ON THE CONTRARY. Here is what the Founding fathers had to say on foreign wars:
United States non-interventionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're welcome to retract your claim whenever you want. The founders were military isolationists. They didn't believe in sending in troops to another country unless our own system of governance was in jeopardy. It was only in the late 19th century that America became open to the idea of 'spreading our ideals'. Read about, progressivism played a huge role in this.
the Founding Fathers were anything but Isolationists; heck, they invaded Africa, Spanish America, Canada, Indian lands... they spoke of the time when Cuba would naturally become part of the American Empire, as would Canda and Mexico. Hamilton thought it might take both North and South American continents. Americans throughout our history have
thought of ourselves as naturally isolationist; but when presented with the opportunity to export our (universalistic) ideology abroad, we have typically found ourselves hard-pressed to justify avoiding
doing so.
as for the Farewell Address? really? The speech that is read today as some kind of eternal non-interventionist policy statement was intended as nothing of the sort. Firstly, the notion that the Founding Fathers were somehow bereft of an expansionist and interventionist foriegn policy is ludicrous. These are the men who spoke openly of the future American Empire, who assumed naturally that at some point they would conquer and annex Canada, Cuba, and Mexico. Who felt no compunction about declaring rightful American police powers over the entire Western Hemisphere. Secondly, the speech was written by Hamilton, about as open an internationalist as you are likely to find among the Founding Fathers, who saw America's future tied up in alliance with Britain; with whom she shared a political history, culture, and a hefty amount of trade. which - Thirdly - was the main point of the speech. The nation at this point in time seemed ready to tear itself apart over the issue of the French Revolution; when 'Citizen Genet' came to the US and near-called for treason, it seemed as though a good chunk of the populace was ready to oblige him, led by what were coalescing into Jefferson's Republicans. Jefferson was running around saying insane things, like he would rather see half the earth desolated than the French Revolution - with all it's accompanying bloodshed and excesses - fail. It in this environment that Washington and Hamilton produced a political document, aimed largely at defeating Jeffersons' (and his pro-France factions') bid for the Presidency upon Washington leaving office. His directions to Hamilton were "The people of this Country it would seem, will never be satisfied until they become a department of France: It shall be my business to prevent it." The Address was an attack on Republicans, and it was recieved as such. He defended Jay's Treaty, enjoined Westerners (and Southerners) who were being tempted by France to secede to ignore those entreaties. He implied that the decentralization of power sought by Republicans would lead to the same result as had happened across the water, intercine warfare from factions resuting in tyranical rule. Washington's warnings against permanent alliances and inveterate antipathy towards other nations was intended as - and read as - referring to France and Britain specifically. He suggested that the Republicans were dupes and tools of France, who had somehow managed to usurp the applause and confidence of the people, but who were willing to sacrifice the interests of America to the 'Republic' across the sea. When Washington said "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it", our only permanent alliance was with France.
reading the statements telling us to steer clear of the French Rebellion (in notable contrast to the party which won the election of 1800, which had urged us to come into the war on France's side) as some kind of Permanent Statement Of Policy is akin to arguing that the declaration of 1942 still holds, and we are currently at war with Germany.