It follows, then, that the United States cannot draw any useful lessons in constructing a political system from the experience of Great Britain: The English Constitution, although in many respects “the best Constitution in existence”18 has its roots deep in the history of the Anglo-Saxon peoples and in the political institutions which arose during the course of their social development. There are no “orders” nor rigidly distinct social classes in America comparable to those of England, and hence the basis for establishing a system of checks and balances on the British model did not exist. The architects and builders of American political institutions, therefore, must look elsewhere for their inspiration, and keep foremost in mind the goal of “preserving that equality of condition which so eminently distinguishes us.”19

The distinctive nature of America’s social and political situation, Pinckney was moreover persuaded, had great significance for the conduct of foreign policy as well. The republican simplicity of one nation’s social mores, he argued, was the very antithesis of “the military habits & manners of Sparta”; and this in turn meant that our policy would be “perfectly different” as well:²⁰

Our true situation appears to me to be this—a new extensive Country containing within itself the materials for forming a Government capable of extending to its citizens all the blessings of civil and religious liberty—capable of making them happy at home. This is the great end of Republican Establishments. We mistake the object of our Government, if we hope or wish that it is to make us respectable abroad. Conquest or superiority among other powers is not or ought not ever to be the object of republican systems. If they are sufficiently active and energetic to rescue us from contempt and preserve our domestic happiness and security, it is all we can expect from them,— it is more than almost any other Government ensures to its citizens.²¹

In Pinckney’s view then, the purpose of American foreign policy ought to be the preservation of the nation’s domestic political institutions. Asserting the political and moral uniqueness and superiority of the American people and their way of life, he argues that our social mores render us unsuitable for the pursuit of glory in world politics, and implies that if, in defiance of all reason and logic, we pursue an adventuresome policy abroad, our own social system will be endangered.²² “We cannot pretend to rival the European nations in their grandeur or power,” he asserts, and in any event when we secure “civil and religious liberty” at home, “wesecure everything that is necessary to establish happiness.”²³

The Pinckney speech stimulated several replies, most of them dealing with his thesis concerning the equality of condition which he asserted was characteristic of social life in America.²⁴ Hamilton, however, took up directly his views concerning the goals of foreign policy in a democratic republic. He begins by asserting that foreign nations were already observing closely the political difficulties of the new nation. “Foreign nations having American dominions are and must be jealous of us,” he stated. “Their representatives betray the utmost anxiety for our fate, and for the result of this meeting, which must have an essential influence on it.”²⁵ Unless the thirteen former colonies can solve the problem of unity in diversity and avoid the dissolution of the confederated state which many were predicting, involvement in the wars of Europe and possible reconquest were real possibilities. These facts, in turn, pointed to the more basic problem confronting the nation:

It had been said that respectability in the eyes of foreign Nations was not the object at which we aimed; that the proper object of republican Government was domestic tranquility and happiness. This was an ideal distinction. No Government could give us tranquility and happiness at home, which did not possess sufficient stability and strength to make us respectable abroad.²⁶

Hamilton is arguing, then, that nations do not exist in a vacuum. It is perfectly unexceptional to assert that among the essential purposes of foreign policy is the preservation of the nation’s domestic political institutions and the happiness and tranquility of its people, although in fact few of the Founding Fathers believed that this was the sole purpose of diplomacy; but even if this point is conceded, the discussion has at that point only begun. How in fact are the security of the state, the integrity of its institutions and the quality of its way of life to be preserved in an alien international environment? To what extent is a foreign policy which focuses primarily on domestic ends possible, even if desirable? The answer, of course, depends on the changing contingencies of time and place, on the particular threats to its national interests which arise to challenge the state in given historical periods. It is instructive to observe that Pinckney nowhere asserts that, if subject to serious threats from external sources, the United States should pursue a policy of self-abnegation; he merely fails to reflect sufficiently upon the consequences of the fact that the United States exists in a world populated by other political units, each pursuing interests of its own which may run athwart those of the American nation. His definition of the purposes of foreign policy in short is an effort to define away the problem of foreign policy. To Hamilton’s credit, he confronts this problem head on, if failing—at least here—to provide much direction toward its solution.

To be sure, neither Pinckney nor Hamilton in their arguments deal, at least directly, with the moral dimensions of policy of so much concern to others among the Founders.²⁷ Neither was this a public debate, engaging large segments of the citizenry in a common quest for answers to one of the great questions of politics. To a far greater extent than most debates since, however, Pinckney and Hamilton directly confront one of the most fundamental problems of foreign policy, and their discussion is thus of relevance still.

+++