The Founding Fathers got it right from the beginning
George Washington, and the other founding fathers of our republic, got it right from the beginning in saying the United States should mind its own business and never interfere in the internal affairs another nation. And, they said, we should never attack another nation, unless it is in our vital interests to do so, or join in the wars of other nations.
The Constitution allows Congress to grant Letters of Marque
Soon after the Continental Congress ratified the Constitution of the United States, which under Article I § 8., authorized Congress “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal… the effect of which was to give Congress the power to declare war, and grant license to private vessels and armies to attack the enemy in order to avoid or avenge injuries to the United States. Letters of Marque and Reprisal have been a part of English Common Law since 1354.
In his recent article Is Tribalism the Future?, Patrick J. Buchanan gives us an excellent analysis of why our government should never be in the business of nation building. He said this is true because we have little or no idea of the internal make up and workings of other nations; therefore, we can have no idea of the consequences that will result from our interference.
We know little to nothing of other nations, so we should quit meddling
It reasonable to say this is especially true in the case of countries in the Middle-East that have been cobbled together to suit the whims of their former colonizers. This total lack of knowledge has been manifested by the outcome of every skirmish, conflict, and out-and-out war we have engaged in, in the 20th century and so far in the 21st.
The Lord God has shown us to be meddling muddleheaded bunglers and hatemongers time and again
Consider the consequences of our joining the “great” war that was to become known as WWI or the War to End All Wars, as it was known at the time. That war unleashed a monster on the world that arose from the ruins of its aftermath before they could be repaired or rebuilt, and before the economy of the conquered could be healed—not that the economy of the conquered was likely to be healed soon, or ever for that matter. Such were the consequences of the damages inflicted by the allies on the conquered. Incidentally, it was France and the American Henry Morgenthau, Sr., which led the fight to make the consequences of that war as draconian, ruinous, and hateful as possible. The effect of this hatefulness was the cause of WWII.
I would add that hatefulness, which was so atypical of the America we believe in represented perhaps the most demeaning moment in American history.
Had we—the United States of America—been forced to suffer under the weight of such draconian, ruinous, and hateful damages as did the Germans after WWI, what do you think our response would have been had a politician, who acted and spoke with the mesmerizing power of a great, charismatic leader, come to us and promised:
- I will put a potato on every pot.
- I will fill your bellies.
- I will provide jobs with a living wage.
- I will cloth you with work uniforms.
- I will build roads.
- I will rebuild our factories and make them better.
- I will give you jobs that provide a living wage.
If, in keeping those promises, he:
- Provided not just one potato for every pot, but filled every pot with potatoes.
- Filled our bellies with good, nourishing, tasty food.
- Created jobs for everyone with wages that made luxuries affordable.
- Clothed us with fine garments fit for all occasions.
- Built the first national freeway system in the world.
- Rebuilt our factories and built affordable automobiles called people’s cars.
I wonder how we would have responded? I suspect that we would have said, “Heil Hitler (or hail Obama, or whomever),” which, of course, is exactly how the Germans responded after Hitler started delivering many fold on his promises.
See why America should mind its own business?
This is just one example of how wrong headed it is for us when we join in the wars of other nations and meddle in their affairs. The most lasting legacy of WWI was WWII. Had we not joined in the fight of WWI, WWII would likely not have come to pass, and we and the world would be the richer for it. It will serve us right and show us in a good light to ourselves and to the rest of the world, if in the future we simply mind our own business henceforth. We seem to have enough trouble here at home to keep us busy for a long, long time to come. Let us get our own house in order and let others do the same.
I str0ngly suggest anyone who has read this far to read the comments that follow. Reading the comments related to this article is much more important than usual, although reading the comments is always a worthwhile thing to do.
What do you think? Agree or disagree, give the rest of us the benefit of your considered thoughts.
Related articles
- The Former American Republic (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
- High Crimes (trueconservatism115.wordpress.com)
- Congress Delivered Articles of Impeachment for tyrant Obama (anationbeguiled.wordpress.com)
No related posts.
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
Over 50 years ago an old man gave me some advise for life. He showed me an old syle electric light turned on by pulling a string.”If you pull to weakly it doesn’t go on, but if you pull too hard it breaks”. Those were his words. The same with the foreign affairs issue. The Father of of our country, George Washington, said to “avoid foreign entanglements”. However a few years later the Barbary Coast Pirates attacked American shipping. Then President Jefferson ordered the US Navy and Marines to take action. That’s why the Marines Hymn says-TO THE SHORES OF TRIPOLI-………Discretion must be used. Wilson did send arms to England, just looking for an event like the sinking of the Lusitania, by the Germans. This was in order to get us involved in the First World War..FDR couldn’t get it through his head that he was an American, not a British Subject……….Discretion must be used. In the 21st century the whole world is inter-connected……………….
Allan,
Thanks for you comment.
The Barbary Coast attack authorized by President Jefferson was in keeping with the dictum that we have a right to defend our vital interests against attack by foreign powers. U.S. shipping is one such a vital interest.
The actions of President Wilson were deplorable for the same reasons as those that got us into our current wars and warlike acts.
Wilson was the father of liberal progressivism. The liberalism and progressivism of such luminaries of liberal progressivism as FDR, the Bush boys, and Obama is based on the Wilsonian model. Yes, the Bushes belong in that grouping; Dubya in particular. He was responsible for the biggest ever growth in the government and the spending.
Wilson openly repudiated the principles of American’s founding. He detested the founders ideal of a government which thought every man should be left alone and not interfered with, except when he interfered with somebody else. He thought we should follow what he called the Glasgow ideal, which was to get the government involved in every detail of private life, when the private sphere failed to live up to the standards of the government.
No, Wilson was not a good choice to boost your argument.
The interconnectedness argument has always been a favorite canard of liberal progressives. The “whole world” has always been interconnected economically.
I’ll put in a more thought-out response in a few days. I’m up to my neck in flare and alligators at the moment.
I am only a partial isolationist. In this world in which we now live, communications are an order of magnitude beyond just post-WWI, much less at the time of the Founding Fathers. The economics and politics of nations are much more intertwined than they were back then.
I don’t believe we should indulge in conquest for the sake of colonization, or for the purpose of regime-change. Our economic interests and needs, however, dictate the free trade of various products. Regimes who interfere or who block trade and refuse accommodation through diplomacy may mean our needs dictate invasion.
Remember the Barbary Pirates during Jefferson’s presidency? That was the start of the US Marine Corps. We took them out – because they were interfering with our shipping, our trade, and our economic interests.
The same thing happened during the Spanish-American War, although the Maine was not sunk by the Spanish. But we didn’t know that for a while.
We got involved in WWI because the Germans were interfering with our trade and sinking our ships. And we got into WWII because the Germans (again) were sinking our ships in the Atlantic. Then Pearl Harbor happened. We declared war on Japan, and to help our ally, Great Britain, we declared war on Germany.
As an aside, we have had ratified treaties with various nations. Our treaty with France pulled us into Vietnam (formerly French Indo-China). They asked, and we responded – under Truman’s administration. Before that, we went into Korea because of our treaties with the United Nations. We were honorable and fulfilled our word on our treaties.
As to Iraq I and Iraq II, our oil interests dictated our interference. First, Iraq invaded Kuwait and the Kuwaitians asked for our help. Then, in 2001, we were attacked for the umpteenth time by Al Qaida (do I really have to list them all?). We responded to that 2 years later. We had good evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Turns out that years later we have had confirmation that they had (probably still have) chemical warfare weapons stockpiled, and also had (have?) stockpiles of biologic weapons. Much of this has been transported on the Q.T. to Iran. Those stockpiles have the potential to wreak havoc on nations that look to us for help – with whom we have treaties which we must honor.
Our techno-society runs on oil. There is not a viable alternative to it, despite all the ex-flippy-dippy-hippies wanting wind, solar and bio-alternatives. There is NOTHING that gives the kind of bang for the buck that oil does. It gives energy, it gives lubrication, it’s byproducts give the products that allow us to have motherboards and other petroleum-based computer necessities.
We need oil, and we are willing to pay for it. Interference with free trade of oil is interference with our national interests.
And so, we have a very deep interest in the oil-producing nations – including those in the Middle East, the Russian Confederation, Mexico, and Brazil, for a few. The paradox of our having more oil than all those nations combined but refusing to drill for it is a separate issue and deserving of a major diatribe.
Another one is the Somalian pirates. Just don’t get me started.
The above is quick and dirty and fraught with errors, but the sweep of history is pretty accurate.
Cheerio!
Elizabeth
Elizabeth,
Thanks for this comment. It is evident you put a fair amount of thought in it.
Of course, I agree that communications today are much better in all respects today than they were yesteryear, and the economics and the politics of nations are much more intertwined than they were back then. We are also in agreement that President Jefferson was right in attacking the Barbary pirates for interfering with our shipping, and the reasoning that got us into war with the Spanish over the attempted sinking of the Maine. You lose me though on the two world wars.
I agree that both wars followed after we attacking a country that had attack our ships or ships Americans were traveling on and shipping goods by.
WWI might have been avoided, however, had President Wilson listened to William Jennings Bryan, his Secretary of State. Germany had made an offer to Britain, which was that their submarines would follow the rules of cruiser warfare, if the British would disarm their merchant ships. Britain refused and, being the Anglophile that he was, Wilson did not pressure Britain to accept the offer.
Now it must be said, the president wanted to stay out of the war, but his unyielding stand on neutral rights, which he said allowed Americans to travel aboard belligerents’ ships, made that not possible. Bryan believed Wilson had should chosen between his stand on neutral rights and his desire to stay out of the war. He urged Wilson to deny armed merchant ships entry to U.S. ports and to forbid U.S. citizens to travel on vessels belonging to belligerents.
Others besides me, including historians, believe had Wilson taken Bryan’s advice, there might not have been a World War I for America. And I am in good company in believing WWII came out the Versailles treaty that split a defeated Germany in two and left millions of German-speaking peoples cut off from their homeland. That treaty denied the Germans the right of self-determination. The British-lead Starvation Blockade of 1919 of Germany, sealed the deal. Everything else flowed from that atrocious treaty, including the attack on Poland by Germany. Germany attack one their former overlords to regain territory the Versailles treaty had taken split away from the German homeland.
I will touch on our war with Japan another time.
I agree that we have the right to go after those supposed civilian Moslems and others who commit terrorist act after terrorist act against us and our people. Going after them might get us into a war, if a country chose to support the terrorist by not cooperating with us by apprehending those people and turning them to us, or by not cooperating with us in our efforts to stop those people.
Here are my basic thoughts on the myth called Free Trade. No nation has ever risen to pre-eminence through free trade. Britain practiced protectionism before 1848, so did America and Germany from 1865 to 1914, and so did the fascist government of Japan from 1950 to the present. No fascist or socialist country has gone for long without practicing protectionism. That certainly includes China, whose socialism has become tainted with fascism. One might say a fascist country is a socialist country that has discovered free enterprise.
Free trade sure sounds good but one way free trade does not and never will work. Take a trip to see a Chinese Wal-Mart store in China and check to see how many American goods you find there. Then do the same at your local Chinese outlet store.
Our treaties, for the most part, violate the counsel of President George Washington regarding remaining out of foreign entanglements; meaning both trade and defense entanglements.
Our fuel needs can be met with domestic supplies once that is allowed by our government’s interference with fulfilling the power and fuel need of the American people. I understand that for now we need to import oil. But it would take no time to start getting our shale oil reserves out of the ground. And natural gas is just waiting for us to turn the spigot on. Meanwhile I see no need for us to give Brazil and other countries money to explore for oil off our coast in the Gulf of Mexico. And, finally, I see no reason for us not to start using more of our own coal instead of sending it off to China.
Of course, we will need the cooperation of our hateful president who appears to be intent on making America fail so he can make us accept his socialists ideas. His green agenda is part of the plan outlined by more than one of his socialist mentors.
The founding fathers were not too friendly with Roman Catholics. George Washington was buried in Masonic fashion. His Masonic Apron was vested on him for burial.Masons have clandestine connections with Masons world wide.So, his warning against foreign entanglements was a warning against Monarchal governments. (maybe)…. He was appreciative towards Irish Catholic soldiers from New York.. To follow the ideals of Founding Fathers one would follow almost a Free Will Presbyterian practice of Faith….
Allan,
No, your comment is a little strong. I have never thought George Washington was sinless. He had his faults much like everyone I have ever known, including yours truly. It occurs to me that many of us believe there have been only two people who walked the earth who were sinless: Our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ and His All-immaculate Mother, the Theotokos and Ever-virgin Mary. Even John the Forerunner and Baptist was not without sin. So I am hardly taken aback that our founding father and Proto-president of our republic, George Washington, was not perfect in his social and religious judgments. He and the other founding fathers were in virtual agreement, however, on how best to govern our fledgling republic. My reading of history shows they gave him the preeminent position among their number.
President Washington’s being a Mason does not bother me very much. He was a a believing Christian, as well.
It would be much easier to pick on any of the other founding fathers, but they cannot be defeated as a group.
You must remember that times were different then, and you must also take into account that reasonable people, including reasonable Christians, see things differently from you or me or whomever else.
Mary was not sinless, Nowhere in the Bible does it say Mary was without sin. She only found favor in God’s eyes, that doesn’t mean she was without sin.. It says, ” For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…NOT For all have sinned EXCEPT MARY, and fall short of the glory of God. Mary needed Jesus just like the rest of us.
Patrick,
You are correct, of course. Not everything we believe as Christians is in the Holy Bible. The patrimony we have as Christians has been passed down to us in oral tradition. The Holy Bible is one part of that tradition. I was many centuries before the Old Testament was completely written down. Before that, it was all pasted down through oral tradition,too. The whole of that oral tradition, by the way, is call Holy Tradition.
Oh, and as for Mary’s being immaculate, that is sinless, she was without personal sin, but still she was not absolutely sinless. Even Mary, the Theotokos (the Mother of God) was not without need for the saving grace (gift) of the death of her Son on the Cross. As it is written:
Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy great mercy; and according to the multitude of thy compassions blot out my transgression. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I am conscious of mine iniquity; and my sin is continually before me. 4 Against thee only have I sinned, and done evil before thee: that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. For, behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me (Psalm 51:1-5, LXX).
It was true even of her, the very Mother of God, that Mother Mary “was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did [her] mother conceive [her].” It was her conception and birth that were the sole source of her sinfulness. So, unlike what the Roman Catholic Church claims, hers was not an immaculate conception. Only one man was born of an Immaculate Conception. That man was our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
No Mary was not without sin, but she never personally committed a sin. After all, she was the Theotokos and God was not be born of a sinful woman.
My comments were strong, but against historians who do not point out President Washington’s having connections with foreign countries. Being a Mason did require oaths binding him to a secret society, world wide. Also we could not have won the Revolutionary War without the help from France. When American Soldiers landed in France for WWI and WWII, the slogan was “LAFAYETTE WE ARE HERE”……paybacks for help back in the revolutionary times. We sell coal to China in order to get back our currency. There’s enough coal here in the USA to both sell and mine for ourselves coal. This is hundreds of years worth. States in the upper mid-west, sell many billions of dollars of wheat and other grains to foreign purchasers. Pope Leo XIII wrote an “Encyclical Against Americanism”
Allan,
Thank so much for your interest in furthering interest in this post by making thoughtful comments.
Hmm, I am not quite sure what you are driving at concerning George Washington’s connections with foreign countries. I do know he was a model of English prudence and gentlemanly conduct. His military bearing and his constancy as a gentleman where traits that all who knew him noted. I know that toward the end of his first term as president he took a highly controversy stand when he decided that the United States would maintain a policy of neutrality toward the belligerent powers, they being Great Britain, and allies, against France. He took this stand despite all the pro-French leaders in his Cabinet. Jefferson resigned his Cabinet post over this matter.
I am not sure where you might have picked up this idea that President Washington was a strong Mason. He was a Mason for some 30-years or so, but he is only known to have attended three Masonic functions over all those years, and it is highly doubtful that he would have been clothed with a Masonic apron. I think his wife, Martha, would have blanched at the prospect. I understand the pictures showing him with the apron on are rubbish. Gentlemen of the time saw the Masonic lodge as a military lodge where officers and enlisted men could socialize without regard to rank or class. This fondness of the Masonic functions faded later and a mass exodus commenced, when blood oaths and degrees of rank were added in the mid-18-hundreds.
Although President Washington attended Episcopalian services with his wife and step-children, I am not sure you could say he was a strong Christian. Some thought him a nominal Christian, while a few thought him a Deist. We do know from contemporaries that, though quiet about his faith, he was a man of prayer. Late in life he did not receive communion, but that was not unusual for the times when few Christians were frequent communicants. We know that he referenced “Providence,” or other such terms, well over 200 times in his public and private writings. We know also that he believed Christianity was needed to help sustain a moral republic, as evidenced by his famous Farewell Address, in which he wrote, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” Otherwise, I think we would do well to tread cautiously in our speculations on this matter. (The book, “The Question of Freemasonry and the Founding Fathers” by David Barton is a good read, as is “America’s Godly Heritage” by the same author.)
Regarding our selling coal to China: Some of our private coal companies are happy to sell coal to China for the profit it affords them. It has precious little to do with “get[ting] back our currency.” My only point was that coal is a great natural resource of ours and we should put it to good use rather than push a “Green Revolution” to break our economic backs, so Obama can try to usher in his style of Marxist-socialism.
Regarding Pope Leo XII and his TESTEM BENEVOLENTIAE NOSTRAE
“:Concerning New Opinions, Virtue, Nature And Grace, With Regard To Americanism.” I just read that encyclical and found it very well written and instructive. There is not much more to say about that here.
NoBama isn’t a socialist; he’s a warmonger whose goal is donations from corporations associated with warring so he can get re-elected. He’s a totally selfish human being who wouldn’t help anyone (socialism is helping the disabled, illiterate, poor, etc) if there wasn’t something in it for himself, personally.
Connie,
Thanks for your comment.
Hah, one wag wondered if Obama was a Republican since he seems as enamored of Wall Street types and wealthy industrialists, and the money they have to feed his coffers in exchange for his support of the tax loopholes that benefit them, as he is of show business people, and anyone who pays him obeisance. As you know, we are in agreement on the subject of his narcissistic egoism. Also, as you know, we part company on the subject of socialism.
The concept of socialism is heavenly in every respect except in practice. An exception to that model is a colony of ants. They practice perfect socialism, as far as we can see. Actually, socialism works among small societies of people though, as long as those people are associated because of some common goal higher they, to which they can dedicate themselves. Such a higher goal would most probably be some heavenly—there’s that word again—goal, such as a closer union with the divine object of their love and esteem. The Christian God would be a good example. Such an association is what a monastic community aspires to be, but even in that circumstance where one would assume they are striving to be all-around better people, some of the people united in that effort are psychologically more selfless than the others.
Speaking of selflessness and socialism reminds me that the one thing socialism has accomplished in every large society or nation is it has served to rob the inhabitants of all incentive to produce or be productive in any way. They, that is those people, often ask the question why should they be productive since they get paid the same whether they work hard of lull around waiting for the clock to strike quitting time.
I know this is true from my many acquaintances and friend from the former Soviet Union (CCCP) and their captive nations in eastern Europe. I asked one such friend from the Soviet Union, who had obtained a Hydropower Engineering degree, why she did not go to the water districts in our area and apply for a job. Her answer was, sure she had obtained a degree in hydropower degree from Moscow University, but… and it was a big BUT, she had hardly attended classes while there, so she knew nothing at all about hydropower.
In theory socialism sounds heavenly (good) for everyone; in practice socialism is heavenly (good) for the leaders, hell (bad) for the workers.
Lawrence,
You certainly know how to pose challenging questions! I don’t think there’s any easy answer. Certainly a war is justified if a country is being invaded. And one’s cultural allies deserve one’s support. I’d like to think that the U.S. would not hesitate to go to the defense of Canada, the U.K., or Australia. And one’s immediate neighbors. Surely it would be in our interest to help Mexico repel a foreign invasion.
As for this Middle East quaqmire,—oil or no oil, becoming entangled with these vastly different cultures is something we are going are going to regret for a thousand years.
Maeve,
Thanks so much for your vote of confidence in my ability to be provocative.
You said you hope we would come to the defense of Canada, the U.K., Australia, or Mexico. Well, all of those states are important to us and our well-being to one extent or another, and chances are we would come to their defense. However, and especially in the case of Mexico, the reason they are being attacked, and by whom, would be a consideration as to whether our coming to their defense would be in our vital interests. I am very confident there would be no doubt of our coming to the defense of the U.K. or Australia, and just a smidgin less confident in the case of Canada.
I totally agree that we will regret getting into the quagmire that is the Middle-East. We have no idea of who these people are, what their culture is and is not, or how they think. As far as we are concerned, they might as well be from another planet.