Deconstructing the American Spirit: From Frontier Myth to First World War

Introduction: Insight into the notion of “The American Spirit”

The concept of "The American Spirit" does not have an established definition as it covers a variety of values that vary from one historian to another. These ideas are established by a deep understanding of American history, beginning with the American Revolution. The term "American Spirit" was initially coined by American historian Frederick Jackson Turner in a paper titled "The Significance of the Frontier in American History" (1893), which he included in his book The Frontier in American History (1920). He contends that the frontier process molded many aspects of the "American spirit".  Indeed, American democracy was the principal outcome, coupled with egalitarianism, disinterest in fine culture, and violence (Turner, 1920).

According to him, "[A]merican democracy was born of no theorist's dream; it was not carried in the Susan Constant to Virginia, nor in the Mayflower to Plymouth. It came out of the American forest, and it gained new strength each time it touched a new frontier." (Turner, 1920, p. 293).

He also claims that the American frontier established liberty by liberating Americans from European attitudes and eradicating outdated, obsolete habits (Turner, 1920). The frontier needs no standing armies, established churches, aristocracy, or nobles. There was no landed gentry which held the majority of the land and demanded high rents and levies. Frontier territory was basically available for seizing (Turner, 1920).

Charles A. Beard and Mary R. Beard expanded on the notion in their 1942 book, The American Spirit: A Study of the Idea of Civilization in the United States. They claimed that attempting to describe "The American Spirit" with concepts such as democracy and liberty deviates from the core essence of this concept. They emphasize civilization as the main concept that provides a complete comprehension of the "American Spirit." (Beard & Beard, 1942).

Indeed, they argue that “[o]ut of our studies extending over many years, we have reached the conviction that no idea, such as democracy, liberty, or the American way of life, expresses the American spirit so coherently, comprehensively, and systematically as does the idea of civilization.

"Spirit" is elusive. But so are all the human imponderables which one seeks to capture and imprison in words. We do not, however, doubt its existence” (Beard & Beard, 1942)

Another historian, David McCullough, attempted to define and limit the breadth of this concept in his 2017 book The American Spirit: Who We Are and What We Stand For. In one of the chapters, he traces the beginnings of "The American Spirit" to Thomas Jefferson's authoring of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 (McCullough, 2017).

According to him, the Constitution embodies the American spirit by stating the United States to be a democratic and independent nation founded on equality, with everyone entitled to life, liberty, and happiness (McCullough, 2017). The constitution was also drafted broadly, a factor which proved to be quite important because it allowed individuals to one day claim that the words "all men are created equal" could be understood to include women and black Americans. Whatever Jefferson's objectives were, he developed a document that embodies the American spirit (McCullough, 2017).

II. The Nationalist Perspective to the U.S. Foreign Policy: The First World War as a Case Study

In his article “Foreign Policy and the American Spirit” (1957), American historian Dexter Perkins argues that the morality of American foreign policy, which emerged in response to public opinion, can be explained by "the strongly pragmatic streak in the national character." (Perkins, 1957).  As a matter of fact, the United States' belief that democracy is central to its foreign policy did not prevent it from acting to safeguard its interests, particularly in the Western Hemisphere.  The generalizations that separate American foreign policy from that of other nations are moderated by "the empirical spirit" (Perkins, 1957), a characteristic that would heavily define the "American Spirit" for years to come.

Photo by Roger Starnes Sr on Unsplash

During the WWI, the United States declared its neutrality under President Woodrow Wilson.  However, subsequent to Germany's destruction of the Lusitania, there was a marked escalation in hostilities, leading to the United States expressing profound indignation. The United States formally declared war on Germany in 1917 in response to the assault on American vessels and the sinking of the Lusitania in May 1915 (Library of Congress, 2022).

While it is impossible to prove that British propaganda influenced American public opinion, one of the reasons for the war must be acknowledged: Germany's violation of Belgian neutrality (Perkins, 1957). According to Perkins, Germany further irritated the United States by beginning "submarine warfare in the winter of 1917".

Perkins (1957) also believed that blaming Britain or France for WWI is unjustified because they were "democratic nations." Contrary to economic theories of intervention, American economic interests were not the driving force behind US involvement in the conflict, as a neutral policy would have aided economic growth far more than an interventionist approach. 

Furthermore, the Wilson administration did not want a policy that promoted additional economic interests (Perkins, 1957).

Without the United States' participation, Imperial Germany would have defeated Great Britain, dramatically upsetting the global power balance (Perkins, 1957). The United States also played an important role in preventing Germany from becoming a global naval superpower, which would have presented serious dangers to international maritime commerce and security (Perkins, 1957). Furthermore, the American intervention contributed to Germany's defeat in WWI, delaying but not preventing Hitler's ascension to power (Perkins, 1957). According to Perkins (1957), the implications of this involvement were helpful to world stability, as the atmosphere following the end of the immense war was "a relatively secure one" and one that allowed Europe "to enjoy a decade of great prosperity and material advance" (Perkins, 1957). Finally, American involvement in the battle raised the hope of a European continent free of Imperial Germany's threats, laying the groundwork for postwar peace and economic progress (Perkins, 1957).

III. Critique of the Notion of the “American Spirit” and of the American Intervention in WWI

a) Critique of the Notion of the “American Spirit”

While the concept of the “American Spirit” might imply a sense of unity, exceptionalism, and advancement, it often obscures significant periods in American history that completely contradict these foundational ideas. One of these phases is what became known as “The Trail of Tears”.

The term "Trail of Tears" refers to the forced migration of Native Americans from their ancestral homes in the Southeast to the new Indian Territory defined as "west of Arkansas," which is now Oklahoma (Sloan, 2024). Through coercive or fraudulent treaties, Indians were offered the option of surrendering to state rule as individuals or relocating west to protect their independent tribal governments (Sloan, 2024). The metaphorical trail is a network of routes and rivers traveled in the 1830s by organized tribe groups from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Tennessee. All of these trails crossed through Arkansas (Sloan, 2024).

During the decade after the enactment of the federal Indian Removal Act in 1830, an estimated 60,000 Indians, African slaves, white spouses, and Christian missionaries passed through Arkansas (Sloan, 2024). 

The estimate includes 21,000 Creek (whose descendants prefer the name Muscogee), 16,000 Cherokee, 12,500 Choctaw, 6,000 Chickasaw, 4,200 Florida Indians now collectively known as Seminole, and an unknown number of emigrants from different minor tribes (Sloan, 2024).

They moved upriver on contracted steamboats and crude roadways.  Large caravans and small autonomous groups rode west, carrying wagonloads of valuables and herds of horses (Sloan, 2024). Others walked barefoot, dressed in poor, torn garments. Weather was often a deciding factor, with Arkansas seeing some of its coldest winters and driest summers during that decade.  The military, private contractors, or tribal leaders arranged food, fodder, and firewood along the way (Sloan, 2024). Even with physicians assigned to most removal groups, many people died of infectious ailments like cholera, dysentery, measles, and smallpox. No one knows how many are buried on the trail, let alone how many survived (Sloan, 2024), but estimates show that 10,000 men, women, and children died on this 1,200-mile march (National Park Service, 2016).

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

b) The Revisionist Perspective to WWI

Perkins (1957) outlines the way revisionist historians criticized the involvement of the United States in the WWI on the side of the Allies. According to him, these historians refuted the idea that the Germans challenging the United States “on the high seas” led to the military involvement of the nation in the war in the period between 1917 and 1918. The revisionists believed that "British propaganda directed American opinion," which was the true reason why the United States was involved in WWI (Perkins, 1957).

Moreover, revisionists view that he 14 points constituting the Charter of the League of Nations, which explicitly blamed Germany for the war and made no mention of British violations, show that President Wilson did not truly take a neutral stance in the conflict (Perkins, 1957).

Furthermore, revisionists argued that America's engagement in WWI was motivated by economic considerations. The growth of trade, particularly munitions trafficking, offered enormous economic incentives for Americans to support the Allies in the conflict (Perkins, 1957). Indeed, "[t]he munitions traffic produced profits that gave the United States a stake in the cause of the Allies" (Perkins, 1957). According to this perspective, the reasons for US intervention were primarily economic in nature, driven by a policy that revisionist historians described as "confused, tortuous, and never candidly set forth" (Perkins, 1957).

IV. Conclusion

Major Tenets of the Nationalist School of American Foreign Policy

The United States' foreign policy is distinguished by a "peace-loving spirit" that effectively combines the moralistic tendencies of American policy—including democracy, self-determination, and prosperity for the nations seeking it—with the realistic concept of American national interest (Perkins, 1957). Nationalists believe that the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 is the perfect example of this blend of idealism and pragmatism (Perkins, 1957). This doctrine accomplished three significant goals in its prohibiting European nations from interfering in Western Hemisphere affairs: it guaranteed Latin American nations' right to self-determination, provided the United States with greater access to Latin American markets previously dominated by European nations, and eliminated threats of European invasion of the United States (Perkins, 1957).

The Nationalist school of American foreign policy believes that just wanting to avoid conflict is insufficient to avert it, acknowledging that the situation is far more complex and necessitates a nuanced balance of moral values and strategic objectives (Perkins, 1957). This paper uncovers a fundamental conflict between the idealized "American Spirit" and historical reality. While nationalist historians glorify the United States’ moral leadership in foreign affairs, incidents such as the Trail of Tears and the complicated causes behind WWI intervention highlight the narrative's selective nature.

The notion of the "American Spirit" functions as both an uplifting mythology and a perilous oversimplification.

By obscuring the inconsistencies between American ideals and actual behaviors, it renders policymakers oblivious to the economic and strategic considerations that genuinely inform foreign policy choices. The revisionist analysis of WWI illustrates how nationalist discourses sanitize intricate historical truths. In progressing ahead, it is imperative that American foreign policy recognizes that the United States, akin to all other nations, engages in the pursuit of its interests through a confluence of idealistic and pragmatic approaches. It is solely through the acknowledgment of these inherent contradictions that the US can formulate a foreign policy that authentically promotes both its national interests and the stability of the global community.

Bibliography

1. Beard, C. A., & Beard, M. R. (1942). The American spirit A study of the idea of civilization in the United States. New York: The Macmillan Co.

2. Jackson Turner, F. (1920). The Significance of the Frontier in American History. In The Frontier in American History. Holt. (The essay was originally published in 1893)

3. Library of Congress. (2022). U.S. Participation in the Great War (World War I) | Progressive Era to New Era, 1900-1929 | U.S. History Primary Source Timeline | Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress | Library of Congress. Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/progressive-era-to-new-era-1900-1929/united-states-participation-in-world-war-i/

4. McCullough, D. G. (2017). The American spirit: who we are and what we stand for. Simon & Schuster.

5. National Park Service. (2016). Stories of the Trail of Tears - Fort Smith National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service). Nps.gov; National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/fosm/learn/historyculture/storiestrailoftears.htm

6. Perkins, D. (1957). Foreign Policy and the American Spirit . In Foreign Policy and the American Spirit (pp. 8–15, 92–105). Cornell University.

7. Sloan, K. (2024). Trail of Tears. Encyclopedia of Arkansas. https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/entries/trail-of-tears-2294/

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein belong solely to the columnist and do not represent the official position of our think-tank. Humanotions cannot be held liable for any consequences arising from this content. Content published on Humanotions may contain links to third-party sources. Humanotions is not responsible for the content of these external links. Please refer to our Legal Notices & Policies page for legal details and our Guidelines For Republishing page for republication terms.