DOMESTIC OPPOSITION TO THE USE OF UNITED STATES MILITARY FORCE:
NATIONALIST/ISOLATIONIST PERIOD FROM THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION TO
WORLD WAR II
CSC 1995
SUBJECT AREA - HISTORY
United States Marine Corps
Command and Staff College
Marine Corps University
2076 South Street
Marine Corps Combat Development Command
Quantico, Virginia 22134-5068
MASTER OF MILITARY
STUDIES
AY 1994-95
Title: DOMESTIC OPPOSITION TO THE USE OF
UNITED STATES MILITARY FORCE:
NATIONALIST/ISOLATIONIST PERIOD
FROM THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION TO
WORLD WAR II
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for
the Degree of
Master of Military Studies
Author: MAJOR RAYMOND P. GANAS, USMC
Date: 5 June 1995 Approved: ___________________
DR. H. W. GHOLSON
___________________
DR. D. F. BITTNER
MEMORANDUM FOR: Dr. Howard W. Gholson, Lieutenant Colonel
Michael H. Vernon, and Committee on Masters
Program Standards (COMPASS)
Subj: M.M.S. Paper Proposal
1. Essential Information:
a. Submitted by: Major Raymond P. Ganas, USMC, Conference
Group 10
b. Proposed Topic: Domestic Opposition to the Use of United
States Military Force: Nationalist/Isolationist Period from the
American Revolution to World War II
c. Master's Paper Committee
1. 1st Mentor: Dr. Howard W. Gholson
2. 2nd Mentor: Dr. Donald F. Bittner
d. Problem statement: I propose to define the arguments
used to articulate domestic opposition to US military
intervention. The definitions will be organized according to
their types and patterns. The study will include an analysis of
the origins of the arguments and the context of the arguments in
relation to the progress of society during the 164 year pre-world
War II period of US isolationism and how that establishes them as
fundamental values and beliefs within American society.
The study will not pass judgment on the arguments as valid or
invalid, or whether they are in the majority or minority of
opinion. The purpose of the information is to gain insight to
points of view that were in the mainstream of public thought for
the greater period of US history and which may retake that
position if the end of the Cold War reveals that the short 50
years of internationalism and interventionism were only a
temporary abberation necessitated by the superpower conflict.
e. Proposed Research Question: What are the arguments which
were used to oppose US military intervention, and how did they
exist within American cultural values and beliefs?
2. Research Design
a. Methodology: I intend to conduct a review of available
historical and social literature on domestic opposition to US
military intervention during the period from the American
Revolution to World War II.
b. Preliminary Research: My preliminary research has
centered on three areas. The first is classifying the various
arguments that existed against military intervention. The second
is to identify how these arguments were represented in personal
beliefs in American culture. The third main effort is
identifying the structure, means, and objectives of groups and
individuals in the US who used those arguments.
c. Sources: The initial search for reference material has
focused on books available at the Research Center. Those books
cover the historical and social material for this study.
d. Milestones
(1) Initial Bibliography: Submitted
(2) Topic Outline: 24 May 1995
(3) Initial Draft: 30 May 1995
(4) Final Submission: 6 June 1995
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title: DOMESTIC OPPOSITION TO THE USE OF UNITED STATES MILITARY
FORCE: NATIONALIST/ISOLATIONIST PERIOD FROM THE
AMERICAN REVOLUTION TO WORLD WAR II
Author: Major Raymond P. Ganas, USMC.
Thesis: During the Nationalist/Isolationist period from the
American Revolution to World War II, opposition arguments to the
use of military force existed within the mainstream of public
thought.
Background: The period of US history from the American
Revolution to World War II generated a nationalist/isolationist
view concerning the use of US military force. This view
originated from opposition stances that mirrored mainstream
public thought and opinion throughout the period. Mainstream
public thought and opinion focused on concerns as to the cost of
military intervention, the authority to intervene, the national
will to intervene, and the size, composition, and restrictions
imposed on the military.
Recommendation: An analysis of this period of US history and
corresponding thoughts on the use of military force provides
insight to future US military involvement. This analysis emerges
as an especially valid tool if the fifty years of the Cold War
period of internationalism/interventionism proves to be a
temporary anomaly caused by the superpower confrontation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CHAPTER I: THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE BY THE UNITED STATES . . 5
SECTION 1: THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES AND ON ITS BORDERS . . . . . . . . . . . 5
SECTION 2: THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE BY THE UNITED STATES
IN OVERSEAS INTERVENTION . . . . . . . . . . . 9
SECTION 3: DEBATING THE REASONS FOR WAR . . . . . . . . 11
CHAPTER II: OPPOSITION ARGUMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES' USE
OF MILITARY FORCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
SECTION 1: IS WAR WORTH THE COST? . . . . . . . . . . . 13
SECTION 2: IDENTIFYING THE OPPOSING IDEOLOGIES . . . . . 17
SECTION 3: THE RANGE OF VIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
SECTION 4: LIMITS TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE
POLITICAL LEADERSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
SECTION 5: THE PUBLIC: OPINIONS AND NATIONAL WILL . . . 34
SECTION 6: THE MILITARY: LIMITS TO THE MISSION . . . . . 40
SECTION 7: THE MILITARY: LIMITS TO MILITARY CAPABILITY . 46
CHAPTER III: CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
CHRONOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
BIBILIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
DOMESTIC OPPOSITION TO THE USE OF UNITED STATES
MILITARY FORCE: NATIONALIST/ISOLATIONIST PERIOD FROM THE
AMERICAN REVOLUTION TO WORLD WAR II
Americans have had a peculiar ambivalence toward war. They have traditionally
and sincerely viewed themselves as peaceful, unmilitaristic people, and yet
they have hardly been unwarlike.
Allan R. Millett and Peter Maslowski, For the Common Defense
THE PERIOD OF NO FOREIGN MILITARY ALLIANCES: 1776 TO 1939
An analysis of the causes of war is incomplete without
consideration of the opinions expressed for not going to war.
Examining the opposing positions also serves to explain the
dichotomy noted in the quote from For the Common Defense. The
modern US perspective of an internationalist/interventionist
world has relegated former mainstream nationalist/isolationist
beliefs to a place in the storage closet. The post-World War II
"Baby Boomer" generation is gradually assuming the mantle of
leadership from persons who were raised in an era before nuclear
weapons, international military alliances, and an American policy
of deterrence. As the pre-World War II first-hand experience is
lost to the passage of years, the generations raised after World
War II must study history to learn the nationalist/isolationist
arguments debated by their parents. The arguments might seem
outdated, but are not necessarily invalid and may once more gain
popularity in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Before the first US military alliance, occasioned by World
War II, the United States dealt with the issue of the use of
military force in three categories: inside its borders, on its
borders, and overseas. The arguments for and against the use of
military force in the three categories shared basic elements, but
the level of disagreement heightened at each step. Within the
borders, there has always existed fierce opposition to the use of
military force as a means of enforcing civil law against the
nation's own citizens. Despite the opposition, federal military
forces were used to suppress such civil unrest as Shays'
Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, the Fries Rebellion, slave
escape and rebellion, the Nullification Crises of 1832-1833, the
Dorr Rebellion, labor unrest, riots, and vigilantism.1 Little
dissent existed to the use of federal military for internal
security to remove Indians or defend against foreign armies,
although the form and size of the force was contested.
Considerably more debate arose when it came to use of the
military in connection with expansion of the borders of the US,
especially if the direction favored one side of the argument over
slavery. The issue reached its zenith when deciding the value of
US military force in foreign conflicts, where the threat was to
American freedoms around the world, or expansion of US territory.
Isolationism and noninterventionism can become confused terms
when considering the frequency of naval punitive expeditions to
such places as Algiers and Sumatra, amongst others, where foreign
casualties attest to the aggressive responses to perceptions of
the US being wronged. Isolationism seems an inappropriate label
for US interests in Guam, Hawaii, and the Philippines. The key
to understanding is US nationalism. It should be understood in
terms of preserving freedom of action solely for the US, with no
obligations to assist any nation's pursuit of similar or other
goals. Freedom of action remained policy even in World War I,
when Americans fought alongside, but were not in a committed
alliance with, Britain and France.2
During the nationalist/isolationist period from the American
Revolution to World War II, opposition arguments to the use of
military force centered on determination as to whether a threat
existed, the potential for the misuse of federal military forces
against US citizens, the cost to the nation of a war, justifying
military objectives, expressing the broad range of views,
determining authority and responsibility, and achieving a clear
public consensus. Additional considerations dealt with
determining the size and composition of the military, and ways to
impose restrictions on its use.
This study provides insight on the views regarding the use of
military force that represented the mainstream of public thought
for the major portion of US history by indicating the period of
origin and providing context in relation to the American society
that existed at the time. This analysis proves especially useful
if the end of the Cold War reveals that the fifty years of
internationalism/interventionism which followed World War II was
only a temporary aberration necessitated by the superpower
conflict.
CHAPTER I
THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE BY THE UNITED STATES
SECTION 1
THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES
AND ON ITS BORDERS
For the first century of existence of the US, the main focus
for debate on military force was within its borders and on its
borders as it expanded. The secondary focus was on the use of
military force outside its borders to protect American interests
and freedoms. All attention was on the available land in North
America, facing competition from Spain, France, Britain, Mexico,
and the native Indians.
The geography of the US, with its east and west coasts
protected by vast ocean distances, was often cited as the main
element of isolationism, but that was somewhat misleading. The
fledgling US was not physically isolated from threats to its
frontiers on the north, south, and west. The oceans were a
barrier to a European threat only.3 The main reason the US
looked inward was that, as a new nation, it was not powerful. It
did not have the dense population or the economy to support a
military force equal to European standards, nor did it really
need one. Strong enough to throw off Britain's occupation, but
not large enough to pose a threat to European powers, the US as
it existed after the Revolution could be safely ignored. The
birth of the new nation was also fortunately timed with a
peaceful period between the European powers.4 Europeans also
learned the lesson of Napoleon in Russia during 1812, that, as
Clausewitz stated, "...an Empire of great dimensions is not to be
conquered."5 The vast distances in the US must have made it
appear similar to the Russian steppes.
The religious origins of the US immigrant population was
often cited as contributing to early beliefs against the use of
military force. The reality was that only a small minority of
religious immigrants practiced beliefs of pacifism. The vast
majority accepted the need for militias, especially while the
threat of Indian attacks and slave rebellions was literally at
the doorstep. Opposition to a standing army was not primarily a
religious belief, but the result of concern that it would be the
instrument of oppression of a federal government against its own
citizens.6
The second main reason for US isolationism was the
continental focus of the new nation in pursuit of its manifest
destiny. The expansion of the population into the interior of
the continent required most of the available resources of men
and money. The men whose goal was the expansion and settlement of
the country were first and foremost farmers, which did not leave
much time left over for other causes. The US success dealing
with the Spanish, French, and Indian occupation of lands in the
direction which the US was expanding, and the competition with
Britain for the Oregon Territory, was part effort and part good
timing.7 Fortunately for the US, the British takeover of
Florida from Spain in 1763 permitted colonists to settle there,
so that when Florida was ceded back to Spain in 1783, the numbers
of US citizens made Spain willing to negotiate transfer of lands
they knew would be an inevitable loss.8 In addition, the
Napoleonic conflict prompted the opportunity for the Louisiana
Purchase, which removed a significant barrier and eliminated a
major European interest from further consideration.9
The continental expansion and the use of the military to
secure that goal was not wholly agreed upon. The War of 1812
showed disagreement on adopting a policy of attacking Canada with
the limited goal of negotiating a favorable law of sea accord, or
a policy of invading Canada with the intent of annexing it and
driving Britain entirely off the continent. Poor military
strategy nullified the question as US forces were driven off and
it was all the US could do to protect its northwest border from
the renewed threat by the British and Indians.10 The Mexican
War, which secured huge new territories for the young nation, was
another example. Many years after the conflict, retired General
and former President Ulysses S. Grant wrote of the Mexican War in
his memoirs, "Generally the men were indifferent... but not so
all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed... and to this
day regard the war... as one of the most unjust ever waged by a
stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a
republic following the bad example of European Monarchs, in not
considering justice in their desire to acquire additional
territory."11 The Mexican War was opposed by abolitionists who
saw an expansion of slave territory. Pacifists opposed the war
as not just. The Whigs accused the Polk Administration of
imperialism.12 General Grant's memoirs stated his belief that
the Civil War was an outgrowth of, and punishment for, the unjust
Mexican War.13 There was also debate over the forcible removal
of Indians in order that the lands be opened to immigrant
settlers. The initial plan was to remove the Indians east of the
Mississippi to an Indian Territory. West of the Mississippi was
then referred to as the "Great American Desert," and eventual
settlement by whites was not foreseen. When settlers grew to
such numbers that expansion west began in force, and the lands
were found to be richer than previously understood, any
understanding of Indian rights was ignored by all but the most
pure moralists.14 In the case of incursions into both Mexico
and the Indian Territory, the rights of white settlers carried
more weight than the moral arguments of the rights of the peoples
of those lands.15
For the US, the military debate for the first century was
about North America. There was no request made for the US to
ally itself with forces engaged in wars on other continents, and
no reason for the US to look for the acquisition of land overseas
when it still had land to secure on the continent. The US first
had to secure its interior, expand its borders, and defeat a
threat that divided the nation. The nation achieved its manifest
destiny with only limited engagements against overseas forces.
Only then, with a bigger population, and the power and resources
of industrialization, did the US have the reason or ability to
look elsewhere.
SECTION 2
THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE BY THE UNITES STATES
IN OVERSEAS INTERVENTION
International trade and the necessity of maintaining
political relationships which support that trade has been a basic
tenet of US existence from its beginnings through today and for
the foreseeable future. Because the US had economic interests
throughout the world, its political foreign policy always took
into consideration the protection of those assets. If war is an
extension of politics by other means16, then military
intervention always existed as an option for protecting the US'
international position. But for the first 164 years of its
existence as a nation, the US adopted a policy towards the use of
military force that was characterized as principally nationalist
and isolationist. During that period, the nation never committed
to a military alliance with a foreign nation. That policy of
freedom of action for nationalist purposes was the reflection of
mainstream personal values and beliefs held by the public.
International intervention came only after the Civil War, the
huge increase in population from immigration, the realization of
manifest destiny as the US completed occupation of the land from
coast to coast, and the industrial age. These events
dramatically thrust the US into a position as a global economic
power. From that point on, the US would find itself debating the
use of military force beyond its borders for other reasons than
the pursuit of freedom of the seas and the isolated punishment
expeditions which characterized military actions outside US
borders until the Spanish-American War in 1898.
SECTION 3
DEBATING THE REASONS FOR WAR
"American tradition in war is first to declare, then to
prepare."17 This statement by historian Maurice Matloff in
Makers of Modern Strategy is wrong. It is wrong because at best
it is only one third of the story. The context of the quote
refers to the levels of armament, men, and training at the
beginning of each major conflict up to the Korean War; it has
forgotten Clausewitz' trilogy of the people, the government, and
the military, and has not included national will.18 What
Matloff does not address is the preparation of the public and
political will which leads to a declaration of war. This study
will examine the opposing arguments to the use of US military
force within the context of that trilogy.
No nation has ever fought a war without a purpose. There was
a great range of disagreement as to what were valid reasons.
Some of the stated caused included: acquisition of territory,
extension of religious or political beliefs, defeat an aggressor,
or protection of trade interests. Essentially, all debate over
the issue was one of cost versus benefit. If the benefits tipped
the balance to outweigh the costs, according to the standards of
the decision makers, nations went to war. An appreciation of the
standards is key to an understanding of the causes of war and,
equally important, reveals why some wars were never fought or
were fought with limited means and for limited goals.
Cost is best analyzed by examining the criteria. Two persons
purchasing homes may have the same amount of money to spend, but
desire entirely different features: one may want a large yard,
the other a location close to work, both may want more than one
bathroom. Or they might both have ideas which closely resemble
the other, but for one the acceptable price in dollars may be
less than what the other is willing to pay. Similarly, there
were criteria by which the cost to a nation of military conflict