#my understanding of this section of american history is murky and biased by a crafted education system

[grem-archive]

So I don't know if you'd have the time to read a specific text or not, but with the isolationism post going around now it seems like this is the most relevant time to ask? If you can't rn that's fine, I'm just curious to hear other people's thoughts on it, especially people who know more about American history than I do, because I studied Japanese history in college, and obviously compared to the isolation of Tokugawa Japan, America has never really come close to anything like that so I might be biased

Anyway, the essay I'm talking about is The Myth of American Isolationism by Bear Braumoeller, the pdf is available for free from Harvard (or it was when I checked earlier today). Nothing on his website gave me the impression he's crazy biased or super nationalistic and therefore unreliable, but I'll admit I didn't read any of his other work or anything to check

I guess what Braumoeller says just makes a lot of sense to me? I went through public school in America and had never even heard that we sent people to represent us at League of Nations meetings, especially not after we decided not to join, until I read this essay. I just remember being told we tried to cut ourselves off as much and as often as possible, but the foreign policy of the US in the 20s and 30s that Braumoeller points to and what I know of our foreign policy after that makes me feel like the US has never actually been as extreme about isolation as people make it sound?

Idk, I'm curious to hear other people's thoughts about his claims who have better knowledge of American history than I do, cause obviously my public high school didn't bother telling me that many details, and I know you gotta be careful reading about history from individual authors cause so many of them have a specific narrative they want to spin

Sorry this was so long

Apologies in advance for the length of this answer & if it's disjointed/repetitive. I've been really tired lately, but I hope it's still insightful. Take the following with a grain of salt yet an open mind.

Also to anyone with a better understanding of American foreign affairs and policy, I implore you to add to this post. Your knowledge would be greatly appreciated.

Alrighty, so I've been sitting on this one for a while. Mostly for the fact that foreign policy and international affairs are not what I study, even though often it's hand-in-hand with history. My primary study is also more geared toward archaeological conservation, field methods, and museum curation. I had to consult a friend for this who is more interested in this type of question. I would also say there are people within the fandom with a much better understanding of this than I do, and I would greatly appreciate their input on this.

It also took me a while to read the paper, which I could thankfully get through my university. No one's fault but mine. I'm easily unfocused.

I would personally argue that the United States has never been truly isolationist. Sure, we've had periods of fluctuating isolationist sentiment - something that Braumoeller even points out - but as he also rightly points out that this is relative, saying 'American isolationism' is most often challenged by the historian sect, "who tend to define isolationism by security policy," when it could be an ideology in more than one sphere of policy. It's not a cut-and-dry definition. One section of policy could ring with an isolationist leaning (no military action), but then a country stays involved in another manner (economic). One facet of public opinion could sound isolationist ("I want the US to mind its own business."), while another shows we'd rather stay involved ("But I don't want us to stop having an influence.").

In fact, I very much enjoy how Braumoeller phrases the American ability of the 1920s on the third page of the PDF: "...thanks to America's overwhelming strength, it could rely on banks rather than tanks:". Our security was economic rather than militaristic, in simpler terms. He goes on later in the paper to demonstrate how this strategy was used on more than one occasion. So, I would describe this behavior of the first half of the 20th century as non-intervention rather than isolationism.

Never have we cut our ties with the rest of the world completely nor necessarily tried to keep the world away, not even during periods often seen as isolationist. To look at a period of American history that I'm slightly more familiar with, we will use the Revolution and its aftermath as an example. I've seen it said by a fellow student that "post-colonial" America was in a state of isolation. This is untrue. Once again, this is a better described by non-intervention.

Let's look at the Barbary captives, three American merchant ships captured by "pirates" off the North African coast in 1784-1785. The Kingdom of Morocco became the first country to recognize US independence in 1777, reaching contact with us in 1778 via Ambassador Benjamin Franklin, staying in France. Sultan Mohammed ben Abdallah also secured for the Americans security of trade, saying any ship flying the American flag might be welcomed in their ports. A later treaty, the Treaty of Friendship, was signed in 1786, then ratified in 1787, both as a promise between the two states and to afford further protection to American merchants. Of course, it wasn't foolproof, as American ships were still at risk of capture by non-participant states, but this showed an American desire to still be involved with the world. This also showed a world open to this brand-new country seeking entry. The Treaty of Friendship was our first treaty with a non-European power.

Past that, we still desired to trade with other (colonial) powers, such as selling to Saint Domingue (Haiti), which only ended with the start of the Haitian Revolution in 1791. 1784 also sees the beginnings of ties with China as an independent state, with the merchant ship Empress of China returning to Massachusetts shores after a 15-month voyage. Our influx of imports and news from Britain even rose back to comparable pre-Revolution levels by the mid-1780s, especially as British merchants began to demand American customers pay their debts. I realize I'm citing trade, but trade can be political and also is a form of economic involvement.

We often quote George Washington as warning us to stay out of European affairs; yes, this is true that he warned against this. But I would look at his words from the angle of not becoming militarily involved. Looking for more companionable relations rather than flirting with gunpowder and bayonets, or even inserting ourselves politically in many ways. America still very much entertained ties to the rest of the world after the Revolution and into the next century, but we did very little to be physically involved in their sphere.

I realize I've sort of sidetracked the question, but this was the best way I could figure to answer it. So, to compare US "isolationism" to the hard isolation of Tokugawa Japan would be incorrect; the brand of "isolationism" we tend to hear about here wouldn't even be close, in my opinion. We wanted to be left alone but did not want to give up on having an influence if that makes sense. Hell, there were times when we flirted with being involved, but didn't actually do so until later or until prompted by some interest. A necessitated carrot-on-a-stick type nation, I suppose.

Also man...I guess maybe my school was the odd one out in teaching that we still sent delegates to League discussions despite not formally being a part of it. You are not the first person I've heard say this.