We Cannot Take the 'Middle Way’
Jared Gould | 6 April 2026
On April 6, 1776, the Continental Congress opened American ports to trade with the world, but closed them to Britain.
The resolution was retaliatory. In March 1775, Parliament passed the New England Restraining Act, blockading colonial shipping, severing access to global commerce, and barring New England ships from the North Atlantic fisheries.
Congress responded in kind: “any goods, wares, and merchandise … may be exported … to any parts of the world which are not under the dominion of the said King.” The colonies would decide where they traded. And with whom.
Of course, the decision to open the ports did not go without dispute.
As early as February 1776, debates over whether to open the ports were already underway. John Adams took notes of the debate, detailing that some delegates worried that opening the ports would foreclose any remaining path to peace with the Crown. (Some were not enthusiastic about total independence and believed reconciliation might still be possible). Others feared that, without a formal alliance, American ships would be easy prey for the British navy. A “middle way” was even proposed, which would have simply limited trade rather than initiate a full break.
But Congress rejected a middle path.
Instead, it opened its ports, and by doing so, the colonies enabled the receipt of covert aid from France. By May 1776, France was delivering muskets, gunpowder, and artillery. And when July came, trade was listed among the Declaration’s top grievances: “For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.” Who decides where a nation trades, and on what terms, is who holds power. The colonists decided they would.
We lack the will for total independence now.
The United States spent the better part of the last several decades transferring critical manufacturing capacity to China in pursuit of cheaper goods and higher margins. In doing so, we have coupled ourselves to an adversary that could, on short notice, withhold materials on which we depend.
Some members of Congress recognize this danger.
Rep. Tom Cotton, for example, has proposed barring Chinese nationals from handling U.S. military equipment, and Elizabeth Warren joined him in sponsoring the Chip Security Act to tighten oversight of advanced AI chips and prevent their transfer to China. Meanwhile, proposals such as the Stop CCP VISAs Act of 2025 aim to address vulnerabilities in higher education—the issue of this series’ parent organization, the National Association of Scholars.
These efforts are not nothing. But they are not decisive either.
Congress, taken as a whole, has settled into a kind of “middle way” with China. It is willing to act on narrow questions of national security, but unwilling to confront the broader reality of economic dependence.
Nowhere is this middle way more evident than in higher education.
The Stop CCP VISAs Act of 2025, for instance, appears to be collecting dust. And even as Congress is aware of espionage and intellectual property theft, it allows American universities to remain deeply dependent on international enrollment, including large numbers of Chinese nationals. The President himself has indicated that as many as 600,000 Chinese nationals may attend U.S. colleges and universities.
The colonies did not choose a middle way. Total economic separation from Britain carried disruption, exposure, and uncertainty, but it ended in independence.
We cannot take the middle way now.
Art by Beck & Stone
Post a Comment