“Between the beginning of the New Deal era in 1932 and its end in 1968, the Democratic share of the presidential vote skidded from 90 per cent to 26 per cent in the Deep South and from 77 per cent to 32 per cent in the Outer South. ” In 1969, Kevin Phillips’ The Emerging Republican Majority, noted the South’s decreasing support of Democratic presidential candidates by the mid-20th century. It marked a significant transformation. Since the end of Reconstruction, the South had a key role in the Democratic Party. The South along with organized labor and African Americans composed Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal coalition.” Formed in 1932, the New Deal coalition formed the basis of the Democratic Party’s support up until the 1960s. However, the party’s focus on civil rights under John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson caused disaffected Southern conservatives to abandon the party. Many favored Barry Goldwater for president in 1964 and George Wallace in 1968. Recognizing the disaffection after his victory in 1968, Richard Nixon hoped to draw Wallace voters into the Republican Party’s fold. Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” for the 1970 midterm elections saw appeals made directly to Southern conservatives, hoping that the ensuing reactionary backlash translated into Republican midterm gains. In a final analysis, Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” had minimal effect on the 1970 midterm elections. Of all the various races that the Nixon administration involved itself in, the only Southern Democrat to lose their Senate seat was Albert Gore in Tennessee, losing to Nixon supported Bill Brock. While the 1970 election resulted in only a few Republican gains, it highlighted the Democratic Party’s growing irreconcilable differences between its Southern liberals and conservatives. Analysis of individual Senate campaigns during the midterm elections showcase the South’s ongoing political realignment, foreshadowing the region’s defection to the Republican Party during the Reagan era of the 1980s.

This dissertation focuses on a quasi-governmental committee formed in November, 1932 during the interim Mexican presidency of Abelardo L. Rodríguez. “El Comité Nacional de Repatriación” (The National Repatriation Committee) brought together Mexican businessmen, politicians, social-aid administrators and government officials to deal with the U.S. repatriations of “ethnic Mexicans” (Mexican nationals and Mexican Americans). The Comité attempted to raise half a million pesos (“La Campaña de Medio Millón”) for the repatriates to cultivate Mexico’s hinterlands in agricultural communities (“colonias”). However, the Comité’s promised delivery of farm equipment, tools, livestock and guaranteed wages came too slowly for the still destitute and starving repatriados who sometimes reacted with threats of violence against local and state officials. Cloaked in political rhetoric, the Comité failed to meet the expectations of the repatriate population and the Mexican public. The ambitious plans of the Comité became mired in confusion and scandal. Finally, bowing to pressure from Mexican labor unions and the Mexican press, President Rodríguez dissolved the Comité on June 14, 1934.



In addition, this work addresses Mexican immigration settlement through the early 1930s, Mexican immigration theory, the administration of President Herbert Hoover and the conational exodus. The hardships faced by the repatriates are covered as well as unemployment issues, nativism, and U.S. immigration policies through the early years of the Great Depression. The conclusions reached confirm that the general Mexican public welcomed the Campaña de Medio Millón and the work initiated by the National Repatriation Committee. However, the negative publicity regarding the failure of the two principal resettlement colonies in Oaxaca and Guerrero convinced President Rodríguez to disband both the Comité and the Campaña de Medio Millón.

The American entrance into World War I instituted a fundamental change in the nation’s handling of foreign policy. The established precedent of isolationism was rooted in Washingtonian affairs and further emphasized by the policies of the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary. President Woodrow Wilson, by choosing to engage in a European war, created a milestone in American history by sending troops across the Atlantic to “repay Lafayette’s debt.” However, while World War I shaped American relations with western Europe, it also played an important role in Russian-American relations with Wilson’s decision to intervene in the Russian Civil War. Like his Fourteen Points at the Treaty of Versailles, Wilson asserted the legitimacy to intervene in Russia through pro-democratic rhetoric. This historic decision not only marked one of the first pro-democratic interventions in American military history, but it became the foundation for containment strategy during the Cold War twenty years later.
Furthermore, this paper will look to highlight and bring forth the stories and testimonies of those who fought in the American Expeditionary Force in North Russia (AEF-NR). Examination of the American leaders in the region as well as the geographical situation will address why the AEF-NR’s intervention was far more violent than that of the American Expeditionary Force of Siberia, telling the story of the ‘Forgotten Fight’ and its significant effect on American-Russian foreign relations.

Since Dylan Roof, a white supremacist, shot and killed nine members of a black church in Charleston on June 17, 2015, Confederate symbols have stood at the center of much controversy across the United States. Although the Confederate battle flag remains the most obvious example, the debate took a particular form in Tennessee, centering on the image of General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Born in 1822 to a poor family, he left school early to work. Although his work in the slave trade made him a millionaire, his later participation in the massacre of over 300 black soldiers at Fort Pillow in 1864 during the Civil War and association with the Ku Klux Klan cemented his reputation as a violent racist. Yet, many white Tennesseans praised him as a hero and memorialized him. This thesis examines Nathan Bedford Forrest State Park in Benton County and Forrest Park, now Health Sciences Park, in Memphis to examine what characteristics denote a controversial memorial. Specifically, I focus on the physical form, the location, and the demographics of the area, investigating how these components work together to give rise to controversy or acceptance of the memorial's image. Physical representations greatly impact the ideas associated with the memorial while racial demographics affect whether or not Forrest's representation as a hero speaks true to modern interpretations and opinions.

The Japanese American internment in Arizona proved to be one of the greatest assaults on the civil liberties of American citizens in the 20th century. Families lived in shabby facilities, had meager food, fought isolation, and strict military control. However, they overcame these challenges and built a strong community relationship and courageously sought to prove their loyalty to a government that deemed them untrustworthy. With time, their fortitude and solidarity helped bring an end to World War II and create new lives afterwards.

In September 1945, after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States possessed only one nuclear weapon. Thirteen years later, in September 1958, the nation possessed a significant stockpile of nuclear weapons, including the very powerful hydrogen bomb. The United States was able to build its stockpile of nuclear weapons because the Los Alamos Laboratory, once a secret wartime facility, was able to convert the forces of nature – fission and fusion – into weapons of war. The United States also was successful because of the sacrifice made by a tiny Pacific Ocean nation, The Marshall Islands, and the people of Bikini, Enewetak, and Rongelap Atolls. Between 1946 and 1958, the United States tested sixty-six nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands. Nuclear testing contaminated these three atolls and, in one instance, injured the people of Rongelap. As a result of this testing many of these people cannot return to their ancestral homes. This dissertation examines the many conditions that led to the creation of the Los Alamos Laboratory, its testing of nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands, and the long term, perhaps, permanent, displacement of the people of Bikini, Enewetak, and Rongelap.

This project examines the decision of American policymakers to deny the Amerasians of Vietnam--the offspring of American fathers and Vietnamese mothers born as a result of the Vietnam War--American citizenship in the 1982 Amerasian Immigration Act and the 1987 Amerasian Homecoming Act. It investigates why policymakers deemed a population unfit for the responsibilities of American society, despite the fact that they had American fathers.

The examination draws upon numerous archival collections of the key policymakers, humanitarians and non-governmental organizations involved in each piece of legislation. Additionally, archival and published documents from the U.S. government and military, popular media, and veteran's organizations, are important. Since many of those involved in the legislation are still living, oral history interviews are also a critical piece of the methodology.

The dissertation argues that the exclusion of citizenship was a component of bigger issues: international relationships in a Cold War era, America's defeat in the Vietnam War, and a history in the United States of racialized exclusionary immigration and citizenship policies against people of Asian descent. It exposes the contradictory approach of policymakers unable to reconcile the Amerasian mixture of race and nation with US law. Consequently, policymakers simultaneously employed an inclusionary discourse that deemed the Amerasians worthy of American attention, guidance and humanitarian aid, and implemented exclusionary policies that designated them unfit for the responsibilities of American citizenship.