Monday, September 28, 2015

Manifest Destiny - Treaty with Great Britain, War with Mexico


            During the 1840’s, American eyes were looking west to the land that stretched to the Pacific Ocean. It was at this time that a new concept began to resonate in the hearts of Americans calling them spread out across the land. Many felt that it was Providence urging them forward to claim their inheritance. Their proclaimed right to that end would be coined, “manifest destiny.” This spirit was the driving force that propelled Washington politicians and their politics to push United States borders into Mexican and English territories. Though it is apparent that the United States’ eleventh president, James K. Polk, was perfectly fine with acquiring all western territory through bloody conflicts if necessary, Great Britain opted for peaceful treaty, while Mexico was lured into war.


            American explorers had traveled west early in United States history, such as the Lewis and Clark’ Corps of Discovery exhibition in 1804 after the nation acquired the Louisiana territory; settlers started moving west not long afterwards. After Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821, it opened up its borders of Texas to American settlers in 1824.[1] In 1839, the “Peoria Party” entered Oregon territory, becoming the first American settlers in that region.[2] Religious persecutions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a.k.a. Mormons) in Missouri and Illinois also drove thousands of their members into the Great Salt Lake Valley in 1846. The “fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence” was in motion.[3]
            Until the mass immigration of American settlers into the Oregon territory, the border dispute between Great Britain and the United States was nominal; however, as the American presence in that region increased, so did the urgency to resolve the vague boundary lines. Washington called for the “dividing line [to] fall on the latitude of 54°40สน north.”[4] This declaration led to the United States’ slogan of “Fifty-four forty or fight!” that fueled Polk’s comments on Oregon in his inaugural address on March 4, 1845:[5]  
Nor will it become in a less degree my duty to assert and maintain by all Constitutional means the right of the United States to that portion of our territory which lies beyond the Rocky Mountains. Our title to the country of the Oregon is "clear and unquestionable," and already are our people preparing to perfect that title by occupying it with their wives and children....The world beholds the peaceful triumphs of the industry of our emigrants. To us belongs the duty of protecting them adequately wherever they may be upon our soil. The jurisdiction of our laws and the benefits of our republican institutions should be extended over them in the distant regions which they have selected for their homes.[6]


            Great Britain did not seek an armed conflict to settle the border dispute, but rather entered into negotiations with the United States. Both nations were able to agree upon a compromise through the Oregon Treaty on June 12, 1846, placing the United States and British border along the forty-ninth parallel, “with the exception of Vancouver Island” falling under the jurisdiction of British-controlled Canada.[7] This treaty settled the border dispute and solidified United States control of coastline along the Pacific coast.
            Coastal control in the borders of the Oregon territory was not good enough for the growing United States and the ideals of manifest destiny. According to Michael F. Holt, professor of American history at the University of Virginia, Polk and his party supporters “sought the Mexican province of California and its ports on the Pacific coast, from which Americans could carry on trade with Asia.”[8] When Mexico refused to sell California to United States, Polk opted to provoke a war between the two countries, where victory would cede at least control of California through the annexation of Texas.[9]
            American settlers flooded into Texas after Mexico opened its borders to them in 1824; and by 1836, American settlers gained their independence and formed their own republic in 1836. After they had “elected a President and a new Congress,” the people of Texas expressed their voice at the polls “almost unanimously in the affirmative” for “annexation to the United States of North America.”[10] Polk capitalized on Texas’ desires “to come into our Union, to form a part of our Confederacy and enjoy with us the blessings of liberty secured and guaranteed by our Constitution.”[11] In his inaugural address, Polk stressed that Texas was originally part of the United States and “was unwisely ceded away to a foreign power.”[12] In order to draw Mexico into a war with the United States, he used the disputed border of Texas and Mexico between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande as a means to get Mexico to throw the first punch.[13]


            On January 13, 1846, Polk sent in the army under the command of General Zachary Taylor “forward to the Rio Grande” to provoke the Mexicans into a fight.[14] By April 6, it was reported that American guns were in place “within good range for demolishing the town [Matamoras].”[15] Nine days later, General Tylor reported to the War Department that “no hostile movement had then been made by the Mexicans.”[16] War officially commenced after a deployment of dragoons dispatched by General Tyler engaged with the Mexicans; Taylor wrote: “I regret to report that a party of dragoons, sent out by me on the 24th instant to watch the course of the river above on this bank, became engaged with a very large force of the enemy, and after a short affair, in which some sixteen were killed and wounded, appear to have been surrounded and compelled to surrender….Hostilities may now be considered as commenced.”[17]
            Even though tensions between the United States and Great Britain were still high since the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 (and would last up through the Civil War), Americans did in fact have rightful claims to the territory of Oregon through the Louisiana Purchase. Both parties were able to compromise the border dispute peacefully through treaty. However, even though American migration into Mexican territory was tolerated and allowed by the Mexican government at first, American’s ideology of manifest destiny and political agendas created the hostilities that inevitably led to war between the two nations. The New-York daily tribune said it well in 1846 on the situation:  “The Star of Empire is culminating Southward. Our ‘clear and unquestionable’ territory in the West has been tamely surrendered, while Southern soil, not our own, is purchased at an enormous cost of money, tears and blood.”[18]





[1] Peter Marshall, David Manuel, and Anna Wilson Fishel, From Sea to Shining Sea for Young Readers (Discovering God's Plan for America), (Ada: Revell, 2011), 378.
[2] Writers' Program (Or.), Oregon: End of the Trail, (Portland: Oregon State Board of Control, 1940), 44.
[3] The United States Democratic Review, Volume 17, July and August, 1845, (New York: J.L. O'Sullivan & O.C. Gardiner, 1846), 5.
[4] James A. Crutchfield, It Happened in Washington, (Guilford: Morris Book Publishing, LLC, 2008), 38.
[5] Ibid, 39.
[6] James K. Polk, “Inaugural Address of James Knox Polk,” The Avalon Project, March 4, 1845, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/polk.asp.
[7] Crutchfield, It Happened in Washington, 40.
[8] Michael F. Holt, The Fate of Their Country, (New York: Hill and Wang, 2004), 16.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Vermont Telegraph, December 21, 1836. Accessed June 8, 2015. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025661/1836-12-21/ed-1/seq-3/.
[11] Polk, “Inaugural Address of James Knox Polk.”
[12] Ibid.
[13] Holt, The Fate of Their Country, 16.
[14] Loring Moody, A history of the Mexican War, or, Facts for the people: showing the Relation of the United States Government to Slavery, (Boston: Bela Marsh, 1848), 52.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid, 53.
[18] New-York daily tribune, August 8, 1846. Accessed June 8, 2015, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030213/1846-08-08/ed-1/seq-2/.

Thursday, July 9, 2015

Lincoln on Polygamy



With the recent same-sex ruling by the Supreme Court, there are many people concerned about what else this may mean for civil marriages. One of the outspoken concerns has to do with plural marriage. After another controversial Supreme Court ruling, the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) case, both Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln talked about its implications in the newspapers and they also talked about issues with the Utah territory. There was discussion that the people of Utah were in open rebellion and action would have to been taken against them. However, Lincoln brought up the obvious issue that Douglas apparently left out in his address, and that was of polygamy.




            The Kanzas News reprinted Lincoln’s speech delivered to the Hall of Illinois House of Representatives on June 26, 1857, where he addressed this issue of plural marriage: “…it is very plain the Judge [Douglas] evades the only question the Republicans have ever pressed upon the Democracy in regard to Utah. That question the Judge well knows to be this: ‘If the people of Utah shall peacefully form a State Constitution tolerating polygamy, will the Democracy admit them into the Union?’—There is nothing in the United States Constitution or law against polygamy; and why is it not a part of the Judge’s ‘sacred right of self-government’ for that people to have it, or rather to keep it, if they choose?”[1]
            According to Lincoln, the same man that has been called the Great Emancipator, who freed the slaves, said that there was nothing in the Constitution saying that polygamy was illegal. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practiced polygamy until the United States government passed anti-polygamy laws, suspended women’s suffrage that was granted in the territory of Utah February 12, 1870,[2] disincorporated the LDS church, and threatened to confiscate LDS private property.[3] After the LDS Church officially denounced the practice of marriage between a man and many women, the government granted them statehood. However, considering the recent Supreme Court ruling and considering Lincoln’s understanding of the Constitution, were the LDS wrong in their practice of polygamy in the nineteenth century?       



[1] The Kanzas news, (Emporia, Kan.), 08 Aug. 1857. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85030219/1857-08-08/ed-1/seq-1/.
[2] Ann D. Gordon, The Selected Papers of Elizabeth Cady Stanton & Susan B. Anthony: Volume II, Against an Aristocracy of Sex 1866 to 1873, (New Jersey: State University of New Jersey, 2000), 303.
[3] Eileen Hallet Stone, Hidden History of Utah, (Charleston: The History Press, 2013), 125.

Saturday, March 14, 2015

Austrian School of Economics and the Great Depression


            Scholars and economists of the Austrian school of economics teach that American students of U.S. history are taught in the nation’s secondary school system to believe that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous New Deal and the Second World War brought the country out of the Great Depression; however, when actual economic statistics from the time period are reviewed, an alarming inconsistency to that story is revealed. Quickly, the old fables are exposed as myths and the true culprit of the Great Depression is discovered, government intervention.
            They further explain that opponents of free trade, interventionists, have attempted to blame the Great Depression as being a result of laissez faire economics; these interventionists have created the myth that government involvement saved the nation from economic hardship. According to their story, free markets are volatile and dangerous, while the New Deal represents the indispensable corrective power of the state.”[1] However, economists of the Austrian school teach that the Great Depression was not a result or failure of capitalism, “but of the hyperactive state.”[2] There are some black and white facts favor and support the Austrian economists.
            In the August 2004 Journal of Political Economy¸ “New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis,” interesting statistics supporting the argument against the New Deal assisting the nation to pull out of the Great Depression has been presented by UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian.[3] According to economist Thomas J. DiLorenzo, “This is a big deal, since JPE is arguably the top academic economics journal in the world.”[4] The two authors admittedly revealed their own surprise with such statistics as: “Real gross domestic product per adult, which was 39 percent below trend at the trough of the Depression in 1933, remained 27 percent below trend in 1939....Similarly, private hours worked were 27 percent below trend in 1933 and remained 21 percent below trend in 1939.”[5]
            Interventionists claim that the New Deal was bringing the United States out of the Great Depression, but the statistics do not match these claims. Especially, when compared to other nations that did not intervene in their nation’s economies on the same scale of the United States, like Great Britain. According to Steve Davies, Education Director at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London, he stated: “In Great Britain, the Great Depression was over by 1933, and Britain, in fact, enjoyed very rapid economic growth from 1931 onwards.”[6]  He goes on to say that the economic situation in the United States actually was getting worse as the years passed; “and by 1937, the level of unemployment in the United States is as high as it had been in 1932, but in addition the federal government has built up an enormous debt.”[7] Even by 1939, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the unemployment rate in the United States was still very high at 17.2 percent, “despite seven years of ‘economic salvation’ at the hands of the Roosevelt administration.”[8] Prior to the Great Depression and government intervention, the unemployment rate was much lower at “about 3 percent.”[9] Economist DiLorenzo continues pre-and-post New Deal comparisons in his article: “Per capita GDP was lower in 1939 than in 1929 ($847 vs. $857), as were personal consumption expenditures ($67.6 billion vs. $78.9 billion), according to Census Bureau data. Net private investment was minus $3.1 billion from 1930–40.”[10]
               Austrian economists have viewed and claimed that Roosevelt’s New Deal policies only made the economic situation of the 1930s worse and “prolonged the Depression.”[11] This might have been alarming to economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, but according to Austrian economists, they “have known this for decades.”[12] They have seen government intervention as a ploy to create “one giant cartel;” which John T. Flynn described in his 1948 book, The Roosevelt Myth: “New Deal cartelization policies are a key factor behind the weak recovery, accounting for about 60 percent of the difference between actual output and trend output.” It is clear that the opposing side of story told by the Austrian school of economy has not been taught in America’s secondary schools, which has contributed to the continuing myths behind the Great Depression and the New Deal.


Bibliography

Davies, Steve. “Top Three Myths About the Great Depression and the New Deal.” Learn Liberty, July 1, 2011. http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/top-three-myths-about-the-great-depression-and-the-new-deal/.

DiLorenzo, Thomas J.  “The New Deal Debunked (again).” Mises Institute, September 27, 2004. http://mises.org/library/new-deal-debunked-again.

Johnson, Paul. “Rothbard Revises the History of the Great Depression.” Mises Institute, October 14, 2011. http://mises.org/library/rothbard-revises-history-great-depression.

Woods, Jr., Thomas E. “Know the New Deal Cold.” Mises Institute, July 30, 2010. http://mises.org/library/know-new-deal-cold.





[1] Thomas E. Woods, Jr., “Know the New Deal Cold,” Mises Institute, July 30, 2010, http://mises.org/library/know-new-deal-cold.
[2] Paul Johnson, “Rothbard Revises the History of the Great Depression,” Mises Institute, October 14, 2011, http://mises.org/library/rothbard-revises-history-great-depression.
[3] Thomas J. DiLorenzo, “The New Deal Debunked (again),” Mises Institute, September 27, 2004, http://mises.org/library/new-deal-debunked-again.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Steve Davies, “Top Three Myths About the Great Depression and the New Deal,” Learn Liberty, July 1, 2011, http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/top-three-myths-about-the-great-depression-and-the-new-deal/.
[7] Ibid.
[8] DiLorenzo, “The New Deal Debunked (again).”
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid. 

Friday, March 13, 2015

Common Sense Changed the World


            Both Thomas Paine and the book he wrote, Common Sense, had a tremendous impact on the United States of America and the course of the world forever afterwards. During a time of political and economic turmoil in the thirteen British colonies in America, Thomas Paine authored and published a pamphlet that unified the colonies in a common argument that transcended their petty political, cultural, and economic differences. Common Sense became the “nation’s first bestseller,” [1] which cultivated the seeds of American independence and helped to create the constitutional republic of the United States of America.
            The 77-page pamphlet that sold over 120,000 copies after only three months [2] rolled off a colonial press in Philadelphia on January 10, 1776, just six months before the Declaration of Independence. In an age when most publications “were seldom distributed outside their area of origin,”[3] Common Sense had a far reaching distribution and influence thanks to the assistance of predominant patriots for American independence including Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, and Samuel Adams.[4] Thomas Paine’s propensity and flair to write on matters of liberty and attacking tyranny played out well in Common Sense and established a persuasive argument, would Americans chose independence or slavery?
            Thomas Paine used his masterful wisdom and pen to urge “the American people to form a government from scratch.”[5] Now was an extraordinary opportunity for an assembly of people to take charge of their government and establish a land of liberty unlike any other in human history. Common Sense was designed to awaken the populace to the reality of British rule and trace out “every evil in colonial society” as a result of it.[6] Colonial grievances were collected in his work, the argument posed, and a call to arms was raised. Thomas Paine illustrated that a line in the sand had already been drawn:

By referring the matter from argument to arms a new era for politics is struck—a new method of thinking has arisen. All plans, proposals, &c., prior to the 19th of April—i.e., the commencement of hostilities—are like the almanacks of the last year, which though proper then, are superseded and useless now. [7]

            Common Sense and the argument contained within it on the viability of independence helped to ease the minds of the colonials; it had changed their opinions on this issue and settled some of their fears, which Edmund Randolph commented on after its publication: “the public sentiment which a few weeks before had shuddered at the tremendous obstacles, with which independence was environed, overleaped every barrier.”[8] Murry Rothbard said that “Tom Paine had, at a single blow, become the voice of the American Revolution and the greatest single force in propelling it to completion and independence.”[9] Even John Adams admitted that because of Thomas Paine and the publication of Common Sense, “the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.”[10]
            This pamphlet was crucial to the American debate on independence and discussion of liberty in 1776. Common Sense created such a remarkable stir of conversation on these subjects to the degree that it “elicited numerous responses in the newspapers and in pamphlet form.”[11] The minds of British subjects in America had changed and the Declaration of Independence was their collective voice and concluded answer to Thomas Paine’s question posed in Common Sense. For many, it was the influential work that caused them to cry out similar sentiments as Patrick Henry had declared on March 23, 1775: “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”[12] The rest of the world felt the ripple effect from this debate and successful revolution. Thomas Paine’s work went on to be read in other parts of the world and also “inspired revolutionaries in Europe to seek similar transformations in their home countries.”[13] The publication of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense forever changed the course of the world. 





Bibliography

Frothingham, Richard. The Rise of the Republic of the United States. Boston: Little, Brown, and  Company, 1910.

Liell, Scott. 46 Pages: Thomas Paine, Common Sense, and the Turning Point to Independence. Philadelphia: Running Press Book Publishers, 2003.

Nash, David. "THE GAIN FROM PAINE." History Today 59, no. 6 (June 2009): 12-18.

Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. Edited by Larkin, Edward. New York: Broadview Press Ltd., 2004.

Smith, George Ford. “Thomas Paine, Liberty’s Hated Torchbearer.” Mises Institute, June 8, 2010. http://mises.org/library/thomas-paine-libertys-hated-torchbearer.

"Tom Paine's Myth." Wilson Quarterly 30, no. 3 (Summer2006 2006): 80.

Wendell, Barrett. Liberty, Union and Democracy: The National Ideals of America. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906.




[1] "Tom Paine's Myth." Wilson Quarterly 30, no. 3 (Summer2006 2006): 80.
[2] Scott Liell, 46 Pages: Thomas Paine, Common Sense, and the Turning Point to Independence, (Philadelphia: Running Press Book Publishers, 2003), 16.
[3] “Tom Paine’s Myth,” Wilson Quarterly.
[4] Ibid.
[5] David Nash, "THE GAIN FROM PAINE," History Today 59, no. 6 (June 2009): 12-18.
[6] Liell, 46 Pages, 16.
[7] Richard Frothingham, The Rise of the Republic of the United States, (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1910), 473.
[8] Thomas Paine, Common Sense, edited by Edward Larkin, (New York: Broadview Press Ltd., 2004), 8.
[9] George Ford Smith, “Thomas Paine, Liberty’s Hated Torchbearer,” Mises Institute, June 8, 2010, http://mises.org/library/thomas-paine-libertys-hated-torchbearer.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Paine, Common Sense, 8.
[12] Barrett Wendell, Liberty, Union and Democracy: The National Ideals of America, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906), 111.
[13] Paine, Common Sense, 8.