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’s book places the nascent American republic into a global scale, arguing that true American independence could only be achieved when the major European countries accepted the United States as an equal. As Gould states, the United States’ desire to “be accepted as a treaty-worthy nation in Europe played a role in the making of the American republic at least as important as the liberal and republican ideologies that have framed scholarship on the American Revolution since the Second World War” (P. 11). In order to this, the early framers of American foreign policy had to work within the restraints of preexisting frameworks established by earlier European treaties. As 20perez16 points out, of great importance to this process is the idea of an internationally recognized law, the “law of nations,” that applied to all major, established nations. This law of nations was composed of the various systems of treaties and customs that Europeans, and now Americans, used to wage war and make peace with others (P. 5). The law of nations applied only to the “civilized” powers, however. This is illustrated in Gould’s discussion of Indians, stating that various contemporary white authors expressed fear and dislike for Indians because they disregarded European treaties, because of their independence from the governments that they supposedly served, and for their deficiency in the “moral sentiments upon which the customary law of nations depended” (P. 33). According to Gould, because various Indian groups did not adhere to the long-established rule of nations, they were therefore placed outside of its confines. This is again the case in Gould’s discussion of pirates, smugglers, and slaves. Gould’s book is very much a description of how the early American Republic came to control these various peoples.
Echoing David’s sentiments regarding Gould’s book, in the previous two classes I found the arguments of Hodes and Hamalainen difficult to accept. Gould, however, did not present me with this issue. As many others have commented on, his heavy use of primary sources, including letters and the words of the various treaties that he discusses, presents a powerful and effective argument that until now has largely not been told. Gould’s strong emphasis on legal history brings up new ways to think about the developing American Republic, and emerging empire. In particular, the idea of what it means to be “treaty-worthy.” Gould does an excellent job of showing what it took for the United States to gain legitimacy and become “treaty-worthy” over the course of the years from the Seven Years War to the enacting of the Monroe Doctrine. Gould’s argument challenges the long-held notion that following the American Revolution, the United States controlled their own path and forged their own destiny. However, like Morgan points out, this was far from the case, due to Gould’s insistence that European powers dictated what the United States did and said. I found that Gould’s book backs up the claim that the War of 1812 was very much the second war for independence considering that Gould believes America didn’t gain true independence until Monroe enacted his famous doctrine, signifying that the era of “European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere was over and that the Republic’s citizens could enjoy the fruits of peace” (P. 212). In his introduction Gould states that it is his hope that his book will convey a new a deeper understanding of what the American Revolution meant. In my opinion, I think he did just that.