Wisdom of the 90’s (Part TWO)

If you haven’t read the previous post, it might be a good idea to do so before you read this one.  It sets the stage for what will be coming next...

Welcome to Wisdom of the 90’s, Part TWO, “Loyalty, Lineage, or Logic?”

- - - - - - - - - -

At the end of the first part of this we were left wondering what the American people and government should do about France.  This question became unavoidable when Revolutionary France went to war with Britain, and both sides demanded our help and loyalty.

The American people asked themselves how two revolutions based on the same premises and with similar goals – the American Revolution and the French Revolution - could have yielded such different results.  In the United States, after a long war, monarchy was rejected, a new government was installed, and human rights were affirmed and enshrined.  In France, the Reign of Terror led to genocide of the nobility, dictators took control (although in the name of the people), and the new French nation began warring with neighboring countries. 

The American people wondered about the differences between the American Revolution and the French Revolution.  Some tried to explain why one revolution resulted in a peaceful and prosperous nation, but the other resulted in genocide and war.  Some of the explanations:

·    The American people were perhaps morally or intellectually superior, as compared to the French people. 

·    American society, being made up of immigrants from many places, was more tolerant of differences (political or religious or philosophical) than French society.

·    The oppression laid upon the American colonists before the revolution was not as severe as that laid upon the French peasant classes before their revolution; thus the reaction was more violent.

·    The superior quality of American leadership in the form of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and others, exercised a moderating effect as opposed to French leadership in the form of Richelieu, and later, Bonaparte.

·    The homeland of the Americans was not the ancestral homeland; thus the King and the old system could be rejected without being destroyed. 

The French Revolution set up a situation for the United States in which all the ordinary options were unacceptable.  The choice based on heritage (alliance with Britain) would result in catastrophic involvement in a bloody European war, with American bloodshed, economic devastation, and potential loss of freedom.  The choice based on philosophical (democratic) solidarity, which was also the choice based on obligation (alliance with France) would result in catastrophic involvement in a bloody European war, with American bloodshed, economic devastation, and potential loss of freedom.  

The differences of opinion about the French Revolution, and the American reaction to it, provided the first opportunity for factions within the United States to take political sides.  This situation provided the first opportunity for political parties to form within the new nation.

Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, lead the faction which supported France.  [This faction later became the “Democratic-Republican” party.]  His side argued that France had helped the United States achieve independence, that France was only attempting to do what the United States had already done by throwing off the chains of monarchial oppression.  They argued that the United States could not in good conscience stand by while those who had helped her, those who were most like her in spirit and dedication to liberty, were beaten down by the old forces of tyranny.

Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury, and John Adams, the Vice President and former Ambassador to Britain, led a group which took a different approach.  [This faction later became the “Federalist” party.]  They claimed that, revolution notwithstanding, American ties to Britain were greater than those to France.  They argued that the American values for which the American Revolution had been fought, originated in the concept of the Rights of Englishmen.   They argued that bonds of language, history, kinship, and economy demanded that the United States affiliate itself with Britain.  They further argued, particularly once the Reign of Terror had begun, that what was happening in France was not so much liberty as anarchy, or possibly oppression from another source.

The choice based on logic, which offered the possibility of avoiding catastrophic results, was neutrality.  The problem with that was that neutrality would’ve upset both sides asking for our assistance, would likely have resulted in American shipping and economic interests being targeted by both sides.  While neutrality likely would have prevented outright war on American soil, it also likely would have resulted in devastation of American international trade, and would have aggravated diplomatic grievances at a time when the new nation was seeking broader acceptance in the international community.

To sum it up, there were essentially three options, as they were framed for President Washington. 

(1)  The Idealists claimed that the United States should support the people of France, who helped them win their independence, who share similar democratic values, by taking the French side in the war with Britain.  They demanded the US support her philosophical brothers and sisters, the intellectual descendants of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, the French Revolutionaries.  They also pointed out that the United States had a treaty that required the United States to ally with France.

(2)  Those who valued historic and cultural ties said the United States should reject the bloodstained French Revolution and support the side with whom they shared greater historic, cultural, linguistic, familial, and economic ties by taking the British side in the war with France.  They pointed out that the treaty with France had been accomplished with the French monarchy, whom the revolutionaries had overthrown, and thus was no longer in effect.

(3)  A few appealed to logic.  They said that involvement in a bitter European war on either side could only damage the new nation, still weak and establishing itself in the world.  They claimed  United States neutrality was the only reasonable option.

The answer is not as obvious as you might think.  Demonstrating exceptional wisdom, President George Washington dealt successfully with the crisis in France by rejecting all these choices.

Okay, we have talked all around the issue.  So What Did He Actually Do?

President Washington chose an uncharted new course of action, one which seemed at first to defy the arguments of all sides.  It was firmly rooted in practical reality, as opposed to abstract logic or precedent or idealism.  It was (amazingly) ethically defensible against any charge of betrayal, or dereliction of duty.  It was remarkable in its obvious understanding of implications. 

Washington insisted that the United States honor its existing treaty with France.  France was pleased that the United States chose to remain an ally.  With the treaty in effect, the United States could not be compelled by the British or their supporters to take action against an ally (France). 

Meanwhile, the American government quietly negotiated a similar treaty with Britain.  Britain was pleased that the United States chose to become an ally.  Thus the American government could not be compelled by the French or their supporters to take action against an ally (Britain). 

In this way, the American republic emphasized its allegiance to both France and Britain.  Washington’s solution presented plausible reasons why the United States could not militarily support either side, and at the same time prevented either from taking military action against the United States.

By means of the two treaties, the United States was able to maintain good relations with both sides.  To a point.  Of course, after the fact both French and British realized just how the Americans had manipulated the situation.  And yet, the two treaties remained in effect.  Both nations could call the Americans allies, but neither could demand military assistance or take action against their ally in America.

President Washington rejected involving the United States in a war that was not in America’s best interests.  He knew that honoring the preexisting treaty with France would have involved the new nation on the French side of that war.  He knew that rejecting that treaty would, in time, have resulted in American involvement on the British side.  He knew that if the United States attempted to completely disengage from the situation in Europe, both sides would regard the United States as potentially hostile, and that “neutrality” would have had a devastating impact on the young nation. 

By rejecting the claims of idealism, cultural solidarity, and pure logic, he made real neutrality possible. 

President Washington cut a new path that he envisioned intuitively, no doubt using his military experience as a model.  In his experience, he had learned that both pure idealism and pure logic usually end in defeat.   He cut a new path based on enlightened reason which transcended the obvious options and allowed him to escape the artificial boundaries of alliances and loyalties and standing obligations.  He blazed a new trail rooted in wisdom that allowed the United States to survive and remain relatively aloof from that conflict, a conflict which evolved into the Napoleonic Wars, devastated Europe, and lasted until 1815.

What would have become of the embryonic United States if it had become embroiled in the Napoleonic Wars?  The effect on world history is beyond dramatic.  Think about it for a while… then give thanks for an astute leader who refused to be compelled by circumstances, who created his own path with courage and wisdom.

Gryphem