America largest nation-building project was Reconstruction with its trials and struggles mirroring foreign policy ever since.* A century and a half ago, we argued over our extent of control over an outside population, and with the midterm elections this week, such things are still on our minds. From the slogan America First, to questions on supporting Israel, many want to spend resources here, and not “over there”—wherever that happens to be. America continues to wrestle with these debates while Reconstruction offers an overlooked example. No matter where you stand on U.S. intrusions in the world, rest assured, our ancestors fought about the same.
It might be controversial to describe Reconstruction as nation-building. After all, the Confederacy was always a part of America. South Carolina signed the same declaration as New Jersey, and some then argued the southern states never technically left. But the perils of nation-building endeavors fit Reconstruction. The project created new governments, new laws, and new practices of economy. The northern states committed to reforming societies of the states that tried to leave. And the cliched argument of spending too much “blood and treasure” was as applicable in 1870 as it was this week in voting booths. For all practical purposes, America dealt with a foreign power in the Confederacy, facilitating its (re)integration to the USA.
Reconstruction embodied many of the goals and headaches we think of with foreign interventions. There were reforms to the laws of seceded states. There was organized terrorism from the Klan with military practices in response. There were public and private efforts to raise democratic practices, and public weariness from the obstacles. Several years in, people came to see problems at home as too big to worry about the happenings down south. They worried about the economy as much as we do, and the public conceded to the defiant will of former Confederates. We abandoned the hopes of former slaves, saving ourselves from more troubles while leaving behind a noble cause. And since leaving is so often the result of such projects, we should ask we’re willing to stay.
Those favoring a given intervention will argue fighting for an admirable goal with necessary costs. Whether it’s the spread of dictatorships, or threats of a nuclear weapon, there are good reasons to engage. Reasons not only righteous, but necessary for the safety and well-being of America and others. For all our faults, we have ideals that make for the best chance of prosperity in the world. Rebuilding Germany and Japan after World War Two is an example of things working out, and nations like Rwanda could have used our help, as Sudan could today. America has the unique ability to do such good, and we shouldn’t bind our hands in isolation.
But those who object to interventions will make their own strong points. Evidence of our blunders now spans centuries. Individual actors will have their own plans, whether it’s rebellion of the population, or our own troops causing chaos. It’s arrogance to assume we can control everything how we want, and that we’re always the moral force for good. We could talk about Vietnam and Middle-Eastern nations, not to mention atrocities in the Philippines, Latin America, and nations acting as pawns in the Cold War. The U.S. appears like a bad chess player: We stare a long time at the board only to miss a key move the opponent uses to strike. For many, it will appear that the only winning move was not to try at all.
And let’s not forget the personal costs to everyone. In Iraq, many thousands were killed, and for soldiers like a friend of mine, it’s a topic they’d rather avoid. When thinking about this, the cliche came to mind that we can’t make omelettes without breaking eggs. But I felt terrible for making the comparison. The lives of soldiers, civilians, and general destruction cannot be equated to breaking eggs. And even concerns about economy aren’t nothing. With jobs on the line and families to feed, people worry about the future with good reason. Recessions and job numbers affect everything, and such circumstances shouldn’t be thought of as trivial.
Such arguments have been present in 2026 politics. For Republicans, the slogan of America First has included objections to foreign interventions. This created a significant split in the party, leaving those wanting self-restraint at odds with the current administration. Meanwhile, more Americans are questioning support for Israel. And other debates have risen. We’ve argued over the elimination of USAID, continuing support for Ukraine, and the potential defense of Taiwan. Hot topics on foreign policy are everywhere, leaving many of us with an instinct to be done with others’ problems.
My personal hawkish opinions made me support the war in Iran, only to later wonder if it was worth it. Hearing of the first attacks, I thought of the decades of news telling us how much of a problem Iran is. Leaders of all parties didn’t seem to know what to do about them, and I recoiled at the recent killing of thousands of protestors. So I supported rolling the dice, not wanting a nation that says Death to America to have nuclear weapons. But I’ve come to feel the same weariness as Americans in generations past and present. In time, whether right or wrong, the public changes its mind as difficulties mount.
I wonder now, if I were a citizen of 19th century America, if I would have lasted through the years with fierce support of Reconstruction. I would love to go back and tell the northern states to keep up the good fight. That the charge to democratize the South is just. That America will get through the depression of the 1870s, and that former slaves and their future generations are counting on our grit. But without knowing how things would turn out, worry and self-interest always play a role. I’m as susceptible as anyone to fear the future, become weary of obstacles, and object to the costs.
*Technically, Reconstruction wasn’t America’s first attempt at a foreign intervention. American troops tried to replace the leader of the Muslim city-state Tripoli in 1805. Desperate to stop pirates from seizing American trade ships in the Mediterranean Sea, our troops tried this overthrow. During the Iraq War, I remember reading this history and thinking, “Gosh, this sounds familiar.” [Back]
