Did the Founding Fathers Believe In American Exceptionalism?

Dr. Stern is the author of numerous articles and “Averting ‘the Final Failure’: John F. Kennedy and the Secret Cuban Missile Crisis Meetings” (2003), “The Week the World Stood Still: Inside the Secret Cuban Missile Crisis” (2005), and “The Cuban Missile Crisis in American Memory: Myths vs. Reality” (2012), all in the Stanford University Press Nuclear Age Series. He was Historian at the Kennedy Library from 1977 to 2000.


In a recent critique of the highly controversial 2015 College Board APUSH revision, Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, faulted the document for its failure to highlight “American exceptionalism,” which he defined as “America’s sense of principled mission, its unique blending of religious and democratic commitment, its characteristic emphasis on local government, the high cultural esteem in which economic enterprise is held, and America’s distinctive respect for individual liberty.”

The idea of “American exceptionalism” has, in fact, become a political hot potato—reflexively embraced on the right and passionately denounced on the left. Perhaps we can gain some valuable insight into the historical merits of this concept by turning to one of the most underappreciated, but arguably the most brilliant of the Revolutionary generation, John Adams.

Adams was confident that the new United States was on the cusp of a brilliant future. But he did not believe that Americans, as a people, were exempt from the flaws and faults of other nations and peoples. “There is no special Providence for Americans … and their nature is the same with that of others. …We are not a chosen people … and we must and we shall go the way of all earth.” Americans, he warned, were not immune to the hubris, greed, and foolishness of the rest of mankind.[2] He was convinced that negative rather than benign forces had largely shaped—and would continue to shape—human political behavior; and Americans were no exception.


http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/160334

It’s hard to know what people mean by these terms today.  As with anything, meanings change down through the ages.  American exceptionalism is a modern term to describe the self-consciousness of the founders—Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and Jay—as they went about inventing a new way of government.  But their spirit has been co-opted by some self-aggrandizing types who have changed the whole game.

We have talked, on this site, about how victims become predators, all in the sense of overestimating their struggle, and hence expanding their mission.  A lot of this has taken place in America, as well.

Cromwell aside, America was the first real Revolutionary struggle.  It defeated the colonialism and imperialism of Europe…America was exceptional.  Once its own struggle was complete, it then laid down the Monroe Doctrine, telling Europe  that further efforts by nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention.  Thus: the first two steps of American exceptionalism and the transition from victim to tough-jawed pugilist.

But, oh how times have changed.  The victim has become the antagonist, whichever side you take.  American exceptionalism was bandied about in the early stages of the GWB administration.  The USSR had been vanquished; the Cold War was over; American had no peer in the geopolitical sphere.  It was Rome all over again.

But it also implied that We’re the boss, and you’ll do as we say!!  Hence the second Iraq War.  Hence, the role of world police, and the loss of the purpose of war.  Karl von Clausewitz, On War.  We even invented the facts, we were that powerful.  We’ve effectively extended the Monroe Doctrine to include the whole world.  So, ironically, American exceptionalism comes to mean the second coming of imperialism.

We can take a lesson from this as seen in Israel, and it’s undergoing transition from victim to ‘tough-jawed pugilist’.  The tragedy of the holocaust does not sanction doing the same to others.

Sorry did you have the audacity to compare the holocasut to what is going on now in Palestine? Sorry but that kind of Rhetoric is also appalling and utterly untrue and the kind of talk that inspires hate based off a falsehood. If Israel did not care they would not provide medical facilities to thousands of Palestinians, so it is a very derisive claim to make and insults the very victims of the holocaust. We are talking about here where the Americans pushed out the lands the native American Inidans but I do not see you shouting and championing their cause Quill because that is where the real terrorism of the US Governements were in breaking every single treaty with the Native Indians. That is American exceptionalism for you one you seem to ignore.

I mean blimey just look at how many settlements the US created and took over the country? I mean the demographics have that much changed the Inidans now have little land or rights and you go on about a Holocaust in  Palestine ignoring plain actual geneocide in your own nation. Nobody is calling for these lands to be returned are they because the demographics have changed so much and many people alive today did not create this situation. Just as they have in Palestine and what is needed is a peace there between both sides, which is difficult when so much hate is promoted daily. I think the least advice I would take on a conflict is from an American based on settlements and territory taken by forced based on its history. They fought for self determination to then deny this to enslaving blacks and denying the rights of the Native Indians stealing their lands.

The Revolution was more a civil war than anything else as many also sided and still saw themselves as British so even on that front to compare this to some freedom fighters  is short removed because it was very much pitched battles in the main which in the end the revolutionaries won. On ly shortly before this many of these colonials were happy to wipe out the French in the war that occured between the British. It was in the end about self determination for a people who were for all intents and purposes European.

Actually, American natives have more land than the UK, and there are only 3 million of them. The Navajo Nation alone has almost a third of the land of the UK and just over 300,000 members. That would be like Cardiff getting the entirety of Wales. And they have all the rights of full citizenship.

Of course, if it weren't for Europeans they'd carve up the entire Western Hemisphere among themselves and there would probably be a lot more of them.

I promise -- anybody who talks about a need to promote "American exceptionalism" means "American supremacy." Essentially our right wingers don't want to see us get better, they think we already are better than the rest of the world.

Correction -- the land area of the reservations is a bit smaller than the UK, with just 1 million residents -- the majority of natives don't live on them these days.

Didge wrote:The Revolution was more a civil war than anything else as many also sided and still saw themselves as British so even on that front to compare this to some freedom fighters is short removed because it was very much pitched battles in the main which in the end the revolutionaries won. On ly shortly before this many of these colonials were happy to wipe out the French in the war that occured between the British. It was in the end about self determination for a people who were for all intents and purposes European.

I believe we were discussing American exceptionalism. Yes, as Edmund Burke pointed out, Americans were Englishmen fighting for the rights of Englishmen, but that is a different discussion. A discussion of American exceptionalism involves what became of the American Revolution, not what sympathies caused it. Really…it comes up more in histories about writing the US Constitution, rather than the breach with Britain. The Constitution was about nation building, after the fact of the Revolution.

That is not to say that Americans were not self-consciously thinking about the breach with Britain while writing the Constitution. The founders conceived of themselves as doing something exceptional and marking the end of old-world European imperialism. But that was in the spirit of saying, We just finished with that, and we don't want to return to it. The discussions were more about Hobbes, Locke and Baron Montesquieu, than Burke.

Whether they were right or wrong, it marked the beginning of thinking about the exceptionalism of what they called The American Experiment. My comment is, the founders would have been wise to heed the words of St Teresa of Avila: “Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.”

America has become so successful that it has returned to the same roots from which it sprang. It now wants to spread its brand of exceptionalism all around the world, in a new version of imperialism. We don't need that.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Correction -- the land area of the reservations is a bit smaller than the UK, but still, just 3 million residents.

Sorry will have to answer before I go.

What does that matter Ben over the size when the very fact they were pushed out of so many of their lands?
American succesive Governements broke every single treaty with them and because of greed for Gold and a total lack of respect for the native people caused many to die. Where countless generations had been living on lands for generations. I mean granted my friend has received compensation even being in the UK from the Obama administration because of this and that should be commended. I just think for an American to make issue on the Palestinian conflict when American was completely made from settlements is a tad hypocritical to say the least. The fact is they were pushed out and there is no denying this. I am not promoting American exceptionalism but showing it was and has been a massive part of the American history. Like I said though demographics change and you cannot expect millions of Americans to now move out when they had nothing to with this. You had 16 million Germans displaced mainly with enforcement by the Allies at the end of WW2. They were rehoused and mainly sadly fell under the Soviet occupation. You do not see them claiming their lands back. Countless surviving Jews were forced out of Europe at the end of WW2 as people had stolen their homes, hence why many were forced to go to Israel and the US. They have no made a home for themselves.

Only in Arab nations after as many decades do they keep Palestinian refugees in limbo and deny them citizenship to continue a conflict. That is wrong. as many Jews were expelled from Muslim lands and had to flee to Israel where they were given citizenship. Only Arab nations refuse to make homes for people which in reality are never going to go back into Israel. The demographics have changed that much, yet people still offer a false hope and even worse as stated in Arab nations deny them citizenship. Its time things moved on but this more than anything keeps the conflict going as it is sending out false hope. The only reality of them returning is if Israel is destroyed, which is what some factions intentionally want. Israeli leaderships thoughout history have not beeen saints and wrongs have been done, but it is also wrong to give false hope when so much demographics have changed.

So the size of the land is irrelevant, because the Native Americans were forcefully pushed out and it was wrong, but all of the problems within the Palestinian conflict could have been avoided to this day if the Arab nations had excepted Israeli's right to exist. They instead chose conflict and hundres of thousands of Palestinians were displaced as well as hundreds of thousands of Jews. All wrong, but the reality is this problem exists today from this first fundemental wrong done by the Arab nations.

Have a good evening

I think we are all saying the same thing, effectively. And that is that, American exceptionalism has taken the wrong turn. The term once defined a change from old-world European colonialism, and now it has become a crusade of almost religious proportions to export the American way of life.

Neither the American way of life, nor American exceptionalism is something we want to vouch for absolutely. My biggest concern is that exceptionalism not become expansionism, as in: we should go overseas and liberate, or take sides in the Middle East. We have no business there. That is precisely where American exceptionalism has gone awry.

Original Quill wrote:I think we are all saying the same thing, effectively.  And that is that, American exceptionalism has taken the wrong turn.  The term once defined a change from old-world European colonialism, and now it has become a crusade of almost religious proportions to export the American way of life.

Neither the American way of life, nor American exceptionalism is something we want to vouch for absolutely.  My biggest concern is that exceptionalism not become expansionism, as in: we should go overseas and liberate, or take sides in the Middle East.  We have no business there.  That is precisely where American exceptionalism has gone awry.

Agreed that American exceptionalism is a bad way though helping overseas is to me different no matter if it has created far more harm than good Quill. The intentions in the main were to do good like removing Saddam and the Taliban which were the primary factors, no matter if people wish to argue off oil which in the end the US never benefited from and is now having the last laugh with where the Saudis have really screwed up with attempting to compete with US shale production. Though that is another debate.

Until tomorrow so all the best Quill

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I think we are all saying the same thing, effectively.  And that is that, American exceptionalism has taken the wrong turn.  The term once defined a change from old-world European colonialism, and now it has become a crusade of almost religious proportions to export the American way of life.

Neither the American way of life, nor American exceptionalism is something we want to vouch for absolutely.  My biggest concern is that exceptionalism not become expansionism, as in: we should go overseas and liberate, or take sides in the Middle East.  We have no business there.  That is precisely where American exceptionalism has gone awry.

Agreed that American exceptionalism is a bad way though helping overseas is to me different no matter if it has created far more harm than good Quill. The intentions in the main were to do good like removing Saddam and the Taliban which were the primary factors, no matter if people wish to argue off oil which in the end the US never benefited from and is now having the last laugh with where the Saudis have really screwed up with attempting to compete with US shale production. Though that is another debate.

Until tomorrow so all the best Quill

Well, if you discount the oil motive, then you have no justification for the Neo-Cons to go to war with Iraq whatsoever. If Bush/Cheney were after bad guys (Saddam and the Taliban), then why weren't they after General Than Shwe, of Burma, a dictator far worse? We know there were no WMDs, so if the Bush/Cheney cabal were not after oil, and they didn't care about dictators generally, what were they after?

I think American exceptionalism had been perverted into an excuse for oil.