HIST DAY 4: Revolutionary War, the Articles, and the Constitution: Foreign Relations and Contemporary Relevance
Overview: from revolutionary war to a constitutional foreign policy
The lecture moves from the high-level military and diplomatic dynamics of the Revolutionary War to the transformation of the United States from the Articles of Confederation era into a federal republic under the Constitution.
It also weaves in intermittent connections to current events to show how history informs today’s US foreign relations, while clarifying that the course is not a current-events class but uses history to contextualize present issues.
Example of current-events ties discussed:
The renaming of the Department of Defense to the Department of War (historical context: Department of War existed from to the mid-20th century; later renamed under Harry S. Truman).
UN General Assembly debates around Palestinian statehood and the role of the U.S. State Department.
The class will repeatedly ask: how can we historicize current events? What historical roots underlie contemporary policies and debates?
Reading emphasis for the week: Andrew Preston, diplomatic history article (2021) and the Boston King memoir; you should be able to explain core arguments and connect them to the broader themes of war, religion, and migration.
The instructor promises to revisit the broader story of the UN’s location in New York later in the semester, highlighting historical debates about where the UN should be located and why that mattered for postwar diplomacy.
A key through-line: the way the revolutionary era revolved around questions of sovereignty, race, migration, and religion, and how those tensions reappear in U.S. foreign relations across time.
The Revolutionary War: who experienced it and how it mattered beyond the usual narrative
The conventional story emphasizes a David-vs-Goliath narrative, but a fuller view shows the war affected many groups differently.
Native Americans in the conflict:
The war-on-the-frontier unfolded on multiple fronts:
Ohio River Valley: Shawnee and other tribes resisted American expansion; frontier warfare and shifting loyalties.
Western New York: Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederacy) split in allegiance; Mohawk leader Joseph Grant (historically Joseph Brant) championed British alignment and warned that American westward expansion would destroy native settlements.
Southern front: Cherokee and Creek nations faced territorial pressure; some tried neutrality but settlement pressure and attacks followed.
The instruction given by George Washington to American commanders in Western New York to seek
illustrates the war as a destruction campaign against Indigenous communities.After the war, Native American sovereignty was largely ignored in the Treaty of Paris (1783); lands were ceded to the United States without Native American representatives at the negotiation table.
Enslaved people and Black Loyalists:
The war did not free everybody; for enslaved people, the conflict opened paths to freedom when fighting with or for British lines (the British promoted enslaved people’ s escape in exchange for loyalty).
Boston King’s memoir and other sources discuss how hundreds of thousands of enslaved people sought freedom via British lines; estimates suggest roughly risked punishment or death to escape enslavers.
The British form the “Book of Negroes” (a list of roughly formerly enslaved people who joined Loyalists and were relocated to Nova Scotia and beyond). This record is among the best sources for understanding enslaved peoples’ experiences during the war.
The global context of the war:
Cosmopolitan North American colonists engaged in transatlantic trade and diplomacy; diplomacy mattered as much as battlefield outcomes (e.g., model treaty ideas ahead of independence and foreign alliances).
The end of the war owed as much to shifting British public opinion and political calculations as to American military efforts.
Key figures and documents mentioned in the broader narrative:
John Adams and Benjamin Franklin (diplomatic diplomacy during the revolution)
The Model Treaty (1776) as a blueprint for future foreign relations; advocated commercial ties with Europe while avoiding entangling alliances.
The Treaty of Paris (1783) and its terms that shaped postwar borders and sovereignty.
The war’s broader implication: the revolution did not grant liberty to all; sovereignty and freedom were contested and distributed unevenly across different groups (Indigenous nations, enslaved people, women, marginalized communities).
From the Articles of Confederation to a Federal Constitution: why the switch mattered for foreign relations
The United States began under the Articles of Confederation (ratified in ), a deliberately weak central government after independence from Britain, born of fear of centralized power resembling monarchy.
Foreign-relations as a driving motive for stronger federal power:
The Articles left the new nation with limited ability to manage foreign threats and opportunities, prompting reforms toward a stronger federal government.
Early foreign-relations successes under the Articles:
Trade expansion in the mid-1780s; the Empress of China (1784) became a symbol of American global reach and profitability (roughly a profit on that voyage).
The Northwest Ordinance (passed in ) established a process for organizing western territories and paving the way for statehood tied to population and development benchmarks (e.g., Kentucky’s population rising from < in 1775 to > by 1790).
Four major foreign-relations challenges under the Articles: 1) Native Americans on the western frontier remained in alliance with European powers (Britain and Spain) to safeguard land; the national government lacked a standing army and could not raise funds to field one.
Between and , approx. Kentuckians were killed in Native American attacks; in Oct. , about Virginians died in a single month.
2) British threats to U.S. territory persisted; forts along the Great Lakes were not evacuated on the grounds that the U.S. hadn’t paid debts owed to Loyalists, violating the spirit (if not the letter) of the peace terms.
3) Spain presented a particular danger in the southeast, refusing to recognize U.S. independence and contesting U.S. navigation rights on the Mississippi River; it actively supported southeastern Native groups resisting settlement.
4) Piracy and security in North Africa: Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, and Tripolitan threats to American shipping in the Mediterranean after independence; several U.S. ships were captured and crews enslaved (e.g., the ships Dauphin and Maria in ). Ransom demands could be huge (e.g., a single ransom of , a sizable portion of Congress’s annual appropriation).
The rise of China trade as a strategic goal:
The Canton trade represented a significant expansion of American economic horizons; it allowed Americans to trade with China and then re-route goods to other markets, enhancing leverage in international diplomacy and economic autonomy (as depicted in the Canton Harbor/Factories painting, ca. ).
The transition to a Constitution: remedies to the Articles’ weaknesses:
A federal government with the power to regulate commerce across the states (rather than state-by-state control).
Three branches: executive, legislative, judiciary; with specific foreign-policy responsibilities distributed across branches.
The Senate gains primary responsibility for foreign affairs (e.g., treaty ratification) because a smaller, more deliberative body was seen as better suited to handling complex international issues; the President remains commander-in-chief for rapid response to threats.
A system of checks and balances creates potential impasses (e.g., between the Senate’s treaty ratification and the President’s military actions) that shape how foreign policy unfolds.
The executive’s four-year term provides stability while allowing for peaceful power transitions (as exemplified by Washington’s decision to step down after two terms, a deliberate anti-monarchical signal).
The collective aim: the Constitution sought to fix the Articles’ foreign-policy vulnerabilities while preserving the republic’s revolutionary ideals; it did not create a fully robust foreign-policy apparatus overnight, but it established a more durable framework for diplomacy, war-making, and international trade.
The 1790s: a dangerous, leveraged moment for a new nation in a world of imperial competition
A globally unstable landscape: inter-imperial wars between Britain and France intensified through the 1790s; the United States was vulnerable across multiple dimensions.
Domestic fragility in the 1790s:
Demography: around people; heavy concentration along the Atlantic seaboard; western territories still sparsely populated.
Economics: still primarily a raw-material exporter importing finished goods; heavy reliance on European credit; limited domestic manufacturing base.
Military: a navy and standing army were still underdeveloped; the U.S. had fewer than soldiers in regular service as of .
Threats and concerns:
Native American resistance on the western frontier persisted, with ongoing attacks and land pressures.
Haitian Revolution (Saint-Domingue) threatened slaveholding societies in the American South; the uprising intensified fears of slave revolts reaching U.S. shores; the U.S. provided some aid to the French despite these fears.
Diplomatic fragility: a slim foreign-service apparatus; few ambassadors or ministers; reliance on non-Americans to staff early diplomatic posts (e.g., first U.S. consulate abroad was in Bordeaux, France, ).
Domestic political fault lines:
Factions around Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton shaped foreign policy: both wanted a strong, independent United States but differed in methods (Hamilton favored a strong central government and growing domestic industry; Jefferson championed an agrarian republic of yeoman farmers who could still engage in foreign trade).
Genêt affair (Citizen Genêt, French envoy, ca. ): direct French attempt to sway U.S. policy by appealing to the American public, including requests to allow privateers and to honor debts owed by Americans to France; displayed the fragility of U.S. neutrality and the risk of European powers exploiting American political divisions.
British strategy and concerns:
Impressment of American seamen and seizure of ships and cargo to pressure the United States during the ongoing conflicts with France; a major blow to U.S. sovereignty and commercial interests.
The Jay Treaty (1795): a pivotal, imperfect diplomatic achievement:
Goals included pressuring Britain to relinquish territories on the northwest frontier and to stop impressment; securing most-favored-nation status for U.S.-British trade and access to British possessions in the Caribbean and India; and securing compensation for seized ships/cargo.
Outcome: Britain agreed to some territorial concessions and better trade terms, but refused to halt impressment, arguing it was needed to counter France.
Domestic reaction: large segments of the American public saw the treaty as humiliating and overly conciliatory toward Britain; federalists argued it preserved U.S. neutrality and preserved peace, while opponents claimed it compromised American sovereignty and dignity.
Economic impact: despite controversy, the treaty contributed to an economic boom, with exports increasing markedly between and (a significant improvement in U.S. trade indicators).
Washington’s Farewell Address (summary of the message within the broader context):
Emphasized avoiding entangling permanent alliances while continuing commercial ties with European powers.
Not an isolationist document; instead, a push for strategic engagement through trade and careful alliance management, echoing the logic of the Model Treaty of and later diplomacy.
The Haitian example and Haiti’s influence on U.S. fears about slave revolts illustrate how global events could feed domestic anxieties and shape policy choices.
The period’s overarching lesson: the United States, in the 1790s, faced structural vulnerabilities—economic, military, diplomatic, and demographic—and pursued a pragmatic, trade-oriented, and often cautious foreign-policy path in a world of competing empires.
Canton and the China trade as a symbol of rising U.S. global engagement
The Canton painting (Factory Harbor, ca. ) depicts the U.S. presence in Canton as an emblem of growing international reach.
The image signals equality among major imperial powers (the flags are presented at roughly the same height), illustrating a strategic moment when the United States was asserting its place on the global trading stage.
The China trade mattered beyond profits: it gave Americans a sense of political and economic independence from European powers and provided leverage during later diplomatic and military confrontations.
The broader theme: commerce as a vehicle for strategic autonomy and a tool to navigate between Britain and France during inter-imperial wars.
Reading, assessment, and conceptual framing for the rest of the semester
Reading assignments due: Andrew Preston, Diplomatic History (2021) article and the Boston King memoir.
The quiz structure: focus on core arguments and messages, not minute details; demonstrate understanding of the authors’ broader points.
The instructor’s aim: connect war, religion, and migration to current events, and show how to historicize contemporary developments.
The course will continue to explore how the Articles’ limitations and the Constitution’s design shaped U.S. foreign relations, including ongoing debates about neutrality, alliances, and the balance between national sovereignty and global engagement.
Quick reference: key terms, dates, and figures (selected)
Treaty of Paris, : ended the Revolutionary War; Native American lands ceded to the United States; Native nations excluded from negotiations.
Northwest Ordinance, : framework for settling western territories and eventual statehood; emphasized orderly expansion and economic development.
Empress of China voyage: ; significant early U.S. commercial success with China; ~ profit for organizers.
Jay Treaty, : negotiated by John Jay; limited progress on impressment; granted some territorial concessions and most-favored-nation trade status; spurred domestic controversy but supported U.S. neutrality and economic growth.
Canton Harbor/Factories painting, ca. : visual symbol of U.S. engagement in global trade and its status among imperial powers.
The Book of Negroes: compiled list of roughly formerly enslaved people who joined Loyalists and emigrated to Nova Scotia; a key source for understanding enslaved peoples’ wartime experiences.
Citizen Genêt (Edmond-Charles Genêt): French envoy to the United States in the 1790s; his public appeals challenged U.S. neutrality during European wars.
Boston King: formerly enslaved man who wrote about his experiences; used to illustrate the complexities of the Revolutionary era for enslaved people and Black Loyalists.
The three branches and foreign-policy roles under the Constitution: Senate (treaty ratification), President (Commander-in-Chief), and the potential for impasse in diplomacy due to checks and balances.
Connections to ongoing themes in the course
The Revolution’s legacy remains contested: liberty and sovereignty were uneven, with Native nations and enslaved people often excluded from the promised promises of freedom.
The Articles vs. the Constitution reveals early American debates about centralized power, sovereignty, and the role of law in international relations.
The era’s diplomacy—neutrality vs. alliance, fear of entangling alliances, and the role of commerce—has enduring echoes in contemporary debates over trade agreements, military commitments, and strategic partnerships.
The seminar-style approach invites students to historicize current events by tracing continuities and ruptures between 18th-century diplomacy and 21st-century foreign policy.
Reading prompts for quick study (to prepare for Wednesday’s quiz)
What arguments does Andrew Preston make in his 2021 Dipl History piece about diplomacy in the early United States, and how do they complement or contest the Boston King memoir?
How does the Boston King narrative illuminate the complexities of loyalty, freedom, and race during the Revolutionary era?
How did the Articles of Confederation create foreign-policy vulnerabilities, and what arguments justify moving to a more centralized constitutional framework?
In what ways did the 1790s’s inter-imperial wars shape American strategic choices about neutrality and alliance, and what role did treaties like the Jay Treaty play in that context?
How do the events and debates discussed in this lecture inform our understanding of modern debates about migration, sovereignty, and humanitarianism in U.S. foreign policy?