From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776

The Oxford History of the United States #12

by George C. Herring

The Oxford History of the United States is the most respected multi-volume history of our nation in print. The series includes three Pulitzer Prize-winners, a New York Times bestseller, and winners of prestigious Bancroft and Parkman Prizes. From Colony to Superpower is the only thematic volume commissioned for the series. Here George C. Herring uses foreign relations as the lens through which to tell the story of America's dramatic rise from thirteen disparate colonies huddled along the Atlantic coast to the world's greatest superpower.

A sweeping account of United States' foreign relations and diplomacy, this magisterial volume documents America's interaction with other peoples and nations of the world. Herring tells a story of stunning successes and sometimes tragic failures, captured in a fast-paced narrative that illuminates the central importance of foreign relations to the existence and survival of the nation, and highlights its ongoing impact on the lives of ordinary citizens. He shows how policymakers defined American interests broadly to include territorial expansion, access to growing markets, and the spread of an "American way" of life. And Herring does all this in a story rich in human drama and filled with epic events. Statesmen such as Benjamin Franklin and Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman and Dean Acheson played key roles in America's rise to world power. But America's expansion as a nation also owes much to the adventurers and explorers, the sea captains, merchants and captains of industry, the missionaries and diplomats, who discovered or charted new lands, developed new avenues of commerce, and established and defended the nation's interests in foreign lands.

From the American Revolution to the fifty-year struggle with communism and conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, From Colony to Superpower tells the dramatic story of America's emergence as superpower--its birth in revolution, its troubled present, and its uncertain future.

Genres: History, American History, Nonfiction, Politics, International Relations, United States, The United States Of America

1056 pages, Hardcover

First published October 21, 2008

About the author

A specialist in the history of American foreign relations, George C. Herring was Alumni Professor of History Emeritus at the University of Kentucky. Herring received a bachelor's degree from Roanoke College and after service in the U.S. Navy he earned both master's (1962) and doctorate (1965) degrees in History from the University of Virginia. After teaching for four years at Ohio University, Herring joined the faculty of the University of Kentucky in 1969, where he taught until his retirement in 2005.

Reviews

[robin friedman · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Grand Overview Of United States Foreign Relations

This new volume of the Oxford History of the United States tells the story of the foreign relations of the United States from its inception in 1776 to the present day. The author, George C Herring, is the Alumni Professor of History Emeritus at the University of Kentucky. He is the author of many books on United States foreign affairs, centering upon the War in Vietnam. Herring's study is nearly 1000 pages in length, but it is not a word too long. In its scope, learning, wisdom, and attempt to be even-handed, it is a joy to read.

Herring tells a long story of a subject with many unexpected turns and changes of perspective over the years. I enjoyed the sense of continuity that this large history brings to its subject. Herring shows how leading ideas and tensions in American foreign policy developed from the beginning of the new nation and both persisted and were transformed as the nation developed. His book encourages the reader to see how United States policy developed in particular parts of the world over time, such as in Latin America, Canada, the Middle East, and Vietnam. This encourages a depth of understanding that cannot be provided from reading the newspapers or even from specialized scholarly accounts of a single period.

The book begins with the Revolutionary era, and the first two of Herring's chapter titles state themes of American history that are repeated many times throughout the study: America's perceived mission "To Begin the World Over Again" and the need to keep the nation strong and prepared so that there are "None who Can Make us Afraid." The theme of mission is tied, broadly, to American idealism and exceptionalism. The theme of strength is tied, again generally, to realism. Herring identifies a combination of these broad traits in, among other ways, the "practical idealism" of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.

From the Revolution, the book proceeds through the War of 1812, American expansionism and "Manifest Destiny" in the Mexican War, foreign relationships during the Civil War, the Spanish-American War and American Empire, World War I and II, the Cold War and its aftermath, Vietnam, and our nation's current situation in Iraq, among many other recurring themes. The final section of the book on the war in Iraq seems to me rushed. It is difficult to bring a historical perspective to bear upon ongoing, changing events.

Herring pays close attention to transitional periods that are sometimes overlooked, including foreign policy in the Gilded Age and foreign policy in the years between the two world wars, that helped me to understand the larger, better-known aspects of the United States's foreign relations. Commendably, Herring also considers the United States's relationships with the Indian tribes as within the purview of foreign affairs during the time in which the United States expanded across the continent.

In general, Herring writes non-dogmatically and non-polemically. He makes his opinions known but frequently points out other interpretations and ways of trying to understand the history. He seems to admire greatly Woodrow Wilson and his efforts before, during, and after WW I to bring a just peace to a troubled world. Herring also finds much to praise, as well as to question, in figures such as Washington, Hamilton, Adams, and Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Elihu Root, and Franklin Roosevelt. He offers qualified praise for George H.W. Bush, for "the strategic vision of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger" and for the "ability to adapt and adjust displayed by Ronald Reagan."

In the introduction to his study, Herring develops themes such as the relationship between realism and idealism in informing United States foreign policy, expansionism, and the tensions between the Executive Branch, Congress, lobbying groups, and the electorate in the conduct of foreign affairs. Herring is critical of what he perceives as the current unilateralist tendency in American foreign relations and he recommends a course that disclaims American exceptionalism or arrogance. He concludes that "the United States cannot dictate the shape of a new world order, but the way it responds to future foreign policy challenges can help ensure its security and well-being and exert a powerful influence for good or ill."

Herring has written an outstanding addition to the Oxford History of the United States. His book taught me a great deal about American history and about the American experience.

Robin Friedman

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Americans have long preferred to ignore events beyond the borders of their country. Yet to adopt such an attitude, as George Herring contends in this book, is to ignore a key element of the national experience. In this book, a survey of American foreign policy from the late 18th century to the present day, Herring seeks to demonstrate the role international relations have played in shaping our nation’s history. It is one, he argues, that has been long influenced by Americans’ self-perception of themselves as a chosen people living in a nation with a unique and special place in the world. This belief often is often tempered by pragmatism, however, as Americans frequently subordinated their ideals to the realities of the situation and their own economic self interest.

These elements were present at the nation’s birth. Claiming its independence in a document filled with assertions of rights, the revolutionary government soon found itself in an alliance with France, only recently a hated foe of the colonists and an embodiment of much the revolutionaries opposed. Yet such a partnership was necessary given the United States’s weakness in the early decades of the nation’s existence, which was hardly assured. Once it was, however, the justifications of idealism and pragmatism united as U.S. foreign policy turned towards the goal of extending the nation’s borders. Americans cited their sense of national mission and destiny to explain their acquisition of new lands to themselves and others. Even the bloody internecine conflict of the Civil War slowed the country’s growth only temporarily, and by the late 19th century the focus widened from the Western Hemisphere to establishing a global presence.

The increasing economic predominance of the U.S. in the world, however, was not mirrored at first by a concomitant involvement in international politics. Though Woodrow Wilson brought to the presidency a desire to spread American ideals abroad, his effort to involve the country in the League of Nations was rejected by the public after the First World War. It was not until the Second World War that foreign policy again became a dominant concern for the American people, one perpetuated by the postwar insecurity of the Cold War. Here Herring loses the proverbial forest for the trees, as his thesis recedes amidst the details of the multifaceted struggle with the Soviet Union. Yet even the United States’s ultimate victory and its status as the world’s “hyperpower” did not offer a guarantee of safety from global threats, as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 demonstrated. After examining the policies that followed the attacks, Herring concludes by arguing for an abandonment of long-held hubristic ideals and the embracing of the pragmatic tradition as the best means of addressing the U.S.’s concerns in today’s rapidly changing world.

Herring’s books is a sweeping and comprehensive account of America’s interaction with the world. Though his focus is on United States foreign policy, he addresses as well the broader relationship between its citizens and the world, a dynamic that both drives national policy and is influenced by it. His coverage is impressive, as he succeeds in addressing the major foreign policy concerns while not letting them overshadow America’s simultaneous relations with other nations. With two-thirds of his text covering American foreign policy in the 20th century, some might quibble with his emphasis on the past hundred years, yet such a focus is understandable given Herring’s background as a historian of post-Second World War policy and his narrative never bogs down in detail as a consequence. Overall, this book provides an incomparable examination of nearly two and a half centuries of American foreign policy, one that will enlighten readers familiar with the topic as well as those seeking an introduction to the subject.

[Brady Parkin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is such an amazing read. Granted I am an international politics buff so I am biased but this was one of the most information-packed books I have ever read. I have never known too much about U.S. or world history so this book really enlightened me to the basics of what happens as well as the in-depth details of the processes and the people behind the decisions. Being such a big book, I am proud of myself for finishing it (even though it was for a class). I honestly just want to read more of it. The explanations were so clearly elucidated that anyone could understand and appreciate and I really liked the occasional additions that the author put in of his own opinion as to the benefits, drawbacks, or other possible solutions to the issues. Never have I been more into history and not only did this book satisfy my urges but it also made me thirsty for more. I will definitely be looking for more books by this author and other authors like him. If you want to know more about U.S. and world history, more than your high school class ever taught you, then this is the book to get you started learning up again. Thank you George C. Herring for helping me appreciate our nations leaders, systems, mistakes, and blunders. We are not perfect as a nation but the distance covered from our beginnings to now is greater than anyone could have anticipated.

[Rebecca · Rating 3 out of 5]

From a layperson's point of view, I found this book adequately interesting (though at times, tedious) and overall, helpful and informative. It covers precisely what it says it will, the U.S. Foreign policy from 1776 until just after the Iraq war surge of 2007.

Quite understandably, there is an extensive bibliographical essay at the book's end.

In the final two paragraphs, the author broke from the retelling and analysis of America's foreign policy, and wrote his own advice of what this country can do, and how it may yet be perceived:

"Americans must also 'disenthrall' themselves, to borrow Lincoln's apt word, from deeply entrenched ideas about their country and its place in the world. They must 'think anew, and act anew.' They must cast away centuries-old notions of themselves as God's chosen people. In today's world, such pretensions cannot fail to alienate others. They should recognize the historical truth that the United States in its dealings with other people and nations has not been uniquely innocent and virtuous. It has done much good in the world, but in its drive to superpower status it has often violated its own principles and inflicted harm on other peoples. Unilateralism served the nation well for its first century and a half, but in the vastly shrunken and still very dangerous world of the twenty-first century, it is simply not viable. Most problems are global in scope and require multilateral solutions. The United States cannot resolve them by itself and on its terms, and efforts to do so, as the Iraq war has made clear, will likely be counterproductive. The United States must be more prudent in the use of its still quite considerable power. In the aftermath of Iraq and Afghanistan, it must not withdraw from a seemingly hostile and ungrateful world. But it must also recognize that power, no matter how great, has limits. The nation cannot rid the world of evil, as it defines evil; it cannot impose its way on other peoples by military force or diplomatic pressures. 'The American idea can still resonate,' columnist Roger Cohen recently observed. But, he adds, U.S. 'leaders must embody it rather than impose it.' They must lead by example and especially by listening to other peoples and nations. The United States cannot dictate the shape of a new world order, but the way it responds to future foreign policy challenges can help ensure its security and well-being and exert a powerful influence for good or ill."

[Avani · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fascinating an in-depth look at America's history and growth.

Warning: Do not read more than a chapter at a time, otherwise it becomes nearly impossible to actually absorb and enjoy.

[Lady Brainsample · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars.
I'm FINALLY done. Absolutely worth reading, but I am SO relieved that I'm done.

[Nathan Eberline · Rating 5 out of 5]

George Herring deserves recognition for this book If for no other reason than lauding the scope and ambition of his subject matter. In “From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1786,” Herring gives a big-picture analysis of U.S. history from the vantage of its relationships with the international community. Herring tackled the pre-colony days through the post-9/11 presidency of George W. Bush. The result is a book that minimizes traditional historical highlights from a typical history textbook to instead focus on those occurrences like the assassinations of Presidents Garfield and McKinley received only brief mention while conflicts like the Barbary Wars and the Spanish-American War receive a more in-depth focus than you typically see in a U.S. history survey. Perhaps none of these subjects strike readers as interesting, but Herring weaved an incredible narrative that was cogent, focused, and indeed interesting. I would recommend “From Colony to Superpower” for anyone who enjoys history, as it is a book that adds great richness to U.S. history and how we are viewed throughout the rest of the world.

I took a great deal of notes while reading this book, and here are a few of my thoughts and observations:

• Herring introduced the tension that exists in the U.S. regarding foreign relations. On one hand, our formation was dependent on foreign powers, and our economy was dependent on foreign buyers. Yet there was also a sense that the colonies were casting off the old world of Europe by forming something new and something apart from other countries. This tension existed from the beginning of the country and continues today.

• Jean Jules Jusserand, France’s Ambassador to the United States, observed in the early 1900s what an advantage the U.S. had with a weak neighbor to the north and south and fish to the east and west. This allowed the country to grow and prosper without having to deal with nearby threats. Yet this sense of isolation and unilateralism turned on its head after Pearl Harbor and WWII. Some historians have observed this isolation and subsequent skepticism toward international relations have limited the U.S. need to negotiate and agree upon imperfect solutions.

• Benjamin Franklin had perhaps the hardest task of any diplomat who served the United States. He had an innate ability to discern the interests of others and leverage those interests into agreements.

• I had forgotten the role Spain played in the Louisiana Territory prior to the U.S. purchase from France. It is not that this fact is critical to understanding U.S. history, but it typifies the challenge of maintaining a firm grasp on how past history echoes still today. Similarly, Herring commented how few Americans know anything of the Tripoli Wars. While the dollars and treaties that emerged from the conflict are minor, Herring noted how much it affected the American psyche to stand up to the pirates and successfully land a figurative punch. This marked a period when the U.S. began building a reputation as an actual factor in international affairs.

• Prior to the War of 1812, the United States and Great Britain had a critical difference in their definitions of citizenship. This difference had a significant effect that seems under emphasized when looking at the history between the two nations. Great Britain held that people could not change citizenship to a new country from the country in which they were born. The United States, however, held that people could switch allegiance. The U.S. had a very easy naturalization process that allowed for dual citizenship, and this caused deeper disagreement with the issue of navy impressment.

• One British naval officer during the War of 1812 observed “Self, the great ruling principle, [is] more powerful with Yankees than any people I ever saw.” This assessment seems just as true today with both strengths and weaknesses.

• The War of 1812 transformed Indian relations from international affairs to domestic policy and contributed to tremendous U.S. growth. No foreign nation again allied with native Americans after the War of 1812. It also ushered in a new era of boldness within the U.S. The Royal Navy kept the oceans safe, which allowed the U.S. shipping to remain safe and surge in power without devoting resources to a standing navy. The vast natural resources quickly became valuable abroad, which built significant economic growth.

• During the time of Andrew Jackson, American diplomats were republican to the core by taking pride in their plain, simple American dress. The New York Post editorialized: “the person who represented his nation abroad should look like an American, talk like an American, and be an American example.” This observation on American diplomacy is a start contrast to Anthony Bourdain’s comments when I heard him speak in Chicago: “Americans need to be better guests.”

• The South maintained the British abolitionist movement was a sinister plot for British reclamation of the United States. The conspiracy theory went that eliminating slavery would ruin the South’s economic capacity, which would cause the U.S. to topple and this allow for British dominion.

• William Henry Harrison, 9th President for 31 days, was Minister to Colombia in 1828 to 1829. I had forgotten that—years later—the United States facilitated Panama’s uprising from Colombia to secure the land for the Panama Canal. Later still, Woodrow Wilson apologized to Colombia for its role in the Panamanian revolution and offer monetary compensation. This action caused outrage in the U.S. and applause in Latin America.

• William Seward has brash tendencies but served as an effective diplomat during the Civil War. He was threatening enough to satisfy the citizenry at home but had the wisdom to compromise with foreign powers when needed.

• The Confederacy neglected diplomacy and was convinced it was a minor element of independence from the Union. John J. Pettus, Governor of Mississippi, declared, “...the sovereign State of Mississippi can do a great deal better without England than England can do without her.” The South thought cotton would win over foreign countries, yet slavery was a roadblock to support. Instead of bartering with cotton to gain support, it instead used a cotton embargo. Embargoes take time to work, and the Confederacy did not have time. Eventually, new sources like Egypt allowed cotton to enter the marketplace. Further, any interest in helping the Confederacy ceased due to slavery. European powers explicitly stated it would not back slavery.

• The Civil War extended to Alaska and Hawaii. The CSS Shenandoah attacked whaling ships off both coasts toward the end of the Civil War.

• I had forgotten that Cuba was a U.S. annexation after the Spanish-American War. It was interesting hearing how Americans viewed the war as something done for Cuba. Cubans viewed the war as something done to them—not an act of liberation from Spain as the U.S. rhetoric suggested. Still, the war had significant effects in America by serving as a point of unification for the North and the South after the Civil War. The liberation of Cuba brought both sides together. It also entered America into the world of colonialism and ushered in the Century of America by changing the course of Spain, Cuba, the Philippines, and China.

• Secretary of State John Hay was a private secretary to President Lincoln. He later served as Secretary of State under Presidents McKinley and Roosevelt. The latter presidencies seem like a different era than that of Lincoln. Certainly only a few decades separated them, but it’s striking to think of the technological and cultural changes that occurred during Hay’s time of service.

• At the end of WWI—after the League of Nations had failed—former Secretary of State Elihu Root observed in 1922, “Americans had learned more about international relations within the past eight years than they had in the preceding 80 years—and they were only at the beginning of the task.” Woodrow Wilson’s efforts in international relations shaped this learning and the U.S. approach to foreign policy for decades to come. Wilson helped make the United States an international power, and this growth occurred just as America became a true economic power.

• After WWI, the U.S. provided famine relief for Russia, which proved to prop up Lenin’s communist government. The U.S. also provided expansive disaster relief for an earthquake-torn Japan. Japan noted the forgiveness of past offenses by the U.S. as it acted with magnanimity. In both instances, the recognition of the generosity faded quickly. The author noted that “gratitude is fleeting in international relations as it is in ordinary life.” Of course, in both cases the U.S. simultaneously played the role of bad actor and generous actor in the mind of Russians and the Japanese. While neither aid had requirements attached to the gift, the U.S. was working to undermine communism in Russia and adopted harsh anti-immigration policies toward Japan. Both stances caused long-term rifts as the countries moved towards WWII.

• One way that the Great Depression and WWII transformed the United States was the realization of how much the world had shrunk. It made Americans realize that isolationism was not enough to protect its interests and—particularly after France fell to Germany—it was in the country’s best interests to work with and defend allies.

• There are endless writings analyzing—and often critiquing—America’s isolationism and wariness of entering WWII, but Herring painted a clear picture why this hesitancy occurred. He connected war weariness after WWI and the broken confidence and domestic ills from the Great Depression. The combination left not just policymakers against entering the fray but average Americans, too.

• After FDR implemented his lend-lease program with Great Britain, he sharply increased the zone of defense for America’s borders. He began by bringing Greenland under U.S. protection as a way to maintain critical shipping lanes. This prompted citizens to think about and discuss national security in ways that had not been part of the national psyche since the early days of the republic.

• Churchill observed that “there is only one thing worse than fighting with allies and that is fighting without them.” Herring followed this quote by arguing that coalition warfare is a marriage of convenience to obtain a specific purpose—often urgent needs. Rarely do such alliances last after attaining the purpose and the alliances often contain built-in conflicts. The United States, Great Britain, and USSR collaborated because of Hitler, but the three allies suspected each other.

• Though the Big 3 of the U.S., Great Britain, and the U.S.S.R. receive the thrust of attention when looking at U.S. foreign relations in WWII, Herring noted that the United States took broad and diverse action on many fronts during the war. The country focused on defeating the Axis, but there were post-war eyes set on strategy and economic interests, which led to efforts in Latin America, China, and the Middle East.

• Herring spent time analyzing the U.S. role on the international stage after WWII, as the country shifted focus from winning the war to securing the peace. The distinction between the two concepts may highlight the greatest challenge our country has faced in its history. We have won wars going back to our shift from colonies to country, yet figuring out what to do next seems far harder. How do you govern when the enemy is defeated physically but not ideologically? Herring mention former Secretary of War Patrick J. Hurley, an individual whose name I could not have recalled even as someone who regularly indulges in U.S. history. Herring criticized Hurley as a clown (using other officials’ own words)—one whose lack of diplomacy and respect toward other cultures had meaningful effects of setting back U.S.-China relations. Hurley’s conduct included racist nicknames and bellowing a Cherokee war cry while serving as U.S. diplomat in the region. Hurley’s words and actions contributed to the civil war in China and the Red Scare with the East. Going back to my observation on the struggles of securing peace, you can’t help but wonder if the U.S. shifting attention away from international relations after it wins a battle ends up causing more long-term damage than the initials conflicts.

• WWII had an incredible globalizing effect on Americans. It caused large numbers of the population to travel abroad; the returning soldiers subsequently believed the United States had a role to play in global leadership. Prior to the war, few Americans had international experience upon which to draw and form opinions. But after the war, isolationism largely went by the wayside.

• The early years after WWII bred confusion and misunderstandings between the U.S. and the USSR. State officials and Truman often over emphasized developments that suggested Soviet wrongdoing and minimized acts that rightly caused Soviet concern. This pre- Cold War tension led to the passage of the National Security Act of 1947, which created the CIA and ushered in an era of agency leadership in the international arena for years to come.

• It is remarkable reviewing the history of U.S. involvement in Korea and see how the echoes of the Korean War still reverberate today. Reading about the Kim Dynasty and Kim Il-Sung’s invasion of South Korea in 1950—particularly how it entangled us with the USSR and China—proves just as timely as it must have seemed in the 1950s. It seems the Korean War had as much to do with the U.S. becoming a perpetual military state as did WWII.

• When Stalin died, there was concern about his replacement being even more tyrannical. The United States, however contributed to the Cold War’s tensions. After WWII ended, the U.S. began opening military bases in other countries around the globe. Soviet leaders felts like they were surrounded and that the U.S. might initiate war to prevent the post-Stalin transfer of power. It’s impossible to comprehend another country opening a military bar on U.S. soil, yet we take for granted the 80+ military bases in other sovereign nations.

• There are so many international events that were critical and significant in the moment—some lasting for years—that do not remain part of the public psyche. The Suez Crisis and the conflict in the Middle East was a minor note for me in American history. Perhaps because the U.S. did not engage militarily is why the invasion of Egypt by Israel, Great Britain, and France followed by the subsequent role as meditator (or traffic cop, given the threat of force) did not leave the same historical impression as other crises. Yet the risk of U.S. military action and perhaps even nuclear action with the Soviet Union seems like the event sould receive greater focus, particularly as the Middle East remains such a critical point of tension today.

• During the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, it is surprising to look back on the optimism or arrogance of the U.S. in thinking it could become the puppet master of countries simply by assassinating leaders or backing rebel insurrections. While there are examples of this approach working—see Italy’s 1948 elections and the political warfare waged by the Truman Administration—the long-term ramifications were far more damaging than any short-term benefits—perhaps reminiscent of U.S. outrage in response to Russia’s interference with the 2016 elections. Conversely with Italy in 1948, the Bay of Pigs invasion is the worst example of U.S. interference. The 1950s ushered in an era that makes one harken back to the Monroe Doctrine and avoiding entanglements. I don’t offer this thought as an argument for isolationism but instead some political philosophy that better veers away from active interference.

• LBJ commented that he “didn’t want to be known as a war president.” Yet the Vietnam War proved to be a central element of his presidency. The effect was to unravel his Great Society. This highlights how limited a president’s control can be on the events that shape a presidency. To be sure, LBJ made Vietnam into a war zone, but he inherited significant problems there from previous administrations.

• LBJ’s effort to placate the Shah of Iran led to short-term gains and long-term damages. As Herring put it, LBJ hastily constructed arms deals to keep the Shah from joining the USSR. This illustration seems to be a consistent theme that quick and unilateral actions tend to have poor results.

• Even having read somewhat thoroughly on Nixon and Kissinger, I did not realize that President Nixon embraced the Madman Theory. Herring described an anecdote of Nixon telling aids to use the idea that he was a hardliner with his hands on the nuclear codes.

• Chile’s elections and the immediate support to General Augusto Pinochet after his military coup is a good example of U.S. involvement that leaves generations who distrust or even despise the United States. The reason these types of examples are so disconcerting is that we don’t remember the history. What is significant to the countries we affect is insignificant to our nation’s history. This forgetfulness is lamentable and should not be our approach to international relations.

• At the end of the book, Herring notes the shift of power from military to economic—citing the EU and China as technology and economic rivals to the U.S. Such a focus makes for a significant shift compared to the vast majority of his book which painted the U.S. as an independent country departed by oceans after the American Revolution. American went from the greatest creditor to the greatest debtor due to the War on Terror.

As suggested by these notes, Herring covered an impressive amount of content. Yet the book moved at a brisk pace due to the author’s compelling narratives. I thoroughly enjoyed “From Colony to Superpower,” and it prompted other new books joining my reading list. As readers might expect, this is a survey analysis with a brief look at many subjects. But the unique perspective of focusing primarily on the policy effects in relation to other nations makes American history seem fresh and worthy of continued exploration. I recommend “From Colony to Superpower” with great enthusiasm.

[Samuel Lott · Rating 4 out of 5]

From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776 by Geroge C. Herring is quite frankly an astounding work covering foreign policy from George Washington to George W. Bush. While more than readable the book is quite dry, but I expected that beforehand. Herring does not dive too deep into each individual topic. The author is critical of many presidents, but in a bipartisan manner. His criticism is directed at Republicans, Democrats, Federalists and Whigs. The book serves much more as a blanket guide to foreign relations throughout American history.  His bibliographical essay at the end of the book is an excellent tool to use for extended readings on the periods covered in his work. I am sure I did not retain all the information covered here, but as I continue to study foreign relations and national security it would be prudent for me to return to this panoply of information.

[Cat · Rating 4 out of 5]

We've got a presidential election coming up. I thought it might be a good time to take a run through the entire history of United States foreign policy. And what better way to do so then the forthcoming edition of the Oxford History of the United States series- From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776.

More than anything else, the President of the United States is responsible for this countries' foreign policy. The public isn't always so cognizant of that fact- Presidential elections tend to swing between domestic and foreign concerns depending on the whim of the public. If there is one thing that's clear from this book: as the United States has grown as a nation, presidents have gained more power over foreign relations and they've done more with that power. In fact, at times this book read more like a history of the President and his impact on foreign relations. Congress pops in and out of the story, public opinion makes an appearance here and there. Other then that it's President X did Y in Country Z.

Which is not to denigrate this exceptional, magisterial effort. Herring (or his graduate students) have managed to integrate virtually every available source on the subject of American foreign relations. At times, U.S. Foreign Relations is a positively heady experience. Herring and Oxford wisely keep the footnotes on the main pages instead of relegating them to an end section. It's a good decision- there's a new adventure on almost every page, and the foot notes are a handy guide to existing histiographical debates on different subjects involving U.S. Foreign Relations.

Herring's basic thesis is that the United States has been a sophisticated player on the international scene from the very beginning, by virtue of necessity. Herring has little patience for the concept of "American isolationism." Herring does an excellent work of explaining the transition from colony to young nation. As a young nation, the U.S. was an anomaly- not a European country, not a colony either. In the beginning, the U.S was kind an appendage to the European "balance of power" system. Many decisions by the U.S and countries like France & Britain were made because of events happening thousands of miles away.

Moving into the 19th century, the U.S. begins to assert itself in the western hemisphere- the war of 1812, Louisiana Purchase, Monroe Doctrine, the Mexican American War- through out Herring keeps the events rolling by and does well to give a sense of the decision makers, their backgrounds and their logic. It's an entertaining tableau that moves by too quickly, in my opinion.

A point that Herring makes- repeatedly- is that the process of "manifest destiny" was itself a tour de force of foreign relations. Ironically, "isolationists" don't often stop to consider that point. Merely acquiring the territory that constitutes the present U.S. required a lot of careful diplomacy.

By taking a chronological approach, Herring emphasizes oft overlooked transitional period in U.S. foreign policy which helps place better known eras in context. For example, his chapter on the Gilded Age serves as an excellent introduction to the Wilsonian era during and after the first world war. Woodrow Wilson emerges from this book as an obvious favorite of the author: his simultaneous quest to create a foreign policy based on principle and create a broader level of engagement between the U.S. and the rest of the world foreshadows much of what is to come in the 20th century.

I was surprised that Herring's analysis remained astute right up to the present day- typically books that end in the present trail off in terms of effectiveness' the closer they get to the present. He leaves us acknowledging the imminent decline of the U.S. as the world's so super or "hyper" power and asks whether we might not be entering a world where "third world" countries have become the rising powers of the 21st century.

Where does that leave this Presidential election? My take is that we should elect a President who does not look back to the Cold War and Post Cold War period, but rather someone who can help the U.S. regain it's "soft power" with countries that we have previously maltreated and/or ignored. Our new President should be able to effectively communicate with nations like India and Brazil and not be so bound up with the old world of Europe.

Although Bush's foray into nation building in Iraq may yet prove successful from a "national defense" view point, it has been a blood bath for our soft power, and we need someone who can help win that power back.

[Bob H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant summary of America's interactions with the outside world, beginning with Benjamin Franklin's mid-Revolutionary alliance with France. I had not appreciated the contributions our mission to Paris, first during the Revolution, and then during the peace negotiations there, had made to American independence; but for Franklin, John Jay, and John Adams, the U.S. could have emerged with a peace treaty that would have left it far more sickly.

Indeed, the chapter "To Begin The World Over Again" shows the new republic in a weak position, navigating its way through British, French, Spanish and native American interests west of the Alleghenies. It was not at all certain that a new, weak nation could advance, and force of arms alone wouldn't do it, not with a nation with no navy and little more than militia. The book tells just how the U.S. was able to talk its way through this ticklish period.

George C. Herring has brought some new insights to later history as well. Viewing our dealings with native American peoples as a form of foreign policy, he shows us just how remorseless, even faithless, our dealings could be at times. He also shows how the War of 1812 proved a crucial turning point: after this, foreign powers never again interceded on behalf of the native peoples and this is where the U.S. began to treat it as a domestic, rather than foreign, matter. Without foreign allies, "the Indians would never again threaten U.S. expansion," Herring notes.

He shows how U.S. diplomacy during the Civil War was decisive in keeping the British and French empires out of the conflict. Indeed, Union diplomacy was far more adept and widely able than usually told: not just Charles Francis Adams in London, but William Dayton in Paris, Henry Sanford in Brussels, and Cassius Clay in St. Petersburg were able to outwit Rebel diplomats. Herring even shows how King Cotton ultimately worked against the Confederacy in this period.

Herring does not neglect those interactions outside the State Department: he shows how American tourism and missionary work, starting in the Gilded Age, affected the outside world, and how immigration worked on the U.S. in turn. He shows the U.S. increasingly involved in European affairs, notably in the conferences after World War I, but does not neglect our often-intrusive involvements in Latin America and East Asia. He shows how alliance diplomacy was decisive during and after World War II, and how U.S. politics - notably during the Vietnam War, could interfere with it. He goes into great detail on the Nixon years as a major shift in the middle Cold War period, bringing more appreciation of Nixon's role and more criticism of Reagan's. Indeed, Herring is at his best throughout his Cold War narrative.

The narrative becomes somewhat thinner in the post-9/11 period, but of course the full story is still out. Given that, unlike the other Oxford History series, Mr. Herring must show a full-length narrative of U.S. history from beginnings to present, he does well. Given the vast number of sources cited in footnotes and bibliography, he is able to summarize wisely and with clear prose, and holds the story to 1000 pages of text. Given the difficulties that the new Administration faces, given the damage to our economic, military and diplomatic power, I believe this work would be a good bedside reader for the new President's advisers.

I've read and researched considerable history, and I highly recommend this work.

[Clem · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a great find this was! I came across this thing completely by accident; at a “library rummage sale” for $1.00. My initial thought was that even if I didn’t enjoy this book, it would look mightily impressive on my bookshelf. You see, this thing is BIG and THICK. In other words, impressive. Despite how much a person loves books, you can’t totally believe them if they tell you that they’ve read absolutely everything that they have displayed in their personal library. Well, I did tepidly pick this up and began reading, and fortunately I was immediately hooked.

The problem now was that this thing was so huge and cumbersome, that it was a hefty chore to pick up and, say, read by the pool or something. So I decided to splurge and buy an e-copy for the Kindle at $9.99. Definitely worth the investment. Not only is a book like this easier to read in electronic format, but it’s also a lot less likely intimidate the reader. No matter how much I enjoy a book, if I’m only on page 50 of a 1,000-page volume with very small print, it’s very easy for me to become psychologically overwhelmed. So staring at a screen with “normal” sized print allows one not to worry too much about whether or not they’ll be able to finish such a monster during their lifetime.

Anyway, on to reviewing the book. This thing was phenomenal. I would argue that it’s essentially a textbook. But if you love history as much as I do, such a description shouldn’t deter one from enjoyment. In fact, it’s more of a “plus” than a “minus”. This book is essentially a history book of the United States with the focus, however, being only on foreign relations.

If I were to be completely honest, this is my favorite part of history. I don’t really care as much about the domestic affairs of a country. Many presidents, such as Lyndon Johnson, felt the opposite, whereas his successor, Richard Nixon, would agree with me. Different strokes for different folks. Still, though, 230 years of foreign affairs is an awful lot to digest (the book was written in 2007), and even though this book is 1,000 pages long, you can almost argue that it’s more of a “Cliff’s Notes” account as opposed to an exhaustive history. That’s fine, though, as one can easily find extensive volumes that focus on all of the key events that this book covers.

As we begin the history of the United States, “foreign affairs” IS basically synonymous with “history” as the young nation’s most visible and noteworthy events dealt in some way with other nations. Whether its independence from England, buying the Louisiana Purchase from France, or the tenuous relations with Spain over Florida, foreign affairs is pretty much all there is when we say “history”. In fact, what is a tad sad is that it was quite common for powerful nations to only grow and succeed by being overtly rapacious. So there’s a lot of “conquering” going on, mainly on the continent of North America. It is sad to see so much greed and neglect towards non-White people, but history isn’t always pretty. We most also remember that such behavior was in the “European genes”. It seemed that once the nation endures the Civil War, the government becomes much more altruistic and less avaricious, but the end goal for whatever relation is being pursued is always geared towards an advantage for the U.S. Again, this is true with any nation, especially the superpowers. How else is a “power” supposed to ever have “power”? Especially the “super” kind?

Speaking of the U.S. Civil War, once we arrive at that event, we can see the shift in narrative towards where the author does intend to focus. In other words, we don’t read an awful lot of what we normally read when studying the years 1861-1865. We rarely (if ever) come across names such as Gettysburg, Antietam, or Appomattox. Here is where we remind ourselves that we’re NOT reading a strictly history book, but one that focuses on relationships with other countries. Well, believe it or not, there’s actually quite a lot of history during this time that does, in fact, deal with other nations. Example: We read about how there are strong sentiments across parts of Europe for the South to win the conflict. Sure, slavery is evil and should be abolished, but the South is where cotton comes from, and without cotton, many of the factories across Europe will need to close causing massive unemployment. So, yes, another reminder about how people mostly tend to think about how events will affect themselves personally rather than the greater good of mankind.

Although the author never explicitly states so, we come to conclusion that part of the reason the U.S. became a “super” power is that, until the early 20th century, the country was mostly isolated. So it was allowed to flourish and prosper without interference from other strong neighboring countries in Europe and/or Asia. By the time the world became “smaller” due to advanced technology, the U.S. now had a substantial financial advantage. We must also remember that as horrible as the two world wars were, the U.S. got off rather easy compared to those in Europe and Asia. Other than Pearl Harbor, there was no fighting on our homeland. So not having to deal with such travesties allowed faster growth and a stronger focus on the future without catastrophic distractions.

The book is broken up into chapters that each cover about a decade and each chapter is about 50-60 pages. The major events covered are probably known by most, but the minor ones are covered here in detail as well. Most modern readers know a bit about Vietnam, Iran, and Iraq, but it’s nice to also be reminded of such conflicts in places such as Lebanon, Argentina, and Bosnia. In fact, I can’t help but wonder if the fact that I read so much history may have made some of these events easier to assimilate than it might be for those who haven’t studied as much history. Much of what I read here, I already “knew”, so I’m not sure if a novice would enjoy such brief descriptions as much as I did. Of course, there’s tons of more detailed readings out there for those who want to learn more.

I also found the book very even-handed. Most of the major recent U.S. Presidents get plenty of page space, and the author treats them all with both praise and criticism when warranted. This is important as someone who has hagiographic feelings towards a certain political party might feel that this author is demonizing their political gods. However, not to sound snooty, but I seriously doubt such an individual would bother to even pick up a book such as this. That’s a bit of a shame. I feel that at this point and juncture in U.S. History, our biggest problem is that people simply don’t read enough. They blindly follow any politician that tells them what they want to hear. Speaking of learned material, another advantage to reading this book in e-format is that the author uses an awful lot of big words, and it’s much easier to find the definition of such terms while using a Kindle (if you don’t know, you just press and hold the word with your finger and the definition pops up on your e-reader).

If you love history, this book is an incredibly valuable use of your time. You’ll spend an awful lot of energy and effort with this thing, but it’s well worth it. I would almost love to make this required reading for every high school senior. I certainly see a lot more benefits in reading this than studying Geometry or even learning an obtuse skill such as cursive handwriting. History really can teach us an awful lot about how we need to act in the future; especially where foreign countries are involved.

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is exactly what I had hoped it would be. I had initially anticipated that an Oxford history of American Foreign Relations would be the straight man to Howard Zinn's American history rapscallion. The author's name is George C. Herring, a professor at the University of Kentucky, for crying out loud.

But I was pleasantly surprised at how forward-looking this hulking tome was. It treated Native American nations as actual countries that the USA had dealings with, was critically honest about the intentions of US leaders and their various levels of preparedness and competence, and usually did a pretty amazing job of highlighting areas America ignored around the world - for better or for worse. This was not a textbook, to say the least. It's what everyone should read to give context to our place in the world.

Reading this has made me want to read in more detail about several periods of our history, such as our dealings in Central America and Cold War divided Europe. I'd also like to find out more about certain prominent individuals, such as FDR (and his cabinet) and Gen Winfield Scott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfield...). Scott, also known as Old Fuss and Futhers, fought in the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, and the Aroostook War. What is the Aroostook War? It was a border dispute between Maine and Canada, which essentially amounted to a barroom brawl. Scott was dispatched, alone on horseback, to settle the dispute, end the "war," and presumably sober up the participants.

The book really makes the point that the United States' natural state is interventionist - and only has had periods of isolationism. For instance, the Marine Corps song that goes "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" is something we tend to just hear and then not think about very hard. But it comes from the war with the Barbary Pirates against the nation of Tripoli in 1805 - the first land battle the United States fought on foreign soil. The "Halls of Montezuma" refer to the Battle of Chapultepec, in the Mexican-American war, where Marines landed in southern Mexico and marched straight to Mexico city, fighting insurgent warfare along the way (and in Chapultepec Castle - the Halls of Montezuma). Again and again you see that the mood that kept FDR from taking the USA to war against Nazi Germany was more anomalous than the natural state of the country. The book also describes how this is not always a good thing.

Highly recommended, if you don't mind a dense book that takes a while to finish.

[Valerie · Rating 4 out of 5]

My favorite kind of history: exhaustively comprehensive.

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

From Colony to Superpower provides an overview of United States Foreign Relations from 1776 to the Post 9/11 period looking at not only the events that happened but their paradigm shifts in diplomatic philosophy as each administration came to power. These administrations could be comprised of Congress, Secretary of states, state department bureaucracies or most commonly the President but each is taken in the context of those who were making the decisions. It should also be noted that this book is part of the Oxford History of the United States which has traditionally looked at a single period in our history. This book follows the companion series that are common in Oxford although not labeled as such. It is very well written and comprehensive in its analysis of how the United States evolved from a colony to great power to super power to hyper power and how in each stage of its evolution it has changed and adapted to foreign policy situations.
This book is divided into 10 chapters that break up the years but center on a theme during that time period to give the reader a context for the changing role the United States saw itself playing in those eras. For example the years of manifest destiny focuses on the expansion characteristics while the Gilded Age disabuses the notion of isolationism and focuses on the primarily trade negotiators that were occurring at that time. It should be noted that Professor Herring is a specialist in post world war II history so I know other readers have found some minor errors with his treatment of pre civil war diplomacy but none of this is major enough to distract from his points and is understandable given he is writing outside his area of expertise.
Overall if you are looking for a comprehensive book on how through diplomacy we became the nation we are today this is the best place to start.

[Lindsay · Rating 1 out of 5]

DNF. I tried so hard to like this. But it became too brief and simultaneously dense at the same time.

[Richard Greene · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ordered this book at the final installment (at least currently) of the Oxford History of the United States. From Colony to Superpower is a little different than the other installments because it is a thematic entry to the series. The entire work just focuses on U.S. diplomatic relations and the personnel changes in the U.S. foreign policy making apparatus.

Thoughts:
*Was concerned that Herring would overlap material covered in the other installments. Even though his book was supposed to foreign policy only, I thought Herring would tell a U.S. history story in the process. To the extent that U.S. history is a story of war and trade relations, there is a lot of overlap with the other books in the Oxford History series. To the extent that he could however, Herring does a good job of avoiding domestic issues and sticking with theme of foreign relations.

*I’d criticized one of the installments in the series, The Republic for Which It Stands: The United States during Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, 1865-1896, because it did not cover much foreign policy issues or American expansion in the late-19th century. I think I can see now that the author, Richard White, avoided these issues because Herring already covered them in this book about foreign relations. I still think this decision avoid foreign policy discussion in White’s book diminishes it as a proper discussion of the era.

*That said, Herring’s book should be a blueprint for expansion of the Oxford history series in a thematic direction. There’s a lot of directions to still approach: sole discussions on women’s rights, military interventions, or legislative or judicial histories, for examples.

*From Colony to Superpower was a bit of slog to get through at almost 1000 pages, but I think I enjoyed it. It’s a bit modern focused - a lot more material on the late-20th and early 21st centuries than any other time, but I think it introduces each era, its primary actors in regards to foreign relations and what these individuals accomplished or didn’t accomplish.

*Concludes my reading of the Oxford History of the United States for now. Looking forward to rest of the entries in the Oxford Series once they are published. Hoping that this gave me a little more perspective on our place and time in the U.S. stream of history. Could certainly benefit later from another reading of the series.

[Jerome Otte · Rating 5 out of 5]

This newer volume of the Oxford History of the United States tells the story of the foreign relations of the United States from its inception in 1776 to the present day. The author, George C Herring, is the Alumni Professor of History Emeritus at the University of Kentucky. He is the author of many books on United States foreign affairs, centering upon the War in Vietnam. Herring's study is nearly 1000 pages in length, but it is not a word too long. In its scope, learning, wisdom, and attempt to be even-handed, it is a joy to read.

Herring tells a long story of a subject with many unexpected turns and changes of perspective over the years. I enjoyed the sense of continuity that this large history brings to its subject. Herring shows how leading ideas and tensions in American foreign policy developed from the beginning of the new nation and both persisted and were transformed as the nation developed. His book encourages the reader to see how United States policy developed in particular parts of the world over time, such as in Latin America, Canada, the Middle East, and Vietnam. This encourages a depth of understanding that cannot be provided from reading the newspapers or even from specialized scholarly accounts of a single period.

The book begins with the Revolutionary era, and the first two of Herring's chapter titles state themes of American history that are repeated many times throughout the study: America's perceived mission "To Begin the World Over Again" and the need to keep the nation strong and prepared so that there are "None who Can Make us Afraid." The theme of mission is tied, broadly, to American idealism and exceptionalism. The theme of strength is tied, again generally, to realism. Herring identifies a combination of these broad traits in, among other ways, the "practical idealism" of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.

From the Revolution, the book proceeds through the War of 1812, American expansionism and "Manifest Destiny" in the Mexican War, foreign relationships during the Civil War, the Spanish-American War and American Empire, World War I and II, the Cold War and its aftermath, Vietnam, and our nation's current situation in Iraq, among many other recurring themes. The final section of the book on the war in Iraq seems to me rushed. It is difficult to bring a historical perspective to bear upon ongoing, changing events.

Herring pays close attention to transitional periods that are sometimes overlooked, including foreign policy in the Gilded Age and foreign policy in the years between the two world wars, that helped me to understand the larger, better-known aspects of the United States's foreign relations. Commendably, Herring also considers the United States's relationships with the Indian tribes as within the purview of foreign affairs during the time in which the United States expanded across the continent.

In general, Herring writes non-dogmatically and non-polemically. He makes his opinions known but frequently points out other interpretations and ways of trying to understand the history. He seems to admire greatly Woodrow Wilson and his efforts before, during, and after WW I to bring a just peace to a troubled world. Herring also finds much to praise, as well as to question, in figures such as Washington, Hamilton, Adams, and Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Elihu Root, and Franklin Roosevelt. He offers qualified praise for George H.W. Bush, for "the strategic vision of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger" and for the "ability to adapt and adjust displayed by Ronald Reagan."

In the introduction to his study, Herring develops themes such as the relationship between realism and idealism in informing United States foreign policy, expansionism, and the tensions between the Executive Branch, Congress, lobbying groups, and the electorate in the conduct of foreign affairs. Herring is critical of what he perceives as the current unilateralist tendency in American foreign relations and he recommends a course that disclaims American exceptionalism or arrogance. He concludes that "the United States cannot dictate the shape of a new world order, but the way it responds to future foreign policy challenges can help ensure its security and well-being and exert a powerful influence for good or ill."

One of the common themes of this book is that isolationism is a myth invented by twentieth century politicians. The United States was always active in the world around it. Our most famous documents, such as, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Constitution itself were statements from the United States of America to the world of our intentions. Herring points out in this book that every American generation had at least one war. Instead of isolationism America had engaged primarily in unilateralism, acting own its own accord doing what it thinks is best. Unilateralism served the United States well in its early days and up to the start of the twentieth century. President George W. Bush would try bring back unilateralism, but that would lead only to debt and disaster.

Herring also discusses a lot of the negative aspects of U.S. foreign policy. The book explains some of the crazy filibustering that went on in the antebellum era, especially in the 1850s. Herring also covers a good deal about `blowback' the price America pays for some of its foreign policy choices. An example of blowback is the United States' negative reputation in a great deal of Latin America due to choice alliances that we made during the Cold War. What can seem like a good and particle decision at the time can come back with deadly consequences.

Herring is extremely fair with almost all the actors in the history of American foreign policy. He treats Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, idealists, and realists the same. When evaluating them if he thinks they deserve praise he gives it and when he is critical of certain actions he writes about what they did wrong and could have done better. The end he concludes that America has to continue to remain engaged in the world it will need to act more respectful.

He portrays Jimmy Carter as the victim of dumb luck rather than the weakling he is often caricatured as by conservatives. Besides, most of his succesful policies were taken credit for by the Reagan administration.

However,Herring claims that US covert action in Afghanistan helped ensure the triumph of the Taliban, which is highly debatable, since the vast majority of the Taliban's founders never even fought in the Soviet war, and he also ignores the suppport they received from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and dubious "NGOS". Also, the battle of Tora Bora took place in December 2001, not 2002.

I very much agreed with Herring's statement on page 78, which, unfortunately, is still true today: "...foreign policy in the United States was subject to debate by a public whose understanding of the issues and mechanisms was neither sophisticated nor nuanced, that sought clear-cut and definitive solutions and defined outcomes in terms of victory and defeat. By the very nature of diplomacy, such high expectations were bound to be disappointed."

Or on page 81: "Diplomacy by its very nature required concessions,a point Americans even then were inclined to forget." Still very true today, unfortunately.

[Alec · Rating 4 out of 5]

Of all of the books in The Oxford History of the United States, this is the only one which purports to cover the United States' history from beginning to end. Each of the other volumes currently available, cover only a handful of decades, with each diving much deeper into a variety of topics and happenings from the era. This book, however, take a single subject approach with US Foreign Relations being the sole focus throughout the country's history. I don't know if it's because of the sweeping approach, or because I'd read about elements of this in previous books, but I found this volume to be the most approachable and interesting of all of the books in the series.

Mr. Herring did a wonderful job connecting themes from US foreign relations throughout its history. He also helped to show how the changing domestic, global, and political landscape affected the US approach to relationships with other countries. It was very interesting to see the US evolve from a colony hoping for other established countries to acknowledge it into a participant in global affairs. At times, the influence of the US has been put to good use and at others it is obvious that hasn't been the case. I especially liked the way Mr. Herring helped me see how some leaders rose to the challenge of foreign relations and how others either discounted it or failed in their responsibilities.

As I finished this book, I found myself not only proud of myself to have taken the time to dive into the history of the US, but recognizing that I can be a better citizen, even if it's only in a small way. How I work with others (in my current role at work, I often interact with citizens of other countries), how I make my voice heard locally through my political activity (or lack thereof), and how I teach my kids about their responsibilities has an impact (even if it's just on ourselves). As Uncle Ben has often said, "with great power comes great responsibility" or, as The Great Teacher once said, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." May I use those things I've been blessed with wisely and help others to do so as well.

[Rob · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book certainly covers a lot of ground, but that's just about what it does: cover ground. Very little original insight or substance gives way to a lazier recitation of popular history. I would have anticipated a book covering foreign relations to spend more time discussing the 'why' in terms of relations, but the author fails to delve into that level of detail, opting instead to state the fact that Event A happened and it was historically significant and then Event B happened and THAT was also historically significant, etc. etc.

Most disappointingly, the author's personal leanings are on full display when discussing the Nixon, Carter, and GWB's presidencies toward the end of the book. It seems that the author was tired of writing and decided to instead employ moral attributes when recounting later-20th century current events.

[Ariel · Rating 4 out of 5]

George Herring does a good job at not only explaining the various foreign policies and changes in foreign relations, but also analyzing the political and social climate at that time. He does tend to get a little lost in details, so sometimes I had to flip back to reread something to make sure I understood who he was talking about.
Herring also tries to balance out his views, but the way he does it is to talk about a historical figure in one way (such as being an ineffective leader, or a strong diplomat) for most of the chapter, and then switch at the end of the chapter and talk about what they did or didn't do right.

Overall, its a good book and Herring tries to provide a balanced analysis of American foreign relation history.

[Willis · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love the Oxford History of the United States series. They are not light reading. The lengthy individual books are often around 1,000 pages each and this volume is no exception. Imagine trying to pack 200+ years of foreign relations into one book and you will see how much you can learn. It covers the colonial period prior to 1776 all the way through 9/11 and the presidency of George Bush. Fascinating look into the wars of America's history (eg Revolutionary, War of 1812, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Cold War, Gulf war) but with the international politics lens. It took me a while to get through this one, I started and stopped multiple times over several months before finally finishing. But I loved seeing a broad view of US history.

[Brady Postma · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first two thirds of this book are amazing, covering every international crisis I've heard and dozens of fascinating events I hadn't of from the Declaration of Independence to the early Nixon years. But from Nixon on (especially during my own lifetime), it bothered me quite a bit that his description often didn't match my living memory. I work hard to understand events; could I be so wrong? Or was his coverage of current events a little colored by his living memory? Whether in this book or in myself, my confidence was shaken.

Still, it's a thorough and exciting survey of more than two centuries of the foreign relations of the United States.

[Jireh · Rating 2 out of 5]

Book mostly touches on US-European relations. Glosses over topics like interventions in Haiti, aggression towards Mexico, Panama, Liberia, concentration camps in the Philippines, conflicts with Indigenous nations during the civil war , or coups in latin america like footnotes (if they are even mentioned). It doesnt make any sense for the book to be this long and yet so shallow.

It does not add much depth to topics that are have already been covered numerous times by numerous historians. And it spends a lot of time talking about domestic affairs (which wouldn’t be as much of an issue if the book actually covered foreign policy in depth)

[Mac McCormick III · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a terrific history of US Foreign Policy from the birth of the nation through the George W. Bush administration. Herring shows how we never really have been, with the exception of a brief period, isolationist. To read how our foreign policy has changed over time -and why - is enlightening, as is to read how more than just the government, but business, industry, and missions influenced that change. It's also interesting to see how often the outcome of our foreign policy has been influenced by misunderstandings and misjudgments, our own as well as our adversaries. It's a long book, but well worth a read to understand how we got to where we are today and to understand our relationships with both our allies and our adversaries.

[Niall Connolly · Rating 4 out of 5]

After reading the other 8 books in the series (phew) which touched on foreign policy this book grandly swept over the centuries which have necessarily exposed the United States to the ‘outside world’, touching necessarily on domestic issues, revealing profound insights into the American character tempered in the furnace of that outside world. Herring writes authoritatively, analytically and insightfully and (particularly at the end) is not afraid to critique and speak his mind. But he does so with equanimity. 4.5 stars.

[Terry Tucker · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reference Book?

This book is a survey and synthesis of previous literature and material. The author has done a good job of culling through and referencing what has already been published. It is condensed in the fact that author has brought all these diverse publications into each chapter and time frame. Although the author attempts objectivity, his bias and contempt reflect in his writing. At times the book is exceptionally slow and paragraphs seem disjointed.

[Shawn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolute pleasure to read. Must-read for anyone who seriously wants to understand the United States and the role it's played on the world stage. It did exactly what the title suggests - a complete historical overview or U.S. foreign relations since 1776. It’s less analysis and more informative - telling you what happened and where. Herring is even-handed in his writing, and does a fantastic job at capturing the weaving narrative of how the United States defined and continues to redefine itself.

[Matthew Rohn · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a mostly reasonable overview of U.S. foreign policy history from the revolution nearly through the present. It has a fairly conservative view of what kinds of activities constitute foreign relations and therefore does not address many topics and events that have had a significant influence on the U.S.'s role in the world and relations with other nations, but provides a good overview of the classic big events.

[Charlie · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredibly detailed diplomatic history of the United States. Nearly everything you could ever want to know about US foreign relations is in here. Although there is very little about the special relationship with Britain. The British pretty much disappear from the narrative after World War 2.

[stuart b · Rating 2 out of 5]

Definitely one that was better to have read than to read. The 30-40 page introduction is probably sufficient for the entirety of the book's content, but if you're looking for excruciating detail, by all means.