How Did Slavery Influence American Foreign Policy in the Early National Period? Consider Relations with Britain, France, and Latin America

Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Introduction

In the early national period of the United States, slavery was not merely a domestic institution rooted in the Southern plantation economy. It was also a critical determinant of foreign policy and international diplomacy. As America expanded its economic and political interests abroad, the institution of slavery influenced how it negotiated treaties, formed alliances, and navigated global ideologies. The interactions with Britain, France, and Latin America illustrate the complexities of how American slavery intersected with international developments, especially during the Age of Revolutions. These regions were not isolated spectators but active participants in shaping the United States’ approach to preserving and defending slavery. Thus, analyzing the role of slavery in early American foreign policy reveals how deeply entwined this institution was in defining the nation’s international posture, strategic decisions, and ideological contradictions.

Slavery and U.S.-British Relations

Following the American Revolution, the United States entered into a complex and often tense diplomatic relationship with Great Britain. Though Britain had lost its American colonies, it retained significant geopolitical and commercial influence, and slavery remained a key issue in bilateral affairs. One of the most contentious matters concerned the British refusal to return formerly enslaved Africans who had sought protection under British lines during the Revolutionary War. According to Article 7 of the 1783 Treaty of Paris, the British were to evacuate without “carrying away any Negroes,” yet Britain often violated this clause, leading to significant American frustration (Finkelman, 2012). This issue underscored the racial and economic tensions that permeated post-war diplomacy.

Additionally, Britain’s move toward abolition, particularly after the 1807 Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, increasingly placed American slavery under moral scrutiny. The U.S. was hesitant to align too closely with Britain on anti-slavery issues, fearing it might provoke internal discord and threaten the Southern economy. The British Navy’s aggressive suppression of the transatlantic slave trade, including the boarding of American vessels suspected of engaging in illegal slave trading, sparked diplomatic protests from Washington. American policymakers, particularly Southern elites, viewed these actions as imperial overreach and a threat to national sovereignty (Sinha, 2016). Consequently, U.S.-British diplomacy in this period was fraught with tension, rooted not only in geopolitical rivalry but in divergent moral and economic approaches to slavery. The fear of British interference and ideological confrontation about human bondage created an enduring tension that shaped how American foreign policy evolved.

Slavery and Franco-American Relations

France was another major power with which the early United States navigated slavery-related diplomatic challenges. During the French and Haitian Revolutions, France’s shifting stance on slavery influenced its transatlantic relations. The Haitian Revolution (1791–1804), the most successful slave revolt in the Americas, deeply unsettled American leaders. It resulted in the first Black republic and a profound challenge to the legitimacy of racial slavery. The U.S. initially supported white planters in Saint-Domingue, fearing that the success of the Haitian Revolution would inspire slave uprisings in the American South (Dubois, 2004). This response reflected the pervasive anxieties about racial order and control within the United States.

Under President Thomas Jefferson, U.S. policy attempted to isolate Haiti diplomatically and economically. Despite America’s professed commitment to liberty, it refused to recognize Haitian independence until 1862, long after most European nations had done so. This reluctance was driven by the fear that legitimizing a Black-led republic would embolden enslaved people in the United States. Moreover, France’s sale of the Louisiana Territory in 1803, driven in part by Napoleon’s failure to reclaim Haiti, had massive implications for the expansion of slavery. The acquisition opened vast new lands for the extension of plantation agriculture and thus slavery, further cementing the institution’s centrality to national expansion and international policy (Johnson, 2013). Franco-American relations in this context were therefore defined by a complex interplay of revolution, race, and empire. The United States’ foreign policy with France was shaped as much by the dynamics of slavery as it was by economic opportunity and national expansion.

Slavery and Relations with Latin America

American foreign policy toward Latin America during the early republic also reflected the United States’ preoccupation with slavery. As Latin American countries began gaining independence from Spain and Portugal in the early nineteenth century, many abolished slavery as part of their revolutionary agendas. This created a stark ideological contrast between the United States and its southern neighbors, even as it claimed solidarity with republican ideals. The new republics often served as moral counterpoints to the United States, where slavery continued to be a defining institution.

The Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which asserted U.S. opposition to European intervention in the Western Hemisphere, was partially motivated by a desire to prevent European powers from influencing post-colonial Latin America in ways that could threaten slavery. U.S. policymakers feared that Britain, as a leading anti-slavery power, would spread abolitionist ideals in the region, thereby undermining slavery’s legitimacy across the Americas. Consequently, U.S. foreign policy sought to curtail British influence and promote regimes amenable to slavery or at least neutral in their stance (Green, 2012).

In addition, American support for filibustering expeditions and efforts to annex slave-holding territories such as Cuba reflected a broader strategy to maintain a balance of power favorable to slave interests. These initiatives, often unofficial, were driven by expansionist ambitions and the perceived need to preserve the viability of the slave economy in the face of growing abolitionist pressures. Latin American nations, recognizing the contradictions in American republicanism, often viewed U.S. overtures with suspicion, particularly where slavery was concerned. The pursuit of pro-slavery foreign policy objectives in Latin America was a clear indication that the United States was not merely reacting to external pressures, but actively shaping its hemisphere in defense of slavery.

Domestic Pressures Shaping Foreign Policy

The influence of slavery on early American foreign policy cannot be understood without acknowledging the internal political landscape. The balance between slaveholding and non-slaveholding states was a constant concern in both domestic and international negotiations. The South’s political power, derived largely from the three-fifths clause and its economic dominance, ensured that federal policies, including those related to foreign affairs, would not undermine the institution of slavery.

Southern leaders, such as John C. Calhoun, explicitly linked the preservation of slavery to national strength and international credibility. As Calhoun articulated, slavery was not merely a domestic concern but a “positive good” foundational to American civilization and prosperity. This perspective shaped U.S. resistance to international anti-slavery agreements and influenced decisions such as refusing to join British-led efforts to patrol African waters for illegal slave trading. Thus, even in matters of global diplomacy, slavery was treated as a vital national interest, not merely a sectional one (Calhoun, 1992).

The federal government’s cautious engagement with international abolitionist initiatives further reveals how foreign policy was manipulated to serve slaveholding interests. Treaties were scrutinized for any language that could be interpreted as threatening to slavery, and diplomatic posts were often filled with individuals sympathetic to Southern concerns. This internal-external nexus underscored the degree to which slavery permeated every facet of governance, including the formulation and execution of foreign policy. In sum, domestic slaveholding interests not only shaped America’s internal politics but also exerted an outsized influence on its interactions with the wider world.

International Perceptions and American Identity

International perceptions of the United States during this period were often shaped by its contradictory stances on liberty and slavery. While the nation presented itself as a beacon of democratic values and republicanism, its continued support for slavery undermined this image abroad. Critics in Britain and France frequently pointed out the hypocrisy of American claims to liberty while maintaining an economy based on human bondage. These critiques were particularly forceful in the British press and Parliament, which increasingly took a moral stance against slavery (Blackett, 2013).

The need to maintain a respectable international image occasionally forced the U.S. to moderate its positions. For example, the 1819 Act to Protect the Commerce of the United States and Punish the Crime of Piracy declared slave trading an act of piracy. While this move appeared progressive, its enforcement was inconsistent and often symbolic. It was a strategic attempt to deflect international criticism without altering the fundamental structures of slavery.

American leaders were thus caught in a diplomatic dilemma: they needed to uphold slavery for economic and political reasons while simultaneously cultivating alliances and trade relationships with increasingly abolitionist nations. This balancing act defined much of early U.S. foreign policy and illustrates the global dimensions of slavery’s influence on national identity and diplomacy. The contradiction between domestic practices and international ideals would become more glaring in the decades to follow, ultimately contributing to America’s moral and political crisis on the eve of the Civil War.

Conclusion

Slavery played a pivotal role in shaping early American foreign policy, deeply influencing the nation’s relationships with Britain, France, and Latin America. The defense and promotion of slavery were integral to how the United States approached diplomacy, negotiated treaties, and projected its international identity. While espousing values of freedom and democracy, the U.S. consistently prioritized the preservation of slavery in its international dealings, revealing a fundamental contradiction at the heart of its national project. These early foreign policy decisions not only affected geopolitical outcomes but also entrenched slavery more deeply into the fabric of American society. By examining this entanglement of slavery and diplomacy, one gains a clearer understanding of how American ideals were frequently compromised to preserve an institution that would eventually lead to internal conflict and civil war.

References

Blackett, R. J. M. (2013). Divided Hearts: Britain and the American Civil War. Louisiana State University Press.

Calhoun, J. C. (1992). The Papers of John C. Calhoun. University of South Carolina Press.

Dubois, L. (2004). Avengers of the New World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution. Harvard University Press.

Finkelman, P. (2012). Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson. Routledge.

Green, W. A. (2012). British Slave Emancipation: The Sugar Colonies and the Great Experiment 1830–1865. Oxford University Press.

Johnson, W. (2013). River of Dark Dreams: Slavery and Empire in the Cotton Kingdom. Harvard University Press.

Sinha, M. (2016). The Slave’s Cause: A History of Abolition. Yale University Press.