This book describes how the Boer War became a domestic political issue in the 1900 election campaign and how this affected American diplomacy. It continues by demonstrating the critical role of the American government's Boer War policy in furthering rapprochement between the United States and Britain. Contents: American Diplomacy at the End of the 19th Century; The British in South Africa; The Diplomatic Setting; Britain Against the World; America Needs a Friend; Britain Needs a Friend; Public Opinion; The Boer War in American Politics; Boer Diplomacy in America; America's Distresses; Britain's Distresses; The Boer War in American Diplomacy; Bibliography; Index.

This book is a volume in the Penn Press Anniversary Collection. To mark its 125th anniversary in 2015, the University of Pennsylvania Press rereleased more than 1,100 titles from Penn Press's distinguished backlist from 1899-1999 that had fallen out of print. Spanning an entire century, the Anniversary Collection offers peer-reviewed scholarship in a wide range of subject areas.

Although much has been written about the conduct of the war in South Africa, very little has been written about how it was regarded on the world stage by powers both great and small. This collection of specially commissioned essays seeks for the first time to put the Boer War (1899-1902) in its international context. Each of the core chapters focuses on the perspective of one country (France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, and the United States) and assesses the extent to which each national government tried to capitalize on Britain's embarrassment and distraction while often entangled in imperialist ventures of their own. The anglophobia of many of the nations' press, the activities of pro-Boer organizations, and the shaping of public and parliamentary opinion are examined alongside the real politics and diplomatic considerations that took precedence. In addition, there are summation chapters that examine both the origins of the war and its legacy for Britain's expansionist ambitions. Together these essays present the latest findings on a watershed in international relations that heralded substantive changes of attitude and policy on the part of national governments towards their dependencies and had far-reaching consequences for alliance systems and the international balance of power at the start of the twentieth century.

Kohn shows how Americans and Canadians often referred to each other as members of the same "family," sharing the same "blood," and drew upon the common lexicon of Anglo-Saxon rhetoric to undermine old rivalries and underscore shared interests. Though the predominance of Anglo-Saxonism proved short-lived, it left a legacy of Canadian-American goodwill as both nations accepted their shared destiny on the continent. Kohn argues that this new Canadian-American understanding fostered the Anglo-American "special relationship" that shaped the twentieth century.

The United States’ current strategic environment is increasingly complex, with security, economic, and humanitarian interests around the world. Consequently, the United States’ military may be called upon at any time to perform missions ranging from peacekeeping to total war, in environments ranging from the desserts of South West Asia to the jungles of Central America, against enemies ranging from Somali warlords to Chinese divisions. This uncertainty prevents the United States’ military from organizing, equipping, and training for any specific situation. Therefore, to be successful the United States military must be capable of quickly adapting to the particulars of its mission when called. In the late 1800’s England found itself in much the same position, with its military engaged around the world protecting its diverse and widely-dispersed interests. In 1899 when it went to war against the Boers it found its military unsuited for the South African terrain, the effects of modern weaponry, and the unconventional Boer tactics. This paper examines the British military’s strategy and tactics, and how they changed throughout the war. Ultimately it determines that the British failed to adapt their strategy and tactics effectively throughout the war. Although their performance varied from commander to commander, and from unit to unit, the British typically resisted change, for various reasons, even when the need for change was pressing.

When the U.S. liberated the Philippines from Spanish rule in 1898, the exploit was hailed at home as a great moral victory, an instance of Uncle Sam freeing an oppressed country from colonial tyranny. The next move, however, was hotly contested: should the U.S. annex the archipelago? The disputants did agree on one point: that the United States was divinely appointed to bring democracy--and with it, white Protestant culture--to the rest of the world. They were, in the words of U.S. Senator Albert Beveridge, "God's arbiters," a civilizing force with a righteous role to play on the world stage. Mining letters, speeches, textbooks, poems, political cartoons and other sources, Susan K. Harris examines the role of religious rhetoric and racial biases in the battle over annexation. She offers a provocative reading both of the debates' religious framework and of the evolution of Christian national identity within the U.S. The book brings to life the personalities who dominated the discussion, figures like the bellicose Beveridge and the segregationist Senator Benjamin Tillman. It also features voices from outside U.S. geopolitical boundaries that responded to the Americans' venture into global imperialism: among them England's "imperial" poet Rudyard Kipling, Nicaragua's poet/diplomat Rubén Darío, and the Philippines' revolutionary leaders Emilio Aguinaldo and Apolinario Mabini. At the center of this dramatis personae stands Mark Twain, an influential partisan who was, for many, the embodiment of America. Twain had supported the initial intervention but quickly changed his mind, arguing that the U.S. decision to annex the archipelago was a betrayal of the very principles the U.S. claimed to promote. Written with verve and animated by a wide range of archival research, God's Arbiters reveals the roots of current debates over textbook content, evangelical politics, and American exceptionalism-shining light on our own times as it recreates the culture surrounding America's global mission at the turn into the twentieth century.

2014 Best International Book Award, Mormon History Association For the first century of their church’s existence, Mormon observers of international events studied and cheered global revolutions as a religious exercise. As believers in divine-human co-agency, many prominent Mormons saw global revolutions as providential precursors to the imminent establishment of the terrestrial kingdom of God. French Revolutionary symbolism, socialist critiques of industrialism, American Indian nationalism, and Wilsonian internationalism all became the raw materials of Mormon millennial theologies which were sometimes barely distinguishable from secular utopianism. Many Mormon thinkers accepted secular revolutionary arguments that the old world order needed to be destroyed, not merely reformed, to clear the way for the new. In From Above and Below, author Craig Livingston tells the story of Mormon commentary on global revolutions from the European revolutions of 1848 to the collapse of Mormon faith in progress in the 1930s when revolutionary communist and fascist regimes exposed themselves as violent and repressive. As the Church bureaucratized and assimilated to mainstream American and capitalist values, Mormons became champions of the conservative view of political and social development for which they are known today. The first Mormon converts in Mexico and France, both political radicals, would scarcely recognize the arch-conservative twenty-first century Church.

In Inter-imperiality Laura Doyle theorizes the co-emergence of empires, institutions, language regimes, stratified economies, and literary cultures over the longue durée. Weaving together feminist, decolonial, and dialectical theory, she shows how inter-imperial competition has generated a systemic stratification of gendered, racialized labor, while literary and other arts have helped both to constitute and to challenge this world order. To study literature is therefore, Doyle argues, to attend to world-historical processes of imaginative and material co-formation as they have unfolded through successive eras of vying empires. It is also to understand oral, performed, and written literatures as power-transforming resources for the present and future. To make this case, Doyle analyzes imperial-economic processes across centuries and continents in tandem with inter-imperially entangled literatures, from A Thousand and One Nights to recent Caribbean fiction. Her trenchant interdisciplinary method reveals the structural centrality of imaginative literature in the politics and possibilities of earthly life.

World War I was a global cataclysm that toppled centuries-old dynasties and launched "the American century." Yet at the outset few Americans saw any reason to get involved in yet another conflict among the crowned heads of Europe. Despite its declared neutrality, the U.S. government gradually became more sympathetic with the Allies, until President Woodrow Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany to "make the world safe for democracy." Key to this shift in policy and public opinion was the belief that the English-speaking peoples were inherently superior and fit for world leadership. Just before the war, British and American elites set aside former disputes and recognized their potential for dominating the international stage. By casting Germans as "barbarians" and spreading stories of atrocities, the Wilson administration persuaded the public--including millions of German Americans--that siding with the Allies was a just cause.