[themeek]

Hey now. I said political involvement (other countries saying 'yes' or 'no'). Certainly the US has always engaged in trade and self defense. You've argued a straw man.

Basic history of the United States is that it was, broadly, a non-interventionist nation that refused to get involved in other nations wars. You are the one who has mischaracterized basic history.

"She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations, while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama, the European World, will be contests between inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But 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. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example."

[dragontamer]

> Basic history of the United States is that it was, broadly, a non-interventionist nation that refused to get involved in other nations wars.

I do think the Native Americans would beg to differ. (Indian Removal Act of 1830). Furthermore, the American explicit foreign policy was "Stay out of America so that we can colonize it better". That included South America and the Central America island countries as well.

In 1878 for example, we sailed our Navy to Samosa and threatened war with Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Convention

The current topic is about a trade dispute regarding the purchase of American Pesticides in Europe. America always had foreign policy and trade disputes.

Now, I agree that during the 1850s, US Foreign Relations more or less stood still. There was something called the Civil War, and we kind of didn't focus on foreign affairs.

Pretending that we were always an isolationist nation is an error! Our rise as a world power (and global politics) began almost immediately after we rebuilt during the Civil War.

Before the Civil War, America wasn't exactly powerful enough to push other nations around in global politics. But we definitely pushed the Native Americans around and expanded with Manifest Destiny, and utilized the Monroe Doctrine to keep other European Countries from settling the region. To claim the Monroe doctrine as a "isolationist" strategy misses the point of Manifest Destiny... American Ambitions to conquer all the land from east coast to west coast is evident even as early as the 1830s.

US-Mexico War, as well as other "threatened wars" (54/40 or fight), various boarder disputes with Canada.... all show the ambitions of the fledgling United States.

The concept of "Manifest Destiny" drove our foreign politics at the time. And that was _anything_ but isolationist.

--------------

Here's another major counterexample: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_Act_of_1807

And all of the other (most certainly NOT isolationist) events that pissed of Britain enough that it led to the war of 1812.

[themeek]

I agree that the US was a colonialist nation leading up the 1900s. The tribal peoples of Mexico, South America and North America were not recognized as nations of their own. I know that isn't a very satisfying distinction, but you can see the point.

The article on the Embargo Act itself reads: "The Embargo Act of 1807 was a general Embargo that made illegal any and all exports from the United States. It was sponsored by President Thomas Jefferson and enacted by Congress. The goal was to force Britain and France to respect American rights during the Napoleonic Wars. They were engaged in a major war; the U.S. wanted to remain neutral and trade with both sides, but neither side wanted the other to have the American supplies." That's exactly in line with the thesis.

Regarding Samoa and Germany/Phillipines and Spain - this is when these policies began to change. They bubbled from the late 1800s and broke in the early 1900s.

I think there's a narrative difference here: the US broadly did not align themselves with other nations into treaties of peace and of war. The "founding fathers" specifically discussed the danger of political entanglement with other nations - the danger of allowing them to say "yes" and to say "no".

I feel like your interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, of the Embargo Act and of Manifest Destiny are not charitable for these reasons. Of course the US was not 'isolationist'. I termed it 'non-interventionist'. Even that is not a good term, but what was meant I think is clear.

Yes the US engaged in colonialism and in trade. But it did not involve itself in the spirit of the top post: allowing other nations to have a "yes" or "no" say. It made declarations like the Monroe Doctrine. It did not make treaties like NATO or like TTIP. Categorically these are different in kind than what happened before the 1900s.

Part of that is due to a changing world (I say this in my top post). But the US was also under a different international political disposition.

[dragontamer]

I disagree with your characterization of the TTIP.

TTIP is a trade agreement. It is the conditions under which American legislatures will declare various trades legal or illegal.

The Embargo Act of 1807 was specifically designed to tell Great Britain: "STOP DRAFTING OUR SAILORS!". (It failed spectacularly at doing that... but that was clearly the intent). We saw what Great Britain was doing, we didn't like what they were doing, and we created a trade policy (ie: stop all trade... everywhere) in an attempt to punish Great Britain.

The difference is that TTIP is more nuanced and better reasoned. It is also more intricate in defining what is and isn't a trade violation.

You're right, we care more about American Exports today because we have an understanding of how American jobs will be affected by TTIP. By pushing American Chemicals on the TTIP, we are favoring American trade.

Now European health groups will push back. But in the end, the trade dispute will probably benefit all countries involved.

[themeek]

I would say the difference is one of declaration rather than deliberation.

The Embargo Act was a declaration. TTIP is a negotiation.

But let's collapse this conversation back to the top, shall we? My response (and the arguments contained in the conversation that ensued) was to the claim that the "founding fathers" would have liked for other nations to check-and-balance the US; that they would have liked there to be political interdependence, even veto power from other nations.

That commenter said "On the global scale, more countries need to say "no" to keep the US government in check. It's what the founding fathers would have wanted"

This is not the case. It is only past century of America has been okay with this. Before the turn, and as argued by the "founding fathers" themselves, America was against political entanglement.

[dragontamer]

In the context of the original post and your original response, I can agree with that statement. I'm thinking of situations where I don't agree in general... but I don't think it'd be useful to bring them up.

+1