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

[Ridgerunner]

I have dealt with a lot of French people. In my experience with them, they were quick to throw into conversation the legacy of slavery in the US, and our civil rights problems. The ironic thing is that I also found them to be quite bigoted about racial difference compared to Americans, and also more sexist. This is based on working with a team of about 100 of them. European criticism of America can have merit, but my experience is that it is often based on stereotypes, and it rings hollow to me.

??? French slavery is the reason why Haitians are black. In fact, the only French Carribbean island that isn’t almost entirely black is St. Barthelemy, and that’s because they couldn’t raise sugar cane in any significant amount on St. Barts, so no slaves there.

 

[epan]

Claiming that the American Revolution was essentially a revolt of American plutocrats doesn’t really work. If that was true, then the trans-appalachian settlers would never have fought the British. But they did, and did it well. At the time, Americans were the wealthiest people on earth, man for man, because of widespread ownership of land and the relative freedom to enter into business and industry unimpeded by royal “charters” and monopolies. It was the British system, not the American, that concentrated wealth into the hands of a few with everyone else being paupers or near-paupers.

And certainly the Europeans directly killed some Indians (who had killed other Indians to take their land) but the overwhelming majority that died were killed by disease. Massive deaths by disease were inevitable, no matter what. Had some Mayans, say, sailed from Yucatan to Europe or Africa and returned, the result would have been exactly the same. Same if some Chinese had sailed to California. It was only a matter of time before Eurasian diseases were introduced into the Americas with catastrophic results, and time ran out.

Particulate in the carribean, the direct slaughter of natives was widespread and practiced on a large scale. Much larger than many believe. The spanish were in retreat when one of their slaves became ill. Realizing the value of this, the conquistadors turned around and sent the contagious man ahead as a forward emissary. Yes, you are correct that biological warfare was used by the Spanish.

The native populations did not understand quarantine principles, and would gather around the contagious person. This social practice increased the effectiveness of Spanish tactic.

 

[DLG123]

one thing the u.s. Did not do, despite all this masonry business, was to officially forbid catholic worship, and it certainly did not hunt down and kill priests and nuns as the mexican government did in the early part of this century. Yes, there were places and times when catholics were persecuted. But it was not the policy of the whole nation. One cannot sensibly argue that mexico is somehow a “catholic nation” or superior in its tolerance of religion to the u.s. Remember when pope jpii visited mexico? It was a bit of an embarrassment because it was still illegal then for catholic clergy to appear in public in clerical garb. Knowing it had a problem on its hands, the mexican government looked the other way for the pope’s visit. But it’s important to remember that the pope was breaking mexican law when he visited there and appeared in his popes’ robes.

great post!!!

 

[DLG123]

Yes they were. Read a history book

.

Yes, it justifies it. The Brits imposed arbitrary and punishing taxes which we simply could not tolerate. Among other gross violations of human dignity.

No, you have been deceived. Pay attention to the meaning of liberty. Thousands of us have died in order to protect that liberty. It was given to us by God. We will not give it up at any price. You should take a real history course and learn what really happened.

Your young mind has been obviously filled with a bucket load of liberal mush.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Particulate in the carribean, the direct slaughter of natives was widespread and practiced on a large scale. Much larger than many believe. The spanish were in retreat when one of their slaves became ill. Realizing the value of this, the conquistadors turned around and sent the contagious man ahead as a forward emissary. Yes, you are correct that biological warfare was used by the Spanish.

The native populations did not understand quarantine principles, and would gather around the contagious person. This social practice increased the effectiveness of Spanish tactic.

Somewhat wide of the mark. A black man was with the Spaniards when they first entered Tenochtitlan, and retreated with them. He became very ill after the escape (perhaps during it, depending on the account) and was hardly in a position to be an emissary of any kind, let alone to the Aztecs who, by then, were totally hostile to the Spanish. Keep in mind that smallpox is extremely debilitating except in its latent stage when one is not visibly symptomatic. It is believed by many that he was the source of the infection, but since smallpox was then endemic among Europeans at the time, there is no certainty that he was really the source. Any number of the Spanish might have been carriers.

Whatever the Aztecs believed or didn’t believe about quarantine, (and Europeans didn’t understand it either, since nobody knew anything about microbes) the real mortality was due to two things: First, that the Indians, unlike Europeans, Asians and some Africans, had no acquired immunity or partial immunity to Eurasian diseases like smallpox. That relative immunity had been “bought” by Europeans, Asians and some Africans by many, many deaths over centuries. Second, Indian immune systems were generally less effective against viruses and bacteria than those of Europeans, Asians and Africans, being much more effective against parasitic diseases.

But no matter what, smallpox and other viral and bacterial diseases common to Europe, Asia and parts of Africa, would have decimated Indian populations as soon as contact had been made between Indians and those not of the Americas. Once established, those diseases would have spread through Indian populations due to the frequency of Indian travel and the contacts among the various Indian groups. Possibly it was not even necessary that there be human contact. It is thought by some that major decimation by Eurasian diseases in North America was due to the pigs that accompanied early Spanish explorers; some of the pigs having escaped. Pigs are carriers of many human diseases.

Undoubtedly there were deliberate attempts to spread disease among Indians, as in the case of the British in North America prior to the American Revolution. But it has to be acknowledged that the result would have been the same had they never done it.

 

[epan]

Somewhat wide of the mark. A black man was with the Spaniards when they first entered Tenochtitlan, and retreated with them. He became very ill after the escape (perhaps during it, depending on the account) and was hardly in a position to be an emissary of any kind, let alone to the Aztecs who, by then, were totally hostile to the Spanish. Keep in mind that smallpox is extremely debilitating except in its latent stage when one is not visibly symptomatic. It is believed by many that he was the source of the infection, but since smallpox was then endemic among Europeans at the time, there is no certainty that he was really the source. Any number of the Spanish might have been carriers.

Whatever the Aztecs believed or didn’t believe about quarantine, (and Europeans didn’t understand it either, since nobody knew anything about microbes) the real mortality was due to two things: First, that the Indians, unlike Europeans, Asians and some Africans, had no acquired immunity or partial immunity to Eurasian diseases like smallpox. That relative immunity had been “bought” by Europeans, Asians and some Africans by many, many deaths over centuries. Second, Indian immune systems were generally less effective against viruses and bacteria than those of Europeans, Asians and Africans, being much more effective against parasitic diseases.

But no matter what, smallpox and other viral and bacterial diseases common to Europe, Asia and parts of Africa, would have decimated Indian populations as soon as contact had been made between Indians and those not of the Americas. Once established, those diseases would have spread through Indian populations due to the frequency of Indian travel and the contacts among the various Indian groups. Possibly it was not even necessary that there be human contact. It is thought by some that major decimation by Eurasian diseases in North America was due to the pigs that accompanied early Spanish explorers; some of the pigs having escaped. Pigs are carriers of many human diseases.

Undoubtedly there were deliberate attempts to spread disease among Indians, as in the case of the British in North America prior to the American Revolution. But it has to be acknowledged that the result would have been the same had they never done it.

He was used to spread smallpox. They were about to leave, and they turned back around to use him as a biological weapon.

 

[Ridgerunner]

He was used to spread smallpox. They were about to leave, and they turned back around to use him as a biological weapon.

That’s one version, but certainly not the majority version among historians. Even the Nahuatl version (hardly friendly to the Spanish) doesn’t say that. There are scholars who don’t even think the black guy was the source of the infection. Some say it was an infected Spanish soldier whose body the Aztecs looted after they killed him during the Noche Triste, because he was described by Aztecs as having “paste” on him (pustules?). Some say it came from some of the Spanish Indian allies who had already been exposed. The very first Indian to die of it was not an Aztec at all, but a Tlaxcalan chief who had been involved in the first Spanish “occupation” of Tenochtitlan.

Of possible interest in the whole question as well is the fact that in Spain at the time smallpox was more or less an endemic childhood disease from which nearly all recovered. There are lots of theories as to why it was so deadly among the Amerinds. Among them is the possibility that since smallpox had been around for so long in Europe, people had simply acquired relative immunity that was inherited. Another theory is that smallpox somehow underwent a mutation in the New World alone, for unknown reasons, becoming much more deadly. But that is a minority view. Either way, the Spanish had no reason to believe that sending an infected man as an emissary to the Aztecs would somehow decimate them since, to them, it was not considered a deadly disease.

 

[Contarini]

At this stage in the game, it would be theft to try to return land.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting, as a practical matter, that white people just move out of North America.

Rather, the point is that American moral triumphalism has no basis, and specifically that the claims often made about the sanctity of national borders and the moral right/duty of preventing excessive and/or illegal immigration is a lot of hypocritical balderdash given the history of how these borders were established in the first place.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

When have the results of war ever been undone without another war?

Nothing is ever entirely “undone” so that’s an impossible standard to meet. Certainly territory that once traded hands due to war has later traded hands through peaceful means (the Louisiana Territory, for instance).

But you’re missing my point. I’m not saying that the U.S. should hand the territory back to Mexico. I’m saying that the nationalistic fears being whipped up with regard to Hispanic immigration are unjust, in part because the territory most seriously affected was not gained justly in the first place.

 

[tonyinatlga12]

Hey coptic,

I have be recovering from surgery the past week. I was so bored out of my mind until somehow I came across this website. Unfortunately it is back to work with me. It has been such fun toying with you. You have had me laughing my *** off. Thank you so much for the entertainment. You crack me up. It has been so much fun having you run from here and there. I would just cut and paste stuff off the internet and I can just imagine you taking all that time reading a bunch of ****. I feel kind of bad jerking you around, but I couldn’t resist. You just made it too easy. I wish I could take a couple of more days off to play around with you, but its back to the real world.

Good luck

 

[Contarini]

Pick any of them. It’s common knowledge that the Brits brutally oppressed the Americans.

“Common knowledge” is not always right. And of course “brutally oppressed” can mean a lot of things. (For instance, it’s certainly true that the British troops garrisoned in New England committed some atrocities.)

But I note your failure to support your claim.

Do your own homework. That’s not my job.

Of course it is. If you make a claim, it’s your job to support it when challenged. It’s your assertion, so it’s your homework!

Now you’re sticking up for the Romans?

Actually the reverse–my point was that however bad British oppression was, it wasn’t as bad as Roman oppression of the Jews, yet Jesus didn’t advocate violent resistance or even a refusal to pay taxes.

But if I were sticking up for the Romans, that would be irrelevant. You didn’t answer my question.

That’s easy. We gave to “Caesar,” again and again and again. We got tired of it.

I see. Where in Jesus’ words, or elsewhere in the Christian tradition, do you find a claim that “giving to Caesar” is obligatory only as long as you feel like it?

You’re confusing your socialist liberal theology with reality.

You’re confusing bluster and the use of labels with substantial argument.

They weren’t. They were essentially slaves.

There was a bit more distinction between free non-citizens and slaves than you’re allowing. But we agree, it seems, that they were treated worse than Americans were being treated by the British.

I therefore repeat: how do you justify the principle “no taxation without representation” as a Christian? Aren’t you going directly against the explicit command of Jesus when you embrace this principle?

More socialist nonsense. What a surprise.

Calling something names does not refute it. Can you explain why it is right to refuse to obey the direct command of Jesus?

Certainly not you, that’s obvious.

Probably not. My mind has been changed before, and occasionally gets changed even at my advanced age (38); but I’m old enough and have thought about these issues enough that your chances aren’t very good.

However, I was thinking more of our friend epan, whose “young mind” according to you has been filled with “liberal mush.”

Can’t you see that you have a much better chance of clearing out the “liberal mush” and protecting the minds of the young, for whom you are concerned, against evil people like me, if you actually make an argument instead of just using insults?

Again, it’s easy. Our rights were given to us by God.

What is your reason for believing that God has given you or anyone else the right not to be taxed without representation?

We Americans don’t need to persuade you or anyone else in order to exercise these rights.

Indeed. But if you want to persuade young people that the “liberal mush” they have been taught is false, you might need to put a bit more work into it.

The fact that we did this instead of continuing to behave like liberal sheep as you would have us do, is of no consequence to us.

The position I’ve been defending in this argument with you is actually an extremely conservative one. The word “liberal” has undergone some very weird mutations–your understanding of intrinsic rights is the classical liberal position.

Edwin

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t think anyone is suggesting, as a practical matter, that white people just move out of North America.

Rather, the point is that American moral triumphalism has no basis, and specifically that the claims often made about the sanctity of national borders and the moral right/duty of preventing excessive and/or illegal immigration is a lot of hypocritical balderdash given the history of how these borders were established in the first place.

Edwin

It may be recalled that the Jews of biblical times seized Israel from predecessors in possession, and never in the Old Testament or the New are they condemned for their ancestors having done so.

I’m not sure what people mean when they speak of “moral triumphalism”, and certainly not in this context. Are you saying that no American can be proud of his country for any reason at all because early settlers conquered inhabited areas and moved into uninhabited areas. Are you really saying that constitutes a moral taint that cannot be removed regardless of anything this nation ever does?

And are you saying that because the ancestors of some Americans did the above, Americans have no right to prevent the whole world from freely settling in this country if it so desires?

If so, then it seems the inescapable conclusion is that no people has any right to have a homeland that is their own, since every settled part of the earth underwent a change of population at one time or another. Is that your position?

 

[reconman]

“Common knowledge” is not always right.

It is in this case.

Of course it is. If you make a claim, it’s your job to support it when challenged. It’s your assertion, so it’s your homework!

Fine whatever:

Barnes, Ian, and Charles Royster. The Historical Atlas of the American Revolution (2000), maps and commentary excerpt and text search
Blanco, Richard L.; Sanborn, Paul J. (1993). The American Revolution, 1775-1783: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland Publishing Inc… ISBN 978-0-8240-5623-0. amazon.com/American-Revolution-1775-1783-Encyclopedia-Humanities/dp/082405623X. Retrieved 2010-10-02.
Boatner, Mark Mayo III (1974). Encyclopedia of the American Revolution (2 ed.). New York: Charles Scribners and Sons. ISBN 978-0-684-31513-3. amazon.com/Encyclopedia-American-Revolution-Library-Military/dp/0684315130. Retrieved 2010-10-02.
Cappon, Lester J. Atlas of Early American History: The Revolutionary Era, 1760-1790 (1976)
Fremont-Barnes, Gregory, and Richard A. Ryerson, eds. The Encyclopedia of the American Revolutionary War: A Political, Social, and Military History (5 vol. 2006) 1000 entries by 150 experts, covering all topics
Greene, Jack P. and J. R. Pole, eds. A Companion to the American Revolution (2004), 777pp an expanded edition of Greene and Pole, eds. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the American Revolution (1994); comprehensive coverage of political and social themes and international dimension; thin on military
Purcell, L. Edward. Who Was Who in the American Revolution (1993); 1500 short biographies
Resch, John P., ed. Americans at War: Society, Culture and the Homefront vol 1 (2005), articles by scholars
Symonds, Craig L. and William J. Clipson. A Battlefield Atlas of the American Revolution (1986) new diagrams of each battle

Actually the reverse–my point was that however bad British oppression was, it wasn’t as bad as Roman oppression of the Jews, yet Jesus didn’t advocate violent resistance or even a refusal to pay taxes.

But if I were sticking up for the Romans, that would be irrelevant. You didn’t answer my question.

I answered your question, but I’ll do it again. Our rights were given to us by God. The Brits took away these rights, so we took them back.

I see. Where in Jesus’ words, or elsewhere in the Christian tradition, do you find a claim that “giving to Caesar” is obligatory only as long as you feel like it?

It’s got nothing to do with “feel like it.” God said “give to ceasar…,” He didn’t say continue to live under the thumb of a brutal regime.

I therefore repeat: how do you justify the principle “no taxation without representation” as a Christian?

The bill of rights.

Aren’t you going directly against the explicit command of Jesus when you embrace this principle?

No

What is your reason for believing that God has given you or anyone else the right not to be taxed without representation?

The bill of rights.

The position I’ve been defending in this argument with you is actually an extremely conservative one. The word “liberal” has undergone some very weird mutations–your understanding of intrinsic rights is the classical liberal position.

Ok, I’ll be more precise: you’re a socialist.

 

[hosemonkey]

My ancestors came to this country in 1640. They fought in the Revolution that established this Nation, they fought in the Civil War that preserved this nation and in every war since to advance and defend this nation. I also have fought in my nation’s wars and would again. Our country called and we answered. That question settled, what occurred so many years ago is beyond my control and if we look at history, we can find countless examples of the weak being overcome by the strong, for countless different reasons. Right? Wrong? Dunno. Who cares? It is history and it is war. Moaning and speculation serve no purpose. Those who are quick to point out other country’s presumed injustices often fail to examine their own. Everybody has (what we consider now) dirty laundry, that is our nature. History tells us that some win, and some lose. That’s the way it is and that’s the way it will always be, probably until Jesus Christ establishes His Kingdom on earth. “My country, may she always be right. But right or wrong, my country.”

 

[GEddie]

Nothing is ever entirely “undone” so that’s an impossible standard to meet. Certainly territory that once traded hands due to war has later traded hands through peaceful means (the Louisiana Territory, for instance).

But you’re missing my point. I’m not saying that the U.S. should hand the territory back to Mexico. I’m saying that the nationalistic fears being whipped up with regard to Hispanic immigration are unjust, in part because the territory most seriously affected was not gained justly in the first place.

Ok, correction taken.

However, as one who lives near the frontier and therefore well within all of the hysteria, I’d say that IMNAAHO it has far less to do with fears of any impending Reconquista, than it does with old-fashioned racism.

ICXC NIKA

 

[drfye]

While researching an ancestor who fought in the Frencn &Indian War. I came across a history of Fairfield Ct.
The British periodically demanded colonial troops for a 60 year period to enhance there colonial objectectives.
The colonies rejected this continued Militarism.
This also was a cause of the war of 1812
So the American Revolution could be viewed as a defensive
War.
The Mexican War not so much.

An interesting side note, the war of 1812 was one of the main events that later prompted Canadian federation and Started Canada from seperate british colonies to a united dominion and later a nation , up until ww2 Canada’s main defense stratagy was aimed at fending off a US invasion with a pre-emptive strike upon learning of a US invasion.

taoyue.com/stacks/articles/defence-scheme-one.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Scheme_No._1

 

[Contarini]

Barnes, Ian, and Charles Royster. The Historical Atlas of the American Revolution (2000), maps and commentary excerpt and text search
Blanco, Richard L.; Sanborn, Paul J. (1993). The American Revolution, 1775-1783: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland Publishing Inc… ISBN 978-0-8240-5623-0. amazon.com/American-Revolution-1775-1783-Encyclopedia-Humanities/dp/082405623X. Retrieved 2010-10-02.
Boatner, Mark Mayo III (1974). Encyclopedia of the American Revolution (2 ed.). New York: Charles Scribners and Sons. ISBN 978-0-684-31513-3. amazon.com/Encyclopedia-American-Revolution-Library-Military/dp/0684315130. Retrieved 2010-10-02.
Cappon, Lester J. Atlas of Early American History: The Revolutionary Era, 1760-1790 (1976)
Fremont-Barnes, Gregory, and Richard A. Ryerson, eds. The Encyclopedia of the American Revolutionary War: A Political, Social, and Military History (5 vol. 2006) 1000 entries by 150 experts, covering all topics
Greene, Jack P. and J. R. Pole, eds. A Companion to the American Revolution (2004), 777pp an expanded edition of Greene and Pole, eds. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the American Revolution (1994); comprehensive coverage of political and social themes and international dimension; thin on military
Purcell, L. Edward. Who Was Who in the American Revolution (1993); 1500 short biographies
Resch, John P., ed. Americans at War: Society, Culture and the Homefront vol 1 (2005), articles by scholars
Symonds, Craig L. and William J. Clipson. A Battlefield Atlas of the American Revolution (1986) new diagrams of each battle

That’s an impressive list of reference sources–thanks.

Sorry to be nit-picky, but could you give a few more particulars on the “brutal oppression” that is documented in this sources, and approximately how I might go about finding it. I happen to be in a very good public library at the moment, so I could probably do this quite easily. What specific articles might I check?

Again, I’m not asking you to do my homework, because you are not my teacher. We are having a disagreement, and thus it is, with all due respect, your job to make it reasonably easy for me to find documentation for your claims. I won’t ask for page numbers, just a general idea as to what sorts of articles might have this information. I know about the “Boston Massacre,” for example, but my understanding is that this was an isolated incident and not representative of a broader pattern. If I’m wrong, what kinds of articles in these reference sources might show me where I’m wrong?

I answered your question, but I’ll do it again. Our rights were given to us by God.

In the Bill of Rights, you say. Since the Bill of Rights was written after the Revolution, and is not usually regarded as a canonical text by Christians, I presume you’re saying that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are rights found in natural law.

What I’m asking, though, is where in specifically Christian sources you find the idea that this is so. Specifically, I’m focusing on the idea of no taxation without representation, which seems to be clearly contradicted by Jesus’ command to pay taxes to Caesar. And just to be clear: I’m not saying that “no taxation without representation” is a bad principle. I’m saying that I see no Biblical or other theological grounds for saying that it justifies violent revolution, or that it is an intrinsic, basic right given to human beings by God. It’s a good, reasonable way to do things that helps foster justice.

It’s got nothing to do with “feel like it.” God said “give to ceasar…,” He didn’t say continue to live under the thumb of a brutal regime.

I thought we were agreed that the Roman Empire was, at least for Jews, a brutal regime?

I’m confused.

Ok, I’ll be more precise: you’re a socialist.

Not by what I’d consider a reasonable definition of “socialist,” but there’s no point arguing over labels, and the point is irrelevant. It’s certainly a somewhat less grotesque way of describing the difference between us on this point than “liberal.”

Now please answer my question about “give to Caesar.” If Jesus told people to pay taxes to a regime in which they were certainly not represented, then how can “no taxation without representation” be a basic right given to people by God? Even if you refute this, you still have no positive evidence from Scripture or authoritative Christian tradition that “no taxation without representation” is a basic, God-given right justifying violent revolution if withheld. And that’s the point at issue right now between us.

Edwin

 

[bilop]

I thought we were agreed that the Roman Empire was, at least for Jews, a brutal regime?

I’m confused.
Now please answer my question about “give to Caesar.” If Jesus told people to pay taxes to a regime in which they were certainly not represented, then how can “no taxation without representation” be a basic right given to people by God? Even if you refute this, you still have no positive evidence from Scripture or authoritative Christian tradition that “no taxation without representation” is a basic, God-given right justifying violent revolution if withheld. And that’s the point at issue right now between us.

Edwin

Part of the definition of a Just War is that it has a reasonable chance of success, and the benefits outweigh the cost.

As we can see from the later Jewish Revolt (which was rapidly crushed), the Jews had zero chance of winning their independence. The American Revolution, on the other hand, could and did succeed.

Secondly, no one in Rome got to vote. Jews weren’t denied a right others had. American colonists were denied rights other British subjects had (voting, trade with foreign nations, manufacture of certain goods).

God Bless

 

[septimine]

Mexican War, absolutely. I have an autobiography of US Grant where he says that he and his unit was sent to Mexico to provoke a war with them and get the territory.

The American Revolution was a mutual thing. Both sides were spoiling for a fight. In that situation, war was going to happen eventually.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ok, correction taken.

However, as one who lives near the frontier and therefore well within all of the hysteria, I’d say that IMNAAHO it has far less to do with fears of any impending Reconquista, than it does with old-fashioned racism.

ICXC NIKA

I have my doubts about this, though I don’t think anyone can prove it one way or the other. I don’t know about other parts of the U.S., but around here there have always been some Hispanics; usually of Mexican descent. I don’t know of anyone who is concerned about them or has racist feelings toward them, either one. But it has to be admitted that some of the newer ones are far from being assimilated, and when organizations like La Raza talk about Reconquista and when some schools teach the righteousness of it, it’s a very different situation.

Lots of Americans were concerned about the pre-WWII German Bund organizations, and rightly so. It was very unclear whether their sympathies lay with this country or with Germany. And that concern was not “racism”.