Charles Austin Beard: Liberal Foe of American Internationalism.

• Author: Philbin, James P.

You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.

Charles Austin Beard [1]

It has been a little over a half century since the death of one of the preeminent historians of the twentieth century, Charles Austin Beard (1874-1948). A professor of history at Columbia, the author of numerous articles, essays, books and histories of the United States (a number of the latter co-written with his wife, Mary), and the recipient of prestigious academic awards, he earned the title of "dean of American historians." [2]

Lionized in his early career by much of the historical establishment, Beard fell out of favor with his fellow liberal and progressive academics because of his opposition to the nation's foreign policy in the years prior to World War II. While other scholars were receptive to pressures and allurements from the powers that be to support another American involvement in a foreign war, Beard remained, for the most part, an unrelenting critic of what he believed was a deliberate and mendacious foreign-policy course, one orchestrated by the Roosevelt Administration to take the country to war. Beard feared tragic consequences for America and the world.

Foreign-policy stance had personal costs.

Such a stance had professional and personal costs for the Indiana native, the effects of which have lingered to the present day, and helps explain why there is little mention of his life, career, or influence some fifty years after his passing. This neglect is undoubtedly due to Beard's later scholarship, which undermines what has become the standard historical interpretation and "truth" regarding America and the Second World War. This orthodoxy has been used by many in the postwar era to justify particular policies in the Western democracies. Beard, among others, questioned whether the United States' entry into the war and the resulting Allied victory over the Axis powers was a wholly necessary, beneficial, and heroic course of events. Those who have challenged the accepted interpretation of those times have been ignored, ostracized, or, worse, denounced as fascist sympathizers. [3]

This essay will discuss the later phase of Charles Beard's remarkable career when he broke with much of the liberal intellectual and political establishment over the country's entry into World War II. The article will examine his proposals for reconstructing American foreign policy and briefly analyze how his views on developments in the nation's economy during the decades prior to the war affected his outlook on foreign affairs.

The Making of a "Revisionist"

A host of factors led Beard to battle for American neutrality in the years leading up to the Second World War. One motive which has not been emphasized sufficiently was his fervent patriotism. Beard had a great love for America. He believed it to be a unique and divinely inspired nation, forged to be a beacon of light, peace, and hope for the rest of the world. George Leighton comments on this aspect of the historian's personality:" ... Beard regarded himself first of all, and seriously, as an Americn citizen. Though to him this meant being a citizen of no mean nation, there was nothing of the bigoted nationalist about him. Citizenship confers upon the holder certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities. Beard's personal history showed that he was aware of the privileges, that he was never slow in asserting the rights, and that he was not dilatory in assuming the responsibilities." [4] Leighton continues his description of this neglecteed feature of Beard's character: "The United States was no geographic al expression to him; it was a going concern in which he had a share, a stake, and damn the man who, for reasons of frivolity, ignorance, irresponsibility, or simply a desire to throw his weight around, jeopardized the Republic's prospects." [5]

Although a patriot is commonly considered as one who is willing to risk life and limb for the homeland, it can be no less patriotic to jeopardize a career or personal reputation for the sake of one's country. To a large extent Beard did just that. He had come to the conclusion that America had been led off its traditional foreign-policy course, beginning with the unjustified and imperialistic war against Spain in 1898. He was determined to do all that he could to return it to its former non-interventionist course.

"A mere damned patriot."

While other scholars shrank from political battle, [6] Beard remained outspoken and steadfast in his opposition to an American Empire right up to his death. [7] His patriotism undoubtedly sustained him during the virulent attacks and calumnies that he suffered, often at the hands of liberal former colleagues. As the war raged in Europe and the cry for United States involvement intensified, he dejectedly wrote, "I ... was treated as a mere damned patriot, immoral and criminal, as neglecting my solemn duty to save the world." [8] Beard also suspected that he was under surveillance by federal authorities. [9]

The Second World War was a watershed for American liberalism. Its spokesmen became decidedly more internationalist and left leaning. While Beard, John T. Flynn and others among the Old Guard were increasingly worried about the effects that participation in another world war would have on the country's institutions and its constitutional form of government, a new breed of liberal saw war as an opportunity to transform American society more fundamentally than had been possible under the New Deal. The fears of Beard and others were eventually confirmed. The seeds of what would later become "cultural Marxism" were adroitly sown during this era by a radical and leftist liberal vanguard. [10]

Results of World War I brought disillusion.

While Beard had supported American intervention in the First World War and castigated "Prussian militarism," [11] like the general public and much of academia he became deeply disillusioned, partly because of the war's tragic consequences. [12] He became convinced that Germany was not solely to blame for the war's outbreak, and America's participation did not truly serve its national interest. "Though the cautious will shrink from conclusions too sharp and dogmatic," he wrote, "...all must admit that one thing has been established beyond question, namely, that responsibility for the War must be distributed among all the participants, with Russia and France each bearing a Titan's share." [13] By the mid 1920s, Beard believed that "The Sunday-school theory" of pristine and noble Allied intentions could not be sustained by the mounting postwar evidence: "According to that theory, three pure and innocent boys--Russia, France, and England--without military guile in their hearts, were suddenly assailed while on th e way to Sunday school by two deep-dyed villains--Germany and Austria--who had long been plotting cruel deeds in the dark." [14]

Blacklisting at Columbia.

During his tenure at Columbia, Beard witnessed first hand the effect that wars have on the lives of non-combatants. When it was revealed that the university forced two faculty members to resign for their anti-war views, Beard said: "I learned what war could do....I saw Columbia use the War to suppress men....I saw the freedom of the press trampled by gangs of spies, public and private." [15] George Leighton contends that this incident, which caused Beard to resign his academic post, was a "devastating experience" which no doubt shaped his future foreign-policy outlook. [16]

Although these and other intellectual and personal factors could be cited, it was ultimately the actions of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, often surreptitious, that drove Beard to become a leading proponent of American neutrality. He became convinced that if Roosevelt had honestly followed a non-interventionist foreign policy course, which the President had repeatedly promised publicly, the country could have avoided the conflict altogether. Beard dedicated much of the last portion of his life to showing that Roosevelt had wanted war and that, because of the general lack of enthusiasm for the endeavor by the vast majority of Americans, he had tried to maneuver the United States into war without "firing the first shot." [7]

Prior to becoming one of the most vociferous critics of the Administration Beard had hoped to have some influence in the formulation of policy. For a brief time, after his attendance at several White House dinners, it looked as if he might have an advisory role (even if unofficial). [18] It became known that Roosevelt read both The Idea of the National Interest and The Open Door at Home. [19] Despite some apparent initial interest on Roosevelt's part, the policy recommendations in bothworks were, to Beard's great dismay, rejected. Roosevelt is reported to have remarked that The Open Door at Home was "a bad dish." [20]

Because his hopes of becoming at least an "unofficial" foreign-policy advisor had been dashed by the middle of Roosevelt's first term and, more importantly, because of the Administration's mounting international belligerency and its increased arms buildup, especially of naval procurements...