ipl-logo

Pacificus Helvidius Debate Analysis

466 Words2 Pages

During the times of the Pacificus Helvidius debate, France is going through a revolution. King Louis and Marie Antoinette have both been beheaded. France has a completely new government and declares war on the monarchy of Great Britain. France helped America during our revolution to help us gain independence from Great Britain, without France’s help we wouldn’t have become a free nation. After the revolution, a treaty is put into place, Treaty of Alliance put into place in 1778. This treaty basically states that if France were to be attacked and needed help, America would have to help France out because we the only reason we gained independence from Great Britain was due to the fact that France helped us. At this point in time, France has declared war on, Great Britain, Austria, Holland, Prussia, and Spain. There are clearly two sides to the debate. …show more content…

I am still very undecided as to which side I agree with the most. Pacificus is convincing because clearly the American government is in not such position to go back to war again, we just finished our own revolution and our government isn’t completely stable yet. For America to re enter war would be very foolish. Either way, we wouldn’t be much help anyway; our nation is still very small at this time. But, with Helvidius, clearly George Washington was not acting like a president in this instance, but more so a king. He does not hold the authority to proclaim such a thing, and what does that say for the American word? As you can see, both sides have very strong cases and there are key points from both sides which makes it very hard to decide. If I had to decide I would agree more with Helvidius. George Washington believed that proclaiming neutrality was the way to go, which is completely fine, but there were other ways to go about doing it. We did not make the treaty with King Louis, we signed the treaty with France, and to go back on our word is not the right thing to

Show More
Related

  • The Unsatisfactory: The Stopping Of The Jays Treaty

    121 Words  | 1 Pages

    12) Jays Treaty was named after a man named John Jay. The British were seizing US ships and Washington sent Jay over to make the British stop. However, Jay returned with a “not so perfect” treaty. The treaty accepted Britain’s right to stop neutral ships, required the US to make “full and complete compensation” to the prerevolutionary war debts, allowed Americans to submit claims for illegal seizers, and required the British to remove their troops and Indian agents from the Northwest Territory. The stopping of the neutral war ships were the most unsatisfactory because it meant that they now had a trading alliance with Britain.

    Read More

  • Adams Dbq Essay

    345 Words  | 2 Pages

    This, surprisingly, was a very good move as now the Americans could support the French commercially against their war with England and the Americans maintained their policy of neutrality and not having alliances. Interestingly, as Gordon Wood further explains, this treaty would have most probably won Adams his reelection had Thomas Jefferson not the presidency right before the treaty was signed (Wood

    Read More

  • Leaving The Treaties According To Hamilton In 1793

    625 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hamilton in 1793. Jefferson saw that upholding the treaties with France as an act of honor and diplomatic neutrality. At this point in history, the United Sates had very little room to break treaties or make political enemies. Jefferson and others believed that retracing from the treaties would only be seen as an act of favoritism towards the British. Jefferson also stated that “ to make it void would require an act of election, but to let it go on requires only that we should do nothing, and doing nothing can hardly be an infraction of peace or neutrality” (64).

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast The French And Indian War

    1244 Words  | 5 Pages

    In 1763, Treaty of Paris was signed ending the Seven Years War. This treaty made France give all North American territories to Britain and Spain. The French presence disappeared in North America after the war, tension between Britain and Native Americans did not though. The outcome of the war was that French power ended in North America and Britain was successful in gaining the power but later down the road experienced conflicts with the Native Americans, as well as with the colonists leading to the American

    Read More

  • Why Is The Battle Of Yorktown A Turning Point In The Revolutionary War?

    907 Words  | 4 Pages

    It discussed the mutual termination of the Revolutionary War and the acceptance of American independence. It also recognised new borders for the United States and access to the Great Lakes compared to the now-Canadian provinces. This also showed the rest of the world that it was possible to fight against such a great power like England and win. Soon after, the French revolted against Britain and ultimately won.

    Read More

  • The Monroe Doctrine Continuation And Change On The US

    713 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Proclamation of 1793, also referred to as the Proclamation of Neutrality and written by George Washington, stated the United States' absolute neutrality in the conflict of the French revolution. The U.S. made a pact that it shall not supply materials to either side: Britain or France. If any part of the U.S. violated this, there would be consequences. Washington made his feelings of neutrality even more clear in his Farewell Address, in which he recites his advice to stay out of foreign affairs. "The great role of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."

    Read More

  • Why Is Britain Neutral

    286 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hello everyone, as you all already know I am President George Washington’s press secretary Felicity Lojek. I am here today to inform you that as of now, America will be remaining neutral regarding the possible French Revolution against the British. President Washington and his Cabinet have debated over this topic and brought up very true points but we decided to stay neutral. We did take into consideration that the French did lend a helping hand to us during our revolution against the British. We know we signed a treaty with them but we are in no position to fight another war right now.

    Read More

  • How Did The War Of 1812 Affect America's Foreign Policy

    466 Words  | 2 Pages

    This whole ordeal caused great upset in America and cause them to put up a bill that stated they would cut off trade with either Britain or France if the other dropped their trade restrictions. As well as this Britain was influencing native Americans against the settlers. All this dispute would cause America to go to war with their former cousin.

    Read More

  • Can Peace Lead To War

    1378 Words  | 6 Pages

    The US wanted “peace without victory”, France wanted to cripple Germany and gain security from the treaty and Britain wanted middle ground of wat the US and Germany wanted (Treaty of Versailles: How America, France & Britain Benefited.). Consequently the treaty was written for the benefit of each

    Read More

  • What Were The Challenges Of John Adams's Presidency?

    974 Words  | 4 Pages

    Due to the fact that Britain and France were at war during the time that this treaty was signed, France was blocked off from trading with the United

    Read More

  • Pacificus-Helvidius Debate Analysis

    868 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Pacificus-Helvidius debate was sparked by George Washington’s “Proclamation of Neutrality.” It was according to this proclamation that America declared its neutrality in the Franco-British conflict. It also set into law the punishment of any American who would provide assistance to either side during said conflict. Pacificus held the belief that this was an unconstitutional extension of powers as well as illegitimate due to a an early alliance with France. Helvidius and I agree, the “Proclamation of Neutrality” was constitutional and legitimate as well as grounded in the Federalist Papers.

    Read More

  • Louis Xvi Dbq

    795 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Treaty of Paris Signed in 1783, The Treaty of Paris marked the independence of the American colonies and empowered Americans to control the certain territory. With the help of the French army, the British army has to surrender to the Americans. In order to stop the war, the British government signed the Treaty of Paris (Spielvogel,

    Read More

  • What Caused The French Revolution Dbq

    817 Words  | 4 Pages

    With the help of France, the Americans finally won their independence from Great Britain. In a picture, it shows the American Revolution when “France sent an estimated 12,000 soldiers and 32,000 sailors to the American war effort” (Document 4). By participating in the American Revolution, France was impacted by Enlightenment ideas because it illustrated how the men in America had much better rights and were treated fairly. In addition, the Revolution was possibly started by just 1 signed piece of paper. While discussing what caused the Revolution, Sir John Dalberg-Acton believed that “the spark that changed the thought into action was supplied by the Declaration of American Independence…”

    Read More

  • Ethos Pathos Logos In Pearl Harbor Speech

    1140 Words  | 5 Pages

    Using his authority and knowledge of the American government and the conflict at hand, Roosevelt speaks for the American people from his high station, declaring, “I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form

    Read More

  • What Is Beveridge's Opinion Of American Imperialism

    598 Words  | 3 Pages

    Between the era of Mahan Beveridge, Schurz, and Bryan, there have been many outlooks and opinions about whether or not imperialism is good or bad; some similar, some different. One is the speech by Obama being similar to Bryan’s opinions in relations to them both believing that imperialism is pointless, and overall not a good decision since there can be other ways to solve the problems they may have for imperializing in the first place. They both saw the same effects that can come out of imperializing; the consequence being an unnecessary war that can be avoided in the first place. Webb’s is also similar to both Bryan and Obama’s opinion because he also believes that it is an unnecessary thing to do in order for us to get what we want. They

    Read More

More about Pacificus Helvidius Debate Analysis

Open Document