Ancient Tribes, Peoples, and Nations
By Jeffrey E. Elliott, Esq.
Is it really in American Foreign Policy interests to take sides over ancient Keivan-Moscow conflicts?
Early in the history of the American Republic opposing political parties had divergent world views, differing opinions, opposing policies, countering foreign influences, and opposite political sides to foreign policy issues.
In the beginnings of the nascent American Republic this was expected, common and ordinary. Rigorous, lively and partisan national debates arose over the intricacies of American foreign policy.
Although the French had aided the American revolutionaries, Hamilton and the Federalist Party advocated “neutrality” (many scholars believe Hamilton favored the British), while Jefferson and the Democratic- Republican Party advocated a military alliance with the French during the French/English war initiated in 1793.
The conservative English Constitutional Monarchy was locked in bitter and heated competition with liberal Revolutionary France over dominance of Western Europe.
Consider the following quote from American History from Revolution to Reconstruction and beyond, A Biography of Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804), Strained loyalties: the French Revolution 1789-1799.
“Hamilton’s reservations about an alliance with France were only intensified by the French Revolution, which was met with sweeping adulation throughout the United States. To the people who had carried out a model revolution, France’s efforts to do the same were watched with a maternal eye. Lafayette, of course, was close to the hearts and minds of the Americans as he acted out his role as an early arbiter of reason. Jefferson, who had been in Paris during the outbreak of the revolution, saw it as a manifestation of the “revolution in human sentiment” begun by America, and another reason that the United States should support the movement by aiding France as she had aided the United States’ efforts.”)
Americans lobbied by various French interests and advocated for the Jeffersonian view, wanted the United States to enter the Western European conflict on the side of the French. On the other hand, Americans lobbied by British loyalists were equally inclined to embrace the Hamiltonian position.
As cited in Alexander Hamilton and American Foreign Policy, by Carson Halloway written for the Heritage Foundation excerpt as follows:
National Interest and National Pride
“For Alexander Hamilton, the primary aim of a government’s management of its foreign affairs is to safeguard the national interest, understood not only as the country’s security and prosperity, but also as its self-respect or pride. Hamilton emphasized this point to the public in the context of the young republic’s first serious foreign policy challenge: the outbreak of war between Great Britain and revolutionary France in the spring of 1793. In response to that development, President Washington, with the support of his entire Cabinet, had issued his famous Neutrality Proclamation, which was intended to keep America from being drawn into the European conflict. When some Americans criticized the proclamation, Hamilton took to the public prints in its defense, authoring his celebrated Pacificus essays, published in the Gazette of the United States.”
Hamilton and the Federalists wanted a strong national union. A union which would further develop a spirit of American national belonging based on unique American interests.
Jeffersonian focused less on American Nationalism and more upon the power of the States and the sovereign rights inherently vested in the States as ultimately resting in the common people.
Consequently, Jeffersonians were deeply drawn to revolutionary France’s side in the epic struggle between European superpowers.
Hamiltonians rightly warned a military alliance with France and American interventionism in the British-French conflict would expend American blood and treasure eventually resulting in overwhelming damage and harm to the United States.
In the current modern era, the conflict is in Eastern Europe in the traditional ancestral lands of the East and West Slavs. The Kievan Rus and the Muscovite Rus are presently engaged in Slavic rivalry.
Like the British and French agents lobbying both political parties, attempting to obtain advantage and draw the young republic into a particular side in their European conflict, so in the present, both the Ukrainians and Moscow are attempting to persuade differing American politicians and political parties into taking sides.
Hence, history often demonstrates the same type of struggles, the same degree of passion between factions on the American political landscape.
Jefferson argued pre-existing alliances with France and the goodwill and friendship, because of French aid during the American Revolution. Hamilton took the opposite position. Alexander Hamilton publicly argued in his Pacificus essays that the United States should act in her own national self-interest and thus should not become involved in a devastating war between the two Western European super powers. Hamilton further postulated it was simply not in America’s interest to enter a war against powerful Great Britain on the side of revolutionary France. Such a war would not be in the national interests of the United States.
Recently, in modern times, both the Ukraine and Russia have played an old political game of lobbying various political factions in the United States to take one side or another. Russia appeared to attempt to seek the ear of the Trump faction; while the Ukrainians had sought favor from the Clinton and Democrats. Of course, as in the days of the early republic, name calling, falsified narrations, sanctimonious raucous finger-pointing, calls for impeachment and every other untoward political intrigue, as the French and British factions squared off.
As it was in 1793, so it is today, between the Clintonite Democrats and the Trump Republicans. Without question, the Ukrainians have approached the Clinton Democratic political war machine, in order, to curry favor, in their Eastern European contest against Moscow. And so, the allegations fly that the Russians have approached team Trump. In order, to gain favor in their struggle with Kiev. Incidentally, the competition between Kiev and Muscovy is ancient, at least since the 12th century, as old as the power struggle, between the Britons and Franks.
This leads one to exclaim, as the ancient psalmist in Ecclesiastics 1:9,
“ What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”
The power struggle between the English and French was lionized in William Shakespeare’s, Henry V, immortalizing the Battle of Agincourt.
Wisdom would dictate that modern American politicians should learn from Hamilton and the Federalists and Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, in terms, of American Foreign policy. Hamilton and the Federalist kept Jeffersonians from leading the United States into the ancient British-French power struggle for dominance of Western Europe. Both the French and British lobbyists, although, not for lack of effort, failed to suck the new American Republic into a conflict between the two Western European superpowers.
In recent times, various Middle Eastern Islamic States had also lobbied various American factions for involvement in endless, continuous and never-ending Middle Eastern conflicts. Foreign entanglements, without much direct benefit to the United States nor serving vital American national interests. Alexander Hamilton articulated in the debate that America should only become involved in foreign entanglements if her national interests were at issue. In essence, Hamilton argued that American blood and treasure should not be unnecessarily exposed to foreign adventurism unless legitimate American national interests were at risk.
Certainly, the Federalist Hamilton would argue that an ancient Eastern European power struggle, between the Kievan Rus and Muscovy Rus, is not a vital American interest. And unmistakably, inconceivably, shallow American politicians, mainly liberals and anti-Trump neo-cons are pushing America towards involvement in a Kiev-Moscow conflict.
“While our tectonic plates may rub against one another, we are natural allies. The Russia of Tolstoy, Pushkin, Solzhenitsyn and the Orthodox Church belongs with the West. If America stumbles into a war with Russia that all our Cold War presidents avoided, the Russia baiters and Putin haters will be put in same circle of hell by history as the idiot war hawks of 1914 and the three blind men of Versailles in 1919.” “ What are the Roots of This Hostility Toward Russia and Hatred Of Putin”, by Patrick J. Buchanan.
Hear! Hear!, the venerable Patrick J. Buchanan is absolutely correct in his analysis of the substantive threat to American interests. A military action against Russia, as is implied by arrogant and foolish liberals and neo-cons will, in the end, be a nightmarish disaster for the United States. Yes, like to prize-fighter, Tunney-Dempsey or Frazier-Ali, there will be no clear victor, but both fighters will be badly, irreparably, devastatingly damaged in the dog fight.
Thus, wisdom dictates, the more prudent Hamiltonian course should be pursued. The Kiev-Moscow conflict is a matter between Slavs, between the Kievan Rus and the Muscovite Rus. This is simply not an American matter nor fight.
Hence, the wisest course, in regards, to American foreign policy is not to be drawn into East and West Rus conflicts, but to pursue friendship, cooperation, commerce, trade and diplomatic ties to both nations. In fact, the Trump Warsaw Speech defending Western civilization is an excellent foundation in encouraging these ancient Slavic peoples to find common ground in what culturally unites these nations.
As Buchanan saliently indicates that the liberals and neo-cons who refuse, to even speak or communicate with the Russians, rather than take the opportunity for detente or even alliance on common interests, will lead the world to hellish tumult.Such an alliance will greatly contribute to world peace and safety. Hamilton’s warning is explicit America should not become involved in foreign entanglements unless there are vital American interests at issue.