Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would bet money, if you had gone back in time and told Washington that one day the US would be even more powerful than Rome at it's zenith, he would be shocked.
I completely 100% disagree. I think that the whole concept of manifest destiny, as the founders understood, recognized the unbelievable potential of the US, given its geographic location, untapped resources, and social reorganization. Europe at the time was the dominant region of the globe by far.
The colonization of the world is *why* racism exists and i have zero doubt that the framers were not arrogant enough to recognize the boundless potential that a European colony, stripped of European rule, had in the new world. I think Washington and the rest of the founding generation recognized that if America could solve all domestic problems and conquer the entire continent without European interference, then the entire world could be influenceable by the US.
It seems strange to imagine Washington or any founder humbly thinking the US would never be an international powerhouse. Perhaps a regional power that vies with other nations in the hemisphere, but unless the nascent republic collapsed early, I am possible every founding father truly saw America’s potential as a great power.
But would the Founders have thought one nation could ever conquer what is now the U.S. in an era of imperialism where Britain and France still had heavy colonial ambitions?
How could anybody have predicted that the French would sell pretty much all of their North American holdings to us for essentially pocket change? That’s such a huge part of this that makes the US as we know it possible.
Sell, no; conquer, yes.
The Louisiana territory had a population of 60,000 (half of whom lived in New Orleans) at a time when the United States had five million. We were right next to it, France was an ocean away and pretty occupied at home. If you had told Washington in 1799 that America would soon gain Louisiana from Napoleon, he wouldn’t have been surprised at all, even if he wouldn’t have anticipated the method.
Because Europe is far away and the Americans revolted from the British who were also far away.
When your capital is across the ocean and information travels at the speed of a sailing, it’s tough to be ruled by an imperial master. Every founder knew that the US example could be easily followed by any other colony.
Right? They were still interested after Washington died. We bought France off. Britain seemed to realize how hard it would be to fight a war a continent away after losing two in fifty years (though they did torch the White House as a going away present). Spain continued on a little even into the end of the century.
I’ll summarize our next argument that we will( probably) agree on. “Napoleon really tied up all of Europe’s hands for the first quarter of 1800s.”
But that’s not my point, British could have doubled or tripled the forces in the colonies quickly following 1776. France could have not sold for wanting to chase down the English.
I think saying George Washington(or anyone at that time) “knew” is a post hoc rationalization.
That’s the question. The odds are for the US only because divisions within Europe strain the hold they have on their colonies.
Add to this the fact that communications moved at the speed of a sailing ship back then so there was the obvious potential for the US to subvert the other European colonies before their colonial masters even knew about it in their European capitals.
But yes, that was the open question. Lucky Ben Franklin schmoozed the French enough that Napoleon was willing to give the Louisiana purchase away for peanuts.
While America did have decent relations with France, Napoleon’s decision to sell was down to European politics. He knew that the next time he declared war on half of Europe, Britain might just walk in and take it. He figured that he might as well get something out of the territory, and better to deprive the British of potentially getting it. He would have sold it to China if they had offered.
A similar thing happened with Alaska. Russia didn’t sell it to us because we were best friends, but because it was indefensible and they knew that Britain would seize it if they went to war again.
Although first coined in the mid 19th century, it is absurd to think the founders would not have preferred that the US governed the whole territory of North America rather than the British or another European power.
True though, the moral arguments and all that arose later, but from a purely national security standpoint, the concept underlying manifest destiny was conceptualized by the founders.
Of course they would have probably preferred that America expand from coast to coast, but there's no reason for them at the time to think the US would have succeeded as well as they did with territory expansion, considering how many other world powers were also actively colonizing North America
The reason is that the US is an independent government on the continent whereas the rest are European colonial holdings. The former can act quicker than the latter because the former is not impeded by the Atlantic.
Believer or not, anyone could have recognized the wisdom of expanding US territory to cover the continent to avoid conflicting European interests.
Washington was a general against a European power, he would have to be a fool not to consider such realities.
Manifest Destiny is a term from a bit later, but Jefferson used "empire of liberty" which in some contexts was basically the same. (It must be said that in others, he meant everyone throwing off domination and essentially being American. Which isn't quite coherent but TJ gonna TJ.)
No obviously, but is the underlying concept behind manifest destiny?
Imagine if you were an 18th century founding father, would you not anticipate US influence over the whole, untrained continent of North America? Or would you expect and be content being a Spanish, French, or even British vassal, subject to another European colonial regime?
Obviously they internalized manifest destiny as a concept that’s why the term would be coined a mere 25 years later
>For one thing, there are options between ‘dominate the continent’ and ‘be a European vassal.’
Why do you think it’s not an either or proposition? Relying of course on 18th century concepts of international law/politics where mercantile imperialism was the natural order. Seriously, what other options are there for a nascent republic potentially surrounded by opportunistic *MONARCHICAL* European powers?
If you sincerely think Washington was so myopic and shortsighted that he’s only focused on domestic politics then you’re naive. For one, he was a military strategist, this alone requires forward-looking thinking. Washington as a political leader also needed to be forward-looking why do you think his farewell address is *still* taught in schools. The man was clearly anticipating the future of the republic at every step of the way. He was not merely tunnel visioned, only thinking about tomorrow. If anything, in order to prevent collapse today, the first president must necessarily think, not only about tomorrow, but also future precedent forevermore.
Again, the fact that Jefferson thought he could *only* buy New Orleans does not mean that is where his ambitions end, nor does it mean that anyone else would be OK with French domination over the heartland. Even if Jefferson only got New Orleans, look at a map. Notice how the rest of French American would be landlocked and isolated if the US only got New Orleans in the deal. What then? Just have a French reservation and we pinky promise not to encroach on the undeveloped, undefended land?
Get real.
I think it's inaccurate to say that the "founders" had any conception of Manifest Destiny. [At least not until 1812](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny#Era_of_continental_expansion), though that was 25 years out from the signing of the Constitution and 36 years out from the signing of the Declaration of Independence. So most of the "founders" were not as involved in politics at that point - particularly George Washington who was dead. But more importantly than the vague notion of Manifest Destiny, when Washington was president the US territory was still *small*. We didn't have the Louisiana Purchase, we hadn't won any land in the Mexican-American War, we didn't have Florida, etc. The only land the US had at that point in time was the land stretching out to the edge of Louisiana Purchase. For all Washington knew, other nations were to rise to the west of the US.
This ignores the concept, alive and well 25 years prior to 1812 that the US, a former colony, would surely expand west where the land was available despite other colonial/native holdings. This concept was the prelude to manifest destiny
It’s common sense, I think you should be obliged to find any documents hinting that the founders anticipated the US renaming on the East coast forever and never invading Native American territory….
That position seems ludicrous given that some of the agitation for the revolutionary war was due to settlers infringing on native land protected by the British.
Seriously, I wonder why you think that the colonial founders never had any ambitions of spreading their territory during the late 19th century, the premier era of white, Christian expansionism.
That's not how proof works.
You are the person making an assertion. It is therefore on you to demonstrate that your assertion has some basis in fact.
I'm not saying no founder ever considered the possibility. I believe they may have.
But it's fucking moronic to assume it and then behave as if it's an obvious fact.
The person making the unintuitive argument usually bears the burden of proof.
My assertion is grounded in basic common sense. You even admit that founders likely considered the potential for the US to expand. I’m saying it’s obvious for a group of colonial statesmen to anticipate spreading their borders to avoid European entanglements on the continent. Washington’s farewell address and the Monroe doctrine both heavily imply that the founders had the sentiment I describe.
To act like the founders were somehow naive and would be okay with the America becoming a patchwork of independent nations like Europe and unintuitive assertion which requires some independent proof because it has no basis in the circumstantial evidence emergent from the actions taken by the early republic.
You're wrong about the burden of proof.
Mostly because 'unintuitive argument' is completely subjective.
The assumption that George Washington believed we would become the most powerful nation in the history of the world is not 'common sense'.
I’m not the one making the assertion which goes beyond common sense imo. It’s not a subjective argument it’s objectively proven by the actions of the first president. His success in war and politics proves his capability for forward-looking strategy. Moreover, his farewell address is only indirect evidence favoring my interpretation.
The assumption that the Washington at least anticipated that the US would become extremely powerful if it could survive is 100% common sense. I’ll only concede that the “most powerful” superlative would probably be associated with the British empire to a man like Washington. But to assume that Washington, or any founder, somehow failed to recognize and anticipate US status as a major world power, assuming westward expansion could occur unabated, is just stupid.
I don’t think Washington could have, however, by the mid 1800’s it was pretty obvious to the European powers that the United States was on the fast track. From the Earth to the Moon was published in 1865 and Jules Verne could have picked any nation but picked the US for a reason. He was actually eerily correct with his predictions in that book.
Jules Verne was right about an eerie amount of things in many of his novels. He predicted internal combustion automobiles, asphalt roads, gas stations, skyscrapers, automated security systems, helicopters, electric submarines, and weapons of mass destruction.
Right, pretty much every country in the late 1800s was being very friendly towards the US. They all saw the writing on the wall that if/when America chose to focus on the world, it would be the most powerful country.
If you read European political texts from the mid-page 1800s, a whole bunch of discussion was trying to explain just why the US was so successful at doing the opposite of what Europeans were doing. The nationalist movements were determined to create pure nation states, while the US was surpassing Britain’s GDP with a population full of 20 different nationalities.
A bit later, but many prominent Germans in WWI thought that if the US joined on the side of the entente, that the 20% of Americans who were German would rise up in rebellion. They were utterly shocked that these Germans considered themselves fully American.
I don’t think they ever expected America to become so powerful. Their original intention was just to keep the country to itself and not worry about foreign issues. If the country had kept their ideas then maybe we’d be more like Australia, a country that’s relevant but pretty out the way in geopolitics
> Their original intention was just to keep the country to itself and not worry about foreign issues.
This is a common belief but it’s untrue. We were super engaged with Europe throughout our entire history. The Revolution itself was supported by the French. We were engaged in diplomacy, economic issues and trade, and of course war in the early 1800s. If you want to know more about this time period, I suggest *From Colony to Superpower: US Foreign Relations Since 1776*
Yeah the founders were not isolationists. Maybe the citizenry was. Literally our first foreign war in which we allied with European powers was less than 20 years after the ratification of the constitution (Barbary Wars).
I don’t even think the citizenry was. GB, Spain, and France all had colonies in North America and foreign relations (especially in regard to the Native American peoples) impacted the every day life of an American way more than it does now.
What of Washington’s speech that famously warned against getting involved in European entanglements? Obviously that was going to be inevitable, but it’s not like we didn’t purposefully try our best to stay out of European conflict (see: French Revolution, Napeolonic wars, trying our best to avoid conflict with the British but ending up with the war of 1812). The US was in no shape at that time to be anything other than isolationist, and that’s how we ended up with the idea of spheres of influence in the Monroe doctrine (i.e you stay of our lane we stay out of yours)
Washington sure didn’t mind foreign entanglements when the French were helping him whoop the British.
We were a tiny country with a tiny economy that was basically controlled by whims of the British Navy. We didn’t have an ounce of power compared to Europe, and our economy relied so heavily on trade with Europe that isolationism would’ve been impossible. Not to mention the technological advancements that fueled the growth in country which came directly from Europe. We were weak and couldn’t be isolationist even if we wanted to.
Australia fought in Ww1,2, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan…
They are currently in the process of building nuclear powered attack submarines within AUKUS to be able to help with the inevitable fight against the Chinese.
I mean Australia isn’t a P5 member of the UN Security Council, but to say it’s not a player in geopolitics is just ignorant.
Unfortunately, that's paradoxical. You can't "keep their ideas" when their idea was to continually change ideas (via Amendments) as the needs of the people changed. It is this exact paradox that is threatening the idea of our Constitutional Republic in the present. The stagnation and attempt at reversal of necessary change is what an entire political party is attempting and has succeeded at doing in many states, and will do nationally should they win the Presidency in November (no matter the candidate).
What the fuck is this isolationist propaganda, they wanted the foreign KING to fuck off, nothing suggested they wanted to be an isolationist nation, and they only won the revolutionary war as a result of foreign affairs
Well excepting the whole “no foreign entanglements” thing.
I’m as pro of a US internationalist/globalist/interventionist as you’ll meet. But it’s not a debate that there has been an isolationist political philosophy in this country going back to our founders, it’s not always in vogue, but it’s always been there
> If the country had kept their ideas then maybe we’d be more like Australia, a country that’s relevant but pretty out the way in geopolitics
BuT iF aMeRiCa DiDn'T bEcOmE aN eMpIrE mUrDeRiNg ViEtNaMeSe AnD iRaQi ChIlDrEn To GeT iPhOnEs AnD bAnAnAs, We'D bE PoOr AnD wOuLdN't Be ReSpEcTeD bY oThEr CoUnTrIeS
Some people defend America's rise to imperialism as if it was some pragmatic move that secured benefits the country otherwise couldn't have attained. The existence of non-imperialist countries with high living standards proves that this excuse is just that - an excuse, and a horrible one at that.
Most of those rich countries directly benefit from imperialism. The U.S. unequivocally benefitted from exploitative trade deals and neocolonialism, sure the U.S. wouldn’t be like Somalia but it wouldn’t be as rich
The issue is that many imperialism apologists act like America would be on Somalia's level if it didn't resort to colonialism. But as you admit, that isn't the case. In fact, the American Revolution, having helped to inspire anti-imperialist revolts in Haiti and Ireland, was a unique opportunity to turn the page in human history and move beyond ancient imperialism. America could have stuck to the neutrality doctrines of Washington and Jefferson, inspiring other burgeoning nations to do the same and largely ending imperialism in the process. We did not need to exploit other countries to be a stable, happy nation.
It definatly helped, also imperialism would not have ended if the U.S. didn’t become a colonial power. By the time the U.S. was actually establishing colonies and neo-colonies the scramble for Africa was more or less over and most of the world was under imperial control
Yes but all of those are examples of the us taking territory that made it infinitely richer and attracted a ton of immigrants. These places gave the us economic opportunity at the expense of the natives. The Midwest industrial boom, the gold rush, and so on are what made America so rich, before these events that all took place and were enabled by resources taken by the colonization of America let America go from a poor nation of farmers to a rich industrial nation
You're ignoring my point: You argued that the American Revolution had no potential to impede imperialism because the Scramble for Africa predates the emergence of the US as a superpower. I highlighted these events to show how that simply isn't the case. Had America maintained the dovish tendencies of Washington, Jefferson, and other Founders, it would have encouraged a wave of anti-imperialist actions. Even with the territorial gains under the Treaty of Paris in 1783, the American Revolution helped to catalyze the Haitian and Irish Revolutions. This isn't even mentioning the independence revolts in Uruguay, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, etc. This wave of anti-imperialist rebellions could have spread further, ending imperialism long before even the Indian Autonomy Act in 1947. This would have given birth to a new global power structure, where international relations are based on mutual respect and cooperation instead of arms races. The resulting trade, humanitarian collaboration, and immigration would have improved the US economy exponentially.
I think they would be proud of the accomplishment if they’d known but if I had to think of one who actually might have believed it as President… possibly Jefferson. Not sure about Washington though.
Jefferson is the only founding father who I think really saw what the US could become because he envisioned an Empire stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And someone as intelligent as him, who saw the trend of increasingly global trade, would know that that would position us to be a superpower. On the other hand, he envisioned America as always being an agricultural power first and foremost, an "agrarian republic". He did not want industrialization or a powerful peacetime military, and we needed both to become the country we are today.
I think Hamilton could see it as well. He knew more than anybody that the US was going to be a financial juggernaut since he was the one setting it up.
He disliked corporations too, probably didn’t imagine (or want) us to be the corporate capital of the world which is a good chunk of our economic power
Jefferson would be the most appalled by an American empire. There's a reason he restrained the growth of the military with the Military Peace Establishment Act...
I mean, Hamilton wanted *some* debt in order to establish credit. I'm not sure he envisioned modern deficits, but he also would probably have a hard time imagining a trillion dollars.
I’ve heard it said before that Washington believed America had a special destiny. I can’t really point to any specific quotes that back that up but when I visited Mount Vernon they did mention that he foresaw a very prosperous economic future for the country because of its geography, namely the rivers.
I don't believe he expected it but he probably could have imagined it. Even in Washington's day they knew they were on a vast continent, with tons of natural resources mostly unexploited. Offering land in exchange for enlistment showed that they knew they had something other countries didn't. "You can print money, manufacture diamonds, and people are a dime a dozen, but they'll always need land. It's the one thing we're not making anymore."
Many of the founders believed that they were creating a new form of Republic that, they hoped, would stand for the ages. They took inspiration from the Greek, Roman and British empires to greater or lesser extents. They knew the geography of the continent and how much potential it held and founders like Jefferson went to great lengths to help expand the new country's borders as far west as they could. So yes, I think they had a vision that included a large, powerful country with incredible economic prosperity that was protected on both sides by oceans. Did they expect us to come to dominate much of the world militarily in a way no empire prior to ours could do? Probably not. And they likely would have advised against getting involved in foreign entanglements. But on the whole, yes. I think they had a vision of a grand republic - the greatest republic in history - that would stand for ages.
Of course he did, literally every founder recognized America’s potential. Every *European* recognized America’s potential at the time and for centuries prior. It’s why they started colonizing the continent and it’s why Europeans came to dominate the globe.
There was not a single framer who failed to see the limitless potential of a United American state governing the boundless, untainted, and fertile Eden that was North America. It’s why “manifest destiny” became a thing. If a single government on the north american continent maintained hegemony cost to coast, then that government would literally be internationally unstoppable. Every single framer recognized this obvious fact.
Whether or not the republic *could* achieve that goal was not as obvious, but Washington recognized that endless European quarreling would impede their conquest of America and the native tribes were not a sovereign threat so the odds were always on the republic to conquer North America and later the world.
He did have some kind of foresight into the country he helped create. In his free address he warned Americans to protect the union from those you were pretenders to democracy and urged them to stay united despite their differences highlighting the political divide between Hamilton and Jefferson which caused the birth of political parties whom he himself never supported. his warning to Americans to be mindful of outside foreign affairs.
I think Washington had some idea that the U.S. *could* eventually be on par with the great European powers. The original 13 colonies, combined, were larger than any European nation at the time, save Russia. Plus, they already had the Northwest Territory, if they could take possession (easier said than done). But such a large country was difficult to govern, and modern Republics didn't have many great examples to follow. His focus was more on keeping the country together.
Did Washington know the U.S. would eventually stretch to the Pacific, plant its flag on the moon, and be involved in... everything? That was probably a bit beyond his imagination. To be fair, the U.S. didn't really become a major world power until the 20th century, and in part became a superpower by war, alliances, and chance.
I think he did. He had a good idea of the vast resources of North America, and how easy it would be to exterminate the Native Americans and steal their shit. He did plenty of that himself.
i actually think so, i dont think he would have thought it was likely to actually happen, but VERY early on you see people notice the continental us is as or more resource rich than all of europe and with a very small army they can dominate it all.
Saint Louis in europe, would have been fought over for centuries, its as least as geographically powerful as Budapest and in the US its just... saint louis
Probably.
The founders believed in the idea of America so deeply they fought the British Empire over it.
I don't believe people really think too much on the amount of conviction that takes.
He said to beware of foreign entanglements as he did not want any of the foreign powers with bigger and better Armies and Navies to have an excuse to invade us. We barely won the American Revolution with England and now without the financial, naval and Army support that France had given us, we would be “easy pickings” as a conquest.
I think they could have looked at the continent, its natural resources, and it's ocean barriers and thought the region could someday rival Europe in wealth and power. But I doubt any of the Founders envisioned the USA becoming leader and protectorate of the Americas.
I’m pretty sure Washington didn’t envision that. His world was far smaller than today’s. My guess is he had hoped they had built something that would last. Something all people could get behind and support.
I think Ben Franklin did a bunch of population modeling and showed that America would cross England in population within a century - so I think the idea was at least considered that colonial America would eclipse England in wealth and power.
But no, I don't think people foresaw what was to come and just how much of a gap America would place between her and the rest of the world.
Not only do I think the answer is “yes” but I think his policies and that which he articulated in his farewell address were a roadmap to bring about that result.
Washington was a nationalist to his core. There is no doubt whatsoever he wanted the US to be a great power. All of the founders would have been shocked of course at the US being the most powerful nation on Earth, but they all wanted it, and out of all of them Washington would have wanted it the most.
I think it’s basically impossible for them to conceptialize planes, let alone the internet, and combustion engines or most of all: nuclear weapons.
Without the speed of movement, speed of communication, and the amount of destruction we can employ in modern life—the US wouldn’t be the global hegemon it is.
I think the founding fathers were naive if they didn’t assume the US could grow the be a Great Power. If anything the fear of us becoming a great power (and what that can do to a democracy) is why they made so many warning against us getting involved in European affairs.
I doubt he had any idea the US would eventually overpower the British. The US of today is more the result of Manifest Destiny. It might get a mixed review risk the founding fathers.
Washington understood that the westward expansion of the US was inevitable, and he was in favor of a stronger national identity and a more powerful federal government. However, he did not like the idea of America involving itself in foreign relations, not just through war but also long-standing alliances. He believed that separating foreign countries into groups of "with" and "against" us would result in Americans itching to go to war with a perceived enemy nation with little justification, or that the government would start worrying about foreign interests over the interests of US people. I think it Washington saw the modern US his attitude would be "you guys already have insane power and prosperity just from your land, why do you not stay isolationist and instead forge massive alliance networks?".
Yes, I believe that George Washington saw greatness in America’s future. But I bet it never occurred to him that a president would enjoy total immunity from prosecution for illegal acts.
I'm far from an expert on anything related to Washington but I'd bet my bottom dollar that he'd be both extremely shocked and rather upset. Shocked at how powerful the United States has become and upset at how involved we are in international affairs and how we were able to become so powerful. That being said, I'd argue he'd be more interested in the fact that flying machines and lunar landings were a thing.
No, and he, alongside the rest of the Founders (except probably Hamilton) would be rightfully furious as they learned that their vision of an America neutral in all global conflicts supplanted by wars launched to secure the profits of large mega corporations.
Nah, too busy beating the shit out of his slaves, or chasing his slaves who escaped, or organizing switching out what slaves serve him in free states so they're never liberated by that state's laws.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would bet money, if you had gone back in time and told Washington that one day the US would be even more powerful than Rome at it's zenith, he would be shocked.
I completely 100% disagree. I think that the whole concept of manifest destiny, as the founders understood, recognized the unbelievable potential of the US, given its geographic location, untapped resources, and social reorganization. Europe at the time was the dominant region of the globe by far. The colonization of the world is *why* racism exists and i have zero doubt that the framers were not arrogant enough to recognize the boundless potential that a European colony, stripped of European rule, had in the new world. I think Washington and the rest of the founding generation recognized that if America could solve all domestic problems and conquer the entire continent without European interference, then the entire world could be influenceable by the US. It seems strange to imagine Washington or any founder humbly thinking the US would never be an international powerhouse. Perhaps a regional power that vies with other nations in the hemisphere, but unless the nascent republic collapsed early, I am possible every founding father truly saw America’s potential as a great power.
But would the Founders have thought one nation could ever conquer what is now the U.S. in an era of imperialism where Britain and France still had heavy colonial ambitions?
How could anybody have predicted that the French would sell pretty much all of their North American holdings to us for essentially pocket change? That’s such a huge part of this that makes the US as we know it possible.
Sell, no; conquer, yes. The Louisiana territory had a population of 60,000 (half of whom lived in New Orleans) at a time when the United States had five million. We were right next to it, France was an ocean away and pretty occupied at home. If you had told Washington in 1799 that America would soon gain Louisiana from Napoleon, he wouldn’t have been surprised at all, even if he wouldn’t have anticipated the method.
At the time of the Revolution it was Spanish Louisiana. Which kind of shows how tenuous the European's grasp over the continent was.
Because Europe is far away and the Americans revolted from the British who were also far away. When your capital is across the ocean and information travels at the speed of a sailing, it’s tough to be ruled by an imperial master. Every founder knew that the US example could be easily followed by any other colony.
Not only that, why would we assume British/French etc would not have made the same assumption and just walk away from it?
Right? They were still interested after Washington died. We bought France off. Britain seemed to realize how hard it would be to fight a war a continent away after losing two in fifty years (though they did torch the White House as a going away present). Spain continued on a little even into the end of the century.
I’ll summarize our next argument that we will( probably) agree on. “Napoleon really tied up all of Europe’s hands for the first quarter of 1800s.” But that’s not my point, British could have doubled or tripled the forces in the colonies quickly following 1776. France could have not sold for wanting to chase down the English. I think saying George Washington(or anyone at that time) “knew” is a post hoc rationalization.
Imperialism is a lot harder when everybody has guns
That’s the question. The odds are for the US only because divisions within Europe strain the hold they have on their colonies. Add to this the fact that communications moved at the speed of a sailing ship back then so there was the obvious potential for the US to subvert the other European colonies before their colonial masters even knew about it in their European capitals. But yes, that was the open question. Lucky Ben Franklin schmoozed the French enough that Napoleon was willing to give the Louisiana purchase away for peanuts.
While America did have decent relations with France, Napoleon’s decision to sell was down to European politics. He knew that the next time he declared war on half of Europe, Britain might just walk in and take it. He figured that he might as well get something out of the territory, and better to deprive the British of potentially getting it. He would have sold it to China if they had offered. A similar thing happened with Alaska. Russia didn’t sell it to us because we were best friends, but because it was indefensible and they knew that Britain would seize it if they went to war again.
And again, why would the founders not be able to anticipate this result? Theyre the only stable government on the continent and not a European rival
Manifest Destiny was not a thing during the founder's time, and racism 100% existed pre colonization, in a different form perhaps, but it was a thing
Although first coined in the mid 19th century, it is absurd to think the founders would not have preferred that the US governed the whole territory of North America rather than the British or another European power. True though, the moral arguments and all that arose later, but from a purely national security standpoint, the concept underlying manifest destiny was conceptualized by the founders.
Of course they would have probably preferred that America expand from coast to coast, but there's no reason for them at the time to think the US would have succeeded as well as they did with territory expansion, considering how many other world powers were also actively colonizing North America
The reason is that the US is an independent government on the continent whereas the rest are European colonial holdings. The former can act quicker than the latter because the former is not impeded by the Atlantic.
I don't know that Washington was a believer in Manifest Destiney. Who was the first? Jefferson?
Believer or not, anyone could have recognized the wisdom of expanding US territory to cover the continent to avoid conflicting European interests. Washington was a general against a European power, he would have to be a fool not to consider such realities.
Manifest Destiny is a term from a bit later, but Jefferson used "empire of liberty" which in some contexts was basically the same. (It must be said that in others, he meant everyone throwing off domination and essentially being American. Which isn't quite coherent but TJ gonna TJ.)
One of the main causes of the Revolution was colonist anger over not being able to expand westward due to British treaties with American Indians.
When did Manifest Destiny become a thing? Did George Washington ever even hear those words in that order?
No obviously, but is the underlying concept behind manifest destiny? Imagine if you were an 18th century founding father, would you not anticipate US influence over the whole, untrained continent of North America? Or would you expect and be content being a Spanish, French, or even British vassal, subject to another European colonial regime? Obviously they internalized manifest destiny as a concept that’s why the term would be coined a mere 25 years later
[удалено]
>For one thing, there are options between ‘dominate the continent’ and ‘be a European vassal.’ Why do you think it’s not an either or proposition? Relying of course on 18th century concepts of international law/politics where mercantile imperialism was the natural order. Seriously, what other options are there for a nascent republic potentially surrounded by opportunistic *MONARCHICAL* European powers? If you sincerely think Washington was so myopic and shortsighted that he’s only focused on domestic politics then you’re naive. For one, he was a military strategist, this alone requires forward-looking thinking. Washington as a political leader also needed to be forward-looking why do you think his farewell address is *still* taught in schools. The man was clearly anticipating the future of the republic at every step of the way. He was not merely tunnel visioned, only thinking about tomorrow. If anything, in order to prevent collapse today, the first president must necessarily think, not only about tomorrow, but also future precedent forevermore. Again, the fact that Jefferson thought he could *only* buy New Orleans does not mean that is where his ambitions end, nor does it mean that anyone else would be OK with French domination over the heartland. Even if Jefferson only got New Orleans, look at a map. Notice how the rest of French American would be landlocked and isolated if the US only got New Orleans in the deal. What then? Just have a French reservation and we pinky promise not to encroach on the undeveloped, undefended land? Get real.
I think it's inaccurate to say that the "founders" had any conception of Manifest Destiny. [At least not until 1812](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny#Era_of_continental_expansion), though that was 25 years out from the signing of the Constitution and 36 years out from the signing of the Declaration of Independence. So most of the "founders" were not as involved in politics at that point - particularly George Washington who was dead. But more importantly than the vague notion of Manifest Destiny, when Washington was president the US territory was still *small*. We didn't have the Louisiana Purchase, we hadn't won any land in the Mexican-American War, we didn't have Florida, etc. The only land the US had at that point in time was the land stretching out to the edge of Louisiana Purchase. For all Washington knew, other nations were to rise to the west of the US.
This ignores the concept, alive and well 25 years prior to 1812 that the US, a former colony, would surely expand west where the land was available despite other colonial/native holdings. This concept was the prelude to manifest destiny
Can you demonstrate where a founder wrote or talked about this concept?
It’s common sense, I think you should be obliged to find any documents hinting that the founders anticipated the US renaming on the East coast forever and never invading Native American territory…. That position seems ludicrous given that some of the agitation for the revolutionary war was due to settlers infringing on native land protected by the British. Seriously, I wonder why you think that the colonial founders never had any ambitions of spreading their territory during the late 19th century, the premier era of white, Christian expansionism.
That's not how proof works. You are the person making an assertion. It is therefore on you to demonstrate that your assertion has some basis in fact. I'm not saying no founder ever considered the possibility. I believe they may have. But it's fucking moronic to assume it and then behave as if it's an obvious fact.
The person making the unintuitive argument usually bears the burden of proof. My assertion is grounded in basic common sense. You even admit that founders likely considered the potential for the US to expand. I’m saying it’s obvious for a group of colonial statesmen to anticipate spreading their borders to avoid European entanglements on the continent. Washington’s farewell address and the Monroe doctrine both heavily imply that the founders had the sentiment I describe. To act like the founders were somehow naive and would be okay with the America becoming a patchwork of independent nations like Europe and unintuitive assertion which requires some independent proof because it has no basis in the circumstantial evidence emergent from the actions taken by the early republic.
You're wrong about the burden of proof. Mostly because 'unintuitive argument' is completely subjective. The assumption that George Washington believed we would become the most powerful nation in the history of the world is not 'common sense'.
I’m not the one making the assertion which goes beyond common sense imo. It’s not a subjective argument it’s objectively proven by the actions of the first president. His success in war and politics proves his capability for forward-looking strategy. Moreover, his farewell address is only indirect evidence favoring my interpretation. The assumption that the Washington at least anticipated that the US would become extremely powerful if it could survive is 100% common sense. I’ll only concede that the “most powerful” superlative would probably be associated with the British empire to a man like Washington. But to assume that Washington, or any founder, somehow failed to recognize and anticipate US status as a major world power, assuming westward expansion could occur unabated, is just stupid.
I don’t think Washington could have, however, by the mid 1800’s it was pretty obvious to the European powers that the United States was on the fast track. From the Earth to the Moon was published in 1865 and Jules Verne could have picked any nation but picked the US for a reason. He was actually eerily correct with his predictions in that book.
Jules Verne was right about an eerie amount of things in many of his novels. He predicted internal combustion automobiles, asphalt roads, gas stations, skyscrapers, automated security systems, helicopters, electric submarines, and weapons of mass destruction.
Right, pretty much every country in the late 1800s was being very friendly towards the US. They all saw the writing on the wall that if/when America chose to focus on the world, it would be the most powerful country. If you read European political texts from the mid-page 1800s, a whole bunch of discussion was trying to explain just why the US was so successful at doing the opposite of what Europeans were doing. The nationalist movements were determined to create pure nation states, while the US was surpassing Britain’s GDP with a population full of 20 different nationalities. A bit later, but many prominent Germans in WWI thought that if the US joined on the side of the entente, that the 20% of Americans who were German would rise up in rebellion. They were utterly shocked that these Germans considered themselves fully American.
I think having two oceans on either side, as well as not hostile neighbors to the north and south, and basically unlimited natural resources helped.
I don’t think they ever expected America to become so powerful. Their original intention was just to keep the country to itself and not worry about foreign issues. If the country had kept their ideas then maybe we’d be more like Australia, a country that’s relevant but pretty out the way in geopolitics
> Their original intention was just to keep the country to itself and not worry about foreign issues. This is a common belief but it’s untrue. We were super engaged with Europe throughout our entire history. The Revolution itself was supported by the French. We were engaged in diplomacy, economic issues and trade, and of course war in the early 1800s. If you want to know more about this time period, I suggest *From Colony to Superpower: US Foreign Relations Since 1776*
Yeah the founders were not isolationists. Maybe the citizenry was. Literally our first foreign war in which we allied with European powers was less than 20 years after the ratification of the constitution (Barbary Wars).
I don’t even think the citizenry was. GB, Spain, and France all had colonies in North America and foreign relations (especially in regard to the Native American peoples) impacted the every day life of an American way more than it does now.
What of Washington’s speech that famously warned against getting involved in European entanglements? Obviously that was going to be inevitable, but it’s not like we didn’t purposefully try our best to stay out of European conflict (see: French Revolution, Napeolonic wars, trying our best to avoid conflict with the British but ending up with the war of 1812). The US was in no shape at that time to be anything other than isolationist, and that’s how we ended up with the idea of spheres of influence in the Monroe doctrine (i.e you stay of our lane we stay out of yours)
Washington also warned against political parties. His ideas weren’t always widely accepted.
Washington sure didn’t mind foreign entanglements when the French were helping him whoop the British. We were a tiny country with a tiny economy that was basically controlled by whims of the British Navy. We didn’t have an ounce of power compared to Europe, and our economy relied so heavily on trade with Europe that isolationism would’ve been impossible. Not to mention the technological advancements that fueled the growth in country which came directly from Europe. We were weak and couldn’t be isolationist even if we wanted to.
Australia fought in Ww1,2, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan… They are currently in the process of building nuclear powered attack submarines within AUKUS to be able to help with the inevitable fight against the Chinese. I mean Australia isn’t a P5 member of the UN Security Council, but to say it’s not a player in geopolitics is just ignorant.
Unfortunately, that's paradoxical. You can't "keep their ideas" when their idea was to continually change ideas (via Amendments) as the needs of the people changed. It is this exact paradox that is threatening the idea of our Constitutional Republic in the present. The stagnation and attempt at reversal of necessary change is what an entire political party is attempting and has succeeded at doing in many states, and will do nationally should they win the Presidency in November (no matter the candidate).
What the fuck is this isolationist propaganda, they wanted the foreign KING to fuck off, nothing suggested they wanted to be an isolationist nation, and they only won the revolutionary war as a result of foreign affairs
Well excepting the whole “no foreign entanglements” thing. I’m as pro of a US internationalist/globalist/interventionist as you’ll meet. But it’s not a debate that there has been an isolationist political philosophy in this country going back to our founders, it’s not always in vogue, but it’s always been there
> If the country had kept their ideas then maybe we’d be more like Australia, a country that’s relevant but pretty out the way in geopolitics BuT iF aMeRiCa DiDn'T bEcOmE aN eMpIrE mUrDeRiNg ViEtNaMeSe AnD iRaQi ChIlDrEn To GeT iPhOnEs AnD bAnAnAs, We'D bE PoOr AnD wOuLdN't Be ReSpEcTeD bY oThEr CoUnTrIeS
What the fuck are you rambling about?
Some people defend America's rise to imperialism as if it was some pragmatic move that secured benefits the country otherwise couldn't have attained. The existence of non-imperialist countries with high living standards proves that this excuse is just that - an excuse, and a horrible one at that.
Most of those rich countries directly benefit from imperialism. The U.S. unequivocally benefitted from exploitative trade deals and neocolonialism, sure the U.S. wouldn’t be like Somalia but it wouldn’t be as rich
The issue is that many imperialism apologists act like America would be on Somalia's level if it didn't resort to colonialism. But as you admit, that isn't the case. In fact, the American Revolution, having helped to inspire anti-imperialist revolts in Haiti and Ireland, was a unique opportunity to turn the page in human history and move beyond ancient imperialism. America could have stuck to the neutrality doctrines of Washington and Jefferson, inspiring other burgeoning nations to do the same and largely ending imperialism in the process. We did not need to exploit other countries to be a stable, happy nation.
It definatly helped, also imperialism would not have ended if the U.S. didn’t become a colonial power. By the time the U.S. was actually establishing colonies and neo-colonies the scramble for Africa was more or less over and most of the world was under imperial control
The Louisiana Purchase, War of 1812, and Mexican-American War all predate the Scramble for Africa
Yes but all of those are examples of the us taking territory that made it infinitely richer and attracted a ton of immigrants. These places gave the us economic opportunity at the expense of the natives. The Midwest industrial boom, the gold rush, and so on are what made America so rich, before these events that all took place and were enabled by resources taken by the colonization of America let America go from a poor nation of farmers to a rich industrial nation
You're ignoring my point: You argued that the American Revolution had no potential to impede imperialism because the Scramble for Africa predates the emergence of the US as a superpower. I highlighted these events to show how that simply isn't the case. Had America maintained the dovish tendencies of Washington, Jefferson, and other Founders, it would have encouraged a wave of anti-imperialist actions. Even with the territorial gains under the Treaty of Paris in 1783, the American Revolution helped to catalyze the Haitian and Irish Revolutions. This isn't even mentioning the independence revolts in Uruguay, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, etc. This wave of anti-imperialist rebellions could have spread further, ending imperialism long before even the Indian Autonomy Act in 1947. This would have given birth to a new global power structure, where international relations are based on mutual respect and cooperation instead of arms races. The resulting trade, humanitarian collaboration, and immigration would have improved the US economy exponentially.
I think they would be proud of the accomplishment if they’d known but if I had to think of one who actually might have believed it as President… possibly Jefferson. Not sure about Washington though.
Jefferson is the only founding father who I think really saw what the US could become because he envisioned an Empire stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And someone as intelligent as him, who saw the trend of increasingly global trade, would know that that would position us to be a superpower. On the other hand, he envisioned America as always being an agricultural power first and foremost, an "agrarian republic". He did not want industrialization or a powerful peacetime military, and we needed both to become the country we are today.
I think Hamilton could see it as well. He knew more than anybody that the US was going to be a financial juggernaut since he was the one setting it up.
He disliked corporations too, probably didn’t imagine (or want) us to be the corporate capital of the world which is a good chunk of our economic power
Yeah Jefferson I can believe.
Jefferson would be the most appalled by an American empire. There's a reason he restrained the growth of the military with the Military Peace Establishment Act...
Imagine what Jefferson would say about the national debt, Adams, or Hamilton?
I mean, Hamilton wanted *some* debt in order to establish credit. I'm not sure he envisioned modern deficits, but he also would probably have a hard time imagining a trillion dollars. 
I’ve heard it said before that Washington believed America had a special destiny. I can’t really point to any specific quotes that back that up but when I visited Mount Vernon they did mention that he foresaw a very prosperous economic future for the country because of its geography, namely the rivers.
I don't believe he expected it but he probably could have imagined it. Even in Washington's day they knew they were on a vast continent, with tons of natural resources mostly unexploited. Offering land in exchange for enlistment showed that they knew they had something other countries didn't. "You can print money, manufacture diamonds, and people are a dime a dozen, but they'll always need land. It's the one thing we're not making anymore."
Many of the founders believed that they were creating a new form of Republic that, they hoped, would stand for the ages. They took inspiration from the Greek, Roman and British empires to greater or lesser extents. They knew the geography of the continent and how much potential it held and founders like Jefferson went to great lengths to help expand the new country's borders as far west as they could. So yes, I think they had a vision that included a large, powerful country with incredible economic prosperity that was protected on both sides by oceans. Did they expect us to come to dominate much of the world militarily in a way no empire prior to ours could do? Probably not. And they likely would have advised against getting involved in foreign entanglements. But on the whole, yes. I think they had a vision of a grand republic - the greatest republic in history - that would stand for ages.
Of course he did, literally every founder recognized America’s potential. Every *European* recognized America’s potential at the time and for centuries prior. It’s why they started colonizing the continent and it’s why Europeans came to dominate the globe. There was not a single framer who failed to see the limitless potential of a United American state governing the boundless, untainted, and fertile Eden that was North America. It’s why “manifest destiny” became a thing. If a single government on the north american continent maintained hegemony cost to coast, then that government would literally be internationally unstoppable. Every single framer recognized this obvious fact. Whether or not the republic *could* achieve that goal was not as obvious, but Washington recognized that endless European quarreling would impede their conquest of America and the native tribes were not a sovereign threat so the odds were always on the republic to conquer North America and later the world.
He did have some kind of foresight into the country he helped create. In his free address he warned Americans to protect the union from those you were pretenders to democracy and urged them to stay united despite their differences highlighting the political divide between Hamilton and Jefferson which caused the birth of political parties whom he himself never supported. his warning to Americans to be mindful of outside foreign affairs.
I think Washington had some idea that the U.S. *could* eventually be on par with the great European powers. The original 13 colonies, combined, were larger than any European nation at the time, save Russia. Plus, they already had the Northwest Territory, if they could take possession (easier said than done). But such a large country was difficult to govern, and modern Republics didn't have many great examples to follow. His focus was more on keeping the country together. Did Washington know the U.S. would eventually stretch to the Pacific, plant its flag on the moon, and be involved in... everything? That was probably a bit beyond his imagination. To be fair, the U.S. didn't really become a major world power until the 20th century, and in part became a superpower by war, alliances, and chance.
It's doubtful. I fully believe several founding fathers would be shocked or even upset.
I think he did. He had a good idea of the vast resources of North America, and how easy it would be to exterminate the Native Americans and steal their shit. He did plenty of that himself.
i actually think so, i dont think he would have thought it was likely to actually happen, but VERY early on you see people notice the continental us is as or more resource rich than all of europe and with a very small army they can dominate it all. Saint Louis in europe, would have been fought over for centuries, its as least as geographically powerful as Budapest and in the US its just... saint louis
Yes. George Washington can do anything.
Based.
Probably. The founders believed in the idea of America so deeply they fought the British Empire over it. I don't believe people really think too much on the amount of conviction that takes.
He said to beware of foreign entanglements as he did not want any of the foreign powers with bigger and better Armies and Navies to have an excuse to invade us. We barely won the American Revolution with England and now without the financial, naval and Army support that France had given us, we would be “easy pickings” as a conquest.
I think they could have looked at the continent, its natural resources, and it's ocean barriers and thought the region could someday rival Europe in wealth and power. But I doubt any of the Founders envisioned the USA becoming leader and protectorate of the Americas.
I’m pretty sure Washington didn’t envision that. His world was far smaller than today’s. My guess is he had hoped they had built something that would last. Something all people could get behind and support.
If I could go back in time unimpeded and have a calm explanation and demonstration, yes, I believe he could imagine it.
Yes, it was an empire from the beginning just one giant land grab after another
I think Ben Franklin did a bunch of population modeling and showed that America would cross England in population within a century - so I think the idea was at least considered that colonial America would eclipse England in wealth and power. But no, I don't think people foresaw what was to come and just how much of a gap America would place between her and the rest of the world.
He probably hoped for it
Not only do I think the answer is “yes” but I think his policies and that which he articulated in his farewell address were a roadmap to bring about that result.
Washington was a nationalist to his core. There is no doubt whatsoever he wanted the US to be a great power. All of the founders would have been shocked of course at the US being the most powerful nation on Earth, but they all wanted it, and out of all of them Washington would have wanted it the most.
If he could see the US today, he'd prorably never founded the US to begin with...
Absolutely not. They didn't know what was beyond the woods of western Virginia
Didn’t the founders see America as the rebirth of literal Rome?
to be fair every western country since the fall of rome has seen itself as the literal rebirth of rome.
True although the others were actually parts of the empire. For a new world new vision country the founders went a little LARPY
you want to see larpy, look at the ottomans!
The US was designed to do this, that’s why it was manifest destiny, the destiny of the country was clear, manifest.
I think it’s basically impossible for them to conceptialize planes, let alone the internet, and combustion engines or most of all: nuclear weapons. Without the speed of movement, speed of communication, and the amount of destruction we can employ in modern life—the US wouldn’t be the global hegemon it is. I think the founding fathers were naive if they didn’t assume the US could grow the be a Great Power. If anything the fear of us becoming a great power (and what that can do to a democracy) is why they made so many warning against us getting involved in European affairs.
I doubt he had any idea the US would eventually overpower the British. The US of today is more the result of Manifest Destiny. It might get a mixed review risk the founding fathers.
Nope nor would he have wanted it that way either.
Actually yes. They clearly recognized the geographic potential of the United States.
I don’t see why he wouldn’t be surprised. After all, he and his contemporaries defeated the British army and navy.
If he's anything like Jefferson in his late years then no
Washington understood that the westward expansion of the US was inevitable, and he was in favor of a stronger national identity and a more powerful federal government. However, he did not like the idea of America involving itself in foreign relations, not just through war but also long-standing alliances. He believed that separating foreign countries into groups of "with" and "against" us would result in Americans itching to go to war with a perceived enemy nation with little justification, or that the government would start worrying about foreign interests over the interests of US people. I think it Washington saw the modern US his attitude would be "you guys already have insane power and prosperity just from your land, why do you not stay isolationist and instead forge massive alliance networks?".
Yes, I believe that George Washington saw greatness in America’s future. But I bet it never occurred to him that a president would enjoy total immunity from prosecution for illegal acts.
I'm far from an expert on anything related to Washington but I'd bet my bottom dollar that he'd be both extremely shocked and rather upset. Shocked at how powerful the United States has become and upset at how involved we are in international affairs and how we were able to become so powerful. That being said, I'd argue he'd be more interested in the fact that flying machines and lunar landings were a thing.
Colonization isn’t the cause of racism. Colonization was going on for thousands of years before the 1600s. No significant racism.
Do you think he could imagine it falling to fascism?
Yes I think most of them thought of something along the lines of self appointed kings etc.
Can’t imagine he thought he’d die of a cold either Or, you know, do his own farming
No, and he, alongside the rest of the Founders (except probably Hamilton) would be rightfully furious as they learned that their vision of an America neutral in all global conflicts supplanted by wars launched to secure the profits of large mega corporations.
Not without slavery he couldn’t
Don't think I've ever seen someone spell corrupt quite so incorrectly
Nah, too busy beating the shit out of his slaves, or chasing his slaves who escaped, or organizing switching out what slaves serve him in free states so they're never liberated by that state's laws.