American Foreign Relations Research Articles

Reminiscences of Diplomatic History: The First Year

I owe my connection with Diplomatic History to David F. Trask, PhD, the noted historian and author, one of the founders of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations (SHAFR), former Historian of the Department of State, and professor of history at the University of New York at Stony Brook (now Stony Brook University), and my mentor. The founding of Diplomatic History took place amid an upheaval that saw the United States reeling from the societal divisions and cost of the Vietnam War, the 1973 boycott of oil exports by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), Watergate, terrorism, the entrenchment of communism, and our own inadequate responses to these developments. By the mid-1970s, graduate schools had produced a glut of American foreign relations historians, who competed for the few, if any, teaching positions in our area of expertise. This was the “real world” job situation I entered in 1975.

A Superpower Transformed: The Remaking of American Foreign Relations in the 1970s by Daniel J. Sargent

A Superpower Transformed: The Remaking of American Foreign Relations in the 1970s by Daniel J. Sargent

КОНТУРЫ ФОРМИРУЮЩЕЙСЯ ВНЕШНЕЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОЙ ПРОГРАММЫ США

The article analyses the key points of the emerging economic strategy of the D. Trump administration. The authors believe that the most provocative U.S. initiatives for reforming the American foreign economic relations (radicalization of the trade policy, “rebalancing” foreign trade in favor of the United States, and especially isolationism as opposed to globalization) may harm the international trading system. In his own country, Trump’s reforms are meeting unprecedented political opposition, led by both democrats and neo-conservatives. So, Trump’ abilities to transform the American economy now are less evident than those of R. Reagan or even B. Obama. In any case, the process of reforming international economic system, initiated by President Trump will most likely continue after expiration of the term of his administration. Some of his ideas meet cool reception even among the closest U.S. trade partners. The emerging new economic actors (China, India, Brazil and others) generally support the idea of modernization of the world trade rules and regulations, but their expectations not necessary correlate with those of Mr. Trump. Fortunately, many Trump`s practical actions, in contrast to some of his pre- and post-election public statements, contain few immediate threats that might trigger an open trade war. There is a chance that we shall see a sort of more close U.S.-China partnership in the near future, though it does not exclude the possibility of aggravated conflicts in some areas (cyber-security, intellectual property, technology transfer and so on). The relations with Russia are not in the forefront of Trump`s economic policy. Nevertheless, we believe that the success of Trump’s reforms will make the USA more interested in increasing exports to Russia and may even open possibilities for closer economic cooperation. Some of his administration’s radical initiatives, such as orientation on national priorities, protection of domestic manufacturers, and preference in some cases of bilateral cooperation instead of multilateral may prove to be worth a special study. Trump’s critics of the international economic organizations and even COP2 also have certain objective reasons. Russia may only gain from transition to priority of domestic market and some additional protectionism, which at the same time should not be harmful for its imports of innovative machinery and technologies.&nbsp

Commerce and Conquest in Early American Foreign Relations, 1750–1850

Ideas about free trade and open commerce drove early American foreign policy before the War of 1812. Concern with expansion was not entirely absent from American diplomacy, but until the 1820s, 30s and 40s, it played a less significant role in foreign policy decisions than trade. Before the Revolutionary War both the British and American believed that their empire was based on commerce and not conquest. They engaged in wars for empire determined to secure the colonies from outside threats and to defend commerce. The American Revolution began in controversies over the regulation of commerce and taxation (usually connected to trade as well). The Revolutionaries sought to establish a new diplomatic regime based on free trade. They persisted in this concern in the creation of the Confederation government and with the establishment of the American republic under the Constitution of 1787. All of the major treaties between the United States and other nations before 1812 concerned commerce, even when they included territorial acquisition. The Louisiana Purchase began as an effort to secure commerce on the Mississippi by gaining the port of New Orleans. Conquest first emerged as the salient policy in dealing with Native Americans, and was then extended to Florida, Texas, and northern Mexico thereafter. However, even when manifest destiny had become the focus of American foreign policy, commerce and free trade remained important.

Daniel J. Sargent, A Superpower Transformed. The Remaking of American Foreign Relations in the 1970s. Oxford, Oxford University Press 2015

Daniel J. Sargent, A Superpower Transformed. The Remaking of American Foreign Relations in the 1970s. Oxford, Oxford University Press 2015

Addressing America: George Washington's Farewell and the Making of National Culture, Politics, and Diplomacy, 1796–1852

Addressing America is a concise, well-written, powerfully argued book that examines the broad role played by the principles expressed in George Washington's Farewell Address in the first five decades after its 1796 publication. George Washington's address called for U.S. foreign policy to be shaped by an interest-driven, flexible neutrality—an approach not to be motivated by love or hatred for any other nation. Public readings of the message became part of the celebrations of Washington's birthday held throughout the country, and its themes of fairness and interest were widely shared by Americans. However, Thomas Jefferson's 1801 inaugural address subtly reformulated the message: the nation should pursue commerce and peace with all nations yet “entangling alliances with none.” That phrase took hold, recasting Washington's meaning and becoming a recipe for isolationism. In time, many Americans believed that the “entangling alliances” line was actually Washington's, and the understanding of his farewell address changed apace. In other words, even as Americans still paid heed to the address, their understanding of its meaning changed, transforming its “pragmatic and flexible maxims for the conduct of American foreign relations into a rigid and permanent declaration of virtual isolation from the outside world” (p. 34). Jeffrey J. Malanson contends that the next thirty years became a contest between the flexible and rigid visions of the farewell address.

Diplomacy in Black and White: John Adams, Toussaint Louverture, and Their Atlantic World Alliance

Book Review| October 01 2016 Diplomacy in Black and White: John Adams, Toussaint Louverture, and Their Atlantic World Alliance Diplomacy in Black and White: John Adams, Toussaint Louverture, and Their Atlantic World Alliance. By Ronald Angelo Johnson. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2014. xv + 241 pp. Illustrations, notes, bibliography, and index. $49.95 (cloth); $24.95 (paper). Robert W. Smith Robert W. Smith Worcester State University Robert W. Smith is Associate Professor of History at Worcester State University. He is the author of Keeping the Republic: Ideology and Early American Diplomacy (Northern Illinois University Press, 2004) and Amid a Warring World: American Foreign Relations, 1775–1815 (Potomac Books, 2012). Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Journal of American Ethnic History (2016) 36 (1): 101–102. https://doi.org/10.5406/jamerethnhist.36.1.0101 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Robert W. Smith; Diplomacy in Black and White: John Adams, Toussaint Louverture, and Their Atlantic World Alliance. Journal of American Ethnic History 1 January 2016; 36 (1): 101–102. doi: https://doi.org/10.5406/jamerethnhist.36.1.0101 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveUniversity of Illinois PressJournal of American Ethnic History Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright 2016 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois2016 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Daniel J. Sargent, A Superpower Transformed: The Remaking of American Foreign Relations in the 1970s. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. 287 pp.

Daniel J. Sargent, <i>A Superpower Transformed: The Remaking of American Foreign Relations in the 1970s</i>. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. 287 pp.

Book Review: Legalist Empire: International Law and American Foreign Relations in the Early Twentieth Century by Benjamin Allen Coates

Book Review: Legalist Empire: International Law and American Foreign Relations in the Early Twentieth Century by Benjamin Allen Coates

The Local, National, and International Politics of Slavery: Edward Everett’s Nomination as U.S. Minister to Great Britain

The Local, National, and International Politics of SlaveryEdward Everett’s Nomination as U.S. Minister to Great Britain Matthew Mason (bio) On July 16, 1841, President John Tyler nominated Edward Everett to be the United States’ minister to Great Britain. The Senate debated Everett’s nomination in executive sessions; this dragged on intermittently until Everett’s appointment was confirmed by a 23–19 vote on September 13, the last day of this special session of Congress.1 The Senate’s executive sessions were secret, but as the delay grew protracted word leaked out that southern senators opposed Everett’s appointment because they considered him a dangerous abolitionist. Those in the press who seconded that opposition based it on public letters Everett had written while governor of Massachusetts in the late 1830s. The resulting press furor in the North produced talk of retaliation and ultimately disunion. The storm dissipated when Everett won confirmation, but its lightning had illuminated how interconnected local, national, and international questions could be in American politics when slavery was at issue. Most historians of American foreign relations have underrated the links between sectional domestic politics and international questions. Those who call for study of these connections continue to take the posture of voices in the wilderness, insisting quite rightly that both political and diplomatic historians could benefit from increased interchange.2 In recent years, scholars of the sectional politics of slavery in the Civil War era have turned their attention increasingly to the international arena.3 But the Everett episode adds to this emerging picture by demonstrating that what a politician said with an eye to reelection to his state capital could reverberate in deliberations in the nation’s capital concerning who should represent the nation in a great foreign capital. The Everett confirmation imbroglio thus highlighted how vulnerable national party coalitions were to sectional disruptions by epitomizing the multiple angles from which such disruptions could appear. At a time in which the Whig Party already faced serious sectional and ideological cleavages, the confirmation combat placed even greater pressure on party unity. [End Page 3] Northern Whigs, previously among the staunchest of unionists, shocked many observers by indulging in bitter sectional rhetorical responses to the threat to Everett. And while Democrats were happy, from a partisan point of view, to inflict travail on a Whig nominee and potentially divide their opponents, only southern Democrats found opposition to Everett on grounds related to slavery a straightforward proposition. The course of the debate and the Senate’s eventual endorsement of Everett, however, demonstrated how loyalty to party and the Union could triumph over sectional politics. Within the framework of southern politics, the Democrats and southern rights men in this debate employed a classic version of what scholar William Cooper has called “the politics of slavery,” in which antebellum southern politicians accused the other party of unsoundness on slavery. In this cycle of “sectional one-upmanship practiced by the two parties,” the standard charge was that one’s own northern allies were reliable on slavery, while the other party’s northern men were rank abolitionists. Although pushing the slavery issue into state and sectional politics in this way proved counterproductive to keeping it out of national politics, Cooper argues, neither party could seem to help itself.4 But while national party managers were caught off guard by the controversy, they neither found themselves paralyzed by it nor blundered through it, proving creative and resourceful in managing the final vote. Furthermore, the months-long war of words demonstrated the passionate devotion to the Union among southern Whigs. Strongly committed moderates may seem oxymoronic to us, but southern Whigs, as leading unionists, deserve more attention than most modern scholars have paid them.5 They were certainly much in evidence in key roles during the Everett confirmation dispute. While this controversy seems to have genuinely shocked many observers, Everett was not one of them, despite being much farther removed from Washington than they were. Upon receiving word of his nomination while traveling in Europe, he wrote in his diary that he “should not be surprized if some opposition—perhaps successful—should be made to it from the South.”6 This reaction showed...

The Foreign Intercourse Bill of 1798 and the Debate over Early American Foreign Relations

Between January and March of 1798 the House of Representatives debated the foreign intercourse bill, which would fund the diplomatic corps for the next two years. This was a generally a routine function, but it soon became a wide-ranging debate over the basis nature of American diplomacy, and of the American republic itself. The debate revealed something important about the politics of the 1790s. Given that republics were inherently fragile, even seemingly small matters might destroy the American republic. Both Republicans and Federalists proceeded from this assumption. The debate fell into three broad categories. First was the question of who should be appointed. The Republicans accused President Adams of using additional diplomatic appointments as a vehicle to create a patronage machine that would corrupt Congress. The Federalists that countered that amount of patronage available was insignificant, and that that the president was justified in excluding Republicans from office. Second was the question of who should control the appointments. This led back to the control of American foreign policy. The Republicans argued for congressional control through the appropriation and war powers. The Federalists contended for presidential control through the treaty and appointment powers. Third was the question of whether diplomats should be appointed at all. The Republicans believed that trade would allow the United States to secure its diplomatic goals without recourse to the normal institutions of diplomacy. The Republicans considered the United States as existing outside the European balance of power. The Federalists saw no choice but to play by the generally established rules, and thus must appoint diplomats.

The International Consequences of American National Origins Quotas: The Australian Case

This article examines Australian responses to the imposition of stringent national origins quotas in the United States during the 1920s. Following the introduction of the American quota system, many Australians worried that large numbers of undesirable southern and eastern European migrants would make their way toward Australian ports. Widespread calls for preemptive restrictions forced the Australian government to finally implement a range of measures designed to limit immigration from Italy, Greece, Albania, Yugoslavia, and Malta. More broadly, this article argues that American quotas often inadvertently engendered a wide range of indirect and unintentional consequences around the world that scholars of migration and American foreign relations might explore in greater depth. It concludes by suggesting some opportunities for individual and collaborative research into the international effects of the United States’ notorious national origins quota system.

Daniel J. Sargent.A Superpower Transformed: The Remaking of American Foreign Relations in the 1970s.

Daniel J. Sargent.<i>A Superpower Transformed: The Remaking of American Foreign Relations in the 1970s</i>.

For God and country: James Barton, the Ottoman Empire and missionary diplomacy during World War I

This article examines the impact of American religious beliefs about Islam in shaping American foreign relations during the First World War by examining the lobbying efforts of Rev. James Barton, the secretary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, one of the largest American missionary organizations in the United States at that time. During the war, Barton sought to convince both the American public and government officials, including his important network of contacts in the Wilson administration, that converting Muslims to Christianity was a necessity in reforming the empire. In order to do this, he argued that the empire should fall under American or British control after the war.

A Superpower Transformed: The Remaking of American Foreign Relations in the 1970s by Daniel J. Sargent

A Superpower Transformed: The Remaking of American Foreign Relations in the 1970s by Daniel J. Sargent

A Superpower Transformed: The Remaking of American Foreign Relations in the 1970s

Acknowledgments Intro Ch 1 Pax Americana Part I Reaching Backward Ch 2 In Pursuit of Primacy Ch 3 Geopolitics and Humanitarianism Ch 4 The Dollar in Decline Ch 5 Oil Shocked Part II Stumbling Forward Ch 6 Managing Interdependence Ch 7 Human Rights and Detente Ch 8 World Olrder Politics Ch 9 The Revenge of Geopolitics Conclusion Notes Bibliography Index

Colloquy: Queering America and the World

Mark Bradley: Queer isn’t a word you see much in the pages of Diplomatic History or the program for SHAFR’s annual conference. Indeed, a quick lexical check of article titles since the journal began publication in 1977 for “gay,” “homosexual,” “lesbian,” “transgender,” and “queer” brings up absolutely nothing (bracketing the single title reference to the Enola Gay ). You may not be surprised. You should be. Queer history and queer studies occupy an increasingly central place in many historical subfields and in the work of other disciplines. Even for the redoubtable guardians of realism among political scientists in international relations, one can detect a queer turn. 1 The time has more than come to better understand how queering the history of American foreign relations might transform our own scholarly practice, and the field itself. As this lively and far-ranging conversation suggests, the project of queering America and the world operates in multiple registers. For some participants here it is about making visible what has gone unseen about gender and sexuality, recovering LGBTQ lives and experiences in ways that deepen what it means to write American history on a transnational canvas. For others the project is just as much about disrupting conventional notions of what constitutes power and how it is exercised in the world. Queering, as many of the participants in this conversation argue, not only disturbs hetero-normative assumptions about sexuality but ultimately pushes back on how we conceive of power relations in spaces as intimate as the bedroom or as geopolitically capacious as the United Nations. And for still others, it is both. The conversation as it unfolds moves along three tracks: a conceptual discussion of the theoretical terms of engagement, more granular talk rooted in the ongoing research of the participants and personal observations on how a queer lens came to inform their scholarship. In them readers can follow the back-and-forth between the participants as they literally think out loud about how the “queer” as history, theory, and method can disrupt our research and teaching.

A superpower transformed: the remaking of American foreign relations in the 1970s

A superpower transformed: the remaking of American foreign relations in the 1970s

American Indians, American Law, and Modern American Foreign Relations

Any assessment of American Indians’ significance in modern foreign relations history must consider relevant law, legal history, and their effects on historiography as well as historical actors. Most histories of international affairs seem to assume that Indians have not been relevant since the United States engulfed the tribes from coast to coast and subjected them to federal law. However, U.S. domination never snuffed out Indian memories of their societies’ political autonomy and recognition as sovereign nations. Furthermore, from the eighteenth century to the present, legal doctrine has furnished Indians with a basis for asserting their polities’ inherent and unextinguished sovereignty. By making that assertion in international arenas during the twentieth century, people representing American Indian polities have conducted foreign relations of interest to the U.S. government and potentially to historians of international affairs. Drawing on examples known mostly to Native American history specialists and legal scholars, this essay invites Diplomatic History readers to investigate such Indian endeavors and help evaluate their significance. Asking questions and generating insights grounded in the methodology and historiography of international relations scholarship will surely prove useful to scholars in all three fields.

Indian Polities, Empire, and the History of American Foreign Relations

Indian Polities, Empire, and the History of American Foreign Relations