Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 46–62 | Cite as

‘Internationalists in Isolationist times’ — Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and a Rooseveltian Maxim

  • J. Simon RofeEmail author
  • John M. Thompson
Article

Abstract

This article examines Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt’s approaches to formulating foreign policy within the context of contemporaneous debates about Isolationism and Internationalism. It argues that a ‘Rooseveltian Maxim’ can be identified based on common attributes found in each President’s ideas about US foreign policy and national security interests. This ‘Maxim’ was not dogma for either president, as they were both astute political operators. Instead it is based on their essentially internationalist reading of America’s role in the world. It meant that both were particularly mindful of the state of American public opinion informed by Washington and Jefferson’s notions of isolationism, for it was the mood amongst American people that provided the ‘finite space’ which they as president has to make foreign policy. It concludes that by investigating the approaches both presidents adopted in such circumstances, we gain further insight into both presidents and our understanding of Isolationism and Internationalism.

Keywords

Theodore Roosevelt Franklin Roosevelt US foreign policy national security internationalism isolationism public opinion 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Warren F. Kimball, ‘The Sheriffs: FDR’s Postwar World’ in FDR’s World — War, Peace and Legacies, ed. David B. Woolner, Warren F Kimball and David Reynolds (New York: Palgrave, 2008), 93.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Many people have queried the family connection between Theodore and Franklin. During the latter’s administration a separate file was created to answer such queries. As an example the President’s private secretary responded to the enquiry of Joseph Davis, a 14 year old school boy: ‘The President is fifth cousin to the former President Theodore Roosevelt who was an uncle to Mrs. F.D. Roosevelt’, Letter from Grace G. Tully (Roosevelt’s Private Secretary) to Joseph Davis, 15 April 1944, President’s Personal File, 787, FDR. In fact Theodore Roosevelt was more closely related to Franklin’s wife Eleanor, who was his niece. (She was the daughter of Theodore’s brother Elliot.)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    David K. Adams, ‘The Concept of Parallel Action: FDR’s Internationalism in a Decade of Isolationism’, in The Roosevelt Years — New Perspectives on American History 1933–1945, ed. Robert Garson and Stuart Kidd (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998), 114.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    John Q. Barrett, ed., Robert H. Jackson: That Man — An Insider’s Portrait of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Foreword by William E. Leuchtenburg (New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 162.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J Simon Rofe, ‘Under the Influence of Mahan: Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and their understanding of American National Interest’, Diplomacy and Statecraft 19, no. 4 (2008): 732–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    On the former see: Douglas Eden, ‘The First US Intervention in Europe — Roosevelt’s Diplomacy to Prevent War in 1905–1906’, Conference Paper at the Transatlantic Studies Association Conference, Canterbury Christ Church University, July 2008; and the latter, also known as the Peace of PortsmouthGoogle Scholar
  7. 6a.
    Norman E. Saul, ‘The Kittery Peace’, in The Russo-Japanese War in Global Perspective World War Zero, ed. John W Steinberg et al. (Brill: Leiden and Boston, 2005), 486–508.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    Warren F Kimball, The Juggler — Franklin Roosevelt as Wartime Statesman (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1991), 217.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    Franklin D. Roosevelt, ‘Our Foreign Policy — A Democratic View’, Foreign Affairs VI, no. 584 (1928), 584. Further, Uwe Lubken, argues that a key part of American foreign policy in Latin America at this time was to promulgate a Panamerican identity. Suggesting ‘Panamericanism certainly was invented by the Roosevelt Administration’. Lubken, ‘Western Hemisphere’, 96. He furthers this argument in “‘Americans All”: The United States, the Nazi Menace, and the Construction of a Pan-American Identity’, Amerikastudien/American Studies 48, no. 3 (2003): 389–409.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Alan K. Henrikson has made a considerable contribution to this debate. A recent example is Alan K. Henrikson, ‘FDR and the World-Wide Arena’, in Woolner, Kimball and Reynolds, FDR’s World, 35–62. Also of note here is David G. Haglund, Latin America and the Transformation of US Strategic Thought 1936–1940 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1984).Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    On this point see Howard K. Beale, Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of America to World Power (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1956), 336–7.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    Bradford Perkins, The Great Rapprochement: England and the United States, 1895–1914 (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1969).Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    See Richard Harrison’s articles on the subject: Richard A. Harrison, ‘A Presidential demarche: Franklin D Roosevelt’s Personal Diplomacy and Great Britain, 1936–7’, Diplomatic History 5, no. 3 (Summer 1981): 245–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 12a.
    Richard A. Harrison, ‘The Runciman Visit to Washington in January 1937’, Canadian Journal of History XIX, (August 1984): 217–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 12b.
    Richard A. Harrison, ‘Testing the Water: A Secret Probe Towards Anglo-American military cooperation in 1936’, The International History Review VII, no. 2 (May 1985): 214–34; and more recently the work of Tony McCulloch ‘Franklin Roosevelt and the Runciman Visit to Washington, 1937: informal diplomacy and Anglo-American Relations in the era of Munich’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 5, no. 2, (2006): 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 13.
    Michaela Hoenicke Moore, ‘Know Your Enemy — The American Debate on Nazism 1933–1945’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 21.Google Scholar
  17. 14.
    Ibid., 34.Google Scholar
  18. 15.
    As examples see the work of Peter Hugill, ‘The American Challenge to British Hegemony 1861–1946’, Geographical Review 99, no. 2 (2009): 403–25; and Peter Hugill, American Geostrategy in the Pacific and British Response: Hawai’i from 1843 to 1898’, delivered to the Royal Geographical Society, September 2010.Google Scholar
  19. 16.
    In a retrospective assessment Stoler suggests ‘These constitute Roosevelt’s true legacies in military affairs for the postwar era’. Mark Stoler, ‘FDR and the Origins of the National Security Establishment’, in Woolner, Kimball and Reynolds, FDR’s World, 63–4. The antecedents of the 1947 National Security Act are discussed with considerable aplomb in a recent volume: Douglas T Stuart, Creating the National Security State — A history of the Law that Transformed America (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
  20. 17.
    Discussion of ‘presidential power’ is longstanding and is regularly seen in the pages of the journal, Presidential Studies Quarterly. The following works are widely regarded as classics in the field: Richard E. Neustadt’s Presidential Power, (New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 196Google Scholar
  21. 17a.
    Arthur Schelsinger, Jr., The Imperial Presidency (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 1973); andGoogle Scholar
  22. 17b.
    Clinton Rossitor, The American Presidency (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1987).Google Scholar
  23. 17c.
    More recently these have been joined by Fred L. Greenstein, The Presidential Difference — Leadership Style from Roosevelt to George W. Bush (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004); andGoogle Scholar
  24. 17d.
    Louis L. Gould, The Modern American Presidency, (Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 2004).Google Scholar
  25. 18.
    Roosevelt arrived at the phrase ‘international police power’ having explained what he saw as the duties of the policing power. He explained: ‘Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power’. Theodore Roosevelt, Annual Message to Congress 6 December 1904’, The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidencyucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid = 29545 (accessed June 14, 2010)
  26. 19.
    For reports of public opposition to any US involvement in the conference beyond the role of observer, see, for example, the New York Times, 9–11 and 16 January 1906; and ‘Herman Speck von Sternburg to the Auswa¨rtige Amt, 9 March 1905 and 17 March 1906’ in Die Grosse Politik der Europäischen Kabinette, 1871–1914, ed. Johannes Lepsius, Albrecht Mendelssohn Bartholdy and Friedrich Thimme, vol. XX, 258–9 and vol. XXI, 300–301.Google Scholar
  27. 20.
    ‘Theodore Roosevelt to Edward A. Ross, Sept. 19, 1907’, in The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, ed. Elting E. Morison (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951–1954) (hereafter Letters) V, 794–5.Google Scholar
  28. 21.
    For American pressure on the British, see, for example, Henry White to John Hay, Dec. 15, 1902, Record Group (hereafter RG) 59, M30 Reel 193. See also White to Hay, Dec. 16 and 17, 1902 in RG 59, M30 Reel 193; White to Arthur Balfour, Dec. 20 and White to Hay, Dec. 31, 1902, Papers of Henry White, Reel 5. For American pressure on the Germans, see, for example, Albert Von Quadt to the Auswa¨rtige Amt, Dec. 18, 1902, Lepsius, Bartholdy and Thimme, Die Grosse Politik, XVII, 269.Google Scholar
  29. 22.
    Roosevelt’s extensive correspondence with Spring Rice can be followed in the Papers of Cecil Arthur Spring Rice, Section 9 and in the Papers of Theodore Roosevelt. TR’s attempts to shape Strachey’s coverage of the United States in The Spectator can be followed in the Papers of John St. Loe Strachey, Box 28.Google Scholar
  30. 23.
    The episode can be followed in the Papers of Theodore Roosevelt, Reels 34, 35, 331, 413 and 416; and in Morison, Letters, III, May through June, 1903. See also the New York Times, 2 July, 1903, 17 and 18.Google Scholar
  31. 24.
    George Juergens, News From the White House: the Presidential-Press Relationship in the Progressive Era (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981), 15–16 and 20Google Scholar
  32. 24a.
    Robert C. Hilderbrand, Power and the People: Executive Management of Public Opinion in Foreign Affairs, 1897–1921 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981), 52–3.Google Scholar
  33. 25.
    Theodore Roosevelt to Mrs. Thaddeus Horton, May 15, 1905, Papers of Theodore Roosevelt, Reel 337.Google Scholar
  34. 26.
    Theodore Roosevelt to G.O. Shields, Jan. 22, 1906, Papers of Theodore Roosevelt, Reel 340. See also Theodore Roosevelt to George Cary Eggleston, April 20, 1902, Morison, Letters, III, 252–3.Google Scholar
  35. 27.
    Theodore Roosevelt to Mahan, March 18, 1901, Morison, Letters, III, 23.Google Scholar
  36. 28.
    Quoted in Beale, Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of America, 194.Google Scholar
  37. 29.
    Theodore Roosevelt to Hay, July 18, 1903, Morison, Letters, III, 520.Google Scholar
  38. 30.
    Theodore Roosevelt to Taft, Morison, Aug. 21, 1907, Morison, Letters, V, 761–2.Google Scholar
  39. 31.
    Theodore Roosevelt to William Bayard Hale, Dec. 3, 1908, Morison, Letters, VI, 1408.Google Scholar
  40. 32.
    The discussion of public opinion and its influence on the Roosevelt Administration is well covered in a number of texts: Steven Casey, Cautious Crusade — Franklin D. Roosevelt, American Public Opinion and the War against Nazi Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); andGoogle Scholar
  41. 32a.
    Nicholas J. Cull, Selling War: The British Propaganda Campaign Against American ‘Neutrality’ in World War II (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  42. 32b.
    More broadly, debates about the influence of public opinion and American foreign policy are Ole R. Holsti, Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy (Ann Arbour: University of Michigan, 1996) andGoogle Scholar
  43. 32c.
    Miroslav Nincic, Democracy and Foreign Policy — The Fallacy of Political Realism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  44. 33.
    Franklin Roosevelt’s use of the media is discussed in Betty Houdien Winfield, FDR and the News Media (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990); andGoogle Scholar
  45. 33a.
    Richard Steel, Propaganda in an Open Society: The Roosevelt Administration and the Media 1933–1941 (Wesport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985).Google Scholar
  46. 34.
    Barrett, Robert H. Jackson, 159.Google Scholar
  47. 35.
    There were 30 ‘Fireside Chats’ between 1933 and 1944 covering the issues of the day. Roosevelt’s extempore delivery created an intimate relationship between the President and the American people in the ‘Golden Age’ of radio. Audio recordings of each of the addresses can be found on the website of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library, http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/firesi90.html (accessed June 26, 2010). See also DM Ryfe, ‘Franklin Roosevelt and the Fireside Chats’, Journal of Communication 49, no. 4 (December 1999): 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 36.
    ‘The meteoric rise of Gallup, his polls and his belief that polls were an integral part of advancing representative democracy cannot be overlooked as a factor contributing to Roosevelt’s interest in employing polls’. Robert. M. Eisinger and Jeremy Brown, ‘Polling as a means toward Presidential Autonomy: Emil Hurja, Hadley Cantril and the Roosevelt Administration’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research 10, no. 3 (1998): 252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 37.
    Eisinger and Brown, ‘Polling as a means toward Presidential Autonomy’, 246.Google Scholar
  50. 38.
    Ibid., 245.Google Scholar
  51. 39.
    Ibid., 245.Google Scholar
  52. 40.
    Lloyd Gardener, ‘FDR and the Colonial Question’, in FDR’s World: War, Peace, and Legacies, eds. David B. Woolner, Warren F. Kimball, and David Reynolds (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2007), 123–144.Google Scholar
  53. 41.
    Hiram Johnson to Hiram Johnson Jr 4 February 1934 The Diary letters of Hiram Johnson Box 11.4 Vol. 6 1934–1938, University of California, Berkeley, Bancroft Library.Google Scholar
  54. 42.
    Frank Costigliola, ‘Broken Circle: The Isolation of Franklin D. Roosevelt in World War II’, Diplomatic History 32, no. 5 (November 2008): 680. The process was aided by those the President relied upon. As has recently been described by Costigliola, Roosevelt was surrounded by a ‘Circle’ for much of his administration, and one of the stalwarts of group was Sumner Welles, the State Department’s dynamic Under Secretary. Jackson recorded that the President’s response to direct confrontation was compromise: ‘The remedy, instead of squarely backing up and undoing what he had done, was to promulgate some sort of compromise. He was reluctant to dismiss or demote anyone he liked, and he liked nearly everybody. Barrett, Robert H. Jackson, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 43.
    Eisinger and Brown, ‘Polling as a means toward Presidential Autonomy’, 243.Google Scholar
  56. 44.
    For a discussion of Hearst’s influence see: Rodney Carlisle, ‘The Foreign Policy Views of an Isolationist Press Lord: W R. Hearst and the International Crisis, 1936–41’, Journal of Contemporary History 9, no. 3 (July 1974): 217–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 45.
    Barrett, Robert H. Jackson, 162–3.Google Scholar
  58. 46.
    Ibid., 161.Google Scholar
  59. 47.
    Gardener, FDR and the Colonial Question, 126.Google Scholar
  60. 48.
    Louis Martin Sears, ‘The Roosevelt Foreign Policy 1937–1940’, The Journal of Modern History 15, no. 1 (March 1943): 47–53. Speech writer to Roosevelt, Samuel Rosenman’s compilation of FDR’s proclamations are an indispensible source for Roosevelt scholars. The volumes reviewed by Purdue Professor Sears were those from 1937–1940. Samuel L. Rosenman, ed., The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1937 Volume, The Constitution Prevails; 1938 Volume, The Continuing Struggle for Liberalism; 1939 Volume, War — and Neutrality; 1940 Volume War — and Aid to Democracies (New York: Random House, 1941).Google Scholar
  61. 49.
    David K. Adams, ‘The Concept of Parallel Action: FDR’s Internationalism in a Decade of Isolationism’, in The Roosevelt Years — New Perspectives on American History 1933–1945, ed. Robert Garson and Stuart Kidd (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998), 113. In a 1971 review article Robert Dallek outlines contending points of view on the matter. Robert A. Divine argues FDR as having a ‘sincere commitment to isolationism’ 1504, while Dallek contends that for Franklin ‘long-run international goals repeatedly gave way to short-run need’. ‘Roosevelt may have preached lofty ends, but he practiced limited means’ 1506.Google Scholar
  62. 49a.
    Robert Dallek, ‘Franklin Roosevelt as World Leader’ Review Article, American Historical Review 76, No. 5 (1971): 1503–1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 50.
    The academic discourse on ‘isolationism’ has a number of classing texts. See Robert A. Divine, The Illusion of Neutrality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962)Google Scholar
  64. 50a.
    Manfred Jonas, Isolationism in American 1935–1941 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1966)Google Scholar
  65. 50b.
    Wayne S. Cole’s Roosevelt and the Isolationists 1932–1945 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983); and more recentlyGoogle Scholar
  66. 50c.
    Justus Doenecke, Storm on the Horizon: The Challenge to American Interventionism 1939–1941 (Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2000).Google Scholar
  67. 51.
    Theodore Roosevelt to Mahan, Aug. 18, 1901, Morison, Letters, III, 23.Google Scholar
  68. 52.
    Quoted in John A. Thompson, Woodrow Wilson (London: Longman, 2002), 101.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LeicesterUK
  2. 2.Roosevelt Study CenterUniversity of Utrechtthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations