1. Compare and contrast American and British attitudes toward the Oregon Territory:
2. Which attitude do you think would be more effective in gaining control of the Oregon Territory.
3. How might the Americans and British have attempted to undermine each other’s attempts?
4. What might both have done to increase the likelihood of control?
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1862994
http://www.ushistory.org/us/29b.asp
We'll be glad to comment on your answers.
because tey akesticated
1. To compare and contrast American and British attitudes toward the Oregon Territory, you can start by researching historical documents, accounts, and academic sources related to this topic. Look for primary sources such as official statements, treaties, correspondence, and diplomatic negotiations.
Specifically, you can look into the perspectives of key figures involved, like American President James K. Polk, British officials like Foreign Secretary Lord Aberdeen, or notable explorers and settlers from both American and British backgrounds.
American attitudes toward the Oregon Territory in the 19th century were generally characterized by a strong desire to expand westward and establish American dominance in the region. This concept was popularized through slogans like "Fifty-four Forty or Fight!" which referred to the desire to extend the U.S. border up to 54°40' north latitude (the southern boundary of Alaska).
On the other hand, British attitudes were more cautious and focused on maintaining a presence in the Pacific Northwest for trade and strategic purposes. The British viewed the region as part of their fur trade network and saw it as a potential connection to their colonies in present-day Canada.
2. Evaluating which attitude would be more effective in gaining control of the Oregon Territory requires analysis and judgment. Both attitudes had their strengths and weaknesses.
The American attitude of aggressive expansionism and manifest destiny, while instilling a sense of determination and confidence, could have led to potential conflicts and strained relations with the British. It may have also faced challenges in terms of logistics and administration over the vast territory.
The British attitude, though more nuanced and focused on maintaining ties with their existing colonies and trade networks, could have allowed them to pursue a more diplomatic approach. They could have emphasized negotiation and compromise to avoid direct confrontation with the Americans. However, their approach could have been seen as passive and less assertive in terms of asserting control over the region.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of each attitude in gaining control would depend on various factors, including political leadership, military capabilities, diplomatic skills, and the evolving geopolitical context.
3. Both the Americans and the British could have attempted to undermine each other's attempts to gain control of the Oregon Territory through different means:
a. Diplomatic pressure: They could have engaged in intense diplomatic negotiations, utilizing alliances or international pressure to gain an advantage. This might involve forming alliances with Native American tribes residing in the region or seeking support from other global powers.
b. Subversion: They might have attempted to disrupt each other's efforts through espionage, covert operations, or supporting factions within the territory that could potentially be swayed to their side. This could include providing economic incentives, supporting dissident groups, or influencing local leaders.
c. Encouraging settlement: Both sides could have promoted or incentivized settlers to move to the territory to strengthen their respective claims. By promoting their own cultural and political values, they could have aimed to establish a stronger presence and loyalty among the settlers.
4. To increase the likelihood of control, both parties may have employed a combination of strategies:
a. Diplomatic negotiations: Direct negotiations, backed by trade agreements and territorial treaties, could have set the stage for resolving the dispute peacefully. This might have involved compromises regarding territorial boundaries or agreeing to joint occupation until a permanent resolution was achieved.
b. Military presence: Maintaining a strong military presence in the region would have acted as a deterrent against the other side's aggression, while also allowing for the defense of claimed territories.
c. Economic ties: By establishing and strengthening economic ties with the local indigenous tribes, as well as encouraging trade and commerce in the region, both sides could have sought to gain influence and support from the local population.
d. Public opinion: Shaping public opinion through propaganda, rhetoric, and media could have played a role in swaying public sentiment in favor of their respective claims and mobilizing support among their own populations.
Remember, further research into historical texts, academic sources, and scholarly accounts will provide more in-depth insights into these topics.