American diplomatic history and international thought: a constitutional perspective
| DOI | 10.1177/0047117817723067 |
| Date | 01 September 2017 |
| Published date | 01 September 2017 |
| Author | David C Hendrickson |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117817723067
International Relations
2017, Vol. 31(3) 322 –340
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047117817723067
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
American diplomatic history
and international thought: a
constitutional perspective
David C Hendrickson
Colorado College
Abstract
This essay offers a constitutional perspective on the American encounter with the problem of
international order. Its point of departure is the American Founding, a subject often invisible
in both the history of international thought and contemporary International Relations theory.
Although usually considered as an incident within the domestic politics of the United States, the
Founding displays many key ideas that have subsequently played a vital role in both international
political thought and IR theory. The purpose of this essay is to explore these ideas and to take
account of their passage through time, up to and including the present day. Those ideas shine
a light not only on how we organize our scholarly enterprises but also on the contemporary
direction of US foreign policy and the larger question of world order.
Keywords
Alexander Hamilton, American founding, constitutionalism, intellectual history, international
law, International Relations theory, internationalism, James Madison, liberalism, realism,
republican security theory, US foreign policy, Woodrow Wilson, world order
This essay takes as its point of departure a subject that is almost invisible in both the his-
tory of international thought and contemporary International Relations theory: the
American Founding. The reason for this invisibility is not difficult to discern: the found-
ing is usually seen as an incident within the domestic politics of the United States. If we
look closely, however, we can see that many key ideas that have subsequently played a
vital role in both international political thought and IR theory received a full exposition
Corresponding author:
David C Hendrickson, 14 E. Cache la Poudre St., Colorado College, Colorado Springs, CO 80903, USA.
Email: DHendrickson@ColoradoCollege.edu
723067IRE0010.1177/0047117817723067International RelationsHendrickson
research-article2017
Article
Hendrickson 323
in the early United States. The purpose of this essay is to explore these ideas and to take
account of their passage through time, up to and including the present day. Those ideas
shine a light not only on how we organize our scholarly enterprises but also on the con-
temporary direction of US foreign policy and the larger question of world order. The
essay offers a constitutional perspective on the American encounter with the problem of
international order.1
The American founding
We are accustomed to seeing the United States as a unitary actor throughout its history,
but in its first century of existence, the potential disunity of ‘the union of the states’ was
seen to be the central political problem of the time. The consolidation of the American
nation-state that ultimately occurred in 1865 was but one of the possibilities visualized
by contemporaries and not usually considered the most likely, given the power of decen-
tralizing tendencies. From North America’s separation from the British Empire in 1776
until its crackup in the Civil War era, predictions and forebodings of disunity were ever
present. Rather than the isolated nation-state so often portrayed, North America featured
a system of states within a larger system of states, its unique federal system standing as
an imposing rival to the European system. American international thought concerned not
simply the relations of the United States to other foreign powers but also its own ‘domes-
tic’ discourse centered on the creation and maintenance of the federal union. Because of
the specter of disunion, Americans confronted the idea of an anarchical system of states
in North America as a standing possibility for a century, and this entered closely into
their ideas of interstate cooperation.
A distinctly American approach crystallized in the years of revolution and constitu-
tion making (1770s–1780s), and then exerted a commanding influence thereafter. This
new approach was centered on the union, a federative system perfected by the US
Constitution after the false start under the Articles of Confederation. Significantly, the
framers of the constitution did not give to either the national or the state governments a
monopoly on the use of legitimate force within their territories – typically seen today as
a key attribute of sovereign statehood. As Madison observed in the aftermath of the
Federal Convention, the deliberations had brought forth a ‘feudal system of republics’,
one which left the ultimate locus of authority obscure on key points.2
The overall structure of this body of thought was framed by two rival dangers. On one
hand, there was the possibility that the American states, once they separated from Great
Britain, would be unable to climb out of the state of nature and form a durable union. The
disunion of the American states and sections would, in turn, invite European intervention
in North America, making the former colonies the ‘football’ of European politics. Both
processes together, attended by war and rumors of war, would encourage the develop-
ment of institutions in North America – powerful executives, standing armies, enormous
debts, and taxes – that would be destructive to republican liberty. Standing alongside the
specter of anarchy, however, was the danger that the remedy for this condition – an over-
arching authority clearly superior to the states – might amount to an effective consolida-
tion of the states into a vast monolith that would also be destructive to their liberty. This
was a remedy potentially worse than the disease.
To continue reading
Request your trial