I promise not to ask you not to publish your tax returns if you ask me not to publish my emails. And i wont deny things i said in the past. I will admit everything i said. We will try to work our way towards shedding light on something we both think about and write about and talk about a lot. Im going to take the privilege, since it is my book of going first and saying a few things and bob will tell you why what i said was wrong. Our subject, is was John Quincy Adams a realist . We are talking about his worldview. In my book, i say not only did John Quincy Adams have a worldview, but he probably was the first statesman to have a coherent view, which brought together a sense of domestic policy and Foreign Policy. I should give a brief shadow shout out because there was a very good short book about atoms that came off while i was writing my book. I mostly, though not wholly agree with what he says. If i had to summarize what my sense of his world view was, it would be Something Like extent that expansion at home and restraint abroad. If you try to think of a modern analogy to that, it is Something Like the language that the chinese used to use and the last no longer do. That is the sense that here was this immense continental power with huge latent strength, and in order to work out all of the internal dynamics and contradictions, it was essential to have a tranquil world abroad. I think that briefly summarizes adams views. The first great document that lays out the strategy of American Foreign policy was George Washingtons farewell address. And washington cautioned against having standing alliances are antipathies. The part we tend not to notice as much was his statement that thanks to our detached situation, the period is not far off when we make a fine material injury. Meaning the United States had a lucky location. Because of that someday, maybe someday soon it would become a great nation. It was very important it keeps self remote from all of these european royals. I think of adams as someone who needs these principles with the doctrine. He was a senator in the early 19th century. He was a supporter of the Louisiana Purchase at a time when virtually everyone else saw a rightly that it would dilute the power of new england. It was this incredible gift that america had received that would allow it to fill its destiny as a continental nation. When he was secretary of state 12 years later he drove a ruthless bargain. A line across the pacific. It was a hypothetical thing. He thought it was the greatest achievement of his life in america had made its connection to the pacific ocean. If you think of his time as president , very ambitious domestic agenda of a government driven expansionary policy. On the one side of adopting policies that drive america and would achieve greatness. We can talk later about what that word means. Is this deep sense of and need for prudence and restraint. In the 1790s when he was a diplomat, both england and france had navigated the fervor. Adams was counseling his americans from falling prey to that and basically ending this lucky situation. A good or a Safe Foundation for policy measures, fewer americans would have to be disposed to go further than i would. Passion is the most treacherous. Prudence is the most faithful. This idea really comes to a head during adams tenure as secretary of state and that is the moment where we dispute how thinking about his Foreign Policy becomes the most acute. The question was what should america do with its power now that it was no longer cowering behind the atlantic . Many leading figures of the day, especially henry clay felt that america needed to champion the cause of liberty abroad in south america where spains colonies had declared independence and declared themselves as republics. Adams most famous speech was a july 4 oration he gave, which was his intended answer. This is where he said the thing for which he is most famous, america has abstained from interference and the concerns of others, even when the conflicts have been to principles of which she clings. And then she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. America should limit its role abroad to that of wellwishers, even when the values that america holds dear are being threatened. This issue then becomes part of the debate inside the cabinet in 1823 when monroe decides to deliver the address we now know as the Monroe Doctrine. This is the advantage of keeping a diary. The only person whose description we are reading today is adams. It is clear there is no disagreement that the United States must make a strong statement that no colonies will be permitted to be established in the new world, either in north america or south america. The big debate is what shall we say about events that are specifically in europe. Monroe and john calhoun, the secretary of war, were eager to speak out against the french. The french had overthrown republican rule in spain. They felt it was crucial as the great leader of republicanism to stand up and speak out, as well as this ongoing question about greeces role with turkey. Adams sharply disagreed. He said doing that would be seen as a summons to arms against all europe and exclusively european policy. He then describes his pursuit of monroe, practically pinning him to the wall to get monroe to agree that this was the thing he must not say indeed he finally succeeded. He succeeded in getting monroe to camp down. Monroe does allude to spain, but he doesnt mention france or the Holy Alliance, which is the alliance of autocratic nations. He said in the language adams used two years before of events in the quarter of the globe, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. Nevertheless in the wars of the european powers in matters relating to the cells, we have never taken any part nor does it conform with our policy to do so. When i use the word realism and when others look back to adams as a realist, they are thinking of this idea that america should follow its National Interests, if those National Interests should be separate from the values we hold dear and home, and the balance between adams own passion and prudence, one should lean towards prudence. Would you say either ive mischaracterized how you understand adams or maybe that would be a correct characterize of adams but not a correct characterization of realism . Bob or some combination of the two. Let me just say this debate is an excuse to talk about this wonderful book that jim has written. Im a big fan of talking about john and history now. I want to congratulate you for being here. I basically wanted to be put into a coma and roused on november 9. This is the closest jim im so touched by the idea that this is coma inducing. Bob this is preferable to a coma. I will admit we have done this before. He has honed his argument. One of the things i particularly like about this book, there is a tremendous amount of space given to John Quincy Adams postpresident ial career. It is really the most extraordinary postpresident ial career anyone has ever had, which is to say he entered congress as a member of the house and spent most of his life fighting fighting slavery, which was an extraordinary thing for an expresident to do. It tells you a lot about what kind of person he was and certainly why he was not anyones definition of a realist. A realist would not have devoted his life to fighting slavery. A dissolution of the union because of slavery followed by a war between two separate portions of the union, it seems to me to be the extrication of slavery from the continent, his progress must be so glorious would be its final issue that i dare not say it is not to be desired. He said that in 1819. If you look at many decisions he made, he placed the moral question of slavery over the national interest. Its about economic wellbeing. Most realists look at the western expansion including the acquisition of the former mexican territories of the southwest as in the national interest. They are perfectly willing to ignore the fact that those acquisitions led directly to the civil war and half a million dead and how that is in our interest i will never understand. This is something adams had on his mind a great deal. There are many ways to define realists and realists are very clever. If you love to be called a realist because you are realist and that makes the rest of you guys unrealistic, it is great to be a realist. There is offensive realism, there is defense of realism, neorealism. But at the core of realism is a conviction that moral answer may ends may or may not be something for individuals to pursue. But they are not what nations should be focusing on. And people who are stewards of the nation Foreign Policy must focus on what realists referred to as national interest. And not just crusades, as they would put it. Much less ideology at the center of ones decisionmaking. In that respect i would say that is not the way of describing John Quincy Adams. He had a very strong sense of expanding the power of the country. But he also had a clear and strong moral sense about the purpose of the United States. This quotation he has used is the realist mantra. We go not abroad in search of bobs in search of bombs to destroy. This particular speech, which was pulled out to make a point about the way we ought to be thinking about Foreign Policy is as so often the case with these wonderful perfect quotations taken out of context and misleading, really, if you think about what is going on both in terms of what adams was thinking and in what americans in general were thinking. The line is from a july 4 speech. Most is an attack on great britain. Im pretty sure no one at the time paid attention to monsters being destroyed or not being destroyed. What they paid attention to was adams going after britain for its evil principles and extolling the belief at individual rights that americans stood for. There was even a moment in that speech where he speaks to the people. Roughly People Living under the lords and asking them to go out like ways. This was not a cautious statement by people in europe. The Russian Foreign minister complained that adams was inciting revolutionary revolt. Lets go back to do some history. One thing the speech as the people pull out, they generally do violence to what is going on. Jim has laid it out to some extent. When adamss suggestion that we should not go in search of monsters what is he talking about . Is he talking about launching an armada across the atlantic . Sending american soldiers to europe to fight, or sending them anywhere for that matter . No, they are debating whether to extend recognition to the latin american republics. As jim points out, John Quincy Adams is engaged already in a president ial campaign. Even a wonderful servant of america like john adams was also a politician. He and clay were in a war with each other. And they were using policy as as part of their war. The truth is adams thought his transcontinental treaty was going to be a major success that will help launch them into the presidency. It is also true henry clay agreed and would have loved to see that treaty fall apart. Henry clay was for recognizing those republics right away. And John Quincy Adams was not for doing that because he worried spain would walk away from the treaty. We were not destroying monsters. It was a question of recognizing latin republics or not recognizing latin republics. So we didnt that year. We did two years later. We went ahead and recognize those republics. No harm came to the United States from the killer monster destruction. You could argue the harm became to the United States was a result of the transcontinental treaty. And adams was ultimately aware of the because of territory that became slave territory and part of the great debate. Certainly recognizing the latin republics does not have any negative effect on american interests, when we did. Not only was this a temporary dispute, but then when you look at John Quincy Adams behavior afterwards, after he has gotten his transcontinental treaty, after the United States has gone ahead and recognize these latin republics, listen to the instructions that John Quincy Adams gives to the new american ministers who have been sent to these latin republics. It is quite an extraordinary set of instructions. He instructed diplomats that the emancipation of the south American Continent has open to the whole race of man prospects of maturity in which the United States will be called in the discharge of its duties to itself. It was the duty of the United States to establish relations with south america upon principles of politics and morals that were distasteful to the other world. He goes on to say american ministers should use donations to support the principle against any local hankering after monarchy. The new world on the one hand and the monarchical system that prevails in europe. He goes on to explain what the dispute is, the ideological dispute that is animating World Affairs at the time. These are instructions. The European Alliance of emperors and kings have assumed the doctrine of alienable allegiance. We have considered it as an assertion of natural right. This is instructions to ambassadors. Was ideology and morality part of John Quincy Adams thinking . Absolutely. There was a good reason for it. Americans are not the only ones thinking ideologically about the world. All the great powers are thinking ideologically. The spanish revolution of 1820, which overthrows a monarchy and is then reversed by a french invasion and the french have their own revolution overthrown, all of which is under the overall guidance of czar alexander, and he stands for absolutism. He puts together the Holy Alliance. In fact to snuff them out on both sides of the atlantic. There is some kind of threat that the Holy Alliance will send forces over to the new world to impose monarchies and destroy this revolution. If you look at british policy, the policies first of castle ray and then of canning, it is all about balancing themselves between this radicalism of the new world and the absolutism of the eastern monarchies and britain trying to find its place in the middle. The entire discourse is ideological. And adams is a full participant in that discourse. It may be true that you could say he was being prudent, but since no one was recommending any forces be sent anywhere, i dont know what he was being prudent against. There was never a suggestion that the United States was somehow going to become involved in sending forces over to do anything about it. The Monroe Doctrine is also one of the most misunderstood pieces of american policy in history because it is thought to be a division that is geographical between the new world and the old world. As adams understood it, as monroe understood it, it was a divide that was ideological. It was a concern that monarchy would be transplanted in the new world. They didnt want these countries having colonies. The big division was an ideological division. In that sense im arguing with somebody who is not here. And im arguing against a realist in the true sense. This man was ultimately willing to sacrifice any definition of the national interest, if doing so was necessary to defeat slavery. In 1840, it meant colluding with a british to take control texas and let texas become part of an abolitionist movement. He was consciously limiting american sovereignty on the continent if that sovereignty was going to lead to slavery. Jim so you would have even more material to use against me if you heard the most recent talk i gave about adams at the massachusetts historical society. Adams was a classic example of moral purism. And lincoln was an example of a politician. Bob has said that realism is a kind of species of moral indifference, to care about morality is to lead yourself astray. I think were disagreeing not all about adams but this word, and i want to say why i think the word is relevant and also i want to bring it up today. Adams was a completely, morally driven person. I probably wouldnt have found him such a compelling figure. There was an element of realism. Analytical understanding. Nations are not driven by moral principles but objective interests. The premise of the Monroe Doctrine is there are competing political systems in the world. This idea that being a republic means you are going to have the same Foreign Policy us similarly situated authoritarian countries. I would say hes a realist in some meaningful sense. This question of whether it is in americas interests to pursue, to seek to have its values replicated abroad, whether it is possible to have it replicated abroad, this is a burning question today. When we talk about realism, not in the academic sense but in the newspaper sense, the question often arises to what extent cant United States and should the United States seek to engage in democracy promotion. And a whole series of other policies. Adams was deeply skeptical. First of all, like many realists of not today. The classic realists, like George Kennan in the 1950s, adams thought the United States had to choose between having a far more outgoing and aggressive policy, which he feared wou