Showing posts with label manifest destiny. Show all posts
Showing posts with label manifest destiny. Show all posts

Monday, January 02, 2012

Thomas Jefferson and Negro Inferiority - Roots of American Racism (UPDATED)


"Why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawnys, of increasing the lovely white and red?" - Benjamin Franklin's (America as a Land of Opportunity, 1751) 

**********************************************************

NOTES:
Colored and/or underlined words are HTML links. Click on them to see the linked posts/articles.
Forwarding this and other posts to relatives and friends, especially those in the homeland, is greatly appreciated). To share, use allsocial media tools: email, blog, Google+, Tumblr,Twitter,Facebook, etc. THANKS!!

Read on Scribd mobile apps: iPhone, iPad and Android.
Free download as PDF, TXT or read online for free from Scribd, point-click to open-->SCRIBD/TheFilipinoMindClick the following title/link to checkout these selected Primary (Essential) Readings About Us Filipino Natives: Primary Blog Posts/Readings for my fellow, Native (Malay/Indio) Filipinos-in-the-Philippines


************************************************************



Hi All,

Last year, I spent eight (8) months on a project in the state of Virginia; my long stint gave me a great opportunity to explore its natural beauty and rich history. Truly, I enjoyed driving down its country roads and scenic mountains (bringing to life the songs by John Denver), looking into a popular cavern, visiting old plantation sites, civil war battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and last but not least, seeing the homes and/or mansions of some of America’s Founding Fathers (1781) such as George Washington, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson --all of which further piqued my interest in early American History. [All these interesting facts about the State made "Virginia is for Lovers"  i.e. mountain lovers, history lovers, etc. a fitting slogan.]


One of the most common myths in American history has been the egalitarian ideas of Thomas Jefferson. An examination of Jefferson's own writings has revealed that the author of the Declaration of Independence did not believe that "all men are created equal." In an obvious contradiction to his own words in the Declaration, Jefferson owned more than 180 slaves at the time of his death. 


Jefferson's racial ideology appeared most clearly in his document, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781) as shown in below post (original spellings kept - Bert).  He apparently intended this writing for private circulation among French philosopes, but the appearance of a pirated edition in France led TJ to have it published in Paris in 1785. TJ's most damaging statements were made on the subject of sex.


Back in the early 1990s, a white friend claimed that the Declaration's "all men are created equal" holds true only for white people and said he was not pulling my leg. Now we see the documented proof. Please read on.

- Bert








*********************************************************
"History and observation both teach that....the Mongol, the Malay, the Indian, and the Negro, are now and have been in all ages and places inferior to the Caucasian." - Joseph C. Nott (1844)

*********************************************************


THOMAS JEFFERSON AND NEGRO INFERIORITY


".....To emancipate all slaves born after passing the act. The bill reported by the revisors does not itself contain this proposition; but an amendment containing it was prepared, to be offered to the legislature whenever the bill should be taken up, and further directing, that they should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expence, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniuses, till the females should be eighteen, and the males twenty-one years of age, when they should be colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of houshold and of the handicraft arts, seeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, to declare them a free and independant people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength; and to send vessels at the same time to other parts of the world for an equal number of white inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither, proper encouragements were to be proposed. (TJ alluding to deporting the slaves and replacing with white immigrants maybe as indentured servants - Bert).


It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.--


To these objections, which are political, may be added others, which are physical and moral. 
The first difference which strikes us is that of colour. Whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane between the skin and scarf-skin, or in the scarfskin itself; whether it proceeds from the colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us. And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races? 


Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of black which covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oran-ootan for the black women over those of his own species. The circumstance of superior beauty, is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals; why not in that of man?


Besides those of colour, figure, and hair, there are other physical distinctions proving a difference of race. They have less hair on the face and body. They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour. This greater degree of transpiration renders them more tolerant of heat, and less so of cold, than the whites. Perhaps too a difference of structure in the pulmonary apparatus, which a late ingenious experimentalist has discovered to be the principal regulator of animal heat, may have disabled them from extricating, in the act of inspiration, so much of that fluid from the outer air, or obliged them in expiration, to part with more of it. They seem to require less sleep. 


A black, after hard labour through the day, will be induced by the slightest amusements to sit up till midnight, or later, though knowing he must be out with the first dawn of the morning. They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present. When present, they do not go through it with more coolness or steadiness than the whites. They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. 

Their griefs are transient. Those numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them. In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labour. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. 


Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous. It would be unfair to follow them to Africa for this investigation. We will consider them here, on the same stage with the whites, and where the facts are not apocryphal on which a judgment is to be formed. It will be right to make great allowances for the difference of condition, of education, of conversation, of the sphere in which they move. 


Many millions of them have been brought to, and born in America. Most of them indeed have been confined to tillage, to their own homes, and their own society: yet many have been so situated, that they might have availed themselves of the conversation of their masters; many have been brought up to the handicraft arts, and from that circumstance have always been associated with the whites. Some have been liberally educated, and all have lived in countries where the arts and sciences are cultivated to a considerable degree, and have had before their eyes samples of the best works from abroad. 


The Indians, with no advantages of this kind, will often carve figures on their pipes not destitute of design and merit. They will crayon out an animal, a plant, or a country, so as to prove the existence of a germ in their minds which only wants cultivation. They astonish you with strokes of the most sublime oratory; such as prove their reason and sentiment strong, their imagination glowing and elevated. But never yet could I find that a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration; never see even an elementary trait of painting or sculpture. In music they are more generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time, and they have been found capable of imagining a small catch. Whether they will be equal to the composition of a more extensive run of melody, or of complicated harmony, is yet to be proved. 


Misery is often the parent of the most affecting touches in poetry.--Among the blacks is misery enough, God knows, but no poetry. Love is the peculiar oestrum of the poet. Their love is ardent, but it kindles the senses only, not the imagination. Religion indeed has produced a Phyllis Whately; but it could not produce a poet (here TJ belittles the well-renowned and the only black poet of his time; but recognized by Washington - Bert). The compositions published under her name are below the dignity of criticism. The heroes of the Dunciad are to her, as Hercules to the author of that poem. Ignatius Sancho has approached nearer to merit in composition; yet his letters do more honour to the heart than the head. They breathe the purest effusions of friendship and general philanthropy, and shew how great a degree of the latter may be compounded with strong religious zeal. He is often happy in the turn of his compliments, and his stile is easy and familiar, except when he affects a Shandean fabrication of words. 


But his imagination is wild and extravagant, escapes incessantly from every restraint of reason and taste, and, in the course of its vagaries, leaves a tract of thought as incoherent and eccentric, as is the course of a meteor through the sky. His subjects should often have led him to a process of sober reasoning: yet we find him always substituting sentiment for demonstration. Upon the whole, though we admit him to the first place among those of his own colour who have presented themselves to the public judgment, yet when we compare him with the writers of the race among whom he lived, and particularly with the epistolary class, in which he has taken his own stand, we are compelled to enroll him at the bottom of the column. This criticism supposes the letters published under his name to be genuine, and to have received amendment from no other hand; points which would not be of easy investigation. 


The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life. We know that among the Romans, about the Augustan age especially, the condition of their slaves was much more deplorable than that of the blacks on the continent of America. The two sexes were confined in separate apartments, because to raise a child cost the master more than to buy one. Cato, for a very restricted indulgence to his slaves in this particular, took from them a certain price. But in this country the slaves multiply as fast as the free inhabitants. Their situation and manners place the commerce between the two sexes almost without restraint.--The same Cato, on a principle of oeconomy, always sold his sick and superannuated slaves. He gives it as a standing precept to a master visiting his farm, to sell his old oxen, old waggons, old tools, old and diseased servants, and every thing else become useless. "Vendat boves vetulos, plaustrum vetus, ferramenta, vetera, servum senem, servum morbosum; si quid aliud supersit vendat." 


The American slaves cannot enumerate this among the injuries and insults they receive. It was the common practice to expose in the island of Aesculapius, in the Tyber, diseased slaves, whose cure was like to become tedious. The Emperor Claudius, by an edict, gave freedom to such of them as should recover, and first declared, that if any person chose to kill rather than to expose them, it should be deemed homicide. The exposing them is a crime of which no instance has existed with us; and were it to be followed by death, it would be punished capitally. We are told of a certain Vedius Pollio, who, in the presence of Augustus, would have given a slave as food to his fish, for having broken a glass. With the Romans, the regular method of taking the evidence of their slaves was under torture. 


Here it has been thought better never to resort to their evidence. When a master was murdered, all his slaves, in the same house, or within hearing, were condemned to death. Here punishment falls on the guilty only, and as precise proof is required against him as against a freeman. Yet notwithstanding these and other discouraging circumstances among the Romans, their slaves were often their rarest artists. They excelled too in science, insomuch as to be usually employed as tutors to their master's children. Epictetus, Diogenes, Phaedon, Terence, and Phaedrus, were slaves. But they were of the race of whites. It is not their condition then, but nature, which has produced the distinction.--Whether further observation will or will not verify the conjecture, that nature has been less bountiful to them in the endowments of the head, I believe that in those of the heart she will be found to have done them justice. That disposition to theft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to their situation, and not to any depravity of the moral sense. The man, in whose favour no laws of property exist, probably feels himself less bound to respect those made in favour of others. 


When arguing for ourselves, we lay it down as a fundamental, that laws, to be just, must give a reciprocation of right: that, without this, they are mere arbitrary rules of conduct, founded in force, and not in conscience: and it is a problem which I give to the master to solve, whether the religious precepts against the violation of property were not framed for him as well as his slave? And whether the slave may not as justifiably take a little from one, who has taken all from him, as he may slay one who would slay him? That a change in the relations in which a man is placed should change his ideas of moral right and wrong, is neither new, nor peculiar to the colour of the blacks. Homer tells us it was so 2600 years ago.
hemisu gar t' aretes apoainutai euruopa Zeus
aneros eut' an min kata doulion emar helesin
(Od. 17. 323.)
Jove fix'd it certain, that whatever day
Makes man a slave, takes half his worth away.
But the slaves of which Homer speaks were whites. Notwithstanding these considerations which must weaken their respect for the laws of property, we find among them numerous instances of the most rigid integrity, and as many as among their better instructed masters, of benevolence, gratitude, and unshaken fidelity.--The opinion, that they are inferior in the faculties of reason and imagination, must be hazarded with great diffidence. To justify a general conclusion, requires many observations, even where the subject may be submitted to the Anatomical knife, to Optical glasses, to analysis by fire, or by solvents. How much more then where it is a faculty, not a substance, we are examining; where it eludes the research of all the senses; where the conditions of its existence are various and variously combined; where the effects of those which are present or absent bid defiance to calculation; let me add too, as a circumstance of great tenderness, where our conclusion would degrade a whole race of men from the rank in the scale of beings which their Creator may perhaps have given them.


To our reproach it must be said, that though for a century and a half we have had under our eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet been viewed by us as subjects of natural history. I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who views the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department of man as distinct as nature has formed them? 


This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people. Many of their advocates, while they wish to vindicate the liberty of human nature, are anxious also to preserve its dignity and beauty. Some of these, embarrassed by the question "What further is to be done with them?" join themselves in opposition with those who are actuated by sordid avarice only. Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.


Sources:Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Queries 14 and 18, 137--43, 162--63
1784




ADDITIONAL NOTES:  Slavery and the Declaration 

The Declaration would have its most prominent influence on the debate over slavery.[150] The contradiction between the claim that "all men are created equal" and the existence of American slavery attracted comment when the Declaration was first published. As mentioned above, although Jefferson had included a paragraph in his initial draft that strongly indicted Britain's role in the slave trade, this was deleted from the final version.[71] Jefferson himself was a prominent Virginia slave holder having owned hundreds of slaves.[151] Referring to this seeming contradiction, English abolitionist Thomas Day wrote in a 1776 letter, "If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves."[152] In the 19th century, the Declaration took on a special significance for the abolitionist movement. Historian Bertram Wyatt-Brown wrote that "abolitionists tended to interpret the Declaration of Independence as a theological as well as a political document".[150] Abolitionist leaders Benjamin Lundy and William Lloyd Garrison adopted the "twin rocks" of "the Bible and the Declaration of Independence" as the basis for their philosophies. "As long as there remains a single copy of the Declaration of Independence, or of the Bible, in our land," wrote Garrison, "we will not despair."[153] For radical abolitionists like Garrison, the most important part of the Declaration was its assertion of the right of revolution: Garrison called for the destruction of the government under the Constitution, and the creation of a new state dedicated to the principles of the Declaration.[154]
The controversial question of whether to add additional slave states to the United States coincided with the growing stature of the Declaration. The first major public debate about slavery and the Declaration took place during the Missouri controversy of 1819 to 1821.[155] Antislavery Congressmen argued that the language of the Declaration indicated that the Founding Fathers of the United States had been opposed to slavery in principle, and so new slave states should not be added to the country.[156] Proslavery Congressmen, led by Senator Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina, argued that since the Declaration was not a part of the Constitution, it had no relevance to the question.[157]
With the antislavery movement gaining momentum, defenders of slavery such as John Randolph and John C. Calhoun found it necessary to argue that the Declaration's assertion that "all men are created equal" was false, or at least that it did not apply to black people.[158] During the debate over the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1853, for example, Senator John Pettit of Indiana argued that "all men are created equal", rather than a "self-evident truth", was a "self-evident lie".[159] Opponents of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, including Salmon P. Chase and Benjamin Wade, defended the Declaration and what they saw as its antislavery principles.[160]

Monday, August 24, 2009

"HABITS OF EMPIRE" - A Book on American Expansion, into Imperialism and Neocolonialism/Globalism


"There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know" - U.S. Pres. Harry Truman (1884-1972)

"To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful." - Edward R. Murrow (1908-1965)


**************************

NOTES TO READERS:  
1. Colored and/or underlined words are HTML links. Click on them to see the linked posts/articles. Forwarding this and other posts to relatives and friends, especially those in the homeland, is greatly appreciated. To share, use all social media tools: email, blog, Google+, Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, etc. THANKS!!
2. Click the following underlined title/link to checkout these Essential/Primary Readings About Us Filipino Natives:
Primary Blog Posts/Readings for my fellow, Native (Malay/Indio) Filipinos-in-the-Philippines
3. Instantly translate to any of 71 foreign languages. Go to the sidebar on the right to choose your preferred language.

*************************




LET US NOT KEEP OUR HEADS IN THE SAND


“The HISTORY of an oppressed people is hidden in the lies and the agreed myth of its conquerors.” - Meridel Le Sueur, American writer, 1900-1996 


Hi All,

I am a firm believer in the fact that ignorance of the (country's) historical past, especially of its mistakes --much by deliberate omission in its history, guarantees its repeat. 

Knowing or learning only the good part of one's national history tends to mold one into believing in its exceptionalism, and with a delusion of grandeur, into 
believing the country and its people are the "chosen" and thus become self-righteous: that his country is always right.

For centuries, all these characterized the minds of Western European colonizers who began to lose their treasured colonial possessions after WW2 -- British India and French Indochina to name a couple --with the blossoming of African and Asian nationalism. Thereafter, having led the victory against the Axis/fascist powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan, this characterization started to permeate and stay in the closed and ignorant American mind.

Any serious survey of American history textbooks and related publications will show that the period of American intervention and colonization of our Philippine homeland is glossed over, barely and briefly mentioned, if not completely deleted. A survey of these same books and various publications, then and now, for the overhyped Spanish-American War which probably every American grade and high schooler is aware of, yields a wealth of information, of course not necessarily objective too! As is often alluded to: "history is written by victors".

The hijacking of our forefathers' nationalist revolution against the Spaniards and American duplicity that resulted in the brutal, longer American Hidden War against our revolutionaries were and are hidden from view, submerged and /or relegated to a footnote, at best a page or two and if so mentioned as the "Philippine Insurrection."

Given such a dearth background about our homeland, the common American in the street has been miseducated and made ignorant of truth (like we native Filipinos were and still are); thus his unquestioned belief in American Innocence and blind adherence to American Exceptionalism.

Note that it was only in 1999 that the American Library of Congress recognized and referred to the so-called "Philippine Insurrection" as the Philippine-American War.

Once in a while, a book can be found which coherently demonstrates and reminds us about the "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" of American foreign policy, its hypocrisy in the American gospel of Manifest Destiny or Benevolent Assimilation. One such book is entitled "Habits of Empire," its review by the Chicago Tribune is posted below and followed by an interview of the author Prof. Walter Nugent.

[ NOTE: We Filipinos, at home and abroad, seem to have arrived and deteriorated to a similar intellectual emptiness and predicament, but with greater and worst results for our fellow countrymen "left behind". As time went and goes by, given the miseducation, misinformation, disinformation, and omission in the study, knowledge, and understanding of our homeland's history; we were and are continuously led to ignorance of our peoples' nationalist history; all thanks to our 50-years of colonial and thereafter the continuing neo-colonial education, which caused and perpetuates our naïve sentimentality and thus openness and preference for the American, and/or other white foreigners before we learn/know about and understand our Filipino selves.

And thus we as "a people"are not really a people, but have turned into individualized strangers in our own homeland; a homeland we never knew because we neither did care nor learned nor desire to know. And so our neglect of and ignorance about the homeland make us lose it; and our great loss is a great gain to foreigners: American, Australians, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, their convenient hybrids/mestizos, etc. who have made our homeland a paradise only for themselves and their few compradors, supposedly "westernized" and monied native Filipino partners.

Do we think and believe these foreigners are in our homeland for the short and most importantly, long-term benefit of native Filipinos and that of our next generations?

Remember Pilosopong Tasio. Let's do something about this: do study, inform ourselves and understand, therefrom act, maybe too late for our generation but, for the next generations of native, Malay Filipinos.]



-- Bert



*****************

CHICAGO TRIBUNE BOOK REVIEW:

Many of those who oppose U.S. intervention in Iraq say President Bush has recklessly abandoned America's long tradition of peaceful diplomacy and replaced it with an aggressive policy of starting wars, seizing lands, and oppressing nations. 

 Not true, argue others who are familiar with American history. They point out that the U.S. has been pursuing this policy for more than a century since President Benjamin Harrison landed troops in Hawaii in 1893 and President William McKinley seized Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines five years later. 

Walter Nugent, an eminent historian who spent decades teaching at the University of Notre Dame and Indiana University, agrees with this argument but takes it a step further. The real roots of American expansionism, he asserts, lie farther back than the 1890s. 

When the U.S. won its independence, it was only a string of colonies along the Atlantic Coast. How did it expand so far so quickly, coming to occupy much of a vast continent? That is the story Nugent sets out to tell. 

His book, "Habits of Empire: A History of American Expansion," begins with the first migration of settlers into the Appalachians, and then proceeds to explain how the U.S. acquired Louisiana, Florida, Texas, Oregon, and California.

"Americans acquired each parcel of real estate . . . by diplomacy, filibustering, armed conquest, cheating and lying, ethnic cleansing, even honest purchase, and negotiation,"
he writes. "Without the easy victories of the continental conquest, Americans might have paused and reflected before extending themselves across the western and southern oceans and, after 1945, around the world." 

 By making this case, Nugent joins a growing number of scholars and others who view American history—and the modern history of the world—in a new way. 

They have two essential insights. The first is that this history can be best understood by studying the record of American—what shall we call it?—expansionism, interventionism, imperialism, or simply, as U.S. Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge named it more than a century ago, "the large policy." During the 20th Century, the course of American and world history has been profoundly affected by U.S. interventions from Iran to Vietnam to Chile. Nugent argues that these interventions were a logical extension of early U.S. expansion within North America. 

The second insight helping Americans see their history more clearly is that to study these interventions as a series of separate, unrelated episodes is to miss their grand historical importance. Only by studying them together, as part of a single, long continuum, do patterns and lessons become clear. The spectacular doubling of U.S. territory that resulted from the 1803 Louisiana Purchase, Nugent finds, was highly suspect on three grounds. 

By law and treaty, France had no clear title to Louisiana, had promised upon acquiring it from Spain never to sell it to any other power, and could, in any case, make no such sale without the permission of parliament. That led historian Henry Adams to describe the purchase as " 'trebly invalid.' " 

President Thomas Jefferson and Secretary of State James Madison knew all this but, as Nugent writes, "The temptation, the opportunity, was too great for even Madison the constitutionalist and Jefferson the arch-democrat. Imperialism trumped honesty." 

No such opportunity presented itself in Florida, Texas, or the Oregon Territory, which includes not only today's Oregon but also Washington, Idaho, and large parts of Wyoming and Montana. In those places, U.S. presidents used variations on a tactic that their successors would later use to seize lands overseas. 

They encouraged white settlers to migrate into lands the U.S. coveted, then waited for inevitable incidents or fomented them and used these incidents as pretexts to invade and seize the territory they wanted. " 'A revolt, or at any rate, a united representation, exhibiting every appearance of spontaneity, would best serve the purpose,' " Secretary of State Robert Smith wrote to the territorial governor of Mississippi as the U.S. used this tactic to capture Florida from Spain in the second decade of the 19th Century. 

Texas was perhaps the purest example of what Nugent describes as the U.S. strategy of "infiltration, insurrection, and an American military takeover 'to restore order.' " Mexican leaders agreed to accept white colonists in Texas, then part of Mexico, as a buffer against hostile Indians. Lured by cheap land, colonists poured in by the thousands. The Mexicans realized too late that, as Nugent puts it, "the buffer policy had become the fox-in-the-chicken-coop policy."

The deliberate fomenting of rebellion in Texas and its subsequent annexation to the U.S., part of a carefully laid plan designed in Washington, led to the first great anti-imperialist outburst in American history. Former President John Quincy Adams called it " 'the apoplexy of the Constitution.' " Future President Ulysses Grant, then an army general, described the Mexican War of the 1840s as "one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation." 

Their dissent set a pattern for protests against U.S. attacks on foreign countries: They would be persistent, often articulate, but ultimately unsuccessful. Americans, it seems, are deeply attached to the idea that their country has much to teach others and should use whatever means are necessary to spread its influence and power. The U.S. has intervened in more countries further from its shores than any nation in modern history. Why is this? 

Historians have come up with a variety of answers. The push for expansion has always been largely based on:

1. economic, whether it involved the desire for land in Texas, markets in China, or oil in Iraq. 

2. the diffuse sense of American exceptionalism, the idea that the U.S. does not need to play by rules that bind other countries because the American cause is so transcendently just and American hegemony so universally beneficial. 

3. Racism has also played an important role by underpinning the view that certain nations and races—our own, for example—are inherently more qualified to rule than others. 

To these explanations, Nugent adds the idea that the American instinct to invade and overthrow grew in part from "a newly conscious masculinity, a seeking of power abroad (military or maritime) as a kind of chest-thumping." 

Nugent's work is deeply valuable to all who seek to understand not only American history but the ways that history has shaped the world. He recounts events coolly and authoritatively, without offering much in the way of suspenseful stories or insightful background about key figures. 

This book's drama lies in its historical sweep rather than page-turning tales of intrigue, war, and conquest. Some readers might wish Nugent had offered more sweeping reflections on the meaning of the story he tells. Simply presenting the story in a coherent way, though, is an enormous contribution to our national self-knowledge. 

"Habits of Empire" returns often to the fate of Indian tribes that were displaced or wiped out by U.S. takeovers of their land. President James Monroe insisted such takeovers " 'promote the interest and happiness of those tribes' " so " 'we become in reality their benefactors.' " 

Today's rhetoric about bringing the blessings of democracy and globalization to backward nations sounds not much different. All who must help decide the future course America should follow in the world—meaning every voter—should be aware of the history of U.S. intervention, including the early episodes Nugent describes in this book.

"Since its beginning, the United States has oscillated between republic and empire, the institutions and ideals of the first coexisting uneasily with the behavior of the second," he concludes. "The rhetoric of the republic continues, but the realities of statecraft, with wide popular support, have become increasingly imperial. The past is indeed irreversible, but the future demands a choice, and a historically informed one: republic or empire? The balance, never perfect, present since this country's first days, has been perilously tipping."


Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/books/chi-walter-nugent-05jul05,0,1908929.story


    ******************** 


Habits of Empire: An Interview with Walter Nugent

By David Liebers Mr. Liebers is an HNN intern. Historian Walter Nugent is the author of the just-published book: Habits of Empire: A History of American Expansion (Knopf, 2008). He is a member of HNN's advisory board. He was interviewed by email in June.

Q:
America’s history is rife with institutions that were both lamentable and profitable. Did American empire-building take hold as an economic force, or do you argue that there were other equally important forces at work? 

A: Economic interests certainly played a role. In what I call our first empire, the continental one by which we grew from thirteen Atlantic coast colonies all the way to the Pacific in less than seventy years, the settling of successive Wests meant economic opportunity for millions of homesteading families and others. It also involved grabbing land from Indians and others who were in the way of the settlement process. 

In our second, offshore empire across the Pacific and around the Caribbean, commerce was a major motive. William H. Seward, years before he bought Alaska, proclaimed that “the commerce of the world is the empire of the world.” 

Our third, post-1945 empire has involved globalization. 

But most of my book is on the first empire, where we learned the habit of empire-building. And that continental empire involved not only economic interests but ideology – Jefferson’s “empire for liberty,” the 1840’s “Manifest Destiny,” and other phrases – and certainly demography. The extraordinary fecundity of nineteenth-century frontiers people allowed us to occupy and settle the landmass and solidify what was gained from diplomacy and conquest. 

Q: In your mind, what was the most important moment in American history that cemented the notion of imperialism and empire-building in the political ethos and cultural conception of America? 

A: I don’t see anyone's moment as decisive. The idea that we had a right, even a duty, to spread civilization and push back “savagery” is as old as the wars against the Powhatans and the Pequots. Beginning in 1782, when we acquired Transappalachia (without either conquering or, as yet, settling it), we reinforced the imperial habit with each successive acquisition. The majority of Americans, historically, have regarded that as natural and normal. Opponents there have been, to be sure, as in 1846, 1898-1900, 1968, and today, but they have seldom or only tardily prevailed. 

Q: Thinking counterfactually, and given our knowledge of colonial American history, is there a viable alternative to the empire-building America that became? 

A: Not likely, given attitudes toward Indians, Spaniards, Mexicans, and others along the way. The habit of empire seems to me too deeply ingrained, throughout our whole history, and too often reinforced, particularly by our relatively quick and easy capture of the continental landmass. 

Q: When one thinks of empires and their sequel, great collapses, clashes of civilization or prudent contraction all come to mind as the “historical next step.” This is outside your role as a historian, but how much confidence do you have in America’s habits and what they might mean for us (as Americans) in the 21st century? 

A: I suspect that the habit is still with us, and strongly. We have lived for over two centuries with the contradiction in Jefferson’s phrase, “empire for liberty.” We have had the forms and the rhetoric of a republic but have very often behaved imperially, i.e. imposing our view of things on others, benignly or forcefully, whether they wanted it or not. We’ve been warned about “imperial overreach” but done little to heed the warning. We don’t like to think of ourselves as an empire, because (as Gibbon taught us), empires decline and fall, and we don’t want to contemplate that. We prefer to think of ourselves as a people of frontiers – because frontiers can (in theory) go on indefinitely. 

Q: What was your intention in writing the book? 

A: At the outset, I wanted to tie together the territorial acquisitions (traditionally the domain of diplomatic historians) with the settlement process (traditionally done by Western historians), which seem to me to be two sides of one historical coin. Further, I wanted to write a continuous narrative of all of the U.S. acquisitions, not just one or a few. And I wanted to do it with empathy for the positions of those who gave up the territory: the Indians, the Spanish, the Mexicans, especially, and after 1850, the Hawaiians, Samoans, Filipinos, and others. 

To get the “other sides,” I read Spanish, Mexican, and other documents and monographs. I had expected to stop with the conquest of the Southwest and the 1848 treaty with Mexico, but of course, we kept on going, at first territorially, and later (and nowadays) through economic, political, and military power

Each acquisition, for me, became an episode in a continuous story, and together they comprise the historical foundation of where we now are. 


Walter Nugent is Tackes Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Notre Dame. He taught history at the University of Notre Dame for sixteen years and at Indiana University for twenty-one years before that. As a visiting professor, he has also taught, lectured, and lived in England, Israel, Germany, Poland, and Ireland. He has published eleven previous books and nearly two hundred essays and reviews. He is a past president of the Western History Association and a former member of the Council on Foreign Relations. 

Source: http://hnn.us/articles/51708.html