Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Let's play let's-guess-which-war-this-is

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 06:43 PM
Original message
Let's play let's-guess-which-war-this-is
O.K., I was going to blank out names and places, but there are so many smarty pants here who have read this book long ago that it would be a gimmicky expenditure of time and energy.

But this reads more like the Iraq Attack than what our wondrous media have "reported". It's all there---the preemptive provocation, the excited pResident, the opposition party without the guts to oppose, the we-supported-it-while-we-didn't, the atrocities, the war of the elites quite apart from the people or the dead and wounded, and on and on, including the self-delusion.


*********QUOTE**********

From, A People’s History of the United States by Howard ZINN (paperback)

p. 149: We take nothing by conquest, thank God

…. “Violence leads to violence, and if this movement of ours does not lead to others and to bloodshed, I am much mistaken.“ ….

p. 150: In the White House now was James Polk, a Democrat, an expansionist, who, on the night of his inauguration, confided to his Secretary of the Navy that one of his main objectives was the acquisition of California. His order to General Taylor to move troops to the Rio Grande was a challenge to the Mexicans. ….

Ordering troops to the Rio Grande, into territory inhabited by Mexicans was clearly a provocation. ….

p. 151: “A corps of properly organized volunteers…would invade, overrun, and occupy Mexico. They would enable us not only to take California, but to keep it.” It was shortly after that, in the summer of 1845, that John O’Sullivan, editor of the Democratic Review, used the phrase that became famous, saying it was “Our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.” Yes, manifest destiny.

All that was needed in the spring of 846 was a military incident to begin the war that Polk wanted. ….

The Mexicans had fired the first shot. But they had done what the American government wanted, according to Colonel Hitchcock, who wrote in his diary, even b efore those first incidents: “I have said from the first that the United States are the aggressors…. We have not one particle of right to be here….”

P. 152: Polk recorded in his diary what he said to the cabinet meeting: “I stated … that up to this time, as we knew, we had heard of no open act of aggression by the Mexican army, but that the danger was imminent that such acts would be committed. ….

The country was not “excited and impatient.” But the President was. …. Polk spoke of the dispatch of American troops to the Rio Grande as a necessary measure of defense. As John Schroeder says (Mr. Polk’s War): “Indeed, the reverse was true; President Polk had incited war by sending American soldiers into what was disputed territory, historically controlled and inhabited by Mexicans.”

Congress then rushed to approve the war message. “The disciplined Democratic majority in the House responded with alacrity and high-handed efficiency to Polk’s May 11 war recommendations.” …. p. 153: Debate on the bill providing volunteers and money for the war was limited to two hours, and most of this was used up reading selected portions of the tabled documents, so that barely a half-hour was left for discussion of the issues.

The Whig party was presumably against the war in Mexico, but it was not against expansion. ….Also they were not so powerfully against the military action that they would stop it by denying men and money for the operation. They did not want to risk the accusation that they were putting American soldiers in peril by depriving them of the materials necessary to fight. The result was that Whigs joined Democrats in voting overwhelmingly for the war resolution, 74 to 4. ….

In the Senate, there was debate, but it was limited to one day, and “the tactics of stampede were there repeated,” according to historian Frederick Merk. The war measure passed, 40 to 2, Whigs joining Democrats. …

Abraham Lincoln of Illinois was not yet in Congress when the war began, but after his election in 1846... …. …His “spot resolutions” became famous--he challenged Polk to specify the exact spot where American blood was shed “on the American soil.” But he would not try to end the war by stopping funds for men and supplies. …. …he said, “…The declaration that we have always opposed the war is true or false, according as one may understand the term ‘oppose the war.’ …. The marching an army into the midst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, frightening the inhabitants away, leaving their growing crops and property to destruction… ….With few individual exceptions, you have constantly had our votes here for all the necessary supplies….”

p. 154: Accompanying all this aggressiveness was the idea that the United States would be giving the blessings of liberty and democracy to more people. This was intermingled with ideas of racial superiority, longings for the beautiful lands of New Mexico and California, and thoughts of commercial enterprise across the Pacific.

p. 156: The churches, for the most part, were either outspokenly for the war or timidly silent. ….However, one Baptist minister, the Reverend Francis Wayland, president of Brown University, gave three sermons in the university chapel in which he said that only wars of self-defense were just, and in case of unjust war, the individual was morally obligated to resist it and lend no money to the government to support it.

p. 157: As the war went on, opposition grew. ….The abolitionists, speaking through William Lloyd Garrison’s Liberator, denounced the war as one “of aggression, of invasion, of conquest, and rapine--marked by ruffianism, perfidy, and every other feature of national depravity…” ….

p. 158: Where was popular opinion? It is hard to say. After the first rush, enlistments began to dwindle. The 1846 elections showed much anti-Polk sentiment, but who could tell how much of this was due to the war? ….

p. 160: We know much more about the American army--volunteers, not conscripts, lured by money and opportunity for social advancement via promotion in the armed forces. …. At first there seemed to be enthusiasm in the army, fired by pay and patriotism. … This initial spirit soon wore off. ….

p. 161: By late 1846, recruitment was falling off, so physical requirements were lowered, and anyone bringing in acceptable recruits would get $2 a head. Even this didn’t work. …. And soon, the reality of battle came in upon the glory and the promises. ….

p. 163: Meanwhile, by land and by sea, Anglo-American forces were moving into California. …. It was a separate war that went on in California, where Anglo-Americans raided Spanish settlements, stole horses, and declared California separated from Mexico--the “Bear Flag Republic.”

p. 165: After Taylor’s army took Monterey (Mexico) he reported “some shameful atrocities” by the Texas Rangers, and he sent them home when their enlistment expired. But others continued robbing and killing Mexicans. ….The U.S. bombardment of the city (Vera Cruz) became an indiscriminate killing of civilians. ….

p. 166: It was a war of the American elite against the Mexican elite, each side exhorting, using, killing its own population as well as the other. …. P. 167: As often in war, battles were fought without point. …”He had originated it in error and caused it to be fought, with inadequate forces, for an object that had no existence.” ….

p. 168: “Although they had volunteered to go to war, and by far the greater number of them honored their commitments by creditably sustaining hardship and battle, and behaved as well as soldiers in a hostile country are apt to behave, they did not like the army, they did not like war, and generally speaking, they did not like Mexico or the Mexicans. …. The glory of the victory was for the President and the generals, not the deserters, the dead, the wounded. ….

p. 169: Mexico surrendered. There were calls among Americans to take all of Mexico. The Treaty… llll just took half. ….The United States paid Mexico $ million, which led the Whig Intelligencer to conclude that “we take nothing by conquest….Thank God.”

**********UNQUOTE*************
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TheCentepedeShoes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. Mexican War
1848'ish. Got us Califormia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. Clearly the author is changing a few proper nouns and talking about...
VietIraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-01-06 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. What our pet wingnut said about this
One form of my activism is to hammer my local radio wingnut talkshow host with links and puncturing the daily wingnut pall over everything. He's of the Country Club variety of Conservative, sometimes says that he is put off partially by Faux and LIMBOsevic, but he is still of the 29%. He is absolutely a wingnut, but he hosts guests of all stripes, and is sophisticated enough to host book pushers from the national circuit.

So I sent him the O.P. and his response was:

************QUOTE********

I have often said that we stole Mexican territory fair and square and they’re still steamed over it.


*********UNQUOTE************

--- My reply to him: ----------------


But, but------your pronouncements frequently leave me hanging, longing for you to make the next leap. Par exemple,

1) "fair and square"??????? Joke, haha---O.K., but it IS a joke, correct?

2) There's nothing new under the sun. This Mexican War description obviously fits the current Iraq Attack like a glove. How do you square your drumbeating for it in this context? And we can proceed to that recurrent, larger question I often pose to you: How does a moral, decent, true Conservative that I give you the benefit of the doubt of being continue to support the scoundrels that have absconded with your label?

3) We can apply the Mexican War territory in ZINN's description to the Minutemen situation. How do you square these current and past events in this context?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC