[rmlew]

An interesting, if irrelevant, line of attack. Why don't you see how Jefferson actually handled foreign policy, as Secretary of State & later President. He responded to the Barbary Pirates attack by sending a frigate, carrying a company of Marines. They engaged a Barbary Cruiser, preying on our shipping. The Marines borded the Cruiser, slaughtered most of its crew. But then, Jefferson who favored a policy similar to the one Ron Paul advocates, gave the local leader, back the ship--I think more as an object lesson, than anything else. Jefferson would have applauded Ron Paul's approach.
I strongly suggest that you drop the ideological blinders and study history. We did not just attack a ship. We actually invaded the Tripolitan state, taking Derna. We tried to overthrow the Bey of Tripoli and install his brother. Don't you know the Marine hymn?

Dr. Paul's foreign policy is the one for which Washington argued in his Farewell Address. Note, that the Washington argument was not based upon anything peculiar to his time or any other time. It was based upon psychological effects, both on us & others, from the attitudes that Dr. Paul tries to avoid. Consider the argument from a Washingtonian perspective, for once: Pseudo Pragmatism.
The speech, written by Hamilton, was a response to the lunacy of the Jeffersonians who wanted to go to war for France. And it was followed by our Quasi war with France. It was also written during our early empire, as we consolidated control over our native subject peoples.

[Ohioan]

Ron:

I have studied history. The ship incident, referred to, was taken from Jefferson's report to Congress on that very one-sided achievement. No one denies that there were a succession of incidents with the Pirates; but I suggest that you read Jefferson's comments to President Washington on Treaty questions, when he was Secretary of State. He clearly endorses the view of Vattel, that every nation must be the judge of its own affairs--basic to the Law of Nations. That is the principle that motivates much of what Dr. Paul states; even if he does not always explain it very well.

As for whether Hamilton drafted the Farewell Address, as many believe: Washington would never have submitted it, if he did not agree with it. Hamilton had served Washington closely during the War, and certainly would not have put anything in the speech that did not reflect Washington's views, if he actually drafted the language. The Address was the guidepost for American statesmen for many years.

But, again, the only real point that is relevant to this controversy, is that Washington correctly identifies the psychological factors that come into play, when factions let either their animosity against or their favoritism for any foreign nation, influence their policy decisions. Nothing in recognizing those psychological factors discussed, prevent our acting in our own interest.

By the way, long before the fall of 1796, Jefferson had gotten over his initial sympathy for the Jacobins, and had recoiled from their behavior; nor did he like Napoleon; nor was he ever actually an Egalitarian. His initial sympathy, like his friend LaFayette's was in response to the corruption of the old order in France, which truly had substituted self-indulgence for responsible leadership.

William Flax