000			03569cam a2200385 i 4500
001			on1011497334
003			OCoLC
005			20240726105044.0
008			171114s2017 mau ob 001 0 eng d
040			_aNT _beng _erda _epn _cNT _dEBLCP _dYDX _dCSAIL _dTJC _dINT _dOCLCQ _dOCLCO _dOCLCQ _dBRX _dOCLCA _dOCLCQ _dTEFOD _dOCLCQ _dUKAHL _dK6U _dJSTOR
020			_a9780674981065 _q((electronic)l(electronic)ctronic)
020			_a9780674981072 _q((electronic)l(electronic)ctronic)
043			_an-us--- _ae-uk---
050	0	4	_aD31 _b.S244 2017
049			_aMAIN
100	1		_aSchake, Kori N., _e1
245	1	0	_aSafe passage : _bthe transition from British to American hegemony / _cKori Schake.
260			_aCambridge, Massachusetts : _bHarvard University Press, _c(c)2017.
300			_a1 online resource (389 pages)
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier
347			_adata file _2rda
520	0		_aHistory records only one peaceful transition of hegemonic power: the passage from British to American dominance of the international order. What made that transition uniquely cooperative and nonviolent? Does it offer lessons to guide policy as the United States faces its own challengers to the order it has enforced since the 1940s? To answer these questions, Kori Schake explores nine points of crisis or tension between Britain and the United States, from the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 to the establishment of the unequal "special relationship" during World War II. Over this period, Safe Passage shows, the United States gradually changed the rules that Britain had established at its imperial height. It was able to do so peacefully because, during the crucial years, Britain and the United States came to look alike to each other and different from other nations. Britain followed America's lead in becoming more democratic, while the United States, because of its conquest of the American West, developed an imperial cast of mind. Until the end of World War II, both countries paid more attention to their cumulative power relative to other states in the order than to their individual power relative to each other. The factors that made the Anglo-American transition peaceful, notably the convergence in their domestic ideologies, are unlikely to apply in future transitions, Schake concludes. We are much more likely to see high-stake standoffs among competing powers attempting to shape the international order to reflect the starkly different ideologies that prevail at home.-- _cProvided by publisher
504			_a2
505	0	0	_aOpening salvo -- _tIn theory and in practice -- _tTheft on the high seas: Monroe's doctrine -- _tParallel latitudes: Oregon's boundaries -- _tDomestic threat: America's civil war -- _tManifesting destiny: defining the nation -- _tMission creep: the Venezuelan crises -- _tUs versus them: the Spanish-American War -- _tEuropean power: World War I -- _tImposing power: the Washington naval accords -- _tSharp relief: World War II -- _tLessons from a peaceful transition.
530			_a2 _ub
650		0	_aPeaceful change (International relations)
650		0	_aGreat powers.
655		1	_aElectronic Books.
856	4	0	_uhttps://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1584197&site=eds-live&custid=s3260518 _zClick to access digital title | log in using your CIU ID number and my.ciu.edu password
942			_cOB _D _eEB _hD _m2017 _QOL _R _x _8NFIC _2LOC
994			_a92 _bNT
999			_c87563 _d87563
902			_a1 _bCynthia Snell _c1 _dCynthia Snell