← Hillsdale College Podcast Network Superfeed
Loading summary
Transcript11 lines
- [00:09]
A
Welcome to the Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast. I'm Jeremiah Regan.
- [00:13]
B
And I'm Juan Davos. We are back with the Great American Story, A land of Hope lecture 13 today Becoming a World Power.
- [00:21]
A
So we see Dr. Maclay's point about America experiencing a change after the Civil War from the the country of the founding with its political theory and its understanding of politics and justice, and the more modern American ideas that emerged after the Civil War play out in the realm of foreign policy. In the founding and in the early Republic, the idea was that government is for the protection of its own people, its own citizens, lives, liberty and property, and that we should not rule others without their consent. Which meant we did not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. As John Quincy Adams says, we did not go interfere in the governing of other peoples. We used the government to protect our own people.
- [01:06]
B
And this starts happening a lot because we've talked in previous episodes about having an understanding of justice and what that means. And the progressives, they have a different view of justice, a different understanding of America and what it means to be an American, and that starts affecting their foreign policy. Woodrow Wilson is elected in 1812 and he is a progressive and brings a different understanding of nature and of constitutionalism. And he's very overt about it and starts changing how America interacts with other countries around the world.
- [01:43]
A
Even before the election of Wilson, we saw the different philosophy put into practice in the Spanish American War in which America in 1898 participated in revolution in Cuba and took the Philippines from the Spanish. So these mark a change in the way Americans viewed themselves in the world. And we can think about it, try to put ourselves in the shoes of the progressives. If there is tyranny and injustice somewhere in the world and someone has the ability to fix it, they should do so. That's kind of the idea that the progressives had. There's also some self interest involved there. The Philippines and Cuba provided some economic opportunities, but there was also a big hearted idea that we should try to extinguish tyranny. This is different from the founding view, which was that human nature has a good side and a bad side and we can't solve all the problems of the bad side throughout the world. And we ought not to try because we will inevitably compromise justice and liberty for our own citizens.
- [02:44]
B
If you're interested in American foreign policy, we have an entire course dedicated to it. I is taught by Michael Anton. He's a lecturer in politics at Hillsdale and a member of the National Security Council staff in both George W. Bush and Donald Trump's administrations. So I encourage you to go to Hillsdale. Edu course. That's Hillsdale Edu course and enrolling in American Foreign Policy to go into a little bit more detail on the changes that we see throughout American history and how we interact with other nations around the world.
- [03:16]
A
Now let's turn back to Dr. Maclay for lecture 13 of the great American Story, A Land of Hope Becoming a World Power.
- [03:30]
C
Hello, and welcome back. In this lecture, Becoming a World Power, we're going to look at the way in which America emerges after its civil conflict, after its period of internal growth as a world power operating on the world stage. We've not had a lot to say so far about American foreign policy, because foreign policy has not yet really established itself as a prominent theme in American history. It certainly interjects itself at times in the early decades of the country's history. But after the War of 1812, there is what I call a kind of respite, a period of time in which the United States could absent itself from involvement in world affairs, by and large, and concentrate on its sectional dispute, and then healing from the sectional dispute and beginning to exploit the tremendous acquisitions that took place over the first half of the 19th century. This didn't mean that the United States was completely uninvolved in the rest of the world. The word isolationism is a familiar term. It nearly always represents an exaggeration when applied to American history. No country that was as involved in foreign trade as the United States, no country that had as many immigrants from all over the world that retained a vital sense of connection to their country of origins. No such country could imagine a time in which it was completely uninterested in and uninvolved in the affairs of the world. But it remained the case that for the United States, this was a time of respite, a time in which the involvement in foreign affairs was sparse, the occasions of foreign involvement were few, and the controversies at home were more than enough to occupy the attention of Americans. I've called it a respite, but in many ways it is seen, or was seen, and maybe still is, by many Americans as the nation's natural state, as a continental republic, insulated from the rest of the world by two large oceans providing a protective buffer. This is a concept of America that's very compatible, in a way, with John Winthrop's notion of city on a hill, although we should remember that that wasn't the concept of America. It was a concept of Puritan Massachusetts Bay. More to the point, it's compatible with George Washington's Farewell Address, with the image portrayed there of a United States that should avoid entangling alliances, permanent connections that involve it, that implicate it in the affairs of other countries in an ongoing and permanent way, particularly the countries of Western Europe. A certain disposition towards apartness seems to be part of the American character and the American mission. The most memorable statement of this, an eloquent statement of it perhaps, was given in 1821 on the 4th of July by the then Secretary of State and a future president, John Quincy Adams. It was a long, eloquent speech, very intellectually ambitious, well worth reading. It's an account of a vision of America as the greatest of all carriers of enlightenment and liberty for all humankind. And yet, after reading the entire Declaration of Independence and giving a thoughtful explication of it, Adams went on to conclude with an apologia of sorts and a warning of sorts. I'm going to quote both of them at length because it's an exceptionally eloquent speech and it states in a very memorable way one particular view of what America's disposition towards the rest of the world should be. To the question, what is America doing for the rest of the world for the benefit of mankind? Is it just sort of staying back in self satisfied splendor and letting the rest of the world go to hell in a handbasket? He put it better than that. Adams replied thusly said this America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature and the only lawful foundation of government. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, equal justice and equal rights. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles for which she clings as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. Somewhat florid language at times. Whenever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be her heart, her benedictions and her prayers. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She's a champion and vindicator only of her own. She does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. These were very powerful words, and they were adduced in the service of a compelling argument, one that's deep in the American grain as of 1821, and remaining so for many years to come, maybe even unto the present day, in some quarters, Adams could have chosen to build on these words. But he concluded with a warning, as I said, that such endeavors would endanger the very soul of America. And I continue. She knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit. These again are words very deep in the American grain. We've already seen in the language of the Antifedalists, such as Patrick Henry, warnings about the moral dangers of an overly powerful consolidated national government. So he's merely echoing those familiar jibes and concerns. Yet the tone of the speech as a whole was overwhelmingly celebratory. It articulated a long standing, deep seated American preference for republican institutions, constitutional institutions around the world, pride in the belief that the history was moving in their direction, with America leading the way, but cautioning against direct involvement in the furthering of those movements. These again are very powerful words, very indicative of a path of American foreign policy really, for much of the rest of the 19th century. And yet they do sit uneasily with another Adams project, that is the Monroe Doctrine, which bears James Monroe's name, but which he largely drafted. And you'll recall this was a document that declared that the United States would regard the Western hemisphere as off limits to any further European colonization, and by implication assigned to the United States the role of hegemonic governor of that portion of the world. How does that work then with the principle of non interference? If the United States is to be the supervisory power in the whole Western hemisphere, does that fit well with the never going in search of monsters to destroy doctrine? This was a problem that would come to bedevil the the American enterprise in the years ahead. So really, the word respite does turn out to be the right word. It's a period of time in which, thanks to a confluence of events such as the British Navy's control of the seas, the British having become a reliable and cooperative partner of the United States, eventually a world class US Navy would be needed, and by the end of the 19th century, the country would begin to have one. But that was an expense that needn't be incurred at this particular time. Another question though. What about Manifest Destiny? What about that impulse which was certainly not a John Quincy Adams concern. But it was a concern of much of the rest of the nation. Was there any reason why Manifest Destiny should cease at the water's edge Just because the goal of a continental continent spanning republic had been reached? Was there a way of squaring the continuation of that impulse with the American tradition of republicanism of self rule? Was there a way of doing that without it lapsing into imperialism, the very thing that the United States rebelled against in its own revolution? The concept of imperialism was getting more and more currency in the world. Around the world, most of the major European nations and even a few minor ones were getting into the game, as was Japan in the Far East. Frantically seeking out material acquisitions and new markets for goods as well as this is no small part of it, the prestige and power associated with the acquisition of an empire. Great Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, all of them were involved in empire building or empire maintenance. This was an idea that had taken hold of the elite classes, ruling classes around the world. This put such countries, in the United States in particular, on a collision course with fundamental liberal principles. Principles of inherent human equality and liberty. Principles that were also on the rise in the civilized world. Some imperialists merely ignored these principles or granted them something less than universal status. Often recurring to Darwinian or pseudo Darwinian notions of the superiority of particular races and the need of the superior classes or superior races to have a supervisory role with respect to lower, lower, lesser races. That this was simply the way of nature itself. This was a sort of paternalism, a notion of the civilizing mission of the advanced nations of the world. It could have a religious dimension coming out of the so called social gospel. That is the notion that Christianity was less about supernatural concerns about redemption, about justification and salvation of the individual soul, and more about the reformation of the world, the bringing about of peace and plenty and harmony and social justice. So in that view, the Christian nations of Europe and the United States had a definitive role, a moral obligation to spread the benefits of their institutions in ways and beliefs to the rest of the world. But the driving force behind imperial ideas in America was not so much the social gospel as it was a small group of thinkers and public officials who became convinced for a variety of reasons, that the United States had to have overseas possessions as a necessary next step in its development. One of the chief intellectuals who promoted this idea was Alfred Thayer Mahand, A naval officer, strategic thinker, whose book on the influence of sea power in history was enormously influential book in gearing American thinking about foreign policy and about the role of an American navy forward into the future. Mahan realized that a world spanning commercial power like the United States was ultimately going to need a large navy to protect its own shipping and to establish coaling stations and other depots around the world to service. So he saw this and others picked up the same idea. Other attentive readers, including a man named Theodore Roosevelt, we'll be hearing about today, then assistant secretary of the navy, were in favor of naval expansion. And Albert Beveridge, senator from Indiana, gave an amazing speech 1898, called the March of the flag, in which he wove together all the elements, economic, religious, humanitarian, commercial, all the elements that entered into the growing pro imperial case in America. Just a portion of that speech. Fate has written our policy for us. The trade of the world must and shall be ours. We shall establish trading posts throughout the world as distributing points for American products. We will cover the ocean with our merchant marine. We will build a navy to the measure of our greatness. Great colonies governing themselves, flying our flag and trading with us will grow about our posts of trade. Well, it remained to be seen whether these great colonies he mentions in his speech would see it in the same way when they came about. Nevertheless, little by little, something that could be called an imperial enterprise began to take shape. The acquisition of Alaska in 1867, which was again a bargain at approximately $7 million, although it was referred to as Seward's folly at the time after the then secretary of state. But it proved to be a farsighted choice whose wisdom's been borne out is apparent. Then the islands of Samoa and Hawaii were acquired. These were small steps. A much larger step came with Cuba, which was a Spanish colony, one that was rocked periodically by insurrectionary disturbances and unsuccessful revolts against the increasingly ruthless rule of the Spaniards, whose empire had diminished tremendously since the time of the clash of the armada. The United States looked on with interest, Partly because Cuba was so close, Partly because Americans sympathized with the Cuban cause, partly because American commercial interests were bound up in Cuba. And when an insurrection broke out In February of 1895, the Spanish government sent in troops to put it down. Brutally, the American public began to turn against the Spanish rule in Cuba, and their curiosity was fed by the relentless sensationalistic preoccupation of the American press with Spanish atrocities against the Cuban people. The competing newspapers in New York World and the New York Journal were locked in a circulation war, and they used the Cuban situation as a means of boosting interest and boosting circulation among their leaders. These were examples of what came to be called yellow journalism. The new printing technologies allowed for as many as six daily editions of papers, so the stories were constantly rolling. And rural delivery of the mail could bring one of these editions daily to even the most remote areas of the country. It's no exaggeration to say public opinion was inflamed by this coverage. And humanitarian concern with the plight of the Cubans was at a high pitch. If there was ever a monster worth going abroad to destroy, this was, it seemed, one. Public outrage can be hard for public officials to ignore, and Democratic president then Grover Cleveland managed to avoid being pushed into war. But it was not easy. When the Republican McKinley was elected in 1896, the tenor of American foreign policy changed somewhat. McKinley had run on a platform supporting the idea of Cuban independence and the construction of a canal crossing connecting the Caribbean with Pacific Ocean. He had actually been in negotiations with the Spanish about the latter when abruptly, suddenly, on February 15th of 1898, the American battleship Maine, which was docked in Havana harbor. It was there to help protect American business interests, exploded and it was destroyed. Ended up quickly at the bottom of Havana harbor with a loss of 260 men, 2/3 of her crew, and many of the survivors badly wounded. Well, the response to this was immediate. It was seized on by the press as a clear example of Spanish perfidy, although it was not clear exactly what had caused the explosion. And the general consensus now is that it was caused by an internal explosion aboard the ship and not by a mine or other external action. But we've experienced in our own lives how quickly news media can seize on an explanation which the public then seizes on from the news media. And it can be very hard to rectify that once that took hold. So now McKinley was facing the heat of public opinion. And Theodore Roosevelt, who was always ready for a good war, said the sinking was an act of dirty treachery on the part of the Spaniards and said that McKinley had no more backbone than a chocolate eclair. Yet McKinley prudently tried to avoid war, as did most of his supporters in the business community. Finally, the wrath of the public became too much for him and he went to the Congress seeking a declaration of war. The war that ensued was very brief. John Hay referred to it. John Hay had been Lincoln's personal secretary, was part of the group, the pro imperialism group in the government. John Hay called it a splendid little war, which I guess it was short. Whether it was splendid or not, I think depended on your point of view. It lasted 114 days and was an unmitigated defeat for the Spanish, who came to refer to the war itself. Is el desastre a word I don't think I need to translate. In many ways, the Spanish American war marked the end of the Spanish empire as any kind of coherent entity. The peace that would follow would be a great victory for the United States. The United States was now catapulted onto the world stage as one of the world's great powers, Having now proven itself in battle. But as with every victory, a new set of problems came. And one of the problems was immediately presenting itself was the problem of the Philippines. The Philippines had been part of the Spanish empire. The Philippines, particularly the port port of Manila, had been one of the places where one of the chief battles of the war had been fought. With the collapse of Spanish rule in the Philippines, There was a real problem as to whether there would be a sufficient civilian source of authority to hold the country together to govern. And it was not clear if Americans were going to be involved in that process. How and whether the governance of the Philippines under American auspices could be done in a way consistent with American principles of self rule and democracy. The territory couldn't be given back to Spain or some other country. There was a strong view that the country was not in a condition to govern itself. Very little thought had been given to the possibility the United States might annex the Philippines, make it part of the United States. And some of the imperialists were attracted to this idea. So the stage was set for a great national debate about what to do with regard to the Philippines. While there was a wide diversity of opinion, There was certainly basically a polarization between imperialists and anti imperialists. The anti imperialists were very varied in their background. Some of them opposed annexation because they were idealistic. They saw any such move as a violation of the nation's fundamental conscience, of its soul, of its essence, that the Constitution should always follow the flag. In other words, the flag representing American power should not be imposed without the civil liberty and self governance protections and powers of the Constitution. Otherwise, Americans were ruling over people in a way that was not consonant with American principles. There were other less attractive elements in the opposition. The anti imperialist school. There were ethnic and racial prejudices entangled with the idealism. The notion that annexation of the Philippines might bring alien peoples who would compete with American laborers for employment was prominent in the thinking of people like Samuel Gompers, the head of the American Federation of Labor. Matters were complicated further by the fact that there was a civilian government that had arisen in The Philippines under Emilio Aguinaldo. And this anti Spanish insurrectionary movement, which had existed before the war, had a certain amount of credibility in the minds of some Filipinos. So what ensued was American war against the anti insurrectionary forces of the Philippines. What led to more deaths that lasted much longer and led to more deaths and more destruction, more conflict by far, than the American war against the Spanish had itself. Fortunately, McKinley appointed an excellent governor for the Philippines, William Howard Taft, a future president, and provisions were made that the Philippines would eventually gain their own independence. And that would finally happen in 1946,
- [29:54]
D
after 48 years of American sovereignty, the people of the Philippines assumed the status of an independent nation. The transfer is made on the 4th of July, a day full of significance for these Yanks. Huge crowds jam Manila to watch the birth of the republic, which regains its independence through the voluntary action of the American people. In a message, President Truman assured our continued support. Manuel Rojas, newly elected to the presidency, takes the oath of office as Ambassador Paul McNutt looks on.
- [30:31]
C
This was not the only problem facing the United States. As a result of the ambiguous status of the lands over which it had acquired sway. At the conclusion of the Spanish American War, Puerto Rico was given a sort of neither entirely in nor entirely out commonwealth status, which it still has today is still undecided today. When Cuba was given a new constitution, it contained in itself something called the Platt Amendment, which was authorizing the United States to intervene in Cuba whenever it felt it was necessary for the preservation of Cuban independence and for the maintenance of government adequate for the protection of life, property and individual liberty. It's not hard to understand why the Cubans found this a galling proposition. Imagine the United States Constitution having such a provision for British intervention, or something comparable to that. So there was always a divided heart in the American outlook on foreign affairs, particularly in the wake of the Spanish American War. America didn't go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. But America had a growing role in the world notwithstanding. How to reconcile those two things became a problem. Moving ahead with the preservation of American institutions and ideals at war in some ways, with the national responsibilities of the nation ever expanding into an ever more interconnected world. Similarly, the divided heart of America, between reverence for its founding and its founding document and the feeling that perhaps a changed world might require changed governance, changed ideas, changed institutions, also bedeviled the national discussion in the years ahead, the years we call the Progressive Era, that will be the subject of our next lecture. Thank you.
- [32:45]
B
Thank you for listening to this episode of the Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast if you want to continue learning, please visit hillsdale.edu course. There you will find over 40 free online courses, including Ancient Christianity, the Genesis Story, Classic Children's Literature, and many more. The courses include additional readings, study guides, fully produced videos, and you can chat with your fellow students on a dedicated forum. Upon completing a course, you will also get a certificate. All our courses are free because we believe that what you'll learn will enrich your life and that a virtuous citizen is the best defense for liberty. So pursue the education necessary for freedom and Happiness at Hillsdale. Edu CourseToday. That's Hillsdale. Edu Course. Thanks for listening.