Uncategorized

NEW John DeWitt Timeline

1787

October 1787

Oct 22, 1787: John DeWitt I (Massachusetts)
Oct 22, 1787: John DeWitt I (Massachusetts)
Oct 27, 1787: John DeWitt II (Massachusetts)
Oct 27, 1787: John DeWitt II (Massachusetts)

November 1787

Nov 5, 1787: John DeWitt III (Massachusetts)
Nov 5, 1787: John DeWitt III (Massachusetts)

December 1787

Dec 1787: John DeWitt IV (Massachusetts)
Dec 1787: John DeWitt IV (Massachusetts)

NEW Genuine Information Timeline of RAT

1787

December 1787

Dec 28, 1787: Genuine Information I (Maryland)
Dec 28, 1787: Luther Martin: Genuine Information I Baltimore Maryland Gazette (Maryland)
Dec 28, 1787: Luther Martin: Genuine Information II (Maryland)

1788

January 1788

Jan 1, 1788: Genuine Information II (Maryland)
Jan 4, 1788: Luther Martin: Genuine Information III (Maryland)
Jan 8, 1788: Luther Martin: Genuine Information IV (Maryland)
Jan 11, 1788: Luther Martin: Genuine Information V (Maryland)
Jan 15, 1788: Luther Martin: Genuine Information VI (Maryland)
Jan 18, 1788: Luther Martin: Genuine Information VII (Maryland)
Jan 22, 1788: Luther Martin: Genuine Information VIII (Maryland)
Jan 29, 1788: Genuine Information IX (Maryland)
Jan 29, 1788: Luther Martin: Genuine Information IX (Maryland)

February 1788

Feb 1, 1788: Luther Martin: Genuine Information X (Maryland)
Feb 8, 1788: Luther Martin: Genuine Information XII (Maryland)

NEW American Citizen Timeline

1787

September 1787

Sept 26, 1787: An American Citizen I (Pennsylvania)
Sept 28, 1787: An American Citizen II (Pennsylvania)
Sept 29, 1787: An American Citizen III (Pennsylvania)

October 1787

Oct 21, 1787: An American Citizen IV (Pennsylvania)

1788

December 1788

Dec 10, 1788: An American Citizen: Thoughts on the Subject of Amendments, Part II (Pennsylvania)
Dec 24, 1788: An American Citizen: Thoughts on the Subject of Amendments, Part III (Pennsylvania)

McGovern Criticizes the Carter Doctrine

800px-George_McGovern,_c_1972South Dakota Senator George McGovern, although spectacularly unsuccessful as a Democratic candidate for President in 1972, offered articulate critiques of American foreign policy even after his attempt at national leadership failed. An article McGovern wrote for The Atlantic Monthly in June 1980 shows his willingness to pick apart what he sees as the simplistic thinking of a president from his own party, Jimmy Carter.

By 1980, Carter’s earlier call for a foreign policy based in support of human rights rather than in regard for American interests had been thwarted by a variety of intransigent geopolitical conflicts, notably the rise of a religious nationalism in Iran that contested the rule of the American-backed Shah. After the Shah was deposed, Carter’s decision to admit him to the US for medical treatment provoked a violent reaction in Tehran, where the American embassy was seized and over 60 Americans taken hostage. When shortly thereafter the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, Carter reacted in the manner of earlier presidents presiding during the Cold War, issuing a new doctrine declaring American determination to protect its interests in the middle east: “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”  McGovern criticized Carter for returning to a policy focused on Cold War calculations. He spelled out a number of concerns—“local, regional, and internal to the Soviet Union”—to which, he said, the Carter administration was now “indifferent, caught up as it was in the excitement of unveiling its new doctrine”:

It was almost as if, when the Soviets moved into Afghanistan, we were relieved to find ourselves freed from the complexities of Third World nationalism and the Islamic revival and back on the comfortably familiar turf of a bipolar Cold War world. Once they heard the call of the Carter Doctrine, the Iranians would naturally forget about the shah, the Arabs would forget their differences with Israel, our allies in Western Europe and Japan would gratefully follow our lead, and all would join with us in a grand alliance against Soviet aggression. Now the unwelcome “lesson of Vietnam”–as Daniel Yergin put it, “that ‘fundamental designs’ may be illusory and that global implications may be secondary to local issues”–could also be cast aside. Americans could be patriots again, without bothering to make the troublesome distinction between patriotism and jingoism.

TeachingAmericanHistory.org is a project of the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University

401 College Avenue | Ashland, Ohio 44805 (419) 289-5411 | (877) 289-5411 (Toll Free)

info@TeachingAmericanHistory.org