Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:27:36.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The International Dimension of the Federal Constitution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2014

TOM CUTTERHAM
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article surveys recent literature in both history and political science associated with an international and diplomatic approach to the American founding. It assesses Drew McCoy's claim that this approach, as represented by David Hendrickson's Peace Pact (2003), “may well mark an important paradigm shift in early American history.” An international approach to the Constitution may mean interpreting the document either as primarily a diplomatic treaty in its own right, or as primarily influenced in its design and adoption by diplomatic and international concerns. Several significant new studies have been published since McCoy's review, both building on and revising Hendrickson's work, but his “unionist paradigm” has had less impact on historians of the Constitution and of founding than on historians of the later early republic. David Golove and Daniel Hulsebosch in 2011 reprised an internationalist approach to the Constitution by arguing that fealty to international treaties and desire for recognition structured Federalists' approach to domestic politics. This article suggests a synthesis that would reintegrate the internationalist approach with recent domestically focussed historiography. Building on the insights of internationalist scholarship, it posits the Constitution as fundamentally oriented around sanctity of contract as a scalable principle, spanning individual, state, and international spheres.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of American Studies , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , May 2014 , pp. 501 - 515
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 McCoy, Drew, “David C. Hendrickson. Peace Pact: The Lost World of the American Founding,” American Historical Review, 109, 3 (June 2004), 897Google Scholar; Totten, Robbie J., “Security, Two Diplomacies, and the Formation of the U. S. Constitution: Review, Interpretation, and New Directions for the Study of the Early American Period,” Diplomatic History, 36, 1 (Jan. 2012) 77–117, 79Google Scholar; Rosenberg, Emily S., “A Call to Revolution: A Roundtable on Early U. S. Foreign Relations,” Diplomatic History, 22, 1 (Winter 1998) 63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 63. For an earlier historiographical overview see Gibson, Alan, Interpreting the American Founding: Guide to the Enduring Debate over the Origins and Foundations of the American Republic, 2nd edn, rev. and expanded (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2009)Google Scholar, chapter 8.

2 Holton, Woody, Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution (New York: Hill and Wang, 2007), xiGoogle Scholar; Hendrickson, David C., Peace Pact: The Lost World of the American Founding (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2003), x–xiGoogle Scholar.

3 Hendrickson, 17, 14–15. See Schoen, Brian, The Fragile Fabric of Union: Cotton, Federal Politics, and the Global Origins of the Civil War (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Armitage, David, Lewis, James E., et al. , reviews in H-Diplo Roundtable Review, 10, 25 (2009)Google Scholar; Hammond, John, Slavery, Freedom and Expansion in the Early American West (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2007)Google Scholar.

4 Hendrickson, Peace Pact, 17. See McNamara, Peter, “Peace Pact: The Lost World of the American Founding by David C. Hendrickson,” Review of Politics, 66, 2 (Spring, 2004), 314Google Scholar : “it is not clear whether Hendrickson has discovered a new paradigm or whether he has simply skilfully elaborated an important and neglected part of what is essentially Lockean liberalism.” On the republican–liberal problem, see both Onuf and Banning in Klein, Milton et al. , eds., The Republican Synthesis Revisited: Essays in Honor of George Athan Billias (Worcester, MA: American Antiquarian Society, 1992)Google Scholar.

5 Onuf, Nicholas and Onuf, Peter, Federal Union, Modern World: The Law of Nations in an Age of Revolutions, 1776–1814 (Madison, WI: Madison House, 1993), 21, 95, 108Google Scholar; Onuf, Peter, The Origins of the Federal Republic: Jurisdictional Controversies in the United States, 1775–1787 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

6 Onuf, Peter, “A Declaration of Independence for Diplomatic Historians,” Diplomatic History, 22, 1 (Winter 1998), 71–83Google Scholar; Jefferson quoted ibid., 71; Hendrickson, Peace Pact, 126.

7 Deudney, Daniel, Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007)Google Scholar, 20 (emphasis in original), 182, 271; see also Deudney, , “The Philadelphian System: Sovereignty, Arms Control, and Balance of Power in the American States-Union, circa 1787–1861,” International Organization, 49, 2 (Spring, 1995) 191–228Google Scholar.

8 Totten, 79–80; Hendrickson, Peace Pact, 17, 219; Cornell, Saul, The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788–1828 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

9 Hendrickson, Peace Pact, 115, original emphasis; Onuf and Onuf, 93–95; Hendrickson, Peace Pact, 202, 257.

10 Hendrickson, Peace Pact, 177; Fiske, John, The Critical Period of American History, 1783–1789 (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1888)Google Scholar; Marks, Frederick W., Independence on Trial: Foreign Affairs and the Making of the Constitution (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1973)Google Scholar.

11 Golove, David M. and Hulsebosch, Daniel J., “A Civilized Nation: The Early American Constitution, the Law of Nations, and the Pursuit of International Recognition,” New York University Law Review, 85 (Oct. 2010), 934–36Google Scholar; see also Gould, Eliga H., Among the Powers of the Earth: The American Revolution and the Making of a New World Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012), 3Google Scholar: “the only way to achieve these goals [independence] was to conform to European norms and expectations.”

12 Golove and Hulsebosch, 936–38, 975–76, 977.

13 Ibid., 953, 955, 957, 934–35.

14 Onuf and Onuf, 135; Golove and Hulsebosch, 981.

15 Golove and Hulsebosch, 981, 994, 1065–66, 1011–12, 989.

16 Ibid., 934, 937–38, my emphasis.

17 Parent, Joseph, Uniting States: Voluntary Union in World Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Ibid., 32–33, 59, 60; Jensen, Merrill, The New Nation: A History of the United States Under the Confederation, 1781–1789 (New York: Knopf, 1950)Google Scholar.

19 Parent, 61, 65–66; chapter 3 is entitled “Force, Fraud, and the Founding of the American Constitution.”

20 Ibid., 66, 71, 153. See also Michael C. Evans, “The Dangerous Necessity of An External Enemy: James Madison on the Republican Uses of International Anarchy and the Impossibility of a World Republic,” paper presented at the American Political Science Association, 2010 Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.

21 Totten, “Security, Two Diplomacies,” 85; Tilly, Charles, ed., The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975)Google Scholar; Edling, Max, A Revolution in Favor of Government: Origins of the U. S. Constitution and the Making of the American State (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 70Google Scholar; Brewer, John, The Sinews of Power: War, Money, and the English State, 1688–1783 (New York: Unwin Hyman, 1989)Google Scholar. On Hamilton see Walling, Karl-Friedrich, Republican Empire: Alexander Hamilton on War and Free Government (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1999)Google Scholar; and Stourzh, Gerald, Alexander Hamilton and the Idea of Republican Government (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1970)Google Scholar. On the strength of the state see Balogh, Brian, A Government out of Sight: The Mystery of National Authority in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; and Novak, William J., “The Myth of the ‘Weak’ American State,” American Historical Review, 113, 3 (2008) 752–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Deudney, “Philadelphian System,” 208; Deudney, Bounding Power, 180.

23 Golove and Hulsebosch, “A Civilized Nation,” 970; see Bouton, Terry, Taming Democracy: “The People,” the Founders, and the Troubled Ending of the American Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Holton, Unruly Americans; Johnson, Calvin, Righteous Anger at the Wicked States: The Meaning of the Founders' Constitution (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005)Google Scholar. Both Holton and Bouton acknowledge their extensive debts to Brown, Roger H., Redeeming the Republic: Federalists, Taxation, and the Origins of the Constitution (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which is also foundational to the state-formation tradition of Edling et al. (see note 21 above).

24 Henry, Patrick in Storing, Herbert J., ed., The Complete Anti-Federalist, Volume V (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981), 229Google Scholar.

25 Stagg, J. C. A., ed., The Papers of James Madison Digital Edition (Charlottesville, 2010)Google Scholar, “Bill Providing for Delegates to the Convention of 1787,” note 2, http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/JSMN-01-09-02-0071; Paine, Thomas, Dissertations on Government (Philadelphia, 1786)Google Scholar, Evans #19880, 8; Goldman, Lawrence, ed., The Federalist Papers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 223Google Scholar.

26 Golove and Hulsebosch, “A Civilized Nation,” 974; Jay quoted in ibid., 1010; Hendrickson, Peace Pact, 173, 15.

27 Beard, Charles, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Free Press, 1965; first published 1913), 12Google Scholar.