Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship with All Nations – Entangling Alliances with None
Proverbs 15:1, 18 “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. A hot-tempered man stirs up dissension, but a patient man calms a quarrel.”
Proverbs 17:14 “Starting a quarrel is like breaching a dam; so drop the matter before a dispute breaks out.”
Principle #25 are the words that Thomas Jefferson gave in his first inaugural address. In the 18th century the United States was becoming more of a power to be reckoned with and the American leaders had a fixed position not to have entangling alliances with any foreign powers unless they were attacked. This was the Founding Fathers’ doctrine of separation.
This was not isolationism – which is to be completely detached from other nations. The desire of our Founding Fathers was to develop a healthy relationship with all nations, but to be separated from any sectional quarrels and international disputes. They wanted to keep American markets open to all countries unless certain countries would engage in hostilities towards the United States. To a great degree they followed the example of Switzerland which remained free from any entangling alliances during two world wars and other numerous European quarrels. Switzerland had no hostility towards any other nation unless threatened. However, they were open to all who wanted to come to Switzerland to buy, sell, or bank. This doctrine of separatism was practiced by the early American leaders.
George Washington’s description of foreign relations was to “observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.” Washington was aware of the natural tendency to classify nations as friends or enemies. In other words, what he was saying was that in the absence of any political, military or commercial hostility towards the United States every effort should be made to cultivate friendship with all.
Washington also warned about becoming too attached to any particular nation because by giving special privilege to any nation could open the United States up to foreign influences that would be detrimental to the security of the United States. In one sentence Washington’s foreign policy would be: to extend commercial relationships with them and with as little political connection as possible. Perhaps one of the dangers that our Founding Fathers saw was to weave the destiny of the United States with any other part of the world.
What Washington sensed about entangling the United States with any foreign alliances was the same thing regarding commercial ties and having what is known as ‘favored nations.’
One place where the United States did different from Switzerland was that the founders accepted the doctrine of “Manifest Destiny.” What does Manifest Destiny mean? It meant that there was responsibility for the moral and political “emancipation of all mankind.” In other words, freedom, education, and progress was in the thinking of the early American leaders. They saw the United States as a design by Providence for the emancipation of mankind over all the earth. Even today we see how millions are wanting to immigrate to America.
The first 125 years America carried on the policy of the separatism and pursuing a manifest destiny to encourage freedom in the rest of the human race. However, here in the United States, especially in financial circles, there have been powerful forces seeking to push America into the thick of things happening worldwide. A very good book to read would be The Creature from Jekyll Island that gives the history of how the Federal Reserve came into existence and with the political and financial powers in back of it, and how the United States was pushed into some of the conflicts of the 20th century. Often what happens in situations like this is that through a crisis, created or real, and through propaganda we are pushed into something that has no real bearing upon the security of the United States.
Perhaps a question that we could ask ourselves is: Would the world be better off if the United States had been following a policy of ‘separatism’ as the world’s great peacemaker instead of ‘internationalism’ as the world’s great policeman?
One thing that comes to me today is that we live in a world that has changed dramatically. We live in a world where information is exchanged at the speed of light, intercontinental travel can be done in hours and we have the ability to see what is raging not only around us, but on the other side of the world. With all of this in mind and thinking through the principle that our Founding Fathers laid down, what should be our line of action – peacemaker or policeman?
We need to keep in mind that although no one wants war, it is a fool who believes that Liberty requires no defense.