The Americans’ rebellion had been successful, a new nation had constituted itself.
But it seemed a strange phenomenon, this new nation compared to the world around it and all of its political decisions would have to respect this situation.

   The founding fathers faced „the knotty problem of defining the relationship that a
nation of free men should establish with the wider world, which was still domina- ted by monarchies and despotism. What kind of foreign policy was appropriate for men of such quality ?“[20]

   Fearing a division of the nation into citizens who favored the French and their Revolution and those who supported Britain, George Washington took the oppor- tunity of his Farewell Address in 1796 after having served two terms as president, to determine the course of U.S. foreign policy:[21]
 
            "[The spirit of party] opens the door to foreign influence and corruption. (...)
            The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending
            our commercial relations to have with them as little political  connection as
            possible. (...) Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of
            Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition,
            rivalship, interest, humor or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of
            permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.“[22]

   Washington had described the outside world as a hostile place where the U.S. had
(politically) nothing to gain, but its own peace to lose. He had given expression to the disgust of Americans over the ‘uncivilized’ continuous wars of European powers. The president had turned the U.S.’ attention inward where there was a continent to settle, a wilderness to open up. As long as there were enough prospects for everyone within the national boundaries, there was no need to seek involvement in foreign affairs.[23]  Since the USA could be considered a country and a nation in the making up to the 40’s, this principle was long regarded as the ‘law of U.S. foreign policy’.

   What is striking is that Washington considers only political connections as entang- ling and even emphasizes the need to extend the commercial relations along with reducing political ones.

  Commerce seemed a effective means to spread democracy and maintain peace to early U.S. politicians.

"Commerce, it was contended, enlarges the mind, softens manners, confers
 reciprocal benefits, reduces prejudice and diffuses enlightenment. If world
 trade were relived of its shackles, Jefferson said as Secretary of State, ‘the greatest mass possible would then be produced of those things which contribute to human life and human happiness.’ Trade was the carrier of civilization.“[24]

   To attain this objective, the U.S. would have to promote unrestricted trade and align its foreign policy to this end. The earlier mentioned treaty with France was a first step to pave the way for American merchants to foreign markets. It was soon followed by similar treaties with Holland, Sweden and Prussia.[25]  Although the U.S. home market expanded steadily with the flow of the new-arrivals from Europe and the settlement of the Continent and the percentage of exports of the gross nati-onal product dropped to 10% in 1850 and to a mere 6% in 1860, the extension of U.S. trade relations seemed to be the sole purpose of the State Department. All of America’s diplomacy bore a purely commercial character, consuls represented the nation abroad rather than ministers or ambassadors, and the navy consisted to a
large proportion of merchantmen.[26]

   U.S. Foreign Policy in The American Century would stick to the primacy of trade, but it would not always respect Washington’s warning as well.