Replies

Not at all. I argue that Hamilton was an old fashioned imperialist who wanted to make the U.S. stronger by annexing territory not by "spreading democracy." You fail to address this argument or provide counterevidence.

Second, I argue Wilson was the first major politician to call for the spread of democracy through force of arms(without annexation) throughout the world. This is exactly the stated goal of both the president and the neo-cons. You also fail to address this argument or provide counterevidence.

Wilson had a much different approach than modern 'NeoCons'.
: "Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down…Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused".
'NeoCons' stereotypically say that spreading Democracy is for the benefit of the citizens, to give them the God given rights of freedom, which in turn, benefits all mankind. Wilson stated explicitly he wanted to colonize and 'use' other nations, not really spread freedom.

You fail to address this argument

I did address it.

What did Hamilton propose to do? Annex all of Mexico?

If so, how would it be governed?

I argue Wilson was the first major politician to call for the spread of democracy through force of arms(without annexation) throughout the world.

Yet Wilson did not say this, nor do it. And the US did not occupy or democratize any European power in WWI.

This is exactly the stated goal of both the president and the neo-cons.

Wrong again.

Not at all. I argue that Hamilton was an old fashioned imperialist who wanted to make the U.S. stronger by annexing territory not by "spreading democracy."

Hamilton certainly believed in a strong America and wouldn't have been opposed to expansion. The strongest supporters of expansionism, though, were Jeffersonians and Jacksonians. For Hamilton the country could always grow by developing its economy. It was his agrarian opponents who had the strongest land hunger.

You can see some of this in the expansionist ideas of "Manifest Destiny" held by many in the mid-19th century. But that was also a strange mix: people who wanted democracies elsewhere in the Americas and the world also wanted the US to take land from Mexico (and from Spain's remaining colonies as well).

They wanted to see the British and Spanish empires overturned, but weren't opposed to slavery or an imperial US. There were limits to how much force they would use. The US Army certainly wasn't going to go meddling in Nicaragua or Honduras in those days, but if an adventurer could form a colony there, the supporters of manifest destiny wouldn't be opposed to annexing it.

All in all, it's not an ancestry today's neocons would cherish.