America:
The Dictatress of the World
By Jacob G.
Hornberger
October 03,
2017 "Information
Clearing House"
- On July 21, 1821, John Quincy Adams, who would go
on to become the sixth president of the United
States, warned that if America were ever to abandon
its founding principle of non-interventionism in
foreign affairs, she might well become the
dictatress of the world.
Adams
issued his warning in a speech he delivered to
Congress, a speech that has gone down in history
with the title “In
Search of Monsters to Destroy.”
Adams was
referring to the fact that the United States was
founded as a constitutional republic, one whose
military forces did not go around the world helping
people who were suffering the horrors of dictators,
despots, civil wars, revolutions, famines,
oppression, or anything else. That’s not to say that
America didn’t sympathize with people struggling to
experience lives of freedom, peace, and prosperity.
It was simply that the U.S. government would not go
abroad to slay such monsters.
Here is how
Adams expressed it:
Wherever the standard of freedom and
independence has been or shall be unfurled,
there will her heart, her benedictions and her
prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of
monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to
the freedom and independence of all. She is the
champion and vindicator only of her own. She
will recommend the general cause, by the
countenance of her voice, and the benignant
sympathy of her example.
Adams was
summing up the founding foreign policy of the United
States, a policy of non-interventionism in the
affairs of other nations, specifically Europe and
Asia.
And that’s
the way the American people wanted it. If Americans
had been told after the Constitutional Convention
that the U.S. government would be intervening around
the world, there is no way that they would have ever
approved the Constitution.
In fact, as
a practical matter, throughout the 18th and 19th
centuries, there is no way that U.S. officials could
have gone abroad in search of monsters to destroy.
That’s because a nation needs a powerful military to
go abroad and free people from dictators and despots
or save people from famines or other bad things that
happen in life.
When the
Constitution called the federal government into
existence, the last thing the American people wanted
was a powerful military. They were overwhelmingly
opposed to what they called “standing armies,” which
was a term used describe a big, permanent military
establishment. That was why there was Pentagon, no
big, permanent military-industrial complex, no CIA,
and no NSA for more than 100 years after the country
was established. The American people didn’t want
those types of governmental apparatuses to be part
of our nation’s political system.
The reason
Americans were so opposed to standing armies is
because they believed that standing armies
constituted a grave threat to their freedom and
economic well-being. They knew, from both first-hand
experience and through history, that dictators and
despots used powerful military establishments to
destroy the freedom and prosperity of the citizenry,
oftentimes in the name of keeping them safe, secure,
and prosperous.
So, while
there was a basic military force throughout the 19th
century — large enough to suppress Native Americans
or even to defeat a neighboring Third World nation
like Mexico in the Mexican War, it certainly was
nowhere near as large enough to cross the oceans and
invade and conquer European or Asian countries. The
one big exception, of course, was the Civil War, but
the army immediately demobilized upon the conclusion
of the war.
Things
started changing with the Spanish American War in
1898. There were those who argued that America could
not be a great nation without owning overseas
colonies, like the British and French Empires.
Opposed to that sentiment was the mindset that had
guided the founding of the country: that empire and
foreign interventionism would end up destroying the
country from within.
The
interventionists prevailed. First, U.S. officials
misled and double-crossed the colonies of the
Spanish Empire by leading them to believe that the
United States was intervening against Spain to help
the colonies win their independence. It was a lie.
As the colonies soon learned, the real aim was to
step into the shoes of the Spanish Empire by
acquiring its colonies. That’s how the United States
ended with Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, and
Cuba.
Second, the
trend toward empire as a way to make America great
was followed by foreign interventionism, with World
War I and World War II being premier examples.
No
Advertising
- No
Government
Grants -
This Is
Independent
Media
|
That was
followed by the conversion of the U.S. government
from a constitutional republic to what is known as a
“national-security state,” a governmental apparatus
characterized by a massive, permanent standing
military establishment and secretive agencies with
the power to assassinate and spy on the citizenry,
in the name of preserving “national security.”
That was
followed by massive interventions “in search of
monsters to destroy” through assassinations, coups,
invasions, occupations, support of dictatorships,
and regime change: Korea, Guatemala, Iran, Cuba,
Congo, Brazil, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and others.
Here is how
Adams eloquently expressed what would happen to
America if she were ever to abandon our nation’s
founding principles of anti-empire and
non-interventionism:
She
well knows that by once enlisting under other
banners than her own, were they even the banners
of foreign independence, she would involve
herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all
the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual
avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the
colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The
fundamental maxims of her policy would
insensibly change from liberty to force. The
frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam
with the ineffable splendor of freedom and
independence; but in its stead would soon be
substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in
false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of
dominion and power. She might become the
dictatress of the world: she would be no longer
the ruler of her own spirit.
No one can
seriously deny that Adams has been proven correct —
that America — or, more correctly, the U.S.
government — has become the dictatress of the world
— issuing orders and commands to people and regimes
all over the world and backing them up with coups,
assassinations, sanctions, embargoes, invasions, and
occupations, and all headed today by a
democratically elected president who has all the
traditional traits of an old-fashioned dictator or
despot.
Jacob G.
Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of
Freedom Foundation.
https://www.fff.org/ |