Imperialists
believe that the American government should protect what it considers
to be the national interest, even if that means getting involved
in conflicts around the globe. They also maintain that it is the
government’s duty to spread our political and economic systems
to other countries, by force if necessary. In other words, they
believe in U.S. leadership of the world. The Federalists were the
original American imperialists. Being Anglophiles, they looked to
Great Britain as the role model for American foreign policy. Federalists
desired strong financial and commercial ties to Europe and an economy
based on overseas trade. Power needed to be concentrated in a strong
federal government in order to speak with one voice to the governments
of other nations. A strong military was needed to protect the interests
of American bankers and businessmen. An admirer of Caesar and Napoleon,
Alexander Hamilton desired an imperialistic foreign policy for the
new nation. In 1799, Major General Hamilton “was a man who
dreamed dreams, and in his imagination he was already leading his
army into Louisiana, the Floridas and points south. ‘We ought,’
he said, ‘to squint at South America.’” The ideological
division in early American public policy is clear: “Hamilton
longs for empire, opulence, and glory for the nation, whereas Jefferson
seeks virtue, freedom, and happiness for the social individual.”
Hamilton was “very opportunistic about international diplomacy”
and distrusted “moralizing in foreign policy.”1
Isolationists
believe that the American government should be predominantly concerned
about the needs and desires of its own citizens. They do not believe
our government should be potentially involved in every conflict
around the globe. They do not believe our government should attempt
to control the governments of other nations. In other words, they
believe in national self-determination. The Anti-Federalists and
Democratic-Republicans were the original American isolationists.
They believed in decentralized politics, agrarian-based economics,
no standing army, staying out of Europe’s continual bloodshed,
and friendship with the people of other nations but non-alliance
with those people’s governments. Isolationists are often characterized
as provincial bumpkins. This characterization hardly fits the nation’s
premier isolationist. Jefferson was a diplomat and a student of
language, science, and philosophy. Cosmopolitan in outlook, he nonetheless
opposed national involvement in overseas political and military
conflicts. Referring to a controversy about the West Indies, in
a 1791 letter to an American diplomat, he stated, “If there
be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of
every American, it is, that we should have nothing to do with conquest.”
In 1799, Jefferson wrote, “I am for free commerce with all
nations; political connection with none; and little or no diplomatic
establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties
with the quarrels of Europe; entering that field of slaughter to
preserve their balance...” In his first inaugural address (1801),
President Jefferson urged “peace, commerce, and honest friendship
with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” He held
this view throughout his life.2
Using the word
isolationism to describe Jefferson’s foreign policy
is an oversimplification. Setting aside the negative images with
which it is saddled due to 70 years of imperial propaganda, the
term is still problematic because it does not express the full range
of Jefferson’s thought. In addition to the obvious forswearing
of entangling alliances, Jeffersonian isolationism involved support
for a republic rather than an empire, for national sovereignty,
for ethical conduct, for human rights, and for popular control of
foreign policy. These five beliefs could be thought of as causes,
components, or concomitants of isolationism. Jefferson “vigorously
rejected the view that only individuals are bound by a moral code,
and that nations are free to act in accordance with self-interest
without any restraints.” Writing to James Madison in 1789,
he remarked, “I know but one code of morality for men, whether
acting singly or collectively. He who says I will be a rogue when
I act in company with a hundred others, but an honest man when I
act alone, will be believed in the former assertion but not in the
latter.” Despite his belief in the importance of moral conduct
in foreign relations, Jefferson was not naïve in his view of the
world. He had, for example, a realistic assessment of foreign governments.
In 1812, Jefferson condemned both the French and British governments
for trying to “draw to themselves the power, the wealth and
the resources of other nations.” Three years later, he called
Napoleon “the wretch...who has been the author of more misery
and suffering to the world, than any being who ever lived before
him. After destroying the liberties of his country, he has exhausted
all its resources, physical and moral, to indulge his own maniac
ambition, his own tyrannical and overbearing spirit.” He did
not, however, have a favorable view of the British government and
other opponents of Napoleon. Jefferson condemned the imperialism
of all the leading countries of Europe: “The will of the allies?
There is no more moderation, forbearance, or even honesty in theirs,
than in that of Bonaparte. They have proved that their object, like
his, is plunder.”3
Isolationism
is a problematic word. It is an epithet, it is anachronistic when
applied to Jefferson, and it fails to indicate the full range of
thought involved. Admittedly, it is a flawed term, but it may be
the best term available. Non-interventionism is a non-definition
that merely calls attention to another undefined term, the word
continentalism never caught on after being proposed by scholar
Charles Beard, and neutrality is too vague. To some, isolationism
may imply ostrich-like, willful ignorance of the rest of the world,
but this was never the case with its most famous practitioners.
The isolation is not one of intellect, trade, or travel, but one
of entangling alliances, military conflict, and imperial domination.
For isolationists, national self-determination for colonies and
national sovereignty for America are closely-related principles
emanating from a common source: a commitment to democracy, freedom,
and decentralization. Isolationism is the foreign policy of traditional
liberals. As Robert Morss Lovett noted in 1924 in his
Progressive Party statement for the elite journal Foreign Affairs,
It is historically
characteristic of governments devoted to conservative measures
and the maintenance of the status quo in domestic affairs
to develop an aggressive policy in foreign affairs, and similarly
for governments whose chief outlook is toward the progressive
improvement of existing conditions to seek to disembarrass themselves
from the complications of foreign policy.
This progressive
tradition was first manifested in power through the presidency of
Thomas Jefferson.
Isolationism
may be an unfortunate term in some ways, but it describes a real,
deep, and honorable tradition in American politics. Prior to the
1930s, the ideological underpinning of our approach to the world
lacked a distinct label because it was simply accepted as traditional
U.S. foreign policy. In his 1776 pamphlet Common
Sense, Thomas Paine wrote, “As Europe is our market
for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part
of it. It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European
contentions...” In 1796, George Washington’s Farewell
Address noted, “The great rule 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....It
is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any
portion of the foreign world...” The Independence Day speech
of Secretary of State John Quincy Adams in 1821 indicated that isolationism
was still taken for granted 25 years later. Referring to America,
he reminded the House of Representatives, “She has abstained
from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict
has been for principles to which she clings...She goes not abroad,
in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the
freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator
only of her own.” The Monroe Doctrine acted as an isolationist
bulwark for many years, until it was corrupted by the Theodore Roosevelt
Corollary (1904) and virtually set aside by Woodrow Wilson and Franklin
Roosevelt. The Doctrine asserted,
In the wars
of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have
never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do
so....It is impossible that the allied powers [of Europe] should
extend their political system to any portion of either [American]
continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can
anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves,
would adopt it of their own accord....It is still the true policy
of the United States to leave the [Latin American] parties to
themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course.
In opposing
the annexation of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) in 1870, Senate
Foreign Relations Committee chairman Charles Sumner (R-MA) argued
that Caribbean islands “should not be absorbed by the United
States, but should remain as independent powers, and should try
for themselves to make the experiment of self-government....To the
African belongs the equatorial belt and he should enjoy it undisturbed.”
Things began to change dramatically in 1898. With the annexation
of Hawaii and the Spanish-American War, we were well on our way
to becoming an empire with extensive political and military ties
to the rest of the world. As a result, traditional foreign policy
fell into disfavor among U.S. elites and was eventually disparaged
by the dismissive term isolationism. Meanwhile, when the
word imperialism fell out of favor, it was exchanged for
the more euphemistic internationalism.
