Washington, Lincoln, various American wars (1/2)
What about George Washington? Yeah, he may have been fighting for slavery, government control, and personal fortune, but at least he WAS fighting for it. I might not agree with it, but I can respect the man for getting shit done.
Now I've heard it all
cheers,
Agreed! In fact, had it not been for Washington's early leadership, the US could have easily instigated a new military or monarchy-based dictatorship.
People don't realize that during the height of the American Revolution,
more Americans were serving Red Coats than Continential or Militia!
And it was Washington who really helped define the "differing American leadership and attitude."
Our Constitution didn't come until after the end of the war, even though the US had been functioning as a federal entity for a good decade plus already.
People forget what the
United States actually means.
It's a
phrase, not a proper noun, first and foremost!
It was as true in 1775 as it was in 1861, the right and the defense of the rights of the
soverign state, not federal!
That's why it is sometimes referred to as an "union of states," in many contexts.
Much of that was lost in 1860s, and then again in 1930s and then again in the 1960s because "states' rights" was used to deny federal jurisdiction.
Today, that phrase -- "states' rights" -- is a dirty word, and the media will paint you as a racist if you use it.
Unfortunately, when states abuse their rights -- to deny others their rights -- they lose their rights, as the federal must come in and protect the individual.
If people -- Americans -- would
actually question the actions of Andrew Johnson, or even read up on Andrew Jackson (virtually the last President to question a federal bank), and compare to Lincoln, FDR, JFK/Johnson ("The Great Society") and, now Clinton/Bush ("The War on Terror"), it would be a serious lesson in American government![/b]
We're seeing a whole new attack on state and individual rights in the "War on Terror."
It started with two (2) Executive Orders by Bill Clinton in 1998 granting more sweeping power to the FBI, CIA and NSA.
The same Executive Orders W. used after 9/11 (remember, this was before the Patriot Act) and then went to get Legislative approval for more, and ultimately the Patriot Act.
Now many of those previous Orders are Legislative Law -- not merely just Presidential Orders that could be debated.
And trust me, I
strongly debated against the Clinton administration on, and while I respect W. for at least going to Congress, it's now
far worse!
Andrew Johnson is regularly considered one of our worst Presidents. Why?
Because he was impeached. That's about all Americans know and it shows their whole ignorance of the matter.
I mean, how many people -- Americans -- actually
know the circumstances surrounding his Presidency?
He was a scapegoat -- a scapegoat painted by the North -- but a President we very much needed to "get past the war."
The American South had many, many other reasons for ceeding from the Union, and Lincoln's call for a federal force to stop states from ceeding from the Union only caused more to question.
At the time --
no different than the argument we have today -- the Northern states basically
controlled both the popular vote and electorial college, and the Southern States felt they had 0 say.
And they controlled Congress as well, and put extensive, financial burden on the South -- largely agricultural -- all while most of the wealth and industry was in the North.
Hell, if the South would have just pushed on to DC after the first, major battle, we'd probably have two set of federal States today.
But that's a more tactical story.
It wasn't just Slavery, which was
not an abolishment until after Gettysburg -- 1963.
Lincoln did not want to free the slaves, wanted to keep the institution in place to appease the south, and read much on the writings of the US' Founding Fathers.
Lincoln personally wanted to send all African American slaves, especially those uneducated, back to Liberia, as he said many in the South wouldn't allow them to be educated anyway, and they would be better off outside the US, or at least in the North.
Ironically, despite the almost that bigotry viewpoint (from today's standards), he was not far from correct -- and African Americans have been denied education in the south (and even somewhat in the North) for more than a century, resulting in their offspring being fucked for generations (even today), unlike just about any other minority (sans native Americans).
Several people -- especially leading Virginians -- believed Slavery should be abolished to take the entire wind and argument out of the North. Unfortunately, that would only make their economy worse.
West Virginia became this state, among others, although some other states were forced federally (like Maryland, which would have placed DC smack dab in the middle of the south).
Robert E. Lee joined the Confederate Army not because he believed in succession or slavery, but because he would not go against his fellow Virginians.
It was a hard decision for him, and many, many others.
Virginia had extensively shaped the US for the past 95 years, more than Massachusetts, despite popular study.
The US Revolution was won in the South, "won again" (if you can call it that) in 1812 in the South.
The North stupidly tried to invade Canada, twice, and we got our butts kicked.
People like Benedict Arnold were so wronged, and had he not tried to surrender West Point and joined the British without doing so, many Americans (possibly myself, if I had served under him at that time) might have joined him.
Even Washington stood by Arnold until he did, even though he was so chastized for loving a loyalist, and no one talks about what happened to loyalists after the war.
Bing, bing repeat of history here, even 95 years later!
Hell, the arguments we are having over "control" and "popular vote" and the "Electorial College" are
nothing, nothing new at all!
Yes, so did Jefferson. And many others at that time.
But to imply that the American Revolution was FOR more government power, the enslavement of man and personal fortune is preposterous.
The American Revolution wasn't as benign as we make it -- the end doesn't justify the means, not even for us.
The battles of 1775 at Concord, major misunderstandings precipitated by aggressive British gubinatorial policy enforcement that could have been handled much better.
A fire breaks out in a town miles away and the colonists believe the ammo stores have been destroyed by Red Coats, despite the fact the Red Coats tried to help put out the fire, before even getting to the Colonial ammo dump (which had been cleared out in the meantime).
The battles ensue, the rest is history -- not because of one event, but many events tend to push other events in a direction they might not have gone.
We tried to invade Canada, and we lose severely.
Only thanks to both the tactical genius of Washington in a "new age of war" along with the militia in the South, where the Revolution was ultimately won, did we succeed in breaking the will of the British to continue fighting by late 1779.
We have had
other, selfish interests in many wars, including 1812 and our second attempted (and utterly failed) invasion of Canada, and almost several wars with the British over various issues even after our Civil War.
Although at times, ironically, our ties with the British were
stronger than the French, who were often in cohorts with the Spanish.
Now what really makes me said is that people say the same of WWII, which is one of our few, recent wars of pure, honest, American generosity.
I consider WWII to be the war where the American public -- and even its leadership to a point (there's always an agenda) -- were we gave a lot of ourselves, without question.
I
refuse to see people bad-mouth that, Americans gave a lot in WWII, and its leadership cultivated that giving, including the Marshall Plan afterwards, that has long been forgotten!
(I mean, just look at Western Europe versus Eastern Europe post-WWII -- difference between the US and the USSR, night'n day!)
What happened afterwards in politics is for debate, where the American leadership took the attitude that we had enough of Europe and Asia warring with itself, and the former and direct colonization and exploitation (caste and other "labeling" systems used) and fighting over them was done with.
The British and most others (except the French) gave them up, and joined us, while the "Communist" bloc formed and hit us blindsided.
I won't deny the US
did get very political and had a great agenda at that point (1946 on-ward), but
not in its efforts of the war, at least in Europe (and one could argue the Pacific many ways) -- other than the forthcoming nuclear arms race (which the people who helped build the original bomb quickly lost control of).
But not in the efforts of and for the war -- and to say
the US entered WWII for political gain and agenda is absurd
Otherwise we would have built up our armed forced
before entering (which we did
not and were in
very bad shape in 1941!)!
Even Patton was regulated to a desk on those matters
until the Africa Corps got their butt kicked enough that someone in the senior staff got half a brain and realized he was the jackass who they should have been listening to all along
(let alone after the war in Europe was over, don't get me started!
).
