Does anyone worry that the American Revolution and the Mexican-American War were grossly unjust wars of aggression initiated by Americans?

[Bartolome_Casas]

In his Memoirs U.S. Grant said the Civil War was Gods punishment on the country for the Mexican War.

I have counted five U.S president who clearly and explicitly condemned the Mexican-American War as unjust and immoral:

–President Lincoln
–President John Quincy Adams
–President Ulysses S. Grant
–President Theodore Roosevelt
–President Obama

Also, President Harry S. Truman on the 100th anniversary of the Mexican-American War, while on a visit as president to Mexico, unexpectedly laid a wreath at the chief memorial to the fallen Mexican soldiers. He was strongly criticized for this by some Americans. Though he made no public statement about this action at the time, it seemed to be recognition that ALL wars of aggression are wrong, even the ones carried out by the USA. President Truman was a combat veteran of the First World War and had just two years earlier ended the aggressive war making of Japan by nuking two Japanese cities, so he has some personal experience with wars of aggression.

To me, the strange thing is that the students seem to get through high school in the U.S. without ever hearing about all these honorable presidents who clearly said that the U.S. role in the Mexican-American War was wrong, unjust and indefensible. This almost seems like a cover up.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Lincoln’s second inaugural was one of the most poignant speeches ever given.

I agree.

 

[bearer]

To me, the strange thing is that the students seem to get through high school in the U.S. without ever hearing about all these honorable presidents who clearly said that the U.S. role in the Mexican-American War was wrong, unjust and indefensible. This almost seems like a cover up.

Americans are more than the sum of their presidents…or any politicians, for that matter. Perhaps you’re not giving students enough credit.

 

[Dangerzone]

In the American Revolution of 1776-1781, the Americans were all British citizens who had a duty to honor and respect the British government.

I must differ with you. We Americans were simply ridding ourselves of a tyrannical state.

They were not carrying out genocide or running concentration camps. The British government simply imposed taxes that some of the people in the 13 colonies did not like.

They were imposing unjust and debilitating taxes and laws which wreaked havoc on the Americans. It was something they simply would not tolerate.

But today, we have taxes that some Americans do not like. There will always be taxes that lots of people will not like. Does taxation really ever justify shooting government soldiers in the head with a rifle–because that is what the American soldiers in the American Revolution did.

Yes it was justified, necessary in fact. The British incited the Americans to violence. How many times can you beat a dog before it bites you?

 

[iloveangels]

Americans are more than the sum of their presidents…or any politicians, for that matter. Perhaps you’re not giving students enough credit.

So what are you agitating for Bartolome?

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

So what are you agitating for Bartolome?

In my mind, I am agitating for us Catholics to make judgments about actions and inactions of government based on Catholic Pro-Life Doctrine, Catholic Social Doctrine, and Catholic Moral Doctrine, as found in the official Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Catholic Church.

In my mind, we lay Catholics are getting hijacked and brainwashed by powerful mass movements of right and of the left and of consumerism.

To make things better, we Catholics join with non-Catholics (Libertarians, Evangelicals, Mormons, Ayn Rand-ians, Pro-Confederacy types, Ultra-Nationalists, Freemasons, etc.) in various political movements. But, in my view, all too often we end up getting lured into adopting various views and values of these people. Some people seem to be trying to great a Grand Synthesis of Catholicism with some or all of these non-Catholic movements. They envision that this Grand Synthesis will then be able to great a Great Coalition that will once and for all be able to restore things to normalcy if not great greatness, and to once and for drive the Liberals and Atheists and Pornographers and Abortions OUT OF POWER.

But, to my mind, there is already a Grand Synthesis and Great Coalition, and it is the only one that has any credibility and power to improve things. Its name is THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

As I see it, when it comes to the political realm, there are VERY FEW people who accept ALL OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH.

To me, there are Right Wingers who state over and over their belief in Catholic Pro-Life Doctrine, but dismiss as loony or unimportant the great body of Catholic Social Doctrine.

Then, the Left Wingers state over and over again their belief in Catholic Social Doctrine, but compromise and wiggle and equivocate on Catholic Pro-Life Doctrine.

Some use the idea of the 5 Non-Negotiables. This is the idea that as long as a politician states his objection to abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, human cloning, and fetal stem research, then he or she is a righteous politician.

To me, the problem with this is this: If a Catholic politician states opposition to all the things listed in the list of the 5 Non-Negotiables, but equivocates or flatly disagrees when it comes to Catholic Social Doctrine, then he or she IS A DISSENTER. And, as a dissenter, he or she is not a faithful Catholic. And since he or she is not a faithful Catholic, he or she CANNOT BE TRUSTED. Since he or she (in my view) cannot be trusted, we cannot really trust or believe that they will REALLY work to make progress on banning or reducing the sins addressed in the 5 Non-Negotiables.

CONTINUED BELOW IN PART 2:

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

PART 2, CONTINUED FROM ABOVE:

What do I want? I want Catholics who are WHOLE CATHOLICS to stand up in the public forum, in public office, on TV and radio, and support the WHOLE of the Catholic Faith that bears on public/social/government issues. I don’t want these guys whose Catholicism only extends to a list of 5. Recall how there is an etymological relationship between the word “HOLY” and “WHOLE.”

The world of politics, business, mass media, is, in my opinion, full of very sophisticated, cunning, and persuasive “tricksters.”

When Abraham Lincoln (someone respected because of his utter lack of tricksterism) was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, he stood up on the floor of House chambers and gave a speech in which he, said, among things, the following, regarding the Mexican-American War that was then underway:

Mr. Chairman: January 12, 1848
Some, if not all the gentlemen on, the other side of the House, who have addressed the committee within the last two days, have spoken rather complainingly, if I have rightly understood them, of the vote given a week or ten days ago, declaring that the war with Mexico was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President[James K Polk]. I admit that such a vote should not be given, in mere party wantonness, and that the one given, is justly censurable, if it have no other, or better foundation. I am one of those who joined in that vote…Now I propose to try to show, that the whole of this,–issue and evidence–is, from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.

To me, this speech should be read by every student in America.

Lincoln, the President credited with saving the Union and ending slavery also stood up to another U.S. president right in middle of a big war and called the president a liar and crook.

To me, this speech should be read and studied right along with the Declaration of Independence. Otherwise, we Catholics end up becoming influenced by non-Catholic powerful forces advocating for the dominance of Big Government and/or Big Business and/or Big Atheism.

I am not worried about the widows and orphans that U.S. soldiers unjust created in Mexico during the Mexican-American War by following the unjust orders of President Polk. They’re all dead now.

I am worried about the President Polk-types of OUR TIME. I see many of them, very active and clever in carrying out yet more of what Lincoln called “sheerest deception.” They are on both the left and the right.

To my mind, only the eye and heart of WHOLE CATHOLICS, not Cafeteria Catholics, can lead us to see and reject the “sheerest deception” of current day President Polk-equivalents.

To my mind, many of these “5 Non-Negotiables” Catholic politicians are Cafeteria Catholics, and really are carrying out “sheerest deception.” Many of them aren’t really pro-life or pro-traditional marriage. They are just doing what comes natural to us human beings: seeking personal power and money and fame.

 

[Contarini]

The Mexican-American war was. But I don’t worry about it. I can’t change it.

But it is relevant to contemporary issues.

Many folks who worry about immigration, for instance, point to a sentiment on the part of some Mexican immigrants (I suspect often exaggerated, but certainly some have expressed these sentiments) to the effect that they are “reconquering” North America, particularly the Southwest.

If indeed the Mexican War was unjust (as I believe), then that should affect how one feels about this sentiment, and about Latin-American immigration into North America generally.

Language about the sanctity of national borders becomes a bit more dubious if those borders were unjustly established in the first place. (Granted, most borders were. . . … )

Edwin

 

[bearer]

But it is relevant to contemporary issues.

The fact is that most people today know almost nothing about the Mexican-American War, and thus it has virtually no bearing on their political motivations.

I think it’s very important to be familiar with the past, but then again, there are plenty of reasons today to oppose unchecked immigration or to support the nation-state. And like it or not, there is no shortage of Mexicans who long for a Reconquista. Revolutionaries still exist south of the border, and in fact, exert considerable political and social influence in some areas.

Being Catholic does not come at the expense of being a patriot of one’s nation. Neither the Magisterium, Sacred Scripture, nor Sacred Tradition teaches any such thing.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

But it is relevant to contemporary issues.

Many folks who worry about immigration, for instance, point to a sentiment on the part of some Mexican immigrants (I suspect often exaggerated, but certainly some have expressed these sentiments) to the effect that they are “reconquering” North America, particularly the Southwest.

If indeed the Mexican War was unjust (as I believe), then that should affect how one feels about this sentiment, and about Latin-American immigration into North America generally.

Language about the sanctity of national borders becomes a bit more dubious if those borders were unjustly established in the first place. (Granted, most borders were. . . … )

Edwin

Good point!

Even so, I do not support returning land to Mexico.

I support returning and dedicating all land and all material goods and ourselves to the service of ALMIGHTY GOD.

To me, the key thing is for us Catholics to constantly remember that the nation to which we owe the HIGHEST and non-negotiable loyalty is the KINGDOM OF GOD. Jesus famously said to Pontius Pilate, the representative of the secular government ruling the land of Israel: “My kingdom is not of this world.” (Jn. 18:36) “Kingdom” in that sentence means the same thing as “nation” and “government.” Jesus was denying to Pilate that Pilate was the highest authority that He (Jesus) recognized.

The Latin root word of the English world “nation” means “birth.” When we become Christians at baptism, we are re-BORN into a “nation” that is higher than any of the human nations of the world.

The only border separating the Kingdom of God from the rest of the universe is a border that is defined by FAITH, HOPE and LOVE. Mexican Catholics and American Catholics are brothers and fellow citizens in the Kingdom of God.

As long as we firmly maintain that CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES trump and invalidate AMERICAN PRINCIPLES whenever there is a conflict, then we Catholics will be the HOLY PEOPLE that God wants us to be.

I think that is what the Church teaches us, anyway. But, I hope no one trusts me. I trust Pope Benedict XVI, and try to read everything he’s written. But I am no genius and I am probably misunderstanding some things.

Best wishes!

 

[wynnejj]

Anybody view the Civil War as God’s answer to the American Revolution?

Willingness to sacrifice human life needlessly to satisfy never-ending conflicts about fairness?

Anybody see the parallel with the life issues versus social justice?

Willingness to sacrifice human life needlessly to satisfy never-ending conflicts about fairness?

History demonstrates the (f)utility of sacrificing life for principles of (f)airness?

Note: Both wars seem to reduce to questions of seceding from a nation for reasons that are essentially questions about socio-economic fairness conflicts in government. The principle upon which the American Revolution was fought is denied by the outcome of the Civil War to the South - principles that are basically the same as those put forth in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[GEddie]

The fact is that most people today know almost nothing about the Mexican-American War, and thus it has virtually no bearing on their political motivations.

I think it’s very important to be familiar with the past, but then again, there are plenty of reasons today to oppose unchecked immigration or to support the nation-state. And like it or not, there is no shortage of Mexicans who long for a Reconquista. Revolutionaries still exist south of the border, and in fact, exert considerable political and social influence in some areas.

Being Catholic does not come at the expense of being a patriot of one’s nation. Neither the Magisterium, Sacred Scripture, nor Sacred Tradition teaches any such thing.

The Roman empire was also established and expanded through a chain of injustices, yet Christians were not called to oppose it, quite the opposite.

There probably is not a national state on the planet that did not make use of injustice in it’s formation. In the absence of overt evil, we are still to support our government.

And, Fwiw, I doubt very many undocumented immigrants want to fight to “reconquer” US. States for Mexico. They already lived in Mexico and left there. For that matter, many are not even Mexican.

ICXC NIKA

 

[wynnejj]

Manifest Destiny was the word coined to specifically endorse Polk’s American territorial expansionism but, more generally the idea that America is destined to expand its influence as a superior model for nations. The comparison with the War in Iraq is appropriate in that we engaged in a form of nation building in the ideal of American democracy. To force or coerce democracy elsewhere is as morally wrong as for any other political system.

But more importantly this thread cautions us about discerning the reasons behind political movements, the catalysts that motivate the larger movements, and the dirty tricks to justify the larger ends.

I’d like to make a comment though about the plea for the application of Catholic political conscience to the whole of our political actions. There are priorities. The seamless garment approach, if abused to advocate equal application of weights to the principles of life and social justice, becomes simply bad prudential judgement. You cannot sacrifice human life for the practical reasons of other social justice issues.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

The seamless garment approach advocating equal application of principles of life and social justice is simply bad prudential judgement. You cannot sacrifice human life for the practical reasons of other social justice issues.

Yes, there is NO DOUBT that some Catholics have used the Seamless Garment approach to give Catholic voters a basis for justifying, to themselves and to others, their voting for pro-abortion rights politicians. Any Catholic using the Seamless Garment in that way is, of course, a trickster, a deceiver, or, at least, a dissenter.

But, in addition to that dishonorable politicking, what I see is a sort of mirror image of that. I see people using the 5 Non-Negotiables approach to elect politicians whose only real agenda is lower taxes and lessen regulations for corporations.

So, election after election, decade after decade, sincere religious conservatives vote for candidates who state their support for criminalizing the 5 Non-Negotiables. But besides occasionally asserting their agreement with criminalizing those things, they never DO anything about them. I look at what they do in fact DO, and I conclude that many of them just use religious conservatives to get elected, and their real energy and real priorities were matters dealing with taxes and regulations on business.

So, what’s the answer then?

To me, it is to find and support politicians for whom ending abortion is their NUMBER ONE issue, and who not only say it but ACT that way every day that they are in public office.

In truth, the 5 Non-Negotiables approach seem like a failure to properly prioritize things. Gay marriage doesn’t kill anyone. So how can that be as serious as one million abortions every year?

If I was president, and I could strike a deal with Liberals, in which we’d give them a constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage in exchange for them giving us a constitutional amendment outlawing all abortion, I’d take that deal in one second. That seems, to me, to be very sensible and legitimate.

Euthanasia is the direct killing of human life, but, as far as I know, even in states where some form of voluntary doctor assisted suicide is legal or tolerated, very few occur. So how can that be as serious as one million abortions every year.

And so on.

The real bottom is that I believe we Catholic voters are being used and abused and tricked by both those on the right (who use the 5 Non-Negotiables to pretend to be with us on life issues) and those on the left (who use the Seamless Garment approach to suggest that they are good Catholics).

 

[iloveangels]

My turn to agitate for something: I agitate for Bartolome to take a logic class. That’s quite some mess you have there.

 

[Bezant]

As I’m slightly biased I would have to say yes

 

[Tony_the_mad]

Yes, there is NO DOUBT that some Catholics have used the Seamless Garment approach to give Catholic voters a basis for justifying, to themselves and to others, their voting for pro-abortion rights politicians. Any Catholic using the Seamless Garment in that way is, of course, a trickster, a deceiver, or, at least, a dissenter.

But, in addition to that dishonorable politicking, what I see is a sort of mirror image of that. I see people using the 5 Non-Negotiables approach to elect politicians whose only real agenda is lower taxes and lessen regulations for corporations.

So, election after election, decade after decade, sincere religious conservatives vote for candidates who state their support for criminalizing the 5 Non-Negotiables. But besides occasionally asserting their agreement with criminalizing those things, they never DO anything about them. I look at what they do in fact DO, and I conclude that many of them just use religious conservatives to get elected, and their real energy and real priorities were matters dealing with taxes and regulations on business.

So, what’s the answer then?

To me, it is to find and support politicians for whom ending abortion is their NUMBER ONE issue, and who not only say it but ACT that way every day that they are in public office.

In truth, the 5 Non-Negotiables approach seem like a failure to properly prioritize things. Gay marriage doesn’t kill anyone. So how can that be as serious as one million abortions every year?

If I was president, and I could strike a deal with Liberals, in which we’d give them a constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage in exchange for them giving us a constitutional amendment outlawing all abortion, I’d take that deal in one second. That seems, to me, to be very sensible and legitimate.

Euthanasia is the direct killing of human life, but, as far as I know, even in states where some form of voluntary doctor assisted suicide is legal or tolerated, very few occur. So how can that be as serious as one million abortions every year.

And so on.

The real bottom is that I believe we Catholic voters are being used and abused and tricked by both those on the right (who use the 5 Non-Negotiables to pretend to be with us on life issues) and those on the left (who use the Seamless Garment approach to suggest that they are good Catholics).

You are spot on here. Thanks. I don’t think you need all the red text, but otherwise I agree.

On a practical level, the only solution I see is that we flex our muscle in the primaries. Liberals should flex their muscle to increase the number of pro-life liberals and conservatives should flex their muscle to increase the number of socially conscience conservatives. And in both cases we should flex our muscle even when it would mean we lose the general. By focusing our effort on the general election we become pawns.

In another sense, though, this is a moot point at least when it comes to controversial issues like abortion. The fight against abortion will not, because it cannot, be won from the top down through politics. We live in a democracy and not a dictatorship. The only true way to win the fight against abortion is through a true grass roots organization that encompasses both liberals and conservatives. Liberals should emphasize how it fits strongly with their platform of protecting the weak. Conservatives should emphasize how it fits with family values.

 

[wynnejj]

If I was president, and I could strike a deal with Liberals, in which we’d give them a constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage in exchange for them giving us a constitutional amendment outlawing all abortion, I’d take that deal in one second. That seems, to me, to be very sensible and legitimate.

It may seem sensible and legitimate to you (and to me, actually) but, to act on that would be to disregard the Holy Spirit that guides the Catholic Church through the Pope.

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The anti-Catholic government policies in Mexico came later, decades after the Mexican-American war, during what is called the “Mexican Revolution.” That took place from about 1910 to 1929. The war in which the U.S. invaded and occupied Mexico with the aim of annexing the Mexican states of Alta California and Nuevo Mexico was from 1846 to 1848. The Mexican Revolution was inspired by the same Marxist thinking that inspired the Bolshevik revolution in Russia during this same period. Thus, the anti-Church element. Sadly, the Church’s leaders in Mexico in that time period and before almost always sided with the cruel, manipulative, anti-democratic, exploitative, racist tiny upper class of rich Mexicans who had white skin like Europeans. That was another reason the Mexican Revolution was so anti-Catholic. The anti-Catholicism was wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. Thankfully, since the Vatican II Council, the Church is now committed to supporting the rights of the mass of the poor people against the cruelties and exploitation of the tiny few rich.

During the time of Mexican-American War, the Catholic Faith was still the official religion of Mexico, as stated in its federal constitution. By contrast, the Freemasonic-inspired U.S. Constitution dishonors and rejects God by making no mention of the Catholic Religion, no mention of Jesus Christ or his Heavenly Father.

It is also a fact that President Polk and many of the other key leaders of the U.S. at the time of the Mexican-American war were Freemasons. Just as Freemasonry was a key factor in the American Revolution, so it was in the Mexican-American War. Some historians have discussed how there was a Freemasonry vs. Catholicism element to the the Mexican-American War. There is a museum in Brownsville, Texas which has a recreation of a Masonic temple and celebrates the role of the Freemasons in Texas in the winning independence from Catholic Mexico and in helping the U.S. government conquer and annex the Mexican states of California and New Mexico.

The Mexican-American War also has a major Slavery vs. Anti-Slavery element. Mexico never allowed slavery it is entire history.

The main reason that the Americans living in the Mexican state of Tejas (Texas) sought and won independence from Mexico in 1836 was because Mexico was finally attempting to enforce the law against slavery in that state.

President Polk’s was a slave holder from the South. His aim was to extend slavery the lands captured and annexed from Mexico, and to thereby give the Slave States a decisive majority in the U.S. Congress, so that slavery would be secure in the USA and last forever.

To me, this isn’t all just ancient history. The reason some people don’t want Catholics to make valid, sound, Catholic judgments about the past is that they don’t want Catholics to make valid, sound, Catholic judgments about the PRESENT.

There are men like President Polk afoot today. And, thankfully, there are men like Abraham Lincoln around today too to oppose and condemn the President Polks of our era, just as Lincoln opposed and condemned the original President Polk in 1847 and 1848.

None of this proves that people in California would have been better off under Mexican or Russian rule, and there is every reason to think they would not have been.

Same with parts of the southwest. Would Texas really have been better off under Comanche rule than American rule? Mexico controlled very little of it. Read up on the Comanches and I think you will have to admit that it would not have been. And, in fact, American defeat of the Comanches freed northern Mexico from their raids, which they did at least annually; killing, torturing and raping. The American annexation of Texas buffered Mexico from it, just as American annexation of California buffered Mexico against the Russians.

Would it have been any less right for France to continue ruling upper Louisiana, which it never settled, than for Mexico to continue “ruling” Texas, most of which it neither settled nor controlled?

And “white” Mexicans rule Mexico to this day. Look at a photo of Calderon, for example, or Fox or Zedilla or Echeverria. “White” Mexicans every one.

 

[JNdoum]

Same with parts of the southwest. Would Texas really have been better off under Comanche rule than American rule? Mexico controlled very little of it. Read up on the Comanches and I think you will have to admit that it would not have been. And, in fact, American defeat of the Comanches freed northern Mexico from their raids, which they did at least annually; killing, torturing and raping. The American annexation of Texas buffered Mexico from it, just as American annexation of California buffered Mexico against the Russians.

I just wanted to state here that the Comanche people and all Native Americans were persecuted in far worse ways than they ever persecuted us. Most of the time, Native aggression was more in reaction to American aggression. I’m not defending what they did, and admit it was very bad. But the Americans were inhumane in their treatment of the Native Americans. If you ever have a chance, I suggest reading Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee. It explains in a lot of detail the injustices done against Native Americans.