The Development of Lincoln-Douglas Debate

In 1858, two candidates for the Senate from Illinois, Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, held a series of debates for the seat (History). During these debates, which were attended by large amounts of public spectators, Lincoln and Douglas formulated their political ideals and platforms. Famously, Lincoln asked Douglas if he supported popular sovereignty in the new states over the issue of slavery, or if he would hold to the Dred Scott decision, which would potentially allow slavery anywhere in the United States. Douglas's reply, the Freeport Doctrine, maintained his belief that popular sovereignty should rein supreme. Such loaded questions, exposing divisive issues of the time, memorialized these debates, known as Lincoln-Douglas debates due to the participants.

Today, speech and debate remains in many aspects of life: politics, business, not to mention general conversation. Many high schools even have a speech and debate class or club, where students can try to become more eloquent orators. One of the debate events offered is named Lincoln-Douglas. LD for short, this event is based on a one versus one format, where competitors debate about a topic based on morality.

LD when viewed today seems highly divergent from the measured reasoning of Lincoln and Douglas's time. Many debaters, particularly on the national circuit level, employ a tactic known as "spreading". Spreading consists of rapidly reading sources, or "cards", at a speed that inexperienced listeners most likely will find incomprehensible. Debaters apply a variety of different and sometimes even obscure moral frameworks, hidden clauses, and ways with which to consider impacts of arguments in order to win the debate round, and spreading aids them by throwing out many arguments to overwhelm opponents. What similarities does the LD of today relate to the debates of Lincoln and Douglas?

John Prager, a former debate coach of a Michigan school, defines the main similarity as a "value debate". He writes, "In 1976, high schools throughout the United States began a series of Bicentennial Youth Debates to celebrate the two-hundredth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. This program comprised both the customary team-oriented policy debates and also 'Lincoln-Douglas' debates: one-on-one competition focusing on philosophical issues rather than government policy. This was the first nationwide instance of non-team value debate throughout America. The name 'Lincoln-Douglas debate' was chosen to reflect the continuity of style from the original Senatorial contests to the present day".

LD emerged out of complaints about policy debate, a format where each team of two debated the merit of a certain policy. By shifting the focus, LD encouraged a trove a research into the subtleties of value debates. (Prager)

Another similarity is the time structure. LD keeps a similar theme as traditional political debates: with one affirming and one negating, there are periods for cross-examination or question and answer, as well as the affirmative both starting and ending the debate with speeches.

Using similar moral standpoints as Lincoln and Douglas had on slavery, high schoolers today can debate the merits of such topics as "In the United States criminal justice system, jury nullification ought to be used in the face of perceived injustice" or "A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased". The background of the original Lincoln-Douglas Debates stands even today as a way for students to challenge their morals and learn about philosophy.

Sources:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/32b.asp
http://www.boone.kyschools.us/userfiles/781/Classes/52280/intro-ld_2007.pdf?id=558370

American Valor

In the Crimean War in 1856, the Queen Victoria established the Victoria's Cross for "... most conspicuous bravery" against the enemy. This was their first medal that was not dependent on birth or social class, akin to the Légion d'honneur which was created by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1802. As for the Americans, the military organization of the American military was not on par with that of the Europeans for the first 80 years of its existence.

"[General-in-Chief of the army, Lieutenant General Winfield] Scott not only believed that the idea [for a battlefield decoration, to wit, a Medal of Honor, or valor] smacked of Old World vanity, elitism, and snobbery, he also thought that such an award was entirely unnecessary.”   - Russell S. Bonds Stealing the General: The Great Locomotive Chase and the First Medal of Honor

The American military did have its awards of course, these being the Fidelity Medallion, Badge of Military Merit, and the Certificate of Merit. The Fidelity Medallion was awarded to three American militiamen who refused a bribe and turned in a spy who was convicted and hung. For their duty, they were awarded the first medal to be awarded by the American government.

Washington established the Badge of Military Merit in 1782 and it was awarded to Elijah Churchill for leading the charges of two separate charges to completely take two British forts entirely with limited casualties. The Certificate of Merit was similar in that it awarded medals for valor for heroic actions by Americans in the Mexican War.

But all of this leads up to the passage of legislation in 1862 establishing the Medal of Honor.

"The President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to cause two thousand ''medals of honor'' to be prepared with suitable emblematic devices, and to direct that the same be presented, in the name of Congress, to such noncommissioned officers and privates as shall most distinguish themselves by their gallantry in action..."

The first of these was awarded to Pvt. Jacob Parrott who traveled over 200 miles into Confederate territory to capture a railway train alongside a small squad of fellow Union soldiers. 1523 Northerners were awarded the Medal of Honor in the Civil War for a wide range of actions ranging from single handedly taking on Confederate units to bearing the flag in the face of enemy fire.

During a Union rout during the failed Peninsular Campaign, 13 year old Willie Johnston was the only drummer in his division to return back with all of his equipment. In 1864, Benjamin F. McAlwee picked up a shell with a burning fuse and threw it into a ditch, saving the men of his unit and also receiving the Medal of Honor.

Meanwhile at Gettysburg in 1863, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, in command of the 20th Maine, was awarded the Medal of Honor for leading his men in a frantic defense of the Union far left flank. At the same location,  Color Sgt. Andrew J. Tozier of the 2nd Maine stood upright in face of Southern fire and rallied the men to hold against the Texans. In  his actions, he prevented the 4th and 5th Texas as well as several Alabamian units from breaking the Union far left.

"This is the left of the Union line. You are to hold this ground at all costs!" - Col. Vincent at Gettysburg 1863

Chamberlain led his men in a pivot bayonet charge that broke the Alabamian infantry and drove them back. Had the 20th and 2nd Maine broken, the Confederates would have been able to sweep the Union left and hit Cemetery Ridge from all sides. This could have potentially destroyed the Army of the Potomac and marching on Washington.

However, there were looser restrictions on the medal at the time. 309 medals were created as incentives to make the 27th Maine stay one more year past their enlistment date. Civilians were also awarded the Medal of Honor, such as Mary Edwards Walker (though hers was reestablished in 1977). The 29 men who guarded Lincoln's body on its final trip through the North after his assassination were also awarded the medal. A strict review of all awards in 1918 revoked many of these.

But the important part to see about this is the dedication and valor that the individual men had in this war. The Confederacy also had a system in place, but recordkeeping for the Confederacy is spotty and unreliable at best. These men who did so much for their country established one of the military's defining legacies, the Medal of Honor. Their stories are incredible and it would be beneficial to often look not at the battles as blocks of men and plans of great generals, but as the sacrifices and bravery of the individual soldier. For their stories must not fade lest we forget the noblest sacrifice of so many in the American Civil War.

"Conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty" -Medal of Honor statement

____________________________________________________________________________________

References

 

"Defense of Little Round Top." Civil War Trust. Civil War Trust, n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.

                  

"Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain." Civil War Trust. Civil War Trust, n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.

                  

"Medal of Honor - Army." Medal of Honor - Army. United States Army, n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.

                  

"MedalOfHonor." CMOHS.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.

                  

"Revolutionary War - Medals and Awards." Revolutionary War - Medals and Awards. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.

 

 

 

Civil War: Inevitable or a mess of needless Casualties.

The Civil war was a time in American History more bloody than any preceding battle or time period that anyone had ever experienced. Over 600,000 people died in this battle for the Union, and the nation its self was changed forever. Many historians argue over whether or not the civil war was inevitable or not; a battle that could have been avoided or a battle that was necessary for any more growth and development in the Union. Both sides can be argued, but the stance that is most believable is the thought that while the amount of blood shed over the course of the civil war was a tragedy that may have been avoided, there would never have been a way for the two sides, North and South, to exist peaceably without some release of the building tensions.
The tension between the North and the South had been building from the very end of the American revolution. The North, a merchant society with many factories and large cities, had the brash champion Hamilton to rule it. His opponent, Jefferson, stood for the South; a agrarian and city-phobic society bent on the idea that the merchant middle class would eventually take over their farms and lay ruin to all the South knew as their own. This was the very beginning of the tension between Northern and Southern ideals, so as we know this idea of two halves of the nation came all the way from the very beginning.
The two were able to get along for most of the time, with minor fighting between Calhoun and Jackson, but there was no real trouble until the slavery issue came up. The South, agrarian and dependent upon the free labour to run the gargantuan plantations, needed the slaves to continue with their way of life. The North, however, did not believe slavery to be moral and did not want it to continue. They were used to the large immigrant and freedmen population, and were not dependent upon the slaves to run their factories or workshops (they had plenty of children workers and underpaid citizens for that). The North was increasingly gaining influence in the government, and as more and more states started to become a part of the union, more and more people feared the idea of an imbalance in the states.
This fear came true with Kansas and Nebraska. When the Kansas and Nebraska act was passed, Southerners were enraged, because it seemed as though the North was getting all they wanted. Some may argue that it was at this point that the tension needed to be released, or else there would be no way for the union to move forward, the system of checks and balances in government working to create essentially a stalemate, and I must agree with them. At this point, the tension between the two halves had built so much that there really was no way to escape any possibility of a conflict, and while the casualties may have been unnecessary, there needed to be a release of the lock between the two halves.

Foreigners/Immigrants of the Civil War

In almost every civil war, outside nations have very vested interests especially in the event of a civil war in a major country. With the religious civil wars of France, the civil wars in China, Vietnam, Russia, Spain, Colombia, Syria, and many more, surrounding nations often deploy troops with an attempt to either gain regional influence, defeat a rival power contesting the region, or just stop senseless massacres of civilians and soldiers. But while the intricacies of foreign intervention are many, there is the case of individuals fighting in a different country to win the war for their favored side.

 

These mercenary units are often strong fighters such as the International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War, the Flying Tigers of World War II, and the Westerners fighting alongside the Kurds in the current Iraqi Civil War. Of course there are ineffective fighters, but the post today is not comparing their effectiveness, but rather why they decided to fight for a cause linked to a government that was not their own.

 

A secondary part of this blog post is to see the values of the first generation immigrants who were flowing into America from Europe at the time. These immigrants and foreigners provided hundreds of thousands of men to the war effort, on both sides.

 

Union

A large portion of Europe's immigrants were entering through port cities such as Boston and New York, and being too poor to go elsewhere, most of them stayed there. As a result, when the call to arms was raised, thousands of these men took up arms to go to battle.

 

The numbers of how many of these men either volunteered or were drafted are staggering. While nearly half of the estimated 2.2 million Union soldiers were native born of British ancestry, there were hundreds of thousands of other ethnicities. Over half a million Germans (both from Germany and natives of German descent) fought alongside nearly a quarter of a million Irish and blacks (this was later on). Thousands of Dutch, Canadians, French, Nordic, Italian, Jewish, Mexican, Polish, and Native Americans fought alongside the Union army in various brigades and units dedicated to that heritage.

 

Of course not all of these soldiers were willing participants as shown in the New York City draft riots of 1863, largely conducted by Irish who had names on the new draft. Additionally, they feared the erosion of their white power and feared being undercut in labor by newly freed slaves when the North won the war. When the draft came out, ignited by the anti-Lincoln governor of New York, the Irish attacked government buildings to protest the unfairness of the draft. But soon it turned racial and the riots became more about race than drafting.

But by afternoon of the first day, some of the rioters had turned to attacks on black people, and on things symbolic of black political, economic, and social power.

Another open testament to the cultural diversity in the Union army was the 39th New York Infantry Regiment which was ethnically mixed and engaged the Confederates alongside the Army of the Potomac.

The 39th, the "Garibaldi Guard," recruited in New York city, was composed of three Hungarian companies, three German, one Swiss, one Italian, one French, one Spanish and one Portuguese, most of whose members had already seen active service.

Amongst the thousands of white Europeans who fought for the Union and eventually the freed slaves, there were even limited amounts of Asians in the American Civil War. 58 Chinese served in the Civil War, a few even for the South, and these men were able to rise up the ranks to Corporal.

This might not seem like much but if you look at the way the armed services were operating at that time, it actually was significant- Ruthanne Lum McCunn

The Union was compromised of hundreds of thousands of men of differing religion, ethnicity, belief, political background, education, and occupations. These immigrants and foreigners rose through the ranks and became commissioned officers in the Union army and often entered post war service. Without them, the Union would have been greatly weakened and the Confederacy may have been a nation today without the sacrifices made by a people who were fighting a country they were just beginning to call home.

These Union troops were fighting to defend the Union that they had fled their own homes to be a part of. They saw the South as the enemy who wished to tear down the democracy and freedoms that were granted and promised to them as they survived the journey of immigration. Some, such as the Germans, were strong abolitionists and others simply wanted to fight for the Union.

Confederacy

Due to immigration being focused in the North, the Confederacy could not draw from hundreds of thousands of immigrants and massive port cities to draw foreigners to the fight. Confederate record keeping is also spotty at best and many records from the time are approximations based on other accounts.

 

Despite this, of the estimated 800,000 - 1.3 million men, 9% were of mainly German, Irish, or British heritage. A limited number of Native Americans as well as Mexicans fought for the Confederacy.

 

For Polish in the Confederacy, their presence was limited and their own Polish Battalions, the 14th and 15th Louisiana Volunteer Regiments were not even entirely Polish.

The two regiments of the Polish Brigade when they left for Virginia in August were made up primarily of Irish, Germans, and a few Americans.

Despite this, the Polish were veterans of their own wars of Polish November Uprising which saw heavy fighting against the Russians and an eventual defeat. Just as with the locals and other immigrants, the Poles vowed to defend the South from the incursions of the increasingly dominant North.

As for the Irish, there were roughly 40,000 of them fighting in Confederate units, but since nativism sentiment wasn't as large in the South, they weren't reserved separate battalions and assimilated into regular Confederate military units. These included the shock troops of the Louisiana Tigers as well as the 69th Irish Brigade.

Native Americans also served in the Confederacy because the CSA was willing to engage in talks regarding national sovereignty and some native tribes had slave-owners within them. Many Natives also served with the Union and on each side these Native Americans were present at major battles and in distinguished units.

As for Confederate troops, the immigrants and foreigners saw the North as the aggressor of the war and imposing its rule upon a people who wanted to rule themselves. Without any real landed interests in slavery, many of these immigrants fought this war to both defend their homes from the massive Union armies as well as to show their proud Southern heritage.

A Summary
It is interesting to note that both sides had units that could have university graduates (246 Harvard faculty and students died of the ~1600 that enlisted in both North and South) alongside illiterate farmers, rugged frontiersmen, and middle class urban families. Each side had tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands in the Union's case, of immigrant and foreign soldiers who signed up or were drafted into the war that dragged on for so long.

Irish, Poles, Germans, Mexicans, Native Americans, Canadians, Brits, Chinese, Filipinos, Blacks, English, French, Italian, Norwegian, etc all served their armies to defend  their home or to defend their government. Each side's foreign soldiers served not against the enemy, but also against some prejudice in their own home (though this was mainly in the North due to heavy nativism sentiments). They were valorous and each side's soldiers were some of the bravest soldiers in all of American history as they continued to serve in America's costliest war which took the lives of hundreds of thousands of American men.

These men laid down their lives to defend a country or cause that was new to them and fought in an army for a government that they barely knew. But despite this, they were willing to die for this and their devotion to their cause despite racism, prejudice, or simple casualty lists, is stunning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Britton, Wiley. "Union and Confederate Indians in the Civil War." Union and Confederate Indians in the Civil War. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2015.

                  

Britton, Wiley. "Union and Confederate Indians in the Civil War." Union and Confederate Indians in the Civil War. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2015.

                  

Harris, Leslie M. "The New York City Draft Riots of 1863." In the Shadow of Slavery:African Americans in New York City, 1626-1863. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 279-88. The New York City Draft Riots of 1863. University of Chicago Press, 2003. Web. 10 Oct. 2015.

                  

Lamm, Alan K. "Clear the Confederate Way! The Irish in the Army of Northern Virginia by Kelly J. O'Grady; Robert K. Krick." Rev. of Clear the Confederate Way! The Irish in the Army of Northern Virginia. The North Carolina Historical Review 77.4 (2000): 511-12. Print.

                  

McPherson, James M. What They Fought For: 1861-1865. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State U, 1997. N. pag. Print.

                  

"39th NY Infantry Regiment during the Civil War - NY Military Museum and Veterans Research Center." 39th NY Infantry Regiment during the Civil War - NY Military Museum and Veterans Research Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Oct. 2015.

                  

Uminski, Sigmund H. "Poles and the Confederacy." Polish American Studies 22.2 (1965): 99-106. JSTOR. Web. 10 Oct. 2015.

 

An (American) World Restored

Connor and I sort of made a deal that when one of us makes a blog post, the other one writes a response. This is a response to his recent post on the necessary evil of American expansionism.

An (American) World Restored: Exceptionalism, Realism, and the Narrative of American History

Can a government act purely on the basis of morality? The dominance of the theory of political realism–birthed in the realpolitik of Bismarck and Metternich and espoused by names like Kissinger and Morgenthau–tells us that the answer is usually a resounding “no.” As Kissinger once put it, 

“It would be comforting if we could confine our actions to situations in which our moral, legal and military positions are completely in harmony and where legitimacy is most in accord with the requirements of survival. But as the strongest power in the world, we will probably never again be afforded the simple moral choices on which we could insist in our more secure past.”1

Political action, especially that of foreign policy, tends to be about the choice between the lesser of two evils. Th immorality of choice in politics is something we are forced to accept, but that does not mean we can justify any action by its consequences.

This brings us back to the actions of Andrew Jackson and James K. Polk. Would letting the Native Americans continue their peaceful existence and leaving the Texas issue alone have changed where the United States stands today? Undoubtedly the answer is yes, and most likely for the worse. But it is all too easy to consign these actions, and the immorality of them, to the revisionist side of history. The logic of this kind of realism goes hand in hand with the increasingly untenable idea of American exceptionalism: that the United States is the single greatest nation that has existed, currently exists, or will exist on the face of this Earth. 

From John Winthrop’s “city on a hill,” to 19th century “manifest destiny,” to Ronald Reagan’s “last best hope of man on earth,” the idea that the United States is special has persisted since the inception of the country.2 It is difficult to deny that the United States has done many good things for the world, and that our existences are better off for this country’s existence. Where exceptionalism becomes damaging is when we lose sight of our place in history and our place in the world, and start to believe that international law and common sense stops applying within our borders.

History is written by the winners, and the United States happens to win a lot. Andrew Jackson sanctioned genocide in the name of his country with the Indian Removal Act. That is a fact ingrained in history by the thousands of lives lost (estimates remain unclear)3 as a direct result of his policies, and no amount of modern American success can justify the morality of his actions. Had the US been on the losing side of some great war, we would not extoll the mass murderer on the twenty dollar bill. Similarly, we cannot excuse Polk’s Mexican adventure as a necessary evil to expand the width of American soil and fulfill our God-given destiny. James Polk provoked a war with Mexico for the sole reason of American expansion, needlessly sacrificing lives for some allegedly greater cause. Arguably, their ends are good, but their means certainly were not. However, the assumption that their ends were good comes only with the assumption that the American cause is also intrinsically good, feeding the damaging narrative of exceptionalism.

Excusing Jackson and Polk for their actions on the American continent means excusing other American atrocities that occurred after American expansion was completed. As Kenneth Waltz writes:

“The United States has fought numerous wars since then — starting several of them — and its wartime conduct has hardly been a model of restraint. The 1899-1902 conquest of the Philippines killed some 200,000 to 400,000 Filipinos, most of them civilians, and the United States and its allies did not hesitate to dispatch some 305,000 German and 330,000 Japanese civilians through aerial bombing during World War II, mostly through deliberate campaigns against enemy cities. No wonder Gen. Curtis LeMay, who directed the bombing campaign against Japan, told an aide, ‘If the U.S. lost the war, we would be prosecuted as war criminals.’ The United States dropped more than 6 million tons of bombs during the Indochina war, including tons of napalm and lethal defoliants like Agent Orange, and it is directly responsible for the deaths of many of the roughly 1 million civilians who died in that war.”4

Even though nobody on this side of the Prime Meridian wishes for a world where the Soviets won the Cold War, or a world where the Nazis conquered Europe, nobody can argue that the indiscriminate murder of civilians in times of war is morally justified. The morality of an action is determined by the action in of itself, regardless of consequences. The United States is not a nation led by war criminals only because of the power and hubris our country has obtained.

One might think that we have moved past our history of violence, and into a world where American hegemony is both peaceful and benevolent. This might hold true in a world where the United States is the world’s only power, and even then such a naïvely optimistic worldview might not be viable.

9/11 was a tragedy that undoubtedly called for justice, but the justice the Bush administration tried to bring to the Middle East was undoubtedly the wrong kind. Professor Mariela Cuadro of the University of Buenos Aires explains,

“Indeed, from US rhetoric, the US Foreign Policy is always aimed at ‘doing good’, and acts are carried out in the name of Humanity. They, therefore, assume that when others damage them (in one way or another) they have become victims of evil people. This is how the US denies its power and political involvement in the world, putting their actions and those of the others outside History. In this sense, the repeated rhetorical question that George W. Bush asked himself and the Americans about why the terrorist acts of 9-11 happened had only one possible answer: evil.”5

This mentality created the illusion that the American enterprise was, and is, synonymous with good, that what’s good for America is good for humanity. Anybody who opposes us is inherently evil, whether it was the Soviet “evil empire” or the Islamic radicals of Al-Qaeda. Neither is good, and I will not try to defend either as good, but we are afforded this perception only through the victory of Americanized history. However, if the War on Terror had not met with failure, evidenced by the instability of virtually every Middle Eastern nation and the consequent rise of ISIS, the ground invasions and drone strike that displaced and killed so many Iraqi, Afghan, Iranian civilians might be seen as perfectly justified. The narrative of exceptionalism that allowed these actions to occur was broken only by their dire consequences. A successful War on Terror would have justified George Bush in the popular mind the same way Jackson and Polk would seem to be justified. Nobody told America it had to be the world’s policeman, and nobody gave America the right to intervene in conflicts worldwide. Perhaps enforcing global peace is the duty of the hegemon, but intervening in a way that destabilizes and displaces is doubly wrong. It is wrong first for its immorality, in that the United States tries to impose its own vision on a civilian population that does not readily accept it; it is wrong second for reinforcing the idea that the United States is both the only nation strong enough and qualified enough to solve the world’s problems.

America is a special country. It is ok to praise it and its accomplishments, but it is not acceptable to do so while ignoring its history of wrongs. So when you think of the displaced Native Americans, enslaved African Americans, and the countless other victims of American evil as regrettable but inevitable victims of the march of history, remember that the United States is not the world’s only good. To justify its evils, and the evils of its leaders, is tantamount to forgetting them.

References:

Ferguson, Niall. "The Meaning of Kissinger." Foreign Affairs. 1 Oct. 2015. Web. 1 Oct. 2015. <https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-08-18/meaning-kissinger>.

Song, Seongjong. "American Exceptionalism at a Crossroads." The Korean Journal of International Studies 13.1 (2015): 239. Web. 1 Oct. 2015. <http://dx.doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2015.04.13.1.239>.

"Indian Removal." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2015. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_removal#Southern_removals>.

Waltz, Kenneth M. "The Myth of American Exceptionalism." Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy Group, 11 Oct. 2011. Web. 01 Oct. 2015. <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/the_myth_of_american_exceptionalism>.

Cuadro, Mariela. "Universalisation of Liberal Democracy, American Exceptionalism and Racism." Transience 2.2 (2011): 30-43. Humboldt University of Berlin, 2011. Web. 1 Oct. 2015. <http://www2.hu-berlin.de/transcience/Vol2_Issue2_2011_30_43.pdf>.

American Political Ethics

Before the beginning of the Civil War and the obvious military improvements and clashes of the 1860's, the United States had tried to expand outwards to other sections of the Americas such as Canada, the Caribbean, and even Central America. While these never ended up becoming part of the vast American system, the territorial acquisitions of the earlier presidents highlighted some interesting concepts about political morality. These debates lead us to the decisions leading up to the largest land acquisition for the United States since the 1802 Louisiana Purchase under Jefferson.

 

In a typical fashion of American politics during the 1840's, different resolutions were drafted in the upper and lower houses of the United States Congress, each one proposing a much different solution to the Texas question. The Texas Question in this case was regarding Texas' admission to the Union and the subsequent debate over slavery and the balance in Congress.

"...which narrowed down to A. V. Brown's resolutions in the House for direct, immediate annexation and Senator Benton's bill for negotiation to smooth out international difficulties and prevent a Mexican embroglio" (33).1

 A small group of senators appeared to have been vocally against the House Resolution and in favor of Sen. Brenton's bill for a more peaceful solution. Strangely enough, from a private interview after the fact, it is claimed that Pres. Polk gave his assurances to not go along with the House Resolution if it were to pass in conjunction with the Senate bill, so the senators voted for the Sen. Brenton's Bill. The condition had been made with President Tyler who agreed to pass the winning resolution to his successor who was coming in a couple days. But Tyler quickly backtracks and sends the House Resolution to Texas in his final days of presidency. Polk also supposedly backtracks on his promise to set up a committee to explore both options and instead opts to continue Tyler's campaign of direct annexation, although he denies this in his personal diaries. His political opponents however assert that they had been deceived and the vote had gone through in face of a game of trickery and deceit.

 

With the question of Texas now achieving Congressional recognition in 1845 as the last act of Tyler, a questionable border was set up along alternating borders of the Rio Grande and Nueces Rivers. As history then goes, expansionist President Polk ordered Gen. Zachary Taylor past the Nueces River where he is then attacked and the United States went to war backed by a Congressional vote of 40 to 2. As a result of this war, the United States ended up with the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo which granted them massive quantities of open land in the Southwest.

 

"The Mexican Government not only refused to receive him [Slidell], or listen to his propositions, but after a long continued series of ..., have at last invaded our territory and shed the blood of our fellow citizens on our soil" -President Polk's official statement listing reasons for war with Mexico2 

 

A trend almost starts here, where American forces are committed to action based on the questionable attacks on American lives. We see here in the attacks on Gen. Taylor's force, the sinking of the USS Maine, the weapons-bearing passenger carrier Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and many others that the United States is not always innocent in its actions.

 

But the main question here is, how should we view the actions of our forefathers and builders of our country?

 

Perhaps they should not receive a complete hero status as some of our presidents do for their own actions, but we must remember history's moral compass. The past is not like the present and what we see as rationalism and political ethics is not the same as the mindset that guided the world in the mid 19th century. Their politicians who did not act, lost, and those who lost, could not maintain their country. Our most beloved presidents (depending on who you are) Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan, etc all did questionable things ranging from suspension of habeas corpus to ignoring mass killings on the other side of both oceans. But those presidents lived in treacherous and more dangerous times. You may tell me that there is ISIS and that international players are stronger than ever, but unlike before, there are international communities and strong global organizations to help reign us in a bit. Global peace on such a large scale has never been seen before with so many nation states not actively engaged in war with each other.

 

Some actions many can agree on should not really be justified in any era such as the forcible removal of the Five Indian nations under Jackson. But when it comes to territorial expansion and conquest, every country was just like those to its east and to its west, they all wanted more. To play these kinds of politics in an era of so much treachery and political intrigue, even the highest of the men, the President of the United States, must do everything to keep America as strong as it could.

 

While I do not entirely agree with the methods utilized under these administrations to obtain more land, I see no other way it could have been done while at the same time acting both on popular will and the ever treacherous waters of international affairs. The presidents Tyler and Polk have been cast off as inefficient and weak, but under them, we achieved the final holdings in the foundation of our nation as it is today. Without their actions, our nation would not be where it is today so in and indirect way, these presidents who have been labelled as poor, set up the borders of our planet's sole surviving superpower. I believe that we should tread this ground lightly and understand that the immorality and treachery of politics that we so decry today were what set up this country in all stages of its development. For without our ancestor's disregard to ethics, we would most likely be a weak nation restricted to the rocky fields of the east coast. I would not honor them necessarily as the best of American heroes, but I would honor them as loyal American leaders who acted in the best interests of their people and their country.

 

It all basically comes down to the idea that we cannot compare our modern concepts of morality and political ethics to those of over a century ago. While it would not be right to carry their mindsets into the politics of today, I feel that it would be equally wrong to lambast the expansionist actions of the United States on the sole reasoning that it was unethical. Politics was politics and it was an incredibly brutal game that required such trickery to dominate. At the same time though, at what point can we apply morality to our nation without blaming it on "politics as usual". Hopefully, not long, because we have cemented our place in this world and it is time we took lead not with force, but through ethical and honorable actions.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________

1 PRESIDENT POLK AND THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS

RICHARD R. STENBERG The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly

Vol. 14, No. 4 (MARCH, 1934) , pp. 333-356

Published by: Wiley

 

2Cong. Globe, 29th Cong., 1st Sess. 782 (1846).

 

 

“Why does the American form of government work?”

10:

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons.

A: Madison meant that if someone were to judge his own cause, his thoughts would seem to be correct because it is their thoughts and not someone else's. A group of men are incapable of being both the judge and party at the same time because of the important acts of legislation. Since they all represent themselves, others are not concerned about.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression.

A: Madison was talking about how the smaller the society, the fewer the parties and interests of others making it. If there are few distinct parties and interests, they will most likely agree on most things. If there are smaller numbers of individuals represent a majority, their chances of executing plans are increased.

A: The government's final act is to deal with justice. An example of how this works is when there is a bank robbery. first the police come, then the swat team comes. The swat team represents the final act. Without a government, people will dominate over others. The government provides a symbol of power to those without strength.

52:

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression.

A: The more citizens there are leads to having extension in territory. The less citizens there are the chance of having distinct parties and interests having a majority are increased. The less amount of individuals leads to plans of oppression to be executed or concerted.

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful