Thursday, December 4, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
my dog
Official Sponsor
An interactive way of understanding our nation's history
my dog
Blog Archive
Who's this Mr. O?
Official Sponsor
43 comments:
Personally I feel that the United States was not militarily or politically ready for a war. While an alliance between France and the United States was created in 1778, and the French did help us in our Revolution, we were still a very young and developing nation that lacked a stable government of our own. Taking sides in a European war would not be beneficial for our country.
If I were George Washington, I would send troops to France. But instead of having them repress them rebellion, I would have the troops act more like the UN peace keeping force - letting the people protest, but holding them back if things get violent (such as the storming of the Bastille, use of the guillotine). That way, the government would be in control of the situation without taking away the peoples' liberties.
Even though our country was in debt at the time, I would still want to maintain good relations with other foreign countries. After all, we did not win the Revolutionary War by ourselves. It is only fair that return the favor to the French. I mean, what if another country tried to attack us? Who will aid us then if other countries see that we won't help them in return?
In response to Joanna's comment, while theoretically sending troops to France to act as “peace-makers” sounds nice, I don’t think that is a realistic solution. I doubt American soldiers would be allowed to just watch from the sidelines and try to make the French see reason while the French citizens are chopping people’s heads off. There would be nothing stopping the French citizens from attacking the US soldiers.
George Washington was placed into an incredibly difficult position when the French Revolution arose. On one hand he witnessed how they aide they gave us helped us win the Revolutionary War but on the other hand helping them know could possibly crumble our own country. As hard and disloyal as it may seem Washington was in no position to help the French. In his own country he was facing difficult problems, such as the whiskey rebellion. The decision to merely move troops within our own country caused such division, imagine what moving to a different country would have caused. To further that point which side would Washington support? Many of the citizens of America believed in the actions of the people and it seems unlikely that Washington would support rebels. In my opinion then, it's clear that Washington had no choice but to avoid sending troops but attempt to help in other ways.
like most of the previous posts, i don't feel washington could have possibly aided the french at this time. He no longer had a political obligation, what with the overthrow of Lois XIV, and the ethical obligation was outweighed by the risks. Sure, helping the french would have been sentimental and reminiscent of the "spirit of '76", but our revolution was to make us an independant and functional nation. That which we fought for could be jeopardized by involving ourselves in this endeavor
I agree wholeheartedly with Chris's previous statement, that Washington was in no position to give military aid to France during the French Revolution. It seems selfish that he would no want to reciprocate the support which France provided during the Revolutionary War, but there were more pressing matters that would ensue if Washington chose to send troops abroad. Sending troops to France would just provoke more controversy in a government whose policies already faced criticism.
and in response to ritu, i agree, a "peace keeping" force would not be a feasable solution. It is clear that the french revolution's violence was not contained to the battle feild. Heads were carried through streets on spikes, and there was bloodshed in the streets. Our troops would certainly be in danger. Also, any more symbols of authority the enflamed citizens saw could simply further perpetuate the anger and outbursts
If I were George Washington, I would not believe that sending military power to France would be the best solution to their problem. Our army was not developed enough to handle such a huge uprising in France. Although we had obligations to aid France because of their alliance during the Revolutionary war, this would be one time that we would not be able to go into the country. The United States was still a young nation and participating in a war in Europe would hurt our nation not help.
In response to Chris's comment, I completely agree with the point about our population. The Whiskey Rebellion caused a huge rift in our nation over whether or not to send troops, and moving our troops overseas was a huge undertaking. It is certain that our nation would be divided over this topic too, making the decision whether or not going into France was the best decision for the United States. In addition, I agree with what Chris had said about Washington deciding whether or not to side with the rebels or the government, causing another issue.
Everyone's basically agreeing that Washington shouldn't have deployed troops so I'll respond to Joanna's comment about peacekeepers...
I really don't think it was America's responsibility to end another country's revolution by sending negotiators. We were too fragile a country to do much, and I think that France understood and didn't resent us for it.
We had sent TJ there as a delegate already, prior to the danger and reign of terror that took control of France. Can you imagine if we sent one of our brightest politicians there to risk his life? We really didn't have the resources available to take the chance of losing a brilliant mind that could potentially benefit our country domestically.
I believe that if I were George Washington, I would not think aiding the French during their war was something the country could afford to do. As people mentioned earlier, though we had an alliance with France, this obligation deceased when King Louis XIV died. Since we were just discussing in class the great controversy that faced Washington about the rebellion in Pennsylvania and whether to send troops or not, I think it would be appropriate to say that if Washington wasn't sure how to control and react to a rebellion in his own juvenile country, then it would be foolish to think he could afford assisting another country with their rebellion.
Washington did the right thing by letting America watch the French Revolution from the sidelines. Sending the entire army of a fledgling country overseas could have been disastorous. Not only due to internal threats, such as the whiskey rebellion, but also from a certain country which may have been looking to recapture a former colony. Additionally the last thing that the government could afford to do was to send it's troops to a country involved in a revolution where anyone with wealth was labeled as a traitor and beheaded. If any soliders caught the virus that was the French Revolution and brought it back home the consequences would have been devestating.
In response to Chris and CJ's comment, I definately agree. Washington's decision to move troops to France would divide the nation. To push this further, the troops that would be asked to fight in international affairs would probably become reminiscent of the Revolutionary War. Since the Revolutionary War was the last war where American troops were fighting against foreign forces, they might not be confident in repeating the endeavor since they ultimately were at a loss after the last war, since they were not being paid.
If I were Geoerge Washington, I would not send troops to France because it would be political suicide. First of all, it would greatly decrease positive public opinion in a large demograph of the American people. Secondly, the cost would be astronomical and we, as a young country that is really just getting on its feet, would not be able to handle such a burden. Also, what could we really do? France was eating itself alive and our participation would only have made things worse really. I belive an isolationist policy is the correct route to take in this situation.
A lot has been said by everyone that I totally agree with. If I were George Washington there is no way I would send troops to France. As a new nation, I would be selfish enough to think that mine is of utmost priority. Though we may have been allies, I think the French would understand that we were not in a good state to help them. When they assisted us in our Revolution they weren't a fledgling nation like we would be entering their Revolution. The army was not stable enough to send overseas, nor the government stable enough to deal with opposition to it. As seen from the Whiskey Rebellion, sending troops in our own country caused opposition and rebellion. If I were George Washington I would focus on developing our nation first before getting involved with other countries.
-STEFANIE
And in response to Joanna's comment, these French revolutionaries were rabid and would not have listened to us and things would have already gotten way too out of hand by the time we got there. YOu forget that the voyage to Europe is a manner of monthes. Also, the cost would far out weigh whatever good we were doing and us helping France would have also strained our relations with other, more stable countries in Europe.
I agree with Chris. Mostly because he and I sit together but also because I think he's right. Given that our treaty was with the King of France it would seem that we should have supported the French King. However most Americans probably felt sympathy for the French people given that they had just been through a similar experience.
In response to Ritu's second comment, I do not fully agree. I do agree with Joanna to an extent and think it is possible that we could have just stationed in France but not had to fight. Smart? No. Possible? Yes. I don't really think the French would attack us though if we were just observing because at this point we had good relations with the French. Of course there would be some risk of danger, but I think the citizens would be open to the soldiers being there, like some are in the Middle East. Joanna makes a good point about maintaining good relations with foreign countries because we are new and they could help us thrive. But it was more important for us to form a base on which to thrive before we entered other countries. Therefore entering France would not be a good idea.
-STEFANIE :)
Washington was definitely cornered on this issue. Although the French did aid the US with our revolution, I think that the French Revolution was much more radical and gruesome. Our country was not secure or stable enough to deal with this revolution. In addition, the army was not developed enough to handle such a mission (their first use was during the Whiskey Rebellion; they did not have any experience). If I were Washington I would not send troops to France. In addition, I would remain neutral, not for or against the revolution.
Stefanie brings up a good point; the French would not want us in their country. Although we would be helping them end the rebellion, (or even peacekeeping as Joanna had said) they would not have appereciated our presence. The country was run by mob-rule during that time; if they suddenly decided that they did not think the Americans were helping their cause, we might have been on the guillotine ourselves.
Since she is really the only person I disagree with I'll respond to Joanna' comment. There is no way American troops would ever be capable of going over as peace keeping troops. They would either get to actively involved or be too afraid to intervene if they were called upon. In theory that would be great but there is really no way that would ever be successful.
During the time of the French Revolution the country and Washington's cabinet were divided. The book says international laws at the time were that any neutral countries could still trade with countries on either side of a conflict. So if I were George Washington I'd take the oppurtunity to stimulate the economy by staying neutral and trading. While many Americans thought the French were fighting for a cause that they could relate to, Washington couldn't risk his country which wasn't ready and wouldn't benefit from entering the European war.
If I were George Washington, I would not put troops in France. Since I am George Washington at that time, I do not know the outcome. I'd be very apprehensive about sending troops to war because the union of states has just been created and the French Revolution has been dividing many of our people. We need to create harmony and union, not put our people into anarchy and chaos. I feel that if we recruit people into France, and it is not successful, many of our colonists would not appreciate it, and we will lose the respect we have from them. (Also, if it is unsuccessful, we will be in a lot of debt, and we already have a lot of that from the Revolutionary War. In conclusion, I feel that because our country is slowly beginning to develop, the United States of America is not able to afford any more losses. We are in no position to help a fully developed nation, and should focus on helping ourselves. We need to also notice that it would be beneficial to France if they solved this problem on their own(strengthening their nation).
I liked how Ritu put it, "the United States was not militarily or politically ready for a war". I agree 100% with this statement. And as Casey put it, "He had no political obligation" to help out France. Frankly, I dont believe that George Washington had a much of a choice. It was too hard for him to possibly scrounge up the troops neccesary to make a substantial impact in France.
I agree with Rebecca's comment on the radical differences between the American and French Revolutions and how the American military was not prepared to fight in a war. While the Whiskey Rebellion was quickly put down, stopping rioting farmers isn't the same as fighting trained soldiers. Also, the US soldiers had mainly used hit and run tactics in their own revolution, which means they might have lacked experience in modern warfare.
If I was George Washington I would not send the troops to France. Yeah sure, we had an alliance formed with them because of Thomas Jefferson...but America was just in the early stages of development. George Washington had enough pressure trying to stop rebellion(s) within his own country. And if that wasn't enough, he had to make sure he was accurately following the Constitution...he was running the first ever democracy in the world. So, in a nutshell, sending troops to France to aid them in their own revolution was just bad timing on France's part. Plus, it was an internal revolution...to make myself clearer, I mean a revolution occurring between France's people, not two countries like in the Revolutionary War with the colonies and Britain. (This is kind of reminding me in a way of today's war in Iraq...) Ultimately, George Washington sending troops over was not convenient.
If I were George Washington, I would have decided not even to bother getting involved in the French Revolution. We had just established a new constitution and were facing problems of our own. In addition, not only were we already in debt but we had very little money to spend. Hamilton's economic plan hadn't gotten to a point where our economy began to grow.
Although it seems unfair to not help France despite the fact that they helped us, we just weren't ready for it. We shouldn't get ourselves something that could turn out to come bite us later!
A lot of you guys mentioned the idea of sending American troops to France.Sending troops across the three thousand mile Atlantic Ocean wouldn't be such a wise decision.
If I were Washington, I definitely would have desperately avoided war. The U.S. was a fragile nation at the time and didn't need any other burdens. Moreover, the economy was just starting to get back on its feet after recovering from the revolution. Dealing with debt also caused much controversy at the time. The economy's brief success could have easily turned sour if the U.S. had decided to get involved in the French Revolution. In terms of the Whiskey Rebellion, I believe I would have handled the situation similarly since threats to national security could have sent the country into anarchy because of its fragile state. However, I would have clearly expressed my motives for using military force as to prevent suspicion and gain the support of the nation on the matter.
I agree with Stefanie that we as a nation were not stable enough to deal with such a task. We were like a new toy - we just got unpacked but we still need to get set up and such. There was no way we could have possibly helped France in a time that we were still struggling ourselves.
I agree with those of you who argued that it would be impractical to send troops to France as well as that it would add burdens to political stability. I would like to add that there was a clear split in people's opinions of Washington's policies– those who favored his policies and those who thought the national government's was becoming too powerful. Since many people were passionate in their support of the French Revolution, which went against Washington's ideologies, military involvement would only further irritate this rift.
Yeah to be honest, I would have liked to help the French who fought for us when we needed them. However, in our condition right after the American Revolution, we would probably have been annihilated. We neither had the troops nor the funding needed to go to war. So, when you need both for war to be successful and you have neither, the best option is just to sit it out.
I disagree with Joanna's first comment even though it makes complete sense to try to maintain good relations. But if you yourself are not ready to engage in a war so early for such a young republic,why would you risk it. The UN only works (not really) because it is supported by nations that are relatively stable. the young United States was definitely not stable and the Whiskey Rebellion is just an easy example of it. I would say that Washington should first fix his own problems and then try to solve others. Otherwise, you just end up with two countries in shambles.
Like basically everyone elses, I think that if I were in Washington's shoes I would not have it in me to send troops over to French. To do so would be an extremeley risky move that most likely would have negative consequences. To start with, in would have many people in our fledgling country up in arms. Today it's not a good idea to have a war that the public is not fond of (um, Iraq) so I could only imagine the public outcry and turmoil in a country that is just beginning and yet to have a stable foundation. ALso, looking at the situation from a strictly militaristic point of view, it would have been nearly impossible to really succeed in a war at any time. The army was hardly ready, for there were more pressing matters to address at the time. Yes, the French would probably be angry, but that could be dealt with at a time when America was more stable. Basically, I would have thought it to be a very bad idea to send troops to France if I was George Washington.
I agree with the portion of Amy's comment that addresses what would be beneficial to France. I don't quite understaand why they felt they needed our help so much; it's not like we had a fully trained army, we were already in debt, and we were still just a developing country! To me, that just sounds like setting yourself up for disaster. And America is not ready to suffer a blow at such a fragile state of development.
If I were in George Washington's position, I would try to be as little involved with the French Revolution in as possible. America was in no condition to issue help or aid to any other country let along fight another war in Europe. The country had not too long ago fought its own revolutionary war and was still trying to repay the war debts (to some extent.) Although they French were fighting for the same ideas as the Americans had earlier, the United States were allied to the monarchy which provided the military aid, not the people overthrowing the monarchy. America had several of its own internal problems which had to be attended to first and it definitely did not have sufficient resources to fight in the French Revolution if America decided to help.
In response to Amy's comment,
I agree America could no longer take any more losses and that entering the French Revolution would be a huge risk. Although many citizens wanted to help the French with the war, if America ended up losing or taking damage from it, the whole country would quickly point fingers at Washington. The already fragile country may further crumble as a result of losing the war. This situation can be avoided by just staying out of the war. Why take the risk?
If I were G-Dubbs I wouldn't get involved in the French conflict.
In response to Joanna's comment, UN peacekeeping troops are a complete faliure anyway so sending U.S. troops in a similar fashion wouldn't work either.
If I was Washington, I would have wanted to send troops to France but would have decided against it. We still hadn't paid our veterans from the Revolutionary War, it would have been presumptuous to ask them to risk their lives again, without compensation, for a cause that wouldn't even benefit them personally. And it isn't like the U.S. was teaming (teeming?) with soldiers, if we had sent our troops to France we would be defenseless against a home invasion from England. Them attacking us was highly likely because they were enemies with the French and had enough trading partners so that their relationship with us wasn't vital.
In response to Ritu:
I agree that the US was not ready politically or militarily for a war. In fact I think if we had gotten involved in the French Revolution it would have ruined us. We would be weakened, divided amongst ourselves more than we already were, deeper in debt, and unsure of our alliances. A nation cannot ally itself with a monarchy and then help its spoiled citizens throw homocidal hissy fits in the streets.
Post a Comment