Non-interventionism

[Ezra Smack]

The founding fathers intended the United Stated to follow a policy of non-interventionism. That is, using the military only to for defense. Below is another exerpt from a speech given by a two time Congressional medal of honor winner after retiring as a Major General.
__________________________________________________ __


Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Ezra Smack

The founding fathers intended the United Stated to follow a policy of non-interventionism. That is, using the military only to for defense. Below is another exerpt from a speech given by a two time Congressional medal of honor winner after retiring as a Major General.
__________________________________________________ __


Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

He can see some problems so he should try to do something about them, even if it is just to bloody his head up against a stone wall or should we give up.

[Smull]

That was an excellent speech. Good find and good job for the author being able to have the courage to articulate that.

[Dumpy Dooby]

If the Founders intended for us to be wholly non-interventionistic, then how did the Founders feel about us borrowing money, weapons, and soldiers from France and Spain during the War of Independence?

[Libertaire]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

If the Founders intended for us to be wholly non-interventionistic, then how did the Founders feel about us borrowing money, weapons, and soldiers from France and Spain during the War of Independence?

That's not interventionist. That's just business.
The legacy set forth by Washington and Jefferson was that of no entangling alliances. That doesn't mean that resources can't be exchanged. But as a matter of policy, we shouldn't on the whole intervene in the internal affairs of foreign nations. That was the accepted tradition for most of the 19th century.
Of course, we have to realize that you can't lump the founders into one collective whole. They were politicians and idealists who disagreed on a great number of issues.

[WickedLou9]

I think this is a subject that liberals and conservatives can agree on for the most part.
Interveneing in other peoples affairs when we are not asked foe help only leads to trouble.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Libertaire

That's not interventionist. That's just business.
The legacy set forth by Washington and Jefferson was that of no entangling alliances. That doesn't mean that resources can't be exchanged. But as a matter of policy, we shouldn't on the whole intervene in the internal affairs of foreign nations. That was the accepted tradition for most of the 19th century.
Of course, we have to realize that you can't lump the founders into one collective whole. They were politicians and idealists who disagreed on a great number of issues.

So France getting in the middle of a war between British colonies and England is not considered "intervening in the internal affairs of a foreign nation"?

Yeah OK. And jumping into the middle of a Korean civil war or a Vietnamese civil war is not intervening in the internal affairs of a foreign nation.


Why not just acknowledge that the Founders were requesting the exact opposite of "non-interventionism" of France and Spain during the War of Independence?

[avsp]

having had a kwik read of this
War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935
This Smedley Butler seems my kind of bloke

However its unrealistic to think that Americas interests end at it boarders & no matter what the intentions of he founding fathers were they built into the system the ability for it to change.

I think that the US should be part of a multilateral, (UN?) world policing effort

[Libertaire]

Originally Posted by avsp

I think that the US should be part of a multilateral, (UN?) world policing effort

To what end?

[avsp]

non-proliferation enforcement
intervention in genocides
peacekeeping in ceasefire situations
that sort of thing

All extremely problematic & getting the UNSC to agree on anything is almost hopeless, ..., but from a first principles position the US shouldnt exclude itself entirely from such efforts

[kombayn]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

If the Founders intended for us to be wholly non-interventionistic, then how did the Founders feel about us borrowing money, weapons, and soldiers from France and Spain during the War of Independence?

A majority of our loan came from Holland. France & Spain were at odds with England's Monarchy which is why we ended up with the support. In the end we benefited because we were able to purchase the territories from France & Spain

And what ended up happening? A country in majority leaving in complete peace. Government is trying to break-it-down in the name of political correctness and a philosophy of "Liberalism" that has been hijacked by the Democrats. Thomas Jefferson is a true-classic liberal (Small-L ) and we don't have one single Liberal Democrat that can even be close enough to him to kiss his feet.

So in essence, the Founding Fathers would be very happy with what has happened and went beyond their wildest dreams. I do however don't think they would be happy with the last 2 generations and how they've tried to pick away at the foundations of a document that for 232 years lives to this day and speaks volumes more louder than ever that government intrusion of the people is the true enemy to the Republic.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by kombayn

A majority of our loan came from Holland. France & Spain were at odds with England's Monarchy which is why we ended up with the support. In the end we benefited because we were able to purchase the territories from France & Spain

And what ended up happening? A country in majority leaving in complete peace. Government is trying to break-it-down in the name of political correctness and a philosophy of "Liberalism" that has been hijacked by the Democrats. Thomas Jefferson is a true-classic liberal (Small-L ) and we don't have one single Liberal Democrat that can even be close enough to him to kiss his feet.

So in essence, the Founding Fathers would be very happy with what has happened and went beyond their wildest dreams. I do however don't think they would be happy with the last 2 generations and how they've tried to pick away at the foundations of a document that for 232 years lives to this day and speaks volumes more louder than ever that government intrusion of the people is the true enemy to the Republic.

France supplied us with more troops than anyone, and we owed them more money than anyone after the war.

But none of that addresses the dilemma here.

1. The Founders were against interventionism.
2. France intervened when England was having trouble with its Colonists.
3. The Founders supported France's intervention.

Do you not see how that is inconsistent? Obviously the Founders did not reject it wholesale. So under what conditions is it righteous/proper to intervene?

[C4Casey]

The founders never intended for the military to be strictly used for homeland defense. The first time America went overseas to fight was the First Barbary War (1801 - 1805), and Thomas Jefferson was President. Hell, the Marine Corps even sings about it in their song.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by C4Casey

The founders never intended for the military to be strictly used for homeland defense. The first time America went overseas to fight was the First Barbary War (1801 - 1805), and Thomas Jefferson was President. Hell, the Marine Corps even sings about it in their song.

This is another decent point. Jefferson wanted American soldiers to join France when fighting against England. He was a francophile. Hamilton, on the other hand, wanted American soldiers to join England and fight against France. He was a pedophile.

[Uncle Entity]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

2. France intervened when England was having trouble with its Colonists.

That point would only be valid if you accepted England's claim to sovereignty over the colonists. The colonists obviously didn't as the Declaration of Independence pretty clearly points out.

Not that it invalidates your conclusion but to be logically consistent...

[kinggovernor]

Smedley Butler > *

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by avsp

non-proliferation enforcement
intervention in genocides
peacekeeping in ceasefire situations
that sort of thing

All extremely problematic & getting the UNSC to agree on anything is almost hopeless, ..., but from a first principles position the US shouldnt exclude itself entirely from such efforts

I agree, well said.

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by Uncle Entity

That point would only be valid if you accepted England's claim to sovereignty over the colonists. The colonists obviously didn't as the Declaration of Independence pretty clearly points out.

Not that it invalidates your conclusion but to be logically consistent...

How so? The point was that France came into the war against the British and on the side of the US, which the founding fathers supported. That is supporting interventionalism,

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

This is another decent point. Jefferson wanted American soldiers to join France when fighting against England. He was a francophile. Hamilton, on the other hand, wanted American soldiers to join England and fight against France. He was a pedophile.

That caught me completely off guard.