U.S. DIPLOMACY
Private22
COLONIALBACKDROPWITHNOTESWeek2.pptx
1
Page 1: NOW, I hope to shock (gently) your mind by dropping back from the space/cyber/hi-tech age to the time before electricity/engines/steam power; from satellite intel/tomahawk missiles/smart bombs/jets/GPS back to cannon balls/muskets/horse cav. During the American Revolution (AMREV) forces moved around the battlefield at the same speed as Alexander the Great’s forces moved some 2,000 years before the AMREV. As for diplomacy; it took about 2-3 months to send information and receive a reply between the British Isles and the American continent. So, if you give an order today, you won’t get back a “wilco” (will comply) for some two/three months . Problems ya’ think?
THE COLONIAL BACKDROP
“AMERICA HAS BEEN LONG ENOUGH INVOLVED IN THE WARS OF EUROPE. SHE HAS BEEN A FOOTBALL BETWEEN CONTENDING NATIONS FROM THE BEGINNING.”
-- JOHN ADAMS, 1782
Bailey, 1980, 19
2
Page 2: If you saw the film series John Adams, HBOFILMS, 2008, Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney; with an accompanying documentary on the history of this period by the famed U.S. Historian David McCullough [the book 1776]) then you know of the importance of John Adams in this portion of our history course. Over 150 years went by from the founding of the Jamestown settlement, Virginia, to the declaration of Independence. During that time the various nations of Europe were competing for territory and colonies in the “New World”, the Western hemisphere. European competition was played out on the gridiron of the Americas.
James R Corcoran (JRC) -
THE COLONIAL BACKDROP PRENATAL IMPRESSIONS
3
Page 3: this is a conceptual diagram depicting the “spheres of influence” of the various European nations around the globe at a point some 50 years before the start of the AMREV. Study this diagram and understand the way European competition was “gloming” (my word) up, moving in to and taking over, foreign territory. Recalling our World History courses (History 1001 and 1002) remember that westerners (Europe was west of Asia) were able to “move in and take over”, colonize (from the Latin word Colon, foreign settlement) because of technology which was more advanced than the that of the receiving territories: ships, navigation, weaponry. For our purposes we see that “British North America” on the left side of the map, was competing in the western hemisphere with France, the Dutch (Holland, Netherlands), Portugal, and Spain. At this point also recall that the primary motives for European entry in to areas abroad were Gold, God, and Glory (the 3 Gs) that is, to gain riches from other lands, to spread the Catholic religion (after the Reformation in the 1500s, add Protestantism a movement of protest against the Catholic church), and to gain fame as explorers and conquerors; to bring power and prestige to the “motherland” in Europe. So, 61 years before the Declaration of Independence the world was being divvyed up between the colonial powers of Europe. Was this the first globalization? Does globalization mean control of the globe by the most powerful? Or, does it mean a system of interdependence and cooperation to the benefit of all entities; all life on earth? What do you think?
By the way, I have over the years given presentations as part of the HPU Global Issues Study Group relating to this topic. I have presented talks and Q&A/discussion on the NIC Global Trends reports, with focus on the issue of “globalization at risk” among other aspects of those reports.
THE COLONIAL BACKDROP FRENCH & INDIAN WARS/ SEVEN YEARS WAR
Bailey, 1980, 22
4
Page 4: On this map notice that Russia plays into competition for North America along with the regions claimed by the other European competitors. The stakes were high; the resources from this “new world” (everything from furs, to agriculture goods: cotton, coffee, tobacco, potatoes, tomatoes---not present in Italy until after the 1500s : so, no tomato sauce in Italy until some 400 years ago ---; Gold and other minerals; timber; fish and other sea foods, and so on) were enormously enriching and the colonizing nations wanted in on the take and were willing to go to war to get the take. Thus the war which began in Europe and spread to the colonial areas; known in Europe as the Seven Years war and in the Americas as the French and Indian war (not because the Indians were fighting the French, but because the Amerindians were fighting alongside the French against the Brits): as John Adams said America “has long been a football between contending nations from the beginning….” We are so very fortunate to have had men (and women: in the “John Adams” series, you can see the vital role played by Abigail Adams in advising and partnering with John) of such high quality as the founders of our nation all of whom were able to grasp the tempo of the times and then to guide us safely to freedom and independence. Quiz question: Do we still have statesmen/women of such high caliber today? Name a few. Memorize this map because it is about to change massively with the English victory in this war.
THE COLONIAL BACKDROP FRENCH & INDIAN WAR / SEVEN YEARS WAR
Bailey, 1980, 23
5
Page 5: (See what I mean from the last slide?) British victory brought the entire region east of the Mississippi, south of Hudson bay, down to Florida under Brit. control; a huge prize! Go to he next frame to get a side-by-side comparison.
THE COLONIAL BACKDROP THE ILLUSION OF ISOLATION
6
Page 6: The BIG issue coming out of this massive shift in territorial control was that the French were not going to forgive the Brits for “stealing” French land. You will see that the very first U.S. Minister (Ambassador) to France, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, later on (1770s/1780s), would very effectively use this French grudge against the English as a way to manipulate the French into joining the American Revolution against the British. That was the opening curtain on American diplomacy; one which ultimately enabled the birth of the new United States of America.
THE ILLUSION OF ISOLATION THE NINE WORLD WARS
Bailey, 1980, 24
7
Page 7: This chart is to make you aware of the “World Wars” emanating out of early European exploration and competition for colonies, riches, power, and prestige. As you’ll see, “World War I” was referred to as only “The Great War” up until WWII broke out in the 1930s (1937); then, it was renamed “WWI”. NOTE the time lag seen in the start dates of these various wars depending on each war being in Europe or the Americas.
THE COLONIAL BACKDROP FOREIGN POLICY IN EMBRYO
8
Page 8: next section of this lesson is named herein.
THE COLONIAL BACKDROP THE BREAK WITH BRITIAN
Savelle, 1939, 17
9
Page 9: Thomas Paine just happened to be in the right place at the right time and his writings served a larger political purpose: venturing toward independence from the “mother country”. The pamphlet Common Sense was a traditional way in those times of getting the word out. Question: how would such a pamphlet fly in today’s world? With the electronic communication we have today; would anybody bother to read it? Would it end up on the magazine rack at the checkout counter at Safeway, or what? Recall that the capability to print was a technology that was only some 200 years old (China had printing some 1,000 years before the west); so the printed word was still relatively scarce, especially in the “new world”. Printed material was precious and expensive.
THE DIPLOMACY OF THE FRENCH ALLIANCE, 1775-1778
THE BREAK WITH BRITAIN
MILITIA DIPLOMATS & MILITIA DIPLOMACY
FRANKLIN IN FRANCE (1776-1783)
REVOLUTION OR THE FIRST COLONIAL WAR FOR FREEDOM?
FRENCH FEARS OF REUNION
THE FRENCH-ENGLISH RACE FOR EMPIRE
10
Page 10: Drawing from your assigned readings, construct, in your mind, all that you know about the courageous acts on the part of the Founders of America (men and women such as John Adams and Abigail Adams) in facing up to GB (Great Britain) and declaring independence. As B. Franklin stated to the effect during the Constitutional Convention “If we do not hang together [cooperate with each other] then we shall all hang separately”. The Brits would have hung the “rebels” if they had had the chance. Also, England came out of the Seven Years War (slide 6 above) the most powerful nation on earth. Our revolutionaries knew that they needed all the backing they could get going up against the world power of GB. France was a logical choice for help because it was an eternal enemy of GB and because of its loss of its territory in America as a result of the French and Indian War (again slide 6; and your assigned readings). The new revolutionary government chose, as its very first ambassador in history (called “Minister” in those days), Dr. B. Franklin. As your text points out he was perfect for the position: a leading thinker of the Enlightenment (headquartered in France, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, etc.); a scientist (credited with the “discovery of electricity”=flying his kite in a thunderstorm), widely published; and a witty guy (Poor Farmer’s Almanac=“Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise”) He wore a Beaver skin hat all around Paris to serve as a constant reminder to the French about their loss of American territory (France had become rich from the beaver fur trade). Question: do we still have men of BF’s stature among us in America today? Can you name any? What’s the deal on that?
Was this the “first colonial war for freedom”? Are we the first democracy in world history (remember, in Greece only land-owning males participated in their Democracy=from the Greek word demos=village or people; women, foreigners, slaves had no rights)?
During this period, lasting into the French alliance and warfighting alongside the AMREVs (Rochembot, Lafayette, DeGrass, and others leading French soldiers and sailors in battles against the Brits; side-by-side with our Continental Army/Navy and militia) the French were always worried that the AMREVs would give up the struggle and come to terms with their brethren: the English.
But, the French and the Brits were competing around the world for territory; America was one of only many places where the competition was being played out.
REVOLUTION OR THE FIRST COLONIAL WAR FOR FREEDOM?
11
Page 11: Keying off your assigned readings and moving in to the AMREV, this map from the U.S. Army Military History Center’s History of the American Revolution provides us with a graphic view of the way the AMREV played out on the ground. Study this map. Because this is a history of diplomacy course and not a U.S. military history course (I teach that in class: History 3666) we need to have the bare outline of the way the war went concentrating on the diplomacy of the war. This carries through the whole course: not the wars but the diplomacy around the wars.
Reading the map see that the first move after the Brits marched on Lexington and Concord was (1) AMREV operations against Brit holdings in Canada. After that AMREV failure, the Brits invade lake Champlain/Hudson River, New York, and Charleston (GB puts its best weapon, its navy to work; supplemented by its army. GW, the American Commander, knows this and uses a strategy of avoidance, steering clear of Brit strength, attacking Brit weak spots, and hoping to wear down the Brits and turn Brit public opinion back home in London against the war; GW meets serious failures only when he attempts to face-off against the Brits on their own terms of conventional continental (European) warfare: such as against the Brits in the New York campaign. Having not had satisfactory success the Brits then launch a multi-pronged offensive against Albany. As a result of Brit failures and AMREV tenacity (driven by the CAUSE of freedom and independence), the Brits lose the battle of Saratoga. The French were much encouraged by AMREV success, and move toward alliance with the U.S. This is the diplomatic story of this war. With French logistical support and resources, French ground forces and sea forces, the AMREVs are able to ramp up and continue the fight. BUT, success and victory is still a long way off (Valley Forge and the Southern theater warfighting as shown on the map). By 1781 the AMREV/French ground and sea forces have Brit Commander Cornwallis’ force holed up in Yorktown, besiege the Brit fortifications and gain victory over the most powerful nation on the planet (you see, this has happened before in history; it’s all a matter of Strategy=Ends (defeat the AMREV) + Ways (battle the AMREV forces, divide and conquer them, chase them down and annihilate them) + Means (Brit ground/naval forces backed by Brit national resources). What went wrong? The Brits fought the war as they would have back in Europe (we Americans carried out a successful insurgent/guerilla (Spanish for “little war”: guerra=war,-illa=“little”; bombilla=“little bomb”; today “light bulb’” ) warfare. The Brits employed the wrong forces (conventional forces) in the wrong way (conventional maneuver/warfighting) in the wrong place (America not Europe). Somehow or other, great powers end up repeating these same errors. History does not repeat itself (my dear students) men repeat their same dumb-ass mistakes. So, don’t keep blaming poor history; not its fault. See, when we blame history for our failures (“oh, well, it’s not our fault, it’s just history repeating itself”) that lets the real causes (lousy strategy and the makers of lousy strategy) off the hook; and of course they encourage and love that. ‘Nuff said!?!
So, with the play of the war under our belts, let’s look more closely at AMREV alliance with the French; how it came about. Remember that GW will warn us in his Farewell Address to avoid “entangling alliances”. But George, sir, you might have lost the war against Britain without the alliance of the French against Britain (take back them “freedom fries” ).
THE DIPLOMACY OF THE FRENCH ALLIANCE, 1775-1778 THE FRENCH-ENGLISH RACE FOR EMPIRE
TREATY OF AMITY & COMMERCE, 1778
FRANCO-AMERICAN TREATY OF ALLIANCE, 1778
12
Page 12: “On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress declared the colonies independent. Two days later (July 4) it adopted Jefferson’s immortal draft of the Declaration of Independence [which] made possible foreign alliances [e.g., France]”. (Bailey, 1980, 26)
In February 1778 the French and Americans signed the Treaty of Amity [friendship] and Commerce, in Paris. This opened up the flow of trade from the continent (Europe) to the newly declared republic. This was the warm up.
Next, the Franco-American Treaty of Alliance=“I will send weapons, equipment, forces, to fight your war along with you”. For the duration of the AMREV France supplied 90% of all gunpowder used by French-American forces. That’s diplomacy !
THE DIPLOMACY OF PEACE WITH BRITAIN, 1778-1783
“YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THE ENGLISH BUY THE PEACE MORE THAN THEY MAKE IT.”
-- VERGENNES, 1782
13
Page 13: This quote from French Foreign Minister [equivalent to our Secretary of State] Vergennes shows how the French thought about the Brits.
Britain Against the World
Bailey, 1980, 40
14
Page 14: Just as we had seen the table of world wars (Slide 7) this slide shows what GB was facing in its quest for global dominance from the mid 1770s to the mid 1780s. The belligerents (from the word bellicose, Latin, war-like) lined up against the overweening British with their arrogant ways. Those who remained “neutral” also stayed fully armed and battle-ready in case the need arose.
FINAL ANGLO-AMERICAN TREATY – SEPTEMBER 3, 1783
Bailey, 1980, 48
15
Page 15: Some two years elapsed from the AMREV/French victory over the Brit forces at Yorktown to the signing of the treaty ending the war (it took some 4 to 5 weeks to get correspondence from Europe to the new U.S.; turn around time would mean some two-three months before you received a reply to your letter). Amazing is that the Brits were so generous (see the map here) in their concession, the biggest one being INDEPENDENCE. The new nation owned everything east of the Mississippi (a few problems with Florida, but that was a sidebar); endless tracts of some of the most fertile, and beautiful, land in all the world; and it was ours, we fought for it and we won it fair and square !! As B. Franklin was reported to have responded to a passerby woman as he exited the Continental Congress and she asked what-all they had done in there: “we have given you a republic Madame, if you can hold on to it.” Question: are we capable of holding on to the democracy the founders gave us? What do you think? What are YOU doing to hang on to our democracy (voting, emailing the White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/ contact and your Congressfolks https://tapcongress.us/wp-login.php?action=register to let them know your position on things, studying the national situation through real news---mostly only in print these days---,) what else? We dishonor those who struggled so bravely and gave us our freedom and independence, if we don’t stay active; as T. Jefferson stated “The price of liberty is vigilance” (carved over the door of the National Archive in WADC where the Declaration can be viewed by you).
FOREIGN AFFAIRS UNDER THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION
PROBLEMS WITH GREAT BRITAIN’S ACCEPTANCE
SPAIN – LAND DISPUTE: FLORIDA, OLE’ MISS, & NEW ORLEANS
16
Page 16: Despite the very favorable conditions agreed to by the Brits in the Anglo-American Treaty of 1783 there were still disagreements between the former mother country and its newly independent offspring. The assigned readings cover these variances in part. Without going into detail, the Brits continued to hold military outposts on American soil along the northern Canadian border (e.g., Fort Michilimackinac on the very tip of today’s Michigan peninsula, Detroit, Niagara, Oswego, and a few others, stretching from Lake Champlain to lake Superior). Obviously these variances would be worked out, but Brit continued possession of these posts caused antebellum (post war) tensions not needed by the new United States.
Even more troublesome was the plotting of the Spanish in regard to Florida territory. The Treaty of 1783 laid out the southern boundary along the 31st parallel over to the Mississippi River. But earlier possession by the Brits included territory all the way up to the Tennessee River to its junction with the Yazoo river (have you ever heard the term “up the Yazoo” (also pronounced “up the wazoo”?). Well. This is all laid out on the map on the next slide. The point is that if the U.S. had not been insistent enough Florida might not have ended up as part of the U.S. THAT’s diplomacy .
SPAIN – LAND DISPUTE: FLORIDA, “OLE” MISS, & NEW ORLEANS
Bailey, 1980, 59
17
Page 17: More important than the settlement of the southern boundary was the issue of freedom of navigation on the Mississippi River, a real “biggie”. The year after the Treaty of 1783 the Spanish announced that the Mississippi would be closed to American boats. Spain was still a powerful colonial power. This issue called for DIPLOMACY not war (because the new U.S. was still in its birth throes, not a good time to get into another war). Not necessary to go into details here, but the Secretary for Foreign Affairs for the Continental Congress (not yet a position of Secretary of State; that would be Thomas Jefferson when the post was finally established as the first member of the Presidential cabinet) continued diplomatic negotiations with Spain and by the end of four years (diplomacy may sometimes be slower than war) in 1788 Spain allowed American boats to sail the Mississippi, at first for pay (“duties”); but the U.S. was OK with that; and over time this issue was settled as we shall see; stay tuned. Again, that’s diplomacy
BARBARY BLACKMAIL
Bailey, 1980, 64
18
Page 18: The new nation had even bigger problems abroad. The north coast of Africa (the Barbary coast), along the coast of the Mediterranean held raiding pirates from the states shown on this map. Various European nations were in the habit of paying blackmail to the Barbary pirates in return for the captured ships and cargo. The new U.S. was not in a financial position to pay the blackmail. Men, ships, and cargoes were lost; the new U.S. did not have the power to act in the Med at that time. What happened?
“The adoption of the Constitution in 1789 gave the U.S. Government the power to levy taxes and to raise and maintain armed forces, powers which had been lacking under the Articles of Confederation. In 1794, in response to Algerian seizures of American ships, Congress authorized construction of the first 6 ships of the U.S. Navy. In 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli, Yusuf Qaramanli, citing late payments of tribute, demanded additional tribute and declared war on the United States. The United States successfully defeated Qaramanli’s forces with a combined naval and land assault by the United States Marine Corps. The U.S. treaty with Tripoli concluded in 1805 included a ransom for American prisoners in Tripoli, but no provisions for tribute.” http://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/BarbaryWars
Thus “…the shores of Tripoli…” in the U.S. Marine Corps hymn. The “Halls of Montezuma” will come soon; you’ll see.
BTW This, http://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/BarbaryWars is an excellent site to search for information about U.S. foreign affairs . Please go to that site now and see the real history of American diplomacy as researched and written by the U.S. State Department. This will be on your QZ this week. Go to that site and explore, now
FOREIGN AFFAIRS UNDER THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATON
PROBLEMS WITH GREAT BRITAIN’S ACCEPTANCE
SPAIN – LAND DISPUTE: FLORIDA, OLE’ MISS, & NEW ORLEANS
FRANCE COOLS ON ITS AMERICAN ALLY; AN AMERICAN IN PARIS
BARBARY BLACKMAIL
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION – 1788-1789
19
Page 19: So here were are up to this point as shown on this slide. Please take a little time and review and make sure that you know the meaning of each entry above.
TROUBLE WITH BRITAIN, 1789-1795
G. W. AS PRESIDENT, APRIL 30, 1789
THE POLITICAL PARTIES ARE BORN
20
Page 20. GW was a winning commander of U. S. forces as well as a capable statesman. Do we have such men (and today women; who have risen strongly in the national polity of the U.S.) among us today? Would 4-star General Colin Powell, the first AFAM (African-American) Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the first AFAM U.S. Secretary of State fit that bill? Can you name others today? One wonders what T. Jefferson (as America’s very first Secretary of State) would have thought about an AFAM being his successor in the twenty-first century? Recall that, while Jefferson himself owned African slaves, he, at one point in drafting the Declaration of Independence, considered freedom for all slaves. That idea ended up on the “cutting room floor” because Jefferson decided that the new nation would be torn apart (as it was 85 years later during the U.S. Civil War; though not just over slavery, but that was a major casus belli---cause of the war; Latin: “incident, rupture, case”---belli, of war: for those of you who fought in the war in Iraq, you may be interested in the “case for war” which sent you there, go to this site http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html).
Now we see the first organization of U.S. political parties (recall that GW, in his Farewell Address, advised that if we must have political parties, then we must be sure that America’s national interests are always placed above political party interests; how is that going today?) For the party lineup, see the next slide.
THE POLITICAL PARTIES ARE BORN
Bailey, 1980, 67
21
Page 21: Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson held different worldviews. Hamilton admired the English political setup (with a Monarch, please notice), strong federal control from a central government, and a national (U.S. Central) bank. TJ viewed the civilization of France (just at the end of its own revolution; no more Monarch, please notice) as most admirable, that America needed little central control by a federal government, no need for a Central Bank, and that America’s “yeoman/genteel” (like himself and GW) farm society could very well govern itself. Hamilton favored close relations and involvement with England; Jefferson, with France. Do we see any problems here? Also, you should know that Hamilton was eventually killed in a duel by Aaron Burr in 1804; politics anyone?
Notice that while our present Democratic party was formed in 1834, our Republican party came into being in the run up (7 years prior) to the U.S. Civil War.
Study this slide.
Sorry if you don’t already know the history of the development of U.S. political parties; you should. But, you most likely have been let down in this and others areas of knowledge by the increasingly declining level of education provided by our public schools.
Of course if you were rich enough to go to an elite private school such as Punahou, or Iolani, or Georgetown Prep, or other schools, you were taught all this. So the division of knowledge between the common citizen (that’s you and me) and the rich and powerful (the top 10% of the U.S. population who hold some 70% of the nation’s wealth) and the rest of us (the 90% who hold only some 15% of the nation’s wealth, which includes the bottom 50% of the U.S. population who hold less than 1, or 2 % of the nation’s wealth) (https://inequality.org/facts/income-inequality/) and the rich and powerful allows for continued control over the United States by a relatively small, elite, rich group which has the decisive economic and political power (and also live in luxurious life styles which the rest of us can hardly imagine).
Like it or not, the situation we have in America today is ever farther from what the founders of America (whom we are studying here) intended.
The American way is based upon life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Also, on equality for all. Also on, all equal before the law (the rule of law, not by a single man, or small group of a ruling class, but sticking by the established laws formulated continuously over a period of 244 years); freedom of expression; freedom of assembly; freedom of religion; freedom of the media, and; government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Please memorize this, the American way. You will be QZd on this and you will be tested on this for the rest of your life as an American.
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, JULY 14, 1789
Bailey, 1980, 71
22
Page 22: These images taken from political pamphlets of the late 1700s depict the difference in the flavor of the two revolutions. You see that the American “Lady Liberty” is depicted as beneficent, just, favoring free world trade, flanked by the American eagle and the shield of American unity; whereas the French figure is depicted as vile, a medusa, holding a three-pronged pike with a human head on it, and in the background, a man hanged from a lamp post. “AMREV; Good; FRREV bad”, to paraphrase the cry from George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Jefferson Democrats were reviled for their favoring the French Revolution and Hamiltonians extolled the English governing system (rule by a king/queen). The two political parties were in opposition even from their founding. Pray that GW’s admonition that national interests be placed above party interests would be heeded. When that is lost, disunity grows, and as we see in only some 80 years after the American Revolution, civil war can be the result.
When America is untied (example WW II) we are strong and lasting.
When America is divided (example, Civil War, 1861-1864; political divisions of today), we are weak, chaotic, vulnerable to foreign interference/takeover.
TROUBLE WITH BRITAIN, 1789-1795
G. W. AS PRESIDENT, APRIL 30, 1789
THE POLITICAL PARTIES ARE BORN
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, JULY 14, 1789
FRANCE DECLARES WAR ON GREAT BRITAIN, FEBRUARY 1, 1793
G. W.’S PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY APRIL 22, 1793
WAR WITH ENGLAND/CONGRESS, 30 DAY EMBARGO VS. ENGLAND
JOHN JAY & THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS STORM
23
Page 23: Now we have a development. The wave of the revolution swept away the monarchy in France; the King, Louis XVI, was executed and, over a week later, the new French republic declared war on GB. What is the new republic in the new world to do? We owe France our gratitude for coming to our aid and helping us to win our American revolutionary war. Too, GB gave us awfully good terms in the Anglo-American treaty of 1783 (see slide 13) and, despite raiding our ships on the high seas from time to time, the British trade was very favorable to the U.S., accounting for nearly 90% of America’s imports.
Our president, GW, proclaims neutrality!
The Brits gear up for war with France by detaining all ships dealing with France and its possessions and carrying French goods. Trouble .
American shipping is also caught between the two warring nations on the high seas. The U.S. Congress (USC) lays on an embargo which in effect applies to both sides. England’s hostility grows. Things increasingly look like war with England (which we had just finished fighting only 10 years before).
Hamilton, with his vaunted power and influence brings about an agreement with the USC and the executive (it’s not the “White House” YET; not until after the next war, 1812, when the Brits burn the presidential mansion, and during later repairs, white wash had to be used on the flame-scarred walls: hence, the “ White House”). John Jay, Supreme Court Chief Justice is dispatched to resolve the issue with the Brits by DIPLOMATIC MEANS short of war if possible (this is a good case to cite for the effective use of diplomacy to avoid war). Many critics say the JJ gave away too much. Still, the result belies that view: England entered into a commercial treaty which even granted most-favored-nation status (Britain gave the U.S. the same commercial rights granted to other nations trading with GB; the rights conferred on the most-favored-(of Brit trade partners)-nation were also given to the U.S.); AND, war was avoided . So there! THAT’s diplomacy
FRICTION WITH FRANCE, 1789-1800 “THE NATION WHICH INDULGES TOWARD ANOTHER AN HABITUAL HATRED OR AN HABITUAL FONDNESS IS IN SOME DEGREES A SLAVE.” -- WASHINGTON’S FAREWELL ADDRESS, 1796
24
Page 24: You should go over GW’s Farewell Address one more time; it is very important. It appears that his view, as expressed above, is still most valid. Consider the way we are turned and twisted (the tail wagging the dog?) because of our “habitual hatred or fondness” with the likes of Pakistan, Iraq, Israel, or with Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran. What do you think?
THE COLONIAL BACKDROP WASINGTON’S FAREWELL “IT IS OUR TRUE POLICY TO STEER CLEAR OF PERMANENT ALLIANCES WITH ANY PORTION OF THE FOREIGN WORLD . . . [BUT] WE MAY SAFELY TRUST TO TEMPORARY ALLIANCES FOR EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCIES.” -- G.W, FAREWELL ADDRESS, 1796
25
Page 25: This phase of America’s rowdy birth throes at an end, we go on in the next lessons to see that America was born in war and that our nation has been in war during most of its 240 + year existence:
“The U.S. Has Only Been At Peace For 21 Years Total Since Its Birth
(In 2020), since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years of existence. In other words, there were only 21 calendar years in which the U.S. did not wage any wars.
To put this in perspective:
* Pick any year since 1776 and there is about a 91% chance that America was involved in some war during that calendar year.
* No U.S. president truly qualifies as a peacetime president. Instead, all U.S. presidents can technically be considered “war presidents.”
* The U.S. has never gone a decade without war.
* The only time the U.S. went five years without war (1935-40) was during the isolationist period of the Great Depression.
Count “small engagements” (Panama, Grenada, Bosnia, Kosovo, Dominican Republic, Beirut, Mogadishu, Mayaguez, Cuba, and so on ) as wars. The author here is not using our definition of war. That is why I insist on our definition, to be able to determine when the nation was in a war, declared by Congress, IAW its constitutional duties, and a war which would result in the destruction and disappearance of America itself (ONLY the AMREV and WW II; maybe the U.S. Civil War which, if lost, would have seen the disappearance of the United States of America).
Next we’ll move into the diplomacy relating to conflict with England, Mexico, the Monroe Doctrine, and up to the U.S. Civil War. Diplomacy does not end where/when war begins. Diplomacy continues at a more frenetic pace. We are reminded of Carl von Clausewitz’s dictum that war is the continuation of politics by other means. Can it not be said then that one primary use of diplomacy is to return war back to political means? BUT, a key lesson to be learned is that diplomacy must be backed by force (or it won’t work). On we go, dear student .
Study hard
Terms to Know
| colonize | 3 Gs | Reformation |
| Protestantism | globalization | Seven Years War |
| Common Sense | French and Indian War | Enlightenment |
| strategy of avoidance | guerilla | belligerents |
| Anglo-American Treaty of 1783 | antebellum | casus belli |
| worldviews | most-favored-nation |
~END~
26
