James L. Jr. Lewis. The American Union and the problem of
Neighborhood: The United State and the
Collapse of the Spanish Empire. 1783 - 1829. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 1998. xi +304 pp
Reviewed by Mark R. Day
Professor James E. Lewis seeks to
examine the motivations behind American policy, both domestic and foreign, that
arose from the debate over trade and boundary issues, in the newly formed American Republic and the
deteriorating Spanish Colonial Empire.
The work examines a topic in
American history that has traditionally been seen only through the works of Twentieth
century Historians Samuel Flag Bemis[1] and A. P
Whitaker, both of whom were considered the authoritative voices on the subject of
American Foreign policy[2], during the early years of our nation. Mr. Lewis writes a narrative which searches
for a deeper understanding of the public
policies of both Federalist and Democratic Republican leaders during the five
decades that follow the founding of the American republic. Lewis frames his argument by
constructing a new paradigm within which
to view these policies as part of a global strategy intended to secure American
prosperity .
From the first page of the
introduction Lewis confronts the reader with a set of previously understated
motivations that promote a sense of political intrigue on the part of the
founders. He presents the reader with a point of view, on the part of the founders,
that stresses preservation of the American Republic over the spread of
democratic ideals in the western hemisphere..
The founding fathers policies, says Mr. Lewis , reflect their a
perception that the new republic would be threatened by commercial competition
for land and trade if more than one single sovereign power was allowed to rise
out of the ashes of revolution in the Americas'.
Lewis maintains that American
policy makers, from both political parties,
sought to preserve their goals of popular government, within the infant
United States, and the right to practice
individual enterprise. This would be accomplished by enforcing policies which
prevented the establishment of a one or more competing governments within the
boundaries of the land acquired from England under the terms of the treaty of
Paris 1783, or small republican states
that might be carved out of the Spanish holdings. For the Founders, Lewis believes, the issue
of balancing economic and political power within the Western Hemisphere, was
one that had to be managed forcefully.
Failure to do so would result in the
Western Hemisphere's decline into the chaos of political and economic rivalries that, inevitably lead to the constant warfare and
economic instability which had dominated European relations for the past two
centuries.
Professor Lewis divides the book
into time frames in order to discuss the key events that he says prove his
argument . He begins with this quote "The fluidity of the New
World coupled with the incredible fragility of the American union posed a dual
threat,"[3]
Lewis. explains that the Founders worried that at any time a new nation might appear,
created out of the disorder of the Spanish Empire and the rapid movement of
settlers into the Trans Appalachian region.
Prior to the election of 1800 the
press of settlers who flocked into the west demanded more land and access to
the Mississippi. The new Constitutional
government feared that these settlers would become a distant people and could
themselves declare a independent republic, that action would threaten the union. Lewis
next points out that the men who would make the
decisions and policies were split on the methods by which the settlers' needs
would be met. The Federalist and their
Northeastern supporters were more
interested in promoting the union by insuring that the authority of the government
grew at least as rapidly as the population and size of the western settlements,
while the Jeffersonian Democrats looked
to engage in a policy that would satiate the desires of the western settlers by
satisfying their political, economic, and diplomatic interest. Lewis
identifies The Northwest Ordinance as the policy of the Federalist who felt
that by establishing an incremental method of gaining statehood while limiting
migration through high prices for government owned lots would limit the
danger. He indicates that the Democratic
Republicans seemed to have a better understanding of the settlers' character, and understood that if the interests of the westerners
were not considered , they would likely seek to govern themselves.
The Federalist governments
Jay-Gardoqui treaty negotiations of 1786-1787,
served notice of the need to follow a policy that included the interest
of western settlers. Lewis says Jay and
his supporters from the Northeast
miscalculated when they attempted to make the west less appealing to migration
by closing the Mississippi River to trade for twenty-fire or thirty years. Western settlers living in the Ohio and
Tennessee River Valleys voiced their outrage and sought to break away from the
union and align themselves with the Spanish.
Lewis later states that the Spanish Conspiracy in Kentucky validated the
fears of the Democratic -Republican opposition, by providing evidence that the
Federalist policy would lead to disunion.
The reorganization of the government from Articles of Confederation to
the Constitutional Government of 1789 did bring the key policy makers to
agreement in order to secure the new Constitutional Union. However, Lewis goes on to discuss the financial policies of
Alexander Hamilton in terms of their impact on union. He says
that the Democratic Republican faction felt that the Federalist fixation on relations with England
and in their words the Walpolian system of permanent debt, established by Hamilton, would lead to the people choosing to throw off
the Federal government and cause the disillusion of the union[4]
With the victory by Jefferson in
1800, the decision makers for the next
fourteen years would be Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. Professor Lewis identifies two primary issues
that were dealt with by the trio above. The
first of these issues was the return of Louisiana to Napoleonic France. Highlighting the importance of the lands west
of the Appalachian Mountains Lewis provides
the following statement written by Thomas Jefferson in 1786, "Our confederacy must be viewed as the
nest from which all of American North and South is to be peopled." Continuing Lewis reveals Jefferson's' fear that Spain was "too feeble to hold
them {its colonies} until our population is sufficiently advanced to gain it
from them piece by piece. "[5] Lewis provides further analysis on to Thomas
Jefferson's reaction to the dissolution of the Spanish Empire, which begins in
1801 with the return of Louisiana to France, by stating that "historians
have generally misunderstood the nature of the crisis created by retrocession
of Louisiana to France in October 1800."[6] Lewis
comments that Jefferson and Madison saw the French control of the
Mississippi as a reemergence of the conflict
over free navigation of the river.
Such a disruption of trade would be tantamount to economic blackmail of
the western population, which could lead
to an East - West split and dissolution of the union. To defuse this potential crisis the
Republican solution was to ensure the connection of the west with the rest of
the union by expanding the territory of the United States. "The purchase
of Louisiana was seen as the best way to resolve the problem. However, not everyone saw this as the right
policy. Lewis says " The Louisiana
Purchase met with ambivalence from prominent Federalist and Republicans"[7] For many this would not solve the problem but
rather exacerbated the problem by promoting migration into the newly acquired lands at a
rapid pace and increase the likelihood of disunion. Jefferson himself said " however our
present interest may restrain us within our own limits it is impossible not to
look forward to distant times when our rapid multiplication will expand itself
beyond those limits ....... cover the whole northern, if not the southern
continent, with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms and by similar laws."[8] Jefferson
was well aware that the westward movement of Americans was inevitable, but his statement implies that disunion was not
likely as long as the laws and
traditions of the people remained similar and land was available for economic
opportunity.
The second primary issue identified
by Lewis centered on the problems
created by the revolutions that brought independence to many
former colonies of the Spanish in the Western hemisphere. For the American policy makers a crisis arose
out of concern over Eastern and Western Florida. Lewis points out that the position of these
provinces in close proximity to the Mississippi made them particularly
important to the security of New Orleans and the mouth of the Mississippi. Further the Aaron Burr Conspiracy of 1806
highlighted the danger posed by a failure to secure the loyalty of the Trans- Appalachian
people and keep the Mississippi open to trade.
Lewis says that Jefferson saw Burr as a man who promoted disunion, and had
Burr succeeded in capturing New Orleans he could have created a new nation
through the use of an embargo against the western settlers and challenged the
union east of the mountains as well. Lewis notes that while the Republicans were
successful in their pursuit of territorial expansion, they failed to calm the western settlers' fear of lost
trade. Lewis goes on to point out that the Embargo of 1807 was
not received well and that the lack of effective control during the War of 1812
caused many to lose faith in the ability of the Federal government to serve
their interest.
After the War of 1812 Lewis says
the "Republican presidents Madison and Monroe pursued a less aggressive
policy toward their neighboring British,
Spanish and Indian powers. "[9] The disillusion of the Spanish Empire was met
cautiously by American policy makers who carefully watched the various
revolutions in the Spanish colonies which threatened to create competition
problems for the still young American Republic.
Officially the United States remained neutral in these revolutions, a
position that was unpopular with many citizens. Lewis explains the policy of president
Madison as one in which he "sought to balance the projected commercial,
territorial, and strategic benefits of an independent New World with feared
diplomatic and military risks of a rupture with Spain."[10] Clearly
Madison was reluctant to put the American Republic at risk by pressuring Spain
into war over American support for independence movements even though Lewis
says "in American eyes, the revolutionaries represented the dearest of
human rights."[11] Lewis points out that in 1816 Madison and
Monroe sought to start negotiations with Spain for all Spain's territory east
of the Mississippi. A key portion of
that negotiations was the
requirement that Spain would have to
acknowledge American claims on the Columbia River and Northwest coastline. This seems to be in step with the Democratic-
Republican position that providing new land and securing the access to trade routes was critical to
promoting unity in the American Republic.
The intervention of Andrew
Jackson, a westerner, into Florida in 1816 and the call by that same individual
for the movement of the federal Troops to the Sabine River were provocative in
nature but can be seen as evidence of the desire of westerners to gain control
of as much territory as possible from Spain.
As the disillusion of Spain's
American Empire continued Lewis says "Adams doubted that a people that
were Catholic, mixed race or Spanish, and inured to tyranny could govern
themselves."[12] However Henry Clay, a westerner, pressured
Monroe and Adams to see what he felt were substantial benefits for the American
union by recognizing the newly independent nations of South America even if
they were not republican governments.
Professor Lewis says Adams
believed "They would remain aloof from European Wars, open their ports to
the world, and support a liberal view of neutral rights"[13] Clay felt that a program of Internal
improvements {American Plan} would counter the attraction of the newly
independent Spanish colonies. Adams
viewed Clays comments and actions an assault on the power of the executive branch,
but "President Monroe worried less about the stability of the fragile
union than about the security of a weak nation."[14] Aware of the actions of the Congress of
Vienna and the presence of the Holy alliance, a reference to Russia and France,
American tried to find its voice on European intervention in the Western
Hemisphere. Within the government of the United States two separate camps
debated whether to adopt proactive policies or passive policies regarding the
new worlds independent states and the level of action that would be needed to
ensure stability within Americas borders.
Lewis goes on a length about the schemes of Adams and Monroe as the
government looked for clarity and support from all corners. Adams believed that congressional action was
not necessary for recognition of the new democracies feeling instead that an
executive proclamation was all that need be done.
For America the pivotal year would
be 1819. That year would see several
crisis situations that brought the proactive forces in American politics to the
forefront. First the Missouri Compromise
of Henry Clay was passed by congress in order to prevent disunion over the
expansion of slavery into the Louisiana territory. As a result Clay rose to political prominence
allowing him to become a voice for more aggressive policies. Second the Transcontinental Treaty
{Adams-Onis} was concluded and established American control over Florida
and drew a southern border at the
Sabine, Red, and Arkansas Rivers. Monroe worked very hard to obtain the treaty
deal which he felt would remove the danger of conflict with Spain that could
lead to disunion. The third crisis was the Panic of 1819 which Lewis says "eroded popular nationalism
by clarifying the conflict of interest among sections, states, localities,
economic sectors and individuals."[15] The
Missouri Compromise and the panic of 1819 both highlighted and deepened the
feelings of sectionalism that would ultimately caused disunion in 1861. Lewis states that sectionalism began to paralyze
the federal government between the years 1819 and 1821. The only redeeming grace of this was that it
"drew back together unionist policymakers who doubled their efforts to
improve cross-sectional bonds and increase federal power and authority[16]
Professor Lewis has written a book
which makes the reader take a second look at the facts as they understood them
in the past. His work was well grounded
in primary sources and he provides a detailed bibliography and a list of notes
which make back checking the facts simple.
This work is well thought out and will provide a wealth of information
that can be discussed by scholars of the early republic for years to come.
Professor James E. Lewis Jr. received
his B.A. in Government form the College of William and Mary in 1986, an M.A. in
History from American University followed in 1988. He earned a PhD. from the University of
Virginia in 1994. In researching his background I found that much
of the material for this work was first used in his Ph.D. Thesis Dissertation
in 1994
[1]
Samuel Flagg Bemis Pulitzer Prize winning historian and biographer, former
president of the AHA, works include: Pinckney's
Treaty, John Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy, and The
American Secretaries of State and Their Diplomacy.
[2] John M.
Belohlavek, H-Net Reviewer, James L. Jr. Lewis. The American Union and the problem of Neighborhood: The United State and the Collapse of the
Spanish Empire. 1783 - 1829. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 1998.
[3]
James L. Jr. Lewis. The American Union
and the problem of Neighborhood: The
United State and the Collapse of the Spanish Empire. 1783 - 1829.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.
[4]
James L. Jr. Lewis. The American Union
and the problem of Neighborhood: The
United State and the Collapse of the Spanish Empire. 1783 - 1829.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998. p.18
[5] ibid p.14
[6]
Ibid p.24
[7]
Ibid p.28
[8] ibid p.28
[9]
Ibid p.70
[10] ibid p.82
[11]
Ibid p.85
[12]
Ibid p.102
[13]
James L. Jr. Lewis. The American Union
and the problem of Neighborhood: The
United State and the Collapse of the Spanish Empire. 1783 - 1829.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998 p.103
[14]
Ibid p.103
[15]
James L. Jr. Lewis. The American Union
and the problem of Neighborhood: The
United State and the Collapse of the Spanish Empire. 1783 - 1829.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998 p. 128
[16]
Ibid p.136
No comments:
Post a Comment