A History of France-US Relations
History Free Essay Example
- The debate between the Federalists and the Republicans concerning the major foreign policy between 1789 and 1801 focused on the approach to Britain and France. Federalists argued that the foreign policy should favor British interests, while Republicans wanted to strengthen the ties with France. Actually, this is because Republicans favored and supported the government that had taken over after the revolution of 1989. This brought a division between Republicans and Federalists. As a result, the state of political parties almost polarized the government and citizens. In fact, the two factions differed on various economic matters that had a direct domestic impact. Generally, Republicans believed in protecting domestic market through taking care of the working class that consisted of merchants, laborers, and farmers. They had a strong believe that American economy would be developed through agrarian economy that would facilitate service provision to the public. The establishment of the Bank of the United States that was supported by Federalists was believed to bring inequality as it would only serve the rich. On the contrary, Federalists believed that manufacturing and industrial development would be the most effective way through which the domestic and foreign development would sufficiently be achieved (Norton et al., 2006). They also supported the enactment of protective tariffs regarding imports as they saw it important to protect domestic markets which acted as a strong source of revenue.
- The Supreme Court of the United States played an important role in settling the disputes during the period from 1789 to 1800. At the time, the United States was in war with France, and all the issues regarding this conflict were reviewed in the Supreme Court. The United States considered France as its enemy. The court also heard the cases that were related with the land issues on the strip of territory that run along the southern border of New York. In addition, there were cases concerning billions of dollars on exchange, bankruptcy as well as violation of various trade laws. The Supreme Court was also responsible for resolving various procedural issues. Chisholm v. Georgia case had significant decisions. Notably, the case involved the executor of the estate of Robert Farguhar, who attempted to sue the state of Georgia over the payments for goods that he had supplied during the American Revolutionary War. However, the plaintiff failed to appear before the court as he claimed that it was not possible to sue a sovereign state. The court’s decisions favored the plaintiff as at the time there was no opinion of the court or majority opinion (Norton et al., 2006). Therefore, the Chief Justice John Jay and his associates ruled out that the state had a sovereign immunity hence resorted to grant federal courts the affirmative power that could enable it to hear the disputes that arose between the citizens and the states. This ruling was made in relation with Article 3, section 2 of the Constitution. This resulted into amendments, where the cases involving the state and citizens or the foreign states would use federal courts as they were given power to rule such cases. Ware v. Hylton and Hylton v. U.S case was of great significance because of the decisions that were made by the Supreme Court. Notably, the case involved a representational of various cases that were presented by English creditors with the aim of recovering the debts that Americans owned them. According to the Treaty of Paris (1973), there should be no barriers for the creditors in their process of recovering money (Norton et al., 2006). The Supreme Court judge in defense of the Virginia debtor stated that there was a “sovereign right” to seize British debts that were incurred in the course of the war. The ruling also stated that the debtor’s payment in the public treasury was a legal cover of the debt. Moreover, the peace agreement was not in a position to activate the debt as it would violate the confidence of the state as well as destroy the vested rights under the state law. As a result, the arguments were rejected stating that the treaty annulled the state statute. Such a decision changed the law regarding state laws opposing those of national treaties.
- The major reasons for the war that involved America, France and Britain included the following. Firstly, Britain and France interfered with American trade and Britain did not want to recognize America independently. Therefore, the two countries were taking American ships interrupting their trade. Secondly, the United States had believed that Britain and France did not see America as independently established state (Norton et al., 2006). As result, these countries gave guns to the Native Americans in order to attack American settlers. Finally, the United States wanted to take Canada from Britain as well as Florida from Spain. The consequences of this war were death, displacement of people, loss of properties and rivalry between these three states. Later, the United States won the war.
- The policies towards the Native Americans were influenced by the desire to expand the territories occupied by them. By 1950, the number of Native Americans has increased to about 360,000 and they were confined to the certain territories. As a result, the Native Americans came up with polices regarding laws and operations of the Native Americans outlining the relationship between them and the federal government (Norton et al., 2006). These policies involved self-government, independent political and cultural identities as well as expansion to other territories, like those of Indians. Moreover, the federal government promised to respect the territories that belonged to the Native Americans.
Indians responded negatively to these policies because most of them were forced to abandon their cultural identity. They were also forced to give up their land and adapt to the American culture. However, according to the treaty known as “Treaty of Fort Laramie”, Indian boundaries were to be accepted. In addition, they were to be given a payment by the federal government and it was endorsed by the Native Americans.
Norton, B. et al. (2006). A people & a nation. (7 th ed.). Cengage Learning: New York.