 
there is a traditional presentation of the early development of american 
foreign policy that is based on the assumption that the new nation followed a 
consistent policy of isolation and neutrality. 
it runs along the following lines. 
george washington, saddened by the disputes among americans stimulated by 
the wars in europe following the french revolution, laid the foundations for a 
policy of isolation in his farewell address, in which he warned americans to 
"steer clear of permanent alliances." 
this policy was followed by jefferson and madison, both of whom attempted 
to keep the young nation out of foreign involvements. 
continued british violations of our freedom of the seas, however, and 
impressment of american seamen, brought us into the "second war for 
independence," the war of 1812. 
the policy of isolation was extended to the entire western hemisphere by 
president monroe in the monroe doctrine of 1823, which warned european nations 
that the americas were no longer open to colonization and, in return, pledged 
americans to stay out of european affairs. 
various areas of this interpretation have come under attack by historians. 
several questions suggest the inadequacy, for example, of the traditional 
view of the causes of the war of 1812. 
if the war was declared over maritime rights, why did the maritime new 
england states oppose it? 
why did we go to war in 1812, when impressments were no longer common, 
rather than in 1807, when the attack upon the american ship "chesapeake" had 
fired up national feelings? 
why did congressmen from the south and the west, not affected by such 
violations, press most eagerly for war? 
why was war declared against england, rather than france, which had 
violated american shipping rights as blatantly as had england? 
within the last half-century, a number of historians have suggested that 
the desire for territorial expansion, rather than maritime interests, was the 
major cause for war. 
