Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
Eliga Gould presented a powerful argument for the establishment of not just the American nation’s independence, but essentially the structuring of a fledgling European Empire. Gould’s argument begins from the moment the British government attempted to “make Americans more accountable to the Crown’s treaties in Europe.” (pp. 6) He continued through the young republic’s defense of slavery as America–unable to defend the morality of the slave trade–are able to establish a foundation of property ownership that was understood as “legal” in both European and American courts. Gould finishes with a thorough accounting of the issues of nationhood surrounding the War of 1812 and subsequent treaties with Britain, Spain, and France. Throughout the entire work, Gould seamlessly weaves his central argument that in order to be seen as a legitimate nation, the United States had to work within the frameworks of European treaties and gain acceptance from European nations as to the Union’s legitimacy. It was the European frameworks and legal standings of treaty working that allowed the United States to become an independent nation and, eventually, their own empire.
While last week Diana and I struggled to completely accept Hamalainen’s argument for a Comanche empire in the Southwest, Gould does not leave me with the same feelings of a stretched argument. There are potential holes as to how far European treaties truly could stretch or bind Americans (especially when considering the distance between European and American land masses). Overall, I felt as if Gould provided a very strong argument for a people having powerful political agency in establishing their own corner of the world order. Whereas Diana and I struggled with the idea that the Comanche drove or were actors in their rise to prominence, I did not feel as if Gould had the same struggles. He especially worked well with the idea that the Union grew in strength throughout the time period following the revolution and highlighted by the War of 1812. Perhaps the strongest argument came with the actions of Andrew Jackson in Florida in his execution of two British officers. Jackson may have taken a risk, but it was a calculated power play by a fledgling nation that was determined to be recognized as any other European power and it worked. (180-183) It might perhaps be unfair to Hamalainen as he was dealing with an “empire” that quickly rose and fell while Gould had the benefit of hundreds of years of American “imperial” growth (quotes only because we still are struggling with the definition of “empire”). Clearly the Americans have been able to sustain, grow, and become one of the more dominant world forces (not just localized to one area). Gould gives us a great foundation for discussion of European understandings of treaties and political legitimacy in the growing of that power.