<p> Abstract not available.</p>

In July 1965, Lyndon Johnson committed the United States to the ground war in Vietnam. This thesis argues that the 1965 decision marks a turning point in American foreign policy by creating a near Machiavellian Moment for the United States characterised by the question of Republic or Empire? To understand how the near-Machiavellian Moment changed American foreign policy, this thesis compares and contrasts Dean Rusk and Henry Kissinger. They will be compared and contrasted by asking three general questions. How did they view the United States? How did they view the World? How did they view the United States' role in the world? Dean Rusk represents a pre-Machiavellian Moment figure. His foreign policy philosophy of liberal internationalism reflects a belief in America's exceptionalism. Rusk justified the war by arguing that the United States' commitment to a decent world order was under threat in South Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson represents the Machiavellian Moment figure. He was caught between the international system, the commitment to a decent world order, and the domestic sphere, a commitment to deliver America's promise to all citizens. To overcome the dilemma, Johnson attempted to wage war and carry out reforms simultaneously. The decision created an imbalance at the heart of the Republic. The imbalance within the American regime and between the American regime and the international system brought the United States to the brink of Empire. Henry Kissinger represents a post-Machiavellian Moment figure. He rejected Rusk's foreign policy universalism. For him, the United States is a "normal" country that pursues a limited foreign policy based upon realpolitik. Rather than seeking to reform the international system, Kissinger sought to manage it. The thesis concludes that Rusk and Kissinger and their foreign policy alternatives represent the inherent tension between the American regime and the international system it supports.

This study is intended to be a contribution to nineteenth century Egyptian historiography with particular reference to a discussion of aspects of the economic and social role and activities of the Greek community in Alexandria. Given, however, the almost total absence of studies on the role and activities of the modern history of the Greeks in Egypt, this study constitutes both a pioneering and preliminary contribution.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Notre Dame, 2008. / Thesis directed by Michael Zuckert for the Department of Political Science. "April 2008." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 278-307).

The institutions of representation are the target of continuous reform and repair in the United States. This dissertation examines the concepts of representation that have been used to support both representational reform and the status quo. In examining these concepts, I argue that the breadth of the public discourse on representation has narrowed over time. This has been the result of changes in three ideas that constitute the concept of representation: human nature, community, and the purpose of government. The content and relative balance of these ideas shape the concept of representation over time and thus the character of representative institutions.

The main theme is the differences in response among the churches to the Shinto Shrine Issue in Korea under Japanese colonialism. The central focus is an inquiry into the possible reasons why some religious groups, including the Catholic and Methodist Churches, should choose the way of compromise, while others, such as the Presbyterian Church, represented by individual missionaries and the Non-Shrine Worship Movement and the Mount Zion Sect, chose the way of radical challenge and withdrawal. It is proposed in this study to concentrate on three major churches - the Roman Catholic, the Methodist and the Presbyterian.This study offers, firstly, a detailed analysis of the content of the debate, the attitudes and actions of the three churches towards the shrine problem in their historical evolution since 1931; secondly, an attempt is made to explain the different positions of the three churches in terms of the sociology of religion and the sociology of missions. The sociological consequences of religious experience provide a general framework. The main assumption is that the difference in ideological elements is more important in religious institutions than has been usually thought. In explaining the differences of position in the three churches, the following eight factors are proposed: (1) Theological emphasis; (2) Church structure; (3) World view; (4) Mission policy; (5) Relationship to nationalism; (6) Relationship to non-Christian religions; (7) Early historical experience; and (8) Nationalities of missionaries.The thesis is divided into two parts: (1) Part I (Chapters One to Three) reviews the theoretical and methodological literature relevant to the study of the Shinto Shrine Issue. It also surveys the introduction of the two principal forms of Christianity (Roman Catholicism and Protestantism) in Korea, and examines modern Japan, State Shinto and Christianity.(2) Part II (Chapters Four and Five) comprises a detailed analysis of the positions of the three Christian churches towards the shrine problem, and a systematic comparison of the different responses of the three churches by employing the above-mentioned eight factors.Three key factors are proposed in respect of the denominational division in the matter of the Shinto shrine question: theological emphasis, mission policy and church structure. Attention is also drawn to the historical discontinuity in motivation between the Non-Shrine Worship Movement by the fundamentalists and the recent political struggle for justice by the liberals. The legacy of the ordeal of the Shinto shrine controversy in the 1930s remains as an obstacle to the reconciliation between ultra-conservative theology and liberal 'minjung' theology. It is therefore demonstrated in this thesis that the particular form of religious outlook is a relevant factor in its own right, which is not to be reduced to other variables. Thus for the purpose of this study, the tools of Weber seem to prove more effective than do those of Marx.

This thesis explores the relationship between Thomas Hobbes and English deism. It seeks to show that Hobbes's work had a significant influence upon subsequent deists, namely, Charles Blount, John Toland, Matthew Tindal, and Anthony Collins. The thesis shows that these deists were influenced by certain distinctively Hobbesian anticlerical ideas, such as his biblical criticism, his materialism and determinism, his scepticism towards present revelation, and more. The deists, who were motivated by a similar form of anticlericalism, found in Hobbes a particularly resourceful ally. Furthermore, this thesis explores how some of Hobbes's political ideas influenced the deists: particularly his concerns regarding the dangerous role that priestly interests played in society and the instability that they generated. This thesis thus argues that Hobbes can be seen as a major influence upon English deism. Secondly, it offers an examination of Hobbes's concepts of God and reason. It shows that whilst Hobbes's accounts of God and reason were multilayered and at times perhaps underdeveloped, they contained significant elements that anticipated the later positions of the deists. Finally, this thesis argues that for Hobbes, the rational potential of humankind, implanted by God, could be cultivated and fulfilled once peace and security are guaranteed. Thus, this thesis attempts to recover some of the more utopian aspects of Hobbes's thought. It concludes that both Hobbes and the deists were part of a project of enlightenment, but one which was not aimed against religion as such. They attempted to liberate natural reason from the darkness of corrupt clerics and their false doctrines: this was an anticlerical enlightenment that was partly initiated by Hobbes and developed significantly by the deists.

<p> Decisions have both short and long-term consequences. Sometimes we cannot see the consequences and do not know the outcomes, but we take a step and make a choice. Some after-effects are irrevocable, and some are fixable. Some decisions affect us immediately and exclusively while others have consequences that are global. When we make decisions, we sometimes doubt our decisions and ask ourselves what might have happened if another choice was made. We make choices daily, small or great, for good or bad. After World War II, South Korean president Rhee Syngman put many alleged Communists in a rehabilitation program known as the National Guidance League. Many of them were executed between 1945 and 1953 to prevent them from joining the Communist north. Rhee's decision affected many families including my own. What we choose to do has intentional and unintentional consequences. Extreme choices produce dire consequences that can subsequently influence future generations and, on a larger scale, an entire nation for decades.</p>

No-one could claim that the English Commonwealthsmen have been ignored by historians. John Toland, Robert Molesworth, the third earl of Shaftesbury, Matthew Tindal, John Trenchard, and Charles Davenant- to name the most prominent of them- have attracted a good deal of attention for their religious and political writings; the most important of these are well known to all serious students of the early 18th century. But, despite all this attention, few writers on politics have been more widely misinterpreted than this group. The traditional view is that these men were radicals, intent on subversion of the constitutional settlement of 1689 and its replacement by a republic. Such allegations can be found in the work of contemporaries as diverse as Defoe and Charles Leslie, and it has been restated in a modified form in the fullest existing work on the subject, Caroline Robbins' The Eighteenth Century Gommonwealthman (1959). In this thesis I have re-assessed these judgments on the basis of a more thorough examination of the Commonwealthsmen's writings than has previously been attempted. Although most of the evidence has come from their large corpus of books and pamphlets, I have also used important manuscript collections in London, Oxford, and America. My conclusion is that to portray the Commonwealthsmen as radicals is to misinterpret them grossly: they were men of their age, and the age was not sympathetic to radicalism. The misunderstanding has arisen for three principal reasons: firstly, the term Commonwealthsman- which these writers did not consistently apply to themselves- had fortuitous associations with the Rump; secondly, their heterodox religious opinions- with which this thesis is only incidentally concerned- made them many clerical enemies who attempted to blacken their reputations by presenting them as political subversives; and thirdly, some of them showed an interest in the work of such republicans as Machiavelli, Milton, and Harrington. After attempting to clear up these sources of confusion, I have given a brief account of who the Commonwealthsmen were, with particular emphasis on the questions of how they came to know each other and how close their links were. Few definite answers emerge, but there are some interesting indications: for instance, the hitherto unexplored role of Locke's 'College' in the origins of the group. Much of the thesis is concerned to put the Commonwealthsmen and their ideas into their political context: it shows that, so far from being republicans, they subscribed to the dominant view that the best constitution involved a balance between the one, the few, and the many, and that the English constitution was admirable because it depended on this principle. Their perception of the threats to which the constitution was subjected in their own time, which largely arose from the financial and military power of the monarchy, led them- as historians like Kramnick and Pocock have already noted- into sympathy with the ideals of the Country Party. Too often dismissed as anachronistic, these ideals and the ways in which they could be defended supplied some of the most important topics for political debate in Augustan England, and the Commonwealthsmen made a notable contribution to these arguments. I hope, therefore, that my conclusions will add- a little momentum to the already discernible reaction against the tendency to view the politics of the time purely as a two-party system. Yet, although the most famous and substantial political works of the Commonwealthsmen- Cato's Letters, the Account of Denmark, the Art of Governing by Partys, for instance- are strongly redolent of Country ideals, the matter cannot be left here. As soon as attention is directed to their more ephemeral works, or to their correspondence, it becomes clear that many of them both actively sought offices of various kinds (despite the traditional 'Country' distrust of placemen) and were heavily involved as Whigs in the struggle between the two great political parties. They had many connections among the most powerful politicians in the land: Sunderland, Godolphin, and Harley in particular play important parts in the manoeuvres which are reconstructed here. If- as I argue- the Commonwealthsmen were not merely opportunists, planning their courses with the sole view of maximising their chances of patronage, the question arises: what induced them at different times to play up their Whig credentials and to denounce all parties on principle in the approved 'Country' manner? The answer seems to lie in their fear of Jacobitism and of French power: the two were of course closely connected. When the internal and external threats to the achievements of 1689 seemed greatest, the Commonwealthsmen called for Whig solidarity since the Whigs were ultimately, in their view, the party of the Revolution. But when this danger was less urgent, they could focus attention on the corruption which had been left untouched by the Revolution, and in which the Whig grandees were as much involved as anyone. These problems are dealt with in the early chapters of the thesis, and they form its centrepiece. Other chapters explore different aspects of the political careers of the Commonwealthsmen, but they are also intended to reinforce the main conclusions of the work. One section discusses the anticlericalism which is such a striking feature of their writings, and it argues that this was not the manifestation of any deeply-laid plan to secularise society, but rather a natural reaction to the strength of the High Church party and its tendency to Jacobitism. Three areas in which the Commonwealthsmen were particularly interested- and in which their activities have hitherto been virtually ignored- are dealt with in separate chapters: foreign affairs, Ireland, and the financial politics of the City of London. All exhibit that combination of public and private interest, of bitter partisanship and of lofty contempt for party, which are so characteristic both of the Commonwealthsmen and of early eighteenth century politics as a whole. Another chapter analyses the social ideas of the Commonwealthsmen: it confirms the conclusion that, far from being proto-democratic radicals, they were thoroughly typical of their period in their respect for hierarchy and property. The last chapter surveys the intellectual influences on the Commonwealthsmen, who were uniformly well-read. Here I contend that it would be a mistake to read too much into their interest in Harrington, Milton, Spinoza, or Hobbes, for some of these authors were less of an influence, others more respectable, than has often been thought. If there was one thinker who moulded the Commonwealthsmen's outlooks more than any other, it was John Locke: yet in important respects they were less adventurous than him. All this may seem very negative: the Commonwealthsmen, who appeared to be so distinctive, have been placed in the mainstream of Augustan politics. Yet this has the advantage of making a study of them a kind of political anatomy of their time in microcosm. For this reason, if the Commonwealthsmen seem less exceptional than they did, this need not, I hope, make them less interesting.

<p> Decades after the term &ldquo;McCarthyism&rdquo; was first coined, it continues to be used to describe those who prey on the fears of Americans to discriminate against others. In the post-world War years, and well into the sixties, it was Communism. Today, it is &ldquo;terrorism,&rdquo; and an irrational fear of Muslims. The word is used to describe those who perpetuate unsubstantiated claims and who practice the intimidation tactics employed against those suspected of being members of a targeted group. This resurgence of the term has piqued the interest of scholars, who like me, are studying Cold War or &ldquo;old wave&rdquo; McCarthyism and comparing it to the &ldquo;new wave&rdquo; of McCarthyism that has emerged since 9-11. Similar to what transpired during &ldquo;old wave&rdquo; McCarthyism most research is focused on predominantly White institutions (PWI&rsquo;s). The historical development of Black colleges and universities reveals how the lack of resources and finances made these schools much more susceptible to pressures of external forces such as racism and McCarthyism. This then raises the question: &ldquo;What was the impact of McCarthyism at our nation&rsquo;s Black institutions of higher education?&rdquo; Except for two well-documented incidents that occurred at Fisk University during the McCarthy Era (see Gilpin and Gasman, 2003; Gasman, 1999; Gilpin, 1997; and Schrecker, 2002, 1994) and my case study (2008) on McCarthyism at Cheyney and Lincoln Universities in Pennsylvania, for the most part, this question has gone unanswered. </p><p> With the use of primary and secondary sources this study will begin to address this void in educational historiography by examining the impact of &ldquo;old wave&rdquo; McCarthyism at four existing private historically Black institutions in Georgia: Atlanta University, Morehouse College, Clark University/College, and Spelman College. With this study, I hope to expand the existing discourse on McCarthyism by making it more comprehensive, as well as more inclusive.</p><p>