Being the first global international conflict in the twentieth century, World War I challenged the European countries as well as the USA to mobilize their military forces to oppose German aggression.
In spite of the fact the USA insisted on the state’s neutrality about the conflict to protect the interests of the citizens and preserve the stability within the country, America entered the war in 1917 with the proclamation to support the principles of democracy over the world. The American entry into World War I was discussed by citizens as the controversial decision because of all the possible positive and negative consequences for the country.
Although the opinions of politicians, social activists, and other citizens regarding the American entry into the war were rather opposite, the negative vision of the situation prevailed, with references to the problematic mobilization, controversy about the adequate reasons for entering, and the citizens’ distrust associated with the possible outcomes.
The challenging necessity to form the troops for entering the war was met negatively by politicians, representatives of the military authorities, and by citizens. Discussing the problematic situation and all the possible outcomes in his speech, Robert LaFollette concentrates on the idea to develop “a volunteer army to fight on foreign soil” to provide soldiers with the opportunity to choose the participation in the war (LaFollette).
To support his idea, LaFollette focuses on the unnecessary violence of the war locating in Europe which does not influence the USA directly. Moreover, being sent to fight against their will, soldiers cannot realize the orders completely. Thus, the vision of the ordinary Americans of the war is not taken into consideration because the majority of the population does not share the idea of the entry (LaFollette).
Furthermore, the process of mobilization is also complicated with references to the US actual absence of readiness to the challenges of the war. Following the principles of neutrality, America helped the European countries with weapons and resources, but the accents were made on US independence and detachment about the war conflict.
Thus, President Woodrow Wilson’s decision to enter the war was argued and discussed at different levels. The public was inclined to support the point of view that there were no adequate reasons for the USA to participate in World War I actively. On the one hand, LaFollette states that only neutrality can work “in the name of democracy” when the entry is the way to numerous unreasoned deaths of young Americans (LaFollette).
On the other hand, the war is the necessary factor to speak about the Americans’ identity as the nation and their readiness to fight for the nation’s ideals. According to Du Bois, there is a range of reasons for which the American soldiers fought, but all these reasons are rather controversial, and they can be discussed from different positions.
Thus, Du Bois states, “for the America that represents and gloats in lynching, disfranchisement, caste, brutality and devilish insult – for this, in the hateful upturning and mixing of things, we were forced by vindictive fate to fight” (Du Bois).
Operating the ideals of democracy as the main reasons for entering the war, politicians attracted soldiers to fight for these ideals, but the consequences of the war were not correlated with the proclaimed ideals. That is why the position of soldiers and citizens who were challenged by the war directly and the vision of politicians differed significantly.
It is important to note that World War I revealed the problematic aspects of US democracy about dividing the country’s population into Americans and non-Americans. The expansion of democratic ideals with the help of weapons and participation in World War I can be discussed as one of the stages in the process of Americanization.
From this point, the fact of entering the war was necessary not only to save the principles of democracy in the world but also to impose the ideals of American democracy on the European countries. The process revealed a lot of drawbacks in the system and the social life of the Americans. The processes of assimilation, nativism, and racial discrimination were emphasized.
The problem is in the fact that these issues were typical for the American society before entering World War I, and the participation in the war only contributed to the problems’ development. Randolph Bourne provides his vision of the situation, stating that “we blamed the war, we blamed the Germans.
And then we discovered with a moral shock that these movements had been making great headway before the war even began” (Bourne). In his work, Bourne is inclined not to present the strict opinion on the war and its effects on the USA with references to the positive or negative conclusions, but he pays attention to the fact that World War I helped see those problems which were not accentuated earlier.
According to Bourne, the war emphasized the diversity of American culture. Thus, “it is our lot rather be a federation of cultures. This we have been for half a century, and the war has made it ever more evident that this is what we are destined to remain” (Bourne). Bourne’s discussion can be examined as one more point of view on the problem of the war and its impacts.
The victory of the democratic principles within the democratic world was proclaimed as the main desirable outcome of World War I. However, the reality was different, and the citizens’ distrust in relation to the achievement of the war’s goals and its impacts increased, especially with references to those persons who saw the horrors of the war by their own eyes.
Thus, Laura Frost and Theodore Jones in their notes emphasize on the illusory character of the possible positive outcomes of the war while participating in the war actions or helping hundreds of wounded soldiers (Frost; Jones). The adequateness of reasons for the entry into the war and trust to the ideals of democracy remained to be controversial points for the American citizens involving in the war at the other continent.
The reaction of the American citizens to the state’s entry into the war differs about the social position and ideas shared by the representatives of this or that social category or political force.
However, it is possible to note that the proclamation of the fight for democracy did not provide the necessary positive effect on citizens because of the actual impossibility to avoid the great number of victims died during the fight for the democratic ideals. In contrast, the war revealed a lot of negative aspects of the American social situation.
American Political And Economic History
President Wilson and the First World War
The Great Wars that existed between nations before the emergence of the First World War ensured that America protected its territories from external attacks. It has to form diplomatic relations with countries that share with its international waters to ensure its navy and merchant ships were protected. The relationship between Germany and America became sour when the former nation violated the treaty that required all nations not to attack vessels from other countries unless they provoked them.
Germany believed that it owned the territory around Europe and issued warnings that it would attack any ship that would be seen around the waters of this continent (Faragher, Buhle, Armitage and Czitrom 128). Wilson was considered to have humanitarianism ideologies and thus he ended the diplomatic relationship between these two countries to show Germany that he was not pleased with its decision.
Germany ignored all threats issued by America and instead went ahead and started attacking American ships and sank three of them on March 18th, 1917. Most countries that were not in good terms were struggling to seek support from others as a way of preparing for war. However, Germany blew things up when it wrote a letter to Mexico. The latter was requesting its support in ensuring it joins Germany in fighting America; unfortunately, it was intercepted, and this worsened the relationship between these two countries.
Americans had never supported a president whose agenda included attacking other countries; however, Germany had taken things for granted for too long and it was time for this country to act. Wilson worked very hard to persuade the Congress to declare war on Germany and his prayers were answered on April 16th, 1917. This sentiment was expressed by most Americans that were tired of seeing their brothers being butchered by Germans (Faragher et al. 139).
Wilson believed that Germany was responsible for the conflicts around Europe; therefore, he was confident that this country would be incapacitated if it was attacked and devastated at once.
He made several arrangements like recruiting an additional three million soldiers into the military to expand its size to about five million and made several changes in the leadership of the military. In addition, he restructured the production of American war materials, fuel and foodstuffs to ensure the military was supplied with all stuff they required to win the war.
The Treaty of Versailles was established to control Germany and the Allied Powers. Wilson was very instrumental in ensuring this treaty was established to prevent Germany from controlling sand attacking vessels that toured Europe’s coasts. The Geneva Convention is a collection of four treaties that ensured humanitarian conditions were promoted internationally by all countries (Faragher et al. 144). It criminalized attacks by countries on others and protected the rights of war prisoners.
The fear of communism in the United States was managed by persuading the Soviet Union to fight Germany. However, the marriage between these countries was short-lived because America wanted nations to be free to participate in international trade while the Soviet Union wanted to promote Communism. Therefore, America was determined to stop the spread of communism and kill it. The result of this was the formation of allied forces and this led to the rise of the Second World War.
America will never be able to stay out of military actions because of the fear of the rise of another world super power. Today, it is involved in Cold war with countries like China, Russia and others that seem to show interest in controlling the world economy and politics. The future of America’s foreign policy is anchored on the belief that no country should have the chance of influencing others because this threatens its position as the world’s strongest nation.
Changes in Approaches to the American Economy from 1920s to 1950s
America experienced its worst 20th century economic crisis between 1920 and 1940 soon after Herbert Hoover was elected the president of this country. The late summer of 1929 saw many investors dump the American stock market and fled to Britain for foreign investment (Faragher et al. 149). Most Americans pulled their money from this country’s stock market.
The Black Tuesday (October 29, 1929) is the day when the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped within a ten day period and crashed, leading to the dumping of about 16 million American shares by investors. Most Americans had been swayed by their conservatism practice of buying on margin, which triggered the Black Tuesday’s events. In addition, there was heavy investment in the consumer goods industry as the economy of this country shifted from heavy industrial investments.
Therefore, there were less exports because the economy focused on producing consumer goods like electronics, automobiles and foodstuffs (Faragher et al. 152). Most people started purchasing these goods on credit; therefore, this exposed creditors to bad debts when the economy exploded and debtors were unable to repay their loans.
The beginning of the Great Depression was inevitable because people were unable to buy goods because there were no jobs to ensure they earned salaries. In addition, industries could not employ workers and instead retrenched most of them because their products remained in stores for longer periods.
Margin buying of shares by consumers worsened this situation because it floated a lot of theoretical money in circulation (Faragher et al. 159). Financial controllers were unable to manage these cycles because there were no fiscal policies to regulate the production of consumer goods and margin buying of shares.
Income inequality became a reality because most people could not afford expensive lifestyles; therefore, they were unable to maintain an average budget and this placed them on the low income category. Bad banking practices like corruption, margin buying of shares using investors’ savings and lack of federal regulations fueled the depression (Faragher et al. 159).
The aftermath of the First World War required Germany to repay France and England the money it used to acquire military equipment and sustain its economy during the conflict. It did not have the money and thus France and England could not pay America because they too had offered a lot of financial assistance to Germany.
These debts affected America’s ability to invest in development projects because it had no money to do so. Hoover’s failure to recognize and act to alleviate the effects of the Great Depression devastated the economy of the United States.
Franklin D. Roosevelt revolutionized the economy of the United States. He inherited a dilapidated economy from Hoover but managed to expand employment opportunities and adopt taxation policies that ensured citizens were not overburdened.
His New Deal of cost sharing between the government and citizens was a serious threat to capitalism and this made critics to think that he was reverting to communism. His controversial income tax proposals did not see the light of the day and he had to persuade the Congress to accept them (Faragher et al. 161).
Harry S. Truman’s greatest challenge was to reduce spending on military because the Second World War had ended. In addition, he had to manage the striking workers that demanded high salaries. He introduced price controls on consumer goods cushioned Americans against economic hardships. He reduced the power of labor unions to ensure there was less aggression from workers.
Dwight D. Eisenhower revolutionized the transport system by introducing the Interstate Highway System that ensured all regions were connected. John F. Kennedy’s greatest achievement was lowering the interest rates of loans that encouraged investments and growth of the economy.
Works Cited
Faragher, John, Mari Jo Buhle, Susan H. Armitage and Daniel H. Czitrom. Out of Many: A History of the American People, Brief Edition. New Jersey: Pearson, 2011. Print.
Christianity In Rome During The 1st To 5th Centuries
Introduction
One of the most astounding developments in world history was that within five centuries after its inception, Christianity had won adherents throughout the Roman Empire, including the backing of the Roman state. Christianity started as an apparently unknown sect of Judaism. It survived persecution to become an important part of the Roman Empire. This paper looks at the growth and survival of Christianity from the first century to the fifth century during the evolution of the Roman Empire.
The Scene of the Inception and Spread of Christianity
Christianity was born in the Mediterranean basin.1 It significantly influenced by the Greek and Roman traditions.2 At the time of the inception of Christianity, the Mediterranean basin was favorable for religious expansion.
Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, was born during the rule of Emperor Augustus, who had managed to conjure political unity under the Roman Empire. Working on the foundations set by Julius Cesar, Augustus managed to maintain peace in the Mediterranean basin. That peace fostered the growth of new religions. The roads, commerce and travel also facilitated the quick spread of Christianity.
Christianity also had an advantage over other religions since it employed Latin and Greek which were the main languages used in the Roman Empire. Another factor that facilitated the early spread of Christianity was the hunger for religion that characterized the populace in the Mediterranean basin. The creation of an all-inclusive Roman Empire caused a decay in cultures and a decline of local religious cults. Christianity promised high moral standards amidst rampant corruption and immorality.
First century Spread of Christianity
In the early years after its inception, Christianity drew most of its membership from Jews. Some of the early Christians believed that one of the missions of Jesus Christ was to relieve people from Jewish customs and obliterate the Jewish temple. One of these Christians, Steven, was condemned to death by stoning.
Steven’s death inspired the separation between Christianity and Judaism. Christians who fled the persecution influenced other converts in Antioch and Samaria. Paul, Peter, Apollos, and Barnabas championed the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire.3
During the first century, Christianity was mainly urban, growing from city to city through trade routes. Though it had spread to the countryside and the Asia Minor by the second century, Christianity was strongest in cities in which the Roman Empire was prominent.
Second and Third Century Spread of Christianity
During the second century, Christians were found in all the provinces of the Roman Empire as well as in Mesopotamia. Christianity gathered momentum in the third century at a time when the Greco-Roman sphere was disintegrating. By the end of the third century, the eastern part of the Roman Empire was predominantly Christian.
Christianity also spread to the northern parts of Africa, especially around Carthage, where the earliest Christian Latin literature were produced. Italians lived in Carthage as immigrants after which the Roman Empire conquered and rebuilt Carthage as a Latin city.
Persistent Opposition and Persecution
In the first three centuries of growth, Christianity faced persistent and brutal persecution at the hands of Roman authorities. The persecution peaked in the early part of the fourth century. Buoyed by this opposition, Christianity grew further in the face of increased martyrdom.
During the inception of Christianity, the main persecutors were Judaists. Judaists felt threatened by the way that Christianity (viewed as a sect of Judaism) seemed to undermine Judaist laws and institutions. To avoid opposition and criticism, early Christians worshiped in secrecy. Many pagans also feared that neglecting the old gods who were responsible for the growth and strength of Rome would lead to disasters.
Christian churches were not legally authorized, and were deemed seditious and sacrilegious by the state. From the time of Nero and the fire of Rome in 64, persecution of Christian faithful was commonplace. However, persecution was not made a state policy until the mid-third century when Decius issued a decree banning public sacrifice to any deity besides the Roman gods. This decree was issued in an attempt to rescue the disintegrating Roman state.
The policy of Christian persecution was deepened by Emperor Valerian when he outlawed Christian congregation.4 Emperor Valerian, who was friendly to Christians at the beginning of his rule, sanctioned the persecution of many Christian bishops and leaders.
Christians received reprieve in 260 when Gallienus reinstated religious tolerance that paved way for a period of calm. However, in 303, Diocletian, who had been tolerant of Christians during the early years of his reign, commanded the destruction and confiscation of Christian religious vessels and texts.
Persecution was rampant in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire that were ruled by Diocletian and Galerius. However, in the parts ruled by Emperor Constantius such as Britain, Spain and Gaul, there was relative calm and Christians were not persecuted.
Different Christians responded differently to persecution. While some recanted their faith in fear of torture and possible death, others carried on with their faith and willingly died for their beliefs. The apparent courage of the martyrs encouraged some pagans to convert to Christianity, thereby inspiring growth of Christianity indirectly.
The Fourth Century: Constantine Espouses Christianity
Christianity witnessed considerable growth under the rule of Emperor Constantine. An unforeseen decision by Constantine in 312 during the battle of the Milvian Bridge marked a significant point in the history of Christianity.5 Constantine instructed his men to wear Christian symbols on their shields for protection.
He dedicated his victory to the alliance he had formed with the ‘god of the Christians.’ Constantine restored Christian property that had been confiscated and dedicated part of public funds to the development of churches. Constantine also played a significant role in influencing Licinius to adopt religious tolerance towards Christians.6
Licinius and Constantine created a favorable environment for the growth of Christianity through the construction of basilicas and tax concessions. Other advantages associated with being a Christian under Constantine led to massive conversions. However, Licinius was less dedicated to the plan of religious tolerance and started to discriminate against Christians in 320. Consequently, Constantine declared and won a battle against Licinius in 324 near Byzantium.
Privileges bestowed on the Christian Church under Constantine were evident in the construction of the first church buildings in Rome such as the St John Lateran church. Constantine embarked on a quest to establish Byzantium as a Christian-based capital of the Roman Empire where pagan sacrifice was outlawed. During his rule, Constantine and the Christian church faced several challenges such as the one involving Donatus at Carthage. Another problem involved an Alexandrian priest called Arius.
Sixty five years after an altercation concerning the Nicene Creed, a cleric known as Ambrose faced off with emperor Theodosius in Milan.7 The confrontation, which led to a public repentance by Theodosius, inspired fresh optimism from orthodox Christians. In 381, emperor Theodosius IX made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. The fourth century also witnessed the confirmation of the canon of the New Testament in 397.
The Fifth Century
The fifth century witnessed a change of events in the history of the church as the Roman Empire came under constant barbarian attacks.8 After the sacking of the city of Rome, St Augustine was inspired to write the city of God in which he depicted the ongoing conflict as a war between sin and salvation.
The fifth century was also marked by the spread of Nestorianism in the eastern faction of the Christian church. Nestorians sought to distinguish between the human and divine essences of Jesus Christ. There was also a problem concerning the growing powers of the bishop of Rome while the emperor’s powers were on a steady decline. In 452, for instance, Pope Leo I managed to save the city of Rome from the hands of Attila the Hun and subsequently claimed the position of Apostle Peter’s successor.
Conclusion
During the initial five centuries of the history of Christianity, the Church metamorphosed from a secret organization to a publicly influential player in the politics of the Roman Empire. Though persecutions played an important role in the growth of the church, the most pivotal role was played by Emperor Constantine. The growth of the church during these five centuries laid the foundations for the universalization of Christianity.
Bibliography
Goffart, Walter. Barbarian Tides: The Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006.
González, Justo. Church History: An Essential Guide. USA: Abingdon Press, 2010.
Markus, Robert. Christianity and the Secular. USA: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006.
Moorhead, John. The Roman Empire Divided 400-700. Harlow, England: Longman, 2001.
Potter, David. The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180–395. USA: Routledge, 2004.
Salzman, Michele. The Making of a Christian Aristocracy: Social and Religious Change in the Western Roman Empire. USA: Harvard University Press, 2002.
Southern, Patricia. The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine. New York: Routledge, 2003.
Footnotes
1 Justo González, Church History: An Essential Guide (USA: Abingdon Press, 2010), 32.
2 Robert Markus, Christianity and the Secular (USA: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006), 10.
3 Michele Salzman, The Making of a Christian Aristocracy: Social and Religious Change in the Western Roman Empire (USA: Harvard University Press, 2002), 22.
4 Patricia Southern, The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine (New York: Routledge, 2003), 78.
5 David Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180–395 (USA: Routledge, 2004), 365.
6 John Moorhead, The Roman Empire Divided 400-700 (Harlow, England Longman, 2001), 34.
7 Salzman, The Making, 178.
8 Walter Goffart, Barbarian Tides: The Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire (Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 22.