American Republicanism and the fin-de-siècle imperialism debate

Abstract

Aristotelian republicanism rests on an important premise, that persuasion is more virtuous than coercion. Nonetheless, there is an uneasy tension between the two approaches to rule in the republican tradition. This is particularly true with respect to Aristotle's views on foreign policy, wherein coercive means of bringing about justice among nations may be viewed as much an offspring of republican thought as the exercise of moral suasion to the same end. This article takes this interesting tension in Aristotelian republican thought and attempts to apply it as an exegetical lens for looking into the republican ideological contours of the fin-de-siècle American imperialism debate. Particular attention is paid to how the tension in republican approaches to rule informed and helped give shape to the debate. Analysed through this lens is the rhetoric of two of the debate's most important exponents, Theodore Roosevelt, advocating greater coercive means, and Carl Schurz, an advocate of moral suasion.

Notes

^1. T.L. Pangle, ‘Executive energy and popular spirit in Lockean constitutionalism’, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 17 (1987), pp. 253–265.

^2. K. Orren and S. Skowronek, The Search for American Political Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

^3. J.J. Connolly, ‘The public good and the problem of pluralism in Lincoln Steffen's civic imagination’, The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, 4 (2005), pp. 125–147.

^4. E.S. Clemens, The Peoples Lobby: Organizational Innovation and the Rise of Interest Group Politics in the United States, 1890–1925 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1997); S. Skowronek, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).

^5. M. Bukovansky, ‘American identity and neutral rights from Independence to the War of 1812’, International Organization, 51 (1997), pp. 209–243.

^6. K. Kersch, Constructing Civil Liberties: Discontinuities in the Development of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

^7. J.P. Diggins, ‘Republicanism and progressivism’, American Quarterly, 37 (1985), pp. 572–598.

^8. G. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic (New York: W.W. Norton, 1969); B. Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1967); L. Banning, The Jeffersonian Persuasion (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978); and D.W. Howe, The Political Culture of the American Whigs (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1979).

^9. R.R. John, Spreading the News: The American Postal System from Franklin to Morse (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995).

^10. K.C. O'Leary, ‘Herbert Croly and progressive democracy’, Polity, 26 (1994), pp. 533–552.

^11. H. Mansfield, ‘The modern doctrine of executive power’, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 17 (1987), pp. 237–252.

^12. T.S. Langston and M.E. Lind, ‘John Locke and the limits of presidential prerogative’, Polity, 24 (1991), pp. 49–68.

^13. Pangle, ‘Executive energy’, op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 256.

^14. R. Ketcham, ‘Executive leadership, citizenship and good government’, Presidential Studies Quarterly 17 (1987), pp. 267–279.

^15. G. Thomas, ‘As far as republican principles will admit: presidential prerogative and republican government’, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 30 (2000), pp. 534–552.

^16. P. Pettit, ‘Legitimacy and justice in republican perspective’, Current Legal Problems, 65 (2012), pp. 59–82.

^17. T.L. Pangle, ‘Justice among nations in Platonic and Aristotelian political philosophy’, American Journal of Political Science, 42 (1998), pp. 377–397.

^18. Pangle, ibid., p. 385.

^19. Pangle, ibid., p. 386.

^20. Pangle, ibid., p. 389.

^21. Pangle, ibid., p. 388

^22. Pangle, ibid., p. 387.

^23. J.G. Sproat, The Best Men: Liberal Reformers in the Gilded Age (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968).

^24. R.H. Weibe, The Search for Order (New York: Hill and Wang, 1967).

^25. E.A. Goerner and W.J. Thompson, ‘Politics and coercion’, Political Theory, 24 (1996), pp. 620–652.

^26. C. Schurz, Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers, F. Bancroft (Ed.) (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1913), vi, p. 3.

^27. Schurz, ibid., vi, p. 29.

^28. Schurz, ibid., vi, p. 35.

^29. Schurz, ibid., vi, p. 52.

^30. Schurz, ibid.

^31. Schurz, ibid.

^32. Schurz, ibid., vi, p. 57.

^33. Schurz, ibid., vi, p. 58.

^34. Schurz, ibid., vi, p. 59.

^35. Schurz, ibid., vi, p. 55.

^36. Schurz, ibid., vi, p. 71.

^37. Schurz, ibid., vi., p. 72.

^38. Schurz, ibid., vi, p. 74.

^39. Schurz, ibid.

^40. T. Roosevelt, State Papers as Governor and President, 1899–1909 (New York: Scribner, 1925), p. 296.

^41. Roosevelt, ibid., p. 295.

^42. Roosevelt, ibid., p. 297.

^43. Roosevelt, ibid., pp. 353–355.

^44. Roosevelt, ibid., p. 352.

^45. Roosevelt, ibid., p. 349.

^46. Roosevelt, ibid., p. 348.

^47. Roosevelt, ibid., p. 347.

^48. Roosevelt, ibid., p. 296.

^49. Roosevelt, ibid., pp. 296–297.

^50. W.G. Sumner, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other (New York: Harper, 1883).