy Versus Military Action

explanatory Essay
2154 words
2154 words

Through much of our time as a nation, there has been a major question asked when our people and allies are faced with evil. That major question is “do we go to war or do we engage in diplomatic solutions?”. This is has been a point of contention that varies depending upon where a person was raised, what the person’s basic belief structure is, and even what demographic they fall into. One thing is for certain, partisan affiliation in America has a great deal to do with how a person will answer an affront to the United States. Since most women tend to go the Democrat route due to the standard beliefs of women versus men, I will be highlighting women’s roles; but mostly leave the discussion as one between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats tend to be in favor of open debate, diplomatic tools, and peace keeping accords when dealing with a foe that may become a menace. They have the notion that all things must be exhausted before intervening in campaigns that may cost vast amounts of spending and cause violence that may result in death. There have been few times in the last 30 years in which Democrats have taken an offensive stance against an enemy of the state. It would seem as though Democrats are more likely to employ the Department of State than any other department within the government. Republicans, on the other hand, tend to feel the exact opposite. Republicans are big on using the military as a deterrent against a foe. The Republican stance is that a foe probably is not a big fan of diplomacy and should be dealt with swiftly and severely. Democrats want a peaceful society through which people come together in debate and a globalized view of harmony. Republicans feel that the only answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good gu... ... middle of paper ... ...m 1861 through 1865; leaving families divided, towns destroyed, infrastructure in ruins, and over a half a million men dead. Eventually, the Union would be restored with a need to heal the country’s wounds. In the South, laws were enforced that made it possible for freed slaves to gain employment and become normal members of society. Although former slaves were able to gain employment, Southern Democrats kept former slaves from holding political power and even ran campaigns denouncing the intelligence of former slaves as a reason to why they shouldn’t lead men. Through being able to lower attention on the Reconstruction of the South, these same Democrats took control of the House of Representatives in 1874. By this time the South was forced into poverty with a lack of dedicated people to work in agriculture. The taking of half of Congress enabled the Democrats to

In this essay, the author

  • Opines that partisan affiliation in america has a great deal to do with how one will answer an affront to the united states.
  • Opines that democrats favor open debate, diplomatic tools, and peace keeping accords when dealing with a foe.
  • Opines that the french were the first people to mold the future of american foreign policy with their alliance to the colonies in opposition to england.
  • Explains that the wives of the founding fathers did a great service by rallying support for their husbands during the colonial period.
  • Explains that during the american revolution, our nation had two major parties: the federalists and the anti-federalists.
  • Explains that the newly independent united states of america had to go to work in establishing an endearing nation. the british magna carta gave a basis for the legislature of the new nation and the other branches were soon to follow.
  • Explains that women were trying to educate fellow women and their families on the new nation and what it meant to be an independent nation.
  • Explains that the foundation for today's view of diplomacy versus military action came from our forefathers' raising of a formal military.
  • Explains that the pro-military establishment feud with those who opposed military prowess continued into the onset of the war of 1812. the federalists were staunch ant-war zealots, while the anti-federalists used military might against the british as a sign of sovereignty.
  • Explains that the french stood with the americans since the united states was the buffer between the atlantic coast and the western french colonies. the anti-federalists garnered enough support to launch the american military in support of our interests.
  • Analyzes the damage done by the british during the war of 1812 to many coastal areas. the anti-federalists touted the ability of america's young military to deter enemies.
  • Explains that andrew jackson was a crudely honest president who believed in american sovereignty, military might, and expansionism. his views aligned with today's republican party.
  • Explains that the jackson era was an alpha-type personality that was not prone to soft emotion or activism. harvard opened its doors to women in 1836, and other northeaster colleges joined in.
  • Explains that the split in the view of federal government roles would come to a roar with the development of the american civil war. the south argued that slavery was economically essential due to the less densely populated areas.
  • Explains that the north, while still having its biases against people of color, felt that slavery did not belong in the union.
  • Explains that washington's bureaucracy was in high hopes that the south would simply go with what plans the federal government had for them, but they were sorely mistaken.
  • Explains that southern democrats kept former slaves from holding political power and even ran campaigns denouncing their intelligence as a reason to why they shouldn’t lead men.
Get Access