From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun Nov 10 2002 - 11:40:32 MST
Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 11/10/2002 11:47:52 AM Central Standard Time,
>phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu writes: Like the way the Whiskey Rebellion was
>crushed? Or the American Civil War? Or the way the American colonies were
>able to break away -- with the help of foreign (French) support, a 3000 mile
>ocean, and possibly a lack of total dedication on the part of the British?
>Or the way armed Indians weren't able to stave off the US?
>
>Damien,
> Sure, having the force to resist the government hasn't always worked
>but depending on the good will of the other fellow not to impose force upon
>you is a real loser.
> Besides I find your examples amazing:
>1. The Whiskey Rebellion was crushed through the use of superior force. But
>then perhaps it should have been as it was resisting paying the govemment the
>tax money the government required to carry out it legal duties -- maintain
>the courts and the army.
>
The whiskey tax was unconstitutional. The arguments used to justify it
are a farce. It was merely the first example of the fact that a
powerful central government does what it's power allows it to do, rather
than what the legal limits permit. The alien and sedition acts soon
followed.
>2. The Civil War where armed force was used to keep Americans in bondage and
>superior force was used to free them.
>
On a strictly legalistic ground, the Southern states had a more
legitimate interpretation of the constitution. Remember that it was
specifically written to allow slavery, etc. to exist. The central
government was not fighting to free the slaves, that was rhetoric. The
central government was fighting to maintain it's power. The
emancipation proclaimation was a tactical manuver during one of the
desperate parts of the war. The anti-slavery amendments were intended
to keep the South in subjugation. They largely worked for that purpose,
if not for their ostensible purpose.
>3. French Force was used by Americans, when their own was insufficient, to
>escape the bondage of a foreign government.
>
And the real aid that the French proviced was political manuvering in
Europe which prevented England from paying much attention to what was
happening over here.
>4. Where the Indians often had insufficient force to resist the onslought of
>the more powerful Europeans. If you really feel the pain you seem to and you
>truly believe the European conduct was inexcusable I can put you in touch
>with my band of Cherokee. I am sure that Chief Hicks and the tribal elders
>will be happy to take custody of your property until an all Indian congress
>makes a final disposition of it. But you weren't serious were you? <G>
>Ron h.
>
I don't feel *that* guilty, or at all personally responsible. That
doesn't change historical fact. The European behavior was full of
blatant power plays, along the lines of "I'm going to do this because I
want to, and you can't stop me." Still, sneakiness and unethical
behavior was at least a major sub-element. Look up the history of the
Iriquois Confederacy, e.g. Force didn't always carry the day directly,
and was sometimes used against the express wish of the British
government. The British government attempted to treat the Indians with
much more respect than they later did the Irish (who were closer). They
were attempting to use them as a lever to keep the colonists confined
into an area where they were more easily controllable. The colonists
were attempting to escape this, and to this end used great effort to
remover the barriers. But they didn't have overwhelming force, except
through indirection and trickery.
Later, of course, things were different. But the colonists had already
decided that the Indians were treacherous sub-humans who didn't even
make decent slaves. And the Indians had already decided that a deal
with a colonists was written on the wind. The Indians were certainly
right. And you could ask the descendants of slaves about the humanity
of slaveholders.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:02 MST