A Radical Whig in Chattanooga, Tennessee
War
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Radical Whig in Chattanooga, Tennessee War
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
||||
|
|||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 What would Thomas Jefferson say about our war on and in Iraq?
US armed forces have now been in Iraq for as long as the US was involved in World War II. Over 3,000 US soldiers have died, tens of thousands, if not several
hundred thousand Iraqis have been killed having “democracy” imposed on them, no WMD’s have been discovered,
and Al Queda entered the picture in Iraq only after the arrival of US troops. Many seem to be surprised to discover that middle
easterners resent invasion and occupation of their country as much as we would. Many years ago, President Benjamin Harrison
remarked “We have no commission from God to police the world.” It appears that increasing numbers of Iraqis agree
that the US has no commission from God to police their country.
No choice was given us by either of the two major parties’ presidential candidates back in ‘04. Bush
started the war, and Kerry pledged to continue it (although he claimed he’d manage it better). Given the choice between
the two major candidates, the words of our first Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay, ring true: “While there are
knaves and fools in the world, there will be wars in it.” US Rep. Henry Hyde defended the ceding of the power to go to war to the President by claiming that the requirement in the Constitution for a Declaration of War from the Congress before invading another country is outmoded and no longer relevant in today’s world. As such, he has placed himself in the excellent company of the senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, whom likewise holds the Constitution in contempt. Regardless, if the US is to send its young men half way around the world to risk being killed or crippled, should not we demand our Congress to at least give them a Declaration of War? If it’s not worth a Declaration of War, how can a conflict be worth risking the lives of our young men and women? We went to war to “enforce” a United Nations resolution against Iraq’s imaginary “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. Most of our “wars” are now justified as “police actions” enforcing United Nations directives. Our young men and women should not become Hessians for NATO or the United Nations. NATO is composed of wealthy European countries that are capable of defending themselves. The United Nations is a fine collection of mass murderers, tyrants, and lunatics. The US needs to withdraw from both. To do otherwise is a sure recipe for Orwell’s “perpetual war for perpetual peace” quagmire.
It seems as if it is now “Patriotic” to enthusiastically favor involving ourselves in conflicts in places half way around the globe. Would a President now be considered a “Patriot”
if he were to write or proclaim the following? Would he be attacked as an appeaser or for being weak on terrorism? I love peace, and am anxious that we should give the world still another useful lesson, by showing to them other modes of punishing injuries than by war, which is as much a punishment to the punisher as to the sufferer. War has been avoided from a due sense of the miseries, and the demoralization it produces, and of the superior blessings of a state of peace and friendship with all mankind. I value peace, and I should unwillingly see any event take place which would render war a necessary resource. Having seen the people of all other nations bowed down to the earth under the wars and prodigalities of their rulers, I have cherished their opposites, peace, economy, and riddance of public debt, believing that these were the high road to public as well as private prosperity and happiness. Believing that the happiness of mankind is best promoted by the useful pursuits of peace, that on these alone a stable prosperity can be founded, that the evils of war are great in their endurance, and have a long reckoning for ages to come, I have used my best endeavors to keep our country uncommitted in the troubles which afflict Europe, and which assail us on every side. I do not believe war the most certain means of enforcing principles. Those peaceable coercions which are in the power of every nation, if undertaken in concert and in time of peace, are more likely to produce the desired effect. We love and we value peace; we know its blessings from experience. We abhor the follies of war, and are not untried in its distresses and calamities. I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind. The insults & injuries committed on us by both the belligerent parties, from the beginning of 1793 to this day, & still continuing, cannot now be wiped off by engaging in war with one of them. I have seen enough of one war never to wish to see another. One war, such as that of our Revolution, is enough for one life. The most successful war seldom pays for its losses. War is as much a punishment to the punisher as to the sufferer. War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses. We have obtained by a peaceable appeal to justice, in four months, what we should not have obtained under seven years of war, the loss of one hundred thousand lives, an hundred millions of additional debt, many hundred millions worth of produce and property lost for want of market, or in seeking it, and that demoralization which war superinduces on the human mind. Great sacrifices of interest have certainly been made by our nation under the difficulties latterly forced upon us by transatlantic powers. But every candid and reflecting mind must agree with you, that while these were temporary and bloodless, they were calculated to avoid permanent subjection to foreign law and tribute, relinquishment of independent rights, and the burthens, the havoc, and desolations of war. The man who wrote or proclaimed the above, besides being our nation’s third president, also wrote our nation’s Declaration of Independence. Plainly, regardless of who is our President, now and after ’08, we must demand that our Congressmen and Senators adhere to the Constitution, and quit allowing our Presidents to send off our sons and daughters to die half way around the globe. If a conflict is worth fighting, Congress should have the backbone for a Declaration of War. If it’s not worth a Declaration of War from Congress, than bring and keep our troops home, where they’ll have the opportunity to reach a happy and healthy old age. |
|
|
|
|
|
How Do We Define "Patriotism"?
We now see “Patriotism” being defined as the support of a foreign policy more appropriate to the Roman
or British Empire than to the governing principles of a Free Republic envisioned by the
country’s Founding Fathers. Had John Adams, a signer of our Declaration of Independence and our 2nd
president, taught his son John Quincy a lack of patriotism when, as president himself, John Quincy Adams declared the following
on the July 4th of 1821: "[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She
is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend
the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once
enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself
beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which
assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from *liberty*
to *force*.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit...."
Was George Washington likewise being unpatriotic in what he said in his Farewell Address, which he delivered on September
17, 1796” “Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.
Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies
against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable
feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness
is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which
is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more
readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental
or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation prompted
by ill will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government
sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject. At other times it
makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister
and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim. … The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations
to have with them as little political connection as possible. …” Thomas Jefferson would be better characterized as showing genius rather than a lack of patriotism when he expressed the following in a letter to President Monroe: “Our first and fundamental maxim should be, never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe”
We should note that Europe is much closer to America than the Middle East. If Jefferson advised us to stay out of entanglements in Europe, what would he advise about the middle east?
Abraham Lincoln showed that, at least in 1948, he understood the danger of unnecessary wars in his Letter to William
Herndon (February 15, 1848) : : "Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally,
if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our [1787] Convention understood to be the most oppressive
of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing
this oppression upon us."
As we continue in our occupation of a foreign country on the other side of the globe, would we have considered the
great Daniel Webster as being unpatriotic for the following in 1847?: “While
I trust that liberty and free institutions, as we have experienced them, may ultimately spread over the whole globe, I am
by no means sure that all people are fit for them; nor am I desirous of imposing or forcing our peculiar forms upon any other
nation that does not wish to embrace them.” We note that it appears that “Democracy” in Iraq will probably
consist of an “Iranian Lite” style brutal theocracy. It is no wonder that the remaining Christians in Iraq are
fleeing the country.
We note that both parties seem to have a fondness for overseas adventures when they are in power (they improve approval
ratings and distract the people from other issues). Yet, was the Democratic Party less patriotic in 1900 when the following
was a part of their platform?: "We assert that no nation can long endure half republic and half empire, and we warn the American
people that imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home.... "We are in favor of extending the
Republic's influence among the nations, but we believe that that influence should be extended not by force and violence, but
through the persuasive power of a high and honorable example."
We seem to have now reached the point that George Orwell warned us about: “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace”.
What has our love of foreign military adventures contributed to our country? Besides countless filled body bags, our overseas
entanglements have contributed greatly to our nation’s $8.5 TRILLION debt, which will someday impoverish our children
or grandchildren. They have resulted in many hating us enough that they’d fly airplanes into the sides of our skyscrapers.
So, why pursue these foreign military adventures? Power! The “War on Terror” has given Big Brother in Washington,
DC an excuse to create the American version of the KGB or Gestopo in the “Homeland Security Department” and otherwise
gut the Bill of Rights.
It’s also been said “follow the money”. No doubt, it was a complete lack of patriotism which prompted USMC (Ret.) Maj. Gen. Smedly Butler to say in 1935: “I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti
and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central
American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.
U.S. troops are in well over a hundred countries worldwide. Is that evidence of a free Republic, or of an empire? Perhaps it’s time that we let our Congressman and Senators know that we want
a change; we want a Free Republic again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
As our government continues to be mired down in Iraq, and threatens Syria, Iran, North Korea, and the current villain
of the month, military recruitment continues to decline. At some point, as our government finds more monsters, real or imagined,
to destroy, they may wish to convince us that we need to sacrifice our sons and even daughters in a “draft”, or
involuntary conscription into the military. They will tell us that it is necessary, that it’s “fair”, and
that the “Courts” have judged it to be “Constitutional”.
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson both advised us to, in questions of Law or the Constitution, to determine what the
Writers intended, rather than what could be stretched or contrived out of the latest interpretation. Sadly, the Bench quit
considering “Original Intent” over 1½ centuries ago.
One man who would have known original intent was Daniel Webster, who served both in the House of Representatives and
the Senate early in the early 1800’s, when many of the “Founding Fathers” were still alive and able to provide
guidance. “Conscription” had been proposed in 1814. Daniel Webster, then a member of the House of Representatives,
expressed his opposition on 9 December, saying:
“... It is time for Congress to examine & decide for itself. It has taken things on trust long enough. It
has followed Executive recommendation, till there remains no hope of finding safety in that path. What is there, Sir, that
makes it the duty of this people now to grant new confidence to the administration, & to surrender their most important
rights to its discretion? On what merits of its own does it rest this extraordinary claim? When it calls thus loudly for the
treasure & the lives of the people, what pledge does it offer, that it will not waste all in the same preposterous pursuits,
which have hitherto engaged it? In the failure of all past promises, do we see any assurance of future performance? Are we
to measure out our confidence in proportion to our disgraces, & now at last to grant away every thing, because all that
we have heretofore granted has been wasted or misapplied. What is there in our condition that bespeaks a wise or an able Government?
What is the evidence, that the protection of the country is the object principally regarded?
Conscription is chosen as the most promising instrument, both of overcoming reluctance to the Service, & of subduing
the difficulties which arise from the deficiencies of the Exchequer. The administration asserts the right to fill the ranks
of the regular army by compulsion. It contends that it may now take one out of every twenty-five men, & any part or the
whole of the rest, whenever its occasions require. Persons thus taken by force, & put into an army, may be compelled to
serve there, during the war, or for life. They may be put on any service, at home or abroad, for defense or for invasion,
according to the will & pleasure of Government. This power does not grow out of any invasion of the country, or even out
of a state of war. It belongs to Government at all times, in peace as well as in war, & is to be exercised under all circumstance,
according to its mere discretion. This, Sir, is the amount of the principle contended for by the Secretary of War.
Is this, Sir, consistent with the character of a free Government? Is this civil liberty? IS this the real character
of our Constitution? No, Sir, indeed it is ot. The Constitution is libelled, foully libelled. The people of this country have
not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure
& their own blood a Magna Charta to be slaves. Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is
it contained, that you may take children from their parents, & parents from their children, & compel them to fight
the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this
power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous & baleful aspect, to trample down &
destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Who will show me any constitutional injunction, which makes it the duty of
the American people to surrender every thing valuable in life, & even life itself, not when the safety of their country
& its liberties may demand the sacrifice, but whenever the purposes of an ambitious & mischievous Government may require
it? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations & references to prove that such an abominable doctrine has no foundation
in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that that instrument was intended as the basis of a free Government,
& that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine
upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free
government. It is an attempt to show, by proof & argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, & that we
have a right to chains & bondage, firmly secured to us & our children, by the provisions of our Government.
The supporters of the measures before us act on the principle that it is their task to raise arbitrary powers, by construction,
out of a plain written charter of National Liberty. It is their pleasing duty to free us of the delusion, which we have fondly
cherished, that we are the subjects of a mild, free, & limited Government, & to demonstrate by a regular chain of
premises & conclusions, that Government possesses over us a power more tyrannical, more arbitrary, more dangerous, more
allied to blood & murder, more full of every form of mischief, more productive of every sort & degree of misery, that
had been exercised by any civilized Government, with a single exception, in modern times.
But it is said, that it might happen that an army would not be raised by voluntary enlistment, in which case the power
to raise armies would be granted in vain, unless they might be raised by compulsion. If this reasoning could prove any thing,
it would equally show, that whenever the legitimate powers of the Constitution should be so badly administered as to cease
to answer the great ends intended by them, such new powers may be assumed or
usurped, as any existing administration may deem expedient. …
If the Secretary of War has proved the right of Congress to enact a law enforcing a draft of men out of the Militia
into the regular army, he will at any time be able to prove, quite as clearly, that Congress has the power to create a Dictator.
The arguments which have helped him in one case, will equally aid him in the other. The same reason of a supposed or possible
state necessity, which is urged now, may be repeated then, with equal pertinency & effect.
Sir, in granting Congress the power to raise armies, the People have granted all the means which are ordinary &
usual, & which are consistent with the liberties & security of the People themselves; and they have granted no others.
To talk about the unlimited power of the Government over the means to execute its authority, is to hold a language which is
true only in regard to despotism. The tyranny of Arbitrary Government consists as much in its means as in its end; & it
would be a ridiculous & absurd constitution which should be less cautious
to guard against abused in the one case than in the other. … a free Government, with an uncontrolled power fo military
conscription, is a solecism, at once the most ridiculous & abominable that ever entered into the head of man. …
Nor is it, Sir for the defense of his own house & home, that he who is the subject of military draft is to perform
the task allotted to him. You will put him upon a service equally foreign to his interests & abhorrent to his feelings.
With his aid; you are to push your purposes of conquest. The battles which he is to fight are the battles of invasion; battles
which he detests perhaps & abhors, less from the danger & the death that gather over them, & the blood with which
they drench the plain, than from the principles in which they have their origin. If, Sir, in this strife he fall – if,
while ready to obey every rightful command of Government, he is forced from home against right, not to contend for the defense
of his country, but to prosecute a miserable & detestable project of invasion, & in that strife he falls, ‘tis
murder. It may stalk above the cognizance of human law, but in the sight of Heaven it is murder; & though millions of
years may roll away, while his ashes & yours lie mingled together in the earth, the day will yet come, when his spirit
& the sprits of his children must be met at the bar of omnipotent justice. May God, in his compassion, shield me from
any participation in the enormity of this guilt.
The operation of measures thus unconstitutional & illegal ought to be prevented, by a resort to other measures
which are both constitutional & legal. I express these sentiments here, Sir, because I shall express them to my constituents.
Both they & myself live under a Constitution which teaches us, that “the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary
power & oppression, is absurd, slavish, & destructive of the good & happiness of mankind.” With the same
earnestness with which I now exhort you to forbear from these measures, I shall exhort them to exercise their unquestionable
right of providing for the security of their own liberties. …”
Modernists have argued against conscription on the basis of the 13th Amendment, that it was “Involuntary
Servitude”, which the Courts have rejected. However, as Daniel Webster pointed out, it is Unconstitutional because the
power was never delegated by the People to the Federal Government.
I would attribute to Daniel Webster much more credibility in this matter than I would our current government officials.
After all, Daniel Webster, the story goes, successfully argued against the Devil and freed a man’s soul. In the case
of our current government, it appears that most of them merely listen to the Devil, & then go along for the ride.
We need to let our elected representatives know that the draft is both unconstitutional and is abhorrent to a Free
Republic and a Free People. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Enter content here |
||||||||||||||||